HARUTYUN HOVANNESIAN, APPELLANT,
v.
PENNYMAC CORP. AND TENI HOVANNESIAN, 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.
In this mortgage foreclosure appeal, the Fourth District affirmed PennyMac's standing to enforce the promissory note and the trial court's admission of a loan acquisition screenshot, but reversed and remanded because certain damage categories awarded in the foreclosure judgment—including interest, attorney's fees, and miscellaneous expenses—lacked competent substantial evidence of proof.
PennyMac had standing to enforce the Note and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the loan acquisition screenshot. However, while the principal balance, taxes, and insurance premiums were supported by competent substantial evidence, other damages including interest, attorney's fees, and miscellaneous expenses were not proven by competent substantial evidence.
[1] A party has standing to enforce a note if it can demonstrate ownership or a right to enforce the note.
[2] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by admitting a screenshot of loan acquisition into evidence if it is relevant and reliable.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“we reverse and remand for a determination of the correct amounts owed”
The appellate court's remedy for damages not proven by competent substantial evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarutyun Hovannesian challenged a foreclosure judgment entered against him in favor of PennyMac Corp. and Teni Hovannesian. At trial, PennyMac present…
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 Foreclosure Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the final judgment of foreclosure in part, concluding that PennyMac -had standing to enforce the Note and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a loan acquisition screenshot into evidence. However, because certain categories of damages awarded in the final judgment were not proven by competent substantial evidence, we reverse and remand for a determination of the correct amounts owed.
The evidence of damages at trial consisted of the loan payment history and Penny-Mac’s witness’s testimony that the figures in the proposed final judgment were accurate. The proposed final judgment was not admitted into evidence.
We conclude that the principal balance, the taxes, and the insurance premiums awarded in the final judgment were supported by competent substantial evidence — namely, the payment history that was entered into evidence. But the other damages awarded in the. final judgment— *682including interest, attorney’s fees, and other miscellaneous expenses — were not supported by competent substantial evidence. The appropriate remedy is to reverse and remand the judgment for further proceedings to properly establish the correct amount due and owing. See McMillan v. Bank of New York Mellon, 180 So.3d 1090, 1091-92 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (affirming the foreclosure judgment, but reversing as to the amounts in the final judgment relating to certain forms of damages that were not proven by competent substantial evidence, and remanding “for further proceedings to determine the amounts owed”); Peuguero v. Bank of Am., N.A., 169 So.3d 1198, 1200, 1203-04 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (where loan payment history was submitted into evidence which reflected the amount of principal owed on the loan but not the amount of interest accrued, the proper remedy was to remand for further proceedings to properly establish the damages owed); Boyette v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 164 So.3d 9, 11 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (“Default is established in this case, and the amount of principal, hazard ■insurance premiums, late charges, and taxes are supported by competent, substantial evidence. But because the other costs, namely interest, property inspection fees, and the attorney fees, are not, we -reverse and remand the judgment for further proceedings to properly establish the amounts allegedly due and owing.”).1
Affirmed in part, ■ Reversed in part, and Remanded.
CIKLIN, C.J., and KLINGENSMITH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Meritel Tervil and Laurette Tervil v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 204 So. 3d 580 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…ence supporting some of the damages, but the bank’s witness testifies by reading other damage items off of the proposed final judgment, reversal is required and the case is to be remanded for further proceedings. E.g., Hovannesian v. PennyMac Corp., 190 So. 3d 681, 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); Peuguero v. Bank of Am., N.A., 169 So. 3d 1198, 1203-04 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). Here, the note was placed into evidence without objection. The note establishes not only the debt, but also the right of the bank to collect inter…
-
Genci Xhelaj and Teuta Kanni v. McCormick 105, LLC, 219 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…A 2015) (reversing and remanding for further proceedings where foreclosure judgment’s inclusion of interest, property inspection fees, and attorney’s fees was hot supported by competent, substantial evidence); see also Hovannesian v. PennyMac Corp., 190 So. 3d 681, 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (observing where foreclosure judgment included unsupported awards of interest, attorney’s fees, and miscellaneous expenses, “[t]he appropriate remedy is to reverse and remand the judgment for further proceedings to properly…
-
Bazel Markland and Annette Hamilton v. The Bank OF NEW York Mellon, 206 So. 3d 719 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…leaned from the loan payment history. Under these circumstances, we reverse and remand for further proceedings to establish the amounts owed for accrued interest, escrow, insurance, taxes, and corporate advances. See Hovannesian v. Penny Mac Corp., 190 So. 3d 681, 681-82 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (reversing and remanding for further proceedings on damages where payment history established principal balance, taxes, and insurance premiums, but not interest, attorney’s fees, and other miscellaneous expenses awarded i…
Previewing 3 of 7 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)
- Natacha Peuguero and Angelo Peuguero v. Bank OF Am., N.A., 169 So. 3d 1198 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- Boyette v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 164 So. 3d 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)
- Iain and Natasha McMILLAN v. The Bank OF NEW York Mellon, 180 So. 3d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)