JAMES MC CAMPBELL
v.
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION
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.
James McCampbell appealed a final foreclosure judgment, contending that the trial court erred in admitting a copy of his loan modification agreement without explanation for the original's absence. Fannie Mae conceded the error, and the appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, noting that while subsequent case law established copies of modifications are generally admissible, the trial court's admission here was improper under the circumstances.
The court reversed the foreclosure judgment and remanded for a new trial, holding that the admission of the copy without Fannie Mae providing explanation for the absence of the original was error. Although subsequent appellate clarification established that copies of modifications are generally admissible as non-negotiable instruments, the trial court's admission here was improper.
[1] While a copy of a loan modification agreement is admissible as an original because such agreement is not a negotiable instrument, admission of the copy without explanatio…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn October 26, 2007, McCampbell signed the original mortgage and promissory note, and on July 14, 2010, a loan modification agreement was executed. At…
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 Tipsy Coachman Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
CASANUEVA, Judge.
In this appeal from a final judgment of foreclosure, James McCampbell contends that the trial court erred in admitting copies of his loan modification agreement, and Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) concedes that the admission of the copies was improper. Accordingly, we reverse.1 1We do not find merit in Fannie Mae's argument that the appeal should be affirmed based on the tipsy coachman doctrine because, although the trial court took judicial notice of certain bankruptcy pleadings, no other pleading accompanied the judicial notice request.
On October 26, 2007, Mr. McCampbell signed the original mortgage and promissory note on the property, and on July 14, 2010, an agreement modifying the original loan and all of the original loan documents was executed. At trial, Fannie Mae called one witness to testify and that witness did not produce the original loan modification agreement nor did the witness explain its absence. Rather, Fannie Mae sought the admission of a copy of the agreement. Over objection, the trial court admitted the copy.
During this appeal, Fannie Mae conceded that the admission in evidence of the copy of the loan modification agreement, without an explanation by Fannie Mae as to its failure to produce the original, was error. For purposes of this appeal, we accept Fannie Mae's concession of error. We note that since the oral argument of this matter, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has clarified its prior holding in Rattigan v. Central Mortgage Co., 199 So. 3d 966 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). In Liukkonen v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 4D16-4193, 2018 WL 1517240, at *2 (Fla. 4th DCA Mar. 28, 2018), the court held that "[a] copy of a modification is admissible to the same degree as an original, as it is not a negotiable instrument as defined in section 673.1041."
We reverse and remand for a new trial. See Heller v. Bank of Am., NA, 209 So. 3d 641, 645 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (reversing and remanding final judgment of foreclosure for a new trial where trial court improperly allowed the bank's witness to give hearsay testimony regarding content of business records which had not been admitted into evidence).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
SALARIO and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marlyn Tracey v. Wells Fargo Bank, 264 So. 3d 1152 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Heller v. Bank OF Am., NA, 209 So. 3d 641 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)
- Rattigan v. Cent. Mortg. Co., 199 So. 3d 966 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
- Liukkonen v. Bayview Loan Servicing LLC, 243 So. 3d 981 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)