YOGENDRA S. DHANIK AND BHARTI Y. DHANIK, APPELLANTS,
v.
HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR LUMINENT MORTGAGE TRUST 2007-2, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The bank failed to present sufficient evidence of standing at the time it filed the foreclosure complaint, requiring dismissal.
The bank foreclosed on the Dhaniks' mortgage. The Dhaniks argued the bank lacked standing when it filed the complaint. While the note introduced at tr…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Blank Endorsement cases and more on FLexlaw
Yogendra and Bharti Dhanik appeal a final judgment of foreclosure. The Dhaniks argue, and HSBC Bank USA concedes, that the bank failed to present sufficient trial evidence of standing at the time it filed the complaint.
“This court reviews the sufficiency of the evidence to prove standing to bring a foreclosure action de novo.” Lamb v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 174 So.3d 1039, 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).
“A plaintiff alleging standing as a holder must prove it is a holder of the note and mortgage both as of the time of trial and also that the (original) plaintiff had standing as of the time the foreclosure complaint was filed.” Russell v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 163 So.3d 639, 642 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (quoting Kiefert v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 153 So.3d 351, 352 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)). “If the plaintiff is not the payee of the original note, the plaintiff must also prove that the original note contains an [ejndorsement in favor of the plaintiff (special [ejndorsement) or an [ejn-dorsement in blank.” Id. To establish standing, the endorsement “must have been made prior to the filing of the lawsuit.” Id.
Although the bank attached a copy of the mortgage and note to the complaint, those copies lacked any endorsement to the bank or a blank endorsement. The note introduced at trial contained a blank endorsement. However, the bank offered no evidence as to when the blank endorse*115ment was placed on the note. Thus, there was no evidence before the trial court that the bank had standing at the time the foreclosure complaint was filed. “The bank’s failure to prove a prima facie case warrants dismissal.” May v. PHH Mortg. Corp., 150 So.3d 247, 249 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).
As in Russell and May, we reverse and remand for the trial court to enter an order of involuntary dismissal based on the bank’s lack of standing at the time it filed the complaint.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
NORTHCUTT and SLEET, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Winchel v. Pennymac Corp., 222 So. 3d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…. Corp., 150 So. 3d 247, 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). Once put at issue by a defendant, then, standing becomes a part of the prima facie case that a foreclosure plaintiff must prove in order to secure a judgment. See Dhanik v. HSBC Bank USA, Nat’l Ass’n, 210 So. 3d 113, 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). Because the count to reestablish a lost note fell out of the case, PennyMac’s standing hinged on whether it and its predecessor in interest were the holders of Mr. Winchel’s note or nonholders in possession with the rights…1 / 2
-
Sedona Leaf, LLC v. U.S. Bank Tr. Nat'l Ass'n (Fla. 6th DCA 2026)…orp., 222 So. 3d 639, 643 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (“Once put at issue by a defendant,... standing becomes a part of the prima facie case that a foreclosure plaintiff must prove in order to secure a judgment." (citing Dhanik v. HSBC Bank USA, Nat'l Ass'n, 210 So. 3d 113, 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016))). Summary judgment is precluded if there is a genuine issue of material fact as to a party's standing. McLean v. JP Morgan Chase Nat'l Ass'n, 79 So. 3d 170, 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) ---PAGE 4--- (in appeal from summary judgm…
Authorities Cited
- Daniel and Nancy Kiefert v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 153 So. 3d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
- Russell v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 163 So. 3d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)
- Lamb v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 174 So. 3d 1039 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- MAY v. PHH Mortg. Corp., 150 So. 3d 247 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)