Paul G. Matthews and Maryellen L. Matthews v. Federal National Mortgage Association
160 So. 3d 131
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Paul and Maryellen Matthews were sued in February 2010 in a mortgage foreclosure by Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae).
- The complaint attached a copy of the promissory note naming Bank of America as lender; that note as attached to the complaint had no endorsement naming Fannie Mae.
- At trial Fannie Mae introduced the original note showing an undated blank endorsement by Bank of America and a notarized assignment from Bank of America to Fannie Mae dated March 18, 2010 but purporting to be effective January 27, 2010 (a backdated assignment).
- A Bank of America employee testified he did not know how Fannie Mae obtained the original note; no testimony established transfer before the complaint filing date.
- The trial court entered a final judgment of foreclosure for Fannie Mae; the Matthews appealed arguing lack of standing at the inception of the suit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fannie Mae had standing to sue at the inception of the foreclosure action | Fannie Mae argued submission of the original note (showing a blank endorsement), the assignment to Fannie Mae, and witness testimony established standing | Matthews argued Fannie Mae lacked pre-suit ownership: the complaint’s note named Bank of America and had no endorsement; the assignment was dated after filing and merely backdated | Reversed: Fannie Mae failed to prove standing at the time suit was filed; undated blank endorsement and backdated assignment did not establish pre-filing standing |
| Whether a backdated assignment can cure lack of pre-suit standing | Fannie Mae relied on the assignment’s effective date and other servicing documents to show ownership | Matthews argued retroactive assignments cannot supply the required pre-suit standing | Court held backdated assignment alone is insufficient; retroactive assignments cannot cure lack of standing absent proof of an equitable transfer before filing |
| Whether other exhibits (power of attorney, payment history) established standing | Fannie Mae contended additional documents and servicing records supported its ownership claim | Matthews contended those exhibits did not demonstrate ownership at filing | Court found those exhibits did not establish standing at suit inception |
| Whether defects in standing can be cured after filing | Fannie Mae argued its later-produced evidence showed it was holder at trial | Matthews argued standing must exist at suit inception and cannot be remedied later | Court reaffirmed standing must exist at inception and cannot be cured by post-filing acquisition of the note |
Key Cases Cited
- Boyd v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 143 So. 3d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA) (de novo review applies to standing in foreclosure)
- Lacombe v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 149 So. 3d 152 (Fla. 1st DCA) (sufficiency of evidence to prove standing reviewed de novo)
- McLean v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 79 So. 3d 170 (Fla. 4th DCA) (methods to prove standing: holder, endorsement, assignment, affidavit, or equitable transfer)
- Venture Holdings & Acquisitions Grp., LLC v. A.I.M. Funding Grp., LLC, 75 So. 3d 773 (Fla. 4th DCA) (party must have standing at filing and cannot remedy defect after initiation)
- Vidal v. Liquidation Props., Inc., 104 So. 3d 1274 (Fla. 4th DCA) (disapproves allowing retroactive assignments to satisfy pre-suit ownership requirement)
- GMAC Mortg., LLC v. Choengkroy, 98 So. 3d 781 (Fla. 4th DCA) (equitable transfer evidence can establish standing if shown to occur pre-filing)