Beaumont v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON | FL 5DCA "BONY f...

http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2012/02/22/beaumont-v-bank-of-ne...

HOME DISCLAIMER SITE MAP EMAIL A TIP DONATE SUBSCRIBE ADVERTISE

CLASS ACTIONS DEPOSITIONS Education Foreclosure Laws by State LPS 101 MERS 101 Securitization 101

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Beaumont v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON | FL 5DCA BONY failed to prove who lost the note and when it was lost, and produced no evidence of ownership
Posted on22 February 2012. Tags: 5dca, appeals court, Bank of New York Mellon, florida, lost note, Marc D. Beaumont, NovaStar

MARC D. BEAUMONT, Appellant,

1 of 7 4/26/2012 12:46 PM

Beaumont v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON | FL 5DCA "BONY f...

http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2012/02/22/beaumont-v-bank-of-ne...

v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, etc., Appellee.

Case No. 5D10-3471. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District. Opinion filed February 17, 2012. Marc D. Beaumont, Port Orange, pro se. Todd A. Armbruster of Moskowitz, Mandell, Salim & Simowitz, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Marc D. Beaumont appeals a final summary judgment entered by the trial court on a claim to foreclose a residential mortgage and recover on a promissory note executed in connection with the mortgage. We reverse. The final summary judgment in this case was entered in favor of Novastar Home Mortgage, Inc. (Novastar), a nonparty to the suit because of its prior withdrawal from the case. It is fundamental error to enter judgment in favor of a nonparty. Beseau v. Bhalani, 904 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Rustom v. Sparling, 685 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). The defect, which is jurisdictional, can be raised by this Court sua sponte. Dept of Envtl. Prot. v. Garcia, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D1664b (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 3, 2011). The judgment would also have to be reversed even if entered in favor of appellee, The Bank of New York Mellon, as Successor Trustee Under Novastar Mortgage Funding Trust 2005-3 (Mellon). Mellon sought in the complaint to reestablish the note and recover on it. See 673.3091, Fla. Stat. (2010). This required Mellon to show it was entitled to enforce the note when it lost the instrument, or that it directly or indirectly acquired ownership from a person who was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred. 673.3091(1), Fla. Stat.[1] Mellon failed to prove who lost the note and when it was lost, offered no proof of anyones right to enforce the note when it was lost, and produced no evidence of ownership, due to the transfer from Novastar to Mellon.[2] See Duke v. HSBC Mortg. Servs., LLC, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D2569a (Fla. 4th DCA Nov. 23, 2011). The trial court was also required to address the issue of providing adequate protection to Beaumont against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument. 673.3091(2), Fla. Stat. If Mellon has, in fact, found the note, it must produce it prior to judgment. Gee v. U.S. Bank Natl Assn, 72 So. 3d 211, 212 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Perry v. Fairbanks Capital Corp., 888 So. 2d 725, 726 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); see also Feltus v. U.S. Bank Natl Assn, 37 Fla. L. Weekly D253a (Fla. 2d DCA Jan. 27, 2012). Mellon also argues that Beaumont has waived the lack of standing to enforce the note because of the failure to assert this as an affirmative defense. Generally, the failure to raise standing as an affirmative defense operates as a waiver. Kissman v. Panizzi, 891 So. 2d 1147, 1150 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (holding lack of standing is an affirmative defense that must be raised by defendant and failure to raise it generally results in waiver). Standing involves the right to enforce the note and must exist when suit is filed. See, e.g., McLean v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Natl Assn, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D2728a (Fla. 4th DCA Dec. 14, 2011); Taylor v. Deutsche Bank Natl Trust Co., 44 So. 3d 618 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). There is no evidence showing that Beaumont was on notice prior to the time his answer was filed that ownership of the note had been transferred from Novastar to Mellon. In fact, the claimed transfer, alleged to have occurred on the day suit was filed, was either concealed by Novastar for more than three years while it continued to pursue the action, or Novastar backdated the assignment it finally produced on July 23, 2010, as justification for substituting Mellon as plaintiff. Under these circumstances, Beaumont may raise lack of standing when suit was filed as a defense. See Boston Hides & Furs, Ltd. v. Sumitomo Bank, Ltd., 870 F. Supp. 1153, 1161 n.6 (D. Mass. 1994) (holding banks were not precluded from raising affirmative defense of fraud for first time on
2 of 7 4/26/2012 12:46 PM

Beaumont v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON | FL 5DCA "BONY f...

http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2012/02/22/beaumont-v-bank-of-ne...

summary judgment in action alleging wrongful dishonor of letter of credit, where banks did not discover information suggesting fraud until almost one year of discovery). Furthermore, Mellon must prove its right to enforce the note as of the time the summary judgment is entered, even if Beaumont had waived the right to challenge the banks standing as of the date suit was filed. Venture Holdings & Acquis. Group, LLC v. A.I.M. Funding Group, LLC, 75 So. 3d 773 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Its failure to do so would require this Court to reverse the summary judgment entered on the note and mortgage, even if judgment had been entered in favor of Mellon. REVERSED. TORPY, PALMER and COHEN, JJ., concur. [1] A negotiable instrument is enforceable by: (1) the holder of the instrument, (2) a nonholder in possession who has the rights of a holder, or (3) a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to reestablish a lost, destroyed or stolen instrument pursuant to section 673.3091, or who has paid or accepted a draft by mistake as described in section 673.4181. 673.3011, Fla. Stat. [2] The record contains a copy of an assignment of the note from Novastar to Mellon, but the document was never offered into evidence, by being attached to an affidavit for purposes of authentification. As such, it is not competent evidence of the assignment and cannot be considered in ruling on Mellons motion. See, e.g., Morrison v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 66 So. 3d 387, 387 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (reversing summary judgment of foreclosure where defendant asserted she had not received a notice of default as required by mortgage, and bank had simply filed an unauthenticated notice letter).

3 of 7

4/26/2012 12:46 PM

Beaumont v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON | FL 5DCA "BONY f...

http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2012/02/22/beaumont-v-bank-of-ne...

2010-12 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved. www.StopForeclosureFraud.com

share

share

share

share

Like

Related posts: 1. Ohio Appeals Court Judge Dissents Because No Evidence BONY At Any Point Possessed The Note
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT BANK OF...

2. NYSC FINDS BNY FAILED TO SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE: Bank of New York v. Elserafy

4 of 7

4/26/2012 12:46 PM

Beaumont v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON | FL 5DCA "BONY f...

http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2012/02/22/beaumont-v-bank-of-ne...

2010 SUPREME COURT STATE OF NEW YORK Present: HON. F.... 3. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON v. FAULK | Capacity, Possession of the fourth page of the note, which includes a blank endorsement Via: Prof. Adam Levitin You have to read Do We... 4. Mortgage Fraud: Bank of America, Bank of New York Mellon, Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, Law Offices of David Stern, Cheryl Samons Mortgage Fraud Bank of America Bank of New York Mellon... 5. NY Appellate Div. 2nd Judicial Dept. U.S. Bank did not submit a written assignment of the noteSubmitted no evidence to establish physical delivery of the note. Decided on November 1, 2011
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE...

This post was written by:

dinsfla - who has written 3558 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. CONTROL FRAUD | If you dont look; you dont find, Wherever you look; you will find -William Black Contact the author

2 Responses to Beaumont v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON | FL 5DCA BONY failed to prove who lost the note and when it was lost, and produced no evidence of ownership

1.

DANI says: 02/23/2012 at 1:53 pm falks both bank of ny mellon and bank of america are bad news trying to steal people homes truout america all courts must make them prove they own both the mtg and the promissary notes they will use fraud to steal homes.thank god that some judges in america still inforce the laws and make justice base on the evidence thank you brave judges for your good work

2.

PaulR says: 02/23/2012 at 2:39 pm Yayyy! The good guys win for once, and pro se, too! )

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

Leave a Reply
Name (required) Mail (will not be published) (required)

5 of 7

4/26/2012 12:46 PM

Beaumont v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON | FL 5DCA "BONY f...

http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2012/02/22/beaumont-v-bank-of-ne...

Website

Like

Be the first of your friends to like this.

Archives

Popular Posts
Abigail Field: The Foreclosure Fraud Iceberg by dinsfla Bank of Am. v Lucido | NYSC Judge Spinner Slams BOA et al & are forever barred, foreclosed and prohibited from demanding, collecting or attempting to collect by dinsfla What Is an Assignment of Mortgage? by dinsfla $2mm sustained objection to proof of claim. Deutsche Bank and Onewest by dinsfla Citimortgage v Patello | NYSC Plaintiff bank advised the defendant no need to hire an attorney, Established a meritorious defense of full payment and no default by dinsfla Lender Processing Services (LPS) Internal Email Accidentally Leaked in a Fraudclosure Case, Will CFPB Investigate? by dinsfla GONZALEZ v. DEUTSCHE BANK | FL 2nd DCA Lost Note, Found Note, Stamp and Handwritten notation transferring the note from AHM to DB is not dated by dinsfla Wells Fargo Bank v. Crespo, NJ: Appellate Div. 2012 | Lack of Standing, Erin A. Hirzel Roeschs certification is woefully deficient by dinsfla 60 Minutes: The Case Against Lehman Brothers by dinsfla CLASS ACTIONS by dinsfla Rosenfield v HSBC | CFPB AMICUS BRIEF Recession period under TILA only defines the time to notify the lender and not the time to sue the lender by dinsfla In RE: CITIGROUP INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION | Blue Print Complaint By Motley (Tobacco Litigation) Against Citi Entities Describes Fraud in Detail by dinsfla MERS 101 by dinsfla Inside the foreclosure factory: Pushing the files by dinsfla Foreclosure Threats Even After Loan Modifications by dinsfla

Blogroll
ABIGAIL C. FIELD AMERICANS UNITED FOR JUSTICE ANONYMOUS PRESS

6 of 7

4/26/2012 12:46 PM

Beaumont v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON | FL 5DCA "BONY f...

http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2012/02/22/beaumont-v-bank-of-ne...

BEING MIDDLE CLASS FORUM BOOM BUST BLOG CALIFORNIA FORECLOSURE FRAUD CHINK IN THE ARMOR "MERS Primer" FED UP USA Foreclosure Defenders Foreclosure Pets ForeclosureHamlet Fraud Digest GINGO LAW LAW GRACE Mandelman Matters MS FRAUD NANTUCKET LAW O. MAX GARDNER lll Propublica SHAME THE BANKS THE DAILY BAIL Truth in Lending WAMU SUPPORT FOR HOMEOWNERS WELLS FARGO MTG FRAUD WhatReallyHappened

Spam Blocked
spam comments

554,501

2010-12 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. Powered by StopForeclosureFraud.

Disclaimer: Legal information is NOT legal advice. The material and historical information herein should NOT be taken as legal advice and is NOT a substitute for the assistance of a licensed advisor. I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY.

7 of 7

4/26/2012 12:46 PM