12170 CWELT-2007 LLC v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT

12170 CWELT-2007 LLC,
Appellant,

Vv.

GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC,
Appellee.

No. 4D2024-1907
[April 29, 2026]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,
Broward County; Marina Garcia-Wood, Judge; L.T. Case No.
062014CA004643AXXXCE.

Kenzie N. Sadlak of Kenzie N. Sadlak, PA, Miami, for appellant.

Robert Edwards and David Rosenberg of Robertson, Anschutz,
Schneid, Crane & Partners, PLLC, Boca Raton, for appellee.

LOTT, J.

We address only one issue in this appeal: whether the trial court erred
by holding a hearing on Appellant 12170 CWELT-2007 LLC’s (“CWELT’s”)
motion for reconsideration while CWELT was not represented by counsel.
We hold that the error, if any, is harmless because the court was not
required to conduct oral argument on the motion, and the legally
insufficient motion could properly be denied on the papers alone. !

Some truncated background.

On March 9, 2023, CWELT filed an amended motion for reconsideration
of prior facts found and rulings made by Judge Gundersen under Florida

1 We address only this issue, and otherwise summarily affirm.

2
Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.330(j) (2021), given
that a motion to disqualify Judge Gundersen had been filed.2
On June 10, 2024, Appellee Green Tree Servicing, LLC (“Green Tree”),
which opposed the motion, noticed the motion for a June 24, 2024, five-
minute Zoom hearing.
On June 24, 2024, the trial court held the short hearing. 	CWELT, a
corporate defendant, was unrepresented at the time because the court had
previously permitted its counsel leave to withdraw and given it thirty days
to obtain new counsel.3 That period had not yet lapsed when the June 24,
2024 hearing occurred. 	CWELT, lacking counsel, was not permitted to
speak at the hearing.4 	Green Tree briefly argued at the hearing that the
pending motion was moot but did not address the motion’s substance.
On June 26, 2024, the trial court summarily denied as moot the
amended motion for reconsideration.
Even assuming that CWELT is correct that the trial court should not
have conducted the June 24, 2024 hearing, given that CWELT permissibly
lacked representation at the time, any error was harmless.5 The operative
March 9, 2023 motion for reconsideration of Judge Gundersen’s rulings
2 We see no reason to dive deeper into Judge Gundersen’s rulings, or other rulings
by the next judge, Judge Garcia-Wood.
3 Corporate parties, of course, must be represented by attorneys licensed to
practice law in Florida and cannot represent themselves or appear through a non-
attorney officer. E.g., Szteinbaum v. Kaes Inversiones y Valores, C.A., 476 So. 2d
247, 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (“It is well recognized that a corporation, unlike a
natural person, cannot represent itself and cannot appear in a court of law
without an attorney.” (citing Nicholson Supply Co. v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n
of Hardee Cnty., 184 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966))).
4 CWELT’s manager, a non-attorney corporate officer, appeared for CWELT. But
pursuant to the authority discussed in note 3 above, he was not permitted to
address the court on CWELT’s behalf.
5 “To test for harmless error” in civil matters, “the beneficiary of the error has the
burden to prove that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict.
Alternatively stated, the beneficiary of the error must prove that there is no
reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.” 	Special v. W.
Boca Med. Ctr., 160 So. 3d 1251, 1256 (Fla. 2014).

3
was legally insufficient because it was untimely.6 It was due to be denied
with or without oral argument.
A hearing—an audience with the judge for the parties—concerning a
motion can be either evidentiary or non-evidentiary, depending on the
nature of the relief requested in the motion.7 	Non-evidentiary motion
hearings are fairly called “oral arguments.” 	Cf. Shahar v. Green Tree
Servicing LLC, 125 So. 3d 251, 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (describing hearing
on motion for summary judgment as one that “consists of the legal
argument of counsel, not the taking of evidence”) (citation omitted).
A trial court is generally not required to have oral argument on motions
that do not need to be proven (or disproven) with evidence. The court may
6 Under rule 2.330(l), the motion to disqualify Judge Gundersen was “deemed
granted” on January 14, 2023—thirty days after it was filed. 	The motion for
reconsideration should have been filed within thirty days thereafter, see rule
2.330(j), but was not. We do not pass on whether the motion suffered from any
other legal defects besides timeliness. 	To the extent the trial court denied the
motion other than on the basis of timeliness and erred in doing so (which, again,
we do not decide), we affirm under the “tipsy coachman” rule. 	“Under the tipsy
coachman rule, if a trial court reaches the right result, but for the wrong reasons,
it will be upheld if there is any basis which would support judgment in the
record.” Bueno v. Workman, 20 So. 3d 993, 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (quotation
and citation omitted).
7 	Because 	an 	evidentiary 	hearing 	involves 	taking 	evidence, 	neither 	the
submission of affidavits nor oral arguments, alone, is sufficient to constitute an
evidentiary hearing. 	“Since the purpose of an evidentiary hearing is to allow a
party to have a fair opportunity to contest the factual issues, this purpose is not
effectuated if a party is not allowed to testify.” 	Sperdute v. Household Realty
Corp., 585 So. 2d 1168, 1169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (quotation omitted). 	By
contrast, when a hearing consists entirely of oral argument and the submission
of affidavits, it is a non-evidentiary hearing. Block v. Tosun, 77 So. 3d 871, 874
n.2 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“[N]either the submission of affidavits nor argument of
counsel is sufficient to constitute an evidentiary hearing.” (citing Fern, Ltd. v. Rd.
Legends, Inc., 698 So. 2d 364, 365 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997))).

4
decide these on the papers alone.8 	See Nudel v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, 52
So. 3d 692, 694 n.3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“We are aware of no rule or law
that requires a trial court to hear oral argument on a pretrial, non-
evidentiary motion.”); First City Devs. of Fla., Inc. v. Hallmark of Hollywood
Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 545 So. 2d 502, 503 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), disapproved
of on other grounds by Bd. of Trs. of Internal Improvement Tr. Fund v. Am.
Educ. Enters., LLC, 	99 	So. 	3d 	450 	(Fla. 	2012) 	(“There 	is 	no 	rule 	of
procedure or law that requires the trial court to have oral argument as to
such [discovery] objections; rather, the trial court may simply review the
discovery sought, the objections thereto, and rule on said objections
without the necessity of a hearing [i.e., oral argument].”); Gaspar, Inc. v.
Naples Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 546 So. 2d 764, 766 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
(“Judicial consideration and determination of a non-evidentiary motion on
the basis of memoranda of law rather than oral argument by counsel at a
noticed hearing does not constitute an ex parte hearing or a denial of due
process.”); accord Admin. Ord. No. 2020-012 PA/PI-CIR, In re: Motions
Decided on Written Submissions – Civil Division (Fla. 6th Cir. Ct. Apr. 24,
2020) (“There is no rule or law in Florida state or federal court that requires
a trial judge to hear oral argument on a pretrial non-evidentiary motion.”)
(“All parties are hereby noticed that pretrial non-evidentiary motions may
8 We say “generally” because we have required oral argument in certain cases
where rules or statutes require a “hearing.” Cf. Kirkpatrick Tr. v. Lakeview Loan
Servs., LLC., 377 So. 3d 650, 652 n.3 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024) (“While hearings on
certain motions are required by rule or statute, this is not so for a motion to
intervene.”). For example, with respect to the pre-2021 summary judgment rule,
we held that “the rule does not provide the trial court with discretion to decide
whether a hearing is required.” 	Kozich v. Hartford Ins. Co. of Midwest, 609 So.
2d 147, 148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (cleaned up).
But that is not to say that the requirement of a “hearing” can never be
accomplished by considering the papers alone. 	“Hearing” a motion is plainly
what a court does when it considers whether to grant requested relief on the
papers without oral argument. 	Accord Bruce J. Berman & Peter D. Webster, 4
Fla. Prac., Civil Procedure § 1.090:16 (2025) (“It follows that the right to be ‘heard’
cannot necessarily mean only orally; to the contrary, unless Rule 1.090 is
construed to impose a requirement in addition to the basic constitutional due
process right, the movant whose papers have been reviewed by the court has
certainly had the opportunity to be ‘heard.’”); cf. The Fla. Bar v. Rapoport, 845 So.
2d 874, 877 (Fla. 2003) (“We deem it unnecessary to reach the issue of whether
rule 1.510(c) mandates a hearing before summary judgment may be entered in a
civil proceeding if there has been adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard,
and the party opposing the summary judgment has failed to show that there are
any material issues in dispute.”).

5
be subject to review and rulings by a judge based only upon the motion
along with written argument and any authority timely filed in the action.”).
Where a motion is legally insufficient on its face (whether or not the
motion purports to require evidence), a court may generally deny the
motion without oral argument or without a written response from the
opposing party. 	See Aubourg v. Erazo, 922 So. 2d 1106, 1108 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2006) (en banc) (“[T]he trial court is entitled to assume that the
party’s motion for new trial contains all relevant arguments such that an
oral hearing is unnecessary before the court denies the motion.”).
And if the opposing party provides, or at least has the opportunity to
provide, a written response, the court may grant a legally sufficient motion
that does not turn on evidence without having oral argument on the
motion.9 	See id. (“Further, if the court contemplates granting the motion
for new trial, the court can satisfy due process by holding a hearing or
giving the opposing party an opportunity to be heard through written
responses.”); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Montgomery Ward, 538 So. 2d 974, 975
(Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (no error in failing to conduct “hearing” before
granting motion for involuntary dismissal where “both parties fully argued
their respective positions on the motion in the form of legal memoranda
submitted to the trial court”).
Here, because the March 9, 2023 motion for reconsideration was
untimely, it was due to be denied with or without oral argument and with
or without a written response from the opposing party. 	Any error in
holding oral argument while CWELT was without counsel is harmless.
Oral argument was not required at all. 	CWELT had the opportunity, in
the motion itself, to demonstrate why the motion should be granted.
CWELT did not do so. 	The court hearing Green Tree’s position at the
hearing, even while CWELT was unrepresented, did nothing to impact that
reality.
Affirmed.
KLINGENSMITH and SHAW , JJ., concur.
9 A trial court could afford an opportunity to respond by setting a reasonable
deadline for the opposing party to file a written response to the motion, either by
issuing an order or through its standing orders or procedures. 	If the opposing
party fails to respond by the deadline or timely seek and receive an extension for
good cause, the court may proceed to rule on the motion without the benefit of
their response.

Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.