Keeter v. Bank of New York Mellon ex rel. Holders of the Alternative Loan Trust 2006-0A11

201 So. 3d 859, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 15741
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedOctober 21, 2016
DocketNo. 1D15-1814
StatusPublished

This text of 201 So. 3d 859 (Keeter v. Bank of New York Mellon ex rel. Holders of the Alternative Loan Trust 2006-0A11) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Keeter v. Bank of New York Mellon ex rel. Holders of the Alternative Loan Trust 2006-0A11, 201 So. 3d 859, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 15741 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this foreclosure case, the trial court determined that Appellant, the borrower, waived any objection to the service of process when she “made an appearance” in the case by filing a motion for an extension of time to respond to the complaint. This was error. See Yelton v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 146 So.3d 1207 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (reversing order denying borrower’s motion to quash service in a foreclosure case and holding that “a motion for enlargement of time that does not go to the merits of the case is not ‘active participation’ in the proceedings, and therefore, [860]*860does not constitute submission to the court’s jurisdiction and waiver of any objection to service of process”)(citing DiGiovanni v. BAC Home Loans Serv., L.P., 83 So.3d 934, 935-36 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Byers v. FIA Card Services, N.A., 82 So.3d 1166, 1167-68 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); and Barrios v. Sunshine State Bank, 456 So.2d 590, 590-91 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)); see also Benedetto v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 181 So.3d 564, 567 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“Where a defendant files a motion for extension of time to answer a complaint, the defendant does not submit to the jurisdiction of the court or waive the defense of lack of jurisdiction for failure of service of process.”). Accordingly, without reaching the other issues raised by the borrower, we reverse the final judgment and remand for further proceedings. We leave it to the trial court to determine how best to proceed on remand in light of the post-trial service by publication effectuated by Appellee based on the borrower’s alleged avoidance of personal service.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

LEWIS, WETHERELL, and JAY, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Barrios v. Sunshine State Bank
456 So. 2d 590 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Byers v. FIA Card Services, N.A.
82 So. 3d 1166 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
Gabriela Benedetto v. U.S. Bank National Association
181 So. 3d 564 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Yelton v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
146 So. 3d 1207 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)
DiGiovanni v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P.
83 So. 3d 934 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
201 So. 3d 859, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 15741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keeter-v-bank-of-new-york-mellon-ex-rel-holders-of-the-alternative-loan-fladistctapp-2016.