MARTA A. MARCANO
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL 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.
A record custodian testifying under oath to business records need not be the actual document preparer but must demonstrate knowledge of each requirement for establishing business record foundation, and each subsequent default accruing after dismissal of an earlier foreclosure action constitutes a new cause of action.
[1] A record custodian testifying under oath to business records need not be the person who prepared the document, but must demonstrate knowledge of each requirement for esta…
[2] Each subsequent default accruing after dismissal of an earlier foreclosure action creates a new cause of action, regardless of whether the earlier dismissal was with or w…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“It is well-settled that a record custodian who has been called to testify under oath need not be the actual person who prepared the document, but he or she must demonstrate knowledge of each requirement for establishing the business record foundation.”
Court's statement of the applicable legal standard for business record authentication
Marta A. Marcano appealed a circuit court judgment in a foreclosure-related action against JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association.…
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.
Opinion filed March 26, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-1505 Lower Tribunal No. 17-3201-CA-01
________________
Marta A. Marcano,
Appellant,
vs.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Charles Kenneth Johnson, Judge. The Law Office of Niles B. Whitten, PLLC, and Niles B. Whitten (Gainesville), for appellant. McCalla Raymer Liebert Pierce, LLC, and Charles P. Gufford (Orlando), for appellee. Before LINDSEY, MILLER and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Azran Miami 2 LLC v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 282 So. 3d 924, 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“It is well-settled that a record custodian who has been called to testify under oath need not be the actual person who prepared the document, but he or she must demonstrate knowledge of each requirement for establishing the business record foundation.” (citing Bank of N.Y. v. Calloway, 157 So. 3d 1064, 1073 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015))); see also Nationstar Mortg. LLC v. LHF Hudson, LLC, 271 So. 3d 1073, 1075, 1077 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (explaining that “each subsequent default accruing after the dismissal of an earlier foreclosure action creates a new cause of action, regardless of whether that dismissal was entered with or without prejudice,” and specifically noting the mortgagee’s right to assert a cause of action from “all subsequent [failed] payments” (quotation and emphasis omitted)).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bank OF NEW York for the Noteholders Cwabs Inc. v. Calloway, 157 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- Nationstar Mortg. v. LHF Hudson, 271 So. 3d 1073 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)