Christopher Hammac and Jessica Hammac v. U. S. Bank National Association as Trustee of The
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledOctober 6, 2023
Docket2D2022-3020
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
CHRISTOPHER HAMMAC and JESSICA HAMMAC,
Appellants,
v.
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as trustee of the
Bungalow Series IV Trust,
Appellee.
No. 2D22-3020
October 6, 2023
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Cheryl K.
Thomas, Judge.
Blake J. Fredrickson of Cremeens Law Group, PLLC, Tampa, for
Appellants.
Christophal Hellewell, Chase A. Berger, and Tara L. Rosenfeld of Ghidotti
Berger LLP, North Miami Beach, for Appellee.
LUCAS, Judge.
Christopher and Jessica Hammac appeal a summary judgment of
foreclosure against their Tampa home entered in favor of U.S. Bank
National Association. They argue that the circuit court's computation of
the principal amount owed under their mortgage loan was erroneous.
U.S. Bank appropriately concedes that the erroneous calculation
was based upon a loan modification agreement that was neither pled nor
proven in the proceedings below.1 See Tracey v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
264 So. 3d 1152, 1153 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) ("The circuit court reversibly
erred when it permitted Wells Fargo to amend its complaint during trial
to conform to the evidence it presented of two unpled modification
agreements."); Morales v. Fifth Third Bank, 275 So. 3d 197, 201 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2019) ("In this action, [Fifth Third Bank] certainly premised its
recovery on the modification and the amounts due thereunder. The
appellee was required to plead the loan modification and to attach a copy
to the complaint.").
We, therefore, reverse the circuit court's summary judgment and
remand this case for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
KHOUZAM and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
__________________________________
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
1 It was undisputed that the principal amount owed under the
(unmodified) note would have been $156,391.47. The court's final
judgment increased that amount by twenty thousand dollars to
$176,396.81.
2