Sas v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n, 112 So. 3d 778

Sas financed a residence in 2007 with a promissory note and mortgage.
Foreclosure proceedings were commenced in 2009 by Chase as servicer for Fannie Mae; Fannie Mae was substituted as plaintiff in 2011.
At bench trial, the sole evidence of the debt came from Greenlee, who had no personal knowledge of the amount.
Greenlee testified the total amount due was $240,756.88 based on review of Fannie Mae/Seterus business records.
Fannie Mae did not produce the underlying business records; Sas’s objection as to hearsay was overruled.
The trial court entered judgment for $240,756.88, and the court later REMANDED for proper foundation to establish the amount owed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Greenlee’s testimony about the debt amount was admissible hearsay without admitted business records	Sas	Sas	Trial court erred; remand for proper foundation

Dreyer v. State, 46 So.3d 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (hearsay evidence lacking personal knowledge not admissible)
A.S. v. State, 91 So.3d 270 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (business records not admitted; value estimation not proven)
Richardson v. State, 875 So.2d 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (witness with no personal knowledge cannot testify to amount from unadmitted record)
Thompson v. State, 705 So.2d 1046 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (business record exception requires records be admitted)
Cullimore v. Barnett Bank of Jacksonville, 386 So.2d 894 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (no records offered into evidence; hearsay should be excluded)
Mazine v. M&I Bank, 67 So.3d 1129 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (remand for proper foundation for affidavit of amounts due)
Sottilaro v. Figueroa, 86 So.3d 505 (Fla. 2d DCA) (abuse of discretion in admitting evidence without foundation)
Merlin v. Boca Raton Cmty. Hosp., 479 So.2d 236 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (adverse party may inspect documents used to refresh memory)