CHRISTOPHER NEIL MORLOCK, APPELLANT,
v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, 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.
In this foreclosure appeal, the court reversed the trial court's decision to reinstate a judicial default judgment against Morlock after the trial court had previously granted his motion to set aside the default. The court found that Morlock had properly filed responsive pleadings and that the trial court abused its discretion by vacating its own order setting aside the default and denying Morlock's motion to vacate the final foreclosure judgment.
The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Morlock's motion to vacate the final default judgment and by vacating its previously-entered order setting aside the judicial default. Because Morlock had filed his answer and affirmative defenses on two occasions, there was no proper basis for entry of a judicial default.
[1] A party against whom affirmative relief is sought must be served with notice of an application for default if that party has filed or served any paper in the action.
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion when it vacates an order setting aside a judicial default based on the mistaken impression that the defaulting party had not filed a r…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“When a party against whom affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by these rules or any applicable statute or any order of court, the court may enter default against such party; provided that if such party has filed or served any paper in the action, that party shall be served with notice of the application for default.”
This quote from Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.500(b) establishes that notice of a default motion must be served when a party has already filed or served papers in the action. Morlock had filed papers, so he should have been served with notice.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNationstar filed a foreclosure action against Morlock in 2012. Morlock filed a pro se motion for an extension to retain counsel and later filed a moti…
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 For Extension Of Time cases and more on FLexlaw
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (“Nations-tar”) filed a foreclosure action against Christopher Neil Morlock (“Morlock”) in 2012. Morlock responded by filing a pro se motion for an extension of time to file his answer, asserting that he needed additional time to retain counsel. Morlock then retained counsel and filed a motion to stay the proceedings based on his allegation that Nationstar had offered to modify his loan. However, without notice to Mor-lock or his counsel, Nationstar moved for the issuance of a default based on Mor-lock’s alleged failure to file a responsive pleading, and the trial court granted that motion.
On November 22, 2013, Morlock filed a motion to vacate the judicial default and for leave to file a response, asserting that Nationstar improperly moved for a default without serving Morlock with the motion, citing to rule 1.500(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides: “When a party against whom affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by these rules or any applicable statute or any order of court, the court may enter default against such party; provided that if such party has filed or served any paper in the action, that party shall be served with notice of the application for default.” (emphasis added). Importantly, Morlock attached his answer and affirmative defenses to his November 22, 2013 motion to vacate the judicial default.
On December 27, 2013, while Morlock’s motion to vacate the judicial default was pending, a senior judge entered a final default judgment of foreclosure in favor of Nationstar. Thereafter, the trial court properly granted Morlock’s pending motion to set aside the judicial default and ordered Morlock to file an answer within ten days even though he had already filed his answer and affirmative defenses on November 22, 2013. Morlock moved to vacate the final default judgment of foreclosure entered by the senior judge since the trial court had set aside the judicial default as improperly entered. Rather than granting Morlock’s motion to vacate the final default judgment, the trial court entered an order vacating its previously-entered order setting aside the judicial default and denied Morlock’s motion to vacate the final default judgment of foreclosure. This order resulted in the judicial default being reinstated and the final default judgment standing.
Morlock contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion to vacate the final default judgment of foreclosure and by vacating the previously-entered order setting aside the judicial default. We agree.
It appears that when the trial court denied Morlock’s motion to vacate the final default judgment and reinstated its previously-entered order setting aside the judicial default, it was under the mistaken impression that Morlock had not filed a responsive pleading. However, the record clearly demonstrates that Morlock filed his answer and affirmative defenses not once, but twice: (1) on November 22, 2013, when he filed his motion to set aside the judicial default; and (2) on February 25, 2014, when he attached a copy of his answer and affirmative defenses to his emergency motion to cancel the foreclosure sale.
Because the record and the trial court’s order do not provide a basis for the entry of a judicial default, we reverse the order under review and remand with directions to the trial court to reinstate its order *445setting aside the judicial default, vacate the final judgment of foreclosure, and cancel the certificate of title. We also direct the clerk of court to return the bid monies.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.