DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR NEW CENTURY HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST SERIES 2005-C ASSET BACKED PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES, APPELLANT,
v.
THERESA BOGLIOLI A/K/A THERESA BRUNETTO, 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.
Deutsche Bank appealed a directed verdict in a mortgage foreclosure action against Theresa Boglioli. The court affirmed, holding that Deutsche Bank failed to present competent evidence establishing it had standing to foreclose at the time it filed the complaint.
Deutsche Bank failed to present competent, substantial evidence demonstrating it had standing to foreclose at the time it filed suit. The trial court's final judgment in favor of Boglioli is affirmed under the "tipsy coachman" doctrine because the judgment reaches the right result even if potentially for different or incomplete reasons.
[1] A party seeking foreclosure must demonstrate standing at the time the complaint is filed.
[2] Standing to foreclose may be established by a plaintiff's status as the note holder, regardless of recorded assignments.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Because appellant failed to present competent, substantial evidence at trial to prove it had standing at the time it filed the complaint, we affirm the final judgment.”
States the core holding that Deutsche Bank lacked standing at the time of filing, which is the basis for affirming the judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDeutsche Bank filed a foreclosure complaint against Boglioli and presented at trial the original note with an undated, blank endorsement, an assignmen…
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 Pooling And Servicing Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Deutsche Bank, appeals the final judgment in favor of appellee, Theresa Boglioli, in a mortgage foreclosure action. Because appellant failed to present competent, substantial evidence at trial to prove it had standing at the time it filed the complaint, we affirm the final judgment.
Appellant filed with the trial court the original note bearing an undated, blank endorsement, an assignment of note bearing an undated, blank endorsement, and an assignment of mortgage executed after the date of the complaint for “value received” on a date prior to the filing of the complaint. At trial, appellant’s sole testifying witness was unable to testify as to when the note was endorsed, and failed to introduce a pooling and servicing agreement that she claimed was the method through which appellant acquired the assignment of note. The witness also acknowledged that the grantor of the assignments was in bankruptcy but did not know the specifics of those proceedings. At the conclusion of trial, the circuit court granted appellee’s motion for a directed verdict, entering final judgment in favor of appellee upon finding that the alleged assignments to appellant were “during the pendency of the Granter’s bankruptcy and therefore of no force or effect.” The record on appeal does not contain competent, substantial evidence regarding the bankruptcy proceedings to support the trial court’s ruling. However, the evidence at trial failed to demonstrate that appellant had standing to foreclose at the time it filed suit. See Klemencic v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 142 So.3d 983, 984 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Bristol v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 137 So.3d 1130, 1132 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Vidal v. Liquidation Props., Inc., 104 So.3d 1274, 1276-78 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Hall v. REO Asset Acquisitions, LLC, 84 So.3d 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment under the “tipsy coachman” doctrine1 based on *496appellant’s failure to demonstrate it had standing to foreclose at the time it filed the complaint.
Affirmed.
CIKLIN, GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kenney v. HSBC Bank USA, 175 So. 3d 377 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…3d 127, 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (reversing a final judgment of foreclosure where there was no evidence that the party transferring the note into a PSA had any intent to transfer an interest to the trustee); Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Boglioli, 154 So. 3d 494, 495 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (evidence at trial failed to demonstrate the plaintiffs standing to foreclose where the sole testifying witness was unable to testify as to when the note was endorsed,- and the plaintiff failed to introduce a po.oling and se…
-
Perez v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., 174 So. 3d 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…tion of the lawsuit. A copy of the note was not attached to the complaint, and the endorsement in blank on the original note was undated. Additionally, the PSA was insufficient to establish standing. In Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Boglioli, 154 So. 3d 494, 495 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), this court held that the bank failed to establish standing where the bank introduced an undated blank endorsement, the bank’s only witness was unable to testify as to when the note was endorsed, and the bank failed to intro…
Authorities Cited
- Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station Wqba, 731 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1999)
- Vidal v. Liquidation Props., Inc., 104 So. 3d 1274 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- Bristol v. Wells Fargo Bank, 137 So. 3d 1130 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
- L.R.N. a Child v. State, 142 So. 3d 983 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
- Klemencic v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 142 So. 3d 983 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
- Hall v. REO Asset Acquisitions, LLC, 84 So. 3d 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Smyth v. State, 84 So. 3d 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)