Hunter v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC

Decision Date25 April 2014
Docket NumberNo. 1D12–6071.,1D12–6071.
PartiesLewis B. HUNTER, Jr., Appellant, v. AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC, Unknown Spouse of Lewis B. Hunter, Jr., If Any; any and all Unknown Parties Claiming by, Through, Under, and Against the Herein Named Individual Defendant(s) who are not Known to be Dead or Alive, Whether Said Unknown Parties may Claim an Interest as Spouses, Heirs, Devisees, Grantees or Other Claimants; Settler's Creek Homeowners Association, Inc.; John Doe and Jane Doe as Unknown Tenants in Possession, Appellees.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Wendy S. Loquasto, Fox & Loquasto, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Christopher L. Hixson, Law Office of Daniel C. Consuegra, P.L., Tampa, for Appellees.

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING, CLARIFICATION, CERTIFICATION AND REHEARING EN BANC

MARSTILLER, J.

We deny the motion for rehearing, clarification, certification and rehearing en banc filed by Appellee, Aurora Loan Services, LLC, but we withdraw our opinion of March 4, 2014, and substitute this opinion in its place.

Lewis B. Hunter, Jr., appeals a final judgment of foreclosure entered against him, asserting that Aurora Loan Services, LLC (Aurora), lacked standing to sue for foreclosure. He argues the trial court relied on evidence incorrectly admitted under the business records exception to the hearsay rule to find that Aurora held the promissory note as of April 3, 2007, when the lawsuit commenced. We agree, and reverse.

Aurora alleged in its “Complaint to Foreclose Mortgage and to Enforce Lost Loan Documents” that it owned and held the promissory note and the mortgage, but was not in physical possession of the original documents and could not obtain their whereabouts. Evidence presented at trial in August 2012 established that the original owner of the note and mortgage was MortgageIT, and that MortgageIT subsequently assigned both to Aurora. A letter dated January 27, 2007, from Aurora to Mr. Hunter entitled, “Notice of Assignment, Sale, or Transfer of Servicing Rights,” directed him to remit mortgage payments to Aurora beginning February 1, 2007. The “Corporate Assignment of Mortgage” executed on June 11, 2007, and recorded on January 8, 2008, showed MortgageIT as the assignor and Aurora as the assignee.

To establish that it held and had the right to enforce the note as of April 3, 2007, Aurora sought to put in evidence certain computer-generated records: one, a printout entitled “Account Balance Report” dated 1/30/2007,” indicating Mr. Hunter's loan was sold to Lehman Brothers—of which Aurora is a subsidiary and for which Aurora services loans—and payment in full was received on 12/20/2006;” the second, a “consolidated notes log” printout dated 7/18/2007 indicating the physical note and mortgage were sent—it is not readily clear to whom—via two-day UPS on April 18, 2007. Neither document reflects that it was generated by MortgageIT.

At the time of trial in 2012, these records were possessed by Rushmore Loan Management Service (“Rushmore”), the latest in a succession of loan servicers. (Rushmore services the loan on behalf of Arch Bay Holdings, which currently owns the note and mortgage.) Asserting the records originally came from MortgageIT, Aurora relied on the testimony of Rushmore employee Roger Martin to lay the necessary foundation for admitting the records into evidence under section 90.803(6)(a), Florida Statutes, the business records exception to the hearsay rule.

Mr. Martin testified that he has worked in the residential mortgage industry for approximately 15 years, performing a variety of duties, including due diligence and underwriting. From 2004 to about 2007, he performed these services for Lehman Brothers. He had not worked at any time for MortgageIT. But he testified, based on his dealings with the company while at Lehman Brothers, that MortgageIT's business practice, upon the sale of a loan and mortgage, was to send electronic versions of the pertinent documents to the new owner, determine a post-sale “transfer date” on which loan servicing would transfer from its servicer to the new owner's servicer, and retain possession of the original note and mortgage documents until the transaction was fully completed. According to Mr. Martin, this procedure is standard across the mortgage industry.

As to the consolidated notes log, one entry therein dated 4/18/07 reads: LENSTAR SERVICER: SENT ORIGINAL NOTE AND MORTGAGE VIA 2 DAY UPS # 1ZR90AF80242840896.” A second entry dated 4/18/07 simply says, “AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC.” Mr. Martin, however, deciphered the notations to mean MortgageIT sent the original documents to Aurora on April 18, 2007. He had no knowledge about who generated the notations, or how and where that individual obtained the information. Neither did he have such knowledge about the Account Balance Report. Further, he could not testify from personal knowledge that either document belonged to or was generated by MortgageIT. He testified only that the computer program from which the notes log originated is used across the industry, that a records custodian for the loan servicer is the person who usually inputs such notes, and that normal industry practice is for a lender's accounts payable department to create an account balance report reflecting a zero balance on the loan when it is sold to another entity.

Discussion

A trial court's decision to admit evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion, subject, of course, to the rules of evidence and case law. See generally Gregory v. State, 118 So.3d 770, 780 (Fla.2013). Under the Florida Evidence Code, hearsay—a statement, other than one made by a witness at trial, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted—is inadmissible, except as specifically provided in the code. See§§ 90.801(1)(c), 90.802, 90.803, 90.804, Fla. Stat. (2012). Section 90.803(6) provides one such exception for business records, if the necessary foundation is established:

A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinion, or diagnosis, made at or near the time by, or from information...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Houk v. PennyMac Corp., Case No. 2D15–2583
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • February 10, 2017
    ...Consortium Inc. ISAOA/ATIMA v. Jean–Jacques , 28 So.3d 936, 939 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ); see also Hunter v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC , 137 So.3d 570, 573 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 157 So.3d 1040 (Fla. 2014) ; Dixon [v. Express Equity Lending Grp., LLLP] , 125 So.3d [965, 967 (Fla. 4th DCA ......
  • Bank of N.Y. v. Calloway, 4D13–2224.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • January 7, 2015
    ...Mazine v. M & I Bank, 67 So.3d 1129, 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (citation omitted); see also Hunter v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 137 So.3d 570, 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).In reaching its decision, the trial court relied heavily on Glarum v. La Salle Bank National Association, 83 So.3d 780 (Fla. 4......
  • Jackson v. Household Fin. Corp.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • July 2, 2020
    ...how the record was made can lay the necessary foundation." (quoting Forester , 610 So. 2d at 1373 ); Hunter v. Aurora Loan Servs. , LLC , 137 So. 3d 570, 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (finding testimony from witness insufficient to lay the proper foundation when the witness lacked "personal knowl......
  • Hunter v. State, CASE NO. 1D13-0862
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 12, 2015
    ...is reviewed for abuse of discretion, subject, of course, to the rules of evidence and case law." Hunter v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, 137 So. 3d 570, 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (citing Gregory v. State, 118 So. 3d 770, 780 (Fla. 2013)). Under the Florida Evidence Code, "[h]earsay within hearsa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 12-1 Introduction
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Florida Foreclosure Law 2020 Title Chapter 12 Motions for Summary Judgment in Foreclosure Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...(quoting Bank of N.Y. v. Calloway, 157 So. 3d 1064, 1073 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (quotation omitted)); Hunter v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, 137 So. 3d 570, 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (quoting Mazine v. M & I Bank, 67 So. 3d 1129, 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)).[122] Glarum v. La Salle Bank, 83 So. 3d 7......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT