Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. Marion DEYOUNG, Appellee.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, sued to foreclose its mortgage on a residence owned by Marion DeYoung. Following a bench trial, the court entered an amended final judgment of foreclosure in favor of the Bank. The Bank raises several challenges to the amended final judgment in this appeal, but we find merit only in its argument that the amended final judgment misstates the amount of the principal balance due on the note.
The amended final judgment states that the principal balance due under the note is $640,713.36. At trial, the Bank presented testimony from its representative that the total amount of the principal balance on the note was $1,838,660, while Ms. DeYoung presented evidence establishing that the principal balance due on the note was $690,713.36. The Bank posits the principal amount entered in the amended final judgment is likely a scrivener's error and argues that if we reject its other challenges to the amended final judgment, we must at a minimum remand this case for this figure to be corrected. We agree. It is apparent the trial court did not accept the Bank's figure, and no party suggested a principal balance in the amount reflected in the amended final judgment. Ms. DeYoung does not contest that the figure contained in the amended final judgment is likely a scrivener's error but argues the Bank waived the error by not raising it in a motion for rehearing. We disagree. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of foreclosure, except as to the amount due under the note, and remand this case to the trial court to make the necessary corrections to the amended final judgment.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
KELLY, Judge.
CASANUEVA and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Case No. 2D16-4778
Decided: August 29, 2018
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)