News + updates + recent press
"Original Note with a blank endorsement previously filed by prior Plaintiff with the Court, and released by the Substituted Plaintiff prior to trial, so that the Substituted Plaintiff had physical possession of the note at the time of trial, was sufficient to establish standing.” On June 29, 2018, the Second District Court of Appeal in Nationstar Mortgage, LLC as successor in interest to Wells Fargo Bank, v. Johnson, Case No. 2D17-2398, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D1509a, (2ndDCA June 29, 2018) held that the “trial court erred by dismissing the foreclosure action for lack of standing, as the substituted Plaintiff had physical possession of the note endorsed in blank at the time of trial.” The background of this case is that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., filed a complaint with a copy of a note endorsed in blank, and filed the original note with the Court shortly afterwards. Thereafter, Wells Fargo filed a motion to substitute party plaintiff asserting that the mortgage had been transferred to Nationstar. With the motion to substitute party plaintiff pending, Wells Fargo the day before trial, moved for the release of the originals that had been filed previously, and requested a continuance so that Nationstar could enter an appearance and request the return of the originals. The Motion to Substitute Party Plaintiff was granted at trial, and Nationstar made an oral request to release the original note and mortgage into Nationstar’s custody “for use at trial.” During the trial, Nationstar then introduced the original note into evidence. No objection was made as to the admission of the original note and mortgage. Relying on Geweye v. Ventures Trust 2013-I-H-R, 189 So. 3d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016), and Creadon v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 166 So. 3d 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015), the Johnsons moved for an involuntary dismissal at the conclusion of Nationstar's case, arguing that Nationstar lacked standing at trial. The trial court agreed and granted the motion.
"Is a condition precedent, not an affirmative defense. Bank bore the burden of proving it had met the condition precedent pursuant to section 203.604.” On June 28, 2018, the First District Court of Appeal, in Chrzuszcz v. Wells Fargo Bank, Case No. 1D16-3239, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D1486a (1st DCA June 28, 2016), held that the “trial court erred in denying a motion for involuntary dismissal where Plaintiff failed to comply with HUD regulation requiring that the bank either have face-to face interview with borrower or make reasonable attempt to do so prior to initiating foreclosure action.” At trial the Bank offered no testimony regarding whether the Bank complied with the face-to-face counseling requirement, after the Borrower argued that the Bank failed to comply with same. The Bank argued that compliance with HUD regulations are an affirmative defense, as opposed to a condition precedent, and that the Borrower had failed to plead noncompliance. Relying on Palma v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 208 So. 3d 771 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) the First District Court of Appeal held that face-to-face counseling requirement is not an affirmative defense, but rather a condition precedent, similar to that of paragraph 22 requirement in the mortgage, and that the Bank bears the burden of proving same.
PLG BLOG DISCLAIMER
The information contained on this blog shall not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion. The existence of or review and/or use of this blog or any information hereon does not and is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Further, no information on this blog should be construed as investment advice. Independent legal and financial advice should be sought before using any information obtained from this blog. It is important to note that the cases are subject to change with future court decisions or other changes in the law. For the most up-to-date information, please contact Padgett Law Group (“PLG”). PLG shall have no liability whatsoever to any user of this blog or any information contained hereon, for any claim(s) related in any way to the use of this blog. Users hereby release and hold harmless PLG of and from any and all liability for any claim(s), whether based in contract or in tort, including, but not limited to, claims for lost profits or consequential, exemplary, incidental, indirect, special, or punitive damages arising from or related to their use of the information contained on this blog or their inability to use this blog. This Blog is provided on an "as is" basis without warranties of any kind, either express or implied, including, but not limited to, warranties of title or implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.