LEWIS LYTTLE AND GLADYS LYTTLE, APPELLANT,
v.
BANKUNITED, ASSIGNEE OF THE FDIC, AS RECEIVER, ETC., 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.
A plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure action must present the original note payable to them, endorsed in blank, or provide evidence of assignment or ownership to prove standing.
The plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure action did not present the original promissory note payable to them, nor was it endorsed in blank, and failed …
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 Promissory Note Endorsement cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal 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, the note must bear an endorsement in favor of the plaintiff or a blank endorsement. [Gee v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 72 So.3d 211, 213 (Fla. 5th *426DCA 2011)]. 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. at 234 (citation omitted). Because the original promissory note was not payable to Appellee or endorsed in blank and because Appellee did not comply with the alternative requirements as stated in Richards, issues of fact remain to be resolved precluding entry of summary judgment in Appellee’s favor.
Accordingly, we reverse the summary judgment of foreclosure under review and remand this case for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ORFINGER, C.J., GRIFFIN and SAWAYA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ngoc T. Phan v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. for First Franklin Mortg. Loan Tr. 2006-FF11, 198 So. 3d 744 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…nveyed standing to Wells Fargo); Dixon v. Express Equity Lending Grp., 125 So. 3d 965, 967-68 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (reversing a final judgment of foreclosure where the holder of the note was a third party and not the plaintiff); Lyttle v. BankUnited, 115 So. 3d 425, 425-26 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (reversing" a final summary judgment of foreclosure where material questions of fact existed 'as to whether .the plaintiff was the owner and holder of the note). The requirement of holding a note as proof of standing der…
-
Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y, FSB v. Greenwell (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)…n favor of Appellee. See Moon, 238 So. 3d at 428 (reversing final summary judgment where appellees "presented no summary judgment evidence that Wilmington Trust would be unable to prove it was the holder of the note at trial"); Lyttle v. BankUnited, 115 So. 3d 425, 426 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (reversing summary judgment of foreclosure where issues of fact remain regarding appellee's standing to foreclose). Accordingly, we reverse the final summary judgment and remand for further proceedings. REVERSED and REMANDE…
Authorities Cited
- Ginnifer GEE v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 72 So. 3d 211 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)
- Richards v. HSBC Bank USA, 91 So. 3d 233 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)