Bruce L. Blum v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company, Americas as Trustee

159 So. 3d 920, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 3043, 2015 WL 895268
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 4, 2015
Docket4D13-4271
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 159 So. 3d 920 (Bruce L. Blum v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company, Americas as Trustee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bruce L. Blum v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company, Americas as Trustee, 159 So. 3d 920, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 3043, 2015 WL 895268 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from a final judgment of foreclosure in favor of Deutsche Bank Trust Company, we reverse the final judgment because Deutsche Bank failed to prove that it complied with the mortgage and note’s contractual requirement to mail a notice of default to appellant as a condition precedent to foreclosure. The “breach letter” admitted into evidence did not meet the requirement in the mortgage to deliver the default notice to appellant at the “notice address,” defined in the mortgage as “the property address.” Paragraph twenty of the mortgage provides in pertinent part that “[njeither Borrower nor Lender may commence ... any judicial action ... that arises from the other party’s actions pursuant to this Security Instrument or that alleges that the other party has breached any provision of, or any duty owed by reason of, this Security Instrument, until such Borrower or Lender has notified the other party ... of such alleged breach and afforded the other party hereto a reasonable period after the giving such notice to take corrective action.” Deutsche Bank’s failure to comply with the condition precedent to filing suit requires a dismissal of the case. See Holt v. Calchas, LLC, 155 So.3d 499, 507 n. 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (reversing for a dismissal because there was insufficient evidence that notice of default was sent). Because we are reversing and remanding *921 for a dismissal, we need not address appellant’s other arguments on appeal.

Reversed and Remanded.

GROSS, TAYLOR and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

DALIA ISRAEL v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOC., ETC.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2021
SAMUEL TORRES and MELISSA RENALDO v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
256 So. 3d 903 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)
CITIGROUP MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, ETC v. SHARON SCIALABBA
238 So. 3d 317 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)
Brooker v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017
Edmonds v. U.S. Bank National Association
215 So. 3d 628 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Allen v. Wilmington Trust, N.A.
216 So. 3d 685 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Liberty Home Equity Solutions, Inc. v. Raulston
206 So. 3d 58 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v. Hawthorne
197 So. 3d 1237 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
159 So. 3d 920, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 3043, 2015 WL 895268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bruce-l-blum-v-deutsche-bank-trust-company-americas-as-trustee-fladistctapp-2015.