Oppenheim Law has frequently assisted clients with their appeals. The appellate process is crucial as it could be considered the final step in litigation. Through our appellate counseling we have been able to secure verdicts for our clients who faced unfavorable decisions in their original trials and defend the merits of the trial court’s decision on behalf of those who have had an opposing party appeal a decision by the trial court rendered in their favor. Throughout our appellate representation we have addressed different issues ranging from evidentiary issues to misapplication of legal standards. With our knowledge and experience handling a variety of appeals, Oppenheim Law can help you navigate through this process. Should you have any questions concerning appellate practice please feel free to give us a call at (954) 384-6114.
Epstein v. Bank of Am., No. 4D13-4066, 2015 WL 340781 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
Bank of America had prevailed against our client by obtaining a Final Judgment of Foreclosure in 2009. The foreclosure sale was completed in September 2010 and Bank of America purchased the property at the sale. On October 29, 2010 the Broward County Property Appraiser notified the bank that the legal description contained in the Final Judgment was incorrect by issuing a Notice of Insufficiency of Deed. This error resulted in the bank obtaining a foreclosure judgment against the incorrect property. On September 28, 2012, almost 3 years after the foreclosure judgment was granted, and practically 2 years after receiving the notice of insufficiency of deed, the bank filed its first motion to vacate the foreclosure sale, foreclosure judgment, the certificate of sale and the certificate of title due to the error in the legal description of the property. The trial court denied and the bank’s first motion to vacate and on January 22, 2013 the bank filed a second motion to vacate asserting that the incorrect legal description rendered the judgment “void.” . Our client opposed this motion but the trial court ruled in favor of the bank. Our client appealed the trial court decision and prevailed in the Fourth District Court of Appeals who reversed the trial court, finding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the matter due to the time lapse between the entry of the judgment and the filing of the motion to vacate. Bank filed a motion for Rehearing which is pending.
J & J Prop. Concepts, Inc. v. D & S Keyser Properties, LLC, 117 So. 3d 426 (Fla.4th DCA 2013)
After being put in a compromising position by previous counsel, who failed to timely respond on their behalf, resulting in a default being entered against our clients, our clients faced a foreclosure judgment and a deficiency judgment. To fight this decision our clients needed to appeal the judgments to the Fourth District Court of Appeals while continuing to make motions within the Broward County court system. Throughout this process we represented the client in working to vacate the judgments and default that had been entered against them both at the appellate level and the trial court level via the filing of several 1.540 motions to vacate. Ultimately motions filed at the trial court level brought forth evidence that the judgments of foreclosure and deficiency had been improperly and unfairly entered against our clients in violation of the Rules of Civil Procedure. These motions were granted, and the trial court ultimately vacated both judgments against our clients, a decision which was affirmed by the Fourth District Court of Appeals. The trial court also subsequently vacated the defaults against our clients and they were permitted to defend the matter on the merits.
Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Finger, 149 So. 3d 24 (Fla.4th DCA 2014)
Deutsche Bank initiated a foreclosure proceeding against our client. Once the case was set for trial the judge issued a trial order requiring that each party submit a final witness list no less than 10 days before trial. Deutsche Bank submitted a witness list 20 days before trial naming one specific witness who would be testifying about Deutsche’s business records. Deutsche then proceeded to disregard the court’s order and submitted a second witness list one week prior to trial. This second list named a different witness. Our firm, on behalf of the client, opposed the testimony from the second, untimely disclosed witness asserting that it would be prejudicial since we were not given adequate time to prepare for the cross examination of this second witness. The trial court inquired as to why the lender had chosen to amend the witness list so late, a question which they were unable to answer. The trial court was dissatisfied with the willful noncompliance with the trial courts order by Deutsche Bank and dismissed the case. The bank appealed this decision to the Fourth District Court of Appeals who agreed with the trial court’s ruling and affirmed the decision.