FRANK CAYARD
v.
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOC., ETC.
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.
Frank Cayard appealed a foreclosure judgment entered against him by U.S. Bank National Association. The court affirmed the judgment regarding U.S. Bank's standing to foreclose but partially reversed the judgment because it included miscalculated interest, excessive flood insurance charges, and unsupported legal expenses, and remanded for correction of these errors.
The court affirmed that U.S. Bank established standing to foreclose. However, the court reversed the judgment in part because it incorrectly calculated interest, included excessive flood insurance charges, and awarded unsupported legal expenses. The court remanded for an amended judgment recalculating interest properly, reducing flood insurance to the amount in the payment history, and removing legal expenses without prejudice to U.S. Bank seeking allowable court costs.
[1] A payment history for a loan is admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.
[2] A final judgment of foreclosure may be affirmed in part and reversed in part when specific components of the judgment are not supported by competent substantial evidence.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“U.S. Bank introduced the payment history on the loan. Cayard argues the payment history was "incomplete, out of date, and did not reflect the current debt owed on the mortgage." We conclude the court correctly admitted the payment history under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.”
Establishes that the payment history was properly admitted as evidence despite Cayard's challenges to its completeness and accuracy.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceU.S. Bank foreclosed on a mortgage held by Frank Cayard. At trial, U.S. Bank introduced payment history on the loan. The circuit court entered a final…
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 Standing To Foreclose cases and more on FLexlaw
KUNTZ, J.
Frank Cayard appeals the circuit court’s final judgment of foreclosure. He raises two issues. First, he argues U.S. Bank National Association failed to establish standing to foreclose. On this issue, we affirm without further discussion. Second, he argues the final judgment was not supported by competent substantial evidence. On this issue, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for entry of an amended final judgment.
At trial, U.S. Bank introduced the payment history on the loan. Cayard argues the payment history was “incomplete, out of date, and did not reflect the current debt owed on the mortgage.” We conclude the court correctly admitted the payment history under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. See § 90.803(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2020).
Although the payment history was properly admitted, the final judgment did not reflect the testimony and information related to the payment history in three areas.
First, U.S. Bank concedes that the circuit court mistakenly calculated accrued interest using a fixed interest rate over the entire life of the mortgage. Second, U.S. Bank agrees that the cost of flood insurance included in the final judgment was greater than the amount supported by the payment history. Third, U.S. Bank concedes that the amount of “legal expenses” included in the final judgment was not supported by the evidence.
We affirm the court’s final judgment except for those three issues. On remand, the circuit court must recalculate the proper amount of interest owed; reduce the amount of flood insurance to reflect the amount included on the payment history; and remove the awarded legal expenses without prejudice to U.S. Bank’s right to seek allowable court costs if those costs are properly sought.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for entry of an amended final judgment.
CONNER, C.J., and GERBER, J., concur.