BRUCE L. BLUM, APPELLANT,
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY, AMERICAS AS TRUSTEE, UNKNOWN SPOUSE OF BRUCE L. BLUM, IF ANY, ANY AND ALL UNKNOWN PARTIES CLAIMING BY, THROUGH, UNDER, AND AGAINST THE HEREIN NAMED INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT(S) WHO ARE NOT KNOW TO BE DEAD OR ALIVE, WHETHER SAID UNKNOWN PARTIES MAY CLAIM AN INTEREST AS SPOUSES, HEIRS, DEVISES, GRANTEES OR OTHER CLAIMANTS, JOHN DOE AND JANE DOES, AS UNKNOWN TENANTS IN POSSESSION, APPELLEES
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.
Florida appellate court reversed a foreclosure judgment because the lender failed to prove it complied with the mortgage's contractual requirement to mail a notice of default to the borrower at the property address before commencing foreclosure.
A lender must comply with the mortgage's condition precedent requiring notice of default to be mailed to the borrower at the property address before commencing foreclosure.
[1] A lender's failure to provide notice of default to the borrower at the notice address specified in the mortgage, as a condition precedent to foreclosure, requires reversa…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Neither Borrower nor Lender may commence ... any judicial action ... that arises from the other party's actions pursuant to this Security Instrument or that alleges that the other party has breached any provision of, or any duty owed by reason of, this Security Instrument, until such Borrower or Lender has notified the other party ... of such alleged breach and afforded the other party hereto a reasonable period after the giving such notice to take corrective action.”
Paragraph twenty of the mortgage defining the condition precedent to foreclosure
Deutsche Bank sought to foreclose on Bruce Blum's mortgage. Deutsche Bank admitted a breach letter into evidence but failed to prove it was mailed to …
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 Notice Requirements In Contracts cases and more on FLexlaw
In this appeal from a final judgment of foreclosure in favor of Deutsche Bank Trust Company, we reverse the final judgment because Deutsche Bank failed to prove that it complied with the mortgage and note’s contractual requirement to mail a notice of default to appellant as a condition precedent to foreclosure. The “breach letter” admitted into evidence did not meet the requirement in the mortgage to deliver the default notice to appellant at the “notice address,” defined in the mortgage as “the property address.” Paragraph twenty of the mortgage provides in pertinent part that “[njeither Borrower nor Lender may commence ... any judicial action ... that arises from the other party’s actions pursuant to this Security Instrument or that alleges that the other party has breached any provision of, or any duty owed by reason of, this Security Instrument, until such Borrower or Lender has notified the other party ... of such alleged breach and afforded the other party hereto a reasonable period after the giving such notice to take corrective action.” Deutsche Bank’s failure to comply with the condition precedent to filing suit requires a dismissal of the case. See Holt v. Calchas, LLC, 155 So.3d 499, 507 n. 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (reversing for a dismissal because there was insufficient evidence that notice of default was sent). Because we are reversing and remanding *921for a dismissal, we need not address appellant’s other arguments on appeal.
Reversed and Remanded.
GROSS, TAYLOR and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Liberty Home Equity Solutions, Inc. v. Raulston, 206 So. 3d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…egarding the outstanding debt. Kelsey v. SunTrust Mortg., Inc., 131 So. 3d 825, 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). Where there are conditions precedent to filing the suit, plaintiff must also prove that it has complied with them. Blum v. Deutsche Bank Tr. Co., 159 So. 3d 920, 920 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). In Blum, we held that the failure to comply with a condition prece [*61] dent to filing an action requires a dismissal of the action. Id. In the foreclosure context, a plaintiff need only substantially comply with conditio…
-
Allen v. Wilmington Tr., 216 So. 3d 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…n’s testimony established mailing, the Trust did not meet its burden of proving it satisfied the condition precedent of giving notice of acceleration. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for dismissal of the action. See Blum v. Deutsche Bank Tr. Co., 159 So. 3d 920, 920-21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (reversing a final judgment of foreclosure and remanding for dismissal based on the plaintiffs failure to prove it complied with the notice requirement by mailing the notice to the defendant). Reversed and remanded with…
-
Edmonds v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 215 So. 3d 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…were mailed or actually delivered and that the notice under paragraph 22 was given requires that we reverse the final judgment and remand for the trial court to enter an order of involuntary dismissal. See id. at 5; Blum v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co., 159 So. 3d 920, 920 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). Reversed and remanded with directions. SLEET and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Holt v. Calchas, LLC, 155 So. 3d 499 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- Diaz v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 155 So. 3d 499 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)