ONEWEST BANK, N.A. v. GLORIA LEEK-TANNENBAUM, etc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

ONEWEST BANK, N.A. v. GLORIA LEEK-TANNENBAUM, etc.

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 17, 2021

Docket18-0244

StatusPublished

This text of ONEWEST BANK, N.A. v. GLORIA LEEK-TANNENBAUM, etc. (ONEWEST BANK, N.A. v. GLORIA LEEK-TANNENBAUM, etc.) 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

ONEWEST BANK, N.A. v. GLORIA LEEK-TANNENBAUM, etc., (Fla. Ct. App. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed November 17, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D18-244 Lower Tribunal No. 14-8095 ________________

OneWest Bank, N.A., Appellant,

vs.

Gloria Leek-Tannenbaum, etc., Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Pedro P. Echarte, Jr., Judge.

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, and D. Brian O'Dell (Birmingham, AL), for appellant.

Jacobs Legal, PLLC, and Bruce Jacobs, for appellee.

Before EMAS, LOGUE and MILLER, JJ.

PER CURIAM. This appeal stems from an action attempting to foreclose on a reverse

mortgage. After trial, the circuit court entered judgment in favor of the

Appellee, the surviving spouse of the borrower, finding that although she did

not sign the note, she also qualified as a “borrower” because of the

circumstances surrounding her signing of the mortgage. A panel of this court

initially agreed. OneWest Bank, N.A. v. Leek-Tannenbaum, 283 So. 3d 366

(Fla. 3d DCA 2019).

On review, however, the Florida Supreme Court quashed our prior

decision. OneWest Bank, N.A. v. Leek-Tannenbaum, No. SC19-1928, 2021

WL 4946821, at *1 (Fla. Oct. 22, 2021). Upon remand, the Court directed us

to reconsider this matter in light of WVMF Funding v. Palmero, 320 So. 3d

689 (Fla. 2021).

In Palmero, the Court rejected the argument made by the Appellee.

The Supreme Court held:

Because the note—which defines [the spouse who signed the note] and only [that spouse] as the “Borrower”—resolves any conflict created by [the surviving spouse] signing her name in the “Borrower” signature block of the mortgage, we need not look beyond (and it was unnecessary for the trial court to look beyond) the note and mortgage to the other documents that were part of the same transaction to determine, as a matter of law, how the parties intended to define the term “Borrower.” Palmero, 320 So. 3d at 693.

2 Adhering to Palmero, we reverse the final judgment under review and

remand with directions that the trial court enter a foreclosure judgment for

the Appellant.

Reversed with directions.

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

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed November 17, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D18-244 Lower Tribunal No. 14-8095 ________________

OneWest Bank, N.A., Appellant,

vs.

Gloria Leek-Tannenbaum, etc., Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Pedro P. Echarte, Jr., Judge.

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, and D. Brian O'Dell (Birmingham, AL), for appellant.

Jacobs Legal, PLLC, and Bruce Jacobs, for appellee.

Before EMAS, LOGUE and MILLER, JJ.

PER CURIAM. This appeal stems from an action attempting to foreclose on a reverse

mortgage. After trial, the circuit court entered judgment in favor of the

Appellee, the surviving spouse of the borrower, finding that although she did

not sign the note, she also qualified as a “borrower” because of the

circumstances surrounding her signing of the mortgage. A panel of this court

initially agreed. OneWest Bank, N.A. v. Leek-Tannenbaum, 283 So. 3d 366

(Fla. 3d DCA 2019).

On review, however, the Florida Supreme Court quashed our prior

decision. OneWest Bank, N.A. v. Leek-Tannenbaum, No. SC19-1928, 2021

WL 4946821, at *1 (Fla. Oct. 22, 2021). Upon remand, the Court directed us

to reconsider this matter in light of WVMF Funding v. Palmero, 320 So. 3d

689 (Fla. 2021).

In Palmero, the Court rejected the argument made by the Appellee.

The Supreme Court held:

Because the note—which defines [the spouse who signed the note] and only [that spouse] as the “Borrower”—resolves any conflict created by [the surviving spouse] signing her name in the “Borrower” signature block of the mortgage, we need not look beyond (and it was unnecessary for the trial court to look beyond) the note and mortgage to the other documents that were part of the same transaction to determine, as a matter of law, how the parties intended to define the term “Borrower.” Palmero, 320 So. 3d at 693.

2 Adhering to Palmero, we reverse the final judgment under review and

remand with directions that the trial court enter a foreclosure judgment for

the Appellant.

Reversed with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

ONEWEST BANK, N.A. v. GLORIA LEEK-TANNENBAUM, etc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/onewest-bank-na-v-gloria-leek-tannenbaum-etc-fladistctapp-2021.