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

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, ) Successor in Interest to GMAC ) MORTGAGE, LLC, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D15-3641 ) EDGAR OSMUNDSEN and DIANA ) OSMUNDSEN, ) ) Appellees. ) ________________________________ ) Opinion filed November 16, 2016. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco County; Alicia Polk, Judge. Kimberly S. Mello and Jonathan S. Tannen of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Tampa, and Patrick G. Broderick of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Appellant. Angela Lynn Leiner of The Law Office of Angela L. Leiner, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellees.

KELLY, Judge. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, appeals from the final judgment diss olving the lis pendens and dismissing the foreclosure action against E dgar and Diana- 2 - Osmundsen with prejudice for failure to comply with the notice requirements in paragraph 22 of the mortgage. 1 Because the default letter substantially complied with paragraph 22, we reverse. Paragraph 22 of the mortgage provides, in pertinent part, as fo llows: Lender shall give notice to Borrower prior to acceleration following Borrower's breach. . . . The notice shall specify: ( a) the default; (b) the action required to cure the default; (c) a date, not less than 30 days from the date the notice is given to Borrower, by which the default must be cured; and (d) that failure to cure the default on or before the date specified in the notice may result in acceleration of the sums secured by this Security Instrument, forecl osure by judicial proceeding, and sale of the Property. Paragraph 22 default notices are r eviewed for substantial compl iance and are sufficient when they advise the borrower of all essential i nformation concerning the borrower's default and the action required to cure it. Green T ree Servicing, LLC v. Milam, 177 So. 3d 7, 14-15, 19 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). The Osmunds ens were advised in the letter they received that their loan was in default for fai ling to make the payment due March 1, 2009, and subsequent payments, and that to cure the de fault they needed to pay all outstanding amounts within thirty days. Although the l etter did not note the address where payment was to be sent, a self-addressed envelope for payment was provided with the letter. This court has held that failure to state the payment address in a default letter is not a material omission. See id. at 19 (ho lding that an address for payment is not required in the default letter because the addre ss is specified in the

1 The trial court found that the default letter was deficient bec ause the letter (1) was not on letterhead; (2) did not contain the name of the bank or servicer within the body of the letter; (3) did not provide an address for the borr ower to send payment; (4) only contained a telephone number for "loan counseling"; and (5 ) did not have a signature block naming any individual or company.- 3 - note). If the Osmundsens were un sure where to send their payme nt, the default letter provided a telephone number to call with any questions. The Os mundsens demonstrated that they had no such doubt, as they had made paym ents until they

defaulted in 2009. The default letter substantially complied with paragraph 22. T he trial court erred in imposing additional requi rements not specified by the contract. Accordingly, we reverse the order of dismissal and the final judgment in favor of the Osmundsens and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

MORRIS and BLACK, JJ., Concur.