EMAD SELIM v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., etc.

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: September 6, 2023
• Docket: 21-2310
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed September 6, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-2310 Lower Tribunal No. 17-21140 ________________

Emad Selim, et al., Appellants,

vs.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., etc., Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jennifer D. Bailey, Judge.

David J. Winker, P.A., and David John Winker, for appellant, Emad Selim.

Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Kimberly S. Mello and Arda Goker (Orlando), for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and HENDON and GORDO, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 673.3081(1), Fla. Stat. (2020); Barsan v. Trinity Fin.

Servs., LLC, 258 So. 3d 516, 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (explaining “the term

‘presumed’ in section 673.3081(1) means that until some evidence is

introduced which would support a finding that the signature is forged or

unauthorized, the plaintiff was not required to prove that it is valid (citing UCC

comment 1 to section 673.3081), and because defendants failed to make

any evidentiary showing to support their claim that the signer was

unauthorized, plaintiff was entitled to rely on the presumption to obtain

summary final judgment” (citing Bennett v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Tr. Co., 124

So. 3d 320, 322 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013))); Klein v. Royale Grp., Ltd., 578 So.

2d 394, 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (“[T]here is nothing in the statute or the case

decisions that deny enforceability merely because the required documentary

stamps have been belatedly purchased and affixed.”).