Esteva v. Avail 1 LLC
A homeowner who had settled a foreclosure action sued the noteholder, servicer, and foreclosure counsel after receiving a payoff/estoppel statement that lacked an itemized breakdown of escrow advances, late charges, foreclosure costs, and attorney's fees, and after the law firm characterized his statutory payoff and notice-of-error requests as a breach of the settlement agreement warranting termination of the forbearance. The court held that the state court's retention of jurisdiction over the settlement did not divest it of jurisdiction, that the complaint stated claims under Fla. Stat. § 701.04(1) and FCCPA § 559.72(9), and that Florida's litigation privilege could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss; it dismissed only the FDCPA § 1692d and § 1692f theories.
Key facts
- Homeowner settled a foreclosure action but received a payoff/estoppel statement from the noteholder and servicer that lacked itemized breakdown of escrow advances, late charges, foreclosure costs, and attorney's fees.
- Foreclosure counsel characterized the homeowner's statutory payoff requests and notice-of-error requests as breaches of the settlement agreement and threatened termination of forbearance and retention of payments.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
The opinion gives borrower-side counsel a usable reading of the amended mortgage estoppel-letter statute: the lis pendens carve-out in § 701.04(1)(c) only authorizes reservation language and does not relieve a lender or… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.