GAINUS WRIGHT, III AND CYD R. WRIGHT, APPELLANTS,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., 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.
The appellate court reversed a foreclosure judgment because the bank, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., failed to prove it had standing to bring the action. The court found no evidence that the original lender, Chase Bank, USA, N.A., had transferred the note and mortgage to JPMorgan Chase.
No, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. did not have standing because it failed to prove it acquired the rights to the note and mortgage from the original lender. Ownership by a subsidiary does not automatically grant rights to the parent corporation without evidence of transfer.
[1] A plaintiff must prove standing to bring a foreclosure action.
[2] A parent corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary are separate legal entities, and the parent cannot exercise the rights of the subsidiary absent evidence of acquisiti…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“We reverse the final judgment of foreclosure in favor of appellee JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., because appellee did not prove that it had standing to bring this action.”
States the main reason for reversing the lower court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (appellee) brought a foreclosure action. The original lender was Chase Bank, USA, N.A. Appellee presented testimony that Cha…
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 Corporate Separateness cases and more on FLexlaw
We reverse the final judgment of foreclosure in favor of appellee JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., because appellee did not prove that it had standing to bring this action.
The original lender under the note and mortgage was Chase Bank, USA, N.A. There was no evidence that the note and mortgage were ever transferred from Chase Bank to JPMorgan Chase. Although there was testimony at trial that *252Chase Bank is a wholly owned subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase, “[a] parent corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary are separate and distinct legal entities.... As a separate legal entity, a parent corporation ... cannot exercise the rights of its subsidiary.” Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Cornerstone Bus., Inc., 872 So.2d 333, 336 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); see also Federated Title Insurers, Inc. v. Ward, 538 So.2d 890, 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Thus, ownership of the note by subsidiary Chase Bank does not give parent corporation JPMorgan Chase the right to enforce the note, absent evidence that JPMorgan Chase acquired such a right through, for example, a purchase or servicing agreement.
JPMorgan Chase argues that it did acquire servicing rights over the loan prior to the filing of the complaint, relying on a notice of servicing transfer filed in the court file. This document is not competent evidence, however, because it was never authenticated and admitted into evidence at trial. See Wolkoff v. Am. Home Moytg. Serv., Inc., 153 So.3d 280, 281-82 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (“A document that was identified but never admitted into evidence as an exhibit is not competent evidence to support a judgment.”); Beaumont v. Bank of New York Mellon, 81 So.3d 553, 555 n. 2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (copy of an assignment of a note in the court file was not competent evidence where it was never authenticated and offered into evidence).
We thus reverse and direct judgment in favor of the appellants, dismissing the foreclosure on the mortgage for failure of the appellee to prove its standing.
WARNER, LEVINE and CONNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sanchez v. Suntrust Bank, 179 So. 3d 538 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…the complaint, relying on a notice of servicing transfer filed [*543] in the court file. This document is not competent evidence, however, because it was never authenticated and admitted into evidence at trial. Wright v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 169 So. 3d 251, 251-52 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). In this case appellee failed to lay a sufficient foundation for the admission of its records into evidence .under the business records exception. Moreover, even if appellee had done so, the witness was not qualified to…
-
Third Federal Savings and Loan Associaiton of Cleveland v. Leah G. Koulouvaris A/ K/ a Leah Koulouvaris, 247 So. 3d 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)…idence. See, e.g., BAC Funding Consortium Inc. ISAOA/ATIMA v. Jean-Jacques, 28 So. 3d 936, 939 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (noting that an unauthenticated document attached as an exhibit to a motion was inadmissible); Wright v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 169 So. 3d 251, 252 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) ("This [notice of servicing rights] is not competent evidence, however, because it was never authenticated and admitted into evidence at trial."); Ciolli v. City of Palm Bay, 59 So. 3d 295, 297 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (noting…
-
Vieira v. Pennymac Corp., 241 So. 3d 193 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Wolkoff v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., 153 So. 3d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
- Am. Int'l Grp., Inc. v. Cornerstone Buses., Inc., 872 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Beaumont v. Bank OF NEW York Mellon, 81 So. 3d 553 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)
- Federated Title Insurers, Inc. v. Ward, 538 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)