257 So. 3d 516
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- Jenny and Wayne Alfred executed a promissory note to The CIT Group secured by a mortgage on Orange County real property; they defaulted and later received bankruptcy discharge.
- The bankruptcy trustee conveyed the property, which ultimately went to Centurion; PennyMac Mortgage Investment Trust Holdings I, LLC (later PennyMac Holdings, Inc.) filed a foreclosure complaint alleging it held the note and mortgage and attached copies including a note with (1) a CIT indorsement to CitiMortgage and (2) an undated blank indorsement reading “CitiMortgage, Inc./By and through its Attorney in Fact PNMAC Capital Management, LLC.”
- PennyMac substituted PMT NPL Financing 2015-1 (PMT) as plaintiff, asserting assignment of the mortgage; the court granted the substitution without objection.
- The original note had been filed with the court before PMT was substituted; at trial PMT nevertheless removed that original note from the file and introduced it into evidence.
- Centurion asserted lack of standing as an affirmative defense and moved for involuntary dismissal at the close of PMT’s case; the trial court granted the motion, finding PMT lacked standing at trial because the original note had been filed before PMT’s substitution.
- The Fifth District reversed, holding the original plaintiff had standing when the complaint was filed (via copy of the blank-indorsed note) and PMT established standing at trial by producing the original blank-indorsed note and introducing it into evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing when complaint filed | PennyMac (original plaintiff) had standing because it attached copy of original note with blank indorsement to the complaint | Centurion: substitution to PMT breaks standing; original filing insufficient for PMT | Held: Original plaintiff had standing at filing; substitution conveyed that standing to PMT (plaintiff stands in original plaintiff’s shoes) |
| Standing at time of judgment/trial | PMT had standing at trial by producing and introducing the original blank-indorsed note into evidence | Centurion: PMT lacked standing at trial because original note had been filed before PMT substituted; blank indorsement was deficient | Held: PMT established standing at trial by possessing and introducing the original blank-indorsed note; involuntary dismissal was erroneous |
| Validity/authorization of blank indorsement | PMT: absent evidence of forgery or lack of authority, the signature is presumed authentic under U.C.C. § 673.3081(1) | Centurion: blank indorsement was deficient because PNMAC lacked demonstrated authority as attorney-in-fact for CitiMortgage | Held: Centurion produced no evidence of forgery/unauthorized signature; PMT not required to prove authorization; presumption of validity applied |
| Applicability of precedents (Geweye/Creadon) | PMT: distinguishable because PMT actually produced original blank-indorsed note at trial | Centurion: relies on Geweye and Creadon to show substituted plaintiff lacking standing when original note was filed before substitution | Held: Geweye and Creadon are distinguishable; possession and introduction of original note at trial supports standing (cases like Rafaeli and Heath support this result) |
Key Cases Cited
- Sosa v. Safeway Premium Fin. Co., 73 So. 3d 91 (Fla. 2011) (standing in foreclosure must exist at filing and at judgment)
- Bowmar v. SunTrust Mortg., Inc., 188 So. 3d 986 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (standing requirements reiterated)
- Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Bo Chan, 226 So. 3d 330 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (substitute plaintiff stands in shoes of original plaintiff)
- U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Glicken, 228 So. 3d 1194 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (copy of blank-indorsed note attached to complaint plus identical original at trial suffices for standing)
- Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n v. Rafaeli, 225 So. 3d 264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (possession of original blank-indorsed note at trial establishes standing)
- Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Heath, 219 So. 3d 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (introducing original identical to complaint attachment establishes standing)
- Rivera v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 189 So. 3d 323 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (plaintiff need not prove signature validity absent evidence of forgery)
- Geweye v. Ventures Trust, 189 So. 3d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (substituted plaintiff lacked standing where no evidence of note possession or endorsement supporting status)
- Creadon v. U.S. Bank N.A., 166 So. 3d 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (successor trustee failed to prove standing where original note filed long before substitution and no proof of holder status)
- Bennett v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 124 So. 3d 320 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (bank may rely on statutory presumption of signatures’ validity on an allonge)