Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed May 04, 2016.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D15-652
Lower Tribunal No. 09-91730
________________
HSBC Bank USA, etc.,
Appellant,
vs.
Fulbio S. Parodi,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Marvin H.
Gillman, Senior Judge.
Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, and Diana B.
Matson, Margaret E. Kepler, and Joshua R. Levine (Fort Lauderdale), for
appellant.
Pomeranz & Associates, P.A., and Mark L. Pomeranz (Hallandale), for
appellee.
Before ROTHENBERG, SALTER, and SCALES, JJ.
ROTHENBERG, J.
HSBC Bank USA, etc. (“HSBC”) appeals from a final judgment
involuntarily dismissing its foreclosure action filed against Fulbio S. Parodi
(“Parodi”) following HSBC’s presentation of the evidence at a non-jury trial based
solely on HSBC’s untimely responses to Parodi’s First Request for Admissions.
As the record contains evidence that contradicts HSBC’s technical admissions, we
conclude that the trial court reversibly erred by involuntarily dismissing HSBC’s
foreclosure action.
It is undisputed that HSBC failed to timely respond to Parodi’s First Request
for Admissions, and therefore, each request was technically admitted pursuant to
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.370, which provides in relevant part as follows:
(a) Request for Admission. . . . The matter is admitted unless
the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party
requesting the admission a written answer or objection addressed to
the matter within 30 days after service of the request or such shorter
or longer time as the court may allow . . . .
(b) Effect of Admission. Any matter admitted under this rule
is conclusively established unless the court on motion permits
withdrawal or amendment of the admission. Subject to rule 1.200
governing amendment of a pretrial order, the court may permit
withdrawal or amendment when the presentation of the merits of the
action will be subserved by it and the party who obtained the
admission fails to satisfy the court that withdrawal or amendment will
prejudice that party in maintaining an action or defense on the merits.
However, HSBC’s failure to timely respond to Parodi’s First Request for
Admissions does not preclude HSBC’s “entitlement to relief from the effect of its
technical admissions.” Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Donaldson, 165 So. 3d 40, 42
2
(Fla. 3d DCA 2015); see also PennyMac Corp. v. Labeau, 180 So. 3d 1216, 1220
(Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (stating that the “liberal standard for relief under [rule 1.370]
reflects the strong preference that genuinely disputed claims be decided upon their
merits rather than technical rules of default”).
This Court has consistently and repeatedly held it is reversible error to
involuntarily dismiss an action or grant summary judgment based solely on the
failure to timely respond to a request for admissions where the pleadings and/or the
record evidence contradicts the technical admissions and no prejudice has been
demonstrated. See PennyMac Corp., 180 So. 3d at 1220 (holding that in light of
record supporting PennyMac’s requested relief from the technical admissions and
the absence of any showing of prejudice to Labeau, the trial court abused its
discretion by failing to grant relief); Wells Fargo Bank, 165 So. 3d at 41-42
(reversing trial court’s involuntary dismissal of Well Fargo’s foreclosure action at
trial based on Well Fargo’s failure to timely respond to Donaldson’s request for
admissions where the verified complaint and attachments thereto contradicted the
technical admissions and Wells Fargo denied its technical admissions in its reply to
Donaldson’s answer and affirmative defenses); Ruiz v. De Varona, 785 So. 2d 508,
509 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (noting that a trial court is required to look beyond the
pleadings when determining the propriety of entering summary judgment and that
dismissal based solely on the failure to timely respond to a request for admissions
3
is error where the pleadings make clear the opposing party’s position and the
existence of disputed facts; and concluding that, because the record was replete
with evidence contradicting the technical admissions, it was error to grant
summary judgment); Sher v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 557 So. 2d 638, 639 (Fla. 3d
DCA 1990) (same).
In the instant case, the trial court clearly erred by involuntarily dismissing
HSBC’s foreclosure action based solely on its technical admissions because these
technical admissions were contradicted by HSBC’s pleadings, discovery responses,
and/or trial evidence; Parodi failed to argue or demonstrate prejudice; and the trial
court failed to find prejudice. Specifically, the record demonstrates that HSBC is
the owner and holder of the note, and became the owner and holder prior to filing
the foreclosure action; HSBC fulfilled or performed all conditions precedent to
acceleration; HSBC timely provided Parodi with the requisite notice prior to
acceleration; and Parodi defaulted under the terms of the note and mortgage by
failing to make the required payments and therefore owes money to HSBC.
Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment involuntarily dismissing HSBC’s
foreclosure action filed against Parodi and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
4