Verizzo v. Bank of New York

• Decision Date: 03 March 2010
• Docket Number: No. 2D08-4647.,2D08-4647.
• Citation: 28 So.3d 976
• Parties: David VERIZZO, Appellant, v. The BANK OF NEW YORK, as Successor Trustee Under Novastar Mortgage Funding Trust, Series 2006-3, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

28 So.3d 976

David VERIZZO, Appellant, v.The BANK OF NEW YORK, as Successor TrusteeUnder Novastar Mortgage Funding Trust, Series 2006-3, Appellee.

No. 2D08-4647.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 3, 2010.

David Verizzo, pro se.

Patricia A. Arango of Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee.

SILBERMAN, Judge.

David Verizzo, pro se, appeals a final judgment of foreclosure entered after the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment filed by the Bank of New York, as successor trustee under Novastar Mortgage Funding Trust, Series 2006-3 (the Bank).Because the Bank's summary judgment evidence was not timely served and filed and because a genuine issue of material fact remains, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

The Bank filed a two-count complaint against Verizzo seeking to reestablish a lost promissory note and to foreclose a mortgage on real property.Included in the attachments to the complaint was a copy of the mortgage.The mortgage indicated that the lender was Novastar Mortgage, Inc., a Virginia corporation (Novastar), and that the mortgagee was Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.(MERS), acting as a nominee for Novastar.The attachments to the complaint did not include copies of the note or any assignment of the note and mortgage to the Bank.Verizzo filed a motion for enlargement of time to respond to the complaint.The Bank agreed to the entry of an order allowing Verizzo to file a response within 20 days from the date of entry of the order.

On August 5, 2008, before Verizzo had responded to the complaint, the Bank served its motion for summary final judgment of foreclosure.The summary judgment hearing was scheduled for August 29, 2008.On August 18, 2008, the Bank served by mail a notice of filing the original promissory note, the original recorded mortgage, and the original recorded assignment of mortgage.The assignment reflects that MERS assigned the note and mortgage to the Bank of New York.However, the note bears an endorsement, without recourse, signed by Novastar stating, "Pay to the Order of: JPMorgan Chase Bank, as Trustee."

On the date of the summary judgment hearing, Verizzo filed a memorandum in opposition to the Bank's motion.He argued, among other things, that his response to the complaint was not yet due in accordance with the agreement for enlargement of time, that the Bank did not timely file the documents on which it relied in support of its motion for summary judgment, and that the documents were insufficient to establish that the Bank was the owner and holder of the note and mortgage.

On August 29, 2008, the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and entered a final judgment of foreclosure.We review the summary judgment by a de novo standard.Estate of Githens ex rel. Seaman v. Bon Secours-Maria Manor Nursing Care Ctr., Inc.,928 So.2d 1272, 1274(Fla. 2d DCA2006)."A movant is entitled to summary judgment `if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, affidavits, and other materials as would be admissible in evidence on file show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.'"Id.(quotingFla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c)).If a plaintiff files a motion for summary judgment before the defendant answers the complaint, "the plaintiff must conclusively show that the defendant cannot plead a genuine issue of material fact."E.J. Assocs., Inc. v. John E. & Aliese Price...