GARCIA
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK
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.
Ricardo Garcia appealed a mortgage foreclosure judgment entered by the trial court against Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. The court reversed the judgment because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter it, as the case had been removed to federal court one day before the judgment was entered.
No. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the final judgment because state court jurisdiction ceases upon removal of a case to federal court, and any pre-remand proceedings in state court after removal are void. The final judgment is therefore reversed and the case is remanded.
[1] Removal of a case to federal court divests a state trial court of jurisdiction, and judgments entered by the state court after removal are void regardless of whether the…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“State court jurisdiction ceases upon removal of a case to federal court and any pre-remand proceedings occurring in the state court after the case has been removed are void.”
The court stated the governing legal principle citing Musa v. Wells Fargo Del. Tr. Co.
Deutsche Bank sued Garcia to foreclose a mortgage. A tenant of Garcia filed a cross-complaint in the foreclosure action alleging that Garcia violated …
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 Cross-Complaint cases and more on FLexlaw
SCALES, J.
Appellant Ricardo Garcia appeals a Final Judgment of Mortgage Foreclosure in favor of appellee Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. We reverse because the case below was removed to federal court one day before the trial court entered the final judgment; thus, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the judgment.
After the Bank sued Garcia to foreclose a mortgage, a tenant of Garcia filed a cross-complaint against Garcia in the foreclosure action, alleging that Garcia and his wife violated the federal Truth in Lending Act by representing that the subject mortgage had been rescinded. The tenant asserted in the cross-complaint that this misrepresentation entitled the tenant to remain in the property. On July 10, 2017, this cross-complainant filed a notice of removal of the entire foreclosure action to federal court.1 The following day, on July 11, 2017, the trial court entered the final foreclosure judgment. The United States District Court remanded the case back to the circuit court on July 19, 2017.
State court jurisdiction ceases upon removal of a case to federal court and any pre-remand proceedings occurring in the state court after the case has been removed are void. Musa v. Wells Fargo Del. Tr. Co., 181 So. 3d 1275, 1277 (Fla. 1 This was the second time during the pendency of the foreclosure litigation that this tactic was employed. On January 20, 2017, a different tenant of Garcia filed an identical cross-complaint and sought removal of the entire case to federal court. The United States District Court remanded the case back to the circuit court on February 24, 2017.
1st DCA 2015) (citing Maseda v. Honda Motor Co., 861 F. 2d 1248 (11th Cir. 1988)). In a detailed review of the law in this area, the First District concluded that even an improper removal to federal court, or a removal for improper motives, will not preserve state court jurisdiction. Id. at 1280-84; see also Cole v. Wells Fargo Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 201 So. 3d 749, 750 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).2 Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the final judgment, we are compelled to reverse the final judgment and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ricci v. Ventures Tr. 2013-I-H-R (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Maseda v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., 861 F.2d 1248 (11th Cir. 1988)
- Joseph A. and Mary Ann Musa v. Wells Fargo Del. Tr. Co., 181 So. 3d 1275 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
- Cole v. Wells Fargo Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 201 So. 3d 749 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)
- Waller v. State, 201 So. 3d 749 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)