Linda G. Morgan v. The Bank of New York Mellon etc., 200 So. 3d 792

Bank of New York Mellon filed suit in Dec. 2009 to reestablish a lost promissory note and foreclose after alleged payment default; original note later found and repleaded as a single-count foreclosure.
Plaintiff alleged conditions precedent to suit had occurred; defendant Linda Morgan did not have counsel file an answer for several years and later filed pro se answers.
In Jan. 2015 (13 days before trial) newly retained counsel for Morgan moved for leave to amend her answer to add eight affirmative defenses (including failure to give required notices and lack of standing).
Trial court denied the motion to amend as “untimely”; trial proceeded and final judgment of foreclosure entered for the Bank.
On appeal, the district court held denial of leave to amend was an abuse of discretion, vacated the foreclosure judgment, and remanded with instructions to permit Morgan’s amended answer.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion denying leave to amend 13 days before trial	Amendment was untimely and would disrupt trial preparation	Rules favor liberal amendment; first attorney never filed an answer and amendment should be allowed	Abuse of discretion: amendment must be allowed under these facts; judgment vacated
Whether proposed defenses would prejudice the Bank	Allowing late defenses would unfairly require additional preparation	Bank already bore burden to prove elements (e.g., standing); requiring proof is not unfair prejudice	No prejudice shown as to the asserted defenses; amendment not barred on that ground
Whether proposed defenses were futile for failure to plead with particularity	Defenses were conclusory or legally insufficient	Proposed answer met Rule 1.120(c) specificity for conditions precedent	Not futile — pleadings were particular enough to survive futility challenge
Standing and notice defenses (including mortgage ¶22 and §559.715)	Bank had possession of the note; standing established; notice defenses meritless or untimely	Defense challenges sufficiency of Bank’s proof of ownership and notice compliance	These defenses raise triable issues; Bank still must prove it owned and held note when suit filed; defenses properly raised

Holy Temple Church of God in Christ, Inc. v. Maxwell, 578 So.2d 877 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (abuse-of-discretion review for amendment rulings)
Hatcher v. Chandler, 589 So.2d 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (rules encourage liberal amendment to decide cases on merits)
Greenburg v. Johnston, 367 So.2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (no bright-line rule for timeliness; focus on prejudice, futility)
Cedar Mountain Estates, LLC v. Loan One, LLC, 4 So.3d 15 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (factors to evaluate amendment — prejudice, abuse, futility)
Thompson v. Jared Kane Co., Inc., 872 So.2d 356 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (refusal to allow amendment absent exceptional circumstances is abuse)
Brown v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 252 So.2d 817 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971) (denial of late amendment two weeks before trial can be proper when it introduces new issues)
Levine v. United Companies Life Ins. Co., 659 So.2d 265 (Fla. 1995) (liberality in amendments diminishes as trial approaches)
Mazine v. M & I Bank, 67 So.3d 1129 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (plaintiff must present evidence it owned and held note and mortgage to show standing)
Riggs v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 36 So.3d 932 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (possession/endorsement rules and standing principles)
Cady v. Chevy Chase Sav. & Loan, Inc., 528 So.2d 136 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (defenses are futile if conclusory and lack allegations of ultimate fact)