“ownership is not relevant to standing so much as the question of who is the ultimate beneficial owner of the proceeds of the foreclosure, an issue not normally or necessarily part of a foreclosure case.”
Treatment trajectory · 2018 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2018
2022
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Pedro Damas v. ARCPE 1 LLC
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
under the law of negotiable instruments, therefore, the bank had standing because it was the holder of a note originally indorsed in blank and then specially indorsed to the bank.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Onewest Bank v. Palmero
the assignment of the mortgage was superfluous. it was unnecessary because florida law has always held that the mortgage follows the note.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
SILVIA VITERI v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR HARBORVIEW MORTGAGE LOAN PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-7
ownership is not relevant to standing so much as the question of who is the ultimate beneficial owner of the proceeds of the foreclosure, an issue not normally or necessarily part of a foreclosure case.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
JOSEPH T. BUSET v. HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, etc.
Bank of New York Mellon v. Simpson, 227 So. 3d 669, 670 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“This Court has held to the principle that that Rule 1.540(b) does not have as its purpose or intent the reopening of lawsuits to allow parties to state new claims or offer new evidence omitted by oversight or inadvertence.”); see also JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Llovet, 330 So. 3d 1006 , 1010 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021); HSBC Bank USA, Nat’l Ass’n v. Buset, 241 So. 3d 882, 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018). 2
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, ETC. and U.S BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE, etc. v. FARSHADI FARAMARZ
However, a “mortgage follows assignment of the note.” Jelic v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 178 So. 3d 523, 525 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015); HSBC Bank USA, Nat’l Ass’n v. Buset, 241 So. 3d 882, 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); US Bank, NA for Truman 2012 SC2 Title Tr. v. Glicken, 228 So. 3d 1194, 1196 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. v. JORGE LLOVET
More importantly, it conflicts with cases like HSBC Bank USA, Nat’l Ass’n v. Buset, 241 So. 3d 882, 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
R.L.G., A JUVENILE v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA
HENDON, J., concurs. 6 See, e.g., HSBC Bank USA, Nat’l Ass’n v. Buset, 241 So. 3d 882, 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (noting the trial court erred by failing to follow controlling precedent, even when a party introduces a new argument challenging the precedent). 12 R.L.G. v. State, 3D21-675 LINDSEY, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
78D TEAM, LLC v. U.S. BANK N.A., etc.
See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Rutledge, 230 So. 3d 550, 552 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (subsequent purchaser lacked standing to argue that borrower’s signature on note and mortgage was forged); Buset, 241 So. 3d at 889, 892 (rejecting unclean hands challenge, as subsequent purchaser had notice of purportedly fraudulent assignment, which was public record valid on its face, and alternatively holding that “even if this assignment were void or voidable, which it is 4 not, the Bank, as holder of the note, would have the authority to foreclosure the mortgage”).
cited
Cited "see"
AVANT DESIGN GROUP, INC., etc. v. AQUASTAR HOLDINGS, LLC, etc.
See HSBC Bank USA, Nat’l Ass’n v. Buset, 241 So. 3d 882, 886 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).
discussed
Cited "see"
DAVID E. MOYA v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, etc.
See HSBC Bank USA, Nat’l Ass’n v. Buset, 241 So. 3d 882, 889 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“Once this blank indorsement was made on the note, the note became bearer paper, fully negotiable by simple transfer, like a signed check made out to cash or a signed check with the payee left blank.
cited
Cited "see"
Aquasol Condo Assoc. v. HSBC Bank USA
See HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Buset, 241 So. 3d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).
cited
Cited "see"
Aquasol Condo Assoc. v. HSBC Bank USA
See HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Buset, 241 So. 3d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Theron H. WORTH
v.
The ESTATE OF Idelle STERN, etc.
v.
The ESTATE OF Idelle STERN, etc.
Nos. 3D17–907; 3D17–905 & 3D17–903.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Feb 7, 2018.
241 So. 3d 882
Wintter & Associates, P.A., and Christopher Q. Wintter and Max G. Soren (Hollywood), for petitioners., Stok Folk + Kon, and Robert A. Stok and Joshua R. Kon, for respondents.
Lindsey, Logue, Scales.
Published
PER CURIAM.
Our certiorari review of the trial court's order granting Respondents' motion for leave to file a claim for punitive damages is limited to whether the trial court applied the correct law. TRG Desert Inn Venture, Ltd. v. Berezovsky, 194 So.3d 516, 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). While we might have concerns regarding the sufficiency of the evidence proffered by Respondents as to the alleged intentional misconduct or gross negligence of Petitioners, on this record we are unable to conclude that the trial court, in adjudicating Respondents' motion for punitive damages, failed to apply the correct law, i.e., the procedural standards set forth in section 768.72 of the Florida Statutes.
Petitions denied.