AMY B. SCHWARTZ AND JAY F. SCHWARTZ
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ETC.
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, appellants challenged a summary judgment of foreclosure against Bank of America, N.A., arguing that material issues of fact remained regarding fraud in the endorsement of the promissory note and that the bank lacked standing because the original note holder had been dissolved. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that appellants failed to rebut the statutory presumption of authenticity and authority of the note's endorsement and that no abuse of discretion occurred in denying their continuance motion.
The court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that Bank of America satisfied its burden under Florida Statutes section 673.3081 by invoking the presumption of authenticity and authority of the note's endorsement, and appellants failed to timely submit any affidavits or evidence to rebut this presumption. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance motion because appellants failed to conduct discovery diligently and propounded their requests only days before a hearing that had been pending for months.
[1] Fla. …
[2] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance for outstanding discovery when the party seeking the continuance failed to conduct discovery diligent…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“the appellee relied on section 673.3081, Florida Statutes (2012), to establish its standing, which provides for presumption of authenticity and authority of signatures on secured instruments, shifting to the party opposing the validity of the note the burden to offer some showing to negate the presumption.”
Court's explanation of the statutory framework governing standing in foreclosure disputes
Appellants were in a foreclosure action brought by Bank of America, N.A., the successor to the original note holder, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. Appe…
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 Standing To Enforce Note cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; David E. French, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502012CA001369XXXXMB.
Bruce Jacobs of Jacobs Legal, PLLC, Miami, for appellants. Adam J. Wick of Liebler Gonzalez & Portuondo, Miami, for appellee Bank of America, N.A. PER CURIAM. We affirm the final summary judgment of foreclosure. The appellants contend that discovery was outstanding and material issues of fact remained on their claim of fraud on behalf of the appellee’s predecessor, Bank of America, in the fixation of an endorsement to the promissory note. They contended that the endorsement was added after the original holder of the note, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., was dissolved; thus, the appellee lacked standing to enforce the note. The appellee relied on section 673.3081, Florida Statutes (2012), to establish its standing, which provides for presumption of authenticity and authority of signatures on secured instruments, shifting to the party opposing the validity of the note the burden to offer some showing to negate the presumption. See Bennett v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 124 So. 3d 320 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). No affidavits or any other type of evidence was timely submitted to counter the appellee’s motion for summary judgment. Therefore, the presumption was never rebutted, and summary judgment was properly entered. Additionally, appellants also claim that the court erred in entering judgment when appellee had repeatedly violated discovery orders, and because discovery was not complete. First, the trial court made no findings that appellee violated any discovery orders. To the contrary, the court found that appellants had failed to comply with discovery. Secondly, the discovery about which appellants complained was still outstanding at the summary judgment hearing, but it had been propounded only days prior to the hearing. The hearing had been pending for several months in the case, which had been filed in 2012. The court determined that the appellants had not diligently conducted discovery, and it denied a motion for continuance. No abuse of discretion has been shown. Affirmed as to all issues raised. WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and LEVINE, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schwartz v. Bank of Am., N.A. (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- Alessandra Barbieri v. Muller, 124 So. 3d 320 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)
- Bennett v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., 124 So. 3d 320 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)