OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC, APPELLANT,
v.
EDGAR OSMUNDSEN AND DIANA OSMUNDSEN, 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.
Ocwen Loan Servicing appealed the dismissal of its foreclosure action against the Osmundsens, challenging the trial court's finding that the default notice failed to comply with paragraph 22 of the mortgage. The appellate court reversed, holding that the default letter substantially complied with the contractual notice requirements despite minor formatting deficiencies.
The default letter substantially complied with paragraph 22 because it advised the borrowers of all essential information: the specific default (missed March 1, 2009 payment and subsequent payments), the cure action required (pay all outstanding amounts), a 30-day cure period, and the consequences of non-cure. The trial court erred by imposing additional requirements not specified in the contract.
[1] A lender's default notice to a borrower must substantially comply with the conditions precedent set forth in the mortgage agreement.
[2] A default notice informing a borrower of the right to bring a court action to assert defenses substantially complies with a mortgage provision requiring notice of the rig…
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“Paragraph 22 default notices are reviewed for substantial compliance and are sufficient when they advise the borrower of all essential information concerning the borrower's default and the action required to cure it.”
Establishes the applicable legal standard for evaluating default notice compliance under the mortgage contract.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Osmundsens defaulted on their mortgage loan in March 2009 by failing to make the payment due on that date and subsequent payments. Ocwen Loan Serv…
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 Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, appeals from the final judgment dissolving the lis pendens and dismissing the foreclosure action against Edgar and Diana Osmundsen with prejudice for failure to comply with the notice requirements in paragraph 22 of the mortgage.1 Because the default letter substantially complied with paragraph 22, we reverse.
Paragraph 22 of the mortgage provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Lender shall give notice to Borrower prior to acceleration following Borrower’s breach,... The notice shall specify: (a) the default; (b) the action required to cure the default; (c) a date, not less than 30 days from the date the notice is given -to Borrower, by which the default must be cured; and-(d) that failure to . cure the default on or before the date specified in the notice may result in acceleration of the sums secured by this Security Instrument, foreclosure by judicial proceeding, and sale of the Property,
Paragraph 22 default notices are reviewed for substantial compliance and are sufficient when they advise the borrower of all essential information concerning the borrower’s default and the action required to cure it. Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Milam, 177 So.3d 7, 14-15, 19 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). The Osmundsens were advised in the letter they received that their loan was in default for failing to make the payment due March 1, 2009, and subsequent payments, and that to cure the default they needed to pay all outstanding amounts within thirty days. Although the letter did not note the address where payment was to be sent, a self-addressed envelope for payment was provided with the letter. This court has held that failure to state the payment address in a default letter is not a material omission. See id. at 19 (holding that an address for payment is not required in the default letter because, the address is specified in the note). If the Osmundsens were unsure where to send their payment, the default letter provided a telephone number to call with any questions. The Osmundsens demonstrated that they had no such doubt, as they had made payments until they defaulted in 2009.
The default letter substantially complied with paragraph 22. The trial court erred *120in imposing additional requirements not specified by the contract. Accordingly, we reverse the order of dismissal and the final judgment in favor of the Osmundsens and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
MORRIS and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Doepker, 223 So. 3d 1083 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…h 22 default notices are reviewed for substantial compliance and are sufficient when they advise the borrower of all essential information concerning the borrower’s default and the action required to cure it.” Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Osmundsen, 204 So. 3d 118, 119 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (citing Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Milam, 177 So. 3d 7, 14-15 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (“[W]hen the content of a lender’s notice letter is nearly [*1085] equivalent to or varies in only immaterial respects from what the mortgage…
-
Clark, Jr. v. Clark, Sr. (Fla. 5th DCA 2024)
Authorities Cited
- Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Milam, 177 So. 3d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)