ANDREW TREMBLAY, HEIDI TREMBLAY AND MARY TREMBLAY, APPELLANTS,
v.
U.S. BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE, SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO WACHOVIA BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE, FOR MLMI 2005-A9, 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.
Homeowners appealed a foreclosure judgment, arguing the bank lacked standing to foreclose when it filed its complaint. The court reversed, finding the bank failed to demonstrate it held the note at the time of filing, as testimony showed the servicer was the actual holder since 2005 and any assignment came after the complaint was filed.
U.S. Bank lacked standing to foreclose because it failed to prove it held the note at the time of filing the complaint. An assignment executed after the complaint cannot confer standing, and testimony that the servicer held the note since 2005 negated any claim that Bank was the proper party to foreclose.
[1] A plaintiff in a foreclosure action must possess standing at the time the complaint is filed.
[2] A plaintiff may establish standing to foreclose by submitting a note with a blank or special endorsement, an assignment of the note, or an affidavit proving the plaintiff…
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“It is axiomatic that a plaintiff in a foreclosure case must have standing at the time the complaint is filed.”
Establishes the fundamental requirement that standing must exist at the moment the complaint is filed, not after.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceU.S. Bank filed an unverified foreclosure complaint in July 2009 against homeowners, claiming to be the current owner and holder of the note and mortg…
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 Assignment Of Note cases and more on FLexlaw
Andrew, Heidi and Mary Tremblay (“Homeowners”)' appeal a final judgment of foreclosure. We find merit in Homeowners’ argument that appellee, U.S. *86Bank, N.A. (“Bank”), lacked standing to foreclose when it filed its foreclosure complaint. Therefore, we reverse the final judgment and remand for entry of an order of involuntary dismissal. Our conclusion on Bank’s lack of standing renders moot Homeowners’ second issue on appeal.
Facts
In Bank’s unverified foreclosure complaint filed in July, 2009, it alleged it was the current owner and holder of the note and mortgage. In support, it attached copies of the mortgage and the note. The mortgage listed Metrocities Mortgage as the lender and MERS as the mortgagee. The note included a blank indorsement executed by an employee of Metrocities Mortgage. Bank later filed an assignment of note; however, it was executed on July BO, 2009, after Bank filed its foreclosure complaint.
At the non-jury trial, Bank called only one witness. This witness worked for Bank’s servicer, PHH Mortgage Corporation (“PHH”), and testified that PHH — not Bank — was the holder of the note, and had been since August of 2005. The witness was unable to identify the exact date that Bank received the note. While there was apparently a Pooling and Servicing Agreement (“PSA”) to which both PHH and Bank were parties, the witness had never ' seen a copy of the PSA. Bank introduced into evidence the original note, a copy of the mortgage, the default letter and payment history, but did not submit the PSA into evidence. The trial court entered final judgment in favor of Bank.
Analysis
“We review the sufficiency of the evidence to prove standing to bring a foreclosure action de novo." Lacombe v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 149 So.3d 152,153 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (citing Dixon v. Express Equity Lending Grp., LLLP, 125 So.3d 965 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)).
It is axiomatic that a plaintiff in a foreclosure case must have standing at the time the complaint is filed. See Focht v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 124 So.3d 308, 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (“[Standing must be established as of the time of filing the foreclosure complaint.”). “A plaintiff who is not the original lender may establish standing to foreclose a mortgage loan by submitting a note with a blank or special endorsement, an assignment of the note, or an affidavit otherwise proving the plaintiffs status as the holder of the note.” Id. at 310 (citing McLean v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 79 So.3d 170, 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)).
In the instant case, Bank failed to provide sufficient evidence that it had standing at the time it filed its foreclosure complaint. First, the assignment did not confer standing upon Bank since it was executed after Bank filed its complaint. See Rigby v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 84 So.3d 1195, 1195-96 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (reversing entry of final summary judgment because the bank failed to establish it had standing to foreclose when the evidence showed the assignment was dated one day after the complaint was filed). Further, Bank’s attachment of a copy of the note with a blank indorsement was insufficient to establish standing because Bank’s only witness testified that his employer — the servicer — had been the holder of the note since August of 2005. Based on this testimony, the servicer was the proper party to initiate the action, not Bank. See BAC Funding Consortium Inc. ISAOA/ATIMA v. Jean-Jacques, 28 So.3d 936, 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“The proper party With standing to foreclose a note and/or mortgage is the holder of the note and mortgage or the holder’s representative.”); see Sosa v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 153 So.3d 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
Since Bank failed to provide sufficient evidence of its ability to foreclose at the *87time it filed its complaint, we reverse and remand for entry of an order of involuntary dismissal. See Wolkoff v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., 153 So.3d 280, 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (“ ‘[A]ppellate courts do not generally provide parties with an opportunity to retry their case upon a failure of proof.’ ” (quoting Correa v. U.S. Bank N.A., 118 So.3d 952, 956 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013))).
Reversed and remanded.
GROSS, MAY and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Caraccia v. U.S. Bank, 185 So. 3d 1277 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…ch a person “has such control over the property that he may deliver the possession of it, if he so desires, as for example, where an agent holds property for his principal”)). This case is distinguishable from Tremblay v. U.S. Bank, National Ass’n, 164 So. 3d 85 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). In Tremblay, the foreclosing bank’s witness testified that the servicer was the holder of the note. Though the witness testified there was a pooling and servicing agreement between the servicer and the bank, he acknowledged he h…
-
Rodriguez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 178 So. 3d 62 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…emonstrated standing to foreclose through evidence that it possessed the note prior to the filing of the complaint. “ “We review the sufficiency of the evidence to prove standing to bring a foreclosure action de novo,’” Tremblay v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 164 So. 3d 85,86 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (quoting Lacombe v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 149 So. 3d 152, 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)). “A crucial element of any mortgage foreclosure proceeding is that the party seeking foreclosure must' demonstrate that it has standi…
-
Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Ehud Rafaeli and Lizabeth Rafaeli, 225 So. 3d 264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…re action as the holder with constructive possession of the note, the original servicer was also able to initiate the action as the holder with physical possession. See Caraccia, 185 So. 3d at 1279 (distinguishing Tremblay v. U.S. Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 164 So. 3d 85 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), where the servicer was the only holder and therefore was the only proper party to initiate foreclosure proceedings). [*268] After the note owner was substituted for the original servicer as the plaintiff in this action,, the not…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McLEAN v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 79 So. 3d 170 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Focht v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 124 So. 3d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
- Wolkoff v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., 153 So. 3d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
- BAC Funding Consortium Inc. Isaoa/Atima v. Ginelle Jean-Jacques, 28 So. 3d 936 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Anastacia S. Lacombe and Max P. Lacombe v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. for Long Beach Mortg. Loan Tr., 149 So. 3d 152 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
- Rigby v. Wells Fargo Bank, 84 So. 3d 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Lavern Dixon v. Express Equity Lending Grp., LLLP, 125 So. 3d 965 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- Alva Sosa and Alex Amador v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 153 So. 3d 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
- Correa v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n for Bacf 2006-D, 118 So. 3d 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
- Kirk v. State, 118 So. 3d 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)