Clay Cnty. Land Trust 04-25-0078-014-27 v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nat'l Ass'n

• Decision Date: 20 November 2014
• Docket Number: No. 1D14–1125.,1D14–1125.
• Citation: 152 So.3d 83
• Parties: CLAY COUNTY LAND TRUST # 08–04–25–0078–014–27, ORANGE PARK TRUST SERVICES, LLC as Trustee Only, Appellant, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

152 So.3d 83

CLAY COUNTY LAND TRUST # 08–04–25–0078–014–27, ORANGE PARK TRUST SERVICES, LLC as TrusteeOnly, Appellant

v.JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Appellee.

No. 1D14–1125.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 20, 2014.

Alisa D. Wilkes, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Allyson L. Sartoian of Phelan Hallinan, PLC, Ft. Lauderdale, for Appellee.

Opinion

SWANSON, J.

In this mortgage foreclosure action, appellant claims the trial court erred in entering summary final judgment for appellee because (1) there was no evidence that appellee gave the borrower (Patrick Buckley) a written notice of default and an opportunity to cure the default before instituting the foreclosure action as required by the terms of the mortgage; (2)appellee failed to establish that it held the note and mortgage prior to the filing of the foreclosure complaint; and (3)appellee's supporting affidavit as to the amount owed on the note contained inadmissible hearsay.For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of foreclosure except as to the amount due under the note and remand for further proceedings to determine that amount.

As to its first claim, appellant concedes it was not a party to the mortgage and was not entitled to a written notice of default or an opportunity to cure the default under the terms of the mortgage.Because appellant was not a party to the mortgage, appellee correctly asserts that appellant does not have standing to challenge any violation of these mortgage terms.The borrower, Buckley, was the only party who could plead nonperformance of these conditions precedent as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.120(c).His failure to do so, and his subsequent default, resulted in the waiver of the conditions.SeeRivera v. Hammer Head Constr. & Dev. Corp.,14 So.3d 1190(Fla. 5th DCA2009)(holding that the failure to plead nonperformance of a condition precedent specifically and with particularity under rule 1.120 results in the waiver of the condition).

As to appellant's second claim, appellee's possession of the note secured by the mortgage is sufficient by itself to establish standing to foreclose, even without a formal assignment of the mortgage.Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Morcom,125 So.3d 320, 321–22(Fla. 5th DCA2013);Everhome Mortg. Co. v. Janssen,100 So.3d 1239, 1240(Fla. 2d DCA2012);Chem. Residential Mortg. v. Rector,742 So.2d 300(Fla. 1st DCA1998).However, appellee must prove that it was a holder of the note in due course at the time of the filing of the foreclosure complaint.Kiefert v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC,2014 WL 5099374, 39 Fla. L. Weekly D2151(Fla. 1st DCAOct. 13, 2014);Boyd v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,143 So.3d 1128(Fla. 4th DCA2014);Hunter v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC,137 So.3d 570, 573(Fla. 1st DCA2014);Focht v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,124 So.3d 308, 310(Fla. 2d DCA2013).When appellee filed the foreclosure complaint, it attached a copy of the note and an undated allonge to the note containing an endorsement in blank.This was sufficient to establish as a matter of law that appellee had standing to bring the foreclosure action.SeeMorcom,125 So.3d at 322;U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Knight,90 So.3d 824(Fla. 4th DCA2012);Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Lippi,78 So.3d 81, 85(Fla. 5th DCA2012).

As to its final claim, appellant asserts the trial court erred in entering summary judgment based on the affidavit of Theresa Klingelhofer, appellee's vice-president who relied in part on business records from the prior owner of the note, EMC Mortgage Corporation, to determine the amount owed on the note.We agree with appellee that this affidavit contained inadmissible hearsay in the absence of any showing that Klingelhofer was familiar with the business practices of EMC Mortgage Corporation or the accuracy of its records.SeeBurdeshaw v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon,148 So.3d 819(Fla....