Webster v. Chase Home Finance, LLC

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Webster v. Chase Home Finance, LLC

155 So. 3d 1219, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 488, 2015 WL 196219

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 16, 2015

DocketNo. 5D14-511

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 155 So. 3d 1219 (Webster v. Chase Home Finance, LLC) 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

Webster v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, 155 So. 3d 1219, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 488, 2015 WL 196219 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Webster appeals the final judgment of foreclosure rendered in favor of Chase Home Finance, LLC. He contends that he was not given proper notice of the default in payments.

We believe the issue is an evidentiary matter. Under the specific provisions of the mortgage, notice to one mortgagor constitutes sufficient notice to the other mortgagor, and Webster does not contend otherwise. Chase attempted to prove that notice was provided to the other mortgagor, Patrice Kelty, at the address Kelty had designated in a written change-of-address document she had provided to Chase. This written change of address was permitted under the provisions of the mortgage. However, the problem is that Chase was allowed, over Webster’s hearsay objection, to present oral testimony from a witness regarding this change of address and its notice to Kelty at that new address. The trial court should have required Chase to present its business record of the written change-of-address document that it claims Kelty executed to change the address where notice was to be provided. The trial court abused its discretion in allowing this oral testimony over Webster’s objection.

Accordingly, we reverse the judgment under review and remand for further proceedings on the issue of proof of the written change-of-address document allegedly signed by Kelty. See Sas v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 112 So.3d 778 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); see also Holt v. Calchas, LLC, 39 Fla. L. Weekly D2305, 2014 WL 5614374 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov. 5, 2014) (citing to Sas and holding that the “proper” approach to handling the failure of the lender to provide information sufficient to show the debt due was to remand for further proceedings based on the error of allowing a witness to testify over a hearsay objection).

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

SAWAYA, PALMER, and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Webster appeals the final judgment of foreclosure rendered in favor of Chase Home Finance, LLC. He contends that he was not given proper notice of the default in payments.

We believe the issue is an evidentiary matter. Under the specific provisions of the mortgage, notice to one mortgagor constitutes sufficient notice to the other mortgagor, and Webster does not contend otherwise. Chase attempted to prove that notice was provided to the other mortgagor, Patrice Kelty, at the address Kelty had designated in a written change-of-address document she had provided to Chase. This written change of address was permitted under the provisions of the mortgage. However, the problem is that Chase was allowed, over Webster’s hearsay objection, to present oral testimony from a witness regarding this change of address and its notice to Kelty at that new address. The trial court should have required Chase to present its business record of the written change-of-address document that it claims Kelty executed to change the address where notice was to be provided. The trial court abused its discretion in allowing this oral testimony over Webster’s objection.

Accordingly, we reverse the judgment under review and remand for further proceedings on the issue of proof of the written change-of-address document allegedly signed by Kelty. See Sas v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 112 So.3d 778 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); see also Holt v. Calchas, LLC, 39 Fla. L. Weekly D2305, 2014 WL 5614374 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov. 5, 2014) (citing to Sas and holding that the “proper” approach to handling the failure of the lender to provide information sufficient to show the debt due was to remand for further proceedings based on the error of allowing a witness to testify over a hearsay objection).

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

SAWAYA, PALMER, and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 So. 3d 1219, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 488, 2015 WL 196219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/webster-v-chase-home-finance-llc-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack