U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF CSAB 2007-1, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD CLARKE A/K/A RICHARD C. CLARKE, PAULA PRINSEN, BROWARD, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND ANY UNKNOWN HEIRS, DEVISEES, GRANTEES, CREDITORS, AND OTHER UNKNOWN PERSONS OR UNKNOWN SPOUSES CLAIMING BY, THROUGH AND UNDER ANY OF THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANTS, APPELLEES
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.
U.S. Bank, as trustee, appealed a trial court's dismissal of its foreclosure action against a borrower, arguing it had standing to foreclose. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that U.S. Bank established standing by presenting a copy of the blank-endorsed note with the complaint and introducing the matching original note at trial.
U.S. Bank established standing to foreclose. The court held that where a copy of a blank-endorsed note is attached to the complaint and the original note matching that copy is introduced at trial, this combination of evidence is sufficient to prove the plaintiff had actual possession of the note at the time of filing, establishing standing absent contrary evidence or testimony.
[1] A plaintiff establishes standing to foreclose by demonstrating entitlement to enforce the promissory note under Florida's Uniform Commercial Code.
[2] Possession of the original note at trial, which matches a copy with a blank endorsement attached to the complaint, is sufficient to establish standing to foreclose absent…
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 plaintiff has standing to foreclose if it is entitled to enforce the promissory note under Florida's enactment of the Uniform Commercial Code.”
Establishes the legal standard for standing in mortgage foreclosure actions.
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 a foreclosure complaint against the borrower and attached a copy of the promissory note with a blank endorsement. The trial court foun…
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 To Foreclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for the Holders of CSAB 2007-1 (“U.S.Bank”), appeals a final judgment in favor of the borrower in U.S. Bank’s foreclosure action.. Because U.S. Bank proved its entitlement to foreclose, we reverse and remand for entry of judgment in U.S. Bank’s favor.
U.S. Bank filed a foreclosure complaint against the borrower, attaching a copy of the note with a blank endorsement. The case eventually proceeded to trial.1 After trial, the court ruled that U.S. Bank lacked standing for two reasons: (1) the trust named as the plaintiff was not the same as the trust named in the Power of Attorney for the servicer of the loan; and (2) there was no evidence presented that U.S. Bank was in possession of the note at thé time the lawsuit was filed. However, the court found that U.S. Bank proved damages and proved its compliance with Paragraph 22 of the mortgage, U.S. Bank appealed the trial court’s ruling.
We apply a de novo standard of review to the question of whether a plain*622tiff proved its standing to bring an action. Dixon v. Express Equity Lending Grp., 125 So.3d 965, 067 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).
The plaintiffs standing is a crucial element in any mortgage foreclosure proceeding and must be established at, the inception of the lawsuit. McLean v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 79 So.3d 170, 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). A plaintiff has standing to foreclose if it is entitled to enforce the promissory note under Florida’s enactment of the Uniform Commercial Code. See, e.g., Kenney v. HSBC Bank USA Nat’l Ass’n, 175 So.3d 377, 379 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).
Where a copy of a note is attached to a complaint and the plaintiff later files with the court thé original note in the same''condition as the copy attached to the complaint, “the combination of such evidence is sufficient to establish that the [plaintiff] had actual possession of the note at the time the complaint was filed and, therefore, had standing to bring the foreclosure action, .absent .any testimony or evidence to the contrary.” Ortiz v. PNC Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 188 So.3d 923, 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). This rule is consistent with case law from our sister courts. See, e.g., Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc. v. Bednarek, 132 So.3d 1222, 1223 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (concluding that there was sufficient evidence of standing when the note attached to the original complaint contained the blank endorsement and the plaintiff introduced the original note. at trial). . . . , , .
We need not look to the Power of Attorney to determine the issue of standing, as U.S. Bank’s standing turns' on whether it was entitled'to enforce the noté from the outset of the case.2 Here, the copy of the note attached to the complaint contained a blank endorsement. Moreover, the original note was introduced into evidence at trial and matched the copy of the note- attached to the complaint. This combination of evidence was sufficient to establish, absent any testimony or other evidence to the contrary, that U.S. Bank had possession of the blank-endorsed note at the time the complaint was filed and therefore had standing to bring the foreclosure action as the holder of the note.
Finally, because the trial court specifically found that U.S. Bank proved its damages and proved, its compliance with the conditions precedent to foreclosure, we reverse and remand for entry of judgment in favor of U.S. Bank.
Reversed and Remanded.
CIKLIN, C.J., TAYLOR and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bank OF NEW York Mellon v. Heath, 219 So. 3d 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…A 2004) (quoting Hack v. Estate of Helling, 811 So. 2d 822, 825 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)). “[Standing is a crucial element in any mortgage foreclosure proceeding, and must be established at the inception of the lawsuit.” U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Clarke, 192 So. 3d 620, 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). A plaintiff has standing to foreclose if the plaintiff is the holder of the promissory [*106] note. See § 673.3011(1), Fla. Stat. (2014). A “holder” is defined as “[t]he person in. possession of .a negotiable instrument tha…
-
Pennymac Corp. v. Frost, 214 So. 3d 686 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…the indorsement by JPMorgan did not constitute a blank indorsement. “A plaintiff has standing to foreclose if it is entitled to enforce the promissory note under Florida’s enactment of the Uniform Commercial Code.” U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Clarke, 192 So. 3d 620, 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). Under the UCC, a “person entitled to enforce” a negotiable instrument means the holder of the instrument, a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder, or a person not in possession of the inst…
-
Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. KAY, 227 So. 3d 779 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…tform and have another company’s name on them. Additionally, the witness did not need to produce the servicing agreement between Bayview and M & T Bank as he had personal knowledge of this business relationship. See U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Clarke, 192 So. 3d 620, 621 n.1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (finding that the bank’s witness could “testify as to matters within the witness’s personal knowledge,” regardless of the terms of a power of attorney); Bank of New York, 157 So. 3d at 1072 (holding that testimony alone…
Previewing 3 of 8 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)
- Ortiz v. PNC Bank, 188 So. 3d 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
- Lavern Dixon v. Express Equity Lending Grp., LLLP, 125 So. 3d 965 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- Kenney v. HSBC Bank USA, 175 So. 3d 377 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc. v. Bednarek, 132 So. 3d 1222 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
- Berny Serrano v. State, 15 So. 3d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)