Susan Lloyd and James Lloyd v. The Bank of New York Mellon
160 So. 3d 513
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Susan and James Lloyd executed a mortgage and promissory note with ACCU and defaulted by making no payments.
- Plaintiff (The Bank of New York Mellon, as trustee) sued for mortgage foreclosure and to enforce a lost instrument.
- The complaint attached a mortgage and a copy of the promissory note showing an undated blank endorsement; the plaintiff later filed the original note in which the endorsement reflected an endorsement to Countrywide Bank, N.A.
- Plaintiff also filed an assignment of mortgage dated after suit was filed but stating it "relate[d] back" to a date before the complaint.
- Plaintiff’s witness could not verify when endorsements or the assignment occurred or that plaintiff possessed the note before filing the complaint.
- The trial court entered a final judgment of foreclosure for plaintiff; the Fourth District reviewed standing de novo and reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did plaintiff have standing to foreclose at time of filing? | Plaintiff relied on the note (with endorsement) and a later-filed assignment that allegedly related back prior to suit. | Lloyds argued plaintiff failed to prove ownership/possession of the note or a timely assignment before filing. | Reversed: plaintiff failed to prove standing at the time suit was filed. |
| Is an undated/blank endorsement sufficient to prove pre-suit ownership? | Plaintiff argued the endorsement and related documents established its right to enforce. | Lloyds contended undated endorsement required additional proof of timing. | Undated endorsement insufficient without independent evidence establishing date of endorsement. |
| Can a later-filed assignment be given retroactive effect to confer standing? | Plaintiff argued assignment "related back" to an earlier date, curing any timing gap. | Lloyds argued back-dating requires proof and cannot substitute for pre-suit ownership. | "Relate back" language alone is ambiguous; retroactive effect requires evidence and cannot substitute for pre-suit ownership. |
| Was the witness testimony adequate to establish standing? | Plaintiff relied on testimony that assignments don’t always occur on document dates and assumed possession. | Lloyds emphasized lack of definitive, record-based proof. | Testimony was insufficient to resolve when endorsements/assignment occurred; inadequate to prove standing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boyd v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 143 So. 3d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (standard of de novo review for sufficiency of evidence on standing)
- McLean v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 79 So. 3d 170 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (standing must exist when suit is filed; acceptable proof methods)
- Vidal v. Liquidation Props., Inc., 104 So. 3d 1274 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (back‑dating assignments raises ambiguous inferences and requires proof)
- GMAC Mortg., LLC v. Choengkroy, 98 So. 3d 781 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (standing must exist at filing)
- Rigby v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 84 So. 3d 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (methods to prove standing: endorsed note, assignment, or affidavit of ownership)
- Sosa v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 153 So. 3d 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (undated endorsement requires additional evidence, e.g., litigation analyst testimony, to prove timing)
- De Groot v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1957) (evidence must be sufficiently relevant and material to support ultimate finding)