Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas v. Frias, 178 So. 3d 505

Deutsche Bank (the Bank) sued homeowners (Frias et al.) in 2007 for foreclosure and enforcement of a lost note; mortgage attached and the original note (endorsed in blank) was filed with the court the following year.
At trial the Bank sought to admit a loan payment history (generated in part by prior servicers) and an acceleration/default letter; the court questioned the foundation for admission under the business‑records hearsay exception.
The Bank called an Ocwen employee to explain Ocwen’s boarding processes, record‑keeping procedures, and how Ocwen verified records received from prior servicers; the employee also testified she personally reviewed and reconciled the loan payment history.
The trial court excluded records originating with prior servicers, excluded the default letter, and denied admission of the original note; it then granted the homeowners’ motion for involuntary dismissal.
On appeal the Fourth District held the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the loan payment history, original note, and default letter, and reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of loan payment history under business records exception	Bank: Ocwen witness established records were kept in ordinary course, verified prior‑servicer data, and the witness personally reconciled the history.	Homeowner: Records from prior servicers lack adequate foundation; Ocwen witness lacked knowledge of prior servicers’ recordkeeping.	Reversed — payment history admissible because witness provided sufficient foundation and verification of prior‑servicer records.
Admissibility of acceleration/default letter	Bank: Letter is authentic and part of regular business practice; Ocwen could authenticate via its boarding/process testimony.	Homeowner: Letter lacks proper foundation and authentication.	Reversed — default letter should have been admitted.
Admission of original note / amendment to drop lost‑note count	Bank: Original note was filed in court years earlier; Bank should be allowed to amend pleadings and admit the note.	Homeowner: Bank failed to timely amend complaint; admission would prejudice Homeowner.	Reversed — trial court erred in refusing to allow amendment/admit the original note (no shown prejudice).
Motion to disqualify Bank’s counsel	Bank: sought disqualification (details not central).	Homeowner: opposed disqualification.	No error — trial court’s denial of the disqualification motion was affirmed.

Yisrael v. State, 993 So.2d 952 (Fla. 2008) (elements required to admit business records).
Glarum v. LaSalle Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 83 So.3d 780 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (computerized records from prior servicer not per se inadmissible).
Yang v. Sebastian Lakes Condominium Ass'n, 128 So.3d 617 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (record custodians need some knowledge of prior record‑keeper’s protocols).
WAMCO XXVIII, Ltd. v. Integrated Elec. Env’ts, Inc., 903 So.2d 230 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (current holder’s testimony about prior systems and verification can suffice to admit prior records).
Holt v. Calchas, LLC, 155 So.3d 499 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (following WAMCO; subsequent holder’s verification procedures support admission).
Hunter v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 137 So.3d 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (reversing admission where witness lacked particular knowledge of prior servicers’ recordkeeping).