Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Robinson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Robinson

168 So. 3d 1279, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11190, 2015 WL 4486524

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 24, 2015

DocketNo. 5D14-2819

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 168 So. 3d 1279 (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Robinson) 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

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Robinson, 168 So. 3d 1279, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11190, 2015 WL 4486524 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee for Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2001-B, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2001-B, appeals the trial court’s order involuntarily dismissing its foreclosure action against Richard Wilson following a non-jury trial. Mr. Wilson cross-appeals, challenging the admission of certain business records, particularly, a copy of the note and allonges. We affirm, but write to address two issues.

Wells Fargo filed a two-count mortgage foreclosure complaint against Mr. Wilson, seeking to foreclose a mortgage and to reestablish and enforce the lost note and attached allonges under section 673.3091, Florida Statutes (2012). This required Wells Fargo to show that it was entitled to enforce the note, or directly or indirectly acquired ownership from a person entitled to enforce the note, when the loss of possession occurred. See § 673.3091(1), Fla. Stat. (2012); Beaumont v. Bank of New York Mellon, 81 So.3d 553, 554-55 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). Wells Fargo failed to prove who lost the note, when it was lost, and who had the right to enforce the note when it was lost. Wells Fargo also failed to produce any evidence of ownership at the time of the loss. See Beaumont, 81 So.3d at 555. Based on this failure of proof, the trial court erred when it admitted a copy of the note and allonges. However, given the trial court’s involuntary dismissal of Wells Fargo’s action, the error was harmless.

[1280]*1280Wells Fargo complains that the trial court erred by dismissing its action with prejudice. Under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(b), unless the court in its order of dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal, under most circumstances, operates as an adjudication on the merits. However, the dismissal does not preclude a new foreclosure action based on different acts or dates of default. E.g., Singleton v. Greymar Assocs., 882 So.2d 1004, 1005 (Fla.2004); Star Funding Solutions, LLC v. Krondes, 101 So.3d 403, 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); see also PNC Bank, N.A. v. Neal, 147 So.3d 32, 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

AFFIRMED.

LAWSON, C.J., ORFINGER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee for Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2001-B, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2001-B, appeals the trial court’s order involuntarily dismissing its foreclosure action against Richard Wilson following a non-jury trial. Mr. Wilson cross-appeals, challenging the admission of certain business records, particularly, a copy of the note and allonges. We affirm, but write to address two issues.

Wells Fargo filed a two-count mortgage foreclosure complaint against Mr. Wilson, seeking to foreclose a mortgage and to reestablish and enforce the lost note and attached allonges under section 673.3091, Florida Statutes (2012). This required Wells Fargo to show that it was entitled to enforce the note, or directly or indirectly acquired ownership from a person entitled to enforce the note, when the loss of possession occurred. See § 673.3091(1), Fla. Stat. (2012); Beaumont v. Bank of New York Mellon, 81 So.3d 553, 554-55 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). Wells Fargo failed to prove who lost the note, when it was lost, and who had the right to enforce the note when it was lost. Wells Fargo also failed to produce any evidence of ownership at the time of the loss. See Beaumont, 81 So.3d at 555. Based on this failure of proof, the trial court erred when it admitted a copy of the note and allonges. However, given the trial court’s involuntary dismissal of Wells Fargo’s action, the error was harmless.

[1280]*1280Wells Fargo complains that the trial court erred by dismissing its action with prejudice. Under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(b), unless the court in its order of dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal, under most circumstances, operates as an adjudication on the merits. However, the dismissal does not preclude a new foreclosure action based on different acts or dates of default. E.g., Singleton v. Greymar Assocs., 882 So.2d 1004, 1005 (Fla.2004); Star Funding Solutions, LLC v. Krondes, 101 So.3d 403, 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); see also PNC Bank, N.A. v. Neal, 147 So.3d 32, 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

AFFIRMED.

LAWSON, C.J., ORFINGER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 So. 3d 1279, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11190, 2015 WL 4486524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wells-fargo-bank-na-v-robinson-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack