Florida District Courts of Appeal, 2016

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Hernandez & Silva Enterprises, Inc.

Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided May 4, 2016 · Rothenberg, Salter, Scales

193 So. 3d 67; 2016 WL 2342827; 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 6730 (Southern Reporter, Third Series)

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Nationstar Mortgage v. Silva (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Craig (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

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*68plies 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.

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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.