US BANK, NA AS LEGAL TITLE TRUSTEE FOR TRUMAN 2012 SC2 TITLE TRUST, Appellant,
DAVID S. GLICKEN A/K/A DAVID GLICKEN, UNKNOWN SPOUSE OF DAVID S. GLICKEN A.K.A MRS. DAVID GLICKEN, Appellees.
FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
from the Circuit Court for Orange County, John H. Adams, Sr.,
Diaz, of SHD Legal Group, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for
Scott Glicken, of The Glicken Law Firm, Orlando, pro se.
Appearance for other Appellees.
Bank, N.A., as Legal Title Trustee For Truman 2012 SC2 Title
Trust (U.S. Bank), appeals the final judgment entered in
favor of David S. Glicken and the Unknown Spouse of David S.
Glicken denying its foreclosure claim. U.S. Bank argues that
the trial court erred in finding that it lacked standing to
foreclose at the time of the trial and final judgment. We
agree and reverse.
Fargo filed a verified one-count foreclosure complaint
against Glicken, alleging that he was in default as to his
mortgage payments. Copies of the note, allonge, and mortgage
were attached to the complaint. The allonge contained a blank
indorsement without recourse from First Union National Bank,
the original lender.
Wells Fargo assigned the mortgage and transferred possession
of the note to U.S. Bank, which was later substituted as the
party plaintiff in the case. U.S. Bank then filed the
original note, allonge, and mortgage with the trial court,
and the case proceeded to trial. The original note, the
allonge attached to the original note, the original mortgage,
a copy of the assignment of the mortgage, the acceleration
letter, and the payment history were admitted into evidence.
close of evidence, Glicken argued, among other things, that
U.S. Bank lacked standing at the time of trial because there
was no testimony about the assignment of the note. The trial
court agreed with Glicken on the issue of standing and
dismissed the case, concluding:
Standing is not transferrable and U.S. Bank was not the
holder of the note as of the date of the filing. It
wasn't the attorney enact [sic] of the -- Wells Fargo. It
wasn't a successor in interest, it wasn't purchased
by, there was no way in which the two entities became one
entity. There are a number of ways in which this happens, it
evolves [sic] in a variety of lawsuits we see.
In this case, you cannot transfer by selling the note. You
cannot transfer standing.
My ruling here is for the defendant.
was error. The trial court's ruling that standing could
not be transferred by selling the note and that the only way
the note could be transferred was through a merger of the two
banks is incorrect. Notes can be sold or otherwise
transferred even when the entire bank is not acquired.
See Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Rafaeli, 225
So.3d 264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017); Jallali v. Christiana
Tr., 200 So.3d 149, 152 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) ("A
substituted plaintiff can acquire standing to foreclose if
the original party had standing." (citing Assil v.
Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 171 So.3d 226, 227 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2015))). After all, that is the entire purpose of
negotiability. See § 673.2011, Fla. Stat.
(2012); Riggs v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 36 So.3d
932, 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (noting that a blank indorsement
is payable to the bearer and can be negotiated by the
transfer of possession alone); Barnett Bank of Palm Beach
Cty., N.A. v. Regency Highland Condo. Ass'n, 452
So.2d 587, 589 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) ("The law favors