Beauchamp v. Bank of N.Y.
| Decision Date | 15 October 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D13–3841.,4D13–3841. |
| Citation | 150 So.3d 827 |
| Parties | Brian M. BEAUCHAMP, Appellant, v. The BANK OF NEW YORK, Trust Company, N.A., as Successor to JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. as Trustee, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert P. Summers of McCarthy, Summers, Bobko, Wood, Norman, Bass & Melby, P.A., Stuart, for appellant.
Marc James Ayers of Bradley, Arant, Boult, Cummings, LLP, Alabama, for appellee.
Brian Beauchamp appeals the trial court's final judgment of foreclosure in favor of the Bank of New York (“the Bank”). Although Beauchamp lodges several challenges to the final judgment, we find merit in only one of his arguments. Beauchamp argues that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay testimony as to the amount of debt owed under the note in connection with the contents of a business record without having the business record admitted into evidence. Without inadmissible hearsay, Beauchamp asserts that there was no evidence to establish the amount due on the note. We agree and reverse for further proceedings.
The mortgage was executed by Beauchamp and Lois Taylor in 2002. The note was executed only by Lois Taylor, who subsequently passed away. In 2007, the Bank initiated a foreclosure action against Beauchamp and the matter proceeded to a non-jury trial in 2012.
At the conclusion of the Bank's case, Beauchamp moved for an involuntary dismissal, arguing that there was no evidence as to the amount of debt owed on the note. The trial court permitted the Bank to reopen its case in order to provide such evidence. The Bank presented testimony from a representative of GMAC Mortgage, the servicer of the loan. The witness testified about the amount due under the note over the objection of Beauchamp's counsel, who argued that the testimony was inadmissible hearsay because the testimony concerned the contents of business records which had not been introduced into evidence.
The trial court overruled the objection and, at the conclusion of the case, entered final judgment of foreclosure in favor of the Bank.
On rehearing, the Bank conceded that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay testimony as to the amount of damages in connection with the contents of a business record without having the business record admitted into evidence. However, the parties disagreed as to what the court should do about the error. Beauchamp argued that the case should be dismissed, while the Bank asserted that the court could remand for further proceedings to properly establish the amount due under the note. Alternatively, the Bank maintained that because Beauchamp had not signed the note and was therefore not liable for any money damages, the appropriate course of action would be to allow the foreclosure to proceed without further evidentiary proceedings, because the proceeding was in rem as to Beauchamp. Apparently agreeing with the alternative argument, the trial court stated that it was “sitting in the court of equity” and denied Beauchamp's motion for involuntary dismissal.
On appeal, the Bank argues that even if the trial court erred in permitting hearsay testimony regarding the amount due under the note, such error was harmless and is not grounds for a new trial unless a substantial right of a party was adversely affected. See Bulkmatic Transp. Co. v. Taylor, 860 So.2d 436, 447–48 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) ; § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2013). The Bank reasons that because Beauchamp did not sign the note, he is not liable for paying any money judgment, and as such, the error did not adversely affect Beauchamp's substantial rights.
We agree with Beauchamp that the erroneous admission of the hearsay testimony as to damages was not made harmless by virtue of Beauchamp's non-liability for payment of the note. While Beauchamp would not be responsible for any deficiency that remained after the sale of the property, he did sign the mortgage, and the final judgment would foreclose his ownership rights by a judicial sale. As the mortgagor, Beauchamp has a right of redemption wherein he may prevent divestiture of his legal title upon payment of the amount of the debt specified in the judgment. CCC Props., Inc. v. Kane, 582 So.2d 159, 161 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) ; § 45.0315, Fla. Stat. (2013).1 Therefore, even though Beauchamp is not personally liable for the debt, the amount of the debt owed is important as it relates to Beauchamp's right of redemption, specifically as to the amount due under the judgment in order to exercise his right to stop the foreclosure sale.
Thus, the Bank's failure to provide admissible evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tracey v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
...submitted some evidence of damages and cases where there has been a complete failure of proof on the issue. See Beauchamp v. Bank of N.Y., 150 So.3d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) ; Lasala v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 197 So.3d 1228 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). For instance, in Sas v. Federal National Mortg......
-
Mace v. M&T Bank
...Bank did not fail ‘to offer any evidence at all—whether admissible or not.’ " 223 So. 3d at 1064 (quoting Beauchamp v. Bank of N.Y., 150 So. 3d 827, 829 n.2 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) ). The Mathis opinion holds that Nationstar's failure to produce the original allonge to the note required reversa......
-
Green Emerald Homes, LLC v. 21st Mortg. Corp.
...everything that is due. See Clay Cty. Land Tr., 152 So. 3d at 85 ; see also § 45.0315, Fla. Stat. (2014) ; Beauchamp v. Bank of N.Y., 150 So. 3d 827, 828 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). But that analysis proceeds from the assumption, which we think unwarranted, that a subsequent purchaser lacks standi......
-
Evans v. HSBC Bank, USA, Nat'l Ass'n
...submitted some evidence of damages and cases where there has been a complete failure of proof on the issue. See Beauchamp v. Bank of N.Y. , 150 So.3d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) ; Lasala v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC , 197 So.3d 1228 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). For instance, in Sas v. Federal National Mor......
-
Chapter 10-2 Third-Party Purchasers
...to contest the validity of a mortgage does not affect his equitable right of redemption."); Beauchamp v. The Bank of N.Y., Tr. Co., N.A., 150 So. 3d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Clay Cty. Land Tr. No. 08-04-25-0078-014-27, Orange Park Tr. Servs., LLC v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, Nat'l Ass'n., 152 S......
-
Chapter 10-2 Third-Party Purchasers
...to contest the validity of a mortgage does not affect his equitable right of redemption."); Beauchamp v. The Bank of N.Y., Tr. Co., N.A., 150 So. 3d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Clay Cty. Land Tr. No. 08-04-25-0078-014-27, Orange Park Tr. Servs., LLC v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, Nat'l Ass'n., 152 S......
-
Chapter 9-3 During Foreclosure
...to pay under the judgment in order to exercise its right to stop the foreclosure sale."); Beauchamp v. The Bank of N.Y, Tr. Co., N.A., 150 So. 3d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).[30] Hidden Ridge Condo. Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. OneWest Bank, N.A., 183 So. 3d 1266, 1270 n.4 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) ("We......
-
Chapter 9-3 During Foreclosure
...to pay under the judgment in order to exercise its right to stop the foreclosure sale."); Beauchamp v. The Bank of N.Y., Tr. Co., N.A., 150 So. 3d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).[31] Hidden Ridge Condo. Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. OneWest Bank, N.A., 183 So. 3d 1266, 1270 n.4 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) ("W......