Robles v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n
255 So. 3d 986 (2018)
Rule of Law:
A party who has appeared in an action by filing a non-responsive paper, such as a motion for an extension of time, is entitled to prior notice of an application for default, but is not entitled to a hearing before a default is entered if they have failed to file a responsive pleading to defend the action.
Facts:
- On September 16, 2005, Ralph Robles executed a note in favor of Bank of America, N.A.
- The note was secured by real property located in Miami, Florida.
- Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) became the owner and holder of the note.
- On February 1, 2012, Ralph Robles stopped making payments on the note, thereby defaulting on it.
Procedural Posture:
- On January 12, 2017, Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) initiated a foreclosure action against Ralph and Norma Robles in the trial court (court of first instance).
- On January 26, 2017, the Robles were served with the complaint.
- On February 15, 2017, counsel for the Robles filed a notice of appearance, a notice of unavailability, and an unopposed motion for a thirty-day extension of time to file an answer, which the trial court granted on May 1, 2017, setting the answer deadline to May 31, 2017.
- After the Robles failed to file an answer by May 31, 2017, Fannie Mae filed an ex parte motion for a default on June 16, 2017, which was served on the Robles' counsel.
- On June 22, 2017, the trial court entered a default against the Robles, and the order was sent to their counsel.
- Four months after the entry of the default, Fannie Mae filed a motion for summary judgment of foreclosure.
- On October 27, 2017, Fannie Mae filed a notice of hearing for its motion for summary judgment of foreclosure, set for November 27, 2017, and served all parties, including the Robles' counsel.
- On November 27, 2017, the trial court entered a final judgment of foreclosure against the Robles.
- Ralph and Norma Robles (appellants) appealed the summary final judgment of foreclosure to the Florida Third District Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party who has appeared in an action by filing a motion for an extension of time, but no responsive pleading, have a right to a hearing before a default is entered against them, thereby rendering a default judgment void if no such hearing occurred, or was the default entered as an improper sanction?
Opinions:
Majority - Rothenberg, C.J.
No, a party who has filed only a motion for an extension of time and no responsive pleading is not entitled to a hearing before a default is entered, and such a default is not void merely for lack of a hearing; furthermore, the default was not entered as a sanction. The true purpose of a default is to prevent dilatory defendants from impeding the plaintiff's claim. Under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.500(b), when a party against whom affirmative relief is sought has appeared in the action by filing or serving "any papers," they are entitled to prior notice of an application for default, which affords an opportunity to be heard. In this case, the appellants' counsel was served with Fannie Mae's motion for default on June 16, 2017, satisfying this notice requirement. However, a motion for an extension of time, while qualifying as "any paper," is not considered a "responsive pleading" that reflects an intent to defend the merits of the action. Therefore, no hearing is required before entering a default against a party who has failed to file a responsive pleading. The court distinguished between filing "any paper" (which triggers a notice requirement) and filing a "responsive pleading" (which would generally require a hearing before default if the default were sought as a sanction, but not for mere failure to respond). The record also provided no indication that the default was entered as a sanction, but rather due to the appellants' failure to file a responsive pleading, establish excusable neglect, or otherwise defend the action. Accordingly, the trial court committed no error, and the judgment of foreclosure is affirmed.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the procedural requirements for entering default judgments in Florida, distinguishing between the notice required for a party who has filed "any paper" and the absence of a hearing requirement when a party fails to file a responsive pleading. It underscores that while initial engagement like seeking an extension prevents an ex parte default without notice, it does not absolve the party of the responsibility to formally defend the action or entitle them to a hearing before a default is entered for non-response. The ruling emphasizes the court's interest in preventing dilatory tactics and reinforces the importance of filing substantive answers to complaints. This distinction guides lower courts on the specific conditions under which defaults can be entered without further hearings, especially in the context of foreclosure actions, and highlights the consequences of failing to meaningfully participate in litigation beyond initial procedural filings.
