FL 4th DCA Fraudclosure Reversed | McLEAN vs JP MORGAN CHASE BANK – The record lacked any evidence that Chase had standing to foreclose at the time the lawsuit was filed

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
July Term 2011
ROBERT McLEAN,
Appellant,
v.
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, not individually
but solely as Trustee for the holders of STRUCTURED ASSET
MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS II, INC., MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-ARS,
Appellee.
No. 4D10-3429
[ December 14, 2011 ]

PER CURIAM.

Robert McLean appeals a final judgment of foreclosure entered in favor of JP Morgan Chase Bank (“Chase”) as Trustee for holders of certain mortgage pass-through certificates. We reverse, concluding that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment in Chase’s favor, where the record lacked any evidence that Chase had standing to foreclose at the time the lawsuit was filed.

On Ma y 11, 2009, Chase filed a two-count mortgage foreclosure action against the appellant, Robert McLean. The complaint generally alleged that McLean had defaulted under the note and mortgage, and that Chase was “the legal and/or equitable owner and holder of the Note and Mortgage and has the right to enforce the loan documents.” Count I of the complaint was entitled “Mortgage Foreclosure,” while Count II was entitled “Reestablishment of Lost Note.” Count II alleged that Chase “is not in possession of the subject Promissory Note and [Chase] cannot reasonably obtain possession of said Note because it is lost, stolen, or destroyed.” The copy of the mortgage attached to the complaint stated that the lender was American Brokers Conduit and that the mortgagee was MERS.

McLean filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court denied on April 7, 2010. However, in the order denying McLean’s motion to dismiss, the trial court ordered Chase to file and serve within fifteen days “a copy of the assignment by which it obtained its rights and standing to proceed in this cause . . . .” In compliance with the trial court’s order, Chase filed a n Assignment of Mortgage, which reflected that MERS assigned the mortgage to Chase. However, the Assignment of Mortgage was signed by MERS representatives on May 14, 2009, three days after Chase filed the instant foreclosure complaint.

McLean filed a second motion to dismiss, arguing that Chase did not have standing to file its complaint because on the date of filing, May 11, 2009, Chase was not the owner of the Note and Mortgage. The trial court denied McLean’s second motion to dismiss. Subsequently, on May 13, 2010, McLean filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses, raising various affirmative defenses, including the defense that Chase did not have standing to file its complaint.

Subsequently, Chase filed the original note and mortgage, as well as a reply to McLean’s affirmative defenses. The original note bore a special endorsement, stating: “Pay to the Order of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Trustee Without Recourse By: American Brokers Conduit.” The endorsement to the note was not dated.

Chase filed a motion for summary judgment, as well as an affidavit in support of summary judgment. The affidavit, which was executed by a representative of American Home Mortgage Servicing after the lawsuit was filed, set forth the amounts due and owing under the loan. The affidavit further stated that Chase “is the holder and owner” of the mortgage originally given by Robert McLean to MERS. However, the affidavit did not specifically state when Chase became the owner of the note and mortgage, nor did the affidavit indicate that Chase was the owner of the note and mortgage before suit was filed. In fact, the affidavit failed to mention a n y endorsement of the note to Chase.

Following a hearing on Chase’s motion for summary judgment, the trial court entered a final judgment of foreclosure in favor of Chase. McLean appealed.

Full opinion below…

~

4closureFraud.org

~

McLEAN vs JP MORGAN CHASE BANK

Comments
2 Responses to “FL 4th DCA Fraudclosure Reversed | McLEAN vs JP MORGAN CHASE BANK – The record lacked any evidence that Chase had standing to foreclose at the time the lawsuit was filed”
  1. indio007 says:

    What a pathetic lie to say Linda Green or any other robosigner had a corporate resolution drawn up to make them officers of the lenders. That is BS of the highest order. For a change in corporate resolution the board of directors needs to vote. I seriously doubt JPM or any other bank, voted to make Linda Green, a corporate signer. This only proves the IG and Dawson are all incompetent I almost can’t believe they are trying to paint people with the same ink they themselves are stained with.

    They could have looked it up in wikipedia the dumb asses.

    Certain acts (like conveying real property)can only be performed by executive officers and only a formal corporate resolution can give the authority.

    Chicago Title Company seems to think corporate conveyances of real estate are a little more complex for a foreign (to Florida that is)corporation than these clowns suggest.
    In fact, they seem to think Florida Statues require certification of signing authority from the state they are incorporated in.
    CORPORATIONS – Chicago Title Florida
    http://tinyurl.com/6p8qxkf

  2. COCO says:

    I am so glad to see this. My foreclosure sale is set for 1-5-12 in Lee county, Florida. Almost the exact scenario. The opposing counsel has been made aware of the lack of standing for Bank of New York Mellon to foreclosue due to a robo signed Asiignment of Mortgage 2 and 1/2 months after the Lis Pendens was filed. It is FRAUD UPON THE COURT. There is no statute of limitations for FRAUD UPON THE COURT. If enough of us continue to fight , we will win.

Leave a Reply