199 So. 3d 966
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- Marlene and Errol Rattigan (Appellants) had their property foreclosed by Central Mortgage Company (the Bank).
- At trial the Bank presented the original promissory note capping principal at $747,500 but sought recovery of roughly $760,000.
- The Bank's sole witness testified that the loan was modified in writing in 2012 to raise or remove the original cap.
- The Bank did not introduce the alleged written modification (neither original nor duplicate) into evidence at trial.
- The Rattigans challenged the foreclosure judgment based on the Bank's failure to prove the contents of the modification under the best evidence rule.
- The trial court entered a final judgment of foreclosure; the Fourth District reversed and remanded for involuntary dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Bank's failure to introduce the written modification violated the best evidence rule and fatally undermined its foreclosure judgment | The Bank argued the witness testimony adequately proved the modification and the amount owed | Rattigan argued the written modification was required to prove its terms and amount due under the best evidence rule | Court held the Bank violated the best evidence rule by not introducing the written modification; testimony about its contents was inadmissible, so judgment lacked proper evidentiary support and reversal with involuntary dismissal was required |
Key Cases Cited
- Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Huber, 137 So. 3d 562 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (standard of review and evidentiary view on involuntary dismissal)
- J.H. v. State, 480 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (when contract terms are in issue, the written agreement itself must be introduced under the best evidence rule)
- Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Clarke, 87 So. 3d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (discussing requirement to introduce original or a proper duplicate with explanation when originals are unavailable)