AMY B. SCHWARTZ AND JAY F. SCHWARTZ
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ETC.
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.
This appeal concerns a motion to vacate a final foreclosure judgment entered in 2017. The appellants attempted to relitigate standing issues and fraud allegations that had already been rejected on direct appeal. The court summarily affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to vacate, applying the law of the case doctrine to preclude relitigation of previously decided issues.
The court summarily affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to vacate. The law of the case doctrine precluded relitigation of the standing and fraud issues that had already been decided on direct appeal. The trial court also did not abuse its discretion in denying post-judgment discovery, as appellants had not diligently conducted discovery during the initial litigation.
[1] The law of the case doctrine precludes relitigation of issues concerning standing and the sufficiency of a lender's allegations that were decided on direct appeal in a fo…
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“The doctrine of the law of the case requires that questions of law actually decided on appeal must govern the case in the same court and the trial court, through all subsequent stages of the proceedings.”
Citation to controlling law regarding the law of the case doctrine from Florida Department of Transportation v. Juliano
Appellants defaulted on their home loan in January 2010. A foreclosure suit was filed in 2012 and litigated until a final foreclosure judgment was ent…
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 Post-Judgment Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Scott R. Kerner, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502012CA01369XXXXMB.
Bruce Jacobs of Jacobs Legal, PLLC, Miami, for appellants. No response filed for appellee. PER CURIAM.
We redesignate this proceeding as an appeal from the order denying the motion to vacate the final foreclosure judgment in this 2012 case. Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(5). The petition for writ of certiorari is treated as the initial brief, and the trial court’s order is summarily affirmed. Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a).
Appellants defaulted on their home loan in January 2010. The foreclosure suit was filed in 2012 and litigated until a final foreclosure judgment was entered in October 2017. This Court affirmed the foreclosure judgment. See Schwartz v. Bank of Am., N.A., 267 So. 3d 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).
The motion to vacate now on appeal attempts to relitigate issues concerning standing that this Court rejected on direct appeal. The law of the case doctrine precludes relitigation of these issues. Fla. Dept. of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101, 105 (Fla. 2001) (“The doctrine of the law of the case requires that questions of law actually decided on appeal must govern the case in the same court and the trial court, through all subsequent stages of the proceedings.”).
Appellants’ allegations of fraud were rejected on direct appeal, and the trial court did not err in denying post-judgment discovery as this Court has already concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that “appellants had not diligently conducted discovery.” Schwartz, 267 So. 3d at 414.
Summarily affirmed. MAY, DAMOORGIAN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Dep't OF Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 2001)
- Schwartz v. Bank of Am., N.A., 267 So. 3d 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)