U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOC., ETC v. GEORGE E. BUCHANAN a/k/a G. EUGENE BUCHANAN

District Court of Appeal of Florida

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOC., ETC v. GEORGE E. BUCHANAN a/k/a G. EUGENE BUCHANAN

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 20, 2020

Docket19-1416

StatusPublished

This text of U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOC., ETC v. GEORGE E. BUCHANAN a/k/a G. EUGENE BUCHANAN (U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOC., ETC v. GEORGE E. BUCHANAN a/k/a G. EUGENE BUCHANAN) 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

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOC., ETC v. GEORGE E. BUCHANAN a/k/a G. EUGENE BUCHANAN, (Fla. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, As Trustee for Lehman Mortgage Trust Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-8, Appellant,

v.

GEORGE E. BUCHANAN a/k/a G. EUGENE BUCHANAN and JO ANNE BUCHANAN, Appellees.

No. 4D19-1416

[May 20, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; William L. Roby, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2016CA001099.

Sara F. Holladay-Tobias, Emily Rottmann, and C. H. Houston, III of McGuireWoods LLP, Jacksonville, for appellant.

W. Trent Steele of Steele Law, Hobe Sound, for appellees.

GERBER, J.

The bank appeals from the circuit court’s final judgment of dismissal against the bank and in the borrowers’ favor after a non-jury trial. The bank argues the trial court erred in three respects: (1) finding the bank did not prove it owned and was entitled to enforce the note when the note was lost; (2) finding the bank did not prove it satisfied the condition precedent of having mailed a default letter to the borrowers at their changed address; and (3) denying the bank’s two declaratory judgment counts to declare certain quit claim deeds legally sufficient.

We conclude the circuit court erred on the second argument. However, that error is harmless, because we conclude on the first argument that the bank did not present sufficient competent substantial evidence to prove it owned and was entitled to enforce the note when the note was lost. Thus, we affirm the final judgment as to the bank’s mortgage foreclosure and re- establishment of lost note counts (Counts I and II) without further comment. We also affirm the final judgment as to the bank’s declaratory judgment counts (both inadvertently labeled Count III) without further comment.

Affirmed.

GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

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

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, As Trustee for Lehman Mortgage Trust Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-8, Appellant,

v.

GEORGE E. BUCHANAN a/k/a G. EUGENE BUCHANAN and JO ANNE BUCHANAN, Appellees.

No. 4D19-1416

[May 20, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; William L. Roby, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2016CA001099.

Sara F. Holladay-Tobias, Emily Rottmann, and C. H. Houston, III of McGuireWoods LLP, Jacksonville, for appellant.

W. Trent Steele of Steele Law, Hobe Sound, for appellees.

GERBER, J.

The bank appeals from the circuit court’s final judgment of dismissal against the bank and in the borrowers’ favor after a non-jury trial. The bank argues the trial court erred in three respects: (1) finding the bank did not prove it owned and was entitled to enforce the note when the note was lost; (2) finding the bank did not prove it satisfied the condition precedent of having mailed a default letter to the borrowers at their changed address; and (3) denying the bank’s two declaratory judgment counts to declare certain quit claim deeds legally sufficient.

We conclude the circuit court erred on the second argument. However, that error is harmless, because we conclude on the first argument that the bank did not present sufficient competent substantial evidence to prove it owned and was entitled to enforce the note when the note was lost. Thus, we affirm the final judgment as to the bank’s mortgage foreclosure and re- establishment of lost note counts (Counts I and II) without further comment. We also affirm the final judgment as to the bank’s declaratory judgment counts (both inadvertently labeled Count III) without further comment.

Affirmed.

GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOC., ETC v. GEORGE E. BUCHANAN a/k/a G. EUGENE BUCHANAN, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/us-bank-national-assoc-etc-v-george-e-buchanan-aka-g-eugene-fladistctapp-2020.