Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Assil v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC
Citations: 171 So. 3d 226; 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11965; 2015 WL 4747196Docket: No. 4D14-2257
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; August 12, 2015; Florida; State Appellate Court
The final judgment of foreclosure in favor of Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, as the successor to Aurora Loan Services, LLC, is reversed due to the lack of competent evidence demonstrating that Aurora had standing to enforce the mortgage at the time of filing the foreclosure action. The court emphasizes that the plaintiff must prove standing when the complaint is filed, as established in prior case law. A substituted plaintiff inherits the standing of the original plaintiff, but standing can be established if the plaintiff is the note holder or has rights as a nonholder. In this case, Aurora's initial complaint claimed ownership of the Note, which was later amended to state it was a servicing agent for Deutsche Bank. Although evidence was presented indicating Deutsche Bank was the owner of the Note at the time of the complaint, Nationstar failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as a servicing agreement, to confirm Aurora’s right to enforce the Note when the foreclosure action commenced. This lack of evidence parallels the case of Seffar, where inadequate proof of standing led to a similar reversal. Nationstar presented a print screen from Aurora's system showing a scanned copy of the Note with a special endorsement to Deutsche Bank, dated August 22, 2008, three days before Aurora filed its complaint. Aurora did not prove it had standing to sue at the time of filing, as there was no assignment of the mortgage and Note, no endorsement in favor of Aurora, and no evidence it held the Note when the suit was initiated. Aurora's argument relied on being a nonholder in possession of the Note but failed to demonstrate authorization to pursue the foreclosure on Deutsche Bank's behalf. Consequently, the court found insufficient evidence for Aurora's entitlement to enforce the Note at the time of the lawsuit, leading to the reversal of the final judgment of foreclosure and a remand for involuntary dismissal. Judges TAYLOR, MAY, and KLINGENSMITH concurred.