Court Opinion

ID: 9902638
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 15:21:04.770838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:56.015362
License: Public Domain

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                 _____________________________

                       Case No. 5D23-188
                 LT Case No. 21CA000283AXYX
                 _____________________________

MORTGAGE ASSETS
MANAGEMENT, LLC,

    Appellant,

    v.

UNKNOWN SPOUSE, HEIRS,
DEVISEES, GRANTEES,
ASSIGNEES, LIENORS,
CREDITORS, TRUSTEES, AND ALL
OTHER PARTIES CLAIMING AN
INTEREST BY THROUGH, UNDER
OR AGAINST, ETC., ET. AL.,

    Appellees.
                 _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Nassau County.
Eric C. Roberson, Judge.

James H. Wyman, of Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP, Coral Gables,
for Appellant.

No Appearance for Appellees.

                      September 29, 2023

HARRIS, J.
    Mortgage Assets Management, LLC (MAM) appeals the trial
court’s Final Judgment After Bench Trial, arguing that the trial
court erred in finding that MAM’s evidence was insufficient to
carry its burden of proving its entitlement to foreclosure. We agree
and reverse.

     In June 2010, Glenda G. Kohlenberger executed a note in
favor of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. for $115,500. She also executed a
home equity conversion mortgage on real property located in
Fernandina Beach, Florida, which secured the note. Kohlenberger
died in July 2020.

     In September 2021, MAM brought the underlying in rem
foreclosure action, alleging that its counsel was in physical
possession of the note, and that it was a non-holder in possession
of the note with the rights of holder entitled to enforce the note.
MAM further alleged that there was a default of mortgage
payment due to Kohlenberger’s death and asserted that it was
entitled to immediate payment of all sums secured by the
mortgage. MAM attached copies of the loan agreements, note, and
mortgage to the complaint. All defendants named in the complaint
failed to respond and were defaulted, and the matter was promptly
set for trial.

     Prior to trial, MAM filed a Notice of Intent to Offer Evidence
by Means of Certification of Records of Regularly Conducted
Business Activity pursuant to section 90.803(6)(c), Florida
Statutes (2021), indicating that it would offer the following
certified records as evidence at trial: original note; original
mortgage or copy of same; demand letter; payment history; and a
copy of the loan agreement, if any. Notice was served on all
defendants, none of whom objected, and MAM subsequently filed
the original note and mortgage.

    MAM then filed its Certification of Business Record Affidavit
(“Certification Affidavit”), executed by a senior loan analyst with
Ocwen Financial Corporation, the authorized signor for PHH
Mortgage Corporation, who is the attorney-in-fact for MAM. The

                                 2
affidavit confirmed that MAM was the holder of the note and
entitled to enforce it and that there had been a default under the
terms of the note and mortgage, which had not been cured. Copies
of Kohlenberger’s original note, mortgage, loan agreement, an
August 6, 2020 demand letter, and the loan payment history,
indicating that the total amount due was $120,682.46 as of
February 28, 2022, were attached to the Certification Affidavit.
MAM relied on these documents and records, as well as the
defaults entered against all defendants, and presented no
witnesses or additional testimony at trial.

     Following the bench trial, the court entered final judgment
against MAM. The basis for the court’s ruling was that MAM’s
evidence “consisted of solely business records without the benefit
of any witness or evidence, [and therefore] the court finds that
[MAM] has failed to meet its burden.” MAM moved for new trial
and/or rehearing, asserting that at the non-jury trial, the court
would not allow it to proceed with the use of its Certification
Affidavit. MAM argued that it had met the statutorily authorized
requirements for introducing business records via certification and
that it had laid the proper predicate for the business records
hearsay exception, noting that despite its notice of intent filed forty
days prior to trial, no defendant made any objection to the
admissibility of the business records.

     Despite MAM’s well-reasoned and legally supported
argument, the trial judge reiterated its position criticizing what he
referred to as the “streamlined” foreclosure procedure and stating
“when you’re trying to . . . foreclose somebody’s house, maybe you
can be burdened to have an actual witness show up and tell me
about it.” The court denied MAM’s motion for rehearing. This was
error.

     “A trial court has wide discretion in determining the
admissibility of evidence, and, absent an abuse of discretion, the
trial court’s ruling on evidentiary matters will not be overturned.”
LaMarr v. Lang, 796 So. 2d 1208, 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
(citations omitted). “The trial court’s discretion is limited by the
rules of evidence.” Johnson v. State, 863 So. 2d 271, 278 (Fla.
2003).

                                  3
    Section 90.803(6)(a), Florida Statues provides the business
records hearsay exception:
            (6) Records of regularly conducted
            business activity.—

                   (a) A memorandum, report, record,
            or data compilation, in any form, of acts,
            events, conditions, opinion, or diagnosis,
            made at or near the time by, or from
            information transmitted by, a person with
            knowledge, if kept in the course of a
            regularly conducted business activity and
            if it was the regular practice of that
            business     activity   to    make     such
            memorandum, report, record, or data
            compilation, all as shown by the testimony
            of the custodian or other qualified witness,
            or as shown by a certification or
            declaration that complies with paragraph
            (c) and s. 90.902(11), unless the sources of
            information or other circumstances show
            lack of trustworthiness.

(Emphasis supplied). Section 90.803(6)(c) requires that:

                   (c) a party intending to offer
            evidence under paragraph (a) by means of
            a certification or declaration shall serve
            reasonable written notice of that intention
            upon every other party and shall make the
            evidence     available       for    inspection
            sufficiently in advance of its offer in
            evidence to provide to any other party a
            fair opportunity to challenge the
            admissibility of the evidence. . . . A motion
            opposing the admissibility of such
            evidence must be made by the opposing
            party and determined by the court before
            trial. A party’s failure to file such a motion

                                  4
            before trial constitutes a waiver of
            objection to the evidence, but the court for
            good cause shown may grant relief from
            the waiver.

Section 90.902(11), provides:

                   (11) An original or a duplicate of
            evidence that would be admissible under
            s. 90.803(6), which is maintained in a
            foreign country or domestic location and is
            accompanied by a certification or
            declaration from the custodian of the
            records or another qualified person
            certifying or declaring that the record:

                  (a) Was made at or near the time of
            the occurrence of the matters set forth by,
            or from information transmitted by, a
            person having knowledge of those
            matters;

                  (b) Was kept in the course of the
            regularly conducted activity; and

                   (c) Was made as a regular practice
            in the course of the regularly conducted
            activity, provided that falsely making
            such a certification or declaration would
            subject the maker to criminal penalty
            under the laws of the foreign or domestic
            location in which the certification or
            declaration was signed.

     Here, MAM was in full compliance with the records
certification procedure and had fully satisfied the business record
hearsay exception. Despite the trial court’s stated preference to
have a witness appear in person, the law imposes no such
requirement under these circumstances. “Where a statute does not
violate the federal or state Constitution, the legislative will is
supreme . . . .” Sebring Airport Auth. v. McIntyre, 783 So. 2d 238,

                                 5
244–45 (Fla. 2001). By entering judgment against MAM, especially
where all defendants had been defaulted and none opposed the
foreclosure or the records certification, the court clearly abused its
discretion.

    We reverse the final judgment entered below and remand this
matter back to the trial court with instructions to enter a final
judgment of foreclosure in MAM’s favor.

    REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.

EDWARDS, C.J., and SOUD, J., concur.

                  _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________

                                  6