Lasala v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC
197 So. 3d 1228
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Aurora Loan Services originally filed foreclosure in 2009; Nationstar Mortgage was later substituted as plaintiff.
- At trial Nationstar offered business-records testimony and introduced the original note, mortgage, default letter, and a loan payment history.
- Nationstar’s witness testified the payment-history figures were verified during boarding and that the amounts in a proposed final judgment matched the payment history.
- The proposed final judgment referenced by the witness was never admitted into evidence, and the witness did not state a single total damages figure on the record.
- The trial court denied appellants’ motion to dismiss for failure to prove the debt and entered a final judgment in Nationstar’s favor.
- Appellants appealed, arguing Nationstar failed to prove the amounts owed; Nationstar conceded the full judgment amount was unsupported in the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nationstar proved damages | Nationstar relied on witness verification and the proposed judgment to show amounts owed | Appellants argued no admissible evidence established total sums owed because the proposed judgment wasn't admitted and witness gave no total | The court held Nationstar failed to prove interest amount; payment history supported principal but not total judgment, so damages were not sufficiently proven |
| Admissibility of an identified-but-not-admitted document | Nationstar treated the proposed judgment as accurate evidence via witness testimony | Appellants contended an identified but unadmitted document cannot support a judgment | Court confirmed an identified but unadmitted document is not competent evidence to support a judgment |
| Appropriate remedy for insufficiently proven damages | Nationstar asked for recalculation of interest or remand to calculate damages | Appellants sought dismissal or reversal because damages were unsupported | Court remanded for recalculation/determination of amounts owed rather than outright dismissal |
| Standard of review for evidentiary sufficiency | Nationstar accepted review under substantial competent evidence | Appellants argued insufficiency under that standard | Court applied competent substantial evidence review and found the evidence inadequate for the full judgment amount |
Key Cases Cited
- Colson v. State Farm Bank, F.S.B., 183 So.3d 1038 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Peuguero v. Bank of America, N.A., 169 So.3d 1198 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (remand for recalculation when proposed judgment not admitted but payment history exists)
- Wolkoff v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., 153 So.3d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (an identified but unadmitted document is not competent evidence)
- Sas v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 112 So.3d 778 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (remanding for recalculation when some evidence of indebtedness existed)
- Beauchamp v. Bank of New York, 150 So.3d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (discussing when remand versus dismissal is appropriate based on the type of evidence presented)