Glarum v. LASALLE BANK NAT. ASS'N
83 So. 3d 780
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Glarums challenged LaSalle Bank's foreclosure in the Fourth District Court of Appeal.
- The trial court granted LaSalle's summary judgment of foreclosure, which the appellate court partially reversed.
- LaSalle relied on Ralph Orsini's affidavit alleging indebtedness over $340,000, based on data from Home Loan Services and Litton Loan Servicing.
- Orsini had no knowledge of who entered data, when data was entered, or that entries were kept in the ordinary course; his testimony was inadmissible hearsay under the business records exception.
- The court reversed the foreclosure judgment and sanctions, and remanded for further proceedings; standing to foreclose was not found to be lacking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Foreclosure summary judgment — admissibility of evidence | Glarums | LaSalle | Partial reversal; evidence insufficient to prove amount due. |
| Sanctions for counsel — basis and propriety | LaSalle | Glarums | Sanctions improper; remand for proper ruling. |
| Standing to seek foreclosure | LaSalle | Glarums | No merit in lack of standing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000) (controlling standard for summary judgment admissibility of evidence)
- Yisrael v. State, 993 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 2008) (business records admissibility under 90.803(6)(a))
- Moakley v. Smallwood, 826 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 2002) (inherent authority to sanction requires express bad-faith findings)
- Finol v. Finol, 912 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (requires Moakley-compliant findings for sanctions)