Vista Financial Group, LLC v. the Bank of New York Mellon, Etc.
This text of Vista Financial Group, LLC v. the Bank of New York Mellon, Etc. (Vista Financial Group, LLC v. the Bank of New York Mellon, Etc.) 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.
Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed May 28, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-0040 Lower Tribunal No. 19-3115-CA-01 ________________
Vista Financial Group, LLC, Appellant,
vs.
The Bank of New York Mellon, etc., Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Antonio Arzola, Judge.
Courtney B. Bouillon (Orlando), for appellant.
Atlas | Solomon, LLP and Eric M. Levine (Stuart), for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.
GORDO, J. Vista Financial Group, LLC appeals a final summary judgment entered
in favor of Bank of New York Mellon,1 the defendant below, and an order
denying rehearing and leave to file a fifth amended complaint. We have
jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). Finding no error in the trial court’s
entry of final summary judgment and no abuse of discretion in its denial of
leave to amend, we affirm. See Ibarra v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc., 350 So.
3d 465, 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“The standard of review on orders granting
final summary judgment is de novo . . . Summary judgment is appropriate
where the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted); Baxter v. Northrup, 128 So. 3d 908,
909 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (“When expiration of the statute of limitations is the
basis of a summary judgment motion, the movant has the burden of showing
‘conclusively that there was no genuine issue of fact that the statute of
limitations had expired before the filing of the complaint.’” (quoting Green v.
Adams, 343 So. 2d 636, 637 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977))); Nicarry v. Eslinger, 990
So. 2d 661, 663 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (“Section 95.11, Florida Statutes,
outlines the statute of limitations for all causes of action except for recovery
1 The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York, as Trustee for The Certificate Holders of the CWALT, Inc., Alternative Loan Trust 2006- OA6 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-OA6.
2 of real property.”); Mason v. Salinas, 643 So. 2d 1077, 1078 (Fla. 1994)
(“[S]ection 95.11[] bars all actions unless they are commenced within the
times designated by the statute.”); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c)(4) (“An affidavit or
declaration used to support or oppose a motion [for summary judgment] must
be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in
evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is competent to testify on
the matters stated.”); Dorvil v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, No. 17-23193-CIV,
2020 WL 9065875, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 13, 2020) (“The Zillow print-out is
subject to exclusion for numerous reasons. First, Plaintiff has not, and
cannot, authenticate the evidence with his expected trial witnesses. Second,
the print-out is hearsay, for which no exception has been invoked. Third, the
manner in which home value estimates on Zillow are prepared is unknown.
The estimates appear to be based in part on a combination of user input and
other criteria that are weighted pursuant to a computer algorithm. There is
simply no way for the reliability of Zillow estimates to be tested without
accompanying testimony from an individual with specialized knowledge,
making the estimate akin to impermissible opinion testimony. Finally, [the]
proffered estimate is from 2017, which, given fluctuations in the real estate
market, is too remote in time to the foreclosure sale to be of probative
value.”); Pangea Produce Distribs., Inc. v. Franco’s Produce, Inc., 275 So.
3 3d 240, 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“The standard of review for the denial of
leave to amend is abuse of discretion.”); Readon v. WPLG, LLC, 317 So. 3d
1229, 1238 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“Generally, refusal to allow amendment of
a pleading constitutes an abuse of discretion unless it clearly appears that
allowing the amendment would prejudice the opposing party; the privilege to
amend has been abused; or the amendment would be futile.”); DJB Rentals,
LLC v. City of Largo, 373 So. 3d 405, 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023) (“A proposed
amendment is futile if it is insufficiently pled, or is insufficient as a matter of
law.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Vista Financial Group, LLC v. the Bank of New York Mellon, Etc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vista-financial-group-llc-v-the-bank-of-new-york-mellon-etc-fladistctapp-2025.