Cayea v. Citimortgage, Inc.
138 So. 3d 1214
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Loyal and Lori Cayea appealed a final foreclosure judgment entered for CitiMortgage after a bench trial, challenging admission of Citi’s payment records.
- Citi called Michael Windsor, a default-research/litigation employee, who testified the Cayeas were in default since April 2009 and that he printed a loan payment history from Citi’s Citilink system for trial use.
- Windsor testified payments were entered into Citilink contemporaneously by payment-processing staff (electronic and mail teams) as part of ordinary business practices and that individual loan records were maintained.
- The Cayeas objected, arguing the printout was a trial-created “summary” and thus not admissible as a business record and that Windsor’s testimony was hearsay and lacked foundation.
- The trial court overruled objections, admitted the printout as a business record, and entered final judgment; the appellate court reviewed the evidentiary ruling for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of payment printout | Printout is a "summary" made for trial and not a business record; hearsay | Printout was a system-generated printout of records kept in ordinary course and meets business-record exception | Printout was a business record, not a §90.956 summary; admissible |
| Foundation for business records | Windsor lacked proper foundation; hearsay | Windsor was sufficiently familiar with recordkeeping and posting process to authenticate | Windsor’s testimony satisfied foundation requirements |
| Trustworthiness of records | Trial-created document is untrustworthy | Printout reflected system data entered contemporaneously and ordinary practice supports trustworthiness | No evidence showed lack of trustworthiness; judge properly admitted it |
| Applicability of summary/statutory notice rules | §90.956 applies, requiring notice for summaries | Document was a direct system printout, not a voluminous-writings summary under §90.956 | §90.956 did not apply; summary-notice provisions unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 938 So.2d 124 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings and limits of discretion)
- McKown v. State, 46 So.3d 174 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (summaries admissible if authenticated and notice requirements followed)
- Jackson v. State, 877 So.2d 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (trial-prepared printouts of business-system data admissible with proper foundation)
- WAMCO XXVIII, Ltd. v. Integrated Elec. Env’ts., Inc., 903 So.2d 230 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (loan payment history printouts routinely admitted as business records)
- Yisrael v. State, 993 So.2d 952 (Fla. 2008) (business-records foundation elements and methods to establish predicate)
- Cooper v. State, 45 So.3d 490 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (authenticating witness need not be the actual preparer)
- Weisenberg v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 89 So.3d 1111 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (affiant familiar with record system can satisfy business-records exception)
- Glarum v. LaSalle Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 83 So.3d 780 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (affidavits lacking knowledge of data production are inadmissible hearsay)