Miami-Dade Judge Erred in Denying Foreclosure, Appellate Court Rules
The court improperly excluded evidence and based the judgment partially on a defense the homeowner's counsel didn't raise, the appellate panel ruled.
November 08, 2017 at 03:03 PM
8 minute read
The Third District Court of Appeal also ruled Miami-Dade Circuit Senior Judge Judith Kreeger was wrong to find the bank's witness testimony was hearsay.
“The trial court was not authorized to deny foreclosure merely because it believed the borrower signed a 'bad bargain,' ” wrote Third DCA Judge Richard Suarez, with Chief Judge Leslie Rothenberg and Judge Vance Salter concurring. “ We thus reverse the entry of involuntary dismissal and remand for entry of final judgment of foreclosure.”
Homeowner Alfredo Brito was making his monthly mortgage payments as usual when in June 2008 his payment was rejected by his loan servicer, according to the appellate court. From then on, no other payments were made.
Two years later, the loan servicer advised Brito he was in default and demanded $60,000 as a remedy. Lender Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. then brought a foreclosure proceeding. In Brito's answer, his counsel did not allege the default came from any failure on the bank's part to notify him of a change in his payment amount or interest rate.
Brito's original loan servicer was absorbed by West Palm Beach-based Ocwen Loan Servicing in 2012, and an Ocwen representative testified at a two-day bench trial about the loan payment history and default letter.
Kreeger then entered a judgment in Brito's favor “concluding — in total contradiction to its admission of Ocwen's witness's testimony and documents into evidence at trial — that the testimony was hearsay, and that the bank had thus failed to prove [Brito] received a notice of payment or interest change that could trigger a default (while noting that such was not required),” the Third DCA found.
Kreeger excluded the demand letter and the payoff printout when she should have admitted them, the appellate court ruled. The Third DCA found the Ocwen witness met the “business records” exception to the hearsay rule, which requires only that he is qualified to authenticate the records, not that he personally prepared them.
Any lack of notice in a change to Brito's payment amount or interest rate was also irrelevant, the court ruled, as the homeowner's counsel never raised it.
Anthony Yanez and Nicole Topper of Blank Rome in Fort Lauderdale represented the bank. Yanez declined to comment.
Bruce Jacobs of Jacobs Keeley in Miami, who represents the homeowner, plans to seek rehearing and rehearing en banc. He argues the verification process for the loan servicer's records is questionable, as Ocwen is facing a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau complaint for shoddy recordkeeping. Among other things, Jacobs also claims the Ocwen witness lacked personal knowledge about whether a third-party vendor mailed the default letter.
“The trial court understood the Britos were elderly, suffered from dementia, paid religiously, and were forced into foreclosure because of the predatory financial product,” Jacobs said in an email. “Under the circumstances, it's appropriate to require Ocwen to comply with the rules of evidence and Florida Supreme Court precedent. No court is authorized to grant the equitable relief of foreclosure if there is unclean hands or insufficient evidence of standing to foreclose merely because the borrower defaulted on their mortgage.”
The Third District Court of Appeal also ruled Miami-Dade Circuit Senior Judge Judith Kreeger was wrong to find the bank's witness testimony was hearsay.
“The trial court was not authorized to deny foreclosure merely because it believed the borrower signed a 'bad bargain,' ” wrote Third DCA Judge Richard Suarez, with Chief Judge Leslie Rothenberg and Judge Vance Salter concurring. “ We thus reverse the entry of involuntary dismissal and remand for entry of final judgment of foreclosure.”
Homeowner Alfredo Brito was making his monthly mortgage payments as usual when in June 2008 his payment was rejected by his loan servicer, according to the appellate court. From then on, no other payments were made.
Two years later, the loan servicer advised Brito he was in default and demanded $60,000 as a remedy. Lender
Brito's original loan servicer was absorbed by West Palm Beach-based
Kreeger then entered a judgment in Brito's favor “concluding — in total contradiction to its admission of Ocwen's witness's testimony and documents into evidence at trial — that the testimony was hearsay, and that the bank had thus failed to prove [Brito] received a notice of payment or interest change that could trigger a default (while noting that such was not required),” the Third DCA found.
Kreeger excluded the demand letter and the payoff printout when she should have admitted them, the appellate court ruled. The Third DCA found the Ocwen witness met the “business records” exception to the hearsay rule, which requires only that he is qualified to authenticate the records, not that he personally prepared them.
Any lack of notice in a change to Brito's payment amount or interest rate was also irrelevant, the court ruled, as the homeowner's counsel never raised it.
Anthony Yanez and Nicole Topper of
Bruce Jacobs of Jacobs Keeley in Miami, who represents the homeowner, plans to seek rehearing and rehearing en banc. He argues the verification process for the loan servicer's records is questionable, as Ocwen is facing a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau complaint for shoddy recordkeeping. Among other things, Jacobs also claims the Ocwen witness lacked personal knowledge about whether a third-party vendor mailed the default letter.
“The trial court understood the Britos were elderly, suffered from dementia, paid religiously, and were forced into foreclosure because of the predatory financial product,” Jacobs said in an email. “Under the circumstances, it's appropriate to require Ocwen to comply with the rules of evidence and Florida Supreme Court precedent. No court is authorized to grant the equitable relief of foreclosure if there is unclean hands or insufficient evidence of standing to foreclose merely because the borrower defaulted on their mortgage.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All830 Brickell is Open After Two-Year Delay That Led to Winston & Strawn Pulling Lease
3 minute readMiami Lawyers Beat Other Local Sectors, Attorneys Elsewhere in Office Usage
3 minute read'Would've Been Snoring Without Ya': Fort Lauderdale Jury Awards $4.5 Million in Condo Investment Spat
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1First California Zantac Jury Ends in Mistrial
- 2Democrats Give Up Circuit Court Picks for Trial Judges in Reported Deal with GOP
- 3Trump Taps Former Fla. Attorney General for AG
- 4Newsom Names Two Judges to Appellate Courts in San Francisco, Orange County
- 5Biden Has Few Ways to Protect His Environmental Legacy, Say Lawyers, Advocates
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250