Winchel v. PennyMac Corp.
222 So. 3d 639
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- JPMorgan Chase filed a complaint to reestablish a lost note and foreclose a mortgage against Gregory Winchel; the attached copies did not establish JPMorgan's right to enforce the note.
- After the complaint, an original note with an undated blank endorsement by Countrywide was filed; JPMorgan later moved to substitute PennyMac as plaintiff and an assignment of the mortgage (but not the note) from JPMorgan to PennyMac was attached.
- Winchel pleaded lack of standing at inception as an affirmative defense. The case was referred to a foreclosure magistrate for a nonjury trial.
- Winchel’s counsel did not appear at the trial; the magistrate denied an emergency continuance and conducted the trial with only PennyMac’s counsel presenting evidence.
- PennyMac introduced a limited power of attorney, an acceleration notice, and payment history; it did not present evidence showing JPMorgan (the original plaintiff) had possession or holder status of the note when it filed the complaint.
- The magistrate recommended entry of foreclosure; the trial court adopted the report and entered final judgment. The Second District reversed for failure to prove standing at inception and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Winchel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing at inception (whether plaintiff had right to enforce note when complaint filed) | PennyMac contended it (via JPMorgan predecessor and subsequent substitution) was entitled to enforce the note because it or its predecessors held the note or had holder rights. | Winchel asserted lack of standing at inception as an affirmative defense — plaintiff bore burden to prove standing when suit was filed. | Reversed: PennyMac failed to prove JPMorgan had holder or possession rights at the time the complaint was filed; standing at inception not established. |
| Preservation of sufficiency challenge on appeal after nonjury trial before magistrate | PennyMac argued Winchel waived challenge by not objecting at trial or in exceptions to the magistrate’s report. | Winchel invoked Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.530(e): sufficiency of the evidence in a nonjury trial may be raised on appeal even without trial objection. | Held for Winchel: Rule 1.530(e) allows appellate review of sufficiency of evidence despite lack of trial objection in nonjury proceedings before a magistrate. |
| Whether magistrate nonappearance/denial of continuance foreclosed appellate review | PennyMac argued procedural default; also contended a magistrate trial is not a trial "before the court" under rule 1.530(e). | Winchel argued magistrate acted as court officer and rule 1.530(e) applies; insufficiency review preserved. | Held: Magistrate acted for the court under rule 1.491; rule 1.530(e) applies and sufficiency review is available on appeal. |
| Remedy after plaintiff fails to prove standing at trial | PennyMac implicitly sought reversal without judgment for defendant or remand for retrial. | Winchel requested reversal and entry of judgment in his favor because plaintiff failed to meet its burden at trial. | Court reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Winchel (no retrial), finding no principled basis to allow a do-over. |
Key Cases Cited
- St. Clair v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 173 So. 3d 1045 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (standard of review and standing principles)
- Dage v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., 95 So. 3d 1021 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (lack of standing is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded)
- Phan v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., 198 So. 3d 744 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (plaintiff must prove possession at commencement to show holder status)
- Corrigan v. Bank of Am., N.A., 189 So. 3d 187 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (undated endorsement and post-complaint assignment do not establish standing at inception)
- Correa v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 118 So. 3d 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (rule 1.530(e) allows appellate review of sufficiency after nonjury trial)
- Jallali v. Christiana Tr., 200 So. 3d 149 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (reversal where plaintiff failed to prove standing at inception)
- Wolkoff v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., 153 So. 3d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (court generally will not remand for retrial when plaintiff fails to prove its case at trial)