Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Eisenberg
220 So. 3d 517
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Wells Fargo sued Mara Eisenberg for mortgage foreclosure, alleging default beginning December 1, 2008 and a principal balance of $101,098.78.
- Loan was originally serviced by First Union, then Wachovia, and later by Wells Fargo after mergers.
- Wells Fargo’s loan verification analyst testified about Wells Fargo’s boarding procedures and that Wells Fargo integrated prior servicers’ records into its system, but she lacked direct knowledge of First Union’s record-creation procedures.
- The trial court excluded the portion of the payment history originating with the initial servicer (First Union) for lack of foundation, but admitted payment history beginning with Wachovia (March 2010) and a Wells Fargo payoff screenshot showing the asserted balance and original default date.
- Borrower moved for involuntary dismissal arguing Wells Fargo failed to prove standing and the amount owed; trial court denied dismissal on standing but granted it for failure to prove amounts due, finding the payment history incomplete and no definitive default date.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the excluded prior-servicer records should have been admitted and that the admitted evidence was sufficient to make a prima facie showing of damages, so the involuntary dismissal was erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wells Fargo) | Defendant's Argument (Eisenberg) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of payment history from prior servicer | Wells Fargo argued its witness laid foundation by testifying to boarding/verification procedures that integrated and checked prior servicer records | Eisenberg argued the witness lacked knowledge of First Union/Wachovia record-creation and so could not authenticate those portions | Court held the witness’s testimony about boarding and verification sufficed to treat acquired records as Wells Fargo business records and the exclusion was an abuse of discretion |
| Appropriateness of involuntary dismissal for failure to prove amounts due | Wells Fargo argued the payoff screenshot plus admitted payment history (from Wachovia) established prima facie damages; alternatively would accept limiting claim to amounts shown in admitted history | Eisenberg argued incomplete payment history (missing 2008–2010) meant no competent proof of amount or default date | Court held the admitted payoff screenshot and payment history, viewed favorably to Wells Fargo, were sufficient to establish a prima facie case on damages; involuntary dismissal was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Gundersen, 204 So.3d 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings and hearsay law review)
- Bank of N.Y. v. Calloway, 157 So.3d 1064 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (successor servicer may authenticate acquired records via boarding/verification testimony)
- Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. v. Baker, 199 So.3d 967 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (prima facie damages can preclude involuntary dismissal even where evidence of damages was erroneously admitted)
- Beauchamp v. Bank of New York, 150 So.3d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (reversing dismissal where bank established indebtedness through witness testimony despite hearsay concerns)
- Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Del Lupo, 208 So.3d 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (admitted payment history supporting prima facie damages defeats involuntary dismissal)
- Cayea v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 138 So.3d 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (authenticating witness need not be the preparer of the records)
- Love v. Garcia, 634 So.2d 158 (Fla. 1994) (burden on opposing party to prove untrustworthiness of business records)