Madl v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 244 So. 3d 1134

In 2005 Melissa Madl signed the promissory note and both Joe and Melissa Madl signed the mortgage in favor of Impac Funding; the mortgage was assigned to Wells Fargo in 2006.
Wells Fargo filed the instant foreclosure in April 2009, attaching a copy of the note payable to Impac that lacked any indorsement or allonge.
At trial Wells Fargo produced an original note bearing an undated blank indorsement, but could not show when the indorsement was made; the copy attached to the complaint did not bear that indorsement.
Wells Fargo attempted to prove inclusion of the loan in a trust via an unsigned, unauthenticated copy of a pooling and servicing agreement (PSA) printed from the SEC website.
Wells Fargo’s witness (Ocwen employee) could not verify that the required default notice under paragraph 22 of the mortgage was actually prepared or mailed; he relied on unfamiliar computerized notes and had no vendor records or affidavits showing mailing.
The trial court entered judgment for Wells Fargo; the appellate court reversed, ordering an involuntary dismissal and awarding appellants appellate attorney’s fees under the mortgage and Fla. Stat. § 57.105(7).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing at time complaint filed	Wells Fargo: produced original note with blank indorsement and PSA to show ownership/standing	Madl: copy attached to complaint had no indorsement; witness lacked knowledge when indorsement occurred; PSA unauthenticated	Reversed — Wells Fargo lacked standing when suit was filed because complaint copy had no indorsement and witness could not prove timing of indorsement
Proof of note-transfer / loan-in-trust	Wells Fargo: unsigned PSA printout showed loan included in trust	Madl: PSA was unsigned, unauthenticated copy from SEC site and not admissible as business record	PSA inadmissible to establish transfer/standing; did not prove inclusion in trust
Compliance with paragraph 22 (notice of default/acceleration)	Wells Fargo: servicer records and company notes show default processes occurred	Madl: no demand letter, no affidavit or vendor records proving mailing or receipt	Reversed — Wells Fargo failed to prove the mortgage’s notice condition precedent was satisfied
Award of prevailing-party attorney’s fees	Wells Fargo: appellants not entitled because plaintiff lacked standing	Madl: mortgage and Fla. Stat. § 57.105(7) convert lender’s fee right into reciprocal right for prevailing borrower	Affirmed — appellants entitled to fees under the mortgage and § 57.105(7) because parties were in contractual relationship and appellants prevailed

Rodriguez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 178 So.3d 62 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (standing to foreclose must exist when suit is filed)
McLean v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 79 So.3d 170 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (undated indorsement requires proof it occurred before filing and that note was possessed at filing)
Friedle v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 226 So.3d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (copy of complaint note lacking indorsement does not prove standing at filing)
Allen v. Wilmington Tr., N.A., 216 So.3d 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (proof of mailing default notice requires more than internal notes; affidavits, business-practice proof, or receipts needed)
Edmonds v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 215 So.3d 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (servicer notes insufficient to prove vendor actually mailed default notice)
Figueroa v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 180 So.3d 1110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (failure to comply with notice condition precedent mandates reversal)
Nationstar Mortg. LLC v. Glass, 219 So.3d 896 (Fla. 4th DCA en banc 2017) (requirements for recovering prevailing-party fees under mortgage and § 57.105(7))
Fla. Cmty. Bank v. Red Rd. Residential, LLC, 197 So.3d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (§ 57.105(7) transforms unilateral contractual fee right into reciprocal right for the other contracting party)
HFC Collection Ctr., Inc. v. Alexander, 190 So.3d 1114 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (reciprocity under § 57.105(7) applies only to parties to the contract)