Opinion
Case No. 3D02-1345.
Opinion filed May 7, 2003.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida, Alan L. Postman, Judge. Lower Tribunal No. 99-22568.
Linda L. Carroll for appellant.
Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster Russell and John H. Pelzer and Norman S. Segall, for appellees.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and GREEN, and WELLS, JJ.
Carroll Associates, P.A. ("Carroll") appeals from a summary judgment on counts I through IV of it's cross-complaint against Rafael and Nelly Galindo, individually, and as trustees of the Rafael and Nelly Galindo Revocable Inter Vivos Trust ("the Galindos"). That judgment dismissed Carroll's cross-claims against the Galindos and ordered Carroll to execute a special warranty deed in favor of the Galindos upon the payment of $4,500 plus interest. For the following reasons, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
I
In 1995, Philip Feigenblatt acquired a fee simple interest in a condominium located in Bal Harbor, Florida. He subsequently conveyed a life estate interest in this condominium to his mother, Flora Rojas Parks, retaining the remainder interest for himself. Two years later, in January 1998, Feigenblatt and his mother executed a promissory note in the amount of $65,000 in favor of Generations Investments Corporation and secured that note with a mortgage on the Bal Harbor condominium. The following month, Carroll brought suit against Feigenblatt for sums owed to Carroll for legal services rendered and obtained a final judgment against him for $9,381. That judgment was recorded in the property records of Miami-Dade County on May 28, 1998.
Shortly thereafter, on June 17, 1998, the Galindos entered into an agreement to lease the condominium (and to pay the mortgage and assessment payments related to it) with an option to purchase upon their sale of another unit in the building. Within the time provided in the lease/option agreement, the Galindos exercised the option to purchase and paid Feigenblatt and Parks $25,000 as required by the agreement. However, before a closing could take place, Carroll acted to protect its interest in the property by foreclosing its recorded judgment lien against Feigenblatt's remainder interest. A writ of execution was issued and a notice of levy recorded against the condominium. In addition, a notice of Sheriff's sale of Feigenblatt's remainder interest in the condominium was advertised, served on Feigenblatt and provided to the Galindos. Feigenblatt and the Galindos unsuccessfully sought court intervention to cancel the public sale of Feigenblatt's remainder interest, and on February 10, 1999, with the Galindos' attorney present, the Sheriff conducted a public auction on Feigenblatt's remainder interest in the condominium. The Galindos' attorney did not bid on their behalf, and Carroll, the highest bidder, purchased Feigenblatt's remainder interest for $4,500 and received a Sheriff's deed conveying the remainder interest to it.
II
The Galindos continued to reside in the condominium and to make monthly mortgage payments and assessments on the property until approximately April 1999. In September 1999, Independent National Mortgage Corporation, claiming to be the holder of a note secured by a mortgage on this property, brought suit to foreclose its mortgage. Feigenblatt, Parks, the Galindos, and Carroll were joined as defendants having some right, title or interest in the property. Carroll cross-claimed against the Galindos for a declaratory judgment determining that the Galindos had neither legal nor possessory rights in the condominium and that they were liable for "unpaid" mortgage payments, assessments and expenses while in possession. Carroll also sought to quiet title in the condominium to itself claiming that the Galindos had no legal or possessory rights in the condominium. Finally, Carroll sought an award of damages equal to the amount of any unpaid mortgage payments, assessments, taxes and expenses on the property (which allegedly were the obligation of the life tenant).
Approximately one month after the foreclosure action was filed, the Galindos brought a separate suit against Feigenblatt, Parks, and Sally Sawh, their prior attorney, in which they sought damages from Feigenblatt and Parks for breach of contract and an order compelling Parks to execute and deliver a deed transferring her life estate in the condominium to them. They also sought damages against Sawh for negligence allegedly resulting in "diminution in value [of the condominium] because of the loss of the remainder interest . . . ."
In January 2002, the Galindos obtained a judgment in their favor in their action against Feigenblatt, Parks, and Sawh. That judgment conveyed title of Parks' life estate in the condominium to them. The Galindos then redeemed the Independent National Mortgage Corporation mortgage and moved for summary judgment on Carroll's cross-claims in the foreclosure action. That motion was granted with the trial court finding that: (1) Carroll succeeded to Feigenblatt's remainder interest in the condominium when it purchased that interest at the Sheriff's foreclosure sale; (2) the Galindos held a life estate interest in the condominium; and (3) the Galindos had redeemed the mortgage that was the subject of the foreclosure suit and were current on all condominium expenses. The trial court also found that, as a consequence of the Galindos' actions in paying $25,000 to purchase a life estate and in redeeming the mortgage and paying all expenses related to the condominium, they had acquired a superior "equitable" right to title in the condominium. Consequently, Carroll's cross-claims for declaratory judgment, to quiet title, and for damages were dismissed with prejudice, and Carroll was ordered to "execute a special warranty deed [conveying its remainder interest in the condominium] in favor of the Galindos," upon the Galindos' payment of $4500 to Carroll. While we affirm that portion of the summary judgment dismissing Carroll's request to declare the Galindos to have no legal or possessory rights in the condominium and to order them to pay damages, we reverse that portion of the summary judgment ordering Carroll to convey its remainder interest to the Galindos.
III
Because the unrebutted record (as well as counsel's representations at oral argument) shows that the Galindos hold a life estate interest in the condominium and have assumed responsibility for, and are current in paying, all assessments, taxes and expenses relating to that condominium, that portion of the summary judgment dismissing counts I through IV of Carroll's cross-claims is affirmed.
There is, however, no support for that portion of the trial court's order obligating Carroll to convey its remainder interest to the Galindos. The pleadings do not suggest any basis on which Carroll's deed may be nullified or on which Carroll may be obligated to transfer its interest. There also is no evidence to support such an order. "Florida law clearly holds that a trial court lacks jurisdiction to hear and to determine matters which are not the subject of proper pleading and notice." In re Estate of Hatcher, 439 So.2d 977, 980 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (footnote omitted); see also McDonald v. McDonald, 732 So.2d 505, 506 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (holding that "when an award of relief is not sought by the pleadings, it is reversible error to grant such relief");Instituto Patriotico Y Docente San Carlos, Inc. v. Cuban American Nat'l Found., 667 So.2d 490, 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (finding the lower court was without jurisdiction in a summary judgment order to, sua sponte, incorporate additional findings and directives "which were never presented to the court as issues in any party's pleadings, evidence or argument on the motion for summary judgment").
To allow a court to rule on a matter without proper pleadings and notice is violative of a party's due process rights. See Epic Metals Corp. v. Samari Lake East Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 547 So.2d 198, 199 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) ("[a] trial court violates a litigant's due process rights when it expands the scope of a hearing to address and determine matters not noticed for hearing"); Robinson v. Malik, 135 So.2d 445 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961) (a final judgment that "goes beyond the issues framed in the pleadings and beyond the proof adduced" is a "clear departure from the requirements of due process of law"). That portion of the summary judgment directing Carroll to convey its remainder interest to the Galindos is, therefore, reversed.
Accordingly, that portion of the summary judgment confirming that the Galindos hold a life estate in the condominium, are current in all payments related to it, and dismissing counts I through IV of Carroll's cross-claim is affirmed. That portion of the summary judgment requiring Carroll to execute a special warranty deed transferring its remainder interest in the condominium to the Galindos upon the payment of $4,500 plus interest is reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment declaring Carroll to be the owner of, and quieting title in Carroll to, a remainder interest in the condominium.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF.