Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, etc. v. Noll | Florida's Second DCA Clarifies on Standing if New Case is Commenced While the Clerk Possesses the Note

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, etc. v. Noll | Florida’s Second DCA Clarifies on Standing if New Case is Commenced While the Clerk Possesses the Note

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, etc. v. Noll | Florida’s Second DCA Clarifies on Standing if New Case is Commenced While the Clerk Possesses the Note

JD SUPRA-

On October 31, 2018, Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal recently distinguished two of its prior opinions and held that a foreclosure plaintiff does not lose its standing as a holder of a negotiable instrument if it surrenders a promissory note to the clerk of court for purposes of obtaining a foreclosure judgment, and later re-files the action without retaking possession of the note from the clerk.

Two prior opinions from the Second District Court of Appeal, Partridge v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, 224 So. 3d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) and Geweye v. Ventures Trust 2013-I-H-R, 189 So. 3d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) were often misinterpreted by foreclosure defense counsel as holding that a foreclosure plaintiff that surrenders the note and mortgage somehow loses the necessary standing to commence a new foreclosure action.

However, in the opinion issued in Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, etc. v. William Noll, 2D16-5635, the Second District Court of Appeal clarified its prior opinions, stating that:

“At issue in Partridge was a purported assignment of the mortgage, but not the note, after the original note was filed with the court in the prior foreclosure action instituted by a different plaintiff. Geweye, on which this court relied in Partridge, did not address whether the plaintiff had standing at the inception of the action. Rather, the court held that the substituted plaintiff lacked standing to enforce the note at the time of trial despite the original note having been in the court file because the evidence established the mortgage, but not the note, had been assigned to the plaintiff. This case does not turn on the effectiveness of a post-commencement assignment after the original note was surrendered to the clerk.” (internal citations and quotations omitted)

[JD SUPRA]

165635_39_10312018_08570471_i by DinSFLA on Scribd

© 2010-18 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 9099 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

Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com

Archives