SUSAN FAITH WERB, APPELLANT,
v.
GREEN TREE SERVICING LLC, AS SERVICING AGENT FOR GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC (SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION), EAST COAST RECOVERY, INC., AND CAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC., 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.
In this mortgage foreclosure appeal, the court affirmed that the appellee had standing to foreclose because it possessed the promissory note when the complaint was filed, but reversed the damages award because the bank failed to introduce legally sufficient evidence supporting the amounts claimed for interest, fees, and other charges.
The court affirmed that the appellee had standing because it possessed the note when the complaint was filed, but reversed the damages award because the amounts were not proved by legally sufficient evidence. The court remanded for further proceedings to establish the proper amount of damages.
[1] Possession of the note is the primary criterion to determine standing in a mortgage foreclosure action, even when servicing rights have been transferred prior to the fili…
[2] A document identified but not admitted into evidence is not competent evidence to support a judgment.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“possession of the note is the primary criteria to determine standing, even when the servicing rights have been transferred prior to the filing of the complaint”
Establishes the legal standard for standing in mortgage foreclosure cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGreen Tree Servicing LLC, as servicing agent, filed a foreclosure complaint against Susan Faith Werb on a mortgage. The bank's witness identified the …
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 Possession Of Note cases and more on FLexlaw
• In this appeal of a mortgage foreclosure final judgment, the appellant claims appel-lee lacked standing to foreclose the mortgage and introduced no legally sufficient evidence to sustain the damages sought. We affirm as to standing but reverse on the calculation of damages.
'As to the standing issue, we affirm on the authority of Federal National Mortgage Association v. Rafaeli, 225 So.3d 264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017), which holds that possession of the note is the primary criteria to determine standing, even when the servicing rights have been transferred pri- or to the filing of the complaint. Here, the appellee possessed the note when the complaint was filed.
We reverse the final judgment as to the amount of damages, which was not proved by legally sufficient evidence. The bank’s witness identified the payment history and then was shown the final judgment, which was' not admitted into evidence and , thus, cannot support the final judgment. See Wolkoff v. Am. Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., 153 So.3d 280, 281-82 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (“A document that was identified but never admitted into evidence as an exhibit.is not competent evidence to support a judgment.”). She testified that the contents of the proposed final judgment comported'with the business records and then testified that the final judgment contained the total amount sought. She did not testify as to the individual amounts. While the payment history was admitted into evidence, it did not show the calculation of interest on the loan, nor did it show all the other charges sought in the final judgment, including title searches, insurance costs, court costs, and attorney’s fees. Thus, the amounts were not proved. In Peuguero v. Bank of Am., N.A., 169 So.3d 1198, 1200-01, 1203-04 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), where the payment history was admitted into evidence but no evidence was introduced to show the calculation of interest, we reversed and 'renianded for further proceedings to establish the amounts due. We approve the same result in this case and remand for further proceedings to establish the amount of damages.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings.
Warner, Taylor and Damoorgian, JJ., concur. ■
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Green Emerald Homes v. 21ST Mortg. Corp. (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Wolkoff v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., 153 So. 3d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
- Natacha Peuguero and Angelo Peuguero v. Bank OF Am., N.A., 169 So. 3d 1198 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Ehud Rafaeli and Lizabeth Rafaeli, 225 So. 3d 264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)