ROMAN PINO vs THE BANK OF NEW YORK – Florida Supreme Court: Trial Court Did Not have Jurisdiction to Reinstate Dismissed Foreclosure Action Based on Fraud

Supreme Court

ROMAN PINO vs THE BANK OF NEW YORK FAIL

CONCLUSION

Based on the above, we answer the certified question in the negative. We hold that when a defendant alleges fraud on the court as a basis for seeking to set aside a plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal, the trial court has jurisdiction to reinstate the dismissed action only when the fraud, if proven, resulted in the plaintiff securing affirmative relief to the detriment of the defendant and, upon obtaining that relief, voluntarily dismissing the case to prevent the trial court from remedying the effects of the fraudulent conduct. Any affirmative relief the plaintiff obtained against the defendant as a result of the fraudulent conduct would clearly have an adverse impact on the defendant, thereby entitling the defendant to seek relief to set aside the voluntary dismissal pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(3).

In this case, because BNY Mellon did not obtain affirmative relief before taking the voluntary dismissal, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to reinstate the dismissed foreclosure action for the purpose of dismissing the action with prejudice. We also conclude that the trial court did not have the inherent authority to strike the notice of voluntary dismissal. Because Pino sought no other available sanctions, and the case has since been resolved between the parties, we need not reach the question of whether the trial court should be able to award monetary sanctions under the circumstances of this case. We therefore approve the result reached by the Fourth District affirming the trial court’s denial of Pino’s motion.

While affirming the decision of the Fourth District, we also understand the concerns of those who discuss the multiple abuses that can occur from fraudulent pleadings being filed with the trial courts in this state. While rule 1.420(a)(1) has well served the litigants and courts of this state, we request the Civil Procedure Rules Committee review this concern and make a recommendation to this Court regarding whether (a) explicit sanction authority should be provided to a trial court pursuant to rule 1.110(b), even after a case is voluntarily dismissed, (b) rule 1.420(a)(1) should be amended to expressly allow the trial court to retain jurisdiction to rule on any pending sanction motions that seek monetary sanctions for abuses committed by either party during the litigation process, or to allow the trial court explicit authority to include attorney’s fees in any award to a party when the dismissed action is reinstated, or (c) to adopt a rule similar to Federal Rule 11 to provide explicit authority for the trial court to impose sanctions.

It is so ordered.

LEWIS, QUINCE, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.
POLSTON, C.J., and CANADY, J., concur in result only.

Full opinion below…

Welcome to the wild wild south…

Anything goes for the banksters…

~

4closureFraud.org

~

ROMAN PINO vs THE BANK OF NEW YORK

Comments
One Response to “ROMAN PINO vs THE BANK OF NEW YORK – Florida Supreme Court: Trial Court Did Not have Jurisdiction to Reinstate Dismissed Foreclosure Action Based on Fraud”
  1. BOBBI SWANN says:

    This sentence strikes a question: “Because Pino sought no other available sanctions, and the case has since been resolved between the parties, we need not reach the question of whether the trial court should be able to award monetary sanctions under the circumstances of this case.” So, if I am reading this correctly, there has been some sort of ‘settlement’ between BNY Mellon and Pino, and because of this no sanctions (monetary) were awarded by this (review) court, correct? What was the settlement? Does it not have to be revealed if the case is still ongoing? BNY Mellon can’t file a voluntary dismissal since they already filed one before so is the case still pending?

Leave a Reply