Key Points | DIAZ ANSELMO & ASSOCIATES CELEBRATES ANOTHER APPELLATE WIN BASED ON PROCEDURAL DEFICIENCIES WITH BORROWERS’ APPEAL

The Third DCA recently affirmed the lower court’s entry of a summary final judgment of foreclosure in favor of Bank of New York Mellon (“BNY Mellon”) in Hardison v. Bank of New York Mellon, No. 3D23-1675, 2024 WL 4897372, at *1 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 27, 2024). Although the DCA affirmed BNY Mellon’s judgment, it did not consider or discuss the merits of the case due to two procedural deficiencies with the Hardisons’ appeal.
On appeal, the Hardisons claimed reversal of the summary judgment was required because the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of rule 1.510(a) to “state on the record the reasons for granting or denying” summary judgment. The DCA refused to consider the appeal because the Hardisons’ failed to include a transcript of the hearing proceedings in the record and failed to raise the alleged deficiencies in the judgment in their motion for rehearing.
The Court’s explanation of the procedural deficiencies in the Hardison’s appeal and the favorable outcome are both welcome developments. However, this holding is also an important reminder of the significant impact the recent changes to rule 1.510 have on appeals and what must be done for a party to preserve issues for a full review on appeal.