Derouin v. Universal Am. Mortg. Co.
Decision Date | 22 August 2018 |
Docket Number | Case No. 2D17-1002 |
Citation | 254 So.3d 595 |
Parties | Richard J. DEROUIN and Kim E. Derouin, Appellants, v. UNIVERSAL AMERICAN MORTGAGE COMPANY, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Dineen Pashoukos Wasylik and Jared M. Krukar of DPW Legal, Tampa, for Appellants.
Laura H. Howard and Stanford R. Solomon of The Solomon Law Group, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.
Richard and Kim Derouin appeal a final foreclosure judgment entered in favor of Universal American Mortgage Company, LLC. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). The Derouins contend that Universal failed to engage in the face-to-face meeting required by 24 C.F.R. § 203.604 (2012) prior to filing the foreclosure lawsuit. Critical to our resolution of this matter, they maintain that the trial court erred in finding that they waived Universal's compliance with the federal regulations. Because the record before us does not show waiver, we reverse and remand for entry of an order of involuntary dismissal.
Universal loaned money to the Derouins to buy a home. The loan, insured by the Federal Housing Administration, was memorialized by a note and secured by a mortgage. The note provided that, if the Derouins defaulted, Universal (Emphasis added).
The HUD regulations upon which the Derouins rely provide, in relevant part, as follows: "The mortgagee must have a face-to-face interview with the mortgagor, or make a reasonable effort to arrange such a meeting, before three full monthly installments due on the mortgage are unpaid." 24 C.F.R. § 203.604(b).1 The regulations also cabin the mortgagee's ability to foreclose until the face-to-face interview is conducted.
See 24 C.F.R. § 203.500 () .
The regulations establish several exceptions to the face-to-face meeting requirement, two of which apply here. First, a mortgagee may be excused from conducting the interview when "[t]he mortgagor has clearly indicated that he will not cooperate in the interview." 24 C.F.R. § 203.604(c)(3). Second, a meeting is unnecessary when "[a] reasonable effort to arrange a meeting is unsuccessful." 24 C.F.R. § 203.604(c)(5). "A reasonable effort to arrange a face-to-face meeting with the mortgagor" includes "at a minimum ... one letter sent to the mortgagor certified by the Postal Service as having been dispatched" and "at least one trip to see the mortgagor at the mortgaged property." 24 C.F.R. § 203.604(d).
Universal sued the Derouins after they defaulted on their loan payments. Universal alleged that "[a]ll conditions precedent to commencement and maintenance of this action have been performed, satisfied[,] or otherwise discharged." The Derouins answered the complaint, denied the substantive allegations, and asserted several affirmative defenses. Universal replied to the affirmative defenses.
With the trial court's permission, the Derouins filed a second amended answer. See Thompson v. Jared Kane Co., Inc., 872 So.2d 356, 360 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (). In that pleading, the Derouins specifically denied that Universal satisfied all conditions precedent to filing suit. Specifically, they alleged that Universal had failed to conduct, or otherwise attempt to conduct, a face-to-face meeting within ninety days of default. The Derouins also raised a corresponding affirmative defense: Universal "[f]ailed to make face-to-face contact or failed to make reasonable attempts to contact Defendants face-to-face as required by 24 C.F.R. § 203.604." Universal did not reply to this new defense.
Following trial, the trial court granted the Derouins' motion for involuntary dismissal based on an evidentiary issue not before us. Universal moved for rehearing. The Derouins opposed that motion, arguing that there were several alternative bases supporting dismissal, including Universal's failure to comply with HUD's face-to-face meeting requirement.
The trial court granted Universal's rehearing motion, finding that the Derouins had "waived their right to seek compliance with 24 C.F.R. § 203.604." The trial court relied on Ms. Derouin's trial testimony "that shortly after the default, she received a telephone call from the Plaintiff or Plaintiff's servicer and that she no longer wished to deal directly with [them]." The trial court observed that the Derouins "were not prejudiced by the lack of a [face-to-face] meeting," and that Universal could not reasonably be expected to engage in such a meeting "[a]fter Ms. Derouin communicated to [Universal] that she was not to be contacted directly." The trial court awarded Universal a final judgment of foreclosure.
The record compels us to employ several standards of review. To the extent that we review the trial court's interpretation of the note, we utilize de novo review. See Mgmt. Comput. Controls, Inc. v. Charles Perry Constr., Inc., 743 So.2d 627, 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (). U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Rios, 166 So.3d 202, 207 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). Yet, we are not obligated "to disregard record evidence that disproves the lower court's findings or that reveals its ruling to be an abuse of discretion." In re Doe, 932 So.2d 278, 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
Because the trial court's grant of rehearing, which vacated the prior dismissal order and resulted in entry of a final judgment, was not based upon competent substantial evidence, we reverse. Moreover, because our de novo review of the note demonstrates that involuntary dismissal was appropriate, we order such relief on remand. See Simpson v. State, 33 So.3d 776, 778 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (); Perez v. Perez, 973 So.2d 1227, 1231 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (); Robinson v. Wright, 425 So.2d 589, 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) ().
The parties tacitly agree that the face-to-face meeting requirement is a condition precedent to filing a foreclosure lawsuit. For purposes of this appeal, we assume the same. See, e.g., ARC HUD I, LLC v. Ebbert, 212 So.3d 513, 515-16 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ( ); White v. Planet Home Lending, LLC, 234 So.3d 802, 803 n.1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) ; Harris v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 223 So.3d 1030, 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) ( ); Palma v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, 208 So.3d 771, 773, 775 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) ( ); cf. Laws v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 159 So.3d 918, 919 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) ( ).
Seemingly, the case law is unsettled as to whether noncompliance with the regulations must be raised as an affirmative defense or as a specific denial in an answer. Compare Palma, 208 So.3d at 774 (), with Harris, 223 So.3d at 1033 . But see Chrzuszcz v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 250 So.3d 766, 767, 2018 WL 3151206 (Fla. 1st DCA June 28, 2018) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Forty One Yellow, LLC v. Escalona
...standing in their responsive pleading. Thus, FOY knew that the standing issue was joined for trial. See Derouin v. Universal Am. Mortg. Co., 254 So. 3d 595, 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) ("An issue that has not been framed by the pleadings, noticed for hearing, or litigated by the parties is not a......
-
Kuhnsman v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
...interview, only that the interview was to be conducted through their counsel. The Kuhnsmans relied on Derouin v. Universal American Mortgage Co., 254 So. 3d 595, 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018), where we stated:We are even less inclined to conclude that Ms. Derouin's statement that Universal or its ......
-
Ellison v. Willoughby
... ... is not a proper issue for the court's ... determination." Derouin v. Universal Am. Mortg ... Co. , 254 So.3d 595, 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018). However, ... ...
-
Ellison v. Willoughby
...noticed for hearing, or litigated by the parties is not a proper issue for the court's determination." Derouin v. Universal Am. Mortg. Co. , 254 So. 3d 595, 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018). However, "[a] party need not cite the exact cases on point to the trial court in order to preserve a claim, so......
-
Chapter 2-2 Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure
...to prove the allegations concerning the subject matter of the specific denial."[37] Derouin v. Universal Am. Mortg. Co., Ltd. Liab. Co., 254 So. 3d 595, 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018).[38] Russell v. Wells Fargo, 301 So. 3d 1103 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) ("Because [the borrower] raised [Bank's] alleged f......
-
Chapter 7-3 Affirmative Defenses
...DCA 2007).[72] Palma v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 208 So. 3d 771, 775 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). See also Derouin v. Universal Am. Mortg. Co., LLC, 254 So. 3d 595 (Fla. 2018); Kuhnsman v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 311 So. 3d 980 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020).[73] DeLong v. Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC, 222 So. 3d......
-
Chapter 2-2 Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure
...general rule that defendants bear the burden of proving affirmative defenses.[37] Derouin v. Universal Am. Mortg. Co., Ltd. Liab. Co., 254 So. 3d 595, 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018).[38] Hatadis v. Achieva Credit Union, 159 So. 3d 256, 260 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) ("the waiver of notice found in paragrap......
-
Chapter 13-4 Proof of Elements at Trial
...constitute notice to all Borrowers unless Applicable Law expressly requires otherwise. [75] Derouin v. Universal Am. Mortg. Co., LLC, 254 So. 3d 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018). For further discussion regarding HUD defenses/face-to-face meeting requirements, see Chapter 8, Section 8-4: FHA Home Loan......