Palacin v. HSBC Bank USA National Ass'n

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Palacin v. HSBC Bank USA National Ass'n

127 So. 3d 699, 2013 WL 6081812, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 18427

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 20, 2013

DocketNo. 4D12-4083

StatusPublished

This text of 127 So. 3d 699 (Palacin v. HSBC Bank USA National Ass'n) 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

Palacin v. HSBC Bank USA National Ass'n, 127 So. 3d 699, 2013 WL 6081812, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 18427 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

STEVENSON, J.

Appellant Matilde A. Palacin challenges a final summary judgment of foreclosure entered in favor of HSBC Bank USA National Association (“the Bank”). Finding merit in Palacin’s argument that an erroneously-entered clerk’s default could not provide the basis for the summary judgment, we reverse.

Here, the clerk entered a default in response to the Bank’s motion filed on the same day. Unbeknownst to the clerk, the day before the default was entered, Pala-cin, through counsel, had served a motion seeking additional time to respond to the complaint. Palacin did not file a motion to vacate the clerk’s default. Instead, she filed a motion to dismiss. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and granted Palacin twenty days to file an answer. Palacin filed her answer, raising lack of standing and failure to comply with conditions precedent as affirmative defenses.

During the subsequent summary judgment proceedings, the Bank insisted the clerk’s default was still valid and, as such, it was entitled to summary judgment without regard to the affirmative defenses. The trial court accepted this argument and entered the summary judgment that gave rise to this appeal.

In this case, the clerk’s default was entered in error and was invalid. See Becker v. Re/Max Horizons Realty, Inc., 819 So.2d 887, 890 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (recognizing clerk’s default can be entered pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.500(a) only where defendant failed to file or serve any “paper”; a “paper” includes “any written communication that informs the plaintiff of the defendant’s intent to contest the claim”); see also U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Lloyd, 981 So.2d 633, 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (noting clerk’s default invalid if entered where plaintiff is aware defendant is represented and intends to defend on the merits). Moreover, even after entry of the default, the trial court allowed the litigation to continue and entered an order expressly affording Palacin the right to defend on the merits. Thus, it was error for the trial court to later rely upon the clerk’s default in entering summary judgment in favor of the Bank. And, having reviewed the evidence, it is clear to this court that genuine issues of material fact remain with regard to the Bank’s standing and its com[700]*700pliance with conditions precedent to acceleration.

Reversed and remanded.

WARNER and GERBER, JJ., concur.

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

STEVENSON, J.

Appellant Matilde A. Palacin challenges a final summary judgment of foreclosure entered in favor of HSBC Bank USA National Association (“the Bank”). Finding merit in Palacin’s argument that an erroneously-entered clerk’s default could not provide the basis for the summary judgment, we reverse.

Here, the clerk entered a default in response to the Bank’s motion filed on the same day. Unbeknownst to the clerk, the day before the default was entered, Pala-cin, through counsel, had served a motion seeking additional time to respond to the complaint. Palacin did not file a motion to vacate the clerk’s default. Instead, she filed a motion to dismiss. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and granted Palacin twenty days to file an answer. Palacin filed her answer, raising lack of standing and failure to comply with conditions precedent as affirmative defenses.

During the subsequent summary judgment proceedings, the Bank insisted the clerk’s default was still valid and, as such, it was entitled to summary judgment without regard to the affirmative defenses. The trial court accepted this argument and entered the summary judgment that gave rise to this appeal.

In this case, the clerk’s default was entered in error and was invalid. See Becker v. Re/Max Horizons Realty, Inc., 819 So.2d 887, 890 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (recognizing clerk’s default can be entered pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.500(a) only where defendant failed to file or serve any “paper”; a “paper” includes “any written communication that informs the plaintiff of the defendant’s intent to contest the claim”); see also U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Lloyd, 981 So.2d 633, 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (noting clerk’s default invalid if entered where plaintiff is aware defendant is represented and intends to defend on the merits). Moreover, even after entry of the default, the trial court allowed the litigation to continue and entered an order expressly affording Palacin the right to defend on the merits. Thus, it was error for the trial court to later rely upon the clerk’s default in entering summary judgment in favor of the Bank. And, having reviewed the evidence, it is clear to this court that genuine issues of material fact remain with regard to the Bank’s standing and its com[700]*700pliance with conditions precedent to acceleration.

Reversed and remanded.

WARNER and GERBER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 So. 3d 699, 2013 WL 6081812, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 18427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palacin-v-hsbc-bank-usa-national-assn-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack