GARY GOODENOW AND MARY GOODENOW,
v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC,
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court affirmed a foreclosure judgment, holding that a loan servicer can enforce a jury trial waiver in a mortgage agreement even if not a direct party or assignee. The court found sufficient evidence that the servicer acted as the loan owner's agent and holder of the note.
Yes, a loan servicer can enforce a jury trial waiver. The court held that competent substantial evidence established Nationstar's role as loan servicer, agent for the owner, and holder of the note, providing a sufficient basis to enforce the waiver.
[1] A loan servicer, acting as the loan owner's agent and holder of the note, may enforce a jury trial waiver in a mortgage foreclosure action.
[2] Competent substantial evidence establishing a party's status as a loan servicer, agent, and holder of the note is sufficient to support enforcement of a jury trial waiver…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Competent substantial evidence introduced at trial established that Nationstar is the loan servicer, the loan owner’s agent and the holder of the note.”
Establishes the factual basis for the court's decision regarding Nationstar's role.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Goodenows appealed a foreclosure judgment, arguing the trial court wrongly denied their motion to strike the jury trial waiver. They contended Nat…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Holder Of A Note cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Goodenows appeal a final judgment of foreclosure entered against them after a bench trial, alleging the trial court erred in denying their motion to strike the jury trial waiver. Specifically, the Goodenows assert that Nationstar cannot enforce the jury trial waiver because it is not a party to or assignee of the underlying mortgage. We disagree.
Competent substantial evidence introduced at trial established that Nationstar is the loan servicer, the loan owner’s agent and the holder of the note. This evidence provided a sufficient legal basis for the trial to court to enforce the jury trial waiver. See Kinney v. Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 165 So. 3d 691, 694 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (enforcing jury trial waiver and holding that “the Bank was the holder of the note and mortgage by virtue of an endorsement. See Riggs v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 36 So. 3d 932, 934 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (holding that bank’s submission of ‘the original note with a blank endorsement . . . supported its claim that it was the proper holder of the note and mortgage.’”); see also Greer v. O’Dell, 305 F. 3d 1297, 1302 (11th Cir. 2002) (“A servicer is a party in interest in proceedings involving loans which it services.”); Traver v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 3:14-CV-895-J-32MCR, 2016 WL 7666125 (M.D. Fla. July 26, 2016) (determining loan servicer was entitled to enforce jury trial waiver in mortgage on breach of contract claim); Charles v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., No. 1:15-CV-21826-KMM, 2016 WL 950968, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 14, 2016) (“[S]ince SPS
would be able to enforce the mortgage’s jury trial waiver given its relationship with Deutsche Bank, by extension, SPS can also enforce the mortgage’s notice and cure provision.” (footnote omitted)); Martorella v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., No. 12-80372-CIV, 2013 WL 1136444 (S.D. Fla. March 18, 2013) (applying mortgage waiver to servicer and trustee); Hancock v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., No. 8:06– CV–1724–T–27EAJ, 2006 WL 6319816 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 24, 2006) (holding assignees of the original lender could enforce a jury trial waiver). Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Riggs v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 36 So. 3d 932 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Trenda Kinney v. Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 165 So. 3d 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- Greer v. O'Dell, 305 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir. 2002)
- Norris v. Suntrust Banks, Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2020)