May v. PHH Mortg. Corp.
| Decision Date | 03 September 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D13–1786.,2D13–1786. |
| Parties | Susan M. MAY, Appellant, v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Peter Ticktin, Josh Bleil, Kendrick Almaguer and Satyen Gandhi of The Ticktin Law Group, P.A., Deerfield Beach, for Appellant.
Elizabeth T. Frau and Rhonda K. Lewis of Ronald R. Wolfe and Associates, P.L., and Roberta Kohn of Roberta Kohn, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.
Susan M. May appeals a final judgment of foreclosure entered in favor of PHH Mortgage Corporation (the bank) following a nonjury trial. May argues that the bank failed to demonstrate that it possessed the note at the time it filed the complaint. We agree. Because we hold that the bank lacked standing, we decline to address the remaining issue in this appeal.
On April 11, 2008, the bank filed a two count complaint against May for foreclosure and an action to recover or reestablish a lost note. Attached to the complaint was a copy of the note and mortgage. The note and mortgage had the name of the first mortgagor, Bank Atlantic, on the documents and did not contain an endorsement in blank or any indicia of legal transfer to the bank. May filed an answer and defenses which alleged that the bank did not own or possess the note. On December 8, 2008, the bank filed a copy of the original note and mortgage which contained two endorsements. One was an undated endorsement to the bank and the other was an undated, blank endorsement.
During trial, the bank submitted the second copy of the note into evidence. Its only witness, a senior litigation specialist, confirmed that the note was signed by May with the original lender and that there was a blank endorsement on the note. The bank also introduced into evidence the original mortgage, the payment history of the loan, and a copy of the default notice letter. The witness did not testify that the bank owned or possessed the note at the time the complaint was filed or that the bank serviced the mortgage.
At the end of the bank's case, counsel for May moved for an involuntary dismissal and argued that the bank failed to prove that it had standing at the inception of the lawsuit. May argued that the first copy of the note and mortgage attached to the complaint in April 2008 and the second copy of the note, which had a blank endorsement and was filed over seven months after the complaint, failed to prove that the bank had standing at the suit's inception. She asserted that the bank had rested and could no longer introduce evidence of when the bank came into possession of the note and mortgage. The bank responded that it could present evidence that it was in possession of the note before filing the lawsuit but did not request to reopen its case. The trial court denied May's motion and entered a final judgment of foreclosure.
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(b) provides that “[a]fter a party seeking affirmative relief in an action tried by the court without a jury has completed the presentation of evidence, any other party may move for a dismissal on the ground that on the facts and the law the party seeking affirmative relief has shown no right to relief.” When confronted with a motion for involuntary dismissal, the trial court must determine whether or not the plaintiff has made a prima facie case. Capital Media, Inc. v. Haase, 639 So.2d 632, 633 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tracey v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
...virtue of a motion to dismiss or motion for directed verdict that this court could direct dismissal on remand."); May v. PHH Mortg. Corp., 150 So.3d 247, 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) ("When confronted with a motion for involuntary dismissal, the trial court must determine whether or not the plain......
-
Corrigan v. Bank of Am., N.A.
...the note with the endorsement [does] not suffice to show standing at the time the complaint was filed." Id. (citing May v. PHH Mortg. Corp., 150 So.3d 247 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) ).Here, no note—not even a copy—was filed with the original complaint. Though Bank of America later filed the origina......
-
Winchel v. PennyMac Corp.
...proved at trial by the plaintiff. See Dickson v. Roseville Props., LLC , 198 So.3d 48, 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) ; May v. PHH Mortg. Corp. , 150 So.3d 247, 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). Once put at issue by a defendant, then, standing becomes a part of the prima facie case that a foreclosure plaintif......
-
Sorrell v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 2D14–3883.
...173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) ). To have standing to foreclose, the plaintiff must own or hold the note at issue. See May v. PHH Mortg. Corp., 150 So.3d 247, 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) ; Khan v. Bank of Am., N.A., 58 So.3d 927, 928 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). Standing to foreclose by one other than the orig......