MARIO MARSDEN AND ROSAL MARSDEN, APPELLANTS,
v.
BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, L.P. F/K/A COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, L.P.; NEWPORT ISLES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.; PORTOFINO ISLES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC.; AND UNKNOWN TENANT(S) IN POSSESSION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, 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 appellate court held that the trial court erred in awarding interest because the bank failed to present sufficient evidence to prove the amount of interest owed.
Borrowers challenged a final judgment of foreclosure, arguing the bank did not prove the amount of damages, specifically the interest awarded. The ban…
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 Evidentiary Basis cases and more on FLexlaw
Mario and Rosal Marsden (the “borrowers”) challenge a final judgment of foreclosure entered in favor of BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. f/k/a Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P. (the “bank”). They raise multiple issues on appeal. We find only one has merit, and reverse and rer mand for the trial court to enter an amended final judgment and therein to eliminate its award of interest, in that the record is devoid of any such proof.
The borrowers argue that the bank did not prove the amount of damages reflected in the final judgment. We agree, but only as to the award of interest. At trial, the bank relied on a payment history to prove its damages. The payment history, however, does not provide an evidentiary basis for the inclusion of any interest. Further, the face of the note does not make apparent how much interest, if any, is owed. The bank’s witness testified that the amounts in a proposed final judgment were consistent with the payment history, but the witness did not offer any testimony as to the amount of interest owed, and the proposed final judgment was not entered into evidence.1 Because the bank did not present any evidence of the amount of interest owed, we reverse and remand for the trial court to amend the final judgment and remove any calculations for interest.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
WARNER and GERBER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vitale v. Holmes, 229 So. 3d 832 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…t in procuring. On the merits, and as conceded by the Appellee, we must reverse. We have held that a court must hold a hearing or specify the . deficiencies leading to a denial of a petition for injunction against domestic violence. Chizh v. Chizh, 199 So. 3d 1050, 1051 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); Sanchez v. State, 785 So. 2d 672, 677 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Here, the Appellant filed á relatively detailed petition asserting five instances of purported cyberstalking/stalking. However, the court neither held- a hearing n…
-
McCaffrey v. Ashley, 265 So. 3d 688 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Iain and Natasha McMILLAN v. The Bank OF NEW York Mellon, 180 So. 3d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)