JAMES RALEIGH
v.
CORNERSTONE QUARRY 2010 A TRUST
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
James Raleigh appealed a summary judgment of foreclosure entered against him by Cornerstone Quarry 2010 A Trust. The court reversed, holding that Cornerstone failed to meet its burden on summary judgment because it did not comply with the notice of default requirements in the promissory note and could not prove actual receipt of notice.
The court reversed the summary judgment of foreclosure, holding that Cornerstone failed to meet its burden because it neither complied with the specific notice requirements in the note nor proved actual receipt of the default notice. A plaintiff in foreclosure must prove either strict compliance with notice provisions or actual receipt by the defendant.
[1] A lender must strictly comply with the notice provisions in a promissory note and mortgage before filing a foreclosure action.
[2] A plaintiff in a foreclosure action must prove either compliance with the notice provisions or actual receipt of the default notice by the borrower when the note or mortg…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“To prevail on summary judgment, Cornerstone was required to show the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and to refute Raleigh's legally sufficient affirmative defense.”
Establishes the standard for summary judgment in this foreclosure case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRaleigh executed a promissory note secured by a mortgage in favor of Cornerstone's predecessor. The note required that a notice of default be sent at …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Burden Of Proof In Summary Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, J.
James Raleigh appeals a summary final judgment of foreclosure entered against him and in favor of Cornerstone Quarry 2010 A Trust. We reverse.
Raleigh executed a promissory note in favor of Cornerstone’s predecessor. The note was secured by a mortgage encumbering real property. When Raleigh allegedly defaulted on his loan, Cornerstone brought the instant foreclosure action. The note attached to the complaint required Cornerstone to give Raleigh a notice of default at least 21 days before filing suit. The note further required that the default notice was to be mailed to the address reflected on the note or any other address that Raleigh had specified in writing.
In its complaint, Cornerstone generally alleged that it had complied with all conditions precedent to bringing suit. Raleigh answered and asserted as an affirmative defense that Cornerstone failed to give a notice of default, as required by the note.
Cornerstone then filed a motion for summary judgment supported by an affidavit, asserting that while the default notice had not been sent to the address shown on the note, it was sent to Raleigh’s residence. In opposition to summary final judgment, Raleigh filed an affidavit, alleging that he never received the notice of default. 1 To prevail on summary judgment, Cornerstone was required to show the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and to refute Raleigh’s legally sufficient affirmative defense. See Martins v. PNC Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 170 So. 3d 932, 935–36 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). When, as here, a note or mortgage contains a provision that specifically requires a default notice be sent to the borrower prior to foreclosure, the plaintiff must prove either that it complied with the notice provisions contained in the note and mortgage documents or that the defendant actually received the default notice. See id. at 936; Ramos v. Citimortgage, Inc., 146 So. 3d 126, 128 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). It is undisputed that Cornerstone did not send the notice to the address specified in the note and mortgage documents. And, by way of affidavit, Raleigh denied that he received the default notice. 1 The record does not establish Raleigh's residence address. 2 Hence, Cornerstone did not meet its burden to disprove Raleigh’s affirmative defense so as to be entitled to summary judgment.
Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment of foreclosure and remand the case for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
EVANDER, C.J. and WALLIS, J., concur. 3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Martins v. PNC Bank, 170 So. 3d 932 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)
- Ramos v. Citimortgage, Inc., 146 So. 3d 126 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)