Anastacia S. Lacombe and Max P. Lacombe v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, etc.
149 So. 3d 152
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Deutsche Bank sued Anastacia and Max Lacombe in 2008 for foreclosure on a 2005 promissory note and mortgage originally payable to Tower Mortgage.
- The original note had no indorsement on its face; an allonge executed by Tower Mortgage indorsed the note to Long Beach Mortgage Company (a special indorsement).
- Deutsche Bank alleged it owned the note; Lacombes denied ownership and asserted lack of standing because Deutsche Bank had not proven it held the note when the suit was filed.
- At a 2013 bench trial Deutsche Bank presented one witness (an SPS case manager) and five exhibits: a limited power of attorney, the note/allonge, a multi-page pooling and servicing-related printout, a “notice of intent to accelerate” from Washington Mutual, and a payment history.
- The court found Deutsche Bank’s proof of ownership/standing insufficient: exhibits were unauthenticated/incoherent, the witness lacked foundational knowledge, and no indorsement, assignment, or affidavit showed Deutsche Bank held the note when suit was filed.
- The District Court reversed the final judgment of foreclosure and remanded with instructions for involuntary dismissal due to lack of standing and insufficient evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff proved standing to foreclose (ownership/holder status of the note as of filing) | Deutsche Bank argued its exhibits (POA, pooling documents, note/allonge, servicer records) and SPS witness established standing | Lacombe argued Deutsche Bank failed to show negotiation/indorsement or other proof that Deutsche Bank held the note when suit was filed | Reversed: Deutsche Bank failed to prove standing by competent evidence; judgment vacated and action dismissed |
| Admissibility and sufficiency of servicer records and pooling documents | Deutsche Bank contended these records and testimony suffice to trace ownership | Lacombe objected to lack of authentication, foundation, and explanation linking records to the note | Records and testimony were inadequate and not competent/substantial evidence to establish ownership or negotiation |
| Whether lack of specific contemporaneous objection at trial bars appellate sufficiency review | Deutsche Bank implied procedural default should preclude review | Lacombe relied on rule 1.530(e) to permit review of sufficiency after bench trial | Review allowed under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.530(e); sufficiency review is proper despite trial objection posture |
| Whether the case should be remanded for additional proof | Deutsche Bank sought opportunity to supply additional proof on remand | Lacombe argued Deutsche Bank had ample time and failure to prove after trial foreclosed a do-over | Court refused remand for new proof; appellate courts generally won’t permit retry after failure of proof and dismissed the action |
Key Cases Cited
- Correa v. U.S. Bank N.A., 118 So. 3d 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (Rule 1.530(e) allows appellate review of evidence sufficiency after bench trial)
- Dixon v. Express Equity Lending Grp., 125 So. 3d 965 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (standard of de novo review for standing sufficiency)
- Mazine v. M & I Bank, 67 So. 3d 1129 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (plaintiff must prove it owns and holds the note and mortgage to establish standing)
- Gee v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n, 72 So. 3d 211 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (ownership becomes proof issue when defendant denies plaintiff’s interest)
- LaFrance v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n, 141 So. 3d 754 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (loan servicing records without explanation insufficient to prove ownership)
- McLean v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 79 So. 3d 170 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (methods by which a non-original lender may establish standing)