Sonia J. Sanchez and Hector L. Sanchez v. SunTrust Bank, 179 So. 3d 538

Sonia and Hector Sanchez executed a promissory note and mortgage in June 2006; SunTrust Mortgage (a wholly owned subsidiary of SunTrust Bank) was the servicer.
SunTrust Bank filed a foreclosure action in January 2010; the original note (with an undated, blank endorsement) was filed in May 2010.
At trial, a SunTrust Mortgage employee testified and sought to authenticate several documents as business records: a screenshot from a computerized tracking system, payment history, default letters, collection notes, and a payoff calculation.
The witness testified about his review practices and familiarity with three record systems but did not establish when the records were made or how the screenshot was generated; he relied in part on a conversation with another employee identified only by first name.
The trial court admitted those documents under the business records exception over the Sanchezs’ objections; the bank used those records to prove standing, the outstanding balance, and compliance with mortgage conditions.
The Fourth District reversed the final judgment of foreclosure, holding the business‑records foundation was insufficient and that standing was not proved for SunTrust Bank at the time suit was filed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Foundation under business records exception	SunTrust: witness testimony established records were kept in ordinary course and reliable	Sanchez: witness didn’t show records were made at/near the events or explain creation process	Reversed — proponent failed to prove records were made at/near events; foundation inadequate
Witness qualification to authenticate screenshot	SunTrust: witness was familiar with company recordkeeping and similar screenshots	Sanchez: witness lacked knowledge of how this screenshot was produced and was not familiar with that system	Reversed — witness not qualified to authenticate screenshot as business record
Standing based on blank endorsement and possession	SunTrust: endorsement and testimony showed entitlement to enforce note	Sanchez: appellee did not prove possession of the original note when suit was filed	Reversed — evidence did not prove SunTrust Bank possessed note at filing; standing not established
Parent-subsidiary effect on standing	SunTrust: subsidiary status and testimony show SunTrust Bank had rights to foreclose	Sanchez: parent and subsidiary are distinct; ownership by subsidiary doesn’t confer rights on parent absent evidence	Reversed — subsidiary’s possession does not automatically provide parent standing without proof

Peuguero v. Bank of Am., N.A., 169 So. 3d 1198 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (business records exception elements)
Yisrael v. State, 993 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 2008) (business records foundation requirements)
Glarum v. LaSalle Nat’l Ass’n, 83 So. 3d 780 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (servicer rep must know how data is produced)
Weisenberg v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 89 So. 3d 1111 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (familiarity with record‑keeping and data upload satisfies foundation)
Cayea v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 138 So. 3d 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (printouts admissible if qualified witness explains preparation, reliability)
Riggs v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 36 So. 3d 932 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (possession of an original note indorsed in blank establishes holder status)
Snyder v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 169 So. 3d 1270 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (plaintiff must possess note when suit filed if endorsement is undated and blank)
Wright v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 169 So. 3d 251 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (parent and subsidiary are separate entities; parent needs evidence of acquired enforcement rights)
Brooks v. State, 918 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 2005) (when preparer lacks personal knowledge, information must come from someone with knowledge acting in ordinary course)