HSBC Bank USA, Nat’l Ass’n, etc. v. Buset, No. 3D16-1383 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb. 7, 2018)- the court made many significant holdings to foreclosure law gong forward. First, that a note IS in fact a negotiable instrument, the negotiability of note was not destroyed by its reference to mortgage, nor by its definition of “note holder.” Second, that the borrower did not have standing to allege violations of the pooling and servicing agreement, and any allege violations by the bank of such did not erode its standing to foreclose. Third, that a prior bank/servicer business records were admissible.
Sabido v. The Bank of New York Mellon, No. 4D16-2944 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb. 7, 2018)- Bank of New Your filed a foreclosure lawsuit which was dismissed at trial for failure to comply with the lost note statute when filing the case and could not prove it was entitled to enforce the note. The borrower moved for attorney’s fees as the prevailing party. The court found that the borrower entered into a contract with Washington Mutual, the original lender, and thus there was no contractual relation to Bank of New York as Bank of New York was held to not have the right to enforce the note/mortgage. Thus denying attorney’s fees being awarded.
PNC Bank, NA v MDTR LLC, Case No. 5D16-2887 (Fla. 5th DCA February 2, 2018)- Bank sued borrower who filed bankruptcy and MDTR, LLC purchased title via a bankrutpcy trustee auction. The bank subsequently dismissed the foreclosure. The court found that as MDTR was not a party to the note/mortgage, that it was not entitled to recover its attorney’s fees from Plaintiff.
O’Neal, Inc. v Ward, Case No. 2D15-2989 (Fla. 2nd DCA January 27, 2018)- a deficiency action is not an action to collect a debt and, therefore, Florida Statute 559.715, requiring 30 days’ notice before any action to collect the debt is not applicable.