OTTAWA PROPERTIES 2 LLC, APPELLANT,
v.
CENTRAL MORTGAGE COMPANY; ANGEL ORTIZ, JR. A/K/A ANGEL ORTIZ; DIANA ORTIZ; ALL UNKNOWN PARTIES CLAIMING INTERESTS BY, THROUGH, UNDER OR AGAINST A NAMED DEFENDANT TO THIS ACTION, OR HAVING OR CLAIMING TO HAVE ANY RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY HEREIN DESCRIBED; CASTELO DEVELOPMENT LLC; PALM BEACH PLANTATION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.; UNKNOWN TENANT #1; AND UNKNOWN TENANT #2, 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 court held that the plaintiff established standing but failed to sufficiently prove the total amount of damages in the foreclosure judgment.
[1] A plaintiff establishes standing in a foreclosure action by demonstrating its right to bring the suit at its inception.
[2] A damages award in a foreclosure action must be supported by sufficient evidence of the total amount of indebtedness.
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 intelligenceThe plaintiff introduced a loan history summary showing principal owed, but the damages awarded were based on a witness's testimony from a proposed fi…
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 Business Records Exception cases and more on FLexlaw
Ottawa Properties 2 LLC, the defendant below, appeals a final judgment of foreclosure entered in favor of the plaintiff, arguing that the plaintiff failed to establish the total amount of damages and its standing at the inception of the suit. We find that the plaintiff established standing, and affirm on that issue without further discussion. However, we reverse and remand for further proceedings on damages.
At trial, the plaintiff introduced a loan history summary,1 which established that the defendant owed as principal the amount of $308,455.29. The plaintiffs witness testified from a proposed final judgment not entered into evidence that the total amount of damages was $541,673.98, and that the amounts reflected in the proposed judgment were calculated “based on the loan history summary and anything that may not appear on the loan history summary but is outstanding.” He further testified that he relied on the loan history summary to determine that the amount due was accurately reflected in the proposed final judgment. The damages awarded in the final judgment total $541,673.98, of which $308,455.29 is for principal. The remainder is made up of *103interest, title search expenses, taxes, insurance, and late charges.
On appeal, the defendant argues that this court should reverse and remand for entry of a final judgment in its favor, as the plaintiff did not establish the total amount of damages reflected in the final judgment. Because there was some, but insufficient, evidence of the total amount of indebtedness, we reverse on the issue of damages and remand for further proceedings. See McMillan v. Bank of New York Mellon, 180 So.3d 1090, 1091-92 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015); Peuguero v. Bank of America, N.A., 169 So.3d 1198, 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
WARNER and CONNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rouffe v. Citimortgage, Inc., 241 So. 3d 870 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)…016) (remanding for further proceedings because “[t]he payment history and testimony of [the bank]’s witness were sufficient to present a prima facie case on damages and withstand involuntary dismissal”); Ottawa Props. 2 LLC v. Cent. Mortg. Co., 202 So. 3d 102, 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (“Because there was some, but insufficient, evidence of the total amount of indebtedness, we reverse on the issue of damages and remand for further proceedings.”). However, we agree with the Heirs that the conflicting e…
-
Evans v. HSBC Bank, 223 So. 3d 1059 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…earsay. Yet, unlike the. Wolkoff plaintiff, Ms. Stubblefield’s testimony showed that HSBC Bank did not fail “to offer any evidence at all—whether admissible or not.” Beauchamp, 150 So. 3d at 829 n.2; see also Ottawa Props. 2 LLC v. Cent. Mortg. Co., 202 So. 3d 102, 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (“Because there whs some, but insufficient, evidence of the total amount of indebtedness, we reverse on the issue of damages and remand for further proceedings.”). Our case aligns with Sas. Thus, the “proper remedy ... is to…
-
Carbonell v. Wvue 2015-1, 240 So. 3d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…vor of the Appellee WVUE 2015-1. We reverse because the record reveals that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the amount that Appellant Gladys Carbonell owed under the promissory note, Ottawa Properties 2 LLC v. Central Mortgage Co., 202 So. 3d 102, 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); and because at the summary judgment hearing, the trial court was made aware that outstanding, pending discovery on this issue had not concluded. Payne v. Cudjoe Gardens Prop. Owners Ass'n, 837 So. 2d 458, 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 2…
Authorities Cited
- Natacha Peuguero and Angelo Peuguero v. Bank OF Am., N.A., 169 So. 3d 1198 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- Iain and Natasha McMILLAN v. The Bank OF NEW York Mellon, 180 So. 3d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)