PAUL DOYLE AND SUSAN DOYLE, APPELLANTS,
v.
CITIMORTGAGE, INC.; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., A NOMINEE FOR QUICKEN LOANS, INC.; AND WATERWAYS OF NAPLES HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., 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.
The Doyles appealed a mortgage foreclosure judgment, challenging the court's determination of the amount owed. The appellate court found that while the principal balance was supported by competent evidence, the remaining figures in the judgment (interest, escrow advances, and costs) lacked sufficient evidentiary support.
The court reversed the judgment as to the amount of indebtedness and remanded for further proceedings to determine the correct amount owed, finding insufficient evidentiary support for the total judgment figures. The court affirmed the remaining issues without comment and distinguished the case from Wolkoff, which would have warranted an involuntary dismissal.
[1] A damages award must be supported by competent, substantial evidence.
[2] Testimonial evidence regarding the total amount of indebtedness, based on business records not admitted into evidence, constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“A damages award must be supported by competent, substantial evidence.”
Establishes the legal standard for reviewing judgment figures in mortgage foreclosure cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePaul and Susan Doyle defaulted on a mortgage loan with CitiMortgage, Inc. At a bench trial, CitiMortgage's representative testified that the total amo…
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 Involuntary Dismissal cases and more on FLexlaw
Paul and Susan Doyle1 challenge the final judgment of mortgage foreclosure in favor of CitiMortgage, Inc. Though the Doyles raise several challenges to the final judgment, we find merit only in their assertion that there was insufficient evidence to support the final judgment figures.2 We reverse and remand for further proceedings as to this issue and affirm the remaining issues without comment. •
At the bench trial, CitiMortgage’s representative was presented with a proposed final judgment and asked to recite the current amount due on the loan. The representative testified that the total amount due on the loan was $365,938.51. The proposed final judgment was not admitted into evidence, and the only other evidence admitted that supports the amount of indebtedness is the loan payment history which accurately reflects the principal balance.3
“A damages award must be supported by competent, substantial evidence.” Wagner v. Bank of Am., N.A., *342143 So.3d 447, 448 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). Though the principal balance contained in the final judgment is supported by the loan payment history that was admitted without objection, there was no other evidence admitted to support the remaining figures in the final judgment. As such, the testimonial evidence presented to establish the total amount of indebtedness was inadmissible hearsay and the total amount of indebtedness is not supported by competent, substantial evidence. See id. (holding that the damages award was not supported by competent, substantial evidence where the payment history admitted at trial did not reflect the amount of damages awarded for property inspections and costs of collection); Sas v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 112 So.3d 778, 779-80 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (holding that the amount of indebtedness was not supported by competent, substantial evidence because the testimony regarding this amount concerned business records not admitted into evidence).
The Doyles contend that this matter should be reversed and remanded with directions for the trial court to enter an order of involuntary dismissal pursuant to Wolkoff v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., 153 So.3d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). Wolkoff is distinguishable because none of the evidence admitted in that case supported the final judgment figures. See id. at 283. Therefore, we reverse and remand for further proceedings to determine the amount of debt owed. See Wagner, 143 So.3d at 448; Sas, 112 So.3d at 780.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded for further proceedings.
KELLY and WALLACE, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Michel v. The Bank OF NEW York Mellon, 191 So. 3d 981 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…the loan. But, as the bank points out, the paymént history admitted into evidence demonstrates that the increase in principal is due to negative amortization, that is, an increase from the accrual of unpaid interest. See Doyle v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 162 So. 3d 340, 341-42 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (concluding that the payment history supported the principal awarded in the final judgment). Michel is correct in his next argument that the amount of interest awarded in the final judgment is not supported by the evidenc…
-
Adamson v. Main Street Oaks, 320 So. 3d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)…ence to prove the amount owed on the note," Wolkoff v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., 153 So. 3d 280, 281 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014), and the total amount of indebtedness "must be supported by competent, substantial evidence," Doyle v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 162 So. 3d 340, 341-42 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (quoting Wagner v. Bank of Am., N.A., 143 So. 3d 447, 448 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)). Ms. Adamson does not dispute that the loan was in default and that no payments were made to Main Street Oaks; however, she argues that no admi…
-
Mace v. M & T Bank (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…imony is puzzling because our dissenting colleague has previously authored an opinion for a unanimous court doing the precise opposite— excluding inadmissible evidence and holding the remainder legally insufficient. See Doyle v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 162 So. 3d 340, 342 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). In Doyle, the court held that a foreclosure plaintiff's proof of the amount of the defendant's indebtedness was legally insufficient because "the testimonial evidence presented to establish the total amount of indebtedness…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wolkoff v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., 153 So. 3d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
- SAS v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 112 So. 3d 778 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
- Wagner v. Bank OF Am., N.A., 143 So. 3d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)