Michael Maslak v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
190 So. 3d 656
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Borrower executed three promissory notes and mortgages originally to Washington Mutual (WAMU); loans were serviced by JPMorgan Chase (Chase) and later assigned to Wells Fargo as trustee.
- Borrower defaulted; Wells Fargo filed three foreclosure actions that were consolidated for trial and resulted in three final judgments of foreclosure.
- Wells Fargo introduced, among other documents, a printed screenshot payment history (Exhibit 9) through a Chase employee who is a home loan research officer who began working for Chase after default.
- The witness identified documents and recited the four elements of the business-records exception but had not worked in Chase’s payment processing department and lacked personal knowledge of how the payment-history screenshot was produced or whether outside counsel altered it.
- Trial court admitted the payment history over borrower’s hearsay/foundation objection; borrower moved for involuntary dismissal and appealed the resulting judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the payment-history screenshot was admissible under the business-records exception | The witness lacked foundation and familiarity with how the payment record was produced; screenshot is hearsay | Witness testified to each statutory element and identified the record as a Chase business record | Reversed as to amounts: screenshot inadmissible because witness failed to testify about how payment data were input or produced; foundation insufficient |
| Whether absence of payment history defeats proof of amounts due | Borrower: without admissible payment history, Wells Fargo failed to prove amounts owed | Wells Fargo: other documents and witness testimony satisfied business-records predicate | Court held without the payment history Wells Fargo failed to prove amounts due; remanded to establish amounts |
Key Cases Cited
- Cayea v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 138 So. 3d 1214 (discusses standard of review for admissibility and application of rules of evidence)
- Sanchez v. Suntrust Bank, 179 So. 3d 538 (screenshot payment history improperly admitted where witness lacked knowledge of creation process)
- Peuguero v. Bank of America, N.A., 169 So. 3d 1198 (business-records predicate elements)
- Landmark Am. Ins. Co. v. Pin-Pon Corp., 155 So. 3d 432 (records custodian or qualified witness may lay foundation but must have necessary knowledge)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Balkissoon, 183 So. 3d 1272 (payment history admissible where witness explained systems and how data were produced)
- Channell v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 173 So. 3d 1017 (remand to establish amounts due when payment history excluded)
- Sas v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 112 So. 3d 778 (failure to prove amounts due warrants remand)