NATIONAL LOAN INVESTORS, L.P., APPELLANT,
v.
JOYMAR ASSOCIATES, ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
National Loan Investors appealed the dismissal with prejudice of its third amended complaint in a mortgage foreclosure action. The court reversed, holding that dismissal with prejudice was an abuse of discretion because NLI could amend its complaint to allege the elements necessary to enforce a lost promissory note.
The court reversed the dismissal, holding that it is an abuse of discretion to dismiss a complaint with prejudice where the complaint can be amended to state a cause of action and the privilege to amend has not been abused. The court recognized that a right of enforcement for a lost instrument can be assigned, and NLI should have been allowed to amend to allege the required elements.
[1] A lender in a mortgage foreclosure action must present the original promissory note or provide a satisfactory explanation for its absence.
[2] A right to enforce a lost, destroyed, or stolen instrument may be assigned.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In a mortgage foreclosure action, a lender is required to either present the original promissory note or give a satisfactory explanation for the lender's failure to present it prior to it being enforced.”
Establishes the foundational requirement in Florida mortgage foreclosure law that a lender must present the original note or explain its absence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJoymar Associates executed a promissory note and mortgage. State Street Bank sought foreclosure but later assigned the loan documents to the FDIC, whi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Abuse Of Discretion In Dismissal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
National Loan Investors (“NLI”), appeals a final order dismissing its third amended complaint with prejudice contending that it should have been allowed to amend the complaint or, alternatively, dismissal should have been without prejudice. We reverse.
Appellee, Joymar Associates (“Joymar”), executed a promissory note and mortgage in favor of Dominion Mortgage Center, Inc. Subsequently, an assignee of the note, State Street Bank & Trust Co. (“State Street”), sought foreclosure on the mortgage. In its complaint, State Street alleged that it was the owner and holder of the various loan documents. Joymar, meanwhile, denied this allegation.
Thereafter, pending litigation, State Street assigned the loan documents to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”)(acting not as a receiver, but in its corporate capacity). FDIC, in turn, executed a document which assigned to NLI all of FDIC’s rights, title and interest in and to the loan documents originally executed by Joymar. This document also indicated that the loan documents were transferred to NLI without recourse, representation or an express or implied warranty.
After the loan documents were assigned to NLI, NLI filed an amended complaint which included a count for the reestablishment of a lost note and mortgage. NLI also pleaded that it did not know the exact time and manner of the loss or destruction of the note or mortgage.
As an affirmative defense, Joymar asserted that NLI did not possess the loan documents because NLI’s assignor, FDIC, never possessed the loan documents.
Therefore, FDIC had no ability to assign non-possessed documents to NLI. At the hearing on Joymar’s motion to dismiss the third amended complaint, Joy-mar asserted that NLI’s complaint failed to allege that any entity ever had possession of the original loan documents or that NLI knew the time and manner of their loss. In response, NLI sought leave to amend again which was denied.
The lower court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, thereby precluding NLI from taking any further action in this case. NLI appeals this order. In a mortgage foreclosure action, a lender is required to either present the original promissory note or give a satisfactory explanation for the lender’s failure to present it prior to it being enforced. See Downing v.
First National Bank of Lake City, 81 So. 2d 486 (Fla.1955); Figueredo v. Bank Espirito Santo, 537 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Pastore-Borroto Development, Inc. v. Marevista Apartments, M.B., Inc., 596 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). A limited exception applies for lost, destroyed, or stolen instruments, where it is shown that “the person was in possession of the instrument and entitled to enforce it when loss of possession occurred.” § 673.3091, Fla. Stat. (1999).
We see no reason why this right of enforcement cannot be assigned when recognizing such a right would prevent defendants in foreclosure actions from receiving a windfall. See Beal Bank S.S.B. v. Caddo Parish-Villas South, Ltd., 218 B.R. 851 (N.D.Tex.1998)(interpreting Louisiana’s version of the UCC as codified in La. UCC § 3-309(a)).
See also, Southeast Investments Inc. v. Clade, 1999 WL 476865 (N.D.Tex.1999)(interpreting Tex. Bus. & Comm.Code § 3-309), aff'd. 212 F. 3d 595 (5th Cir.2000).
Although NLI failed to allege that it was ever in possession of the note or that it was entitled to enforce the note when it was lost, it is well-settled that even where an opportunity to amend has been previously granted, it is an abuse of discretion to dismiss a complaint with prejudice where the complaint can be amended to state a cause of action and the privilege to amend has not been abused. See Kovach v. McLellan, 564 So. 2d 274, 276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); See also Winselmann v. Reynolds, 690 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Delia & Wilson, Inc. v. Wilson, 448 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
Because a cause of action may be stated through proof of an assignable right of enforcement, the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint with prejudice.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State St. Bank & Tr. Co. for Holders of Bear Stearns Mortg. Sec. Inc. Mortg. Pass-Through Certificates v. Hartley Lord, 851 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…present the original promissory note or give a satisfactory explanation for its failure to do so. § 90.953(1), Fla. Stat. (2002); W.H. Downing v. First Nat’l Bank of Lake City, 81 So. 2d 486 (Fla.1955); Nat’l Loan Investors, L.P. v. Joymar Assocs., 767 So. 2d 549, 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). A limited exception applies for lost, destroyed, or stolen instruments, where it is shown that “the person was in possession of the instrument and entitled to enforce it when-loss of possession occurred.” § 673.3091, Fla. St…
-
Hawkins v. Crosby, 910 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…if his motion for rehearing was treated as an amendment, he should have been given another opportunity to amend because he believed that he needed leave of the court and he has not abused the privilege. Nat’l Loan Investors, L.P. v. Joymar Assocs., 767 So. 2d 549, 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). By so ruling, we are not [*426] passing on the validity, vel non, of any amended complaint. The circuit court’s order is reversed and this cause remanded to allow Hawkins to amend his complaint. POLEN, KLEIN and HAZOURI,…
-
Slizyk v. Smilack, 825 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…at appellee could not comply with section 673.3091, controlling the reestablishment of a lost negotiable instrument, because appellee was never in possession of the instrument. However, as noted in National Loan Investors, L.P. v. Joymar Associates, 767 So. 2d 549, 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), a person in possession may assign that right when recognizing that right would prevent a defendant from receiving a windfall by preventing foreclosure. In this case, the court did not believe that HPS’ alleged cancellation o…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Downing v. The First Nat'l Bank OF Lake City, 81 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1955)
- In re Tr. Agreement of Jane Greer Kelly, 448 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Brown v. State, 564 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Pastore-Borroto Dev., Inc. v. Marevista Apts., 596 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Winselmann v. Reynolds, 690 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Figueredo v. Bank Espirito Santo, 537 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Langel v. Alcee L. Hastings, 537 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)