The Florida Supreme Court released an opinion in Glass v. Nationstar, SC17-1387 with widespread implications in contract litigation, and mortgage foreclosure litigation in particular, as it relates to attorney's fee entitlement. In Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Glass, 219 So. 3d 896 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that where a borrower prevails on the issue of standing, the borrower cannot utilize the attorney's fee provisions of the note and mortgage to secure prevailing party attorney's fees. The rationale for this decision seemed simple, if the ...
Florida's 4th District Court of Appeal sent the real property and mortgage world into a frenzy this week after issuing its opinion in Ober v. Town of Lauderdale-By-The-Sea, dramatically weakening the protections of Florida's lis pendens statute. It held that a lien placed on a property after the foreclosure judgment which arises from an action occurring post-judgment, is not extinguished by Florida Statute §48.23. The term most commonly used in emails and articles drafted by attorneys to describe the impact of this decision on the lis pendens statute is "eviscerate". This type of ...
The brief era of confusion amongst Florida trial judges regarding the standard for judging compliance with conditions precedent in residential mortgage foreclosures is hopefully coming to a close. Despite a rash of written opinions from Florida trial judges adopting a strict compliance standard for contractual conditions precedent, Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeal joined the Second and the Third District Court of Appeal in adopting a substantial compliance standard in Bank of New York Mellon, etc. v. Donna D. Johnson, 5D14-3626 (Fla. 5th DCA Jan. 29, 2016). The opinion ...
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 ...
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 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 Bank of America, N.A. v. Kipps Colony II Condominium Association, Inc., the Second District Court of Appeal reversed a 2011 final judgment entered in favor of Kipps Colony II Condominium Association, Inc. ("Association"). See Nos. 2D14-858, 2D14-4436, 2015 WL 8321268 (Fla. 2d DCA Dec. 9, 2015). Though Bank of America had been defaulted in the Association's claim of lien foreclosure action, the appellate court found the trial court erred in denying Bank of America's Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) motion. Judge Black delivered the opinion of the court finding that the ...
In Ensler v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, the Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida was faced with the issue of whether a prior mortgage loan servicer's documents could be introduced into evidence when the current servicer testified the prior servicer's records were "accurate" because "[t]hey're a reputable big company and we trust them and they trust us." At trial, Plaintiff sought to introduce the following documents into evidence (through the testimony of the current servicer): the breach letter, payment history, and power of attorney. All of these documents were authored ...
In Hicks v. Wells Fargo, 5D14-1748, Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeal issued the first appellate opinion to pass on the proper method of pleading a re-filed foreclosure where a prior foreclosure effort was dismissed and certain defaults are now outside the five year statute of limitations for mortgage foreclosure. The facts of the case were as follows: a foreclosure complaint was filed in September 8, 2006 premised on the borrowers' alleged failure to make the June 1, 2006 payment. The complaint was voluntarily dismissed in 2008. A new notice of default was sent in 2011 ...
With its decision up on re-hearing, Florida's Third District Court of Appeal may be rethinking its decision in Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas v. Beauvais, No. 3D14-575, 2014 WL 7156961 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec. 17, 2014). In Beauvais, the court held that only a dismissal with prejudice will allow a cause of action for mortgage foreclosure to accrue after a failed foreclosure effort is dismissed. The effect of the decision was to render numerous foreclosures time-barred where a prior dismissal had been taken voluntarily, or otherwise without prejudice. The Third DCA acknowledged its ...
In Cooper v. Fay Servicing, LLC, 2015 WL 4470213 (S.D. Ohio July 17, 2015), the mortgagors sued the servicer of their real estate loan asserting claims for alleged violations of Regulation X relating to the loss mitigation process. Critical to this case was the timing of the loss mitigation process that resulted in the alleged Regulation X violations, the date of the foreclosure filing, and the date of the foreclosure sale. Specifically, the foreclosure proceeding was initiated on January 4, 2014, six days prior to the effective date of the CFPB's new Mortgage Rules, while the alleged ...
In Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Adriana Avila-Gonzalez, 2015 WL 2089094 (Fla. 3d DCA May 6, 2015), the Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court order that dismissed a foreclosure action with prejudice and cancelled the note and mortgage. Central to the Court's ruling was the determination that the Bank was negligent in asserting the note was lost, by pleadings and by affidavit, when the note was actually in the servicing agent's possession for the duration of the foreclosure action. Contrary to the trial court's ruling, the Court found the Bank's negligence did ...
In Russell v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D967a (Fla. 2d DCA Apr. 24, 2015), Florida's Second District Court of Appeal added to the emerging line of case law regarding the proof required to establish standing in mortgage foreclosure actions. There, the Second DCA held that substituted party-plaintiff, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, failed to establish at trial that either Nationstar or the original plaintiff, Aurora Loan Services, LLC, had standing as the servicer acting on behalf of the real party in interest to foreclose against borrower William Russell. As a result ...
In Etta Lowery v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, No. 2131060, 2015 WL 1525153 (Ala. Civ. App. Apr. 3, 2015), the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment on the pleadings entered in favor of Defendant-Appellee Wells Fargo on Plaintiff-Appellant Etta Lowery's claims relating to the notarization of her mortgage. Lowery had filed a complaint in the trial court against Wells Fargo alleging that her mortgage with Wells Fargo was void because it was notarized by a person she had never met. She also alleged that Wells Fargo concealed the improper notarization from her ...
In Roth v. CitiMortgage Inc., 2014 WL 2853549 (2nd Cir. June 24, 2014), the Second Circuit held that although a mortgage had three letters requesting various mortgage related information sent by her lawyer, the mortgagor's RESPA claim was properly dismissed on the basis that her lawyer's letters were not sent to CitiMortgage's designated QWR address. Accordingly, the requests were not QWRs under RESPA and did not trigger CitiMortgage's QWR duties under RESPA. In Roth, Defendant CitiMortgage Inc. serviced a second residential mortgage for Plaintiff Patricia Roth. Roth alleged ...
In Bryan v. Federal National Mortgage Association, 2014 WL 2988097 (M.D. Fla. July 2, 2014), plaintiffs alleged violations of RESPA and the applicable regulations set forth in 24 C.F.R. § 3500 and 12 C.F.R. § 1024.30, et seq. (Regulation X) against Seterus and Fannie Mae, respectively. The facts alleged that Fannie Mae was the "master servicer" of the note and mortgage, and Seterus was the "subservicer" of the note and mortgage. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that defendants Seterus, and Fannie Mae by the failure of Seterus, failed to take timely action to respond to ...
In Ros v. Lasalle Bank, N.A., et al., 14-CIV-22112-BLOOM/VALLE (S.D. Fla. July 18, 2014) the Southern District of Florida became the first United States District Court to apply the holding in Evergrene Partners, Inc. v. Citibank, N.A., 39 Fla. L. Weekly D1342 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) regarding efforts quiet title of a mortgage based upon the alleged expiration of the statute of limitations for mortgage foreclosure. As discussed in previous posts, after a failed foreclosure lawsuit occurs, it has become common for borrowers to file quiet title suits which allege that the applicable five ...
In Hunter v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, Case No. 1D12-6071 (Fla. 1st DCA March 4, 2014), the First District Court of Appeals found that a lender must lay the necessary foundation under the business records exception to admit documentation from a prior servicer into evidence. Florida Statutes, § 90.803(6) states that the party seeking admission of hearsay under the business records exception must establish four things. First, that the record was made at or near the time of the event; second, that the record was made by or from information transmitted by a person with knowledge; third ...
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held in Faire Feaz v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., No. 13-10230 (11th Cir. Feb. 10, 2014), that a lender may require a borrower who has a federally-insured mortgage to obtain more flood insurance than the amount required under federal law. Feaz had obtained a mortgage loan that was guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration ("FHA"). Feaz's mortgage contained the following covenant, which is required by federal law for all FHA-guaranteed mortgages:
Fire, Flood and Other Hazard Insurance. Borrower shall insure all improvements on the ...
In Richardson v. Wells Fargo, N.A., No. 13-10002 (5th Cir. 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that motions for attorney's fees provided by contract are permissible in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2). This rule provides that "a claim for attorney's fees and related nontaxable expenses must be made by motion unless the substantive law requires those fees to be proved at trial as an element of damages." Plaintiff Pamela Richardson obtained a loan from Wells Fargo to refinance the mortgage on her property. Plaintiff secured the debt with a deed of ...
In Young v. Wells Fargo, Case No. 12-1405 (1st Cir. May 21, 2013), the First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court's dismissal of plaintiff Susan Young's breach of contract claim premised on Wells Fargo's alleged failure to comply with its obligations under the Trial Period Plan ("TPP"), a temporary loan modification period during which Young applied for a permanent loan modification. Young alleged that, after falling behind on her mortgage payments, she entered into a series of discussions with Wells Fargo in an attempt to negotiate a loan modification. Eventually ...
In You et al. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al., No.S13Q0040(Ga. May 20, 2013), the Supreme Court of Georgia ruled that the holder of a security deed seeking to exercise a power of sale is not required to also hold the underlying promissory note. Further, the Court held that a party exercising its right to foreclose as a holder of the security deed does not need to identify the holder of the note in the statutorily-mandated notice to debtor. The borrowers in this case primarily argued that JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. did not have the right to exercise power of sale because it was not the holder of ...
In early 2010, the Florida Supreme Court amended Rule 1.110(b) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure to require that all residential foreclosure complaints be verified. The Rule requires a simple recitation:
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing, and the facts alleged therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110. Despite this straightforward language, foreclosure defendants regularly rely on this rule to seek dismissal of a foreclosure action on a variety of theories. Nonetheless,Florida Appellate ...In Wells Fargo Bank v. Bohatka, et al., 38 Fla. L. Weekly D885a (Fla. 1st DCA April 22, 2013), the Florida First DCA reversed dismissal with prejudice of a residential foreclosure complaint. While the appellate court agreed that dismissal of the complaint was proper, it held that dismissal with prejudice was not. The trial court erred by going beyond the four corners of the complaint on the borrowers' motion to dismiss. In its foreclosure complaint, Wells Fargo alleged that it was the owner and holder of the subject promissory note and mortgage by virtue of an equitable transfer which ...
The Florida Fourth DCA opinion in Shahar v. Green Tree Servicing, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D563d (Fla. 4th DCA March 6, 2013) demonstrates the dangers of inadequately addressing each and every affirmative defense raised by a foreclosure defendant. In Shahar, the appellate court reversed the trial court's entry of summary judgment where the lender did not factually or legally refute the defendants' unclean hands defense. The defendants' Verified Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim included allegations that the lender had engaged in a variety of inequitable and ...