FELIX MONTALVO

v.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, ETC.

Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed June 29, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-2233 Lower Tribunal No. 17-292

________________

Felix Montalvo,

Appellant,

vs.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, etc., Appellee.

An appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Carlos Lopez, Judge. Marrero, Chamizo, Marcer Law LP, and Julio C. Marrero, for appellant. Lapin & Leichtling, LLP, and Jonathan R. Rosenn, for appellee. Before LINDSEY, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ. MILLER, J. Appellant, Felix Montalvo, challenges an order enforcing a settlement agreement upon the motion of appellee, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, in the underlying foreclosure action. On appeal, Mr. Montalvo contends the trial court erred in determining he breached the agreement by failing to tender a sum certain no later than five days before the stipulated judicial sale date or surrender the premises by or on the same date. Discerning no error, we affirm the well-reasoned order under review.

BACKGROUND

In early 2017, the Bank filed a successive foreclosure lawsuit against Julio Rodriguez and Berta Montalvo. The operative complaint alleged that Mr. Rodriguez defaulted on a promissory note secured by a mortgage, and Ms. Montalvo might assert a claim of ownership by virtue of a quitclaim deed granting an interest in the mortgaged property. After the Bank filed suit, Ms. Montalvo died, and her son, Mr. Montalvo, was identified as a potential heir by a court-appointed guardian ad litem. The Bank subsequently amended the complaint to add all potential heirs.

The lower court set the matter for trial. On the day of trial, Mr. Montalvo and the Bank stipulated to the entry of a consent final judgment reflecting an extended sixty-day judicial sale date. By separate written settlement agreement, the parties further agreed to the following: Consent Judgment of Foreclosure With 60 Day Sale Date, With Felix Montalvo to Pay the Trust the Sum of $360,000 At Least 5 Days Before the Sale Date in Exchange for the Trust’s Vacating the Final Judgment and Releasing Its Mortgage Felix Montalvo hereby consents to entry of a Final Judgment of Foreclosure in favor of the Trust, in the amount claimed to be due by the Trust, and shall so inform the Court at the trial set for September 27, 2019. The parties shall request that the Court enter final judgment of foreclosure with a sale date no earlier than 60 days from the date of judgment. Felix Montalvo shall then have until 5 days before the sale date to pay the Trust the sum of $360,000, payable to Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., in exchange for the Trust and Felix Montalvo jointly moving to vacate the final judgment of foreclosure and the Trust submitting for recording a release of its mortgage within 60 days of the clearance of the $360,000 in settlement funds. In the event the funds remained unpaid, the agreement additionally required Mr. Montalvo to relinquish possession of the property on or before the sale date “without damage, free of accumulations or debris, with fixtures intact, [and] reasonable wear and tear excepted.”

Mr. Montalvo failed to tender the funds or vacate the premises. Instead, he waited until the morning the sale was slated to occur to file a notice of removal to federal court, thereby divesting the trial court of jurisdiction to proceed with the sale. Finding no basis for removal, the federal court promptly remanded the case back to state court. Mr. Montalvo then agreed to the entry of an order awarding sanctions to the Bank, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.1 After the case was remanded, the Bank filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The trial court convened an evidentiary hearing, at the conclusion of which it found that by failing to pay the negotiated amount six days before the scheduled sale date or surrender the property, Mr. Montalvo breached the settlement agreement and forfeited his right to redeem the property at the reduced price. The instant appeal ensued.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A trial court’s construction of a settlement agreement presents a pure issue of law, implicating the de novo standard of review. Tavarez v. Nu-Way Towing Serv., Inc., 326 So. 3d 133, 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).

ANALYSIS

Settlement agreements are interpreted and governed by the same legal principles applicable to other contracts. Robbie v. City of Miami, 469 So. 2d 1384, 1385 (Fla. 1985). As with any contract, in the absence of ambiguity, the intent of the parties is gleaned from the plain language of the agreement. See Andersen Windows, Inc. v. Hochberg, 997 So. 2d 1212,