Gary S. Snyder and Jane Snyder v. JP Morgan Chase Bank
169 So. 3d 1270
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- In Feb. 2009 JPMorgan Chase (Chase) filed a foreclosure complaint against Gary and Jane Snyder as co‑trustees, attaching a note and mortgage naming Washington Mutual Bank (WAMU) as lender. The note as filed lacked endorsements; later Chase produced an "original" with a stamped, undated blank endorsement.
- Chase alleged it owned and held the note; plaintiffs alleged Chase lacked standing because it was not shown to possess the note when suit was filed.
- Chase’s sole witness, a home‑loan research officer, testified Chase acquired WAMU assets via an FDIC sale in Sept. 2008 but admitted Chase did not receive physical possession of the note until July 2009.
- The trial court granted multiple continuances to allow Chase to produce additional evidence (FDIC affidavit, purchase agreement, Chase records, notice of default from WAMU) and ultimately entered a final judgment of foreclosure.
- On appeal the Fourth DCA focused on whether Chase proved it was a "person entitled to enforce" the negotiable note on the filing date—i.e., possession (as holder) or an equivalent right.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Chase have standing to foreclose (possession/right to enforce the note on filing date)? | Chase: purchase agreement and related documents show it acquired the loan and thus had the right to enforce the note before suit. | Snyders: Chase did not have possession of the note when suit was filed and thus lacked standing; WAMU (not Chase) sent the notice of default. | Reversed: Chase failed to prove it possessed the note or otherwise was entitled to enforce it on the filing date; no competent substantial evidence of standing. |
| Can ownership via an asset‑purchase agreement substitute for possession? | Chase: FDIC takeover and purchase/assumption agreement transferred the asset to Chase, establishing ownership/standing. | Snyders: The purchase agreement and FDIC evidence show turnover and closing occurred after suit; agreement terms and caveats do not prove transfer of possession before filing. | Held: Purchase agreement alone did not establish possession or a right to enforce before filing; the agreement’s terms and timing were inconclusive. |
| Is a blank endorsement sufficient when plaintiff lacks possession? | Chase: the note bore a blank endorsement (from WAMU), which may make it enforceable if in possession. | Snyders: Even with a blank endorsement, plaintiff must still show possession at filing. | Held: Blank endorsement does not cure lack of possession; Chase admitted it lacked possession at filing, so it failed to prove entitlement to enforce. |
| Was involuntary dismissal appropriate where plaintiff failed to prove standing? | Chase: court should allow cure via additional evidence; continuances granted to permit proof. | Snyders: Trial court should have granted involuntary dismissal when Chase admitted lack of possession. | Held: Trial court erred by not granting involuntary dismissal; judgment vacated and case remanded with directions to enter involuntary dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mazine v. M & I Bank, 67 So. 3d 1129 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (holder or nonholder in possession with holder rights has standing to foreclose)
- Lindsey v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 139 So. 3d 903 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (plaintiff must prove it held the note prior to filing foreclosure)
- Riggs v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 36 So. 3d 932 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (transfer of possession with blank endorsement makes transferee the holder entitled to enforce)
- Stone v. BankUnited, 115 So. 3d 411 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (purchase/assumption agreement and receivership evidence can show acquisition of assets and standing)
- BAC Funding Consortium Inc. v. Jean‑Jacques, 28 So. 3d 936 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (standing may be shown by assignment, proof of purchase, or effective transfer)