BAZZICHELLI
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.
Francesca Bazzichelli appeals an order denying her motion to vacate a foreclosure judgment and certificate of title after Deutsche Bank sought to correct an erroneous abbreviation of its name in the final judgment and related documents. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of Bazzichelli's motion, holding that the name correction was a permissible clerical correction under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(a) that did not alter the substance of the judgment.
The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's motion to vacate, holding that the correction of Deutsche Bank's name was a permissible clerical correction under Rule 1.540(a) that did not alter the substance of the judgment. The court also rejected the defendant's argument that she could use the July 2018 amendment order as a new occasion to seek vacation of the entire foreclosure judgment.
[1] Under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(a), correction of a party's name in a final judgment and related documents constitutes a clerical mistake that may be correcte…
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“clerical mistakes include only errors or mistakes arising from accidental slip or omission and not errors or mistakes in the substance of what is decided by the judgment or order.”
Definition from Keller v. Becher, cited to establish the limited scope of clerical corrections under Rule 1.540(a).
Deutsche Bank, as trustee, obtained a final judgment of foreclosure against Bazzichelli in April 2014, which was amended five months later. Following …
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 Clerical Mistakes In Judgments cases and more on FLexlaw
SALTER, J.
The borrower/defendant in a residential foreclosure case, Francesca Bazzichelli, appeals a post-judgment order denying her “Amended Objection to Issuance of Certificate of Title [and] Motion to Vacate Amended Final Judgment and February 2017 Sale,” entered in July 2018. The final judgment of foreclosure was entered in April 2014 and amended to reflect a change in the name of the plaintiff (appellee here) five months later. Following Ms. Bazzichelli’s bankruptcy proceedings and a foreclosure sale in February 2017, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee for Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QS7 (“Deutsche Bank”), moved to re-open the case to amend its name in the final judgment of foreclosure and certificate of title.
Deutsche Bank alleged that the use of an erroneously-abbreviated name for Deutsche Bank in those documents had created an inadvertent title impediment affecting Deutsche Bank’s sale of the property to a bona fide purchaser. Though not denominated as such in the caption or body of the motion, the motion fits comfortably within the rule and case law applicable to the correction of “[c]lerical mistakes” in “judgments, decrees, or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission,” which “may be corrected by the court at any time on its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(a); see also Keller v. Becher, 256 So. 2d 561, 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971) (“clerical mistakes include only errors or mistakes arising from accidental slip or omission and not errors or mistakes in the substance of what is decided by the judgment or order.”). Name changes are permitted under Rule 1.540(a) at any time. Howard v. State, 139 So. 3d 975, 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
Ms. Bazzichelli neither alleged nor proved that the amendment altered the substance of the final judgment of foreclosure or the certificate of title as to her. We also reject her further argument that she should be allowed to use the July 2018 order approving the amendment to the final judgment as a new occasion for seeking to have the entire foreclosure judgment and subsequent certificate of sale vacated. As the trial court properly ruled, any errors in the substance of the final judgment or the 2017 amendment should have been (but were not) raised on appeal from those rulings. See DeGale v. Krongold , Bass & Todd, 773 So. 2d 630, 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Ms. Bazzichelli’s motion to vacate was properly denied.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eluime H. Baker v. The Courts at Bayshore I Condo. Ass'n, Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Keller v. Belcher, 256 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- DeGALE v. Krongold, 773 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Jovan Howard v. State, 139 So. 3d 975 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)