197 So. 3d 94
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- In 2007 Luz Sanabria (with husband Gaetano Piro) executed a promissory note and mortgage in connection with buying a Manatee County home.
- PennyMac Mortgage Investment Trust Holdings I, LLC (PennyMac Trust) filed foreclosure in 2012, alleging default and submitting a copy of the borrowers’ note (6 pages, signature on page 6).
- Homeowners asserted, as their ninth affirmative defense, that the copy of the note attached to the complaint was not the note signed by Ms. Sanabria and questioned the authenticity of endorsements and the signature.
- At trial homeowners produced the closing-counsel’s copy of the note (5 pages, signature on page 5) and Ms. Sanabria testified the signature on PennyMac’s copy was not hers.
- The court barred a forensic document examiner from testifying, holding the homeowners failed to adequately plead an authenticity challenge (citing Riggs), and entered a final judgment of foreclosure.
- The Second District reversed, holding the homeowners sufficiently pleaded the signature-authenticity defense and remanded for further proceedings (standing issue not reached on the merits due to preservation failures).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 673.3081(1) requires a heightened, specific pleading to deny a signature’s authenticity | § 673.3081(1) requires a specific denial akin to heightened fraud pleading; homeowners’ pleadings were insufficient | Homeowners’ affirmative defense specifically denied that the attached note was signed by Ms. Sanabria and thus sufficiently put authenticity at issue | Court held the homeowners adequately pleaded the signature-authenticity issue under either a general or heightened standard | |
| Whether homeowners waived the authenticity defense by failing to plead with particularity | PennyMac: defense was not pleaded with specificity and was therefore waived/insufficient | Homeowners: the ninth affirmative defense expressly challenged the authenticity of the note attached to the complaint | Held for homeowners: the affirmative defense plainly denied authenticity of the plaintiff’s copy and apprised the court and opposing party | |
| Admissibility of expert forensic testimony after court ruled pleading insufficient | PennyMac: no need for expert if no properly pleaded dispute | Homeowners: proffered that expert would show signatures were not by same person; entitled to present evidence | Because pleading was adequate, exclusion of expert testimony was error and the issue must be resolved on remand | |
| Whether appellate court should decide plaintiff’s standing | PennyMac: standing was sufficient or not preserved | Homeowners: argued standing problems below | Court: homeowners failed to preserve standing for appeal; remand for circuit court to consider if re-raised | Standing issue not reached on merits; remanded for consideration if raised anew |
Key Cases Cited
- Riggs v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 36 So.3d 932 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (affirming summary judgment where pleadings did not place signature authenticity at issue)
- Ladner v. AmSouth Bank, 32 So.3d 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (insufficiency of a pleading reviewed de novo)
- Lipton v. Se. First Nat’l Bank of Miami, 343 So.2d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (general denials insufficient to raise non‑authenticity of signatures)
- Davis v. Timeshare Travel Int’l, Inc., 489 So.2d 47 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (statutory presumption of signature validity where authenticity not specifically pleaded)
- Ferris v. Nichols, 246 So.2d 660 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971) (party must specifically plead denial of signing to put signature authenticity at issue)
- VonDrasek v. City of St. Petersburg, 111 So.2d 989 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959) (pleading should clearly inform judge and opposing party of pleader’s position)
- Massey v. David, 979 So.2d 931 (Fla. 2008) (statutes conflicting with court rules on procedure may raise constitutional concerns)
- Corrigan v. Bank of America, N.A., 189 So.3d 187 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (standing to sue in foreclosure is a threshold issue for courts to address)