Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Miller v. Bank of America, 5D15-780 (2016)

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida Number: 5D15-780 Visitors: 1
Filed: Oct. 24, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED RHONDA K. MILLER AND EDWARD D. MILLER, Appellants, v. Case No. 5D15-780 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL., Appellees. _/ Opinion filed October 28, 2016 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, William A. Parsons, Judge. James R. Evans, of James R. Evans, P.A., Daytona Beach, for Appellants. Alan M. Pierce, of Liebler Gonzalez & Por
More
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED RHONDA K. MILLER AND EDWARD D. MILLER, Appellants, v. Case No. 5D15-780 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL., Appellees. ________________________________/ Opinion filed October 28, 2016 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, William A. Parsons, Judge. James R. Evans, of James R. Evans, P.A., Daytona Beach, for Appellants. Alan M. Pierce, of Liebler Gonzalez & Portuondo, Miami, for Bank of America, N.A, Appellee. No appearance for other Appellees. EDWARDS, J. Rhonda and Edward Miller (“Appellants”) appeal from the final judgment of foreclosure in favor of Bank of America, N.A. (“Appellee”). The issues in this appeal are familiar in foreclosure cases: whether Appellee had standing to sue and whether the documents Appellee relied on fit within the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The lack of documentation here, however, was unusual: Appellee, which was not the original lender, did not offer any assignments, indorsements, or allonges to prove that it had standing to sue. Appellants argue, and we agree, that the trial court erred in admitting a screenshot of a document referred to as an “LNTH” into evidence over their hearsay objection, as the foundation for the business records exception was not established. Because the erroneously admitted LNTH document was the only evidence of Appellee’s standing to sue, we reverse. Originally, Appellants executed a note and mortgage in favor of SunTrust. Appellee alleged in its complaint that SunTrust assigned the mortgage to Appellee; however, at trial, Appellee did not rely on the assignment or introduce the assignment into evidence. Instead, Appellee relied on the testimony of its sole witness, Ms. Allen, in an effort to establish its standing to foreclose. Ms. Allen testified that SunTrust sold the loan to Appellee and as part of that transaction, SunTrust physically transferred the original promissory note to Appellee. There was no proof of an indorsement from SunTrust to Appellee, nor proof of an indorsement in blank. SunTrust remained as the mortgage servicer even after the supposed transfer to Appellee. When Appellants defaulted on the mortgage, Appellee allegedly returned the original note to SunTrust. Typically, SunTrust would have sent the note to trial counsel to commence foreclosure proceedings. However, the note was lost before it reached trial counsel. Ms. Allen testified that the loss of the note occurred in May 2012, but she did not know any specifics of how the note was lost. Appellee’s foreclosure complaint included a count to reestablish the lost note and mortgage. 2 reverse and remand with directions for the trial court to vacate the final judgment and conduct a new trial. REVERSED AND REMANDED. TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur. 4 reverse and remand with directions for the trial court to vacate the final judgment and conduct a new trial. REVERSED AND REMANDED. TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur. 4
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer