DARLENE LAFAILLE, ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC D/B/A CHAMPION MORTGAGE COMPANY, APPELLEE
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.
Appellants challenged a foreclosure judgment, arguing the lender failed to comply with notice requirements in the mortgage following the borrower's death. The court affirmed the foreclosure, holding that the appellants lacked standing to assert the notice defense because they were not parties to the mortgage, and that substantial compliance with notice provisions was established.
The appellants lacked standing to assert a defense based on the lender's alleged failure to comply with the mortgage's notice provisions because they were not parties to the mortgage or borrowers under it. Additionally, even assuming the mortgage required notice, the evidence established substantial compliance with the notice provision.
[1] A mortgage provision allowing a lender to require immediate payment in full upon the borrower's death does not require notice prior to acceleration if the property is not…
[2] A party who is not a borrower under a mortgage or note lacks standing to assert a defense based on a violation of the mortgage's terms.
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“even if the mortgage did require notice to the borrower upon his death (which it plainly did not), neither of the appellants was a party to, or a 'borrower' under, the mortgage or note, and thus, have no standing to assert this defense.”
Establishes the court's holding that appellants lacked standing to challenge notice compliance because they were not parties to the mortgage.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGerard LaFaille was the sole borrower under a mortgage. The mortgage provided that upon the borrower's death, if the property was not the principal re…
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 Substantial Compliance cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants Darlene LaFaille and Patrick LaFaille, seek review of a final judgment of foreclosure in favor of Nationstar Mortgage, LLC d/b/a Champion Mortgage Company, following a nonjury trial. Upon our review of the record below, we affirm the final judgment of foreclosure. Three of the four issues raised in this appeal are without merit and warrant no further discussion. However, we write to briefly address appellants’ contention that reversal is warranted because MetLife Home Loans1 failed to comply with a condition precedent under- the subject mortgage agreement..
The mortgage, entered into by the borrower, Gerard LaFaille, provided that' in the event of the borrower’s death, the lender may require immediate payment in full of all sums if the property is not the principal residence of at least one surviving borrower.2 If the debt is accelerated based upon the death of the borrower and the property is not the principal residence of a surviving borrower, the terms of the mortgage do not require the lender to give notice prior to acceleration. The mortgage also provides that any notice sent to the borrower shall be directed to the address of the mortgaged property or any other address designated by the borrower.
Appellants assert that Nationwide was required to prove compliance with the mortgage’s notice provision and that its failure to do so requires reversal of the final judgment of foreclosure. However, even if the mortgage did require notice to the borrower upon his death (which it plainly did not), neither of the appellants was a party to, or a “borrower” under, the mortgage or note, and thus,' have no standing to assert this defense. ’ See Clay County Land Trust v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 152 So.3d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (holding that because the Trust was not a - party to the mortgage, it did not have standing to challenge a violation of the mortgage terms). Furthermore, the operative complaint alleged, and the unre-butted evidence at trial established, substantial compliance with the mortgage agreement’s notice provision, and we therefore affirm the trial court m all respects. See Bank of New York Mellon v. Nunez, 180 So.3d 160, 163 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (holding that “the lender’s default notice to the borrower must only substan*1248tially comply with the conditions precedent set forth in the mortgage”). ’ -
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Megacenter US v. Goodman Doral 88TH Court, 273 So. 3d 1078 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
-
Green Emerald Homes v. 21ST Mortg. Corp. (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Bank OF NEW York Mellon v. Nunez, 180 So. 3d 160 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)
- Clay Cnty. Land Tr. # 08-04-25-0078-014-27 v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, 152 So. 3d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)