Geweye v. Ventures Trust 2013-I-H-R, 2D14–4668.
| Decision Date | 16 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D14–4668.,2D14–4668. |
| Citation | 189 So.3d 231 |
| Parties | Carolyn M. GEWEYE a/k/a Carolyn May Geweye, Appellant, v. VENTURES TRUST 2013–I–H–R; THE Unknown Spouse Of Carolyn M. Geweye a/k/a Carolyn May Geweye; THE Unknown Heirs, Devisees, Grantees, Assignees, Lienor, Creditors, Trustees, or other Claimants claiming by, through, under or against Virginia Larue Wright, deceased; Bruce Carl Wright a/k/a Bruce C. Wright, as heir of the Estate of Virginia Larue Wright, deceased; Howard Edwin Wright a/k/a Howard E. Wright, as heir of the Estate of Virginia Larue Wright, deceased; Carolyn May Geweye, as heir of the Estate of Virginia Larue Wright, deceased; any and all Unknown Parties claiming by, through, under, and against the herein named individual defendant(s) who are not known to be dead or alive, whether said unknown parties may claim an interest as Spouses, Heirs, Devisees, Grantees, or other claimants; Foxwood at Panther Ridge Homeowners' Association, Inc.; and JPMorgan by Merger with Washington Mutual Bank FA, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
H. Daniel McKillop of McKillop Law Firm, Sarasota, for Appellant.
Shaib Y. Rios of Brock & Scott, PLLC, Fort Lauderdale; and Orlando DeLuca and Shawn Taylor of DeLuca Law Group, PLLC, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee Ventures Trust 2013–I–H–R.
No appearance for remaining Appellees.
BLACK
, Judge.
Carolyn Geweye appeals a final judgment of foreclosure entered in favor of Ventures Trust 2013–I–H–R (Ventures), following a bench trial. We reverse because Ventures failed to prove its standing to enforce the note. Because the standing issue is dispositive, we withhold comment on the other issues raised by Ms. Geweye on appeal.
On June 28, 2012, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Chase), filed a foreclosure complaint alleging that it was the holder of the note and mortgage and/or was entitled to enforce the note and mortgage.1 Chase attached a copy of the note indorsed in blank and a copy of the mortgage. On February 8, 2013, Chase filed the original note indorsed in blank and the original mortgage. Thereafter, on March 18, 2014, Chase moved to substitute Ventures as the party plaintiff. In its motion, Chase alleged that subsequent to the commencement of the foreclosure action, the mortgage was "transferred" to Ventures, who became a real party in interest. There was, however, no mention of the note. On April 22, 2014, over Ms. Geweye's objection, the court granted the substitution.
On May 16, 2014, a nonjury trial was held before a magistrate. Several documents were introduced at trial, including the assignment of mortgage to Ventures. The assignment of mortgage did not purport to assign any interest in the note, and the parties do not dispute that there was no assignment of the note. At the conclusion of Ventures' case, Ms. Geweye moved for involuntary dismissal based, in part, on Ventures' failure to prove standing. The magistrate reserved ruling, and on June 25, 2014, he issued his report and recommended order finding that Ventures had standing to foreclose. Ms. Geweye filed exceptions to the recommended order, but the circuit court denied the exceptions following a hearing and entered final judgment in favor of Ventures.
"A plaintiff alleging standing as a holder must prove it is a holder of the note and mortgage both as of the time of trial and also that the (original) plaintiff had standing as of the time the foreclosure complaint was filed." Russell v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 163 So.3d 639, 642 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)
(quoting Kiefert v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 153 So.3d 351, 352 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) ). There is no dispute that Chase had standing when the foreclosure complaint was filed. As to Ventures, however, "an order of substitution does not create standing." Sandefur v. RVS Capital, LLC, 183 So.3d 1258 (Fla. 4th...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Houk v. PennyMac Corp.
...standing alone was ineffective to establish PennyMac's entitlement to enforce the lost note. See Geweye v. Ventures Trust 2013–I–H–R , 189 So.3d 231, 233 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) ; Creadon v. U.S. Bank, N.A. , 166 So.3d 952, 953–54 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) ; Sandefur v. RVS Capital, LLC , 183 So.3d 125......
-
Forty One Yellow, LLC v. Escalona
...Here, FOY had to establish its right to sue through a valid chain of assignments of the note. See, e.g., Geweye v. Ventures Tr. 2013-I-H-R, 189 So. 3d 231, 232-33 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (holding that despite original plaintiff's standing at suit's inception, Ventures Trust 2013-I-H-R lacked sta......
-
PMT NPL Fin. 2015-1 v. Centurion Sys., LLC, Case No. 5D17-2711
...for a new trial.REVERSED and REMANDED. SAWAYA and WALLIS, JJ., concur.1 For this reason, Centurion's reliance on Geweye v. Ventures Trust, 189 So.3d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016), and Creadon v. U.S. Bank N.A., 166 So.3d 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015), is misplaced. Unlike the banks in Geweye and Creadon,......
-
Scott v. Strategic Realty Fund
...the plaintiff must be legally entitled to enforce the note to which the mortgage relates. See, e.g., Geweye v. Ventures Trust 2013-I-H-R, 189 So. 3d 231, 232-33 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). Thus, SRF "had to prove either that it was the holder or the owner of the note." See Peters v. Bank of N.Y. Me......
-
Chapter 4-9 Standing Where the Plaintiff Has Been Substituted
...2d 361, 363 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959).[103] Creadon v. U.S. Bank N.A., 166 So. 3d 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015); Geweye v. Ventures Trust 2013-I-H-R, 189 So. 3d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).[104] Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Johnson, 250 So. 3d 808 (Fla. 2d DCA, June 29, 2018).[105] Spicer v. Ocwen Loan Servicing......
-
Chapter 4-9 Standing Where the Plaintiff Has Been Substituted
...2d 361, 363 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959).[85] Creadon v. U.S. Bank N.A., 166 So. 3d 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015); Geweye v. Ventures Trust 2013-I-H-R, 189 So. 3d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).[86] Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Johnson, 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 9266 (Fla. 2d DCA, June 29, 2018).[87] Spicer v. Ocwen Loan S......