United States District Court, M.D. Florida
VIRMNIA M. HERNANDEZ COVIGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
cause comes before the Court pursuant to the Maduras'
“Motion for Reconsideration Under Rule 59(e) Standards
of Final Order Denying Emergency Rule 60(b)(6) Motion for in
Light of CSX Transportation Relief from July 13,
2010 Order and from July 17, 2013 SJ of Foreclosure”
(Doc. # 705), which was filed on March 23, 2017. The Court
denies the Motion.
exhaustive discussion of the history of this case is
unwarranted at this juncture. On July 17, 2013, the Court
entered an Order granting Bank of America's Motion for
Summary Judgment, as well as addressing a plethora of other
motions. (Doc. # 496). Among other things, the Court
determined that Bank of America was entitled to summary
judgment against the Maduras as to its foreclosure
to the entry of a final judgment, the Maduras filed a motion
to stay the case because their submission of a petition for
writ of mandamus to the Eleventh Circuit based on the
argument that this Court should have entered an Order of
recusal. (Doc. # 504). On August 12, 2013, the Court denied
the motion to stay. (Doc. # 520). Thereafter, on August 13,
2013, this Court entered its Final Judgment of Foreclosure.
(Doc. # 521). The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the Court's
Summary Judgment Order on November 10, 2014, in a lengthy and
detailed Opinion. (Doc. # 567)(Case 13-13953). The United
States Supreme Court denied the Maduras' petition for
writ of certiorari on October 9, 2015. (Doc. # 627).
America reports that the Maduras never paid the total amount
due and owing under the Final Judgment and the United States
Marshal held a public sale of the property on February 11,
2016, at 2:00PM at the Manatee County Courthouse. (Doc. # 636
at 3). Bank of America was the successful bidder. The United
States Marshal filed a Report of Sale on February 16, 2016.
(Doc. # 633). Thereafter, Bank of America filed a Motion
seeking an Order confirming the foreclosure sale. (Doc. #
636). The Maduras, on the other hand, filed a Motion seeking
an Order vacating the sale. (Doc. # 6 37). On April 6, 2016,
the Court granted Bank of America's Motion to Confirm the
Foreclosure Sale and denied the Maduras' Motion to Vacate
Foreclosure Sale. (Doc. # 639).
response, the Maduras filed an appeal, and sought leave to
proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. By Order of the Eleventh
Circuit, the Maduras' appeal was determined to be
frivolous and their motion for leave to appeal in forma
pauperis was denied. (Doc. # 688). The Eleventh Circuit
explained that the Maduras never paid the amount owing on the
mortgage, the sale was conducted in the county where the
property is located, the Bank complied with the terms
provided by the Court's Order of foreclosure, and the
notice of the sale satisfied relevant federal and state
notice requirements. (Id.).
Bank, as the owner of the property, filed a Motion for Writ
of Possession. The Maduras opposed the issuance of the Writ
of Possession by arguing that their nephew, Lucas Lapinski,
signed a lease to inhabit the property for a two year term at
the rate of $639 a month. After protracted proceedings, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Writ of Possession on January 26,
2017. (Doc. # 689). The Magistrate Judge considered
affidavits provided by the parties and determined that the
lease was not valid because it was not approved by the
Condominium Association. (Id. at 9). The Magistrate
Judge also held that “Mr. Lapinski is not paying fair
market rate for this Condominium” and found “the
lease was granted Mr. Lapinski on favorable terms below
market value as a blocking move to prevent [the Bank] from
gaining possession.” (Id. at 10). The Maduras
have filed a Motion for Reconsideration regarding the
issuance of the Writ of Possession (Doc. # 692), which will
be addressed via separate Order.
February 22, 2017, the Maduras filed a Motion for
Reconsideration “in light of controlling Eleventh
Circuit law set forth in January 31, 2017 CSX
Transportation v. General Mills.” (Doc. # 693). At
the direction of the Court, Bank of America responded to the
Motion. (Doc. # 700). On March 8, 2017, the Court issued a
detailed decision on the Motion for Reconsideration and
discussed CSX Transportation at length. (Doc. #
702). Ultimately, the Court held: “The CSX
decision is not applicable.” (Id. at 9).
the Maduras seek reconsideration of the Order denying
reconsideration still predicated upon the application of
Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60 govern motions for
reconsideration. Ludwig v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins.
Co., Case No. 8:03-cv-2378-T-17MAP, 2005 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 37718, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2005). The time when
the party files the motion determines whether the motion will
be evaluated under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60. Id. A Rule
59(e) motion must be filed within 28 days after the entry of
the judgment. Motions filed after the 28-day period will be
decided under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
stated in Florida College of Osteopathic Medicine, Inc.
v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 12 F.Supp.2d 1306, 1308
(M.D. Fla. 1998), “A motion for reconsideration must
demonstrate why the court should reconsider its past decision
and set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to
induce the court to reverse its prior decision.”
Further, “in the interests of finality and conservation
of scarce judicial resources, reconsideration is an
extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly.”
Lamar Adver. of Mobile, Inc. v. City of Lakeland,
189 F.R.D. 480, 489 (M.D. Fla. 1999).
Rule 60(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., is available to relieve a party
from a final ...