Dickson v. Roseville Properties, LLC
198 So. 3d 48
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Michael and Magdalena Dickson borrowed $224,000 in 2007; loan evidenced by note (Ameripath lender) and mortgage showing MERS as nominee for Ameripath. Default began November 2009.
- Nationstar Mortgage, LLC filed a verified foreclosure complaint on July 18, 2011, alleging entitlement to enforce the note but without alleging facts or attaching documents showing Nationstar's right to foreclose.
- After suit was filed, numerous assignments of the mortgage were recorded (all dated after July 18, 2011), culminating in an assignment to Roseville Properties, LLC in August 2012.
- Roseville substituted in as plaintiff for Nationstar and served requests for admissions that the Dicksons did not answer; those requests sought admissions only as to Roseville’s ownership/holder status, not Nationstar’s status at filing.
- At bench trial Roseville presented a business-records witness who testified about account history but did not prove Nationstar’s standing at the time the complaint was filed or Roseville’s standing at inception; court entered final judgment for Roseville.
- The Second District reversed, holding Roseville failed to prove standing at the inception of suit and remanded with instructions to enter involuntary dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff (Roseville) had standing to foreclose | Roseville claimed ownership/holder status (and relied on deemed admissions) to show standing | Dicksons argued Nationstar lacked standing when it filed suit, so substituted plaintiff cannot cure lack of inception standing | Court held plaintiff failed to prove standing at inception; dismissal required |
| Whether deemed admissions on requests about Roseville establish standing at suit inception | Roseville argued unanswered requests admitting it was owner/current holder proved standing | Dicksons pointed out requests did not address Nationstar’s standing at time of filing | Court held admissions only related to Roseville’s status when served and did not prove Nationstar’s inception standing |
| Whether substituted plaintiff must prove original plaintiff had standing at filing | Roseville relied on post-filing assignments and its substitution to cure any defects | Dicksons argued substituted plaintiff must show original plaintiff had standing at filing | Court held substituted plaintiff must prove original plaintiff’s standing at inception; post-filing transfers insufficient |
| Remedy when plaintiff fails to prove inception standing | Roseville sought judgment for foreclosure | Dicksons sought dismissal for lack of standing | Court ordered reversal and remanded with instruction to enter involuntary dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 95 So. 3d 251 (establishes plaintiff must prove standing when defense asserts lack of standing)
- Mortg. Elec. Regis. Sys., Inc. v. Azize, 965 So. 2d 151 (plaintiff must be holder or act on behalf of holder to enforce note)
- Focht v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 124 So. 3d 308 (methods to prove holder status at trial; discusses requirement of standing at inception)
- McLean v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 79 So. 3d 170 (noting acceptable proof of holder status: endorsed note, assignment, or sworn proof)
- Russell v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 163 So. 3d 639 (substituted plaintiff must show original plaintiff had standing at filing)
- May v. PHH Mortg. Corp., 150 So. 3d 247 (reiterates requirement that plaintiff have standing at inception of suit)