Wisman v. Nationstar Mortgage, 239 So. 3d 726

Nationstar filed a foreclosure complaint and a lost-note replevin claim in Dec. 2014 against Mary Wisman, alleging it was entitled to enforce the note under Fla. Stat. § 673.3091 as an entity not in possession.
Nationstar attached the note (showing Del Webb as original lender and a blank indorsement executed by Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (CHL Inc.)), the mortgage (naming MERS as nominee for Del Webb), and a Nationstar lost-note affidavit (LNA) asserting FHLMC owned the note since 12/27/2001.
The Nationstar LNA relied primarily on an inter-office email referencing an FHLMC loan number and a “12/27/01 funding date”; it did not identify the specific note or show a direct transfer to FHLMC.
Evidence at trial included corporate documents showing CHL Servicing, LP (later BAC) was an affiliate of CHL Inc., assignments: MERS→BAC (Mar. 24, 2011) and CHL Inc.→Nationstar (Nov. 13, 2012), and testimony claiming the note was lost while held by CHL/BAC/Bank of America as FHLMC’s servicer.
The trial court denied Wisman’s motion for involuntary dismissal and entered final judgment for Nationstar; the Fifth District reversed, holding Nationstar failed to prove standing at the time of filing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Nationstar had standing to foreclose as a person not in possession entitled to enforce under §673.3091	Nationstar: lost-note affidavits and corporate/assignment documents show FHLMC owned the note when it was lost and Nationstar held enforcement rights	Wisman: Nationstar failed to prove ownership/entitlement at time of loss; documents do not tie FHLMC to the specific note or show chain to Nationstar at filing	Reversed: Nationstar failed to present competent, substantial evidence of standing at filing under §673.3091; judgment vacated and involuntary dismissal directed
Whether inter-office email and affiliate documents sufficed to prove ownership and entitlement to enforce	Nationstar: email and affiliate records establish FHLMC loan ownership and servicing history supporting standing	Wisman: email is not specific to the note; corporate documents show affiliations but do not prove CHL Inc. and CHL Servicing/BAC are the same or that FHLMC owned the specific note	Held: Such evidence was insufficient; email did not reference the specific note and the corporate documents did not establish legal transfer/ownership to FHLMC or Nationstar at the time of loss

Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc’y, FSB v. Louissaint, 212 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 5th DCA) (party must prove standing to foreclose at time of filing)
Schmidt v. Deutsche Bank, 170 So. 3d 938 (Fla. 5th DCA) (standing requirement in foreclosure actions)
Gorel v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 165 So. 3d 44 (Fla. 5th DCA) (definition of person entitled to enforce under Fla. Stat. § 673.3011)
Home Outlet, LLC v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 194 So. 3d 1075 (Fla. 5th DCA) (lost-note claim may be proved by affidavit or knowledgeable testimony)
Sosa v. Safeway Premium Fin. Co., 73 So. 3d 91 (Fla.) (standing determination reviewed de novo)
Figueroa v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 180 So. 3d 1110 (Fla. 5th DCA) (standing and enforcement under UCC provisions)
Lacombe v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 149 So. 3d 152 (Fla. 1st DCA) (absent evidence of plaintiff’s standing, final judgment must be reversed)
Johnson v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 222 So. 3d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA) (servicer records without specific reference to the note insufficient to prove holder/standing)