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
© 2025 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 AllVedder Price Shareholder Javier Lopez Appointed to Miami Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board
2 minute readReal Estate Trends to Watch in 2025: Restructuring, Growth, and Challenges in South Florida
3 minute read830 Brickell is Open After Two-Year Delay That Led to Winston & Strawn Pulling Lease
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Didn't Notice Patient Wasn't Breathing': $13.7M Verdict Against Anesthesiologists
- 2'Astronomical' Interest Rates: $1B Settlement to Resolve Allegations of 'Predatory' Lending Cancels $534M in Small-Business Debts
- 3Senator Plans to Reintroduce Bill to Split 9th Circuit
- 4Law Firms Converge to Defend HIPAA Regulation
- 5Judge Denies Retrial Bid by Ex-U.S. Sen. Menendez Over Evidentiary Error
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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