It is well settled that a substituted plaintiff stands in the shoes of the original plaintiff and "acquires the standing (if any) of the original plaintiff at the time the case was filed." Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Bo Chan, 226 So. 3d 330, 332 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (quoting Sandefur v. RVS Cap., LLC, 183 So. 3d 1258, 1260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) ). The permissible grounds for substitution under rule 1.260 (none of which were argued below) essentially place a new representative in the shoes of the original plaintiff, subject to the same allegations of standing.

When, as in the instant case, the plaintiff at trial is not the original plaintiff, the substitute plaintiff stands in the shoes of the original plaintiff and acquires the original plaintiff's standing at the time the case was filed. Id.; Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Bo Chan, 226 So. 3d 330, 332 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). Aurora's complaint alleged that it was both the holder of the note and the servicer of the loan.

However, as the substitute plaintiff, PMT stood in the shoes of the original plaintiff/mortgagee and acquired the standing, if any, of the original plaintiff at the time the case was filed. Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Bo Chan, 226 So.3d 330, 332 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). Here, the unrefuted evidence established that the original plaintiff, PennyMac Mortgage, filed with the court the original note with the blank indorsement that was in the same condition as the copy that it attached to the initial complaint with no subsequent contradictory indorsements.

Here, not only did Nationstar establish itself as the holder of the note at the time of trial, but contrary to the Johnsons' tipsy coachman argument, Wells Fargo had standing to foreclose when it filed the original complaint: the copy of the blank-indorsed note that Wells Fargo attached to its original complaint was identical to the original note that it subsequently filed with the court and was the very same note that Nationstar later introduced at trial. See U.S. Bank, N.A. for Truman 2012 SC2 Title Tr. v. Glicken, 228 So.3d 1194, 1196 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) ("When the note with an undated blank indorsement has been attached to the original complaint, this is sufficient to prove standing provided that the plaintiff produces the original note at trial or files it with the trial court with the same indorsement and there are no subsequent contradictory indorsements."); cf. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, v. Bo Chan, 226 So.3d 330, 332 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) ("[A]s the substitute plaintiff, Appellant ‘stands in the shoes of the original plaintiff/mortgagee’ and ‘acquires the standing (if any) of the original plaintiff at the time the case was filed.’ " (quoting Sandefur v. RVS Capital, LLC, 183 So.3d 1258, 1260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) ) ).

When the note with an undated blank indorsement has been attached to the original complaint, this is sufficient to prove standing provided that the plaintiff produces the original note at trial or files it with the trial court with the same indorsement and there are no subsequent contradictory indorsements. See Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Bo Chan, 226 So.3d 330 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) ; Ortiz v. PNC Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, 188 So.3d 923, 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) ; Eagles Master Ass'n v. Bank of Am., N.A., 198 So.3d 12, 14 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (citing Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc. v. Bednarek, 132 So.3d 1222 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) ); Le v. U.S. Bank, 165 So.3d 776, 778 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) ; Clay Cty. Land Tr. No. 08–04–25–0078–014–27, Orange Park Tr. Servs., LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, 152 So.3d 83, 85 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (citing Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Morcom, 125 So.3d 320, 321–22 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) ).Here, Wells Fargo attached a copy of the note and the allonge containing the blank indorsement from the original lender, First Union, to the foreclosure complaint. Subsequently, the original note and allonge, which are identical to the copies that were attached to the foreclosure complaint, were filed with the trial court by U.S. Bank and were admitted into evidence at trial.