66 TEAM, LLC, APPELLANT,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, 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.
66 Team, LLC appealed a foreclosure judgment entered after a bench trial, contending there was insufficient evidence to support the judgment. The Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District reversed the judgment, finding that JP Morgan Chase Bank failed to introduce competent, substantial evidence of its right to foreclose, including the mortgage, note, or endorsement documents.
JP Morgan Chase Bank failed to establish its foreclosure action by competent, substantial evidence because it introduced no mortgage, note, or endorsement document, and the two pages of testimony was insufficient. The proper remedy is reversal with directions to enter an order of involuntary dismissal rather than allowing the case to proceed to retrial.
[1] A party seeking foreclosure must introduce competent, substantial evidence to establish its cause of action, including the mortgage, note, and any endorsements.
[2] Testimony alone, without the introduction of documentary evidence such as a mortgage, note, or endorsement, is insufficient to establish a foreclosure action by competent…
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“At trial, JP Morgan Chase failed to introduce any document or other evidence to establish its foreclosure action. It did not introduce into evidence the mortgage, the note, or an allonge to the note purportedly bearing a special endorsement in favor of JP Morgan Chase.”
Establishes the critical defect in JP Morgan Chase's case: complete failure to introduce essential documentary evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJP Morgan Chase Bank National Association brought a foreclosure action against 66 Team, LLC. The case proceeded to a bench trial where JP Morgan Chase…
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 Failure Of Proof cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, 66 Team, LLC, appeals from a final judgment of foreclosure in *930favor of JP Morgan Chase Bank National Association, entered after a bench trial.1 66 Team contended below,- and contends here on appeal, that there was no competent, substantial evidence to support the final judgment. Upon our de novo review, see Lacombe v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., 149 So.3d 152 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Dixon v. Express Equity Lending Grp., LLLP, 125 So.3d 965 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), we agree.
At trial, JP Morgan Chase failed to introduce any document or other evidence to establish its foreclosure action. It did not introduce into evidence the mortgage, the note, or an allonge to the note purportedly bearing a special endorsement in favor of JP Morgan Chase.2 The testimony (comprising a total of two pages) was insufficient to establish JP Morgan Chase’s cause of action by competent, substantial evidence. We therefore conclude that the trial court erred in entering a final judgment of foreclosure for JP Morgan, Chase.
We further hold that, under the circumstances presented, the proper remedy is reversal with directions to enter an order of involuntary dismissal. See Correa v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 118 So.3d 952, 956 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (holding “appellate courts do not generally provide parties with an opportunity to retry their case upon a failure of proof’) (quoting Morton’s of Chi., Inc., v. Lira, 48 So.3d 76, 80 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)).
Reversed and remanded with directions to enter order of, involuntary dismissal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bowmar v. Suntrust Mortg., Inc., 188 So. 3d 986 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…Carter, 368 So. 2d 428, 429 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)). Denson’s discussion of these documents without their admission into evidence’ was .. insufficient to establish MTGLQ’s entitlement to foreclosure.1 See 66 Team, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 187 So. 3d 929 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (citing Wolkoff v. Am. Home [*989] Mortg. Servicing, Inc., 153 So. 3d 280, 281-82 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)); see also Gonzalez v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 180 So. 3d 1106, 1108 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (reiterating that the testi…
-
Clark, Jr. v. Clark, Sr. (Fla. 5th DCA 2024)
Authorities Cited
- Wolkoff v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., 153 So. 3d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
- 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)
- Lavern Dixon v. Express Equity Lending Grp., LLLP, 125 So. 3d 965 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- Morton's OF Chicago, Inc. v. Lira, 48 So. 3d 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Correa v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n for Bacf 2006-D, 118 So. 3d 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
- Beaumont v. Bank OF NEW York Mellon, 81 So. 3d 553 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)
- Kirk v. State, 118 So. 3d 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)