Galloway v. Suntrust Bank
210 So. 3d 780
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Christopher and Carmen Galloway appealed a final judgment of foreclosure entered for SunTrust Bank after the trial court granted SunTrust’s motion for summary judgment.
- The mortgage contained paragraph 22 requiring 30 days' notice prior to acceleration and foreclosure (a condition precedent to acceleration).
- SunTrust sought summary judgment and submitted an affidavit of indebtedness but did not have an affidavit authenticating the acceleration/notice letter.
- The Galloways disputed receipt/compliance with the 30‑day notice requirement, creating a contested factual issue.
- The Fifth District reversed, holding SunTrust failed to conclusively show compliance with the mortgage’s notice condition and that the acceleration letter was unauthenticated and therefore insufficient for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lender proved compliance with mortgage paragraph 22 (30‑day notice) as required for acceleration/foreclosure | Galloway argued SunTrust did not prove it sent the required 30‑day acceleration/notice | SunTrust argued its filing established the right to foreclose (relied on affidavit of indebtedness and attached documents) | Reversed: SunTrust failed to authenticate the acceleration letter; summary judgment improper because condition precedent not conclusively shown |
Key Cases Cited
- DiSalvo v. SunTrust Mortg., Inc., 115 So. 3d 438 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (lender must prove compliance with mortgage conditions precedent to obtain summary judgment in foreclosure)
- Colon v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 162 So. 3d 195 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (unauthenticated notice letter cannot support summary judgment; proper affidavit needed to authenticate)
- Green v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 109 So. 3d 1285 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (same principle regarding authentication of notices in summary judgment context)
- Bryson v. Branch Banking & Tr. Co., 75 So. 3d 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (unauthenticated copies of default letters are insufficient for summary judgment)
- Bifulco v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 693 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (documents not sworn to or certified cannot, without more, satisfy summary judgment evidentiary requirements)