Wane v. Loan Corp.
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25245
M.D. Fla.2013Background
- Wanes refinanced in 2006 with a Note for $400,000 and a Mortgage to The Loan Corporation; Note/Mortgage later assigned to Bank United entities via FDIC resolution; arrears began 2009 with default on Jan 1, 2009 and a February 5, 2009 default letter; Wanes sent an August 30, 2009 rescission letter under TILA/Reg Z with Bank United copied; state court quiet-title action filed 2010 against The Loan Corporation (Bank United intervened); state court found against The Loan Corporation, with findings about ownership and timing of the rescission; FDIC removed the action to federal court in 2011; Wanes amended complaint seeking rescission/quiet-title; Bank United moved for summary judgment on its counterclaims; multiple motions to strike affidavits were resolved; the court grants Bank United summary judgment on its counterclaims and denies Wanes’ bid for quiet title.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wanes’ quiet-title claim is meritorious against Bank United | Wanes claim unenforceable loan due to rescission | Mortgage valid; rescission ineffective; proper ownership shown | No; Bank United's mortgage valid and enforceable |
| Whether documentary stamps and licensure affect enforceability | Stamps not paid; licensure lacking invalidates loan | Stamps paid; licensure not essential to validity | No; stamps paid; licensure deficiency not fatal |
| Whether Jennifer Jones’s signature/assignment validity undermines loan | Jones acted beyond authority; forged signature possible | Jones testified she signed; Florida law allows corporate officers to execute | No; Jones signatures valid and authorized under Florida law |
| Whether Bank United’s counterclaims for breach of note and money lent survive | Breach/loan not proven; defenses strong | There was a valid contract, breach, and unpaid loan; evidence supports claims | Yes; Bank United entitled to summary judgment on counterclaims |
Key Cases Cited
- Raymar Development Corp. v. Barbara, 404 So.2d 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (mortgage witnessing requirements not mandatory for validity)
- Walker v. Jacksonville, 860 So.2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (two witnesses not required for mortgage validity)
- United National Bank of Miami v. Airport Plaza Ltd. Partnership, 537 So.2d 608 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (broker license absence does not invalidate note/mortgage)
- McMillian v. Johnson, 88 F.3d 1573 (11th Cir. 1996) (courts may consider otherwise admissible evidence offered in inadmissible form at summary judgment)
- Hughes v. Amerada Hess Corp., 187 F.R.D. 682 (M.D. Fla. 1999) (Rule 12(f) strike standards for affidavits; relevance to strikes)