Mojica v. Bank of America, N.A. , 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 5023 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •          IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
    FIFTH DISTRICT
    NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
    FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
    DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
    MARIA MOJICA AND SAMUEL MOJICA,
    Appellants,
    v.                                                     Case No. 5D14-603
    BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ETC., ET AL.,
    Appellees.
    ________________________________/
    Opinion filed April 1, 2016
    Appeal from the Circuit Court
    for Osceola County,
    Jeffords D. Miller, Judge.
    Monique M. Sadarangani and Jon
    Lindeman, Jr., of Advocate Law Groups of
    Florida, P.A., Miami Lakes, for Appellants.
    Mary J. Walter, of Liebler Gonzalez &
    Portuondo, Miami, and Melissa A. Giasi, of
    Kass Shuler, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee
    Bank of America, N.A.
    No Appearance for Other Appellees.
    PER CURIAM.
    Maria Mojica and Samuel Mojica (“Appellants”) timely appeal the trial court’s
    summary final judgment of mortgage foreclosure in favor of Bank of America, N.A.
    (“Bank”). They argue that Bank failed to rebut their affirmative defense of lack of notice
    of default and acceleration.1 “If the defendant pleads affirmative defenses, the plaintiff
    moving for summary judgment must either factually refute the affirmative defenses by
    affidavit or establish their legal insufficiency.” Bryson v. Branch Banking & Tr. Co., 
    75 So. 3d
    783, 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). Based on a de novo review of the record before us, we
    find no evidence to indicate that Bank refuted Appellants’ affirmative defense. An alleged
    failure to comply with mortgage notice requirements creates a disputed issue of material
    fact and precludes summary judgment of foreclosure. Cobbum v. Citimortgage, Inc., 
    158 So. 3d 755
    , 757-58 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment of
    foreclosure and remand this case.
    REVERSED and REMANDED.
    LAWSON, C.J., SAWAYA and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.
    1
    Paragraph twenty-two of the mortgage reads, in pertinent part:
    22. Acceleration; Remedies. Lender shall give notice to
    Borrower prior to acceleration following Borrower’s breach of
    any covenant or agreement in this Security Instrument (but
    not prior to acceleration under Section 18 unless Applicable
    Law provides otherwise). 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, foreclosure by judicial proceeding and
    sale of the Property.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 5D14-603

Citation Numbers: 188 So. 3d 109, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 5023, 2016 WL 1261131

Judges: Lawson, Sawaya, Orfinger

Filed Date: 4/1/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024