Wallace v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper
In an FHA foreclosure bench trial, Nationstar proved compliance with the 24 CFR § 203.604 face-to-face-meeting condition precedent solely through a 'F2F Results' document created by a fourth-party field-services vendor (JMA) hired by the prior servicer. The Second DCA held the document was not admissible under the business records exception because the successor servicer's generic boarding-process testimony did not establish trustworthiness of a non-numeric, event-documenting record created by a vendor whose practices the witness knew nothing about. Judgment reversed with directions to enter judgment for the borrowers.
Key facts
- Nationstar Mortgage LLC sought to foreclose an FHA-insured loan against borrower Wallace in a bench trial, relying on a 'F2F Results' document from third-party vendor JMA to prove compliance with the federal face-to-face meeting requirement.
- The successor servicer's witness testified generally about boarding procedures but provided no evidence regarding JMA's practices, the prior servicer's relationship with JMA, or independent verification of the vendor's event-documenting record.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This decision draws a practical line in the business-records/boarding-process case law: successor-servicer boarding testimony may suffice for payment histories that can be mathematically verified, but not for narrative… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
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.