300 So.3d 698
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2019Background
- In 2007 Rosalie Reid executed a note for $186,000 secured by a mortgage; 21st Mortgage later sued to foreclose for Reid's default and filed a lis pendens in 2014.
- Green Emerald Homes, LLC owned the property when the foreclosure complaint and lis pendens were filed and was named as a defendant; it answered and disputed many allegations but admitted ownership/possession.
- At non‑jury trial 21st Mortgage's sole witness (Whit Reed) authenticated the original note, mortgage, default letter, and payment history, but testified that a loan modification apparently changed principal by about $77,270 and that he did not have the modification document.
- 21st Mortgage tendered a proposed final judgment that included the larger principal figure; the trial court removed the unexplained $77,270 but entered judgment foreclosing Green Emerald’s interest.
- Green Emerald moved for involuntary dismissal for failure to prove the amount due; the trial court denied the motion but reduced the claimed principal and entered final judgment; Green Emerald appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (21st Mortgage) | Defendant's Argument (Green Emerald) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a titleholder named as defendant who is not a party to the note lacks standing to challenge plaintiff’s proof of amount due | Green Emerald lacks standing to contest amount due because it is not a party to the note/mortgage | As a named defendant and titleholder, Green Emerald has a due‑process right to require plaintiff to prove all elements, including amount due | Titleholder named as defendant who owned property when suit/lis pendens filed may defend and insist plaintiff prove amount due; the “standing” argument rejected |
| Whether 21st Mortgage proved the amount due under the note | The account records and witness testimony were adequate | Plaintiff’s witness admitted a loan modification likely changed principal but the modification was not produced; thus proof is insufficient | 21st failed to present competent substantial evidence of the amount due; judgment reversed |
| Whether substantive limitations on defenses by subsequent purchasers bar Green Emerald’s challenge | Plaintiff relied on doctrines that subsequent purchasers are estopped to contest validity of a recorded mortgage and cannot assert nonparty contract rights | Green Emerald’s challenge did not attack mortgage validity or assert nonparty contract rights; it merely demanded proof of amount due | Estoppel/contract‑rights limitations did not preclude Green Emerald’s evidentiary challenge |
| Appropriate remedy when plaintiff’s proof of amount due is legally insufficient | N/A | Requested involuntary dismissal | Court ordered involuntary dismissal (reversed and remanded with instructions to enter involuntary dismissal) |
Key Cases Cited
- Gen. Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. Means, 362 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 2d DCA) (admission in answer can eliminate issue alleged in complaint)
- Ernest v. Carter, 368 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 2d DCA) (amount due is element of foreclosure cause of action)
- U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Bevans, 138 So. 3d 1185 (Fla. 3d DCA) (legal titleholder is an indispensable party in foreclosure)
- Wolkoff v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., 153 So. 3d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA) (plaintiff must prove amount due by competent witness authenticating business records)
- Werb v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 231 So. 3d 483 (Fla. 4th DCA) (insufficient proof where proposed final judgment not admitted and calculations unexplained)
- Ezem v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 153 So. 3d 341 (Fla. 1st DCA) (party claiming co‑ownership entitled to hearing/intervention to protect interest)