U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ETC.
v.
STEVEN D. GROB
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.
U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for MEB Loan Trust IV, appealed a circuit court order dismissing its foreclosure complaint for lack of standing. The court reversed, holding that U.S. Bank had standing to foreclose on a home equity line of credit as the assigned holder of the debt, and that the involvement of a loan servicer in verifying the complaint did not diminish the trustee's authority to foreclose.
U.S. Bank, as trustee for MEB Loan Trust IV, had standing to foreclose on the non-negotiable HELOC. As an assignee of a non-negotiable instrument, U.S. Bank acquired all the rights of the original lender, and the allegations in the complaint, including the assignment and possession of original loan documents, were sufficient to establish standing. The involvement of the loan servicer in verifying the complaint did not diminish the trustee's authority to foreclose.
[1] An assignee of a non-negotiable instrument acquires all rights of the original assignor subject to the debtor's defenses.
[2] A trustee has standing to foreclose on a mortgage assigned to the trust where the complaint alleges the assignment, attaches documentary evidence of assignment, and inclu…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Generally, assignees of nonnegotiable instruments take 'all the rights of the assignor . . . subject to all the equities and defenses of the debtor connected with or growing out of the obligation that the obligor had against the assignor at the time of the assignment.'”
Establishes the legal principle that a trustee acquiring a mortgage receives all rights of the original holder of a non-negotiable instrument.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter borrowers defaulted on a home equity line of credit secured by a mortgage, U.S. Bank filed a foreclosure suit alleging it was the trustee for ME…
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 Verification Of Complaint cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Donald W. Hafele, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502020CA008537XXXXMB.
David Rosenberg and Jarrett Cooper of Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid, Crane & Partners, PLLC, Boca Raton, for appellant.
Joseph J. Huss and Benny A. Ortiz of Krinzman Huss Lubetsky Feldman & Hotte, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees Steven and Dorothy Grob.
J. Michael Burman of Reid Burman Lebedeker Xenick Pepin, West Palm Beach, for appellee Renee Hay.
KUNTZ, J. U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for MEB Loan Trust IV, appeals the circuit court’s order granting the Borrowers’ motion to dismiss U.S. Bank’s foreclosure complaint. We reverse.
Background After the Borrowers defaulted on a home equity line of credit, secured by a mortgage, U.S. Bank, as trustee for MEB Loan Trust IV, filed suit. U.S. Bank alleged that the mortgage was assigned to MEB Loan Trust IV by the original lender and that the “plaintiff has standing to enforce its rights and obligations under the HELOC, including the right to foreclose the subject HELOC and Mortgage.”1 Further, Specialized Loan Servicing LLC was the servicer of the HELOC and the mortgage. As servicer, Specialized Loan signed the verification to the foreclosure complaint.2 Finally, a copy of the original loan documents, endorsed in blank, was attached to the complaint.
The Borrowers moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that “the HELOC is a nonnegotiable instrument that can only be enforced by its owner.” The Borrowers stated that “[s]ince this action was brought by the servicer, on behalf of the trustee for the owner of the debt, this action cannot be maintained and must be dismissed.”
The circuit court granted the motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing.
Analysis
U.S. Bank argues the circuit court erred when it dismissed the complaint for lack of standing. U.S. Bank asserts the allegations within the complaint establish standing. The Borrowers respond that the circuit court correctly found U.S. Bank lacked standing and that the “discreet issue before this Court is whether a loan servicer, on behalf of the owner of a non-negotiable instrument, can bring an action to enforce the non-negotiable instrument.”
The Borrowers are correct that the HELOC here is a nonnegotiable instrument. The HELOC acted as a “credit line” for the Borrowers. But, generally, assignees of nonnegotiable instruments take “all the rights of the assignor . . . subject to all the equities and defenses of the debtor connected with or growing out of the obligation that the obligor had against the assignor at the time of the assignment.” State v. Fam. Bank of Hallandale, 667 So. 2d 257, 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); see also OneWest Bank, FSB v. Nunez, 193 So. 3d 13, 14 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). So, U.S. Bank, as trustee for MEB Loan Trust IV, acquired the rights of the original holder. 1 A “HELOC” is a home equity line of credit.
The remaining question is whether the allegations in the complaint were enough to show standing. The answer is yes.
The complaint alleged that the mortgage was assigned to the plaintiff: U.S. Bank, as trustee for MEB Loan Trust IV. An attachment to the complaint showed that the original lender assigned its interest to MEB Loan Trust IV. Further, when the complaint was filed, a certification of possession was filed under penalty of perjury stating that U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for MEB Loan Trust IV, had possession of the original loan documents. Those facts support standing.
But the verification of the complaint by Specialized Loan, the servicer, seems to have caused unnecessary confusion. The servicer’s involvement does not diminish the authority of the holder to foreclose. See, e.g., Caraccia v. U.S. Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 185 So. 3d 1277, 1279 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. v. Huber, 137 So. 3d 562, 564 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (“A plaintiff’s loan servicing agent is a proper representative to verify a mortgage foreclosure complaint.”).
As the alleged trustee for MEB Loan Trust IV, U.S. Bank has the right to “[p]rosecute or defend, including appeals, an action, claim, or judicial proceeding in any jurisdiction to protect trust property or the trustee in the performance of the trustee’s duties.” § 736.0816(23), Fla. Stat. (2020).
Therefore, U.S. Bank, as trustee for MEB Loan Trust IV, had standing to foreclose, and the court erred when it dismissed the complaint.
Conclusion The circuit court’s order dismissing the complaint filed by U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for MEB Loan Trust IV, is reversed.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. CONNER, C.J., and FORST, J., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Media Gen. Cable OF Fairfax, Inc. v. Sequoyah Condo. Council OF Co-Owners, 991 F.2d 1169 (4th Cir. 1993)…Cal.Rptr. 584 (App.1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1043, 108 S.Ct. 776, 98 L.Ed.2d 862 (1988); Henley v. Continental Ca-blevision of St. Louis County, Inc., 692 S.W. 2d 825 (Mo.Ct.App.1985); Hoffman v. Capitol Ca-blevision Sys., Inc., 82 Misc.2d 986, 372 N.Y.S.2d 482 (Sup.Ct.1975), aff’d, 52 A.D.2d 313, 383 N.Y.S.2d 674 (1976); Jolliff v. Hardin Cable Television Co., 26 Ohio St.2d 103, 55 0.0.2d 203, 269 N.E. 2d 588 (1971). . See Cable Assocs., Inc. v. Town & Country Management Corp., 709 F.Supp. 582, 585 (E.D.…
Authorities Cited
- Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. for Ameriquest Mortg. Sec., Inc. v. Huber, 137 So. 3d 562 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
- Caraccia v. U.S. Bank, 185 So. 3d 1277 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
- State v. Fam. Bank OF Hallandale, 667 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Onewest Bank, FSB v. Nunez, 193 So. 3d 13 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)