The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and directed a Judgment in favor of the mortgagor as the mortgagor (Plaintiff) failed to show standing against the mortgagee at the time of trial.

In its opinion, the Court noted that standing of the plaintiff to foreclose on a mortgage must be established at the time the plaintiff files suit.  The Appellate Court noted that the mortgage and note introduced at trial failed to show what rights Bayview, which was substituted by appellant 2 weeks before trial, actually acquired from Appellant.

Nine months after filing the complaint, RCS filed what it purported to be the original note with an allonge payable to bearer, but the Appellant Court noted it was undated and there is no proof it was affixed to the promissory note.  The litigation manager did not know when the allonge was executed, or whether it was affixed to the note prior to filing. No evidence was presented that the allonge was executed and attached to the note prior to the filing of the initial complaint.

 

The Appellate Court also found that Bayview could not prove it was a non-holder in possession, which could have provided a basis for standing.  The Court found  “….from the record that Bayview’s litigation manager did not have the requisite knowledge, nor did he produce documentary evidence, to support the claim……”

 

The opinion may be found at:

http://www.4dca.org/opinions/March%202015/03-25-15/4D13-3514.op.pdf

 

Tags: , , ,