Stevens v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC

133 So. 3d 628, 2014 WL 885676, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3440
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 7, 2014
DocketNo. 5D13-3472
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 133 So. 3d 628 (Stevens v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC) 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
Stevens v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, 133 So. 3d 628, 2014 WL 885676, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3440 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

ORFINGER, J.

Melvin L. Stevens, Jr. appeals the trial court’s order denying his motions for relief from judgment.1 Stevens contends that the final judgment of foreclosure should be set aside because he was never served with the notice of issue or the order setting the trial. We agree and reverse.

Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, filed a foreclosure complaint against Stevens. For a time, Stevens was represented by counsel. However, upon motion, the court authorized Stevens’s counsel to withdraw. The court then directed all papers and pleadings to be served on Stevens at two designated addresses. In time, Nationstar’s counsel filed a notice that the action was at issue and ready for trial. That notice was not served on Stevens as previously ordered. Instead, it was mailed to his former counsel. The trial court’s order setting the case for trial was served only on Nationstar’s counsel. Not surprisingly, Stevens did not appear for the trial and a final judgment of foreclosure was entered against him. He timely filed his various motions for relief from judgment. Without elaboration, the trial court denied the motions.

Every pleading and paper filed in any court proceeding must be served on each party or their counsel. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.516. This requirement is to satisfy the constitutional requirement of due process. Here, neither the notice of issue nor the order setting trial was served on Stevens. This violated Stevens’s due process rights and requires reversal. See Vosilla v. Rosado, 944 So.2d 289, 294 (Fla.2006) (holding that to satisfy due process, any notiee given must be reasonably calculated, under all circumstances, to apprise [630]*630interested parties of pendency of action and afford them opportunity to present objections); Heritage Casket & Vault Ind., Inc. v. Sunshine Bank, 428 So.2d 341, 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). For these reasons, we reverse the final judgment and remand this matter for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

PALMER and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

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

Related

MARY FAIN v. TREZZVANT SPIVEY
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2021
JOHN KORMAN v. DAVID JAMES STERN
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2020
EDWARD A. SPECTOR and EDWARD A. SPECTOR, D.D.S., LLC v. JEAN E. SPRAGUE
250 So. 3d 720 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)
Bloom v. Bloom
227 So. 3d 165 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Henderson-Bullard v. Lockard
204 So. 3d 568 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
133 So. 3d 628, 2014 WL 885676, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stevens-v-nationstar-mortgage-llc-fladistctapp-2014.