CHRISTOPHER REGNER AND KARIN REGNER, APPELLANTS,
v.
AMTRUST BANK, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Homeowners appealed the denial of their motion to vacate a foreclosure sale certificate of title, arguing the clerk issued the certificate while their objections were still pending and without an evidentiary hearing. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that when timely objections to a foreclosure sale are filed, the clerk lacks authority to issue a certificate of title and the court must conduct an evidentiary hearing before denying the motion.
The court reversed and held that when timely objections to a foreclosure sale are filed, the clerk of court lacks authority to issue a certificate of title, and the court must conduct an evidentiary hearing to hear the objections before the certificate can be issued. It is reversible error to deny a party an evidentiary hearing to which they are entitled.
[1] A clerk of court lacks authority to issue a certificate of title after a foreclosure sale when timely objections to the sale have been filed.
[2] A court must provide notice and an opportunity for interested parties to address objections to a foreclosure sale to satisfy the requirement of 'hearing' such objections.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The Clerk of the Court lacks authority to issue a certificate of title ... when an objection to a foreclosure sale is timely filed”
Establishes that clerk cannot issue certificate when objections are pending, the core error in this case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Regners' home was sold at a foreclosure sale by AmTrust Bank. The clerk of court issued a certificate of title despite pending objections filed by…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Breach Of Settlement Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendants, whose home was sold at a foreclosure sale, appeal the circuit court’s order denying their verified motion to vacate the certificate of title issued after the sale. The court denied the motion even though it recognized that the bank had not offered any evidence in opposition to the motion. The defendants argue that the court erred in denying their motion because the clerk of court issued the certificate of title while their objections to the sale were pending and because the court did not conduct an evidentiary hearing on their objections.
We agree with the defendants’ arguments and reverse. Compare § 45.031(5), Fla. Stat. (2010) (“If no objections to the sale are filed within 10 days after filing the certificate of sale, the clerk shall file a certificate of title .... ”), with § 45.031(8), Fla. Stat. (2010) (“If timely objections to the bid are served, the objections shall be heard by the court.”); see also Opportunity Funding I, LLC v. Otetchestvennyi, 909 So.2d 361, 362 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (“The Clerk of the Court lacks authority to issue a certificate of title ... *908when an objection to a foreclosure sale is timely filed”). “For the court to ‘hear’ objections, it must provide both notice and an opportunity for any interested party to address those objections.” U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Bjeljac, 43 So.3d 851, 853 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (citations omitted). Further, “ ‘ it is reversible error for a trial court to deny a party an evidentiary hearing to which [the party] is entitled.’ ” Avi-Isaac v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 59 So.3d 174, 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (quoting Sperdute v. Household Realty Corp., 585 So.2d 1168, 1169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)).
We remand for an evidentiary hearing on the defendants’ claims that: (1) they did not receive notice of the sale; (2) the bank breached the parties’ settlement agreement by wrongfully rejecting the defendants’ final redemption payment; and (3) the bank’s purchase price was inadequate. See Bennett v. Ward, 667 So.2d 378, 382 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (“The failure to give adequate notice of a judicial sale may effectively deprive the mortgagor of the right to redeem the property.”); Indian River Farms v. YBF Partners, 777 So.2d 1096, 1098-99 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (remanding for evidentiary hearing on whether mortgagor’s assignee timely exercised its right of redemption before the issuance of the certificate of title); Blue Star Invs., Inc. v. Johnson, 801 So.2d 218, 219 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (“[T]o vacate a foreclosure sale, the trial court must find (1) that the foreclosure sale bid was grossly or startlingly inadequate; and (2) that the inadequacy of the bid resulted from some mistake, fraud or other irregularity in the sale.”) (citations and internal quotations omitted).
On remand, the defendants bear the burden to establish their claims. See Richardson v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 941 So.2d 435, 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“On remand [the mortgagor] bears the burden to establish at the evidentiary hearing that she did not receive notice of the rescheduled sale and must also show what harm, if any, she suffered by reason of not being notified of the sale.”). The defendants shall be entitled to testify at the evidentiary hearing if they so request. See Sperdute, 585 So.2d at 1169 (“Neither the submission of affidavits nor argument of counsel is sufficient to constitute an evidentiary hearing. Since the purpose of an evidentiary hearing is to allow a party to ‘have a fair opportunity to contest’ the factual issues, this purpose is not effectuated if a party is not allowed to testify.”) (citation omitted).
Reversed and remanded.
WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Skelton v. Lyons, 157 So. 3d 471 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…. 3d 1271, 1275 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). This status bestows on the purchaser due process rights, and when a sale is vacated without notice to and an opportunity to be heard by the purchaser, due process is violated. Id.; see also Regner v. Amtrust Bank, 71 So. 3d 907, 908 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (“For the court to ‘hear’ objections, it must provide both notice and an opportunity for any interested party to address those objections.” (quoting U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n [*473] v. Bjeljac, 43 So. 3d 851, 853 (Fla. 5th DCA 2…
-
McKnight v. Chase Home Fin. LLC, 214 So. 3d 775 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…objections to the bid are served, the objections shall be heard by the court.” Id. (emphasis added). This Court has previously held that it is error to deny the party objecting under section 45.031(8) an evidentiary hearing. Regner v. Amtrust Bank, 71 So. 3d 907, 907-08 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). The record on appeal indicates that no hearing on Appellants’ objections occurred. We therefore accept Appellee’s confession of error and remand with directions to the trial court for it to: (1) vacate its order to the c…
-
Volynsky v. Park Tree Invs. 21, LLC, 322 So. 3d 714 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)…e statute itself does not expressly require an evidentiary hearing to resolve timely-filed objections, several of our sister courts have concluded that under certain narrow circumstances, such a hearing is necessary. See Regner v. Amtrust Bank, 71 So. 3d 907, 908 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Bjeljac, 43 So. 3d 851, 853 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); Valls v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., No. 4D20-1984, 2021 WL 1898121 (Fla. 4th DCA May 12, 2021). These cases collectively involve post-bid objections al…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Indian River Farms v. YBF P'rs, 777 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Blue Star Invs., Inc. v. Britt A. Johnson & BA Mortg., LLC, 801 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Eyal Avi-Isaac v. Wells Fargo Bank, 59 So. 3d 174 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
- Burgess v. State, 585 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Sperdute v. Household Realty Corp., 585 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Reagan v. State, 667 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Virgel Bennett v. Ward, 667 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Bogdan Bjeljac, 43 So. 3d 851 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
- Richardson v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 941 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Opportunity Funding I, LLC v. Igor Otetchestvennyi, 909 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)