Bowmar v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., 188 So. 3d 986

Bowmar executed an adjustable-rate note and mortgage in 2005 and later defaulted; SunTrust filed foreclosure in 2008.
SunTrust assigned the note and mortgage to MTGLQ on June 8, 2010, and an amended complaint substituting MTGLQ was granted in 2013.
A bench trial occurred May 14, 2014; MTGLQ presented testimony from a loan-servicer employee (Denson) to lay a business-records predicate.
The trial court admitted only certain mortgage assignments into evidence; the original note, mortgage, acceleration letter, and payment history were not admitted.
Despite the amended complaint naming MTGLQ as plaintiff, the trial court entered a final judgment of foreclosure in favor of SunTrust.
The Fifth District reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding the judgment unenforceable because it favored a nonparty and required key documents in evidence to establish entitlement to foreclosure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing when judgment entered	SunTrust/MTGLQ argued MTGLQ was proper plaintiff after assignment and the judgment should be treated as a scrivener’s error	Bowmar argued a foreclosure plaintiff must have standing when complaint filed and when judgment entered; judgment for nonparty is invalid	Judgment for SunTrust was fundamental error because SunTrust was no longer a party; reversal required
Proper party to enforce judgment	MTGLQ contended the court’s naming of SunTrust was a clerical/scrivener’s mistake that could be corrected	Bowmar contended that an unenforceable judgment cannot be corrected to benefit a nonparty/assignor	Court held that regardless of label, a judgment in favor of a nonparty is unenforceable; MTGLQ could not enforce it
Sufficiency of evidence to entitlement to foreclosure	MTGLQ relied on witness testimony to supply record substance and establish debt/acceleration	Bowmar argued the actual note, mortgage, acceleration letter, and payment history must be admitted into evidence	Court held testimony alone, without admitting the note, mortgage, acceleration letter, and payment history, was insufficient to prove entitlement to foreclosure
Remedy	MTGLQ requested correction and enforcement	Bowmar sought reversal and retrial due to procedural/record deficiencies	Court reversed the final judgment and remanded for a new trial so proper party and documents can be established

Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Berdecia, 169 So. 3d 209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (business-records predicate requirements)
Yisrael v. State, 993 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 2008) (foundational standard for admitting business records)
Pennington v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 151 So. 3d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (plaintiff must have standing when complaint filed and when judgment entered)
Beaumont v. Bank of New York Mellon, 81 So. 3d 553 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (entry of judgment for a nonparty is fundamental error)
Beseau v. Bhalani, 904 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (same principle regarding judgments for nonparties)
Commercial Laundries, Inc. v. Golf Course Towers Assocs., 568 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (party not a plaintiff cannot enforce judgment)
Kelsey v. SunTrust Mortg., Inc., 131 So. 3d 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (entitlement to foreclosure requires admission of note, mortgage, acceleration, and evidence of outstanding debt)
Ernest v. Carter, 368 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (same evidentiary requirements for foreclosure)
Gonzalez v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 180 So. 3d 1106 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (testimony about records without admission is insufficient to prove standing)
Schmidt v. Deutsche Bank, 170 So. 3d 938 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (reiterating need to actually admit business records to prove standing)