RAYMOND SOSA v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, Etc.
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledAugust 26, 2020
Docket3D19-1669
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed August 26, 2020.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D19-1669
Lower Tribunal No. 17-19057
________________
Raymond Sosa,
Appellant,
vs.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, etc.,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jacqueline Hogan
Scola, Judge.
Pomeranz & Associates, P.A., and Mark L. Pomeranz (Hallandale), for
appellant.
Greenberg Traurig, P.A., and Kimberly S. Mello and Linda M. Reck
(Orlando), for appellee.
Before EMAS, C.J., and SALTER and GORDO, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Silva, 239 So. 3d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA
2018) (holding that even if the default letter failed to comply with the requirements
of paragraph 22 of the mortgage, in the absence of any prejudice and in light of the
borrower’s failure to make any attempt to cure the default from March 2009 until
trial in 2016, the trial court erred in dismissing the foreclosure complaint); Citigroup
Mortg. Loan Tr. Inc. v. Scialabba, 238 So. 3d 317, 323 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
(holding: “Even if we concluded that the required notice was mailed to an incorrect
address, the Bank correctly points out that the defective notice did not prejudice the
Borrowers, as they did not attempt to cure the default”); Gorel v. Bank of N.Y.
Mellon, 165 So. 3d 44, 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (holding: “We agree with Bank that
the defective notice did not prejudice [the borrower], as he made no attempt to cure
the default. Absent some prejudice, the breach of a condition precedent does not
constitute a defense to the enforcement of an otherwise valid contract”).
2