BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, APPELLANT,
v.
LUCIANO DEL LUPO, ET AL., 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.
Bayview Loan Servicing sought to foreclose on appellees' property for default. The trial court dismissed Bayview's case at the end of its evidence presentation for failure to prove damages, but the appellate court reversed, holding that a payment history admitted into evidence, even without supplementary witness testimony explaining its contents, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case on damages in a foreclosure action.
The court reversed the involuntary dismissal, holding that when a payment history showing the principal amount due is admitted into evidence and viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, it is sufficient to establish a prima facie case on damages and withstand involuntary dismissal, even if witnesses did not separately confirm or interpret the document's contents.
[1] An involuntary dismissal is properly entered only when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, fails to establish a prima facie case.
[2] A payment history showing the principal balance due on a note, even if not fully explained by a witness, can be sufficient to establish a prima facie case on damages in a…
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“An involuntary dismissal or directed verdict is properly entered only when the evidence considered in the light most favorable to the non-moving party fails to establish a prima facie case on the non-moving party's claim.”
Establishes the legal standard for reviewing involuntary dismissals, requiring evidence be viewed favorably to the non-moving party.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellees defaulted on their mortgage payments. At trial, Bayview presented witnesses who testified that appellees were in default and that the princi…
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 Involuntary Dismissal cases and more on FLexlaw
Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC (“Bay-view”) brought a foreclosure action against appellees. At the conclusion of Bayview’s presentation of evidence, appellees moved for dismissal, claiming Bayview failed to prove damages. The trial court agreed and entered an order of involuntary dismissal. This was error and we reverse.
At trial, Bayview presented witnesses who testified that appellees were in default on their payments. The court also admitted into evidence a copy of appellees’ payment history showing that the principal balance due on the note was $300,000. Based on the payment history, another witness testified that there was an uncured breach of payment on appellees’ account. After Bay-view rested its case, the court granted *98appellees’ motion for dismissal and provided the following justification:
Okay. Here’s your issue for appeal, sir. Because here’s why I’m ruling on it. Is it appropriate just to place documents into evidence without substantiating what’s in the document to the court or having anyone testify to it? I think it is not.
And, therefore, I’m saying that even though the evidence is there, I cannot ferret out what the amount owed is, what the — I can maybe — I can read a note and I can tell what the original mortgage was, that the document that you have that I did allow in, over much objection, doesn’t have a defining document that says here’s — heir’s the principal, here’s the interest, here’s the — in it.
So, as far as I’m concerned, sir, you did not prove your damages and I’m granting his motion to dismiss.
(Emphasis added).
The standard of review for an order granting a motion for involuntary dismissal is de novo. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. v. Huber, 137 So.3d 562, 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). “An involuntary dismissal or directed verdict is properly entered only when the evidence considered in the light most favorable to the non-moving party fails to establish a prima facie case on the non-moving party’s claim.” McCabe v. Hanley, 886 So.2d 1053, 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (quoting Hack v. Estate of Helling, 811 So.2d 822, 825 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)). This is true even if the evidence of damages involved inadmissible hearsay erroneously admitted at trial. See Beauchamp v. Bank of N.Y., 150 So.3d 827, 829 n.2 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
In an analogous case from this court, Wachovia Mortgage, F.S.B. v. Goodwill, 199 So.3d 346, 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016), the bank introduced a payment history at trial that clearly showed the principal balance due on the note. The bank’s witness also testified that “the payment history accurately reflected all payments received and disbursed, along with the total amount due and owing on the loan.” Id. The trial court nonetheless dismissed the bank’s case for failure to prove damages. Id. at 347. On appeal, we reversed and remanded for further proceedings because “[t]he payment history and testimony of [the bankj’s witness were sufficient to present a prima facie case on damages and withstand involuntary dismissal.” Id. at 348; see also Lasala v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 197 So.3d 1228, 1230 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (explaining that the dismissal of a foreclosure action for failure to prove damages was inappropriate because an admitted loan payment history provides “some evidence the trial court can use to support a judgment on the principal amount owed”).
Here, although Bayview’s witnesses failed to confirm or interpret appellees’ loan payment history, the payment history showing the principal amount due was admitted into evidence. When considered in the light most favorable to Bayview, this evidence was sufficient to establish a pri-ma facie case on damages. Having admitted Bayview’s proof of damages, albeit in a form not easily comprehensible, the trial court should not have granted appellees’ motion for involuntary dismissal. Although we sympathize with the trial court’s frustration when faced with this situation, less drastic methods than dismissal are available for dealing with such an issue.
Accordingly, we reverse the involuntary dismissal and remand for a new trial.
Reversed and Remanded.
Taylor and Forst, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Mara Elizabeth Eisenberg, 220 So. 3d 517 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…here the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence, admissible or not, supporting the amount of indebtedness). Id. at 968-69. Along similar lines, this court reversed a trial court’s involuntary dismissal in Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Del Lupo, 208 So. 3d 97, 97-98 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017), where a payment history showing the principal amount due was admitted into evidence, even though' the witness failed to confirm or interpret the payment history. We held that “[w]hen considered in the light most favorable…
-
Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Americas v. JB Inv. Realty, 274 So. 3d 1114 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)…l or directed verdict is properly entered only when the evidence considered in the light most favorable to the non-moving party fails to establish a prima facie case on the non-moving party’s claim.” Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Luciano Del Lupo, 208 So. 3d 97, 98 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (citation omitted). “To establish a prima facie case, a foreclosure plaintiff must prove . . . the amount due.” Liberty Home Equity Sols., Inc. v. Raulston, 206 So. 3d 58, 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). “In other words, the plain…
-
Bank OF NEW York Mellon v. Thompson, 230 So. 3d 638 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…by dismissing the action for the failure of Appellant to allege or prove superiority of its lien. See Black Point Assets, Inc. v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 220 So. 3d 566 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017); see also Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Luciano Del Lupo, 208 So. 3d 97, 97-98 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (reversing involuntary dismissal and remanding for new-trial where plaintiff presented prima facie evidence of each element of foreclosure case). REVERSED AND REMANDED for a new trial. TORPY, EVANDER and LAMBERT, JJ.,…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. for Ameriquest Mortg. Sec., Inc. v. Huber, 137 So. 3d 562 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
- Beauchamp v. The Bank OF NEW York, 150 So. 3d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
- Hack v. The Est. OF Dorothy T. Helling, 811 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- McCABE v. Hanley, 886 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Lasala v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 197 So. 3d 1228 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
- Wachovia Mortg. v. Goodwill, 199 So. 3d 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
- Mills v. State, 199 So. 3d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)