Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Quinion
198 So. 3d 701
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Deutsche Bank filed a 2011 foreclosure against Wanda and Jim Creson, alleging it was assignee of the note and that the Cresons defaulted in November 2010.
- Deutsche Bank's complaint alleged that "all conditions precedent to the filing of this matter have been completed and/or waived."
- The Cresons answered generally denying the complaint and added that Plaintiff failed to give notice of default and failed to comply with 12 U.S.C. § 1701x(c)(5) and Fla. Stat. § 559.715.
- The trial court construed § 559.715 to impose a condition precedent and dismissed Deutsche Bank’s complaint for failure to comply with that statute.
- On appeal, the Second District reversed, holding the Cresons’ answer did not plead the alleged failure of a condition precedent with the specificity required by Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.120(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the defendant’s answer specifically and with particularity denied performance/occurrence of a condition precedent under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.120(c) | Deutsche Bank argued the denial was insufficiently specific and could not support dismissal. | Creson argued their denial that "Plaintiff failed to comply with § 559.715" was sufficiently specific given the statute’s brevity and single duty (notice). | Reversed dismissal — answer failed to identify the nature of the condition and the specific alleged noncompliance, so dismissal was improper. |
| Whether section 559.715 creates a condition precedent to foreclosure and, if so, whether Deutsche Bank failed it | Deutsche Bank disputed that § 559.715 (assignment notice) was properly pleaded as a condition precedent or shown to be unmet. | Creson maintained § 559.715 required written notice of assignment at least 30 days before suit and that Plaintiff did not comply. | Court assumed, for purposes of pleading analysis, § 559.715 could be a condition precedent but did not decide the statute’s substantive applicability; the ruling rested solely on pleading insufficiency. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hinote v. Ford Motor Co., 958 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (finality of dismissal requiring new complaint supports appeal jurisdiction)
- Delgado v. J. Byrons, Inc., 877 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (dismissal that requires refiling is final for appeal)
- Williams v. Gaffin Indus. Servs., Inc., 88 So. 3d 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (de novo review of dismissals)
- Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. Azize, 965 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (standards for reviewing foreclosure pleadings and dismissals)
- Barco v. Sch. Bd. of Pinellas Cty., 975 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 2008) (interpretation of procedural rules by plain meaning)
- Bank of Am., N.A. v. Asbury, 165 So. 3d 808 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (borrower must plead condition precedent with specificity under rule 1.120(c))
- Godshalk v. Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 81 So. 3d 626 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (purpose of rule 1.120(c) is to force defendants to identify the specific condition and alleged nonoccurrence)
- Paulk v. Peyton, 648 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (party asserting nonoccurrence of condition precedent bears pleading burden)
- Cooke v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 652 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (failure to plead condition precedent cannot be cured by later motions)