GARY C. RICHARDS, APPELLANT,
v.
HSBC BANK USA AS TRUSTEE FOR PHH 2007-2, APPELLEE
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.
Richards appeals a summary judgment of mortgage foreclosure against him. The court reversed because HSBC failed to establish it was the holder of the promissory note, as a material factual dispute existed regarding whether the note was held by HSBC or Bishops Gate Residential Mortgage Trust.
HSBC failed to establish as a matter of law that it was the holder of the note because the allonge was inconsistent with the assignment and the complaint's allegations, and the affidavits did not conclusively show HSBC held the note.
[1] The proper party with standing to foreclose a note and mortgage is the holder of the note and mortgage or the holder's representative.
[2] A party seeking to foreclose a mortgage must present evidence that it holds the note and mortgage in question.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The proper party with standing to foreclose a note and mortgage is the holder of the note and mortgage or the holder's representative.”
Establishes the foundational requirement that only the note holder has standing to foreclose.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRichards executed a note and mortgage in favor of Century 21 Mortgage. HSBC filed a foreclosure complaint alleging it owned and held the note and mort…
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 Blank Endorsement cases and more on FLexlaw
Richards appeals the entry of a final summary judgment of mortgage foreclosure. Because a material disputed issue of fact remained as to whether HSBC was the holder of the note, we reverse.
The proper party with standing to foreclose a note and mortgage is the holder of the note and mortgage or the holder’s representative. See Gee v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 72 So.3d 211, 213 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). Thus, the party seeking foreclosure must present evidence that it holds the note and mortgage in question in order to proceed with its foreclosure action. Id. A plaintiff must tender the original promissory note to the trial court or seek to reestablish the note under section 673.3091, Florida Statutes (2010). Id. If the note does not name the plaintiff as the payee, the note must bear an endorsement in favor of the plaintiff or a blank endorsement. Id. Alternatively, the plaintiff may submit evidence of an assignment from the payee to the plaintiff or an affidavit of ownership to prove its status as a holder of the note. Id.
This court reviews an order granting summary judgment de novo. Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126, 130 (Fla.2000). Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Id. When reviewing a final summary judgment, an appellate court must examine the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Gee, 72 So.3d at 213.
*235In the instant case, HSBC filed an unverified complaint alleging that it owned and held the note and mortgage. However, the copy of the note and mortgage attached to the complaint reflected that Richards had executed the note and mortgage in favor of Century 21 Mortgage. Throughout the proceedings below, Richards challenged the right of HSBC to bring its foreclosure action.
Ultimately, in support of its motion for summary judgment, HSBC filed the original note, an assignment of mortgage, and affidavits setting forth “amounts due and owing.” However, these documents failed to establish, as a matter of law, that HSBC was the holder of the note.
While the assignment reflected that the mortgage had been assigned from Century 21 to HSBC, the allonge to the note reflected that Bishops Gate Residential Mortgage Trust was to be the note’s payee. Specifically, the undated allonge set forth the following language:
Without Recourse
Pay to the order of: * Bishops Gate Residential
Mortgage Trust
Thus, the allonge was inconsistent with the assignment and contradicted the allegation in the complaint that HSBC was the holder of the note. See Khan v. Bank of America, N.A., 58 So.3d 927, 928 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (“Because the exhibit to Bank of America’s amended complaint conflicts with its allegations concerning standing, Bank of America did not establish that it had standing to foreclose the mortgage as a matter of law.”)
Furthermore, the affidavits filed by HSBC did not explain the relationship between HSBC and Bishops Gate Residential Mortgage Trust, nor otherwise aver facts conclusively showing that HSBC was the holder of the note.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SAWAYA and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gafoor Jaffer and Nina Jaffer v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 155 So. 3d 1199 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…85, 187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (affirming dismissal of complaint with prejudice where the clear, unconditional wording of the assignment exhibit attached to the complaint on its face terminated plaintiffs right to foreclose); Richards v. HSBC Bank USA, 91 So. 3d 233, 234-35 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (reversing a trial court’s order granting summary judgment where the copy of the note attached to the complaint showed it was payable to the original payee and contradicted the allegation in the complaint that the bank wa…
-
Lyttle v. Bankunited, 115 So. 3d 425 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…peal of a summary judgment entered in a mortgage foreclosure case where the name of the payee on the note was not the name of the plaintiff in the foreclosure action. Appellee was the plaintiff in the trial proceedings. In Richards v. HSBC Bank USA, 91 So. 3d 233 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012), this court held: A plaintiff must tender the original promissory note to the trial court or seek to reestablish the note under section 673.3091, Florida Statutes (2010). If the note does not name the plaintiff as. the payee, t…
-
Daniela Floyd v. Bank OF Am., N.A., 194 So. 3d 1071 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…sfavor, .. * Summary judgment will be granted only if the movant shows “there is no genuine issue as to.any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c); Richards v. HSBC Bank USA, 91 So. 3d 233, 234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (citing Volusia Cty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000)). The movant also has the burden of refuting any affirmative defenses raised by the non-movant or showing such defenses are legally insuf…
Authorities Cited
- Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen AT Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000)
- Ginnifer GEE v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 72 So. 3d 211 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)
- Shakil Khan and Dina Khan v. Bank OF Am., N.A., 58 So. 3d 927 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)