Opinion
No. 3D15–702.
05-04-2016
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., etc., Appellant, v. HERNANDEZ & SILVA ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Appellees.
Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, and Diana B. Matson and Joshua R. Levine, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant. The Arcia Law Firm, P.L., and Omar J. Arcia and Vanessa Jaleh Bravo, Miramar, for appellee Hernandez & Silva Enterprises, Inc.
Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, and Diana B. Matson and Joshua R. Levine, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
The Arcia Law Firm, P.L., and Omar J. Arcia and Vanessa Jaleh Bravo, Miramar, for appellee Hernandez & Silva Enterprises, Inc.
Before ROTHENBERG, SALTER and SCALES, JJ.
Opinion
SCALES, J.
In this foreclosure case, the trial court entered judgment for Appellee Hernandez & Silva Enterprises, Inc., based upon Hernandez & Silva's defense asserting that the default notice of Appellant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. was insufficient as a matter of law.
We reverse the trial court's judgment because the record reveals that the trial court applied the incorrect legal standard in evaluating whether Wells Fargo's default notice complied with Paragraph 22 of the mortgage, the default notice provision.
We have held that a mortgagee's default notice is sufficient if it substantially complies with the mortgage's default notice provision. Bank of N.Y. v. Mieses, 187 So.3d 919 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) ; SunTrust Mortg., Inc. v. Garcia, 186 So.3d 1036 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) ; Bank of Am. v. Cadet, 183 So.3d 477, 478 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (Mem); Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Nunez, 180 So.3d 160, 162 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). The trial court applied a strict compliance standard in the instant case.
We note that the trial court order is dated February 25, 2015. The trial court did not have the benefit of these recent decisions.
--------
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.