Wright v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wright v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.

152 So. 3d 1289, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 144, 2015 WL 71803

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 7, 2015

DocketNo. 4D13-3221

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 152 So. 3d 1289 (Wright v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.) 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

Wright v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 152 So. 3d 1289, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 144, 2015 WL 71803 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the final judgment of mortgage foreclosure because Deutsche Bank (“the Bank”) did not establish that it had standing at the time it filed the complaint. A copy of the note attached to the complaint listed GE Money Bank as the lender. During trial, the Bank introduced the original note into evidence, which contained an undated endorsement in favor of the Bank by GE Money Bank. Darren Yassen, a representative of the Bank’s servicing agent, admitted that he did not know when the endorsement was placed on the note. The Bank did not present testimony from any other witnesses or present any evidence as to the date of the endorsement. Because the Bank did not present any evidence that it had standing at the inception of the lawsuit, reversal is warranted. See Boyd v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 143 So.3d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Rigby v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A, 84 So.3d 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

Reversed.

CIKLIN, GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the final judgment of mortgage foreclosure because Deutsche Bank (“the Bank”) did not establish that it had standing at the time it filed the complaint. A copy of the note attached to the complaint listed GE Money Bank as the lender. During trial, the Bank introduced the original note into evidence, which contained an undated endorsement in favor of the Bank by GE Money Bank. Darren Yassen, a representative of the Bank’s servicing agent, admitted that he did not know when the endorsement was placed on the note. The Bank did not present testimony from any other witnesses or present any evidence as to the date of the endorsement. Because the Bank did not present any evidence that it had standing at the inception of the lawsuit, reversal is warranted. See Boyd v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 143 So.3d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Rigby v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A, 84 So.3d 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

Reversed.

CIKLIN, GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 So. 3d 1289, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 144, 2015 WL 71803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-deutsche-bank-national-trust-co-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack