McMichael v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co.
Decision Date | 14 March 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 4D16–3879,4D16–3879 |
Citation | 241 So.3d 179 |
Parties | Leslie D. MCMICHAEL a/k/a Leslie McMichael, Appellant, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUSTEE COMPANY, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael Vater, Kyle M. Costello and Kendrick Almaguer of The Ticktin Law Group, PLLC, Deerfield Beach, for appellant.
Anthony R. Yanez and Nicole R. Topper of Blank Rome LLP, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
We affirm the final judgment of foreclosure and write to address the circuit court's rejection of the borrower's unclean hands defense.
At trial the borrower testified in her defense. She stated that the original lender's employees appeared at her house one evening at 9:30 p.m. and asked her to sign all of the documents related to the subject note and mortgage, without giving her a chance to review what she was signing. The borrower testified that she reviewed the documents the next day and realized the terms were not consistent with her agreement with the lender.
She further said that she tried to rescind the loan for three days after the employees came to her home, but the messages were left unanswered. When she finally got in contact with the lender, she was informed that nothing could be done because the loan had been funded. The borrower also testified that she stopped making payments on her mortgage because an employee of the loan servicer told her she would need to stop making payments in order to modify her mortgage. On cross-examination, the borrower conceded that she was not coerced into signing the loan documents.
In the final judgment, the circuit judge rejected the borrower's assertion of the unclean hands defense:
(footnotes omitted).
The circuit court concluded that the borrower failed to carry her burden in establishing the affirmative defense of unclean hands, or any other affirmative defense.
The borrower contends that the judgment of foreclosure was improper because the bank came to the court with unclean hands. She argues that the bank: (1) misled her regarding the terms of the loan, and (2) instructed her to stop paying her mortgage so she could obtain a loan modification, which resulted in this foreclosure action being filed against her.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Legal theories & defenses
...See 21st Mortg. Corp. v. TSE Plantation, LLC , 301 So. 3d 1120, 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020); McMichael v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trustee Co. , 241 So.3d 179, 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018); Roberts v. Roberts , 84 So.2d 717, 720 (Fla. 1956). 31. Waiver requires that the plaintiff (a) possesses, at the t......