News + updates + recent press
Loan Modification Agreement is not a negotiable instrument and a duplicate, if properly authenticated is admissible.
On July 5, 2018, the Third District Court of Appeal in Bank of New York Mellon v. Garcia, Case No, 3D17-2041, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D1534b (Fla. 3d DCA July 5, 2018) held that “a loan modification agreement is not a negotiable instrument and a duplicate, if properly authenticated, is admissible to the same extent as the original and without need for an explanation as to why the original was unavailable.” citing Liukkonen v. Bayview Loan Servicing, 43 Fla. L. Weekly, D663 *2 (Fla. 4th DCA March 28, 2018). The background of this case is that at trial the Bank sought to introduce a duplicate of the loan modification executed by the parties, and Garcia objected asserting that under the Best Evidence Rule (Fla. Stat. 90.252) that an original was required. Garcia further argued that Fla. Stat. 90.953 was inapplicable because the loan modification agreement is a negotiable instrument. The trial court sustained the objection and denied admission of the loan modification agreement duplicate. When Garcia moved for an involuntary dismissal, the trial court granted same based on the failure to introduce the original loan modification agreement and that the initial default alleged in the Complaint was more than five years old.
The Third District Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in entering a final judgment of dismissal in favor of Garcia. As a loan modification is not a negotiable instrument, and as the subject Complaint pled the initial default and all subsequent payments. Accordingly, the final judgment is reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Comments are closed.
PLG BLOG DISCLAIMER
The information contained on this blog shall not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion. The existence of or review and/or use of this blog or any information hereon does not and is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Further, no information on this blog should be construed as investment advice. Independent legal and financial advice should be sought before using any information obtained from this blog. It is important to note that the cases are subject to change with future court decisions or other changes in the law. For the most up-to-date information, please contact Padgett Law Group (“PLG”). PLG shall have no liability whatsoever to any user of this blog or any information contained hereon, for any claim(s) related in any way to the use of this blog. Users hereby release and hold harmless PLG of and from any and all liability for any claim(s), whether based in contract or in tort, including, but not limited to, claims for lost profits or consequential, exemplary, incidental, indirect, special, or punitive damages arising from or related to their use of the information contained on this blog or their inability to use this blog. This Blog is provided on an "as is" basis without warranties of any kind, either express or implied, including, but not limited to, warranties of title or implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.