ALWYN YORK MCCONNELL, APPELLANT,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE, 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.
JPMorgan Chase appealed a foreclosure judgment, and the court affirmed, holding that JPMorgan established standing as the holder of the promissory note at the time the complaint was filed, even though the note was subsequently lost.
JPMorgan Chase had standing to foreclose because it was the holder of the promissory note at the time the complaint was filed. A person entitled to enforce a note includes the holder of the note or a person who had holder status even if the note was subsequently lost.
[1] A plaintiff has standing to foreclose if it is the holder of the note and mortgage at the inception of the lawsuit.
[2] A party is the holder of a negotiable instrument if it is in possession of the instrument, which is payable to bearer or to an identified person in possession.
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“A "holder" is "[t]he person in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either to bearer or to an identified person that is the person in possession!.]" § 671.201(21)(a), Fla. Stat. (2010).”
Establishes the statutory definition of holder under Florida law, which is central to the standing analysis.
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 filed a foreclosure complaint alleging it was the holder of the promissory note. A copy of the note with a blank endorsement from the o…
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 Holder Of Negotiable Instrument cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the final judgment of foreclosure, concluding that the appellee proved the standing of the original plaintiff to foreclose on the note and mortgage.
The initial complaint, filed by JPMorgan Chase, included an allegation that JPMor-gan was the holder of the promissory note. Competent substantial evidence supported that allegation, although the note was subsequently lost after the filing of the complaint. Attached to the initial complaint was a copy of the note with a blank endorsement from the original lender. At trial, a representative of the law firm which filed the suit testified from business records that it had received the note; bearing the blank endorsement, from JPMor-gan prior to the filing of the complaint. Also admitted without objection was an affidavit showing that JPMorgan had purchased the loans of Washington Mutual, the original lender in this case, prior to the filing of the complaint.
A “holder” is “[t]he person in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either to bearer or to an identified person that is the person in possession!.]” § 671.201(21)(a), Fla. Stat. (2010).1 The person entitled to enforce the note is: (1) the holder of the note; (2) a non-holder in possession of the note who has the rights of a holder; ’ or (3) a person or entity who is not in possession of the note because the note has been lost or was mistakenly surrendered or canceled as paid, but who has the status of a holder. § 673.3011, Fla. Stat.. (2010). As JPMorgan was the holder of the note, having possession of a note endorsed in blank when it filed the complaint, it had standing at the suit’s inception'.
Affirmed.
CIKLIN, C.J., WARNER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Elston/Leetsdale, LLC v. Cwcapital Asset Mgmt. LLC, 87 So. 3d 14 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)