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.”).
"Statutory interpretation and standing also receive de novo review." Id. (first citing Therlonge v. State, 184 So. 3d 1120, 1121 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015); and then citing Matthews v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass’n, 160 So. 3d 131, 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)). "Section 627.7152 … was enacted by the Florida legislature in 2019 to regulate assignment agreements that seek to transfer insurance benefits from the policyholder to a third party."
(statutory interpretation); Matthews v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n , 160 So. 3d 131, 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (standing). Violation of Section 627.7152(2)(a) 4.
Statutory interpretation and standing also receive de novo review. Therlonge v. State, 184 So.3d 1120, 1121 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (statutory interpretation); Matthews v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 160 So.3d 131, 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (standing). The trial court found that paragraph 9 of the assignment detailing a price listing for services that "could be performed, absent some indicator of what services actually are estimated to be performed," did not comply with section 627.7152(2)(a)4.
"A de novo standard of review applies when reviewing whether a party has standing to bring an action." Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y, FSB v. Stevens , 290 So. 3d 115, 117 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (quoting Matthews v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n , 160 So. 3d 131, 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) ). A party seeking to enforce a contract as a third-party beneficiary must allege four elements: "(1) existence of a contract; (2) the clear or manifest intent of the contracting parties that the contract primarily and directly benefit the third party; (3) breach of the contract by a contracting party; and (4) damages to the third party resulting from the breach."
"A de novo standard of review applies when reviewing whether a party has standing to bring an action." Matthews v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n , 160 So. 3d 131, 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (quoting Boyd v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. , 143 So. 3d 1128, 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) ). The "standard of review for a motion for involuntary dismissal is [also] de novo."
Second, CitiMortgage's witness did not testify that the assignment occurred before the complaint was filed. See Lloyd v. Bank of New York Mellon, 160 So.3d 513, 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (holding that the bank did not establish standing on basis of backdated assignment where the bank's witness did not testify that assignment predated filing of complaint); see also Matthews v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 160 So.3d 131, 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) ("[A] backdated assignment, standing alone, [does not] establish standing.").While CitiMortgage contends that the date the assignment was executed was not determinative because it was simply memorializing an earlier transfer, CitiMortgage presented no evidence in support of this contention, such as evidence that the note and mortgage were delivered to CitiMortgage in 2007 with the intention of passing title.
See Dickson v. Roseville Props., LLC, ––– So.3d ––––, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D2520, 2015 WL 6777155 (Fla. 2d DCA Nov. 6, 2015) (“For better or for worse, it is settled that it is not enough for the plaintiff to prove that it has standing when the case is tried; it must also prove that it had standing when the complaint was filed.”); Ham v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 164 So.3d 714, 718 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (reversing foreclosure judgment where plaintiff could not establish standing at the time the original complaint was filed; “Although this rule has been criticized at times, we are bound to follow this long-standing rule....”); Matthews v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 160 So.3d 131, 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“A party must have standing to file suit at its inception and may not remedy this defect by subsequently obtaining standing.” (quoting Venture Holdings & Acquisitions Grp., LLC v. A.I.M. Funding Grp., LLC, 75 So.3d 773, 776 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011))). Indeed, as one of my colleagues observed, this rule is now “axiomatic.
By now it should be understood that a plaintiff's standing at inception of the suit is not established by filing the note with an undated endorsement after the complaint has been filed. See Matthews v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 160 So.3d 131, 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (holding that standing at inception of the suit was not established where the note attached to the complaint was not made payable to the plaintiff and contained no endorsement, even though the original note endorsed in blank was introduced at trial); Focht v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 124 So.3d 308, 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (finding that bank's submission of original note endorsed in blank did not establish standing at inception of suit where it was submitted several months after bank filed the complaint); McLean v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 79 So.3d 170, 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“ ‘[T]he plaintiff's lack of standing at the inception of the case is not a defect that may be cured by the acquisition of standing after the case is filed.’ Thus, a party is not permitted to establish the right to maintain an action retroactively by acquiring standing to file a lawsuit after the fact.
CIKLIN, C.J., and FORST, J., concur.Matthews v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 160 So.3d 131, 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“[T]he backdated assignment, standing alone, [does not] establish standing.”). The assignment was not admitted into evidence.