Diana Jelic v. LaSalle Bank, National Association
160 So. 3d 127
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- LaSalle Bank (Bank) filed a foreclosure complaint on Feb. 4, 2009, attaching the mortgage but not a note or assignment; the note was filed about a month later.
- At trial Bank produced the original note (containing two undated special indorsements: Sterling → Greenpoint → Washington Mutual), two assignments of mortgage/note, and seven pages of a Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA).
- The first assignment (Sterling → MERS) was dated the same day as the mortgage; the second assignment (MERS → LaSalle) was dated August 10, 2009 — more than six months after the complaint was filed.
- The partial PSA listed WaMu Asset Acceptance as depositor, Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) as servicer, and LaSalle as trustee; the PSA cut-off date was April 1, 2006. Bank’s witness testified the loan had been transferred into the trust before that cut-off date.
- The original note’s special indorsements were undated and showed an indorsement to Washington Mutual, not LaSalle. No testimony established when the indorsements were made or that WaMu had authority to enforce the note for LaSalle.
- Homeowner moved for involuntary dismissal arguing Bank lacked standing when it filed suit; the trial court entered final judgment for Bank. The Fourth District reversed, holding Bank failed to prove standing as of the complaint date and remanded with instructions to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was LaSalle the proper party with standing to foreclose when the complaint was filed? | LaSalle argued it owned the note/mortgage (via trust/PSA) before filing and thus had standing. | Homeowner argued LaSalle lacked title/possession at filing because assignments and indorsements did not show transfer to LaSalle before complaint. | LaSalle lacked standing at filing; reversal and involuntary dismissal. |
| Did the second assignment (MERS → LaSalle), executed after filing, cure standing defect? | LaSalle relied on the later assignment to show entitlement. | Homeowner argued post-filing assignment cannot retroactively establish standing at filing. | Post-filing assignment insufficient; standing must exist at complaint filing. |
| Did the original note with undated special indorsements demonstrate standing? | LaSalle contended the original note and indorsements evidenced negotiation into the trust. | Homeowner emphasized indorsements were undated and favored WaMu, not LaSalle, so they did not prove LaSalle’s rights at filing. | Undated special indorsements failed to prove LaSalle’s standing; indorsement to WaMu suggested WaMu, not LaSalle, was proper party to sue. |
| Did the partial PSA prove an equitable transfer of the loan to LaSalle before filing? | LaSalle argued PSA evidence and witness testimony showed loan was in the trust before the cut-off, implying LaSalle’s ownership at filing. | Homeowner argued PSA fragment and testimony did not show who transferred the loan into the trust or intent to transfer to LaSalle; missing servicer definition left authority unclear. | Partial PSA and testimony were insufficient to establish an equitable transfer to LaSalle before filing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lacombe v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 149 So. 3d 152 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (standard of review and standing at time complaint filed)
- Dixon v. Express Equity Lending Grp., LLLP, 125 So. 3d 965 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (treatment of endorsements and party with authority to sue)
- McLean v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 79 So. 3d 170 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (plaintiff must prove standing at filing; methods to establish standing)
- Focht v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 124 So. 3d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (ways non-originator can prove standing)
- Rigby v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 84 So. 3d 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (assignment dated after complaint does not establish standing at filing)
- WM Specialty Mortg., LLC v. Salomon, 874 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (equitable transfer established when physical transfer and intent by same party precede suit)
- Morton’s of Chicago, Inc. v. Lira, 48 So. 3d 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (appellate courts generally will not remand to allow retrial for failure of proof)