JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Ass'n v. Bigley
120 So. 3d 1265
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Chase sought foreclosure on a condo owned by Jade Winds’ debtor Bigley, naming Jade Winds as a defendant.
- Jade Winds had obtained a separate final judgment and foreclosed its lien, causing Jade Winds to obtain title to the unit on November 9, 2010.
- A non-jury foreclosure trial occurred on October 27, 2011, where Jade Winds prevailed by directed verdict for failure to prove conditions precedent, including absence of the acceleration notice in evidence.
- Final Judgment in Jade Winds’ favor was entered January 25, 2012; Chase moved for reconsideration, which was ostensibly served February 6, 2012, but a private postage-meter mark indicated February 7, 2012.
- The trial court treated the motion as untimely; Chase argued the certificate of service date (Feb 6) controlled and the private meter date (Feb 7) rebutted it.
- The appellate court held the private postage-meter mark is competent substantial evidence to rebut the prima facie proof of mailing and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine the actual service date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service-by-mail timeliness can be rebutted by a private postage-meter date | Chase contends private meter is insufficient to rebut certificate date | Jade Winds argues private meter is competent evidence to show later mailing | Private meter rebuttal is competent substantial evidence |
| Is a private postage-meter mark equivalent to a USPS cancellation for timeliness | Certificate date controls; meter date not valid rebuttal | Meter date can establish actual mailing date | Meter mark is distinguishable and can rebut prima facie mailing date |
| Should the case be remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the actual service date | No evidentiary hearing required; date on certificate suffices | Evidentiary hearing needed to determine service date | Remand for evidentiary hearing warranted to determine service date |
Key Cases Cited
- Nesslein v. Nesslein, 672 So.2d 582 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (postal cancellation date cannot rebut prima facie certificate of service)
- Mr. Martinez of Miami, Inc. v. Ponce De Leon Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass’n, 558 So.2d 153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (postal cancellation date not sufficient to rebut prima facie proof)
- Migliore v. Migliore, 717 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (certificate of service creates rebuttable presumption; private meter date can rebut)
- Arza v. Florida Elections Commission, 907 So.2d 604 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (administrative code requires USPS postmark; metered postmark not satisfactory proof)
- Machado v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 48 So.3d 1004 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (private meter marks insufficient to establish date of mailing in unemployment appeals)
- Bowman v. Administrator, Ohio Bureau of Employment Svcs., 507 N.E.2d 342 (Ohio 1987) (private meter postmark presumptively valid and accurate for date of deposit)
- Lozier Corp. v. Douglas Cty. Bd. of Equalization, 829 N.W.2d 652 (Neb. 2013) (private meter stamp as satisfactory evidence of date of mailing under regulations)