Brito v. Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Ams.

Full title: Katherine Brito, Appellant, v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, etc.…

Court: Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Date published: Mar 18, 2020

301 So. 3d 380 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020)

Opinion

No. 3D19-1206

03-18-2020

Katherine BRITO, Appellant, v. DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, etc., Appellee.

Carrera & Amador, P.A., and Juan M. Carrera and Carmen G. Amador-Carrera, for appellant. Akerman LLP and Nancy M. Wallace (Tallahassee), William P. Heller (Fort Lauderdale), and Eric M. Levine (West Palm Beach), for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Carrera & Amador, P.A., and Juan M. Carrera and Carmen G. Amador-Carrera, for appellant.

Akerman LLP and Nancy M. Wallace (Tallahassee), William P. Heller (Fort Lauderdale), and Eric M. Levine (West Palm Beach), for appellee.

Before EMAS, C.J., and HENDON and GORDO, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Delgado, 166 So. 3d 857, 860 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (noting: "Generally, appellate courts review a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.") See also § 673.3091, Fla. Stat. (2019) ; Almendral v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 276 So. 3d 1003, 1004 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (quoting Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Kee Wing, 210 So. 3d 216, 219 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017), for the proposition that "[a] party seeking to reestablish a lost note may meet [the requirements of section 673.3091(1), Florida Statutes ] either through a lost note affidavit or by testimony from a person with knowledge.") (internal citations omitted).