Murline Gelin v. Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC, et al.

Summary

The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court in an appeal involving a mortgage foreclosure dispute and a motion for relief from judgment. The court cited authorities concerning subsequent defaults, standing based on a chain of mortgage assignments, due diligence for newly discovered evidence, and the specificity required for a fraud-based motion under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(3).

Holdings

1. A subsequent and separate alleged default creates a new and independent right in the mortgagee to accelerate payment on the note in a subsequent foreclosure action.
2. An unbroken chain of assignments is sufficient evidence to establish the mortgagee's standing to foreclose.
3. Relief from judgment based on newly discovered evidence should be seldom granted and only when the movant has exercised due diligence; the movant bears the burden of establishing due diligence.
4. A Rule 1.540(b)(3) motion must specify the essential facts of the purported fraud, rather than merely assert legal conclusions, to warrant an evidentiary hearing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the asserted subsequent and separate default supported a subsequent foreclosure action.
2. Whether the assignment chain supplied evidence of the mortgagee's standing to foreclose.
3. Whether relief from judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b), including based on newly discovered evidence or alleged fraud, was warranted.
4. Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on the Rule 1.540(b)(3) motion.

Disposition

affirmed