Harris v. HSBC Bank, USA, NA | note’s endorsement to the bank was undated…the assignment was “backdated”…factual issue of whether the note was assigned to the bank

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Harris v. HSBC Bank, USA, NA | note’s endorsement to the bank was undated…the assignment was “backdated”…factual issue of whether the note was assigned to the bank

Harris v. HSBC Bank, USA, NA | note’s endorsement to the bank was undated…the assignment was “backdated”…factual issue of whether the note was assigned to the bank

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT

JUNIOR A. HARRIS,
Appellant,

v.

HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
as Trustee for NAAC Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-1,
Appellee.

No. 4D14-54

[September 9, 2015]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Cynthia G. Imperato, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE08029493(11).

Kenneth V. Hemmerle, II, Fort Lauderdale, and Richard P. McCusker, Jr., Delray Beach, for appellant.

Donna L. Eng, Michael K. Winston, and Dean A. Morande of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

GERBER, J.

The borrower appeals from a final judgment of foreclosure entered for the bank after a trial. The borrower argues that the bank failed to prove it had standing when it filed the action. We agree and reverse for entry of judgment for the borrower.

The bank’s original complaint attached a copy of a note payable to another entity. The note did not contain an endorsement.

 

The bank later filed a second amended complaint. Attached were copies of the note and an assignment of the note. The note now contained an endorsement to the bank. However, the endorsement was undated. The assignment purported to transfer the note to the bank on an “effective” date before the bank filed its original complaint.

However, the assignment was executed after the bank filed its original complaint.

The borrower answered and raised lack of standing as an affirmative defense. The borrower argued that the endorsement was undated and the assignment was executed after the bank filed its original complaint.

At trial, the bank introduced into evidence the original note and the assignment. On the factual issue of whether the note was assigned to the bank before or after the bank filed the original complaint, the bank’s witness possessed no knowledge or information other than what the assignment’s face reflected.

After the close of all evidence, the trial court entered a final judgment of foreclosure for the bank.
This appeal followed. Our review is de novo. See Lloyd v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 160 So. 3d 513, 514 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“We review the sufficiency of the evidence to prove standing to bring a foreclosure action de novo.”) (citation omitted).

We agree with the borrower that the bank failed to prove it had standing when it filed the action. We reach this conclusion for three reasons.

 

First, the note’s endorsement to the bank was undated. See Matthews v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 160 So. 3d 131, 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“[T]he note introduced at trial . . . did not establish standing when the suit was commenced. The blank endorsement was undated.”).

Second, the assignment was “backdated” after the bank filed the action. See id. (“Nor does the backdated assignment, standing alone, establish standing.”) (citation omitted); Vidal v. Liquidation Props., Inc., 104 So. 3d 1274, 1277 n.1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (“Allowing assignments to be retroactively effective would be inimical to the requirements of pre-suit ownership for standing in foreclosure cases.”).

Third, on the factual issue of whether the note was assigned to the bank before or after the bank filed the original complaint, the bank’s witness possessed no knowledge or information other than what the assignment’s face reflected. See Lloyd, 160 So. 3d at 515 (“Plaintiff’s evidence supporting its claim that the assignment . . . ‘related back’ to before the suit commenced was also insufficient to prove standing in this case. The witness testified that he did not have any information, other than the document itself, to verify when the assignment took place.”).

Based on the foregoing, we reverse and remand for entry of judgment for the borrower.

Reversed and remanded.

GROSS and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

Down Load PDF of This Case

 

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 8506 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author

3 Responses to “Harris v. HSBC Bank, USA, NA | note’s endorsement to the bank was undated…the assignment was “backdated”…factual issue of whether the note was assigned to the bank”

  1. Stupendous Man - Defender of Liberty, Foe of Tyranny says:

    I appreciate the opinions that have been coming out of the FL 4th DCA for the past number of months.

    However, the lower court jurists are sill refusing to rule in accordance with the facts, the law, and the rules of evidence and procedure. Add to that list the more recent opinions coming out of the 4th DCA.

    I don’t know the actual numbers but I speculate fewer than 1 in 1000 cases is even taken up on appeal.

    I no longer think of our courts as a “justice” system. A “judicial” system, OK. But not justice.

  2. GREAG says:

    CORRUPT NEW JERSEY JUDGE GERALD C ESCALA OF BERGEN COUNTY MUST BE FORCED TO READ THIS CASE SINCE HE IS KNOWN TO BE A RUBBER
    STAMPER FOR ALL THE BANKSTERS AND ALWAS GIVE THEM HOMEOWNERS HOMES REGARDLESS IF THE BANKSTERS ,EVEN OWN THE NOTE AND /OR THE MORTGAGE.

  3. tony says:

    NJ JUDGE MR ESCALA LEARN THE LAW READ THIS CASE YOU WAY TOO IGNORANT

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Kenneth Eric Trent, www.ForeclosureDestroyer.com

Archives