Nivia v. Bank United

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Nivia v. Bank United

114 So. 3d 391, 2013 WL 2218013, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 8131

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 22, 2013

DocketNo. 4D12-2831

StatusPublished

This text of 114 So. 3d 391 (Nivia v. Bank United) 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

Nivia v. Bank United, 114 So. 3d 391, 2013 WL 2218013, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 8131 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The mortgagor appeals the trial court’s order denying her motion to cancel foreclosure sale after the court granted final summary judgment in favor of appellee, Bank United. Appellant argues that the court erred in denying her motion to cancel the foreclosure sale since the sale took place while the parties were engaged in the federal Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”). The bank argues that appellant was given proper notice that she did not qualify for a modification under the program. She claims that pursuant to HAMP procedures and the HAMP Supplemental Directive 10-02, dated March 24, 2010, addressing borrower outreach and communication, the sale should have been postponed for thirty days from the date of the notice of non-approval of the modification. That directive, however, does not require a thirty-day postponement where the request for HAMP modification was made after a foreclosure date had been set, and the reason for denial was the ineligibility of the mortgagor under HAMP requirements. As the appellant had requested HAMP modification after foreclosure had been set originally, and the bank found that appellant was ineligible because of lack of the required income level, it was not compelled by the directive to postpone the sale.

We find the remaining grounds to be without merit or directed to the final judgment of foreclosure, which was never appealed.

Affirmed.

WARNER, GROSS and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The mortgagor appeals the trial court’s order denying her motion to cancel foreclosure sale after the court granted final summary judgment in favor of appellee, Bank United. Appellant argues that the court erred in denying her motion to cancel the foreclosure sale since the sale took place while the parties were engaged in the federal Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”). The bank argues that appellant was given proper notice that she did not qualify for a modification under the program. She claims that pursuant to HAMP procedures and the HAMP Supplemental Directive 10-02, dated March 24, 2010, addressing borrower outreach and communication, the sale should have been postponed for thirty days from the date of the notice of non-approval of the modification. That directive, however, does not require a thirty-day postponement where the request for HAMP modification was made after a foreclosure date had been set, and the reason for denial was the ineligibility of the mortgagor under HAMP requirements. As the appellant had requested HAMP modification after foreclosure had been set originally, and the bank found that appellant was ineligible because of lack of the required income level, it was not compelled by the directive to postpone the sale.

We find the remaining grounds to be without merit or directed to the final judgment of foreclosure, which was never appealed.

Affirmed.

WARNER, GROSS and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 So. 3d 391, 2013 WL 2218013, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 8131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nivia-v-bank-united-fladistctapp-2013.