A Florida homeowner has won an appeal against a foreclosure judgment after he received notice of the trial only after the proceedings had concluded. On October 23, 2026, Florida’s Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed the foreclosure judgment against Robert Dwayne Harris, ruling that the case must return to the lower court for a new trial. According to the court’s opinion available on Justia in Robert Dwayne Harris v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, the mortgage company acknowledged that Harris had not received timely notice of the trial, depriving him of an opportunity to present his defences. The ruling restores his opportunity to contest the foreclosure, although it does not itself resolve the underlying dispute.
Homeowner challenged the foreclosure judgment
The case arose from a foreclosure action brought by Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, against Harris in Charlotte County, Florida. Harris appealed the final foreclosure judgment, the denial of his request for a rehearing and the denial of his motion to stop the foreclosure sale. According to the appellate opinion, Harris had been served with the foreclosure complaint and had filed pleadings in response. However, despite participating in the case at that stage, he did not receive notice of the foreclosure trial until after the trial had already taken place.This meant Harris was unable to attend the trial with proper notice and present his arguments against the foreclosure before the judgment was entered. He subsequently brought the notice problem to the attention of the trial court on two occasions, including through a motion for rehearing. The lower court denied that motion without providing a detailed explanation in its order.Harris then challenged the decisions before the Sixth District Court of Appeal, arguing that the foreclosure judgment should not stand when he had not been given a fair opportunity to be heard.
Mortgage company acknowledged the notice failure
A significant development in the appeal was Nationstar Mortgage’s concession that the judgment had been entered without adequate notice to Harris. The company agreed that the case needed to be sent back for a new foreclosure trial. The appeals court accepted that concession and focused on the procedural defect rather than examining every argument Harris had raised about the underlying foreclosure dispute.The opinion emphasised the importance of notice and the opportunity to be heard in legal proceedings. It cited the principle that a judgment obtained without notice or an opportunity to be heard is void. The court also referred to Florida decisions recognising that notifying people with a legal interest in a case is an essential part of procedural due process. These protections are intended to ensure that parties affected by a court decision have a meaningful opportunity to put forward their claims and defences before a judgment is made. In Harris’s case, the lack of timely notice prevented him from presenting his defences at the foreclosure trial.
Appeals court ordered a new trial
In its October 23 decision, the Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed the final foreclosure judgment and remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings. The court did not decide whether Harris’s substantive defences against foreclosure were valid, leaving those issues for further proceedings in the lower court.The appellate judges also declined to address Harris’s other arguments, including his contention that the trial court had entered judgment without ruling on his motion to dismiss. Because the lack of adequate notice resolved the immediate issue, the court considered it unnecessary to decide the remaining questions at that stage. The ruling therefore gives Harris another opportunity to contest the foreclosure in proceedings where he must receive appropriate notice. It does not amount to a final determination that he is entitled to keep the property or that the mortgage company has no valid foreclosure claim.
Foreclosure sale issue remains separate
The appeals court treated Harris’s request to enjoin the foreclosure sale differently from his challenge to the judgment itself. It affirmed the denial of the injunction because the sale had already taken place before the motion was heard, making the request moot. An injunction is generally intended to prevent an anticipated harm, rather than reverse an event that has already occurred. The court cited this principle in explaining why it would not overturn the denial of injunctive relief.However, the opinion noted that reversing the foreclosure judgment could provide grounds for the parties to seek an order from the lower court vacating the foreclosure sale under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(5). The reversal does not automatically cancel the completed sale.The appellate decision was therefore mixed: the denial of injunctive relief was affirmed, but the foreclosure judgment was reversed and the case remanded. The next stage will allow the foreclosure dispute to proceed with the required procedural safeguards.
