PRO

Ricardo Manuel Corona's Legal Cases (2)

Call for a FREE consultation Call (954) 335-7753 Message View Profile

Foreclosure

Cruz v Jp Morgan Chase

Jun 15, 2016

OUTCOME: Reversed in favor of home owners

PMorgan alleged that it was the note holder, but it failed to prove its holder status at trial. JPMorgan did not attach the note to the complaint. It introduced a copy of the note at trial, which cont ... ained an attached allonge indicating a blank endorsement from “JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA Successor in Interest by Purchaser from the FDIC as receiver of Washington Mutual Bank F/K/A Washington Mutual Bank, FA.” However, PennyMac Loan Services' witness did not testify to when the allonge was attached to the note or when the endorsement occurred. No other record evidence indicated when it occurred or when JPMorgan became the note holder. See Peoples v. Sami II Trust 2006–AR6, 178 So.3d 67, 69–70 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). Although JPMorgan does not meet any of the requirements of a holder—and does not attempt to prove it did—it argues it proved standing because it owned the note and mortgage when it initiated the foreclosure action. It argues the 2008 PAA and a 2014 assignment of mortgage proved ownership. We disagree. To prove its standing to foreclose, JPMorgan would have to prove it was “[a] person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to s[ection] 673.3091 or s[ection] 673.4181(4).” § 673.3011(3), Fla. Stat. “[N]othing in [section 673.3011] allows an ‘owner’ to enforce the note without possession, except where the instrument is lost or destroyed.” Snyder v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, 169 So.3d 1270, 1273 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). Therefore, JPMorgan would have to prove: (1) it was the owner, and (2) reestablishment of the lost note under section 673.3091. See id. *997 Here, there was no proof that JPMorgan had possession of the note at the time it filed the complaint. JPMorgan acknowledged that the note was lost and not in its custody or control. Because the original note was never filed with the court and there was no other evidence of possession, no competent substantial evidence exists of possession. See id. at 1272. And, similar to Snyder, there exists no competent substantial evidence of ownership. The PAA has caveats where JPMorgan could refuse to acquire assets and there is no record evidence that the FDIC transferred the note to JPMorgan before the complaint was filed. Id. We reverse the final judgment of foreclosure based on JPMorgan's failure to prove standing. We reverse and remand for entry of an involuntary dismissal of the foreclosure complaint

Foreclosure

SOSA v. The BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,

Mar 23, 2016

OUTCOME: Reversed

The Bank filed a mortgage foreclosure complaint against Homeowners alleging one count of foreclosure and one count for reestablishment of a lost note. Although it was not the original lender, the Bank ... alleged that it was the owner and holder of the Note and Mortgage and, in support, attached a copy of the Note containing a blank indorsement. The matter proceeded to a bench trial. At the onset, the Bank announced it had located the original Note and intended to submit it as evidence. The Bank then called a loan verification analyst for its purported servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as its only witness. Through the analyst, the Bank introduced the original Note which, unlike the copy of the Note attached to its complaint, was specially indorsed to JP Morgan Bank as Trustee (“JP Morgan”). When asked about her knowledge of how the Bank acquired the Note from JP Morgan, the witness testified that she learned about the transfer through general research she did “on the internet” and that “the internet will illustrate the transfer occurred in 2006.” The Bank did not present any additional evidence establishing that it acquired the Note prior to filing the foreclosure action. At the conclusion of the witness' testimony, the Bank rested. At that point, Homeowners moved for an involuntary dismissal, arguing that the Bank failed to establish it had standing. Homeowners pointed out that the Note was indorsed to JP Morgan and there was no evidence establishing a relationship between JP Morgan and the Bank. The Bank countered that it identified itself as the successor in interest to JP Morgan in the style of the complaint. The court denied Homeowners' motion and ultimately entered judgment in favor of the Bank. The Court found that the evidence was insufficient for successor to original mortgagee to establish standing, as nonholder in possession, to bring foreclosure action against mortgagors, where loan verification analyst testifying for successor did not work for successor or other bank to which special indorsement on note was made, and analyst's entire body of knowledge on how successor acquired note was limited to what analyst learned from search on “the internet.” West's F.S.A. § 673.2051(1).