Nationstar Mortgage Co. v. Levine
216 So. 3d 711
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2017Background
- Mr. Levine executed an adjustable-rate reverse mortgage note in 2009; only his signature appears on the promissory note.
- Both Mr. and Mrs. Levine signed the reverse mortgage (security instrument); the instrument text identifies both by name as the mortgagor/“Borrower.”
- However, immediately below Mrs. Levine’s signature line the preprinted legend reads “Mary E. Levine, Non-Borrowing Spouse,” while the signature block header uses the plural “Borrowers.”
- After Mr. Levine died in 2015, Nationstar (successor lender) attempted to accelerate/foreclose under the mortgage clause that permits acceleration if “a Borrower dies and the Property is not the principal residence of at least one surviving Borrower.”
- Mrs. Levine moved for summary judgment, arguing the mortgage unambiguously made her a borrower; the trial court granted her motion. Nationstar appealed.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the instrument contains a patent internal inconsistency that requires evidentiary resolution rather than summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mrs. Levine is a “Borrower” under the reverse mortgage | Levine: the mortgage text expressly names her as a Borrower and the signature block ("Borrowers") and signing-statement show she agreed to the terms | Nationstar: the preprinted label under her signature (“Non-Borrowing Spouse”) shows she was not a borrower, creating ambiguity | Reversed trial court: the document contains a patent internal contradiction requiring extrinsic evidence; summary judgment improper |
| Whether the mortgage’s internal inconsistency is a patent or latent ambiguity | Levine: wording plainly makes her a borrower (no ambiguity) | Nationstar: inconsistent terms create ambiguity requiring factual inquiry | Court: the conflict is a patent ambiguity (appears on the face of the instrument) |
| Whether extrinsic (parol) evidence may be admitted to resolve the ambiguity | Levine: extrinsic evidence unnecessary because instrument is unambiguous | Nationstar: extrinsic evidence necessary to determine parties’ intent | Court: extrinsic evidence is admissible for patent ambiguities that concern identity/relationship; parties entitled to evidentiary hearing |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Levine: yes — instrument unambiguously names her a borrower; no factual dispute | Nationstar: no — genuine issue exists about her status requiring trial | Court: summary judgment improper; remanded for trial/evidentiary hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Mac-Gray Servs., Inc. v. Savannah Assocs. of Sarasota, LLC, 915 So.2d 657 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (latent ambiguities and necessity of disputed factual determination; extrinsic evidence when ambiguity exists)
- Fi-Evergreen Woods, LLC v. Robinson, 135 So.3d 331 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (parol evidence admissible to resolve identity/relationship ambiguities even if ambiguity is patent)
- Landis v. Meats, 329 So.2d 323 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (distinguishing when parol evidence may be used to determine parties’ capacity/identity despite patent ambiguity)
- Emergency Assocs. of Tampa, P.A. v. Sassano, 664 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (definition and limits of a patent ambiguity)
- Royal Cont’l Hotels, Inc. v. Broward Vending, Inc., 404 So.2d 782 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (permitting parol evidence to probe parties’ true intent irrespective of formal patent/latent distinction)
- Griffin v. Fed. Deposit Ins., 532 So.2d 1358 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (agreement containing latent ambiguity creates disputed issue of material fact and precludes summary judgment)