Case ID: so3d_193/html/0067-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SCALES, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., etc., Appellant, v. HERNANDEZ & SILVA ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Appellees.
    No. 3D15-702.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    May 4, 2016.
    Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, and Diana B. Matson and Joshua R. Levine, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
    The Arda Law Firm, P.L., and Omar J. Arda and Vanessa Jaleh Bravo, Miramar, for appellee Hernandez & Silva Enterprises, Inc.
    Before ROTHENBERG, SALTER and SCALES, JJ.
   SCALES, J.

In this foreclosure case, the trial court entered judgment for Appellee Hernandez & Silva Enterprises, Inc., based upon Hernandez & Silva’s defense asserting that the default notice. of Appellant Wells. Fargo Bank, N.A. was insufficient as a matter of law.

We reverse the trial court’s judgment because the record reveals that the trial court applied the incorrect legal standard in evaluating whether- Wells Fargo’s, default notice complied with Paragraph 22 of the mortgage, the default notice provision.

, We have'held'that a mortgagee’s default notice is sufficient if it substantially complies with the mortgage’s default notice provision. Bank of N.Y. v. Mieses, 187 So.3d 919 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); SunTrust Mortg., Inc. v. Garcia, 186 So.3d 1036 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); Bank of Am. v. Cadet, 183 So.3d 477, 478 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (Mem); Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Nunez, 180 So.3d 160, 162 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). The trial court applied a strict compliance standard in the instant case.

Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. 
      
      . We note that the trial court order is dated February 25, 2015. The trial court did not have the benefit of these recent decisions.