VILLAS AT LAGUNA BAY CONDO. ASSOCIATION, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
CITIMORTGAGE, INC., 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 Villas at Laguna Bay Condominium Association appealed the trial court's summary denial of its motion for rehearing after losing a lien foreclosure action against CitiMortgage. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion without an evidentiary hearing when the motion was supported by colorable grounds of excusable neglect.
Yes. The trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion for rehearing without an evidentiary hearing. When a motion for rehearing based on excusable neglect is supported by an affidavit establishing colorable grounds for relief, the movant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the motion.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion when it denies a motion for rehearing based on excusable neglect without conducting an evidentiary hearing, especially when the motion…
[2] A calendaring mistake by an attorney, whether administrative, clerical, or a system error, can constitute excusable neglect.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“A calendaring mistake, due to administrative, clerical, or secretarial error or a 'system gone awry' is one of the 'foibles to which human nature is heir' that constitutes excusable neglect.”
Establishes that administrative calendaring errors qualify as excusable neglect under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCitiMortgage acquired a condominium unit after winning a mortgage foreclosure sale. The Association and CitiMortgage disputed CitiMortgage's liability…
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 Excusable Neglect cases and more on FLexlaw
■The, Villas at Laguna Bay Condominium Association, Inc. (“Association”), appeals the final judgment rendered in favor of CitiMortgage, Inc. (“Appellee”), and the order denying its “Motion for Rehearing, Reconsideration, and Relief from Judgment.” Concluding.:that the.trial court erred in summarily denying this. motion without a hearing, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.1
Appellee acquired a condominium unit located at the Villas of Laguna Bay Condominiums after' successfully prosecuting a mortgage' foreclosure suit and being the highest bidder at the public mortgage foreclosure sale. Association and Appellee thereafter disputed the extent of Appel-lee’s liability for past-due assessments owed to Association by the prior owner of the foreclosed unit, resulting in Association filing a lien foreclosure action against Ap-pellee. For reasons unrelated to the resolution of this appeal, Appellee moved for the entry of a summary final judgment and set the motion for hearing. Notably, the notice of hearing did riot specify the name of the judge conducting the hearing. ‘ Instead, the hearing was to be held béfdre “The Honorable Presiding Judge.”
Association’s counsel did not attend the hearing. The senior judge who presided over the hearing granted Appellee’s motion and entered final judgment in favor of Appellee. Citing to, rule 1.530 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Association’s counsel timely moved for rehearirig. In the motion and in his contemporaneously filed “Affidavit of Excusable Neglect,” As*202sociation’s counsel explained that his calendar reflected that the summary judgment hearing would be held telephonically and that he timely called the chambers of the judge assigned to the case multiple times to participate in the hearing, but that through either “mistake or miscommunication” counsel was never connected with the judge. Counsel further stated in his affl- ■ davit that his law firm’s attorneys often appear telephonically for hearings in the circuit court below, but that it is also “the regular practice of [the firm] to have an attorney appear in person if required.” The court denied Association’s motion without a hearing.
We review the denial of a rule 1.530 motion for rehearing . under the abuse of discretion standard.. Randall v. Walt Disney World Co., 140 So.3d 1118, 1119 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (citing Karimi v. Karimi, 867 So.2d 471, 473 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)). Here, Association seeks relief based on the excusable neglect of its counsel in mistakenly calendaring the hearing as one counsel could attend telephonically. A calendaring mistake, due to -administrative, clerical, or secretarial error or a “system gone awry ” is one of the “foibles to which human nature is heir” that constitutes excusable neglect. See Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Depiero, 178 So.3d 552, 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (quoting Elliott v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 31 So.3d 304, 307 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)). Moreover, a calendaring error can constitute excusable neglect where the attorney, and not a secretary, commits the error. SunTrust Mortg. v. Torrenga, 153 So.3d 952, 953-54 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
It ’is-'-axiomatic that “Florida courts have a preference for deciding cases on the merits of the claims rather than on a technicality.” Id. at 953 (citing J.J.K. Int’l, Inc. v. Shivbaran, 985 So.2d 66, 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)). In the present case, because Association’s motion for rehearing was supported by an affidavit from its counsel establishing colorable grounds that excusable neglect occurred, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing. See Torrenga, 153 So.3d at 953-55; Depiero, 178 So.3d at 553 (holding that where a motion sets forth such a “colorable claim for relief, [the mov-ant] is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the motion” (citing Chancey v. Chancey, 880 So.2d 1281, 1282 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004))). Accordingly we reverse the denial of the motion for rehearing and remand for an evidentiary hearing to address the merits of the motion.2
REVERSED and REMANDED.
WALLIS, LAMBERT, and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Donato Arguelles v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 278 So. 3d 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…also] subject to de novo review.” Penzer v. Transp. Ins. Co., 29 So. 3d 1000, 1005 (Fla. 2010). Finally, we review a denial of a motion for rehearing under an abuse of discretion standard. Villas at Laguna Bay Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. CitiMortgage., 190 So. 3d 200, 202 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). LEGAL ANALYSIS Arguelles urges several grounds for reversal, contending: (1) the policy language did not require actual residency; (2) the doctrines of waiver and estoppel precluded a denial of coverage; and (3) rehearing w…
-
Beacon Hill Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Colfin Ah-Florida 7, LLC, 221 So. 3d 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…et title action is de novo. Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000). The standard of review on appeal of a motion for rehearing is abuse of discretion. Villas at Laguna Bay Condo. Assn. Inc. v. Citimortgage, Inc., 190 So. 3d 200 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). The Associations contend that they are allowed to avoid the Declarations which govern them. We disagree and follow our previous ruling in Garden of Kendall Condominium v. Valores Agregados, 187 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016), wh…
-
Fast Funds, Inc. v. Aventura Orthopedic Care Ctr., 279 So. 3d 168 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)…to appear due to such secretarial error was excusable neglect and reversed and remanded to the trial court for rehearing of the motion for summary judgment. Id. 5 Similarly, in Villas at Laguna Bay Condominium Ass’n v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 190 So. 3d 200 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016), upon which Appellant relies, a condominium association filed a rule 1.530 motion for rehearing in its lien foreclosure action against the owner of the property after the association’s counsel failed to attend a hearing at whi…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Desmond Byrd v. State, 985 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Milan Todorovic v. Arctic AIR OF Cent. Fla. & Am. All-Risk Administrators, 867 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Chancey v. Chancey, 880 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Elliott v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 31 So. 3d 304 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Addison v. City OF Tampa, 31 So. 3d 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Suntrust Mortg. v. Torrenga, 153 So. 3d 952 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
- Randall v. Walt Disney World Co., 140 So. 3d 1118 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)
- The Bank OF NEW York Mellon fka The Bank of N.Y. for the Certificate Holders Cwabs Inc. v. Depiero, 178 So. 3d 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
- Artavious v. Cotton, 140 So. 3d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)