JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., APPELLANT,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ETC., 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.
The court held that a default judgment entered without notice to a party known to intend to defend is void.
Chase, a junior lienholder, filed a foreclosure action naming Wells Fargo as a defendant and alleging its mortgage had priority. Wells Fargo obtained …
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 Motion To Vacate Default Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (hereafter Chase) appeals the Order Denying Chase Home Finance, LLC’s Motion to Vacate Default Final Judgment entered in a foreclosure suit filed by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (hereinafter Wells Fargo).1 Chase argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Chase’s motion to vacate because Wells Fargo knew, based on an amended complaint filed by Chase in a parallel foreclosure action involving the same property that named Wells Fargo as a defendant and alleged that Chase’s mortgage had priority over all other mortgages, that Chase intended to defend the Wells Fargo action.2 Chase further argues that *283the attorney for Wells Fargo knew of Chase’s intent to defend before he sought and obtained the ex-parte default against Chase.
We agree with Chase that, based on the allegations in Chase’s amended complaint, Wells Fargo knew of Chase’s intent to defend the suit filed by Wells Fargo and that the subsequently entered default judgment, which was entered without notice to Chase, is void. See Makes & Models Magazine, Inc. v. Web Offset Printing Co., Inc., 13 So.3d 178 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Lloyd, 981 So.2d 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Accordingly, we reverse the order under review and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SAWAYA, LAWSON and BERGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Lloyd, 981 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Makes & Models Magazine, Inc. v. WEB Offset Printing Co., Inc., 13 So. 3d 178 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)