Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed April 12, 2017.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D15-1368
Lower Tribunal No. 14-19880
________________
U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., etc.,
Appellant,
vs.
Reginald L. Wellman, etc.,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Gerald D.
Hubbart, Senior Judge.
Robertson Anschutz & Schneid and Heidi J. Bassett and David Rosenberg
(Boca Raton), for appellant.
The Ticktin Law Group and Kendrick Almaguer (Deerfield Beach), for
appellee.
Before ROTHENBERG, EMAS and FERNANDEZ, JJ.
EMAS, J.
U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. appeals from a final judgment involuntarily
dismissing its foreclosure complaint, upon the trial court’s determination that the
lender failed to comply with conditions precedent prior to filing its foreclosure
lawsuit. Specifically, the trial court determined that the lender’s1 notice of default
and intent to accelerate failed to comply with paragraph 22 of the mortgage
agreement. Upon our de novo review, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Craig, 193 So.
3d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016), we find that the notice substantially complied with
paragraph 22 of the mortgage.
The relevant facts of the instant case are indistinguishable from those in our
recent decisions in Craig, 193 So. 3d at 77; Bank of New York v. Mieses, 187 So.
3d 919 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); Bank of America v. Cadet, 183 So. 3d 477 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2016); Suntrust Mortgage, Inc. v. Garcia, 186 So. 3d 1036 (Fla. 3d DCA
2016); and Bank of New York Mellon v. Nunez, 180 So. 3d 160 (Fla. 3d DCA
2015). In those cases we held (as we hold in the instant case) that the notice of
default substantially complied with the default notice provision contained in
paragraph 22 of the mortgage. We therefore reverse and remand for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
1 U.S. Bank was substituted in as party plaintiff during the proceedings below.
2