ALAN HA A/K/A ALAN T. HA AND TRAM LEE HA A/K/A TRAM N. LE, APPELLANTS,
v.
BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, L.P., F/K/A COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, L.P., 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.
In this foreclosure appeal, the court reversed the lower court's judgment because the servicer BAC failed to establish standing at the inception of the lawsuit, even though it later produced the original promissory note with a blank endorsement at trial. The court held that standing must exist when the suit is filed, not established retroactively through documents produced afterward.
BAC failed to establish standing at the inception of the suit. Although BAC may have established standing by trial through the original endorsed note, standing at inception cannot be established retroactively by filing an endorsed note after the complaint has been filed. The court reversed based on lack of standing at inception.
[1] A plaintiff's standing at the inception of a foreclosure suit is not established by filing the original note with an undated blank endorsement after the complaint has bee…
[2] A party may not establish the right to maintain a foreclosure action retroactively by acquiring standing after the case has been filed.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“a plaintiffs standing at inception of the suit is not established by filing the note with an undated endorsement after the complaint has been filed”
Establishes the core holding that standing at inception cannot be established retroactively through later-produced documents
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMr. Ha executed a promissory note payable to Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., and he and his wife executed a mortgage securing the loan. BAC, the service…
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 Condition Precedent cases and more on FLexlaw
In this foreclosure appeal, the appellants contend that the appellee failed to establish it complied with a condition precedent and that it had standing at inception of the suit. As to the latter issue, we find merit and reverse on that ground.
Mr. Ha executed a promissoiy note made payable to Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. He and his wife executed a mortgage agreement securing the loan. Subsequently, the appellee, BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. f/k/a Countrywide Home Loans Servicing (“BAC”), brought a foreclosure action against Mr. and Mrs. Ha. BAC alleged it was the servicer for the owner and acting upon the owner’s authority. The copy of the note attached to the complaint was made payable to Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and does not contain an endorsement.
At trial, BAC offered the original note, which contained an undated blank endorsement. BAC’s witness, an employee of Bank of America, did not know when the endorsement was made.
On appeal, BAC argues that the original note established its standing to foreclose. Although BAC may have established its standing at the time of trial by filing the original note endorsed in blank, it did not establish its standing at inception of the suit.
By now it should be understood that a plaintiffs standing at inception of the suit is not established by filing the note with an undated endorsement after the complaint has been filed. See Matthews v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 160 So.3d 131, 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (holding that standing at inception of the suit was not established where the note attached to the complaint was not made payable to the plaintiff and contained no endorsement, even though the original note endorsed in blank was introduced at trial); Focht v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 124 So.3d 308, 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (finding that bank’s submission of original note endorsed in blank did not establish standing at inception of suit where it was submitted several months after bank filed the complaint); McLean v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 79 So.3d 170, 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“ ‘[T]he plaintiffs lack of *565standing at the inception of the case is not a defect that may be cured by the acquisition of standing after the case is filed.’ Thus, a party is not permitted to establish the right to maintain an action retroactively by acquiring standing to file a lawsuit after the fact.” (citation omitted)).
BAC does not point to any evidence establishing its standing at the inception of the suit and the record does not reflect any such evidence was introduced at trial.
Reversed,
TAYLOR and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities 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)
- Matthews v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 160 So. 3d 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)