HINES AND LONG
v.
NEW URBAN PINE ROAD LLC
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.
A foreclosing plaintiff establishes standing through an unbroken chain of self-authenticating assignments and may enforce a lost note under section 673.3091 when the chain of title and witness testimony provide competent substantial evidence of the statutory requirements.
[1] A plaintiff establishes standing to foreclose by demonstrating ownership of the note and mortgage acquired prior to filing the action, which can be proven by an uncontrad…
[2] A party seeking to enforce a lost instrument must show they were entitled to enforce it when possession was lost, the loss was not due to a transfer or lawful seizure, an…
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“To establish standing to foreclose on a mortgage and note, a plaintiff must demonstrate it is the owner of the note and mortgage and that it acquired such ownership prior to filing the action. Ownership may be proven by an uncontradicted chain of self-authenticating assignments.”
Court citing Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Marquez in establishing the standing standard for foreclosure actions.
Hines and Long defaulted on their mortgage, which had been assigned through multiple entities from Wells Fargo to New Urban Pine Road LLC. At trial, N…
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 Reestablishment Of Lost Note cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed February 21, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D16-1168 Lower Tribunal No. 13-23663
________________
Adrian Hines and Klautrelle Long,
Appellants/Cross-Appellees,
vs.
New Urban Pine Road LLC,
Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Antonio Arzola, Judge.
The AJM Law Group, P.A. and Alix J. Montes; James Jean-Francois (Hollywood), for appellants/cross-appellees.
Waldman Barnett P.L., Eleanor T. Barnett, and Jason Gordon, for appellee/cross-appellant.
Before SUAREZ, SCALES and LUCK, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Adrian Hines and Klautrelle Long appeal the trial court’s judgment in favor of New Urban Pine Road LLC foreclosing on their North Miami home. Hines and
Long contend that we should reverse the judgment because: (1) New Urban did not have standing to foreclosure on their home; and (2) there was insufficient evidence to reestablish the lost note under Florida Statutes section 673.3091. We disagree, and affirm.1
Standing. At the bench trial, New Urban presented competent substantial evidence that there was an unbroken chain of assignments from Wells Fargo, to
RWPO VI, LLC, to Goshen Mortgage, to GDBT I Trust 2011-1, back to Goshen
Mortgage, and finally to New Urban. This unbroken chain was sufficient evidence to establish New Urban’s standing to foreclose on the home. See Nationstar
Mortg., LLC v. Marquez, 180 So. 3d 219, 221 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (“To establish standing to foreclose on a mortgage and note, a plaintiff must demonstrate it is the owner of the note and mortgage and that it acquired such ownership prior to filing the action. Ownership may be proven by an uncontradicted chain of self-authenticating assignments.” (citation and quotation omitted)).
Re-establishment of lost note. “Where the plaintiff is not in possession of the original documents, it is still entitled to enforce the instrument if: ‘(a) [it] was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred . . . .; (b) The loss of possession was not the result of a transfer by [it] or a lawful seizure; and (c)
[it] cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found. . . .’” Id.
(quoting § 673.3091, Fla. Stat.). Here, the unbroken chain of assignments and Mr.
Corral’s testimony were competent and substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s findings that the lost note requirements of section 673.3091 had been met.
Affirmed; cross-appeal dismissed as moot.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Marquez, 180 So. 3d 219 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)
- Fla. Dep't OF Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 790 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Riley v. State, 790 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)