Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v. Hawthorne
197 So. 3d 1237
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff lender sued to foreclose after borrower defaulted on a mortgage for a Fort Pierce second home.
- Mortgage required lender to mail a pre-acceleration default notice to the “notice address,” defined in the mortgage as the Property Address (the Fort Pierce address).
- Borrower signed the mortgage; a New York primary address was typewritten under his signature but he did not give formal substitute-address notice to the lender.
- Plaintiff mailed the pre-suit default notice to the borrower’s New York address (and later served the foreclosure complaint there); it did not mail the notice to the Fort Pierce property address.
- Trial court granted involuntary dismissal for plaintiff, concluding strict compliance with the mortgage required mailing to the Property Address. Plaintiff appealed; appellate review was de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff complied with mortgage condition precedent requiring mailing default notice to the Property Address | Substantial compliance: the borrower’s New York address was typed beneath his signature on the mortgage and thus reasonably available; mailing there ensured receipt | Strict compliance required: mortgage defined notice address as the Property Address, so mailing elsewhere failed the condition precedent | Court held plaintiff substantially complied by mailing to the New York address given the address appeared on the mortgage and receipt was later confirmed; reversed dismissal |
| Whether failure to send notice to Property Address prejudiced borrower | Plaintiff argued no prejudice; receipt was confirmed and mailing may have benefited borrower | Defendant claimed noncompliance invalidated notice requirement regardless of prejudice | Court found no prejudice and noted substantial-compliance precedent; this supported reversal |
| Applicability of Blum precedent relied on by trial court | Plaintiff distinguished Blum because there the notice was sent to an address not in the mortgage and with no evidence the borrower used it | Defendant relied on Blum to support strict requirement to mail to Property Address | Court distinguished Blum and instead relied on Caraccia and Ortiz supporting substantial compliance |
| Standard of review for involuntary dismissal | N/A (procedural) | N/A | Review de novo; involuntary dismissal improper if plaintiff’s evidence, viewed favorably, establishes prima facie case |
Key Cases Cited
- Ortiz v. PNC Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 188 So.3d 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (substantial compliance is sufficient for foreclosure conditions precedent)
- Caraccia v. U.S. Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 185 So.3d 1277 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (upholding mailing to an alternate address where receipt was reasonably confirmed and no prejudice resulted)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Balkissoon, 183 So.3d 1272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (de novo review standard for involuntary dismissal)
- Blum v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co., 159 So.3d 920 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (dismissal where notice was mailed to an address not listed in the mortgage and no evidence linked the borrower to that address)