Beaumont v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 2452
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Beaumont appeals a final summary judgment foreclosing his residential mortgage and enforcing a promissory note.
- The judgment was entered in favor of Novastar Home Mortgage, Inc., a nonparty to the lawsuit.
- The panel holds that entering against a nonparty is fundamental error and reversible.
- Even if Mellon (Bank of New York Mellon, as successor trustee) were recognized, Mellon failed to prove it could enforce the note due to lack of proof of ownership when the note was lost and who lost it.
- Mellon did not establish who transferred ownership to Mellon or when the transfer occurred, and the record did not authenticate the assignment from Novastar to Mellon.
- The trial court also failed to address protection for Beaumont under Fla. Stat. § 673.3091(2) if Mellon found the note.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was judgment against a nonparty fundamental error? | Beaumont contends Novastar being a nonparty invalidates the judgment. | Mellon argues the judgment should stand despite the nonparty status. | Reversed for judgment against a nonparty. |
| Did Mellon prove standing to enforce the note at judgment? | Beaumont argues Mellon failed to prove ownership or entitlement to enforce the note. | Mellon contends it had standing as successor owner/transferee. | Mellon failed to prove who lost the note or ownership; standing not established. |
| Is the Novastar-to-Mellon assignment competent evidence? | Beaumont notes the assignment was not authenticated or properly offered as evidence. | Mellon relies on the assignment to prove ownership. | Record shows assignment not competent evidence due to lack of authentication. |
| Must the court address protections under § 673.3091(2) if Mellon found the note? | Beaumont contends adequate protections are required against loss or competing claims. | Mellon contends protections are nonessential if it holds enforceable rights. | Reversal is warranted; discussion of protections is required (court reverses on standing). |
Key Cases Cited
- Beseau v. Bhalani, 904 So.2d 641 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (jurisdictional defect to judgment in favor of nonparty; fundamental error)
- Rustom v. Sparling, 685 So.2d 90 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (nonparty status invalidates judgment)
- Duke v. HSBC Mortg. Servs., LLC, 79 So.3d 778 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (proof of enforceability and ownership when loss occurred)
- Gee v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 72 So.3d 211 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (lost-note rules; authentication matters)
- Perry v. Fairbanks Capital Corp., 888 So.2d 725 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (evidence of assignment and standing considerations)
- Feltus v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 80 So.3d 375 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (standing and enforceability principles)
- Boston Hides & Furs, Ltd. v. Sumitomo Bank, Ltd., 870 F.Supp.2d 1153 (D. Mass. 1994) (fraud/ownership issues in banking litigation cases)