Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Theresa Boglioli a/k/a Theresa Brunetto

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Theresa Boglioli a/k/a Theresa Brunetto

154 So. 3d 494, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 164, 2015 WL 71811

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 7, 2015

Docket4D13-2323

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 154 So. 3d 494 (Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Theresa Boglioli a/k/a Theresa Brunetto) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Theresa Boglioli a/k/a Theresa Brunetto, 154 So. 3d 494, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 164, 2015 WL 71811 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Deutsche Bank, appeals the final judgment in favor of appellee, Theresa Boglioli, in a mortgage foreclosure action. Because appellant failed to present competent, substantial evidence at trial to prove it had standing at the time it filed the complaint, we affirm the final judgment.

Appellant filed with the trial court the original note bearing an undated, blank endorsement, an assignment of note bearing an undated, blank endorsement, and an assignment of mortgage executed after the date of the complaint for “value received” on a date prior to the filing of the complaint. At trial, appellant’s sole testifying witness was unable to testify as to when the note was endorsed, and failed to introduce a pooling and servicing agreement that she claimed was the method through which appellant acquired the assignment of note. The witness also acknowledged that the grantor of the assignments was in bankruptcy but did not know the specifics of those proceedings. At the conclusion of trial, the circuit court granted appellee’s motion for a directed verdict, entering final judgment in favor of appellee upon finding that the alleged assignments to appellant were “during the pendency of the Granter’s bankruptcy and therefore of no force or effect.” The record on appeal does not contain competent, substantial evidence regarding the bankruptcy proceedings to support the trial court’s ruling. However, the evidence at trial failed to demonstrate that appellant had standing to foreclose at the time it filed suit. See Klemencic v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 142 So.3d 983, 984 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Bristol v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 137 So.3d 1130, 1132 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Vidal v. Liquidation Props., Inc., 104 So.3d 1274, 1276-78 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Hall v. REO Asset Acquisitions, LLC, 84 So.3d 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment under the “tipsy coachman” doctrine 1 based on *496 appellant’s failure to demonstrate it had standing to foreclose at the time it filed the complaint.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

1

. Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So.2d 638, 644 (Fla. 1999) ("[I]f a trial *496 court reaches the right result, but for the wrong reasons, it will be upheld if there is any basis which would support the judgment in the record.”).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Deutsche Bank, appeals the final judgment in favor of appellee, Theresa Boglioli, in a mortgage foreclosure action. Because appellant failed to present competent, substantial evidence at trial to prove it had standing at the time it filed the complaint, we affirm the final judgment.

Appellant filed with the trial court the original note bearing an undated, blank endorsement, an assignment of note bearing an undated, blank endorsement, and an assignment of mortgage executed after the date of the complaint for “value received” on a date prior to the filing of the complaint. At trial, appellant’s sole testifying witness was unable to testify as to when the note was endorsed, and failed to introduce a pooling and servicing agreement that she claimed was the method through which appellant acquired the assignment of note. The witness also acknowledged that the grantor of the assignments was in bankruptcy but did not know the specifics of those proceedings. At the conclusion of trial, the circuit court granted appellee’s motion for a directed verdict, entering final judgment in favor of appellee upon finding that the alleged assignments to appellant were “during the pendency of the Granter’s bankruptcy and therefore of no force or effect.” The record on appeal does not contain competent, substantial evidence regarding the bankruptcy proceedings to support the trial court’s ruling. However, the evidence at trial failed to demonstrate that appellant had standing to foreclose at the time it filed suit. See Klemencic v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 142 So.3d 983, 984 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Bristol v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 137 So.3d 1130, 1132 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Vidal v. Liquidation Props., Inc., 104 So.3d 1274, 1276-78 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Hall v. REO Asset Acquisitions, LLC, 84 So.3d 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment under the “tipsy coachman” doctrine 1 based on *496 appellant’s failure to demonstrate it had standing to foreclose at the time it filed the complaint.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

1

. Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So.2d 638, 644 (Fla. 1999) ("[I]f a trial *496 court reaches the right result, but for the wrong reasons, it will be upheld if there is any basis which would support the judgment in the record.”).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 So. 3d 494, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 164, 2015 WL 71811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deutsche-bank-national-trust-company-v-theresa-boglioli-aka-theresa-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack