Rodriguez v. ALS Commercial Funding, LLC

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 3D13–772.

Attorney(S)

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami–Dade County, Victoria S. Sigler and Ronald C. Dresnick, Judges. Janet Rodriguez and Francisca Rodriguez, in proper persons. Amster Law Firm, P.A., and Gabriel Itskovich (Dania Beach), for appellee.

Judges

Leslie B. Rothenberg

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

ALS Commercial Funding, LLC ("ALS") initiated a commercial foreclosure action against Janet Rodriguez and Francisca Rodriguez (collectively, "the Rodriguezes"). During the litigation, the Rodriguezes filed a notice of change of address requesting all correspondence be sent to their new address. Despite this, ALS filed a notice of hearing for a motion for summary final judgment of foreclosure, mailing the notice to the Rodriguezes' former address. The Rodriguezes did not attend the hearing. Subsequently, the trial court entered a final judgment of foreclosure in favor of ALS. The Rodriguezes appealed the judgment, contending they did not receive notice of the final hearing.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the final judgment of foreclosure is valid when the notice of hearing was mailed to the parties' former address despite their filing a change of address.
Whether failure to receive proper notice of a final hearing renders a judgment void under Florida law.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Greisel v. Gregg, 733 So.2d 1119, 1121 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)	A final judgment is void if notice of hearing was sent to an incorrect address causing the defendant to miss the hearing.	The court applied this principle to find the final judgment void because the notice was mailed to the Rodriguezes' former address, resulting in no notice to them.
Watson v. Watson, 583 So.2d 410, 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)	A judgment entered without notice to a party is void.	The court cited this to reinforce that the final judgment was void due to lack of proper notice.
Shields v. Flinn, 528 So.2d 967, 968 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)	A judgment entered without notice to a party is void.	Used to support the invalidity of the judgment entered without proper notice to the Rodriguezes.
Jade Winds Ass'n v. Citibank, N.A., 63 So.3d 819, 822 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)	Procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard.	The court emphasized that due process was not satisfied as the Rodriguezes did not receive notice and thus lacked an opportunity to be heard.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court focused on the procedural due process requirement that parties must receive proper notice of hearings. Although the Rodriguezes had filed a notice of change of address, the notice of hearing was sent to their former address. This failure to provide correct notice meant the Rodriguezes did not have an opportunity to attend or be heard at the final hearing. Citing established Florida precedent, the court held that a judgment entered without proper notice is void. Consequently, the final judgment of foreclosure was reversed and remanded for further proceedings, allowing the Rodriguezes to raise any issues concerning the receiver.

Holding and Implications

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

The court’s decision nullifies the final judgment of foreclosure due to lack of proper notice. The case is sent back to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with due process requirements. No new legal precedent was established; rather, the court reaffirmed existing principles regarding notice and the voidness of judgments entered without it.

Show full summary ...

Janet RODRIGUEZ and Francisca Rodriguez, Appellants, v. ALS COMMERCIAL FUNDING, LLC, Appellee.

ROTHENBERG

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami–Dade County, Victoria S. Sigler and Ronald C. Dresnick, Judges.
Janet Rodriguez and Francisca Rodriguez, in proper persons. Amster Law Firm, P.A., and Gabriel Itskovich (Dania Beach), for appellee.
Before ROTHENBERG, FERNANDEZ, and SCALES, JJ.

ROTHENBERG, J.

Janet Rodriguez (“Janet”) and Francisca Rodriguez (“Francisca”) (collectively, “the Rodriguezes”), appeal a final judgment of foreclosure on the basis that they did not receive notice of the final hearing. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

ALS Commercial Funding, LLC (“ALS”), filed a commercial foreclosure action against the Rodriguezes. During the pendency of the action, the Rodriguezes filed a notice of change of address, requesting that all correspondence be sent to their new address. Thereafter, ALS filed a notice of hearing notifying the Rodriguezes that ALS's motion for summary final judgment of foreclosure would be heard on February 19, 2013. The mailing list attached to the notice of hearing indicates that the notice was mailed to both Janet and Francisca at their former address. The Rodriguezes did not attend the hearing and, following the hearing, the trial court entered a final judgment of foreclosure in favor of ALS and against the Rodriguezes.

As the record before this Court indicates that the notice of hearing was mailed to the Rodriguezes' former address, we must reverse the final judgment of foreclosure and remand for further proceedings. See Greisel v. Gregg, 733 So.2d 1119, 1121 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (“A final judgment is void where the notice of hearing that resulted in the judgment was sent to an incorrect address and, as a result, the defendant failed to receive notice.”); Watson v. Watson, 583 So.2d 410, 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (“It is well settled that a judgment entered without notice to a party is void.”); Shields v. Flinn, 528 So.2d 967, 968 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (“A judgment entered without notice to a party is void.”); see also Jade Winds Ass'n v. Citibank, N.A., 63 So.3d 819, 822 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (“A basic element of procedural due process is notice and an opportunity to be heard.”). On remand, the Rodriguezes are permitted to address with the trial court any issues relating to the receiver.

Reversed and remanded.