The Bank of New York Mellon v. Bloedel

District Court of Appeal of Florida

The Bank of New York Mellon v. Bloedel

197 So. 3d 147, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 11357, 2016 WL 4035592

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 27, 2016

Docket2D15-1862

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 197 So. 3d 147 (The Bank of New York Mellon v. Bloedel) 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

The Bank of New York Mellon v. Bloedel, 197 So. 3d 147, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 11357, 2016 WL 4035592 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

CASANUEVA, Judge.

The Bank of New York Mellon appeals a final judgment denying foreclosure. Following the presentation of the Bank’s case, borrower Theodore E. Bloedel, Jr. moved for involuntary dismissal of the action. 1 The trial court determined that, as a result of the Bank’s failure to comply with the provisions of paragraph twenty-two of the mortgage, dismissal was warranted. 2 At the time of the trial court’s ruling, this court’s opinion in Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Milam, 177 So.3d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015), had not issued.

In Green Tree, this court held that the lender’s adherence to the notice requirement set forth in paragraph twenty-two should be evaluated for substantial, rather than strict, compliance. 177 So.3d at 13-15. We further explained that, “when the content of a lender’s notice letter is nearly equivalent to or varies in only immaterial respects from what the mortgage requires, the letter substantially complies, and a minor variation from the terms of paragraph twenty-two should not preclude a foreclosure action.” Id. 14-15.

In light of Green Tree and other recent case law applying a substantial compliance analysis to the paragraph twenty-two notice requirements, we find that the default notice in this case substantially complied *148 with paragraph twerity-two of the mortgage. See Bank of New York v. Mieses, 187 So.3d 919 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); Bank of New York Mellon v. Johnson, 185 So.3d 594 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016), Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment denying foreclosure and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

WALLACE and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

1

. Sue A. Bloedel did not defend the foreclosure action, and the clerk of court entered a default against her on January 13, 2014.

2

. Mr. Bloedel raised other bases for an involuntary dismissal, including the existence of a modification and the insufficiency of evidence to support the amounts due and owing. The trial court expressed concern over these issues but declined to address them, having ruled that the default notice required dismissal of the foreclosure.

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

CASANUEVA, Judge.

The Bank of New York Mellon appeals a final judgment denying foreclosure. Following the presentation of the Bank’s case, borrower Theodore E. Bloedel, Jr. moved for involuntary dismissal of the action. 1 The trial court determined that, as a result of the Bank’s failure to comply with the provisions of paragraph twenty-two of the mortgage, dismissal was warranted. 2 At the time of the trial court’s ruling, this court’s opinion in Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Milam, 177 So.3d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015), had not issued.

In Green Tree, this court held that the lender’s adherence to the notice requirement set forth in paragraph twenty-two should be evaluated for substantial, rather than strict, compliance. 177 So.3d at 13-15. We further explained that, “when the content of a lender’s notice letter is nearly equivalent to or varies in only immaterial respects from what the mortgage requires, the letter substantially complies, and a minor variation from the terms of paragraph twenty-two should not preclude a foreclosure action.” Id. 14-15.

In light of Green Tree and other recent case law applying a substantial compliance analysis to the paragraph twenty-two notice requirements, we find that the default notice in this case substantially complied *148 with paragraph twerity-two of the mortgage. See Bank of New York v. Mieses, 187 So.3d 919 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); Bank of New York Mellon v. Johnson, 185 So.3d 594 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016), Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment denying foreclosure and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

WALLACE and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

1

. Sue A. Bloedel did not defend the foreclosure action, and the clerk of court entered a default against her on January 13, 2014.

2

. Mr. Bloedel raised other bases for an involuntary dismissal, including the existence of a modification and the insufficiency of evidence to support the amounts due and owing. The trial court expressed concern over these issues but declined to address them, having ruled that the default notice required dismissal of the foreclosure.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 So. 3d 147, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 11357, 2016 WL 4035592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-bank-of-new-york-mellon-v-bloedel-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack