MARCIA SUPRIA v. GOSHEN MORTGAGE, LLC
16-4356
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Dec 6, 2017Background
- Borrower executed a promissory note originally made payable to Centerpointe Financial, Inc.; no blank indorsement from Centerpointe was produced at trial.
- An allonge purportedly transferring the note existed but was lost and not introduced at trial.
- Appellee (Goshen Mortgage, LLC, substituting for Christiana Trust/Wilmington Savings) conceded it was not a holder of the note and sought to proceed as a nonholder in possession with the rights of a holder.
- Appellee attempted to prove its right to enforce by establishing a chain of transfers and various assignments of the mortgage and note.
- Multiple assignments in the chain were defective or inconsistent: the first and second assignments lacked proof that the assignors had authority or an interest to transfer; the third and fifth assignments transferred only the mortgage (not the note); and later assignments were infirm due to these prior defects.
- Trial court entered a final judgment in favor of appellee; the Fourth District reversed for lack of standing and remanded for entry of judgment for the appellant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellee could establish standing as a nonholder in possession | Appellee argued it was a nonholder in possession entitled to enforce the note by proving chain of transfers and assignments | Appellant argued appellee failed to prove an unbroken valid chain starting with the first holder; assignments were defective or only transferred the mortgage | Appellee failed to prove standing; final judgment reversed and judgment for appellant directed |
| Whether assignments of mortgage alone can convey the right to enforce the note | Appellee relied on successive assignments of mortgage and related instruments to show transfer of enforcement rights | Appellant argued mortgage transfers without note transfer do not confer right to enforce debt | Assignments that transferred only the mortgage (not the note) did not convey enforcement rights |
| Sufficiency of evidence when allonge is lost and original indorsement absent | Appellee contended other documentary evidence sufficed to show transfer history | Appellant maintained that missing allonge and lack of indorsement prevented proof the transferor had authority to transfer | Missing allonge and absent indorsement doomed appellee’s proof; transaction history not established |
| Effect of prior defective assignments on later transfers | Appellee argued later assignments cured or established chain despite earlier defects | Appellant argued later assignments derived no rights because prior transfers were invalid or nonexistent | Later assignments were infirm when earlier transfers were invalid; cannot derive rights from an invalid transfer |
Key Cases Cited
- Bank of N.Y. Mellon Tr. Co., N.A. v. Conley, 188 So. 3d 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (nonholder in possession must account for how it acquired the note)
- Murray v. HSBC Bank USA, 157 So. 3d 355 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (plaintiff must prove chain of transfers from the first holder)
- PennyMac Corp. v. Frost, 214 So. 3d 686 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (to be a nonholder in possession with holder’s rights plaintiff must prove transfers starting with first holder)
- Tilus v. Michai LLC, 161 So. 3d 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (assignment of mortgage without assignment of the debt creates no enforcement right)
- Peters v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 227 So. 3d 175 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (mortgage follows the debt; assignment of mortgage alone is insufficient)
- Johns v. Gillian, 184 So. 140 (Fla. 1938) (mortgage is incident to the debt and follows assignment of the debt)
- Jelic v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 178 So. 3d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (references to unspecified “moneys now owing” are insufficient to transfer the debt)