Partridge v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC

6 Citing cases

  1. Forty One Yellow, LLC v. Escalona

    305 So. 3d 782 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 6 times
    Agreeing with the First District that "[s]ection 673.3091 does not create a standalone cause of action apart from a breach" (quoting Mielke v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. , 264 So. 3d 249, 253 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) )

    It is by now well established that an assignment that transfers only the mortgage and not the note is insufficient to show standing." (citing Verizzo v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 220 So. 3d 1262, 1266 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) )); Partridge v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 224 So. 3d 839, 841-42 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (holding that an assignment of mortgage made to loan servicer failed to establish servicer's standing to foreclose where there was no evidence that servicer acquired an interest in the note); Verizzo, 220 So. 3d at 1266 ("[T]he assignments do not purport to transfer the note, and our court has held that an assignment of mortgage that does not also transfer the note, at least standing alone, does not prove that a foreclosure plaintiff has the rights to enforce the note."); Eaddy v. Bank of Am., N.A., 197 So. 3d 1278, 1280 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (holding that plaintiff failed to prove standing where "the assignment of mortgage attached to [the] amended complaint reflects only the transfer of the mortgage and not the note"); Caballero v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 189 So. 3d 1044, 1046 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) ("[T]he assignment was insufficient to show standing because it only purported to assign the mortgage, not the note."); Bristol v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, 137 So. 3d 1130, 1133 (Fla. 4th

  2. Scott v. Strategic Realty Fund

    311 So. 3d 113 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    And, attendant to the escalating number of transfers is, to use the parlance advanced by SRF, a corresponding likelihood of "inadvertence," resulting in errors, misstatements, omissions, or oversights in preparing the assignment documents. See, e.g., Partridge v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 224 So. 3d 839, 841-42 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (holding that an assignment of mortgage made to loan servicer failed to establish servicer's standing to foreclose where there was no evidence that servicer acquired an interest in the note); Verizzo v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 220 So. 3d 1262, 1266 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ("[T]he assignments do not purport to transfer the note, and our court has held that an assignment of mortgage that does not also transfer the note, at least standing alone, does not prove that a foreclosure plaintiff has the rights to enforce the note."); Caballero v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 189 So. 3d 1044, 1046 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) ("[T]he assignment was insufficient to show standing because it only purported to assign the mortgage, not the note."); see also Eaddy v. Bank of Am., N.A., 197 So. 3d 1278, 1280 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (holding that plaintiff failed to prove standing where "the assignment of mortgage attached to [the] amended complaint reflects only the transfer of the mortgage and not the note"). Be that as it may, t

  3. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Brown

    293 So. 3d 998 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019)

    Affirmed. See Partridge v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 224 So. 3d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ; Geweye v. Ventures Trust 2013-I-H-R, 189 So. 3d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). NORTHCUTT, CASANUEVA, and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.

  4. Maki v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC

    257 So. 3d 1237 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)

    We reverse and remand with directions that the trial court enter an order of involuntary dismissal, which is the relief the appellants properly sought in the trial court. See, e.g., Partridge v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 224 So.3d 839, 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017).Reversed and remanded with directions.

  5. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Noll

    261 So. 3d 656 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 2 times
    Stating that a party may still have power to exercise control over a note even though it is possessed by the Clerk of the Court

    Mr. Noll points out two cases in which this court has decided that a plaintiff lacked standing where the original notes were filed with the clerk of court in the case files of prior foreclosure actions. However, these cases— 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) —do not support his position. 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.

  6. Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Johnson

    250 So. 3d 808 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that the substitute plaintiff's physical possession of the original, blank-indorsed note at trial established its standing to enforce it

    Nationstar, therefore, physically possessed the note at trial and had standing to foreclose at that time as the holder of the note. See § 671.201(21)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016) (defining "holder" as "[t]he person in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either to bearer or to an identified person that is the person in possession"); see also Caraccia v. U.S. Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, 185 So.3d 1277, 1279 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) ("A negotiable instrument ... is enforceable by the holder ...."); cf. Partridge v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 224 So.3d 839, 841–42 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (reversing the final judgment and directing the trial court to grant summary judgment in favor of the mortgagor because the original lender had filed the original note with the trial court long before Nationstar commenced its foreclosure action and "Nationstar's unilateral decision to leave the original note ... with the trial court does not establish possession of the note"). Contrary to the Johnsons' contention, Nationstar did not have to show that Wells Fargo had formally transferred the note to it; Nationstar's physical possession of the blank-indorsed note was sufficient to establish its status as the holder.