162 So. 3d 340
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Doyles challenge a final mortgage-foreclosure judgment in favor of CitiMortgage, contesting the amount due.
- Bench trial presented CitiMortgage’s representative with a proposed final judgment stating $365,938.51 due, which was not admitted into evidence.
- The only admissible supporting evidence for indebtedness beyond the principal balance was the loan payment history.
- The trial court relied on hearsay-type testimonial evidence for the total indebtedness, lacking competent, substantial evidence for the full amount.
- The court cites Wagner and Sas to emphasize the need for competent evidence and indicates Wolkoff is distinguishable, leading to reversal on the amount issue and remand for calculation.
- The court affirms other issues raised by the Doyles without comment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the final judgment amount is supported by competent evidence | Doyle argues the total indebtedness lacks competent evidence. | CitiMortgage asserts the figures are supported by the admitted payment history and related documents. | Amount insufficiently evidenced; remand for proper calculation. |
| Whether Wolkoff governs disposition for insufficient evidence | Wolkoff supports involuntary dismissal due to insufficient figures. | Wolkoff distinguished; not controlling here. | Wolkoff distinguishable; remand, not dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wagner v. Bank of Am., N.A., 143 So.3d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (damages award must be supported by competent evidence)
- Sas v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 112 So.3d 778 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (amount of indebtedness not supported by admitted evidence )
- Wolkoff v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., 153 So.3d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (distinguishable; not controlling where evidence supports final judgment figures)