Hunter v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC
137 So. 3d 570
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Marstiller, J. denies rehearing, clarifies judgment, and substitutes new opinion.
- Hunter appeals foreclosure, alleging Aurora lacked standing to sue.
- Trial relied on business records to prove Aurora held the note as of April 3, 2007.
- Original note and mortgage were owned by MortgagelT before being assigned to Aurora.
- Account Balance Report (1/30/2007) and consolidated notes log (7/18/2007) were admitted under the business records exception but lacked foundation.
- Court reverses for lack of standing and remands on counterclaim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to foreclose | Hunter argues Aurora lacked standing to foreclose as of filing. | Aurora asserts it held the note/mortgage via assignment and records. | Aurora lacked standing; reversed foreclosure |
| Admissibility of business records | Aurora contends records were admissible as business records to prove ownership. | Hunter contends foundation for business records was insufficient. | Records improperly admitted; cannot establish ownership |
Key Cases Cited
- McLean v. JPMorgan Chase Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 79 So.3d 170 (Fla.4th DCA 2012) (standing requires proof of ownership or lawful transfer)
- Stone v. BankUnited, 115 So.3d 411 (Fla.2d DCA 2013) (evidence of assignment or transfer proves standing)
- BAC Funding Consortium Inc. ISAOA/ATIMA v. Jean-Jacques, 28 So.3d 936 (Fla.2d DCA 2010) (valid transfer or purchase necessary to foreclose)
- Yisrael v. State, 993 So.2d 952 (Fla.2008) (foundation requirements for business records)
- WAMCO XXVIII, Ltd. v. Integrated Electronic Environments, Inc., 903 So.2d 230 (Fla.2d DCA 2005) (business records foundation considerations)