Court Opinion

ID: 9353248
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-11 16:02:50.610848+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:06:23.483923
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                       Opinion filed January 11, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D22-0285
                       Lower Tribunal No. 18-471-K
                          ________________

                            Corey McIntosh,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

               U.S. Bank National Association, etc.,
                                  Appellee.

     An appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Bonnie J. Helms,
Judge.

     Garcia Law Firm, Trial Attorneys, and Manuel E. Garcia, for appellant.

      Diaz Anselmo & Associates P.A., Kathleen Achille, and Adam A. Diaz
(Fort Lauderdale), for appellee.

Before SCALES, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ.

     MILLER, J.
     Appellant, Corey McIntosh, challenges a final summary judgment of

foreclosure rendered in favor of appellee, U.S. Bank National Association,

Not in Its Individual Capacity but Solely as Trustee for RMAC Trust, Series

2016-CTT.    On appeal, he contends summary judgment was improper

because the motion and accompanying materials failed to account for a

binding modification agreement. Because “[i]n the foreclosure context, a

bank, ‘[h]aving entered into a valid modification agreement, . . . [can] only

foreclose by alleging and proving a breach of the modification agreement,’”

and, here, the operative complaint referenced the modification agreement,

but the summary judgment materials did not, we are constrained to reverse

and remand for further proceedings. Carus v. VRMTG Asset Tr., 327 So. 3d

937, 938 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (second and third alterations in original)

(quoting Nowlin v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 193 So. 3d 1043, 1046 (Fla. 2d

DCA 2016)); see also Kuehlman v. Bank of Am., N.A., 177 So. 3d 1282, 1283

(Fla. 5th DCA 2015).

     Reversed and remanded.

                                     2