NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

ANDRE SAS , ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No . 2D14

- 1003 ) FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ) ASS OCIATION , ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed June 10, 2015. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Charles E. Williams , Judge. H. Daniel McKillop and Jeremy J. Taylor of McKillop Law Firm, Sarasota, for Appellant. Kimberly N. Hopkins and Ronald M. Gache of Shapiro, Fishman & Gache, LLP, Tampa, for Appellee

. SLEET, Judge

. Andre Sas appeals the order granting a new trial on the issue of the amount of debt owed to Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) by Sas. We affirm the order on appeal but write to address the application of WAMCO XXVIII, Ltd. v. Integrated Electr onic Environments, Inc. , 903 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) , to- 2

- the present case.
In Sas v. Fede ral National Mortgage Ass' n , 112 So. 3d 778, 779 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) , we explained that it was error for the trial court to admit the testimony of Fannie Mae's re cords custodian about the contents of its records without admitting any of those business records. We affirmed the final judgment of foreclosure but reversed and remanded " for further proceedings to properly establish the amounts allegedly due and owing. " Id. at 780 . On remand, the trial court held a hearing on the issue of damages, and Fannie Mae submitted the testimony of another records custodian , a "foreclosure litigation corporate officer" with Seterus, Inc., which had been Fannie Mae's mortgage loa n servicer for Sas's loan since August 1, 2010. At the hearing, Seterus's custodian testified that he was familiar with Seterus's business practices in making and maintaining business records, Fannie Mae's record

- keeping requirements for mortgage loan se rvicers, and the servicer industry's general practices in making and maintaining business records. He explained that Chase Home Finance, LLC, was the prior servicer on Sas's mortgage, that Chase was bound by the same requirements in maintaining mortgage loan records as Seterus because they were both servicers for Fannie Mae, and that Seterus's loan boardi ng department thoroughly reviewed Chase's records at the time of transfer for any discrepancies. Seterus's custodian was familiar with the verification procedures used by the loan boarding department and stated that it audited Chase's records and found

no discrepancies at the time Sas's mortgage was transferred. He further explained that had the loan boarding department found any discrepancies, the loan would have been resubmitted to Chase for repurchase ; he confirmed that the loan was never re submitte d- 3

- t o Chase and that the C hase payment history was part of what was audited at the time Seterus acquired the loan

. Seterus's custodian testified that once Seterus began servicing the loan, the payment history was updated as Seterus received payments on the lo an by a person with knowledge and that Seterus regularly maintained such records in the course of its regularly conducted business. Sas objected to the custodian's testimony and argued that Fannie Mae failed to lay the predicate for admission of Sas's paym ent history under section 90.803(6), Florida Statutes (2014) , because the custodian had no perso nal knowledge of Chase's record

- keeping practices. 1 The trial court agreed; it ultimately granted Sas's motion for directed verdict 2 after Fannie Mae was unabl e to present any evidence through the records custodian of the amounts due and owing on the mortgage. Fannie Mae sought a new trial on damages , arguing that it was error for the trial court to exclude the payment history in light of this court's holding i n WAMCO , 903 So. 2d at
233

. T he trial court agreed and granted a new trial on the issue of damages only. T he trial court correctly exercised its discretion in granting a new trial and in its application of
W AMCO because Seterus's custodian established the proper pr edicate for the admissi on of the payment history. On appeal, Sas first contends that the trial court erred in applying WAMCO

. We do not agree. T he trial court correctly found that the WAMCO decision is

1 It is worth noting that Sas did not challenge the trustworthiness or reliability of Chase's records on appeal or in the circuit court.

2 In a nonjury trial, a motion for directed verdict is treated as a motion for involuntary dismissal under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(b). See Thompson v. Fl a

. Cemeteries, Inc. , 866 So. 2d 767, 769 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)

.- 4

- directly on point. In W AMCO , this court held that the loan payment histories of a prior servicer are admissible under section 90.803(6) when they are relied on by a successor servicer who establishes that it independently verified the accuracy of the payment histories and its ve rification procedures demonstrate that the records are trustworthy. 903 So. 2d at 233 ; see also Bank of N

. Y

. v. Calloway , 157 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) . At trial, the successor servicer, WAMCO, presented the testimony of its records custodian who e xplained that he was familiar with the rec ord

- keeping procedures at WAMCO, that WAMCO relied on the payment history it r eceived from the prior servicer, that he was generally familiar with th e accounting practices at banks, and that WAMCO verified the accu racy of the files at the time it purchased the loans by going through the files, check ing for "anything that seems out of line," look ing at the payment histories, and then making contact with the customer. 903 So. 2d at 232

- 33. On appeal, this court held that the testimony of WAMCO's records custodian and the loan payment histories admitted through him were sufficient to prove the amount of the outstanding loans. Id. at 233

. T here is no requirement that the records custodian ha ve personal knowledge of the manner in which the prior servicer maintained and created its business records. See id. at 233 (noting that the records custodian lacked personal knowledge as to who at the successor servicer input the loan information, but th at the business records were properly admitted into evidence) ; see also Calloway , 157 So. 3d
at 1073 ; Glarum v. LaSalle Bank Nat'l Ass'n , 83 So. 3d 780, 782 n.2 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)

. Sas also contends that this court's decision in WAMCO is in conflict with the First and Fourth Districts' decisions in Holt v. Calchas, LLC , 155 So. 3d 499 (Fla. 4th- 5

- DCA 2015) ; Burdeshaw v. Bank of New York Mellon , 148 So. 3d 819 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) ; and Hunter v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC , 137 So. 3d 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) ,
re view denied , 157 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. 2014) . However, these three cases are distinguishable. In each case, the servicer's records custodian failed to testify that the successor servicer of the loan independently verified the accuracy of the payment histories received from the prior servicer or to detail the procedures used for such verification. See Holt , 155 So. 3d at 504 ; Burdeshaw , 148 So. 3d at 826 ; Hunter , 137 So. 3d at 573

. Here, Seterus's records custodian's testimony satisfied the requirements of section 90.803(6) and also established th at Seterus independently verified the accuracy of the records it received from Chase using Seterus's verification procedures

. As such, the loan payment histor y was admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. W e therefore affirm t he order setting a new trial on the issue of damages. Affirmed

.

ALTENBERND and SALARIO , JJ., Concur.