JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NAT. v. Eldridge
2012 OK 24
| Okla. | 2012Background
- July 13, 2007: Appellants signed Note and Mortgage naming JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. as lender and payee; lender definition includes successors/assigns.
- March 25, 2009: Debtors filed bankruptcy and reaffirmed the Note balance; Note default ensued.
- February 4, 2010: Foreclosure filed by Chase Home Finance Milwaukee claiming to hold the Note/Mortgage via assignment.
- April 29, 2010: Assignment of Mortgage executed; June 24, 2010 filed; foreclosure action already pending.
- Note unindorsed; assignment of mortgage not equivalent to note ownership; question when the party became entitled to enforce the Note.
- Trial court granted summary judgment May 13, 2011; August 26, 2011 journal entry identified JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. as successor by merger; issue of proper party and standing raised on appeal; court reversed and remanded for factual determinations regarding entitlement to enforce the Note.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellee had standing to foreclose | Eldridge argues appellee lacks standing to enforce the Note. | Eldridge contends the Note was not shown to be indorsed or enforceable by the appellee. | Summary judgment improper; issue requires factual determinations on entitlement to enforce the Note. |
| Effect of mortgage assignment on enforcing the Note | Appellee asserts assignment of mortgage supports entitlement to enforce. | Assignment of mortgage does not prove delivery or holder rights without Note indorsement. | Assignment of mortgage alone insufficient; must show delivery of the Note and rights to enforce. |
| Identity of plaintiff and real party in interest | Plaintiff is proper party to pursue foreclosure as successor by merger. | Uncertainty whether the named plaintiff is correct party; real party in interest not clear. | Remand to determine proper party entitled to enforce the Note; may dismiss without prejudice and refile. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gill v. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Oklahoma City, 1945 OK 181 (OK 1945) (ownership of note carried with mortgage; standing context discussed within earlier framework)
- Hendrick v. Walters, 1993 OK 162 (OK 1993) (standing may be raised at any stage; real-party-in-interest concept discussed)
- Fent v. Contingency Review Board, 2007 OK 27 (OK 2007) (standing defined; three threshold criteria; may be raised any stage)
- Toxic Waste Impact Group, Inc. v. Leavitt, 1994 OK 148 (OK 1994) (standing characterized as non-jurisdictional; real-party-in-interest distinction emphasized)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing consists of injury in fact, causal link, redressability; jurisdictional concerns discussed)
- Matter of the Estate of Doan, 1986 OK 15 (OK 1986) (standing as jurisdictional-like concept historically; non-jurisdictional in modern procedural context)