In a split two-one decision, Florida's Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the decision reached below and held that Fla. Stat. 559.715's notice of assignment provision does not create a condition precedent to foreclosure. The case is Brindise v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 2D14-3316, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 653 (Fla. 2d DCA Jan. 20, 2015). The Second DCA further certified the following question to the Florida Supreme Court as a matter of great public importance: "IS THE PROVISION OF WRITTEN NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT UNDER SECTION 559.715 A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE INSTITUTION OF A FORECLOSURE ...
For years, counsel for borrowers have successfully argued that the bank failed to meet conditions precedent required under Section 559.715 of Florida's Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA"). Procedurally, this argument has been raised in the borrower's answer to the mortgage foreclosure complaint. Rather than simply alleging it as a well-pled affirmative defense, the borrower generally denies that the lender complied with all conditions precedent required to bring a mortgage foreclosure action. The borrowers' strategy is to then move for summary judgment denying ...
The writing was on the wall following Justice Elena Kagan's dissent in Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523 (2013), wherein Justice Kagan blasted the view that an unaccepted offer of complete relief made to a named plaintiff pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 is capable of mooting the plaintiff's individual (and putative class) claims as "wrong, wrong, and wrong again," id. at 1533 (Kagan, J., dissenting) - a position that every Court of Appeals to rule on the issue after Genesis Healthcare had adopted - and on January 20, 2016, the Supreme Court made it official. In a 6-3 ...
In Cowen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Jean Marie Delvar, 4D14-763, 2015 WL 8347300 (Fla. 4th DCA Dec. 9, 2015) the borrower alleged that he had been offered a loan modification and accepted and relied on that offer by making loan payments in accordance with the offered terms. The trial judge found that this was sufficient to state a defense to foreclosure on promissory estoppel principals and entered an order reforming the mortgage to reflect the alleged new terms. Ocwen appealed the judgment of the trial court. In reversing the trial court, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the ...
In the case of Sill v. JPMorgan Chase Bank National Association, Michael Sill appealed a final judgment of foreclosure entered in favor of JPMorgan Chase Bank ("Chase"), in which he asserted three issues. 4D14-1014, 2016 WL 67256 (Fla. 4th DCA Jan. 6, 2016). Of note, is Mr. Sill's third contention arguing that Chase was required to send a new notice of default after it voluntarily dismissed the first suit and before it filed the second suit. The Fourth DCA affirmed on all issues, but it wrote an opinion to address the sole issue of whether a new notice of default was required to be sent by ...
With its recently-issued opinion in Elsman v. HSBC Bank USA as Trustee for MLMI 2006-AF1, slip op. 5D14-1753, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D57b, 2015 WL 9491875 (Dec. 31, 2015), the Fifth DCA has added to a growing body of case law regarding what is required to evidence a plaintiff's standing to foreclose a mortgage. In Elsman, the plaintiff asserted standing as holder of the promissory note at issue but failed to attach an endorsed copy of the promissory note at issue to its complaint or to present any alternate evidence of its status as holder. Because the plaintiff, HSBC Bank USA, as Trustee for MLMI ...
In OneWest Bank, FSB v. Gino Alessio, et al., 4D14-1444 (Fla. 4th DCA Jan. 6, 2014), the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial judge's order dismissing a foreclosure after the defendant improperly used a motion in limine to exclude the bank's sole witness and procured dismissal of the action. While the trial court's order was ostensibly a sanction for violating the pre-trial order's requirements regarding witness and exhibit lists, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed because the trial court failed to consider the factors set forth in the Florida Supreme Court's ...
In Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company v. Dennis M. Conley, 4D14-2430 (Fla. 4th DCA Jan. 6, 2016), Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal clarified the methods by which a foreclosure plaintiff can seek to enforce a note indorsed to another party. Specifically, the court held that, "[w]here a bank is seeking to enforce a note which his specially indorsed to another, the bank is a nonholder in possession." The court went on to hold that in order to prove standing as a non-holder the plaintiff must provide proof of an effective transfer, purchase of the debt, or a valid assignment. In ...
In Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Estrella Perez, et al., No. 3D15-58, 2015 WL 8347002 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec. 9, 2015), Florida's Third District Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in dismissing a foreclosure case on the ground that Plaintiff failed to specifically name its corporate representative that would testify at trial. Burr & Forman LLP attorneys Brendan A. Sweeney, Esq. and Douglas J. Stamm, Esq. represented Plaintiff/Appellant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company on behalf of LSF MRA Pass-Through Trust ("Deutsche Bank") at the trial and appellate level. On ...