Glen Garron, LLC v. Buchwald, 210 So. 3d 229

In 2009 BankUnited filed a two-count complaint against Marla Buchwald: Count I for breach of the promissory note (money damages) and Count II to foreclose under the mortgage; the complaint attached the mortgage, adjustable-rate rider, property description, and family rider but not a copy of the note.
The original note (with an allonge bearing a blank indorsement) and mortgage were later filed in the court file and served on the defendant; BankUnited’s interest later was assigned to Glen Garron, LLC.
Buchwald (pro se) moved to dismiss for failure to attach the note under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.130; that motion was denied in 2010 but she renewed an ore tenus motion at the 2015 trial.
During trial the court granted Buchwald’s ore tenus motion and dismissed the complaint without prejudice and without leave to amend, concluding filing the original note in the court file could not cure the pleading defect.
Glen Garron appealed, arguing (1) the material provisions of the note were incorporated in the mortgage and riders attached to the complaint (satisfying Rule 1.130), or at minimum the post-filing submission of the original note cured any defect; and (2) the court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend.
The Fifth District reversed: it held the attached mortgage and riders contained the material portions of the note sufficient under Rule 1.130 and that denial of leave to amend was an abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Glen Garron)	Defendant's Argument (Buchwald)	Held
Whether failure to attach the note to the original foreclosure complaint required dismissal under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.130	Attaching mortgage and riders that incorporate the note’s material terms satisfies Rule 1.130; post-filing placement of the original note in the court file and service cured any defect	Rule 1.130 requires attachment of the note; filing the original note later cannot cure the original pleading defect	Reversed: mortgage and riders contained the material portions required by Rule 1.130; post-filing of the original note also cured any defect in this case
Whether denial of leave to amend the complaint was an abuse of discretion	Leave should be freely given; any defect was remediable and amendment was not futile or prejudicial	Denial appropriate because defect existed and was not cured in the original pleading; amendment at trial was untimely	Reversed: denial was an abuse of discretion—amendment should have been permitted because prejudice to defendant was not shown and the defect was remediable

U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. ADT Sec. Servs., 134 So. 3d 477 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (standard for judgment on pleadings and consideration of documents referenced in complaint)
Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Zorie, 146 So. 3d 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (Rule 1.130 satisfied by attachment of summary/material portions of promissory note)
Contractors Unlimited, Inc. v. Nortrax Equip. Co. Se., 833 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (instrument must be attached or incorporated for a written-instrument claim)
Samuels v. King Motor Co. of Fort Lauderdale, 782 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (same principle on attachment/incorporation of instruments)
Amiker v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 398 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (purpose of Rule 1.130 is to apprise defendant of claims by attaching material portions)
Jaffer v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 155 So. 3d 1199 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (failure to attach note may raise standing defenses but does not necessarily defeat a foreclosure claim)
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Knight, 90 So. 3d 824 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (bank can state foreclosure claim despite not attaching note to original complaint)
Pitts v. Pastore, 561 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (mortgage is the basis for foreclosure; note alone does not support equitable relief)
David v. Sun Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 461 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1984) (acceleration and mortgage rights arise from mortgage terms; foreclosure is equitable and based on mortgage)