83 So. 3d 780
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- LaSalle Bank moved for rehearing/clarification; opinion withdrawn and replaced with clarifying decision.
- Two issues: whether trial court erred in summary judgment of foreclosure for LaSalle and whether sanctions against appellants’ counsel were proper.
- Court reversed summary judgment in part due to insufficient admissible evidence of any amount due under note/mortgage.
- Orsini affidavit of indebtedness deemed inadmissible hearsay; data relied on from Litton Loan Servicing could not establish damages.
- Trial court sanctions against appellants’ counsel for certain affidavits were reversed as improper; 57.105 sanctions not supported.
- Court found no merit to appellants’ standing challenge to LaSalle’s foreclosure; remanded for further proceedings consistent with opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment of foreclosure was proper | LaSalle contends evidence shows default and amounts due. | Appellants argue the amount due was not properly proven and evidence is inadmissible. | Partial reversal; summary judgment improper due to inadmissible evidence; remand. |
| Whether Orsini affidavit evidence is admissible to prove indebtedness | Affidavit supports amount due under the note. | Affidavit is inadmissible hearsay; relies on data not personally verified. | Affidavit inadmissible; damages amount not established. |
| Whether sanctions against appellants’ counsel are proper | Sanctions warranted for filing questionable affidavits. | No basis for sanctions under statute or inherent authority due to lack of findings. | Sanctions reversed; improper under both statute and inherent authority. |
| Whether LaSalle had standing to seek foreclosure | LaSalle had standing as holder of the note/mortgage. | Challenge to standing based on assignment or other issues. | No merit to standing challenge; foreclosure standing validated on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126 (Fla. 2000) (summary judgment standard requires admissible evidence; light most favorable to non-movant)
- Yisrael v. State, 993 So.2d 952 (Fla. 2008) (business records exception requires proper authentication and knowledge)
- Moakley v. Smallwood, 826 So.2d 221 (Fla. 2002) (inherent authority to sanction requires explicit bad-faith findings)
- Finol v. Final, 912 So.2d 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (sanctions order must be specific and tied to bad-faith conduct on the record)