Kurian v. Wells Fargo - Fla. 4th DCA (Reversed Conditions Precedent)

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Kurian v. Wells Fargo – Fla. 4th DCA (Reversed on Conditions Precedent)

Kurian v. Wells Fargo – Fla. 4th DCA (Reversed on Conditions Precedent)

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
January Term 2013

JESSY KURIAN and ANIL THOMAS,
Appellants,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Appellee.

No. 4D11-3098
[April 10, 2013]

MAY, C.J.
Homeowners appeal a final summary judgment of foreclosure. They
argue the trial court erred in entering summary judgment because the
bank failed to refute two of their affirmative defenses. We agree and
reverse.

The homeowners executed a note and mortgage with the bank.
Section 22 of the mortgage stated, in pertinent part:

Lender shall give notice to Borrower prior to acceleration
following Borrower’s breach of any covenant or agreement in
this Security Instrument . . . . 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 . . . .

The bank filed a Complaint to foreclose the mortgage, alleging the
homeowners defaulted on December 1, 2008. Attached to the Complaint
was a letter, dated March 25, 2009, notifying the homeowners that the
mortgage was in default and the bank had accelerated all sums due. The
homeowners answered and asserted affirmative defenses. Two of those
defenses were: (1) lack of timely notice of the acceleration; and (2) failure
of conditions precedent concerning the “acceleration” terms and
conditions.

The bank moved for summary judgment and attorneys’ fees, and filed
an Amended Affidavit as to Amounts Due and Owing. The homeowners
filed affidavits in opposition, which attested that they never received
notification of the acceleration of the mortgage or note, were never
contacted by the bank about the acceleration, and never waived their
right to receive notice. The trial court entered final summary judgment
in favor of the bank. The homeowners now appeal.

The homeowners argue the trial court erred in entering summary
judgment because the bank failed to refute their affirmative defenses,
which were legally sufficient. The bank responds that the affirmative
defenses were legally insufficient because they were not pled with
specificity. We have de novo review. Frost v. Regions Bank, 15 So. 3d
905, 906 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

“When a party raises affirmative defenses, ‘a summary judgment
should not be granted where there are issues of fact raised by the
affirmative defenses which have not been effectively factually challenged
and refuted.’” Alejandre v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams., 44 So. 3d
1288, 1289 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (quoting Cufferi v. Royal Palm Dev. Co.,
516 So. 2d 983, 984 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)). The movant must disprove
the affirmative defenses or show they are legally insufficient. Id.

We have previously held that affirmative defenses such as those pled
here are legally sufficient to defeat a summary judgment when they are
not refuted. Frost, 15 So. 3d at 906. Because “[n]othing in the bank’s
complaint, motion for summary judgment, or affidavits indicate that the
bank gave the [homeowners] the notice which the mortgage required[,] . .
. the bank did not meet its burden to refute the [homeowners’] lack of
notice and opportunity to cure defense.” Id.; see also Haber v. Deutsche
Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 81 So. 3d 565, 565 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (reversing a
summary judgment b a s e d on the bank’s failure to refute the
homeowner’s affirmative defense of notice).

Here, the bank failed to refute the homeowners’ affirmative defense of
lack of notice of acceleration thirty days prior to the filing of the
Complaint as required by the mortgage. The letter attached to the
Complaint was dated only six days prior to the filing of the Complaint.
While the bank argues that section 15 of the mortgage provides that
notice is deemed to have been given when mailed by first class mail, the
bank failed to prove that any notice was sent by first class mail. For
these reasons, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and Remanded.
TAYLOR and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,
Broward County; Marina Garcia-Wood, Judge; L.T. Case No. 09-18657
CACE 02.

Scott Levine, Weston, for appellants.

Michael K. Winston and Dean A. Morande of Carlton Fields, P.A.,
West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

Down Load PDF of This Case

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 8611 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author

Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com
Kenneth Eric Trent, www.ForeclosureDestroyer.com

Archives