The servicer admitted the homeowner was never told his trial was scheduled
Nationstar Mortgage lost a foreclosure judgment it had already won - because the borrower never found out about his own trial.
Florida’s Sixth District Court of Appeal on October 23 reversed a foreclosure judgment after Nationstar Mortgage, LLC conceded that the homeowner did not receive notice of his foreclosure trial until after it had already taken place. The court vacated the judgment and ordered a new trial.
The borrower, representing himself from Punta Gorda, had been served with the original foreclosure complaint and filed his own pleadings in response. He was an active participant in the case. But according to the appellate opinion, he was never notified when the trial was scheduled - or that it had gone ahead without him.
He raised the problem twice with the Charlotte County Circuit Court, including in a motion for rehearing. The trial court denied that motion on the merits in what the appeals court described as “an unelaborated order.”
On appeal, Nationstar did not contest the point. The servicer conceded that the judgment “was entered without adequate notice” to the borrower and that “remand for a new foreclosure trial is required.”
The three-judge panel - accepted the concession. Citing established Florida precedent, the court stated that “a judgment procured without notice or opportunity to be heard is void.” The panel also invoked the principle that notice to legally interested parties “is the essence of the procedural due process protections provided by the Florida Constitution.”
Because the notice failure resolved the appeal on its own, the court did not reach the borrower’s other arguments. Those included a challenge to the trial court’s failure to rule on his motion to dismiss, arguments on the substance of his defenses, and arguments about the denial of rehearing.
From there, the story gets messier.
A foreclosure sale had already gone through before the borrower’s motion to block it could be heard. The court affirmed the denial of that injunctive relief on mootness grounds - once the sale closed, there was nothing left to enjoin. But the opinion pointed to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(5), noting that the reversal of the underlying judgment now gives the parties a basis to ask the lower court to vacate the sale itself.
So a completed foreclosure sale is now in play - because the servicer did not notify the borrower that his day in court was happening.
For servicers and foreclosure teams, the lesson lands squarely on process: a notice gap in the trial sequence does not just slow things down. It can undo the entire chain, including a sale that already closed.
The decision is not yet final. Time remains for either party to file a motion for rehearing.
