The Default Letter MUST Be Correct!
We agree that Wells Fargo failed to satisfy the notice requirement of section 22 of the mortgage as a condition precedent to foreclosure.
To refute the Samaroos’ affirmative defense that Wells Fargo failed to give the
Samaroos notice prior to acceleration that complied with the notice requirements set forth
in paragraph 22 of the mortgage, Wells Fargo relied upon the default letter that is attached
to the affidavit in support of its motion for summary judgment. However, it is apparent in
comparing the letter to the requirements of paragraph 22 that it does not comply with the
notice requirements set forth in paragraph 22 of the mortgage. Importantly, it does not
inform the Samaroos of their right to reinstate after acceleration. Rather, it informs the
Samaroos that the “acceptance of one or more payments for less than the amount
required to cure the default shall not be deemed to reinstate [their] loan or waive any
acceleration of the loan.” This in no way suggests the right to reinstate after acceleration.
See Kurian v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 114 So. 3d 1052, 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
(“[The letter attached to the Complaint] did not advise of the default, provide an
opportunity to cure, or provide thirty days in which to do so. The letter attached to the
Complaint did not satisfy section 22’s requirements.”); Judy v. MSMC Venture, LLC, 100
So. 3d 1287, 1289 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).
Wells Fargo contends that it “substantially” complied with the contractual notice
requirements, an argument we cannot credit. None of the cases cited by Wells Fargo
involved compliance with pre-acceleration notice requirements contained in a mortgage.
Its own mortgage specified the important information that it was bound to give its borrower
in default, and it simply failed to do so