J P MORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
v.
MARION DEYOUNG
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.
JPMorgan Chase Bank sought to foreclose on Marion DeYoung's residential mortgage. The trial court entered an amended final judgment of foreclosure, but the principal balance amount stated in the judgment ($640,713.36) did not match any figure presented by either party at trial. The appellate court affirmed the foreclosure judgment but found the principal balance amount to be a scrivener's error requiring correction.
The court affirmed the foreclosure judgment on its merits but reversed as to the principal balance amount and remanded the case to the trial court to correct the apparent scrivener's error. The Bank did not waive its right to challenge the error by failing to raise it in a motion for rehearing.
[1] A party need not raise an apparent scrivener's error in a trial court judgment through a motion for rehearing in order to preserve the right to challenge the error on app…
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 intelligenceJPMorgan Chase Bank filed a foreclosure action against Marion DeYoung regarding her residence. At trial, the Bank's representative testified that 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 Scrivener'S Error cases and more on FLexlaw
KELLY, Judge.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, sued to foreclose its mortgage on a residence owned by Marion DeYoung. Following a bench trial, the court entered an amended final judgment of foreclosure in favor of the Bank. The Bank raises several challenges to the amended final judgment in this appeal, but we find merit only in its argument that the amended final judgment misstates the amount of the principal balance due on the note.
The amended final judgment states that the principal balance due under the note is $640,713.36. At trial, the Bank presented testimony from its representative that the total amount of the principal balance on the note was $1,838,660, while Ms.
DeYoung presented evidence establishing that the principal balance due on the note was $690,713.36. The Bank posits the principal amount entered in the amended final judgment is likely a scrivener's error and argues that if we reject its other challenges to the amended final judgment, we must at a minimum remand this case for this figure to be corrected. We agree. It is apparent the trial court did not accept the Bank's figure, and no party suggested a principal balance in the amount reflected in the amended final judgment. Ms. DeYoung does not contest that the figure contained in the amended final judgment is likely a scrivener's error but argues the Bank waived the error by not raising it in a motion for rehearing. We disagree. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of foreclosure, except as to the amount due under the note, and remand this case to the trial court to make the necessary corrections to the amended final judgment.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
CASANUEVA and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.