Shahar v. Green Tree Servicing LLC
Decision Date | 06 March 2013 |
Docket Number | No. 4D11–1111.,4D11–1111. |
Citation | 125 So.3d 251 |
Parties | Ari SHAHAR and Daphna Shahar, husband and wife, Appellants, v. GREEN TREE SERVICING LLC, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Neil Bryan Tygar of Neil Bryan Tygar, P.A., Delray Beach, for appellants.
Heidi J. Weinzetl of Shapiro, Fishman & Gache, LLP, Boca Raton, for appellee.
Ari and Daphna Shahar (the “Homeowners”) appeal the trial court's entry of final summary judgment of foreclosure in favor of Green Tree Servicing (“Green Tree”). The Homeowners asserted affirmative defenses and filed various counterclaims, which they argue precluded the entry of summary judgment. The counterclaims did not set forth viable causes of action. Thus, without further discussion we affirm that portion of the summary judgment that found in favor of Green Tree as to the Homeowners' counterclaims. However, we reverse the remainderof the summary judgment because Green Tree neither factually nor legally refuted the Homeowners' affirmative defense of unclean hands, thereby precluding the entry of a final judgment of foreclosure.
In verified form, the Homeowners specifically alleged the following to have expressly occurred throughout the course of the loan process. The Homeowners went to the lender for the purpose of refinancing two adjustable-rate mortgages on two different properties. Without the Homeowners' knowledge, the lender altered the income information on the loan application which the Homeowners provided in order to qualify them for the loan. Also without the Homeowners' knowledge, the lender altered the type of loan sought to a “stated income” loan, in which the borrower's income is not verified independently, so that the income deception would not be detected. The Homeowners provided documentation of their income and assets, which the lender destroyed. At the closing, the lender presented the altered loan application to the Homeowners, along with “dozens upon dozens” of other documents, and explained to the Homeowners that they were required to sign the application at closing, without revealing to the Homeowners that the application had been altered by the lender. The lender informed them that if they did not sign the new loan application, all fees associated with the refinance would remain due and payable. The Homeowners were not provided an opportunity to review the lengthy paperwork. The Homeowners, relying upon the lender's representation that the information in the new loan application was taken from the Homeowners' verbal interview with the lender and the documentation the Homeowners originally provided, signed the new application, unaware of any changes. Finally, the Homeowners alleged that as a result of this premeditated scheme, their payments on the two loans actually increased by fifty percent. These sworn allegations formed the factual basis of the unclean hands defense asserted by the Homeowners.1
In support of its motion for summary judgment, Green Tree submitted an affidavit by its vice president, stating that it was the owner and holder of the note and that the Homeowners had stopped making payments. The affidavit did not—in any manner whatsoever—address the Homeowners' elaborate allegations pertaining to their unclean hands defense. Instead, attached to the affidavit, with only a tenuous reference to the unclean hands defense, was a cursory and unsophisticated letter (the “Letter”) 2 apparently written and signed by the Homeowners and sent to the lender. Aside from this vague and ambiguous attachment, Green Tree, in its motion for summary judgment, simply advanced a bare legal argument that the unclean hands defense was legally insufficient. Now, on appeal, Green Tree abandons any reference or discussion pertaining to the Letter.
The trial court granted the motion for final summary judgment, which the Homeowners have timely appealed.
“Review of an order granting summary judgment is de novo.” Gomez v. Fradin, 41 So.3d 1068, 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). “ ” Id. (quoting Landers v. Milton, 370 So.2d 368, 370 (Fla.1979)). Additionally, “in order for a plaintiff to obtain a summary judgment when the defendant asserts affirmative defenses, the plaintiff must either disprove those defenses by evidence or establish the legal insufficiency of the defenses.” E. Qualcom Corp. v. Global Commerce Ctr. Ass'n, 59 So.3d 347, 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (citation omitted). Further, “[t]he burden is on the plaintiff, as the moving party, to demonstrate that the defendant could not prevail.” Alejandre v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams., 44 So.3d 1288, 1289 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
This court has previously concluded that unclean hands, if sufficiently pled, may be asserted as an affirmative defense to a mortgage foreclosure action. See, e.g., Quality Roof Servs., Inc. v. Intervest Nat'l Bank, 21 So.3d 883, 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); cf. Congress Park Office Condos II, LLC v. First–Citizens Bank & Trust Co., 105 So.3d 602 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) ( ).
This court has described unclean hands as follows:
It is certainly beyond question that
Ocean View Towers, Inc. v. First Fid. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 521 So.2d 325, 326 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (quoting Roberts v. Roberts, 84 So.2d 717, 720 (Fla.1956)). Recently, this court found that unclean hands is tantamount to “[u]nscrupulous practices, overreaching, concealment, trickery or other unconscientious conduct.” Congress Park Office Condos II, 105 So.3d at 609 (citation omitted).
Under the unique facts of this case and the record before us, the Homeowners' allegations were legally sufficient to properly assert the defense of unclean hands. See, e.g., Monetary Funding Grp., Inc. v. Pluchino, 87 Conn.App. 401, 867 A.2d 841 (2005) ( ). Green Tree failed to present any meaningful evidence rebutting the allegations underpinning this defense. Therefore, summary judgment was prematurely granted.
While this defense might ultimately be rendered fruitless or unprovable, we must avoid any temptation to enter summary judgment merely because the non-moving party's chances for success may be minimal at best. Fischer v. Bernard's Surf, 217 So.2d 576, 577 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969) (). Granting summary judgment “brings a sudden and drastic conclusion to a lawsuit, thus foreclosing the litigant from the benefit of and right to a trial on the merits of his or her claim.” Bifulco v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 693 So.2d 707, 709 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (emphasis added) (citation omitted). “It is for this very reason that caution must be exercised in the granting of summary judgment....” Id.
Finally, Green Tree strenuously argues (and makes it a primary point in its answer brief filed with this Court) that the Homeowners' failure to provide transcripts from the summary judgment hearing precludes appellate review of the final summary judgment. However, hearing transcripts ordinarily are not necessary for appellate review of a summary judgment. We agree with the Third District, which held:
[W]here the appeal is from a summary judgment, the appellant must [merely] bring up the summary judgment record, that is, the motion, supporting and opposing papers, and other matters of record which were pertinent to the summary judgment motion. See Romero v. All Claims Ins. Repairs, Inc., 698 So.2d 605, 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Those are the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Archie v. U.S. Bank, N.A.
...practices’ " may be asserted as an affirmative defense to a mortgage foreclosure action. Shahar v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC , 125 So. 3d 251, 253 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting Cong. Park Office II, LLC v. First-Citizens Bank & Tr. Co. , 105 So. 3d 602, 609 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013) ......
-
Houk v. PennyMac Corp.
..."However, hearing transcripts ordinarily are not necessary for appellate review of a summary judgment." Shahar v. Green Tree Servicing LLC , 125 So.3d 251, 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). We join the Fourth District in agreeing with the Third District, which has addressed this question as follows:......
-
Johnson v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co.
...of a summary judgment.’ " (quoting Houk v. PennyMac Corp., 210 So.3d 726, 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ) ); Shahar v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, 125 So.3d 251, 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) ("[H]earing transcripts ordinarily are not necessary for appellate review of a summary judgment."); Gonzalez v. Ch......
-
Rollet v. De Bizemont
...only of legal argument, the failure to provide a transcript is not necessarily fatal to appellate review. See Shahar v. Green Tree Serv. LLC, 125 So.3d 251 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (failure to provide transcript of summary judgment hearing not fatal to appellate review where hearing consisted on......
-
Chapter 19-3 Preservation of Error
...court to review a summary judgment)). See also Rollet v. de Bizemont, 159 So. 3d 351 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015); Shahar v. Green Tree Serv. LLC, 125 So. 3d 251 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Fish Tale Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Nice, 106 So. 3d 57 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).[16] Fla. R. App. P. 9.200(b)(5).[17] Miranda ......
-
Chapter 18-3 Preservation of Error
...will not necessarily be fatal to an appeal. See Rollet v. de Bizemont, 159 So. 3d 351 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015); Shahar v. Green Tree Serv. LLC, 125 So. 3d 251 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Fish Tale Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Nice, 106 So. 3d 57 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). However, where a transcript is necessary but......