Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Colin F. Baker, Debbyta Baker, Mortgage Electronic, etc.
2016 WL 3087775
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- Deutsche Bank brought a foreclosure action seeking judgment on the unpaid principal balance of a mortgage loan.
- At trial Deutsche Bank introduced the current servicer’s loan payment history and a witness who testified the unpaid principal was $362,216.30.
- The portion of the current servicer’s record reflecting the starting principal balance derived from the prior servicer’s records, which were not admitted and lacked a proper business-records foundation.
- Defense objected to testimony about the boarding process and to portions of the payment history; Deutsche Bank chose to proceed without trying to admit the prior servicer’s records or fully establishing foundation for the starting balance.
- The trial court granted an involuntary dismissal, finding Deutsche Bank failed to present reliable evidence of damages.
- The Fourth District reversed, holding Deutsche Bank presented a prima facie case of damages (although based on erroneously admitted evidence) and remanded for a new trial on damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of damages to preclude involuntary dismissal | Deutsche Bank: introduced servicer payment history and witness testimony establishing unpaid principal | Defendants: evidence unreliable, lacked foundation and included hearsay; dismissal warranted | Court: Deutsche Bank presented prima facie evidence of damages despite erroneous admission; involuntary dismissal reversed and remanded for new trial on damages |
| Admissibility / foundation for starting principal balance | Deutsche Bank: current servicer record showing starting principal (derived from prior servicer) is admissible via business-records testimony | Defendants: starting balance lacked proper foundation and depended on prior servicer records not admitted | Court: Bank failed to lay proper foundation for that entry; admission was erroneous but did not justify dismissal because prima facie case existed |
| Discovery objection re boarding process and waiver | Deutsche Bank: objected to interrogatory; did not obtain ruling but argued discovery issue justified error claims on appeal | Defendants: preserved objection and challenged foundation at trial; sought dismissal on discovery grounds | Court: Trial court did not dismiss for discovery violation; by not pursuing a motion to compel, defendants waived forcing an answer—issue not a basis to affirm dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Huber, 137 So. 3d 562 (Fla. 4th DCA) (standard of review for involuntary dismissal is de novo)
- Beauchamp v. Bank of New York, 150 So. 3d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA) (erroneously admitted hearsay establishing indebtedness may require remand to determine correct amount rather than dismissal)
- Peuguero v. Bank of Am., N.A., 169 So. 3d 1198 (Fla. 4th DCA) (remand for correct amount owed where some evidence was inadmissible but payment history supported principal)
- Wolkoff v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., 153 So. 3d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA) (contrast: dismissal where plaintiff produced no evidence supporting indebtedness)
- Bank of New York v. Calloway, 157 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 4th DCA) (business-records foundation requirements)