Case Name: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., etc., Appellant, v. HERNANDEZ & SILVA ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2016-05-04
Citations: 193 So. 3d 67
Docket Number: No. 3D15-702
Parties: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., etc., Appellant, v. HERNANDEZ & SILVA ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Appellees.
Judges: Before ROTHENBERG, SALTER and SCALES, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 193
Pages: 67–68

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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 com plies 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.