DIANNE MORRISON AND MICHAEL HERBERT, APPELLANTS,
v.
US BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR CSAB, ETC., APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Pleading Specificity cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants challenge the final summary judgment in foreclosure entered in favor of Appellee. Appellants’ sole argument on appeal is that a disputed issue of material fact exists as to whether Appellee provided notice of default, as required by the language in the mortgage. Appellants denied that the notice had been provided, specifically quoting the language of the mortgage that pertained to the notice. Although Appellee attached a copy of the notice to its motion, the notice was not authenticated by affidavit or otherwise. The trial court overruled Appellants’ objection to the unauthenticated document. Appellee concedes that this was error, but nevertheless, contends that Appellants failed to raise the lack of notice in their pleading *388with the requisite specificity. We disagree and accordingly reverse and remand this cause for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
SAWAYA, TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bryson v. Branch Banking & Tr. Co., 75 So. 3d 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…9 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“Merely attaching documents which are not ‘sworn to or certified’ to a motion for summary judgment does not, without more, satisfy the procedural strictures inherent in Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(e).”); Morrison v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 66 So. 3d 387, 387 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (reversing summary judgment of foreclosure where defendant asserted she had not received a notice of default as required by the mortgage and the bank had simply filed an unauthenticated notice letter). In this case, the lett…
-
DiSALVO v. Suntrust Mortg., Inc., 115 So. 3d 438 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…eutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 96 So. 3d 1093, 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (‘While the bank filed copies of letters allegedly sent to her, these were not sworn and could not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.”); Morrison v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 66 So. 3d 387, 387 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (holding that the' bank’s filing of an unau [*440] thenticated notice letter failed to support summary judgment where the defendant asserted she had not received a notice of default); Bifulco v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co…
-
Beaumont v. Bank OF NEW York Mellon, 81 So. 3d 553 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…never offered into "evidence,” by being attached to an affidavit for purposes of authentification. As such, it is not competent evidence of the assignment and cannot be considered in ruling on Mellon’s motion. See, e.g., Morrison v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 66 So. 3d 387, 387 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (reversing summary judgment of foreclosure where defendant asserted she had not received a notice of default as required by mortgage, and bank had simply filed an unauthenticated notice letter).…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence