Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Hernandez & Silva Enter., Inc., 193 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). · Go Syfert
Search
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Hernandez & Silva Enter., Inc., 193 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Nationstar Mortgage v. Silva (fladistctapp, 2018-03-07)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Nationstar Mortgage v. Silva
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Hernandez & Silva Enterprises, Inc., 193 So. 3d 67, 67-68 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., etc.
v.
HERNANDEZ & SILVA ENTERPRISES, INC.
No. 3D15-702.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
May 4, 2016.
193 So. 3d 67
Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, and Diana B. Matson and Joshua R. Levine, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant., The Arda Law Firm, P.L., and Omar J. Arda and Vanessa Jaleh Bravo, Miramar, for appellee Hernandez & Silva Enterprises, Inc.
Rothenberg, Salter, Scales.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
SCALES, J.

In this foreclosure case, the trial court entered judgment for Appellee Hernandez & Silva Enterprises, Inc., based upon Hernandez & Silva’s defense asserting that the default notice. of Appellant Wells. Fargo Bank, N.A. was insufficient as a matter of law.

We reverse the trial court’s judgment because the record reveals that the trial court applied the incorrect legal standard in evaluating whether- Wells Fargo’s, default notice complied with Paragraph 22 of the mortgage, the default notice provision.

, We have'held'that a mortgagee’s default notice is sufficient if it substantially com[*68] plies with the mortgage’s default notice provision. Bank of N.Y. v. Mieses, 187 So.3d 919 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); SunTrust Mortg., Inc. v. Garcia, 186 So.3d 1036 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); Bank of Am. v. Cadet, 183 So.3d 477, 478 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (Mem); Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Nunez, 180 So.3d 160, 162 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). The trial court applied a strict compliance standard in the instant case.[1]

Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

1

We note that the trial court order is dated February 25, 2015. The trial court did not have the benefit of these recent decisions.