U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Adams, 219 So. 3d 211

U.S. Bank, as trustee, filed a residential mortgage foreclosure against Robert and Sheilah Adams.
The Adamses asserted in answer and later moved for summary judgment that U.S. Bank failed to give statutory notice under section 559.715, Fla. Stat., that the debt had been assigned, and failed to give mortgage notice of default required by paragraph 22.
The Adamses supported their motion with affidavits stating they never received the assignment or default notices.
U.S. Bank opposed, arguing section 559.715 does not create a condition precedent to foreclosure and that the Adamses’ affidavits only attested nonreceipt, not nondelivery; U.S. Bank also produced a copy of a default notice and invoked the mortgage’s mailbox rule.
The trial court granted summary judgment for the Adamses and dismissed the foreclosure; the bank appealed.
The Second District reversed, holding notice under section 559.715 is not a condition precedent and that the Adamses failed to show entitlement to summary judgment on the mortgage notice claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (U.S. Bank)	Defendant's Argument (Adamses)	Held
Whether § 559.715 notice is a condition precedent to foreclosure	§ 559.715 does not create a condition precedent; bank complied or allegations state conditions were met	Lack of statutory notice (assignment) under § 559.715 bars foreclosure	Not a condition precedent; summary judgment for defendants on this ground was improper
Whether paragraph 22 default notice was required and was given	Bank mailed a paragraph 22 default notice; mailbox rule deems notice given	No default notice was given; affidavits show they never received required notice	Adamses’ affidavits insufficient to establish nondelivery; bank’s notice met paragraph 22 requirements
Whether the default notice substantially complied by warning that a "sale" might result	Bank’s notice adequately warned of foreclosure and loss of ownership; substantial compliance standard	Notice failed to state explicitly that property could be sold, so did not comply	Letter sufficiently informed borrower that foreclosure could terminate ownership; omission that sale might occur was a minor variance and did not defeat compliance
Whether alternative grounds support affirmance (tipsy coachman)	N/A – bank sought reversal	Adamses urged alternate bases (mortgage notice defects) to affirm the judgment	Alternate grounds rejected; appellate court remanded for further proceedings

Brindise v. U.S. Bank N.A., 183 So. 3d 1215 (Fla. 2d DCA) (holding § 559.715 notice does not create condition precedent to foreclosure)
Young v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 205 So. 3d 790 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (addressing sufficiency of § 559.715 challenge in foreclosure context)
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Ostrander, 201 So. 3d 1281 (Fla. 2d DCA) (affidavits like appellees’ insufficient to establish failure to give paragraph 22 notice)
Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Milam, 177 So. 3d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (minor variations from paragraph 22 language do not go to the essence of the bargain)
City of Clearwater v. School Bd. of Pinellas County, 905 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (explaining the tipsy coachman doctrine)
Dade County School Board v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1999) (tipsy coachman doctrine articulated)