Summary
finding that plaintiff established a prima facie case of its claim to enforce the note by producing the original note
Summary of this case from Wells Fargo Bank v. BarbeOpinion
No. 2020-C-01359
02-09-2021
CONSUMER SOLUTIONS, LLC v. Theodore R. THOMPSON
PER CURIAM
Writ granted. In a suit on a promissory note, the payee who produces the note sued upon makes out a prima facie case of its claim to enforce the note. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Boohaker , 14-0594 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/20/14), 168 So.3d 421. At the trial of this matter, the applicant produced the original note, and therefore successfully made a prima facie case of its right to enforcement. The mere fact that Consumer Solutions, LLC may not have had physical possession of the note when the suit was filed does not, in and of itself, defeat applicant's claim to the right to enforce. See LSA-R.S. 10:3-301.
Moreover, the evidence establishes that the note at issue herein was originally executed by Thompson and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (Ocwen). In an attached allonge, Ocwen indorsed the note to Funding America Mortgage Warehouse Trust. In a second attached allonge, Funding America Mortgage Warehouse Trust indorsed the note in blank, thereby making the note payable to bearer, pursuant to LSA-R.S. 10:3-109(c) and LSA-R.S. 10:3-205(b). No evidence was offered indicating any further indorsements to the note. The evidence further included an assignment of the note, executed by Funding America Mortgage Warehouse Trust in 2006, in favor of Consumer Solutions, LLC, as well as assignments wherein Consumer Solutions, LLC assigned the note to GRA Legal Title Trust II 2013-1, U.S. Bank, National Association, As Legal Title Trustee, which then assigned the note to the applicant. As such, the applicant not only produced the original note, endorsed in blank, but the applicant produced assignments establishing transference of the note from the original maker to itself. The TC therefore legally erred in finding that the applicant failed to establish its right to enforce the note at issue, and dismissing the suit with prejudice.
The opinion of the Court of Appeal refers to "numerous affirmative defenses" raised by the respondent. Due to its determination that the applicant had no right of action, the Court of Appeal failed to conduct any discussion or analysis of respondent's defenses, and it does not appear that any rulings were rendered thereon. As such, the writ is granted and this matter is remanded to the Court of Appeal for the purpose of clarifying that the applicant has a right of action to assert the claims herein, and for consideration of any affirmative defenses raised by the respondent.