Mario A. Rodriguez and Lendy Rodriguez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. d/b/a America's Servicing Company
178 So. 3d 62
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Homeowners Mario and Lendy Rodriguez were defendant in a foreclosure by Wells Fargo–Bank, N.A. d/b/a America’s Servicing Company (the bank).
- Complaint alleged the bank was the holder of the mortgage note and/or entitled to enforce it; the copy attached to the complaint lacked an indorsement.
- Before trial the bank filed the original note, which bore an indorsement in blank, but the indorsement was undated and there was no proof when it was placed.
- Bank’s witness testified the bank had serviced the loan and possessed the original note continuously since 2007.
- Homeowners moved for involuntary dismissal at close of plaintiff’s case, arguing the bank lacked standing; the trial court denied the motion and entered final judgment for the bank.
- On appeal the Fourth District reversed, holding the bank failed to prove standing at the time the complaint was filed because it presented no proof it was either (a) holder at filing (indorsement timing unproven) or (b) a nonholder-in-possession authorized by the real party in interest (no PSA, POA, affidavit, or assignment evidencing authority).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did plaintiff prove standing to foreclose at time complaint filed? | Bank: possession of the original note (since 2007) and later filing of the note with a blank indorsement shows standing. | Homeowners: bank did not prove it had authority to enforce note at filing—no proof indorsement existed at filing and no authorization to act as servicer. | Reversed: bank failed to prove standing at filing; possession alone insufficient without proof indorsement timing or servicer authority. |
| Could bank proceed as a nonholder-in-possession (servicer) without documentary proof of authority? | Bank: servicing relationship and possession suffice to pursue foreclosure. | Homeowners: servicer must show authority (affidavit, PSA, power of attorney, assignment) from the real party in interest. | Held for homeowners: servicer must present evidence of authority; bank produced none. |
| Does a blank indorsement filed later establish holder status at filing? | Bank: filing original note with blank indorsement supports holder status. | Homeowners: undated blank indorsement lacks proof it existed at filing; timing is dispositive. | Held: undated indorsement insufficient—must prove indorsement existed on date suit was filed. |
| Remedy when plaintiff fails to prove standing at close of case? | Bank: (implicit) trial should proceed. | Homeowners: involuntary dismissal under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(b). | Held: motion for involuntary dismissal should have been granted; reversed and remanded with instruction to dismiss. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tremblay v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 164 So.3d 85 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (standard: review standing de novo)
- Lacombe v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 149 So.3d 152 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (standing to foreclose requirement)
- McLean v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 79 So.3d 170 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (right to enforce note is critical—standing must exist at filing)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Morcom, 125 So.3d 320 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (holder vs. nonholder-in-possession framework)
- Elston/Leetsdale, LLC v. CWCapital Asset Mgmt. LLC, 87 So.3d 14 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (servicer may act for real party in interest but must show authority)
- Russell v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 163 So.3d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (reversing where servicer failed to prove predecessor’s authority)
- Focht v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 124 So.3d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (examples of proofs used to show holder status)
- Jelic v. LaSalle Bank, Nat’l Ass’n., 160 So.3d 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (various ways to establish standing noted)
- Pennington v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 151 So.3d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (standing may change during litigation)
- Joseph v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 155 So.3d 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (insufficient evidence of ownership/possession at filing leads to reversal)