FL 5th DCA: Green v. JP Morgan Chase – Summary Judgement REVERSED – Standing – Indorsement in blank did not establish Bank had the right to enforce the note
CHARLES R. GREEN,
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
Opinion filed April 5, 2013
Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Brevard County,
George W. Maxwell III, Judge.
Charles R. Green, Indialantic, pro se.
Kimberly S. Mello, of Greenberg Traurig,
P.A., Tampa, and Michele L. Stocker of
Greenberg Traurig, Ft. Lauderdale, for
The Bank’s motion for summary judgment asserted that the Bank had standing as the holder of the note, as evidenced by its earlier filing of the original promissory note. The note contained an indorsement in blank by WaMu.3 On appeal, the Bank adds that its standing was supported by the Purchase and Assumption Agreement, which showed that the Bank bought all of WaMu’s assets before the Bank filed suit. The Bank also asserts that it filed an affidavit stating that it was the holder of the note.
Within the original note, the indorsement in blank did not establish that the Bank had the right to enforce the note when it filed suit, because the indorsement was undated. See Gonzalez, 95 So. 3d 251. Moreover, the Bank’s standing also was not established by its act of filing of the original note. Although the filing of the original blank-indorsed note showed the Bank’s possession of (and thus right to enforce) it at the time of filing the note, that filing occurred more than a year after the Bank filed suit. As for the Purchase and Assumption Agreement, that Agreement was not authenticated for purposes of summary judgment. Finally, the affidavit of amounts due and owing did state that the Bank “holds the Note.” However, like the filing of the original note, the affidavit did not establish that the Bank held the note at the time it filed suit because the affidavit was dated more than two years later.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
Full opinion below…