Dora Martinez v. Bank of America, N.A.

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: March 27, 2024
• Docket: 2022-1560
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed March 27, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-1560 Lower Tribunal No. 19-11811 ________________

Dora Martinez, Appellant,

vs.

Bank of America, N.A., Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William Thomas, Judge.

David J. Winker, P.A., and David Winker, for appellant.

Liebler, Gonzalez & Portuondo, and Adam J. Wick, for appellee.

Before LINDSEY, LOBREE, and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Appellant, Dora Martinez, appeals the trial court’s Default and

Summary Final Judgment of Foreclosure in favor of Appellee, Bank of

America, N.A, which followed the Bank’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

The parties agree that the trial court did not explain its reasoning in its

written order in accordance with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(a),

mandating that “[t]he court shall state on the record the reasons for granting

or denying the motion.” See also Jones v. Ervolino, 339 So. 3d 473, 475

(Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“[R]ule 1.510(a) says that the court shall do so. The

wording of the new rule makes clear that the court’s obligation in this regard

is mandatory.” (quoting In re Amends. to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510, 317 So. 3d

72, 77 (Fla. 2021))).

Further, there are no transcripts of the hearing on the Motion in the

record, but it is undisputed that the trial court did not grant summary

judgment at the hearing. Thus, the trial court failed to provide reasoning for

its order, either orally during the hearing or in its written order. See Ballard

v. Bank of Am., N.A., 365 So. 3d 1219, 1221 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023) (“Had the

trial court granted summary judgment at the hearing, we could have denied

relief on this issue due to [appellant’s] failure to provide a transcript or

statement of the proceedings pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate

Procedure 9.200(b)(5).”).

2 Accordingly, we are compelled to reverse and remand for entry of an

order compliant with rule 1.510(a). See Jones, 339 So. 3d at 475 (reversing

and remanding for entry of an order complying with rule 1.510(a)); Mech v.

Brazilian Waxing by Sisters, Inc., 349 So. 3d 453, 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)

(reversing and remanding with directions for the trial court to provide its

reasoning pursuant to rule 1.510(a)).

Reversed and remanded.