Attorneys' Attempt to Paint a Picture in Complicated Foreclosure Case Fails to Clarify Ownership
The debt had changed hands at least five times with the sloppy documentation, leaving attorneys to try to follow a maze of ownership.
December 06, 2017 at 03:30 PM
4 minute read
Photo by Melanie Bell.
A mortgage that was “passed around like the flu” seemed to send two South Florida courts down a rabbit hole as a successor creditor with multiple predecessors tried to prove legal standing to foreclose on the property.
It was so complicated, the appellate court noted that the mortgage company's attorneys' “valiant effort” to map out the chain of ownership resulted in a labyrinth of “different types of arrows pointing in all directions.”
Plaintiffs looking to collect on a defaulted real estate debt must prove their right to do so. But by the time the suit came before Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal, a mangled chain of ownership left judges to decipher who owned a debt that had traded at least half a dozen times on the secondary market.
“In this mortgage foreclosure case, the underlying mortgage was passed around like the flu, giving rise to a complexity of ownership that frustrated the appellee's attempts to demonstrate standing at trial,” Fourth District Judge Robert M. Gross wrote in the unanimous decision issued Wednesday with Judges Melanie G. May and Mark Klingensmith.
Court records suggest Thomas Wade Young and Joseph B. Towne of Lender Legal Services LLC in Orlando created a thorough work product—but perhaps with a level of detail that did nothing to simplify their position.
“To the answer brief, the appellee attached a chart of the ownership lineage of the
mortgage and note, with different types of arrows pointing in all directions—a valiant effort which demonstrated that the transfer history here defies pictorial representation,” Gross wrote for the appellate court.
The case pitted appellant and homeowner Marcia Supria against creditor Goshen Mortgage LLC. It involved a maze of parties that ended with Goshen substituting for the original plaintiff, Christiana Trust, a division of Wilmington Savings Fund Society FSB, as trustee for Stanwich Mortgage Loan Trust's series 2012-13.
By the time Goshen entered the picture, court records suggest the debt had changed hands at least five times. But with the sloppy documentation typical of the period of brisk trading during the last housing market collapse, it was difficult to trace clear changes in ownership.
“It's been well-known among the foreclosure bar, both on the plaintiffs bar and the defense bar, that the Fourth DCA is very strict in requiring evidence of standing,” said McGlinchey Stafford member Manuel Farach, who was not involved in the litigation but sits on the Florida Bar's executive council for the Real Property and Business Law Sections. This case is an indication of that.”
The judicial panel found the first transfer invalid because no evidence supported the assignor's authority to give ownership of the debt to another party. The second also fell short, this time because the court saw no proof the assignor had a transferable interest. The third and fifth were both flawed, transferring the mortgage but not the promissory note.
In the end, the Fourth DCA disagreed with Broward Circuit Judge Kathleen D. Ireland, who'd sided with Goshen. It instead found the financial institution had failed to prove standing and remanded the case for a judgment in the homeowner's favor.
The ruling was a victory for foreclosure defense attorneys, but some members of the plaintiffs bar suggest such decisions do more to cool trading of real estate debt than to protect consumers.
“It appears there were some abuses at some point in the past in terms of how people were endorsing instruments,” Farach said. “I just haven't seen a lot of concrete examples or situations where this has been a problem. There've been hundreds of thousands of foreclosures in Florida. I haven't seen a single case where two people were claiming ownership of a note. If this were a huge problem then we would have seen not just one but several cases.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllReal Estate Trends to Watch in 2025: Restructuring, Growth, and Challenges in South Florida
3 minute read830 Brickell is Open After Two-Year Delay That Led to Winston & Strawn Pulling Lease
3 minute readMiami Lawyers Beat Other Local Sectors, Attorneys Elsewhere in Office Usage
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250