WILLIAM A. ZALAQUETT
v.
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, ETC.
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.
Appellant Zalaquett appealed a circuit court decision in a case against The Bank of New York Mellon. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's judgment, citing precedent regarding sufficiency of evidence for establishing mailing of demand letters in bank cases.
The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that sufficient evidence was presented to preclude an involuntary dismissal at the close of the bank's case-in-chief on the issue of whether a prima facie showing was made that the demand letter was mailed to the borrower.
[1] In an action involving a mailed demand letter, sufficient evidence to establish prima facie mailing may be presented without requiring witness testimony regarding a third…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“On appeal, the Bank correctly argues that it was unnecessary for its witness to testify regarding his knowledge of the third-party vendor's mailing practices to establish that the demand letter had been sent.”
Establishes that direct witness testimony about vendor mailing practices is not required to prove a demand letter was mailed
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved a dispute between William A. Zalaquett and The Bank of New York Mellon. The circuit court made a determination regarding evidence pr…
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 Prima Facie Showing cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed May 29, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D23-1704 Lower Tribunal No. 19-4466 ________________ William A. Zalaquett,
Appellant,
vs.
The Bank of New York Mellon, etc., Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Antonio Arzola, Judge. Pomeranz & Associates, P.A., and Mark L. Pomeranz (Hallandale), for appellant. Kelley Kronenberg, and Danielle Spradley (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee. Before LOGUE, C.J., and SCALES and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Americas as Tr. for Residential Accredit Loans, Inc. v. Harris, 264 So. 3d 186, 192-93 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (“On appeal, the Bank correctly argues that it was unnecessary for its witness to testify regarding his knowledge of the third-party vendor’s mailing practices to establish that the demand letter had been sent. . . . [O]ur review of the record in this case leads us to conclude that sufficient evidence was presented to preclude an involuntary dismissal at the close of the Bank’s case-in-chief on the issue of whether a prima facie showing was made that the demand letter was mailed to the borrower prior to the filing of the suit.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Americas v. Harris, 264 So. 3d 186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)