2014 0226 http://msfraud.org/LAW/Lounge/Standing.

html

Case dismissals for lack of standing to Foreclose

Updated 2/13/14

MSFraud Forum Crosslinks, Findings and Case citations add to Ohio Federal Court Case iscussions by William A. Roper Jr.

Federal !ractice Manual for "egal #id #ttorne$s

3%1 S&#' (') The Supreme Court has made it lear that the !urden of esta!lishing standing rests on the plaintiff. At ea h stage of the litigation"from the initial pleading stage# through summar$ %udgment# and trial"the plaintiff must arr$ that !urden. Standing must e&ist on the date the omplaint is filed and throughout the litigation. 'oreo(er# standing annot !e onferred !$ agreement and an !e hallenged at an$ time in the litigation# in luding on appeal# !$ the defendants or# in some ir umstan es# !$ the ourt sua sponte. )inall$# plaintiffs must demonstrate standing for ea h laim and ea h re*uest for relief. There is no +supplemental, standing: standing to assert one laim does not reate standing to assert laims arising from the same nu leus of operati(e fa ts.
FO*+C"OSU*+ +F+'S+ ,-+*+ O ,+ S&#' O' S&#' (').
Winter 2011

Standing /ersus 0usticia1ilit$

A party must have standing to file suit at its inception and may not remedy this defect by subsequently obtaining standing. Venture oldings ! Acquisitions "rp.#$$% v. A.&.'. (unding "rp.# $$%# )* +o. ,d )),# ))- .(la. /th 0%A 20111. ------------------------------'erit .e ision: Court Sma /s )reddie 'a in 0ome )ore losure Case. )ederal 0ome Loan 'ortgage Corp. (. S h1art21ald.

(or Andy 2ngel 3S h1art21ald4s attorne$5: As a pra titioner fo using on fore losure defense 1hat is $our thoughts 3to !e pro6a ti(e5 for those 1ho lost their home under the + ure#, to file a 60375385 motion and pla e the ne1 o1ner# title ompan$ and mortgage ompan$ on noti e9 Andy 2ngel says: :o(em!er 2# 2012 at ;:8< am =f the fore losing !an/ relied on an after6a *uired interest in the note and mortgage to esta!lish its right to enfor e the agreements# then = 1ould ertainl$ see/ to (a ate the %udgment. 7ut $ou need not pro eed under Ci(.>. 60375 !e ause the %udgment is (oid. The S h1art21ald de ision states that standing has to e&ist at the time the ase is filed# and if it doesn?t e&ist# the %urisdi tion of the ommon pleas ourt 1as not in(o/ed. A ourt 1ithout %urisdi tion annot enter an$ %udgment 3e& ept one dismissing the ase for la / of %urisdi tion5. A motion to (a ate a (oid 3as opposed to a (oida!le5 %udgment is not !ased on Ci(. >. 60375# it in(o/es the ourt?s inherent po1er. 3atton v. 0iemer# <8 @hio St. <d 6A 31;AA5.

o 'O& let this 1e a deterrent% Stand up for $our rights%

More Courts *e2ect +le/enth3-our #ttempts &o #/oid Foreclosure 4ased On #n #lleged "ack Of Standing
T1o more Appellate .i(ision panels ha(e refused to allo1 defendant4s in fore losure la1suits to raise standing as an ele(enth6hour defense. As 1e pre(iousl$ reported 66 Changing Tide in )or losure Litigation9 Courts Ta/ing Closer Loo/ When .efendants Assert La / @f Standing At Last 'inute 66 there is no1 a lear trend against allo1ing defendants to sta$ silent in the fa e of a fore losure la1suit onl$ to appear at the last minute# usuall$ on the e(e of a sheriff4s sale# and see/ to (a ate final %udgment !ased on an alleged lack of standing to fore lose. T1o re ent Appellate .i(ision ases ontinue to !ring this point home. =n =nd$'a 7an/ )S7 (. .eCastro# Benhan ed (ersion a(aila!le to le&is. om su!s ri!ersC# a residential !orro1er mo(ed to (a ate final %udgment and dismiss the omplaint 15 months after it 1as entered# arguing that he 1as not ser/ed 1ith the omplaint. The motion 1as denied. .efendant filed a se ond motion to (a ate# arguing# for the first time# that the !an/ lacked standing to fore lose !e ause it 1as not assigned the mortgage until after the omplaint 1as filed. This motion 1as denied as untimel$ and defendant appealed. =n an opinion# dated 'ar h 1<# 201<# the Appellate .i(ision affirmed. =n its de ision# among other things# the Appellate .i(ision re%e ted defendant4s standing argument# noting: DBWCe ha(e no6 made clear that lack of standing is not a meritorious defense to a foreclosure complaint.D 'oreo(er# the Appellate .i(ision held that defendant4s standing argument 1as meritless Dparti ularl$ gi(en defendant4s une& used# $ears6long dela$ in asserting that defense or an$ other laim.D =n arri(ing at

this de ision# the Appellate .i(ision relied on man$ of the ases dis ussed in our prior post. Similarl$# in Wells )argo 7an/# :.A. (. Lope2# Benhan ed (ersion a(aila!le to le&is. om su!s ri!ersC# a different Appellate .i(ision panel re2ected another residential home o1ner4s last6minute attempt to raise standing as a defense to the fore losure omplaint. The fa ts in that ase 1ere a !it more egregious !e ause the !orro1er ontri!uted to the four6$ear dela$ !et1een the entr$ of default and the filing of his motion to (a ate !$ filing numerous 1ankruptc$ petitions and see/ing a sta$ to attempt to short sell the propert$. :onetheless# the Appellate .i(ision affirmed the trial ourt4s denial of the motion to (a ate holding# among other things# that the lack of standing# e(en if true# 1as not a meritorious defense to a fore losure omplaint# parti ularl$ in the post6%udgment onte&t. Again# the Appellate .i(ision relied primaril$ on the ases in luded in our prior post. Eie1 more from the For2io >eal Fropert$ 7log.

'e6 cases
:e1 'e&i o Supreme Court Gnds 7@:H4s 86$ear Winning Strea/ 32/1<5 Too mu h to highlight in this one. DWe re(erse the Court of Appeals and distri t ourt and remand to the distri t ourt 1ith instru tions to /acate its fore losure %udgment and to dismiss the 7an/ of :e1 Hor/?s fore losure a tion for lack of standing.D 0o1 did this e(er get past the trial ourt9 Citi1ank /% McCra$ Citi!an/ :.A. AS T>ISTGG @: 7G0AL) @) 7GA> STGA>:S ALT6A T>IST FASS T0>@IJ0 200K6< 30on. Li2!eth Jon2Lle2# MSC Supreme Court# 7ron& Count$# :H5311/1<5 Signifi antl$# there is no proof that Citi!an/ held 1oth the Mortgages and the 'otes 6hen it commenced this action. After areful onsideration and re(ie1# the defendant4s motion is granted for good ause sho1n. Citi!an/ has not demonstrated right to the de!t in the a1sence of a chain of custod$ and proof that the Mortgage and 'otes 1ere la1full$ assigned to and held !$ Citi!an/ prior to the commencement of this a tion. This Court a ordingl$ determines that the plaintiff lacks standing to fore lose. The underl$ing a tion is dismissed. The defendant shall ser/e a op$ of this Order 1ith 'otice of +ntr$ upon the plaintiff 1ithin <0 da$s. Focht /% ,ells Fargo 3Fro se re(ersed on standing5 3)lorida ;/1<5 = on ur in this de ision !e ause e7isting precedent re*uires me to do so. Fresuma!l$# our mandate re*uires the dismissal of this fore losure a tion# 1hi h in turn 1ill undo the fore losure sale. 's. )o ht 1ill regain possession of her propert$ and apparentl$ ontinue her free use of the duple& 1hile the lender ontinues to ma/e ad(an es to o(er the e&penses t$pi all$ paid from es ro1. @ur ertified *uestion of great pu!li importan e is dispositi(e of this appeal and 1orth$ of onsideration !$ the supreme ourt.

Wright6Fatt Credit Inion (. 7$ington 3@hio ;/1<5 A ordingl$# !e ause appellee failed to present the ourt 1ith e(identiar$ *ualit$ material in support of its assertion that it 1as the current holder of the note and mortgage at issue# a genuine issue of material fact remains regarding 1hether appellee has standing in this fore losure a tion and the lo1er ourt erred in granting appellee summar$ %udgment. Ji(en this on lusion# 1e need not address appellants? argument that appellee failed to meet the onditions pre edent !efore filing suit. The sole assignment of error is 1ell6ta/en. @n onsideration 1hereof# the ourt finds that su!stantial %usti e has not !een done the parties omplaining and the %udgment of the Grie Count$ Court of Common Fleas is re(ersed. 7an/ of :e1 Hor/ 'ellon (. Shaffer 3@hio K/1<5 @pinion and dissent address late filing# (oid (s. (oid# standing and %urisdi tion. Sin e the trial ourt lacked su12ect3matter 2urisdiction and its default 2udgment 1as therefore /oid# Shaffer 1as not re*uired to ompl$ 1ith the time re*uirements of Ci(.>. 60375 in order to !e entitled to an order /acating the 2udgment. 7AC 0ome Loan Ser(i ing (. 'app 3@hio K/1<5 We therefore re(erse the trial ourt4s finding that D7AC4s alleged lack of standing does not onstitute a meritorious defenseD and remand the ase to the trial ourt for a hearing to determine 7AC4s standing to sue# and orrespondingl$ 1hether the trial ourt had 2urisdiction o/er the fore losure pro eedings. @n remand# the trial ourt must determine 1hether 'G>S had the authorit$ to assign the mortgage and/or the note as the nominee for Countr$1ide in light of the laim that Countr$1ide 6as no longer in e7istence 6hen the mortgage 6as assigned to 4#C. Da ommon pleas ourt cannot su!stitute a real part$ in interest for another part$ if no part$ 1ith standing has in(o/ed its %urisdi tion in the first instan e.D

California Cases
Caporale /% Sa7on, eutsche 4ank, Morgan Stanle$ 3 0udge ,eiss1rodt 6 @rder Freliminar$ =n%un tion 6 .aughter6in6la1 letter to %udge 6 Claims of Sa&on 6 Sa&on 'otion to Lift Sta$ 6 Caporale 'emo in @pposition to 'otion to Lift Sta$ 6 .o /et (n *e8 9argas 3 M+*S 3relief from sta$ .enied5 Mudge 7ufford 3e&plains authenti it$ of do uments5 imrock /% +merald !roperties 3@pinion: unla1ful detainer/*uiet title5 S#:O' MO*&)#)+ S+*9(C+S, ('C%, et al., /% -(""+*; 3@rder Jranting 0omeo1ner4s 'otion to .ismiss5 Mudge Chen5

*ickie ,alker /% 4#C# G'C 'ortgage# 7ear Stearns# Citi!an/# 'G>S 3)ull !an/rupt $ do s5 320105 "ack of Standing%

Florida Cases
4re/ard Count$ Mortgage Foreclosure !rocedures Focht /% ,ells Fargo 3Fro se re(ersed on standing5 3)lorida ;/1<5 = on ur in this de ision !e ause e&isting pre edent re*uires me to do so. Fresuma!l$# our mandate re*uires the dismissal of this fore losure a tion# 1hi h in turn 1ill undo the fore losure sale. 's. )o ht 1ill regain possession of her propert$ and apparentl$ ontinue her free use of the duple& 1hile the lender ontinues to ma/e ad(an es to o(er the e&penses t$pi all$ paid from es ro1. @ur ertified *uestion of great pu!li importan e is dispositi(e of this appeal and 1orth$ of onsideration !$ the supreme ourt. SAEG> 3pro se5 (. MF '@>JA: C0ASG 7A:N# :AT=@:AL ASS@C=AT=@: AS ACOI=>G> @) CG>TA=: ASSGTS A:. L=A7=L=T=GS @) WAS0=:JT@: 'ITIAL 7A:N )>@' T0G F+ +*#" *+C+(9+* 3 )lorida C@A >e(ersed 38/18/1<5 0ere# M F 'organ?s affida(its 1ere e&e uted after it filed suit. Additionall$# the$ did not state 1hen MF 'organ !e ame the o1ner of the note nor did the$ indi ate that MF 'organ 1as the o1ner of the note !efore it filed suit. Thus# MF 'organ failed to su!mit e(iden e that it held the mortgage at the time it filed suit# and the trial ourt erred in granting summar$ %udgment in its fa(or. C*OM#*&; /% ,+""S F#*)O 3>GEG>SG.53)la. 461<5 The !orro1ers argue that the note?s
!lan/ endorsement 1as undated and the !an/?s e(iden e 1as insuffi ient to esta!lish that it held the note and 1as entitled to enfor e the note at the time it filed suit. We agree 1ith the !orro1ers? argument as to standing and re(erse.

*()4; /% ,+""S F#*)O 4#'< 34/125 @riginal omplaint onl$ had a mortgage in fa(or of
Option One atta hed. Later# Wells )argo presented an assignment of mortgage and an undated original note 1ith spe ial endorsement to Wells )argo and the trial ourt entered summar$ %udgment in fa(or of Wells )argo. )ourth .CA opined that Wells )argo has to ha(e standing at the in eption of the la1suit. >e(ersed and remanded. uke 9% -S4C 311/115DThe .u/es argued that at the time the fore losure omplaint 1as filed# the mortgage 1as held !$ )irst :LC# not appellee# 0S7C. =n its omplaint# 0S7C alleged it o1ned and held the note and mortgage at the time the omplaint 1as filed. +W h e n e&hi!its are atta hed to a omplaint# the ontents of the e&hi!its ontrol o(er the allegations of the omplaint., 7AC )unding Consortium =n . (. Mean6Ma *ues# 2A So. <d ;<6# ;<A 3)la. 2d .CA 20105. 0ere# 0S7C alleged in its omplaint that it +no1 o1ns and holds the :ote and 'ortgage#, !ut an assignment 1as not atta hed to the omplaint# supporting 0S7C?s position. =nstead# the mortgage atta hed to the omplaint sho1ed )irst :LC as the lender# reating dis repan ies !et1een the omplaint and the atta hed e&hi!it. Thus# at the time of the argument on the summar$ %udgment motion# genuine issues of material fa t e&isted as to 1hether 0S7C 1as the proper o1ner and holder of the note and mortgage 1here )irst :LC 1as named on the mortgage and e(iden e of an assignment 1as not in luded. We therefore re(erse the trial ourt?s order granting summar$ %udgment !e ause genuine issues of material fa t remain in dispute regarding the o1ner and holder of the note and mortgage at the time the omplaint 1as filed. >e(ersed.D

Feltus /% U%S% 4ank 310/115 3"ost 'ote5 We re(erse !e ause material issues of fa t as to 1hi h entit$ holding the promissor$ note e&e uted !$ )eltus e&isted at the time the trial ourt entered summar$ %udgment. 6 I.S. 7an/4s repl$ to )eltus4s affirmati(e defenses asserting that it 1as no1 in possession of the original note# 1hi h it atta hed to the repl$. 7ut the note atta hed to the omplaint sho1ed the lender to !e Countr$1ide 7an/# :.A. <han /% 4ank of #merica8 34/115 7e ause the e&hi!it to 7an/ of Ameri a?s amended omplaint onfli ts 1ith its allegations on erning standing# 7an/ of Ameri a did not esta!lish that it had standing to fore lose the mortgage as a matter of la1. As a result# the trial ourt a ted prematurel$ in entering the final summar$ %udgment of fore losure in fa(or of 7an/ of Ameri a. We# therefore# re(erse the final summar$ %udgment of fore losure and remand for further pro eedings. 4ank of #merica /% 'e1raska (n/estments 31/2A/115 This ase is .=S'=SSG. 1ithout pre%udi e. :o other pleadings !$ the plaintiff 1ill !e permitted in this ase# other than a re*uest for rehearing if appropriate. =t is onfis ator$ of the Court4s time to ha(e to address this matter. 4#C Funding /% 0ac=ues, U%S% 4ank 32/125 I.S. 7an/ filed a 1ritten response to 7AC4s motion to dismiss. Atta hed as G&hi!it A to this response 1as an DAssignment of 'ortgage.D 0o1e(er# the spa e for the name of the assignee on this DassignmentD 1as !lan/# and the DassignmentD 1as neither signed nor notari2ed. )urther# I.S. 7an/ did not atta h or file an$ do ument that 1ould authenti ate this DassignmentD or other1ise render it admissi!le into e(iden e. A ordingl$# !e ause I.S. 7an/ failed to esta!lish its status as legal o1ner and holder of the note and mortgage# the trial ourt a ted prematurel$ in entering final summar$ %udgment of fore losure in fa(or of I.S. 7an/. We therefore re(erse the final summar$ %udgment of fore losure and remand for further pro eedings. eutsche 4ank /% "ippi 32/20105 3.efendant4s Amended 'otion to .ismiss the Fleadings of Flaintiff is J>A:TG. 1ith pre%udi e !e ause o(er a t1o $ear period Flaintiff failed to allege or pro(ide do uments demonstrating its right to !ring this a tion. =ndependentl$# .efendant4s Amended 'otion to .ismiss the Fleadings of Flaintiff is J>A:TG. as a san tion under the di tates of the am de ision and its progen$. "0 MO*&)#)+ C#!(&#", ('C%, '+, C+'&U*; MO*&)#)+ CO*!O*#&(O', S+"+C& !O*&FO"(O S+*9(C('), ('C% and F"O*( # +F#U"& "#, )*OU! /% &horn1err$ 6 @>.G> >GJA>.=:J FLA=:T=))4S '@T=@: T@ >G6GSTA7L=S0 :@TG 6 .LM 'ortgage4s mortgage fore losure Complaint 6 .=S'=SSG. ,(&- F>GMI.=CG 3Ipdate from Thorn!err$: 10/1K/10 6 The !an/ ontinued to ome !a / and the 8th %udge in the
matter >GEG>SG. the .ismissed 1ith Fre%udi e that = 1on. = am still fighting this in%usti ePPPP The first %udge .WF 1ithout a hearing for la / of standing 6 no note due to )L STAT K1.011. !ut !an/ got latest %udge to o(erturn 7GCAISG the .WF 1as done sua sponte# 1/o a hearing !ut *uotes no )L STAT or ode that states a hearing is mandator$ 1hen dealing 1ith dismissal due to la / of S'M.5

eutsche 4ank>s Summar$ 0udgment enied

(nd$Mac /% *ogers 3>ogers 'otion to .ismiss J>A:TG.5# 'ar h 2010# F=:GLLAS C@I:TH 4ac Funding Consortium /% 0ac=ues, U%S% 4ank, C34ass 3U.S. Bank failed to establish its status as legal owner and holder of the note and mortgage. App. Court reversed SJ) - 4ac (nitial 4rief in 0ac=ues VERIZZO v. Bank of New York MERS (Summar Judgment !"#"!S"$ % !"&A'$"$( late noti)e( flawed )hain of assignments) Verizzo v. Bank of New York (*rder of $ismissal against B*'+) (,based on the late servi)e and filing of the summar -udgment eviden)e and the e.isten)e of a genuine issue of material fa)t( we reverse the final summar -udgment and remand for further pro)eedings.,) Wells Fargo v. Chesne /0hile ,non-negotiable, instruments ma also be assigned( there is no assignment atta)hed to the Complaint. 1he 'ote and &ortgage atta)hed to the Compliant are made in favor of 0ashington &utual( not the )urrent 2laintiff( 0ells 3argo.4 Wells Fargo v. Cirigliano (5678) ('o eviden)e to show a )hain of title of how the note got transferred to 0ells 3argo.) !.S. Bank v. "ar#s$er (5678) ('otar fraud( assignment fraud( fraud upon the )ourt( dismissed with pre-udi)e) Judge 1epper %M&C v. Visi'aro (9678) (:earing( -udge sets aside his previous grant of summar -udgment) Judge !ondolino Riggs v. &(rora )oan Servi'ing (96;76;878) (Court of Appeals the endorsement in !lan/ is unsigned and unauthenti ated# reating a genuine issue of material fa t as to 1hether Aurora is the la1ful o1ner and holder of the note and/or mortgage. As in BAC Funding Consortium# &nc. &+A4A5A6&'A v. 7ean87acques# 2A So. <d ;<6 3)la. 2d .CA 20105# there are n o supporting affida(its or deposition testimon$ in the re ord to esta!lish that Aurora (alidl$ o1ns and holds the note and mortgage# no e(iden e of an assignment to Aurora# no proof of pur hase of the de!t nor an$ other e(iden e of an effe ti(e transfer. Thus# 1e re(erse the summar$ %udgment and remand for further pro eedings. U%S% 4ank /% Mc"eod 3'a$ K# 2010 6 Mudge Tra$nor5 3@rder Ea ated 6 .ismissed 1/pre%udi e#
possi!le san tions5

-S4C 4ank /% +sla/a 3 3Trans ript on 0earing To Sho1 Cause on 'a$ K# 2010 6 Mudge Mennifer 7aile$5 3The note# 1hi h 1as an eled !$ this ourt pursuant to a final %udgment is null and (oid. Mr% +sla/a is relie/ed of the de1t% The title shall !e on(e$ed !a / to 'r. Gsla(a !$ the !an/ 66 !$ the trust# as the legal lia!ilit$ for the note no longer e&ists. 4#C /% 4o7 36/</20105 3Arthur 7. )ederman 6 7an/rupt $ Mudge5 3Trustee opposed 7AC4s re*uest for relief from automati sta$. 7AC4s motion is .G:=G..5 U%S% 4ank /% &roche 3'a$/20105 3@rder setting aside %udgment and sale.5 -S4C / *uscalleda 3Mune ; 20105 37ased on the uni*ue ir umstan es of this ase# 1e on lude that the trial ourt a!used its dis retion !$ den$ing the motion to ontinue the

final summar$ %udgment hearing and !$ failing to grant the motion to transfer the fore losure a tion to the di(ision 1here a separate foreclosure action 6as pending in 6hich another 1ank 6as simultaneousl$ seeking to foreclose the same mortgage% #urora, M+*S /% a Costa 34/20105 3DBTChe plaintiffs la / of standing at the in eption of the ase is not a defe t that ma$ !e ured !$ the a *uisition of standing after the ase is filed.D There is no e(iden e of re ord that esta!lishes that 'G>S 1as authori2ed to assign an$thing to Flaintiff# and therefore# the assignment 1as in(alid. G(en if the assignment 1ere (alid# it 1as not e&e uted until after the omplaint 1as filed. Therefore# Flaintiff s standing at the in eption of the ase 1as !ased entirel$ on the omplaint and the e&hi!its atta hed thereto. =t appears on the fa e of those e&hi!its that an entit$ other than Flaintiff has standing# and those e&hi!its ontrol o(er ontrar$ allegations ontained in either (ersion of the omplaint. Flaintiff la /s standing no1 !ased on the su!stanti(e defi ien ies 1ith an assignment from 'G>S. Flaintiff la /ed standing at the in eption of the ase !ased on those su!stanti(e defi ien ies and the timing of the e&e ution of the assignment. A!sent standing# there is no %usti ia!le ontro(ers$ !et1een the parties# and this ase must !e dismissed.5 (nd$Mac /% <e$ser 3Mune 20105 3Mudgment and sale set aside.5 M?& 4#'< /% Smith 3 # C#S+ OF S!+C(#" ('&+*+S& &O F"O*( # FO*+C"OSU*+ +F+'S+ "#,;+*S. 9: $:;; 2. +<:'4;&A=
3Mune 20105 BtChe Court finds the plaintiff la /s standing and is not a proper part$ to the suit. The Court has !een misled !$ the Flaintiff from the !eginning. =n its initial Complaint# the Flaintiff alleged it o1ned the note that 1as lost. Then Flaintiff alleged that not onl$ 1as the lost :ote found# !ut the Flaintiff a tuall$ o1ned the :ote !$ Assignment. After !oth of these Complaints 1ere dismissed# Flaintiff then alleged that Wells )argo o1ned the :ote# 1hile the Flaintiff 1as merel$ a ser(i er of the loan. 'oreo(er# the Assignment on 1hi h Flaintiff relied in its )irst Amended Complaint postdates the filing of this fore losure a tion and is in onsistent 1ith the 'ortgage# :ote# stamps allegedl$ affi&ed to the :ote# and the Allonge.

4#C/Countr$6ide /% Stent@ 6 312/105 36th Cir uit# Fas o Count$# )lorida5 Motion to ismiss
)ranted 1ith a redo option. DA thief 1ho steals a he / pa$a!le to !earer !e omes the holder of the he /Q !ut does not !e ome the o1ner of it., 6 Mudge Tepper "indse$ /% ,ells Fargo 3Wetherell M.200;5 The Assignment of 'ortgage did not purport to transfer the note# and the original note filed 1ith the ourt did not in lude a spe ial endorsement to Wells )argo or a !lan/ endorsement.

'e6 ;ork / 'e6 0erse$ Cases

Citi1ank /% McCra$ Citi!an/ :.A. AS T>ISTGG @: 7G0AL) @) 7GA> STGA>:S ALT6A T>IST FASS T0>@IJ0 200K6< 30on. Li2!eth Jon2Lle2# MSC Supreme Court# 7ron& Count$# :H5311/1<5 Signifi antl$# there is no proof that Citi!an/ held !oth the 'ortgages and the :otes 1hen it ommen ed this a tion. After areful onsideration and re(ie1# the defendant4s motion is granted for good ause sho1n. Citi!an/ has not demonstrated right to the de!t in the a!sen e of a hain of ustod$ and proof that the 'ortgage and :otes 1ere la1full$ assigned to and held !$ Citi!an/ prior to the ommen ement of this a tion. This Court a ordingl$ determines

that the plaintiff la /s standing to fore lose. The underl$ing a tion is dismissed. The defendant shall ser(e a op$ of this @rder 1ith :oti e of Gntr$ upon the plaintiff 1ithin <0 da$s.

Capacit$ and/or Standing to SueA and *+M(CS re=uire O*()('#"S

,ells Fargo /% +ro1o1o RR3:H 4/1<5 3(nstructional5 There is a differen e !et1een the apa it$ to
sue 1hi h gi(es the right to ome into ourt# and possession of a ause of a tion 1hi h gi(es the right to relief. =n apa it$ to sue is not the same as insuffi ien $ of fa ts to sue upon. =n Arti le ==# se tion 2.01 Con(e$an e of 'ortgage Loans# the FSA re*uires that the .epositor deli(er and deposit 1ith the Trustee the original note# the original mortgage and an original assignment.

U%S% 'atl% #ssn% / Said 3Supreme Court# Oueens Count$53161<5 Case ismissed o/er 4roken Chain of #ssignments =n opposition# Said ontends that plaintiff la /s standing and has no legal apa it$ to sue !e ause the assignment in 1hi h plaintiff 1as assigned the first mortgage 1as in(alid sin e there 1as an improper hain of assignments prior to the assignment in(ol(ing plaintiff. )or the reasons set forth !elo1# plaintiff4s motion for summar$ %udgment pursuant to CFL> S<212 is denied in its entiret$T and Said4s ross6motion for summar$ %udgment dismissing plaintiff4s omplaint pursuant to CFL> S<212 is granted in its entiret$. 'e6 ;ork Mtge% &rust / asdemir 311/125 3:e1 Hor//S ha /53:athan >eese4s assignment of the su!%e t mortgage and note to :H'T# for M+*S# as nominee for :H'C# in the instant fore losure a tion is 1ithout legal authorit$. Therefore# plaintiff :H'T ould not !e the holder of the su!%e t mortgage and note 1hen the a tion ommen ed. Thus# plaintiff :H'T la /ed standing to ommen e the instant fore losure a tion. -S4C /% !UCC('( 6/12 3:e1 Hor/5 @>.G>G. that this motion !$ defendant .euts he 7an/ :ational Trust Compan$# as Trustee for )remont 0ome Loan Series 20066< 3.euts he 7an/5 for summar$%udgment on its first ounter laim against plaintiff# de laring that .euts he 7an/ is the la1ful o1ner and holder of a (alid first mortgage against the su!%e t premises# de laring that the redit line mortgage 1as paid in full and is dis harged and satisfied of re ord# and de laring that plaintiff and all persons laiming !$# through and under it !e fore(er !arred from all laims to an estate or interest in the su!%e t premises# and granting defendant .euts he 7an/ summar$ %udgment dismissing the omplaint as against it and an elling the noti e of penden $ filed !$ plaintiff is denied. eutsche 4ank /% Cuesta 36/1253:e1 Hor/5 @>.G>G. that this motion !$ defendant .euts he 7an/ :ational Trust Compan$# as Trustee for )remont 0ome Loan Series 20066< 3.euts he 7an/5 for summar$ %udgment on its first ounter laim against plaintiff# de laring that .euts he 7an/ is the la1ful o1ner and holder of a (alid first mortgage against the su!%e t premises# de laring that the redit line mortgage 1as paid in full and is dis harged and satisfied of re ord# and de laring that plaintiff and all persons laiming !$# through and under it !e fore(er !arred from all laims to an estate or interest in the su!%e t premises# and granting defendant .euts he 7an/ summar$ %udgment dismissing the omplaint as against it and an elling the noti e of penden $ filed !$ plaintiff is denied.

U%S% 4ank /% ellarmo 3Standing6:H Sup.Ct.534/125 D=n a mortgage fore losure a tion# a plaintiff has standing 1here it is !oth the holder or assignee of the su!%e t mortgage and the holder or assignee of the underl$ing note at the time the a tion is ommen edD 39an> of ;.:. v +ilverberg# A6 A.<d 2K4# 2K;T see %ountry?ide ome $oans# &nc. v "ress# 6A A.<d K0;5. Where a defendant raises the issue of standing# the plaintiff must pro(e its standing to !e entitled to relief 3see %iti'ortgage# &nc. v @osenthal# AA A.<d K8;T A.+. 9an># ;.A. v %ollymore# 6A A.<d K82# K8<5. 'oreo(er# 1hile assignment of a promissor$ note also effe tuates assignment of the mortgage 3see 7an/ of :.H. +ilverberg# A6 A.<d at 2A0T A.+. 9an># ;.A. v %ollymore# 6A A.<d at K8<6K84T 'ortgage 2lec. @egistration +ys.# &nc. v %oa>ley# 5# the on(erse is not true: sin e a mortgage is merel$ se urit$ for a de!t# it annot e&ist independentl$ of the de!t# and thus# a transfer or assignment of onl$ the mortgage 1ithout the de!t is a nullit$ and no interest is a *uired !$ it 3see 0eutsche 9an> ;atl. 6rust %o. v 9arnett# AA A.<d 6<6T 9an> of ;.:. v +ilverberg# A6 A.<d at 2A05. The failure to re ord an assignment prior to the ommen ement of the a tion is not ne essaril$ fatal sin e Dan assignment of a note and mortgage need not !e in 1riting and an !e effe tuated !$ ph$si al deli(er$D 39an> of ;.:. v +ilverberg# A6 A.<d at 2A0T see 0eutsche 9an> ;atl. 6rust %o. v 9arnett# AA A.<d 6<6T A.+. 9an># ;.A. v %ollymore# 6A A.<d at K84T $a+alle 9an> ;atl. Assn. v Ahearn# 8; A.<d ;11# ;125. Citimortgage v. Stosel 3Standing 6 :H5311/115 A plaintiff esta!lishes its standing in a mortgage
fore losure a tion !$ demonstrating that it is !oth the holder or assignee of the su!%e t mortgage and the holder or assignee of the underl$ing note# +either !$ ph$si al deli(er$ or e&e ution of a 1ritten assignment prior to the ommen ement of the a tion, 3Aurora Loan Ser(s.# LLC (. Weis!lum# A8 A.<d ;8# 10A5. Moreo/er, Ban assignment of the mortgage 6ithout assignment of the underl$ing note or 1ond is a nullit$C 3I.S. 7an/# :.A. (. Coll$more# 6A A.<d at K84T see 7an/ of :.H. (. Sil(er!erg# A6 A.<d 2K4# 2A05. Contrar$ to the determination of the Supreme Court# the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it had standing to ommen e this fore losure a tion# sin e it failed to esta!lish ho1 or 1hen it !e ame the la1ful holder of the note either !$ deli(er$ or (alid assignment of the note to it.

Wells )argo ( ' :ee 311/115 As the )irst .epartment held in Nat2 (. Gast6Eille >ealt$ Co.# 324; A.2d 24<# 24<5# a +BpClaintiff?s attempt to fore lose upon a mortgage in 1hi h he had no legal or e*uita!le interest BisC 1ithout foundation in la1 or fa t, 3see Nluge (. )uga2$# 148 A.2d 8<K5. 0en e# Wells )argo?s attempt to fore lose upon the su!%e t mortgage must !e denied# the omplaint dismissed# and ' :ee?s ross6motion3s5 to dismiss for la / of standing pursuant to CFL> <2113a53<5 granted. o6ne$ /% &ru2illo 3A/1153S ha /5 ismissed 6ith pre2udice. S ha / 1as angered after la1$er 'argaret Caru i said in a s1orn affida(it that a .o1ne$ Sa(ings U Loan offi er on .e . 24# 2010 laimed to ha(e personall$ re(ie1ed and ould (ou h for the a ura $ of the paper1or/ underl$ing Tru%illo4s fore losure 66 although .o1ne$ had long eased to e&ist. eutsche 4ank /% Mitchell3A/115 Summar$ 2udgment re/ersed 3 sale /acated% The assignment 1as not perfe ted until after the filing of the omplaint# and plaintiff presented no e(iden e of ha(ing possessed the underl$ing note prior to filing the omplaint. =f plaintiff did not ha(e the note 1hen it filed the original omplaint# it la /ed standing to do so# and it ould not o!tain standing !$ filing an amended omplaint.
We (a ate the sheriff4s sale# the final %udgment and the order granting summar$ %udgment and remand to the trial ourt.

4ank of 'e6 ;ork /% Sil/er1ergD 36/115 This matter in(ol(es the enfor ement of the rules that go(ern real propert$ and 1hether su h rules should !e !ent to a ommodate a s$stem that has ta/en on a life of its o1n. The issue presented on this appeal is 1hether a part$ has standing to ommen e a fore losure a tion 1hen that part$4s assignor"in this ase# Mortgage +lectronic *egistration S$stems# =n . 3hereinafter M+*S5"1as listed in the underl$ing mortgage instruments as a nominee and mortgagee for the purpose of re ording# !ut 1as ne(er the a tual holder or assignee of the underl$ing notes. We ans1er this *uestion in the negati(e. A ordingl$# the Supreme Court should ha(e granted the defendants4 motion pursuant to CFL> <2113a53<5 to dismiss the omplaint insofar as asserted against them for la / of standing. Thus# the order is re(ersed# on the la1# and the motion of the defendants Stephen Sil(er!erg and )redri a Sil(er!erg pursuant to CFL> <2113a53<5 to dismiss the omplaint insofar as asserted against them for la / of standing is granted. eutsche 4ank /% Francis 3 ismissed ,ith !re2udice6S ha /53</115: = dis o(ered that there is no re ord of plaintiff .GITSC0G 7A:N e(er o1ning the su!%e t mortgage and note. Therefore# 1ith plaintiff .GITSC0G 7A:N la /ing standing# the instant a tion is dismissed 1ith pre%udi e and the noti e of penden $ an elled.
A 1ant of Dstanding to sue#D in other 1ords# is %ust another 1a$ of sa$ing that this parti ular plaintiff is not in(ol(ed in a genuine ontro(ers$# and a simple s$llogism ta/es us from there to a D%urisdi tionalD dismissal: 315 the ourts ha(e %urisdi tion onl$ o(er ontro(ersiesT 325 a plaintiff found to la / DstandingD is not in(ol(ed in a ontro(ers$T and 3<5 the ourts therefore ha(e no %urisdi tion of the ase 1hen su h a plaintiff purports to !ring it.

0ohnston /% -S4CDD 33 omplaint5# 3e&trinsi fraud# real part$5 3</115

+7trinsic Fraud8 7e ause the fraud is e&trinsi in nature# 0S7C is pre luded from raising the do trine of66 res %udi ata 66as a defense against this Courts o!ligation to (erif$ first and foremost that the laimant has federal %urisdi tion +real part$ in interest, status. *eal !art$ in interest: 0S7C '@>TJAJG C@>F 3ISA5 3hereinafter# +0S7C,5 does not *ualif$ as a +real part$ of interestD pursuant to >ule 1K of the )ederal >ules of Ci(il Fro edure# 1hi h pro(ides: DAn a tion must !e prose uted in the name of the real part$ in interest.D The purpose of this rule is to re*uire that an a tion !e !rought Din the name of the part$ 1ho possesses the su!stanti(e right !eing asserted under the appli a!le la1....D 6A W>=J0T#'=LLG> U NA:G# )G.G>AL F>ACT=CG A:. F>@CG.I>G: C=E=L 2d S 1841 31;;05 3DW>=J0TD5.

#"+ /% U%S% 4ank E+7punge Mortgage and #ssignmentDF31/115 #merican 4rokers Conduit /% G#M#""O# 6 Mudge SC0ACN 11Sep200K +MC Mortgage /% ,ink 6 31/0K5 M+*S, 6hich is not itself the o6ner and holder of the note and
mortgage, does not ha/e the authorit$ to assign the o6nership of the note and mortgage to plaintiff% 0udgment of foreclosure and sale is denied

Countr$6ide -ome "oans, (nc% / &a$lor 6 'a$er# M.# Supreme Court# Suffol/ Count$ / Sept. 200K #merican 4rokers Conduit /% G#M#""O# 6 Mudge SC0ACN 2AMan200A Aurora Loan Services v. MACPHERSON - Judge FARNETI 11Mar2008 Bank of New York v. SINGH - Judge KURTZ 14Dec2007 4ank of 'e6 ;ork /% &O**+S 6 Mudge C@STGLL@ 11'ar200A

4ank of 'e6 ;ork /% O*OSCO 6 Mudge SC0ACN 1;:o(200K CitiMortgage (nc% /% 4*O,' 6 Mudge )A>:GT= 1<'ar200A Countr$6ide Mortgage /% 4+*"(U< 6 Mudge C@STGLL@ 1<'ar200A eutsche 4ank /% 4arnes6Mudgment Gntr$ eutsche 4ank /% 4arnes6Withdra1al of @!%e tions and 'otion to .ismiss eutsche 4ank /% #"+M#'; Mudge C@STGLL@ 0KMan200A eutsche 4ank /% 4en2amin C*UG 6 MudgeNI>TV 21'a$200A eutsche 4ank /% ;o1anna C*UG 6 Mudge NI>TV 21'a$200A eutsche 4ank /% C#4#*O; 6 Mudge C@STGLL@ 02Apr200A he 4ank /% C#S&+""#'OS / 200K:HSlip@p80;KAI/6 Mudge SC0ACN 11'a$200K -+ 4ank /% C#S&+""#'OS/ 200A:HSlip@p800<<I/ 6 Mudge SC0ACN 14Man200A -S4C /% 9alentin 6 Mudge SC0ACN alls them liars and dismisses W=T0 pre%udi e RR eutsche 4ank /% C"OU +' / 200K:HSlip@p81K6KI/ Mudge SC0ACN 1ASep200K eutsche 4ank /% +G#)U( 6 Mudge SC0ACN 21.e 200K eutsche 4ank /% )*#'& 6 Mudge SC0ACN 28Apr200A eutsche 4ank /% -#**(S 6 Mudge SC0ACN 08)e!200A eutsche 4ank /% "aCrosse,Cede, &C Complaint eutsche 4ank /% '(C-O""S 3 Mudge NI>TV 21'a$200A eutsche 4ank /% *;#' 6 Mudge NI>TV 2;Man200A eutsche 4ank /% S#M!SO' 6 Mudge NI>TV 16Man200A eutsche /% Marche 3 @rder to Sho1 Cause to EACATG Mudgment of )ore losure 6 11Mune200; )M#C Mortgage ""C /% M#&&-+,S 6 Mudge NI>TV 10Man200A )M#C Mortgage ""C /% S+*#F('+ 6 Mudge C@STGLL@ 0AMan200A -S4C 4ank US# '# /% C(!*(#'( Mudge C@STGLL@ 0AMan200A -S4C 4ank US# '# /% 0#C< 6 Mudge C@STGLL@ 02Apr200A (nd$Mac 4ank FS4 /% *O '+;3*OSS 6 Mudge NI>TV 18Man200A "aSalle 4ank '# /% C-#*"+US 6 Mudge NI>TV 0<Man200A "aSalle 4ank '# /% SM#""S 6 Mudge NI>TV 0<Man200A !-- Mortgage Corp /% 4#*4+* 6 Mudge NI>TV 18Man200A !ropert$ #sset Management /% -U#;&# 08.e 200K *i/era, (n *e Ser/ices ""C /% S#&&#* / 200K:HSlip@p81A;8I/ 6 Mudge SC0ACN 0;@ t200K U%S% 4ank '# /% #U)US&+ 3 Mudge NI>TV 2K:o(200K

U%S% 4ank /% +mmanuel 6 3Mudge S ha / 'a$ 20105 .ismissed 1ith pre%udi e. +fore losure of a mortgage ma$ not !e !rought !$ one 1ho has no title to it and a!sent transfer of the de!t# the assignment of the mortgage is a nullit$D. U%S% 4ank '# /% )*#'& 3 Mudge NI>TV 14.e 200K U%S% 4ank '# /% *OU' &*++ 3 Mudge 7I>NG 11@ t200K U%S% 4ank '# /% 9(""#*U+" 3 Mudge NI>TV 01)e!200A ,ells Fargo 4ank '# /% -#M!&O' 3 0udge NI>TV 0<Man200A ,ells Fargo, "itton "oan /% Farmer W=T0 F>GMI.=CG Mudge S ha / Mune200A
Flaintiff has rene1ed its appli ation for an order of referen e for the su!%e t premises# !ut the papers su!mitted fail to ure the defe ts enumerated in m$ prior de ision and order. The purported plaintiff# WGLLS )A>J@# does not o1n the instant mortgage loan. Therefore# the instant matter is dismissed 1ith pre%udi e. 6 &6o in/alid assignments of the instant mortgage and note too/ pla e# 1ith A>JG:T assigning the note and mortgage to A'G>=OIGST# and then A'G>=OIGST assigning the note and mortgage to plaintiff WGLLS )A>J@. 7oth of these assignments 1ere not re orded for more than fourteen months# until )e!ruar$ 21# 2006# 1hen the$ 1ere !oth re orded at that same time.

,ells Fargo /% *e$es W=T0 F>GMI.=CG# )raud on Court U San tions Mudge S ha / Mune200A 'o defendant ans6ered in this foreclosure action%
WGLLS )A>J@ 7A:N# :AT=@:AL ASS@C=AT=@: AS T>ISTGG A:. CIST@.=A: )@> '@>JA: STA:LGH A7S CAF=TAL1 =:C.# 'SAC 200K60G4# la /s standing and has ne(er !een the mortgagee in this fore losure a tion# the instant omplaint# =nde& :o. 8816/0A# is dismissed 1ith pre%udi eT and it is further @>.G>G.# that the :oti e of Fenden $ filed 1ith the Nings Count$ Cler/ on )e!ruar$ 21# 200A# !$ purported plaintiff# WGLLS )A>J@ 7A:N# :AT=@:AL ASS@C=AT=@: AS T>ISTGG A:. CIST@.=A: )@> '@>JA: STA:LGH A7S CAF=TAL1 =:C.# 'SAC 200K60G4# in an a tion to fore lose a mortgage for real propert$ lo ated at <K; Lin oln A(enue# 7roo/l$n :e1 Hor/ 37lo / 41K<# Lot 6# Count$ of Nings5# is an elled.

eutsche 4ank /% !ea1od$ Mudge :olan 3>egulation V5 (nd$mac 4ank,FS4 /% 4o$d 6 S ha / M. Manuar$ 200; (nd$mac 4ank, FS4 /% 4ethle$ 6 S ha /# M. )e!ruar$ 200; 3The tale of man$ hats5 (nd$mac 4ank, /% ;ano3-oroski 3Mudge 7lasts 7an/4s )ore losure Condu t and Can els 'ortgage. "aSalle 4ank 'atl% #ssn% / #hearn 3 Appellate .i(ision# Third .epartment 33ro +e5W '+, 0+*S+; C@I>T .=S'=SSGS )@>GCL@SI>G )=LG. 7H +U&SC-+ 4#'< )@> )A=LI>G T@ F>@E=.G .=SC@EG>H AS T@ @W:G> A:. 0@L.G> @) :@TG# SGCI>=T=VG. T>IST .@CI'G:TS# A:. @T0G> .@CI'G:TS .G'A:.G. 7H 7@>>@WG>S 0S7C 7an/ ISA ( 'iller.mht0S7C 7an/ ISA ( 'iller 200; :H Slip @p 2;444 / .e ided
on @ to!er 2;# 200; / 'eddaugh# M.

"asalle 4ank /% Smith, M+*S E0udge Schack 3 March 22, 2H1HF

,ells Fargo 4ank, #mericas Ser/icing Compan$, M+*S / -unte E0udge

Schack, #pr%14, 2H1H/ ismissed 6ith pre2udice, possi1le sanctions%F 3The ourt
Ddis o(ered that WGLLS )A>J@ e&e uted a satisfa tion of the instant mortgage more than ten months ago.D DThe Court is gra(el$ on erned that: it e&pended s ar e resour es on an a tion that should ha(e !een

dis ontinued.D +the Court# in its dis retion ma$ impose finan ial san tions upon an$ part$ or attorne$ in a i(il a tion or pro eeding 1ho engages in fri(olous ondu t.D5

Chase /% 0ohnson 3Mudge S ha / 'a$ 4# 20105 3/acated 2udgment of foreclosure and sale 6ith
pre2udice as plaintiff lacked standing%F

One,est 4ank /% Cullen 3Mudge V1a / 6 'ar h <# 20105 E&he Court finds that One,est has
failed to esta1lish it has standing and dismissed the complaint%F

#*)+'& /% Maitland E#ug% 2H1HF EIclassJKapple3st$le3spanK st$leJ>font8 12p7/2Hp7 )eorgia,

K&imes 'e6 *omanK, &imes, serifA color8 rg1E1H2, 1H2, 1H2FA te7t3transform8 noneA te7t3indent8 Hp7A letter3spacing8 normalA 6ord3spacing8 Hp7A 6hite3space8 normalA 1order3collapse8 separateA orphans8 2A 6ido6s8 2A 36e1kit31order3hori@ontal3spacing8 Hp7A 36e1kit31order3/ertical3spacing8 Hp7A 36e1kit3te7t3decorations3in3effect8 noneA 36e1kit3te7t3si@e3ad2ust8 autoA 36e1kit3te7t3stroke36idth8 Hp7A>0udge SchackF !laintiffLs counsel ne/er notified the Court that the mortgage had 1een satisfied and failed to discontinue the instant action 6ith pre2udice% ( disco/ered that the mortgage had 1een satisfied 1$ personall$ searching the #utomated Cit$ *egister (nformation S$stem E#C*(SF 6e1site of the Office of the Cit$ *egister, 'e6 ;ork Cit$ epartment of Finance% I/classJKapple3st$le3spanK #-MS(Ls !resident and Chief +7ecuti/e Officer or its +7ecuti/e 9ice !resident, Chief "egal Officer and Secretar$ 0ordan % orchuck, +s=%, its counsel, Melissa #% Sposato, +s=% and her firm, 0ordan S% <at@, !%C%, 6ill 1e gi/en an opportunit$ to 1e heard as to 6h$ this Court should not sanction them for making a Bfri/olous motion,C

M+*S as 'ominee for U%S% 4ank /% Muno@ 3 EO* +* &O S-O, C#US+F
Mortgage +lectronic *egistration S$stem as :ominee for US 4ank# and an$ of its attorne$s# agents# su essors and assignees# !e and are here!$ restrained from implementing the losing of title on an$ third part$ sale of the premises and restrained from e(i ting the famil$ from the premises.

""! /% Sa1ine 3A/20105 Dthe assignment produ ed !$ LFF is insuffi ient to demonstrate it has standing
as 315 M+*S has no o6nership rights in the note and thus cannot assign it T 325 the language of the assignment of the mortgage does not e(iden e an intent to assign the underl$ing note# 3<5 the assignment arises out of a pur hase agreement 1ith an entit$ 1ho is not a part$ to this a tion# and 345 the pro(ision of mortgage do ument relied on !$ LFF does not gi(e 'G>S the authorit$ to assign the mortgage or the note.

,ells Fargo 4ank, '%#% / -ughes 31/105 The terms of the proposed modification agreement#
parti ularl$ !ut not e& lusi(el$ the in lusion of an ad%usta!le rate omponent# are una epta!le to this ourt. DThe a!o(e matter is here!$ dismissed 6ithout pre2udiceT and it is further ordered# that in the e(ent Wells )argo ommen es a ne1 a tion in fore losure 1ith respe t to this !orro1er and the premises at issue herein# no additional osts or attorne$ fees 1ill !e allo1ed# a!sent good ause sho1n. BACKFIRE! +migrant Mtge% Co% (nc% / Corcione8 3K/105 Dunconsciona1le,

unreasona1le MandN o/erreachingK mortgage agreement% )or all of the foregoing reasons# it is# therefore ordered# ad%udged and de reed that plaintiff4s appli ation for summar$ %udgment and appointment of a referee is deniedT and it is further ordered# ad%udged and de reed that plaintiff# its su essors# assigns and others areX lassYDapple6st$le6spanD st$leY4 olor: rg!30# 0# 05T te&t6transform: noneT line6height: normalT te&t6indent: 0p&T letter6spa ing: normalT font6famil$: DTimes :e1 >omanD# Times# serifT font6st$le: normalT font6(ariant: normalT 1ord6spa ing: 0p&T 1hite6spa e: normalT !order6 ollapse: separateT orphans: 2T 1ido1s: 2T 61e!/it6!order6hori2ontal6spa ing: 2p&T 61e!/it6!order6(erti al6spa ing: 2p&T 61e!/it6te&t6de orations6in6effe t: noneT 61e!/it6te&t6si2e6ad%ust: autoT 61e!/it6 te&t6stro/e61idth: 0p&T4 fore(er !arred# fore losed and prohi!ited from demanding# olle ting or attempting to olle t# dire tl$ or indire tl$# an$ and all of the sums in this pro eeding delineated as interest# default interest# attorne$4s fees# legal fees# osts# dis!ursements# ad(an es or an$ sums other than the prin ipal !alan e# that ma$ ha(e a rued from 'a$ 1# 200A up to the date of this orderT and it is further ordered# ad%udged

and de reed that defendants re o(er %udgment against plaintiff Gmigrant 'ortgage Co. =n .# in the prin ipal sum of Z100.000.00 as damages for 1hat he said 1as an Dunconsciona1le, unreasona1le MandN o/erreachingK mortgage agreement. X/ lassYDapple6st$le6spanD 4eneficial /% SteeleRRR 3Mudge Spinner53Man K/115 An a tion laiming fore losure of a mortgage is a
suit in e*uit$# Mamai a Sa(ings 7an/ (. '.S. =n(estment Co. 2K4 :H 218 31;<K5# and the (er$ ommen ement of the pro eeding in(o/es the e*uit$ %urisdi tion of the Supreme Court. Thus# in order to o!tain e*uita!le relief# the appli ant must ome !efore the Court 1ith lean hands# else su h relief 1ill !e denied. Thus# 1here a part$ omes !efore the Court and is sho1n to ha(e a ted in a manner 1hi h is offensi(e to good ons ien e# fairness and %usti e# that part$ 1ill !e ompletel$ 1ithout re ourse in a ourt of e*uit$# no matter 1hat his legal rights ma$ !e# Hor/ (. Searles ;K A. <<1 ;2nd .ept. 1;045# aff4d 1A; :H 8K< 31;0K5. Stated a !it differentl$# in order to o!tain e*uit$# one must do e*uit$. 0ere# it is irrefuta!le that .efendant SISA: STGGLG 1as not a part$ to the Loan Agreement and ertainl$ did not e&e ute the same. =t is e*uall$ indu!ita!le that .efendant STGF0G: STGGLG did not e&e ute the Loan Agreement that has !een presented on this appli ation. :onetheless# Flaintiff has (igorousl$ prose uted this a tion# demanding fore losure of the mortgage as 1ell as mone$ damages against !oth named .efendants. Inder these ir umstan es# the Court is ompelled to ondu t a hearing to determine 1hether or not Flaintiff has pro eeded in good faith and 1hat san tion# if an$ should !e imposed should the Court find a la / of good faith. 3=d.5

Ohio Cases
Interi !in"in#s of Effects of O$io Stan"in# Ru%in#s

Ohio Foreclosure -elp Ohio Certificate of *eadiness Ohio Foreclosure !rocess

&Certificate of Rea"iness for !orec%osure Actions !i%e" U! #&+8 O-(O FO*+C"OSU*+ C#S+S8 "+' +*S 4+,#*+D (&>S U'#'(MOUSO O-(O SU!*+M+ COU*& SGTTLGS C@:)L=CT @) )@>GCL@SI>G @F=:=@:S in: SC-,#*&G,#" /% F*+ (+ M#C )ederal 0ome Loan ommen ed this fore losure a tion !efore it o!tained an assignment of the promissor$ note and mortgage se uring the S h1art21alds? loan. The S h1art21alds maintained that )ederal 0ome Loan la /ed standing to sue. The trial ourt granted summar$ %udgment in fa(or of )ederal 0ome Loan and entered a de ree of fore losure. The appellate ourt affirmed# holding that )ederal 0ome Loan had remedied its la / of standing 1hen it o!tained an assignment from the real part$ in interest. Standing is re*uired to in(o/e the %urisdi tion of the ommon pleas ourt# and therefore it is determined as of the filing of the omplaint. Thus# re ei(ing an assignment of a promissor$ note and mortgage from the real part$ in interest su!se*uent to the filing of an a tion !ut prior to the entr$ of %udgment does not cure a lack of standing to file a fore losure a tion. [\ 4] A ordingl$# the %udgment of the ourt of appeals is re(ersed# and the ause is dismissed.

# fe6 cases *e/ersed 1ased on Sch6art@6ald8

)or a!out t1o de ades# the mortgage industr$?s fore losure s ams ha(e destro$ed li(es# stripped 1ealthT turned ount$ land and ourt re ords into rime s enes# and de imated parts of @hio. @hio ourts ha(e sur(e$ed the damage# and appear to !e leaning up the massi(e frauds upon its 0onora!le Courts. 'an$ homeo1ners and la1$ers are going !a / in to ourt and filing 'otions To Ea ate to ha(e their former fore losure ase dismissed. 0ere are the results of some of those ases: eutsche 4ank / Sla$ton8 Sla$ton>s Motion to 9acate that 6as filed on the same da$ the Ohio Supreme Court released its Sch6art@6ald decision% Wells Fargo v. Borro s +@n e a ourt has determined that a default on an o!ligation se ured !$ a mortgage has o urred# it 'IST then onsider the e*uities of the situation in order to de ide if fore losure is appropriate., Wells )argo 1as re*uired to demonstrate that it had standing to in(o/e the %urisdi tion at the time the omplaint 1as filed# and it failed to do so in the omplaint and the do uments atta hed thereto. Freddie !a" v. Ru#o To the e&tent this ourt?s prior holdings in Cart# supraT Heager# supraT 7ehrens# supraT and Shaffer# supra# are in onsistent 1ith the Supreme Court?s holding in S h1art21ald that standing is %urisdi tional# 1e o(errule our holdings. @pinion also ites Fratts: DWhen the trial ourt la /s su!%e t matter %urisdi tion# its final %udgment is E@=..D $ationstar v. %an Cott Although not a part$ to the contract# :ationstar filed a fore losure omplaint against Appellants. Ban& o# Ameri"a v. Kut"'ta =T WAS A: A7ISG @) .=SC>GT=@: )@> T0G T>=AL C@I>T T@ .G:H AFFGLLA:TS? 60375 '@T=@: T@ EACATG W=T0@IT 0@L.=:J A 0GA>=:J. We re(erse and remand the ase so that the trial ourt ma$ appl$ )ed. 0ome Loan 'tge. Corp. (. S h1art21ald
(S Ban& v. !")inn 3>e(ersed6@hio531/1<5 While

it ma$ !e true that I.S. 7an/ met its initial !urden of demonstrating that no genuine issue of material fa t e&isted# appellants responded !$ sho1ing that a genuine issue of material fa t did e&ist !$ pointing to the in onsisten $ in the t1o notes. The differen e in the t1o notes alls into *uestion 1hether I.S. 7an/ a tuall$ possessed the original note prior to filing the omplaint. =f I.S. 7an/ did not# it 1as not a holder and# thus# la /ed standing to !ring the fore losure a tion in the first pla e. Construing the e(iden e in a light most fa(ora!le to appellants# 1e on lude that the trial ourt erred 1hen it granted I.S. 7an/?s motion for summar$ %udgment. A ordingl$# appellants? assignment of error is 1ell6 ta/en. Wright6Fatt Credit Inion (. 7$ington 3@hio ;/1<5 A ordingl$# !e ause appellee failed to present the ourt 1ith e(identiar$ *ualit$ material in support of its assertion that it 1as the urrent holder of the note and mortgage at issue# a genuine issue of material fa t remains regarding 1hether appellee has standing in this fore losure a tion and the lo1er ourt erred in granting appellee summar$ %udgment. Ji(en this on lusion# 1e need not address appellants? argument that appellee failed to meet the onditions pre edent !efore

filing suit. The sole assignment of error is 1ell6ta/en. @n onsideration 1hereof# the ourt finds that su!stantial %usti e has not !een done the parties omplaining and the %udgment of the Grie Count$ Court of Common Fleas is re(ersed. 7an/ of :e1 Hor/ 'ellon (. Shaffer 3@hio K/1<5 @pinion and dissent address late filing, /oid /s% /oid, standing and 2urisdiction. Sin e the trial ourt la /ed su!%e t6matter %urisdi tion and its default %udgment 1as therefore (oid# Shaffer 1as not re*uired to ompl$ 1ith the time re*uirements of Ci(.>. 60375 in order to !e entitled to an order (a ating the %udgment. 7AC 0ome Loan Ser(i ing (. 'app 3@hio K/1<5 We therefore re(erse the trial ourt4s finding that D7AC4s alleged la / of standing does not onstitute a meritorious defenseD and remand the ase to the trial ourt for a hearing to determine 7AC4s standing to sue# and orrespondingl$ 1hether the trial ourt had %urisdi tion o(er the fore losure pro eedings. @n remand# the trial ourt must determine 1hether 'G>S had the authorit$ to assign the mortgage and/or the note as the nominee for Countr$1ide in light of the laim that Countr$1ide 6as no longer in e7istence 6hen the mortgage 6as assigned to 4#C. Ka common pleas court cannot su1stitute a real part$ in interest for another part$ if no part$ 6ith standing has in/oked its 2urisdiction in the first instance%K )lagstar )S7 (. 0ar(e$ 3@hio 6/1<5 =t appears from the assignment of the mortgage from Flagstar 4ank, FS4, # Federall$ Chartered Sa/ings 4ank, to Flagstar 4ank, FS4# that these are t1o separate and distin t entities. 0o1e(er# the record is de/oid of an$ proof that the note 6as e/er endorsed to Flagstar 4ank# )S7# from )lagstar 7an/ )S7# A )ederall$ Charted Sa(ings 7an/. Therefore# a *uestion arises as to 1hether )lagstar 7an/# )S7 1as a tuall$ the holder of the note at the time it filed its omplaint. ,ells Fargo /% -orn8 3ohio 6/10/1<5 C@A Agrees Trial C@I>T G>>G. =: ALL@WB=:JC WGLLS )A>J@4s 'A:=FILATG. .@CI'G:TS T@ W=: MI.J'G:T =n the aption# Wells )argo identified itself as the +su essor !$ merger to ,ells Fargo -ome Mortgage# =n . f/a 'or6est Mortgage# =n ., 0o1e(er# 1hile Wells )argo atta hed se(eral do uments to the omplaint# in luding the note and mortgage# no documents e/idencing a merger or a name change 6ere attached. The note and mortgage ea h identif$ the 0orns as the !orro1ers and 'or6est Mortgage# =n . as the lender. =t follo1s that Wells )argo la /ed standing to !ring the fore losure a tion against the 0orns. While Wells )argo later tried to demonstrate that a merger and name hange had o urred in the e&hi!its atta hed to its motion for summar$ %udgment# it 1as re*uired to demonstrate that it had standing to in(o/e the %urisdi tion at the time the omplaint 1as filed# and it failed to do so in the omplaint and the do uments atta hed thereto. +MC Mortgage /% #tkinson 3@hio </1<5 'r. At/inson asserts in his sole assignment of error that the trial ourt erred in den$ing his Ci(.>. 60375 motion to (a ate the agreed %udgment de ree. We agree that 'r. At/inson is entitled to relief from %udgment. Ipon re(ie1 of the re ord on appeal# this Court *uestioned 1hether G'C had standing to file

an a tion in fore losure at the time it filed its omplaint. Thus# this Court issued an order re*uiring G'C to respond and demonstrate its standing. +MC failed to do so% As G'C has not esta!lished it had standing to !ring this a tion at the time it filed its omplaint in fore losure# the %udgment against 'r. At/inson annot stand. =n light of the foregoing# 1e an onl$ on lude that 'r. At/inson is entitled to ha(e the agreed %udgment entr$ of fore losure (a ated. Self -elp 9entures Fund /% 0ones 3>GEG>SG.53@hio# <61<5 +)urther# the Court held that a mortgage holder annot rel$ on e(ents o urring after the omplaint is filed to esta!lish standing#, 11th .istri t Mudge C$nthia West ott >i e stated. +Thus# the plaintiff annot rel$ on Ci(.>. 1K3angel5 to ure its la / of standing !$ o!taining an interest in the su!%e t of the litigation after the a tion is filed and su!stituting itself as the real part$ of interest. .euts he (. 7arnes 3@hio AJ 'otion to .ismiss and 'emorandum5 3200K5 4ank of #merica /% Murra$ 3</115 3@hio5 We on lude that the trial ourt erred in rendering summar$ %udgment in fa(or of 7@A. Jenuine issues of material fa t e&ist regarding 1hether 7@A is the real part$ in interest# and regarding 1hether 7@A is the holder of the note upon 1hi h %udgment 1as sought. We further on lude that there are genuine issues of material fa t regarding 1hether 7@A is a su essor in interest to the original pa$ee# !e ause 7@A failed to su!mit a proper affida(it to support its laims. A ordingl$# the %udgment of the trial ourt is >e(ersed and this ause is >emanded for further pro eedings.

eutsche 4ank /% -olden .euts he6(60olden.pdfMotion to ismissRRRAs the

truths !ehind these fore losure rimes !e omes /no1n# la1$ers an !etter argue these 1rongful fore losure ases. This is one of the !est 'otion to .ismiss !riefs 1e ha(e read. =n 2HHH# the 0oldens lost their home to 7an/ers Trust despite ma/ing all pa$ments. 7a / then# the 0oldens did not /no1 1hat 1as going on. A fe1 $ears later# the 0oldens !ought another home 6 and no1 .euts he 7an/ 3formerl$ 7an/ers Trust5 is oming !a / to steal this one too. .7 doesn4t o1n this home# %ust li/e 7an/ers didn4t o1n the 0olden4s first home. C+'&*#" MO*&)#)+ COM!#'; /% +"(#3Mune 201153*+9+*S+ %The Court found that the on lusor$ a(erment 1ithin the plaintiff4s affida(it that all onditions pre edent had !een satisfied 1as insuffi ient to pro(e omplian e 1ith Se tion 22 of the mortgage. .oes that sound familiar9 See ne&t ase... C(&(MO*&)#)+ /% +"(#3'a$ 201153*+9+*S+ 5.efendant6Appellants# Viad ). Glia and 0olle$ G. Glia 3+the Glias,5# appeal from the %udgment of the Summit Count$ Court of Common Fleas# granting summar$ %udgment in fa(or of Flaintiff6Appellee# Citi'ortgage# =n . 3+Citi'ortgage,5. This Court re(erses. 4ank of #merica /% Miller3>GEG>SG.# la / of standing53</115 We on lude that the trial
ourt erred in rendering summar$ %udgment in fa(or of 7@A. Jenuine issues of material fa t e&ist regarding 1hether 7@A is the real part$ in interest# and regarding 1hether 7@A is the holder of the note upon 1hi h %udgment 1as sought. We further on lude that there are genuine issues of material fa t regarding 1hether 7@A is a su essor in interest to the original pa$ee# !e ause 7@A failed to su!mit a

proper affida(it to support its laims. A ordingl$# the %udgment of the trial ourt is >e(ersed and this ause is >emanded for further pro eedings.

eutsche 4ank /% &ripplet 32/1153Fro Se5 .euts he 7an/?s affida(it of o1nership# s1orn out more than a $ear after the fore losure omplaint 1as filed# is insuffi ient to (est the !an/ 1ith standing to file and maintain the a tion. C(&(MO*&)#)+ /% Slack E2/11F &he trial court found that C(&( had failed to sho6 that the 2urisdiction of the court had 1een properl$ in/oked and that an$ 2udgment, including 2udgment on counterclaim, 6ould 1e a nullit$% CO# re/ersed, holding lo6er court had 2urisdiction o/er homeo6ner>s counterclaim% U%S% 4ank /% et6eiler Ere/ersed ? remandedFE12/1HF U%S% 4ank /% u/all Edismissal affirmedFE12/1HF Accor"in#%'( we conc%u"e t$at
)%aintiff $a" no stan"in# to fi%e a forec%osure action a#ainst "efen"ants on Octo*er +,( -../( *ecause( at t$at ti e( 0e%%s !ar#o owne" t$e ort#a#e. P%aintiff fai%e" in its *ur"en of "e onstratin# t$at it was t$e rea% )art' in interest at t$e ti e t$e co )%aint was fi%e".

<idd,,ells /% U%S% 4ank, Oc6en, M+*S, #egis 3 Memorandum Opinion Order to Sho6 Cause Motions for *elief from Sta$ Update8 +ndorsement of 'ote 1$ alleged #ttorne$3in3Fact Memo to #ll #ttorne$s on Motions for *elief from Sta$ &ips for -o6 a Motion for *elief from Sta$ Can !roceed Smoothl$ &hrough the Court !artial &ranscript of -earing on Special Motions ocket ,ells Fargo /% 0ordanD 3,ells Memorandum in Support of 0urisdiction to Ohio Supreme Court 3 #micus 1rief of &he "egal #id Societ$ of Cle/eland in support of 0ordan 3 Ohio Supreme Court declines 2urisdictionO 3 Supreme Court ocket 'ational Cit$ /% *ichards 3 'otice of efault Cartier +7hi1it # ----------------------------------------/
0$ittiker v. 1eutsc$e (MEMORANDUM IN OPPO ITION TO DEFENDANT !
MOTION TO DI MI )

0$ittiker (P"AINTIFF ! O#JE$TION TO REPORT AND RE$OMMENDATION% 0$ittiker 3DEFENDANT &E"TMAN' &EIN#ER( ) REI $O*' "PA! RE PON E TO
P"AINTIFF ! O#JE$TION PEAR ON! TO DI MI TO REPORT AND RE$OMMENDATION% MOTION

0$ittiker (RE PON E TO P"AINTIFF ! O#JE$TION TO MA(I TRATE JUD(E

REPORT AND RE$OMMENDATION TO (RANT IT %

Novastar v. Sn'"er& (lack of standing) Sn'"er (motion to amend w/prejudice) Sn'"er (response to amend) 0e%%s !ar#o v. B'r"D 3DFutting the Cart !efore the 0ouseD5 @hio 200A 3>e(ersed5# Mudge 0as$in#ton Mutua% v. Cit' of C%eve%an" (WAMU's motion to dismiss) -..23O$io3++//4 1L5 Mt#e. Ca)ita%( Inc. v. Parsons (SJ Re ersed for lack of standing% Mainsource Bank v. 0inafe%" (Oc+* 2,'2007% Mainsource Bank v. 0inafe%" ( e-+* 2' 2008% The re ord in this matter esta!lishes
the assignment of the underl$ing mortgage in this ase 1as not filed until after this fore losure a tion 1as filed. 3T. at 2<5. =n fa t# the assignment 1as dated after the date of the filing of the fore losure a tion. =d. 7ased on the a!o(e# under a de no(o re(ie1 of the fa ts and the la1# 1e on lude the trial ourt properl$ granted Appellee4s motion for san tions.

1eutsc$e Bank v. 6RIPLE66 (JUD(MENT. RE/ER ED(2011% MERS v. La *ert (2011%1 (a++2r3e4 5ee6' TI"A' e72+823a9 da7age6% E:u8+4 86 32+ 6er;ed <4 re:u8r83g +=e 6ucce665u9 98+8ga3+!6 a++2r3e4 +2 e66e3+8a994 -a4 +=e de<+6 +=e8r c98e3+6 2>e +2 cred8+2r6 2u+ 25 +=e 5ee6 a++r8<u+ed +2 +=e a++2r3e4!6 =2ur94 ra+e6 52r 9ega9 6er;8ce6 re3dered* I3 +=e a<6e3ce 25 a c23+rac+ua9 5ee agree7e3+ <e+>ee3 +=e 9a>4er a3d c98e3+ +=a+ -r2;8de6 2+=er>86e' 85 a3 a++2r3e4 =a6 ear3ed +=e a++2r3e4 5ee6 +=a+ are a>arded' +=e 5ee6 <e923g +2 +=e a++2r3e4' 32+ +=e c98e3+' a3d 7a4 32+ <e u6ed +2 2556e+ de<+6 2r 2<98ga+8236 25 +=e c98e3+* +=e a++2r3e4 86 e3+8+9ed +2 +=e 5ee +=a+ 86 a>arded +2 =87 regard9e66 25 a34 c23+r2;er64 regard83g +=e u3der9483g de<+*? T=86 ra+823a9e 6er;e6 +2 5ac898+a+e +=e c23gre66823a9 -ur-26e <e=83d +=e TI"A* @T2 -r2;8de 2+=er>86e >2u9d 2394 6er;e +2 5ru6+ra+e +=e e352rce7e3+ 25 +=e TI"A -r2;868236 <ecau6e e;e3 a++2r3e46 >=2 6ucce665u994 -r2;e ;829a+8236 25 +=e 9a> 7a4 32+ <e c27-e36a+ed 52r +=e8r >2rA* T=e 98+8ga3+!6 a++2r3e4 =a6 a 9ega994 -r2+ec+ed 83+ere6+ +2 attorne' fees a>arded u3der 5ee-6=85+83g -r2;868236*@ No Note 3 O$io
B020008

Great 1ecision 3 Ever$o

e v. Row%an"

1eutsc$e 3 C%ass Action 7RICO8 Bank of New York v. 6ORRES 3 Judge $O TE""O ++Mar-..2 3 1eutsc$e Bank Answer 0$ittiker

3 Man%e' Answer 0$ittiker 1eutsc$e Bank Ju6+8ce Ar+=ur M* 5u"#e Ho%sc$u$3 S$ow cause 5u"#e Ho%sc$u$3 1is issa% of +, cases (Flaintiffs and Counsel are here!$ ad(ised that# if these ases are refiled# Flaintiffs must esta!lish their standing# and Counsel must ompl$ 1ith the @rder?s re*uirements. )ailure to do so a se ond time ma$ result in a dismissal 1ith pre%udi e.5 5u"#e Bo'ko9s 1eutsc$e Bank !orec%osures 1ISMISSE1 Motion to 1is Rose Co Rose 1is iss iss !ina% Or"er to 1is issa%s issa%s c=acA

)%aint for !orec%osure

O9Ma%%e' 1is 1ow" 1is

Cit' Of C%eve%an" v. Banks issa% eri:uest Bank9s Res)onse to Or"er Gau#$an 3 A EMC can9t fin" t$e note Ocwen can9t fin" t$e note ;S Bank can9t fin" t$e Note ;S Bank 3 No Note <e' Bank 3 No Note 0e%%s !ar#o 3 1efective )%ea"in# Co )%aint in 5ack v. MERS( Citi( 1eutsc$e GMAC v. Mars$ F"#)S&#* 4#'< /s% MOO*+ 3MI.J'G:T: >GEG>SG. A:. >G'A:.G.5 Mudge ' 'onagle 3)e! 8# 20105

4ank of 'e6 ;ork /% )indele Bank of New York failed to establish an

enforceable interest that existed at the time it filed suit. 37@:H summar$ %udgment >GEG>SG. and >G'A:.G.5 @hio 2/1;/2010

4ank of 'e6 ;ork Mellon /% Stout 37@:H unregistered 6 7rief in Support of

'otion to .ismiss5

Chase /% 4anker 3Chase<s assignments of error are meritless. Sin)e the

transfer of propert to Smith was void for la)k of -urisdi)tion( the mortgage to Chase was also void. A))ordingl ( the -udgment of the trial )ourt is affirmed. !.S. Bank* N.&. v. Ri'har+s( ;878-*hio-=>7? 1his de)ision was a pleasure to read be)ause the Court followed the law. !i)hards< )ounsel did a stellar -ob as the Court sustained both of !i)hards< assignments of error. 1he *pinion states? ,-e'a(se we have 'on'l(+e+ a-ove $ha$ $he $rial 'o(r$ erre+ in awar+ing s(..ar /(+g.en$ $o !.S. Bank* we likewise 'on'l(+e $ha$ 0a$ri'ia Ri'har+s1 .o$ion $o +is.iss 'o(l+ no$ have -een .oo$ for $ha$ reason. 2h(s* we s(s$ain her firs$ assign.en$ of error an+ re.an+ $he .a$$er $o $he $rial 'o(r$ for f(r$her 'onsi+era$ion,. Xst$leYDline6height: 0DYDD 0TYDD 100^TYDD X/st$leYDline6height: "SBC v. 2ho.#son 3All of 0S7C4s assignments of error ha(ing !een o(erruled# the %udgment of the trial ourt is Affirmed.5 @ne !rief 1as filed !$ the Ohio #ttorne$ )eneral >i hard Cordra$ 3Cordra$5. The other !rief 1as filed !$ the follo1ing groups: #d/ocates for 4asic "egal +=ualit$A +=ual 0ustice FoundationA "egal #id Societ$ of South6est OhioA 'ortheast Ohio "egal #id Ser/icesA Ohio !o/ert$ "a6 CenterA and !ro Seniors, (nc% 3 olle ti(el$ Legal Ad(o ates5. We ha(e onsidered those !riefs# all of 1hi h ha(e !een helpful# in de iding this appeal.

"ack of Standing cases in other States

#la1ama8 -orace /% "aSalle, 4ear Stearns, +MC Mortgage, 4ank of #merica 3</115 )irst# the Court is surprised to the point of astonishment that the defendant trust 3LaSalle5 did not ompl$ 1ith the terms of its o1n !S# and further did not ompl$ 1ith :H La1 in attempting to o!tain assignment of plaintiff4s note and mortgage. Flaintiff 0ora e is a third part$ !enefi iar$ of the FSA reated !$ defendant trust. LaSalle permanentl$ en%oined from fore losing. 4$rd /% Mor+=uit$, (nc 3</125The ourt ruled that the fore losing lender ma$ ha(e la /ed standing to initiate the fore losure pro ess 1hen it did 1hi h 1ould ha(e rendered the fore losure deed (oid. 'ean1hile# the e(iden e sho1ed that the fore losing lender a elerated the de!t as of .e em!er 11# 200;# and that the noti e of the fore losure sale 1as first pu!lished on .e em!er 18# 200;# prior to the date the mortgage 1as a *uired !$ the lender a ording to its affida(it. Sturdi/ant /% 4#C 312/115 # 2udgment entered in an action commenced 1$ a part$ lacking standing is a nullit$% Ean e (. Coo/# ;A; So. 2d 886# 88; 3Ala. Ci(. App. 200A5T see also 7le(ins (. 0ill1ood @ffi e Ctr. @1ners4 Ass4n# 81 So. <d <1K# <21 3Ala. 20105 3same5. 7e ause 7AC la /ed standing to !ring the e%e tment a tion# the trial ourt ne(er a *uired su!%e t6matter %urisdi tion o(er this dispute. A ordingl$# the summar$ 2udgment is /oid and is here1$ /acated. 7le(ins# 81 So. <d at <21T and Cadle Co.# ;80 So. 2d at 2A0. Additionall$# 1ecause a /oid 2udgment 6ill not support an appeal# Jallagher 7assett Ser(s.# =n . (. Fhillips# ;;1 So. 2d 6;K# K01 3Ala. 200A5# this appeal must 1e dismissed for lack of su12ect3matter 2urisdiction. 7le(ins# 81 So. <d at <2<.

!atterson /% )M#C 31/125 J'AC 'ortgage la /ed authorit$ to fore lose the mortgage 1hen it initiated the fore losure pro eedings# and# therefore# the fore losure and the fore losure deed upon 1hi h J'AC !ased it e%e tment laim are in(alid. 'oreo(er# under our holding in Sturdi(ant# !e ause J'AC 'ortgage did not o1n an$ interest in the house# it la /ed standing to !ring its e%e tment a tion against the Fattersons. 7e ause J'AC 'ortgage la /ed standing to !ring the e%e tment a tion# the trial ourt ne(er a *uired su!%e t6matter %urisdi tion o(er the e%e tment a tion. A ordingl$# the %udgment of the trial ourt is (oid and is here!$ (a ated. 'oreo(er# !e ause a (oid %udgment 1ill not support an appeal# 1e dismiss this appeal. #ri@ona8 )M#C /% ,eis1and 3</2010 6 Ari2ona 7an/rupt $ Court/Mudge Gileen 0ollo1ell5
3J'AC has failed to demonstrate that it is the holder of the :ote !e ause# 1hile it 1as in possession of the :ote at the e(identiar$ hearing# it failed to demonstrate that the :ote is properl$ pa$a!le to J'AC. @n e the se urities ha(e !een sold# the SFE is not a ti(el$ in(ol(ed. ;eil "arfield

#rkansas Supreme Court8 M+*S /% South6est 3'G>S does not ha(e legal standing.5 Connecticut8 Fleet /% 'a@areth 320026 Appeal from Superior Court5 We on lude# therefore# that the legislature did not intend to permit the holder of the mortgage# 1ithout ha(ing !een assigned the note# the a!ilit$ to fore lose on the propert$. The %udgment is (a ated and the ase is remanded 1ith dire tion to render %udgment dismissing the a tion. "aSalle /% 4ialo1r@eski 3Sept. 20105 When the *uestion regarding the plaintiff4s standing 1as raised# the ourt should ha(e held a hearing to determine 1hether the plaintiff 1as the o1ner or holder of the note at the time the a tion 1as ommen ed. 3 ourt improperl$ failed to ondu t e(identiar$ hearing !e ause %urisdi tion hinged on fa tual determination5 (daho8 M+*S, "itton, -S4C, Fieldstone Mortgage, Citimortgage (llinois8 eutsche /% )il1ert 311/125 3=llinois5 Jood la / of standing opinion. We affirm the %udgment of the ir uit ourt of .u Fage Count$ granting summar$ %udgment in fa(or of .euts he 7an/ on Jil!ert?s ounter laim under the Truth in Lending A t. 0o1e(er# the trial ourt erred in re onsidering its initial determination that the fore losure laim must !e dismissed !e ause .euts he 7an/ la /ed standing at the time of filing. A ordingl$# 1e re(erse the %udgment of fore losure# (a ate the order appro(ing sale# and dismiss the fore losure. 320125# The =llinois Appellate Court# Se ond .istri t# re entl$ held that mortgagors la / standing to hallenge the propriet$ of an assignment of mortgage loans into a pooled6asset trust in alleged (iolation of a pooling and ser(i ing agreement# as an$ alleged failing 1ould not (oid the assignment !ut instead 1as a D(oida!leD a t that ould !e ratified !$ trust !enefi iaries.
4ank of #merica 'ational #ssLn /% 4assman F4&, "%"%C%

The Court also ruled that the mortgagors ould not rel$ on a !rea h of ontra t theor$ as to the pooling and ser(i ing agreement# !e ause the$ 1ere not third6part$ !enefi iaries of the pooling and ser(i ing agreement. (ndiana8 +lliot /% 0!Morgan Chase 4ank8 =ndiana Appellate Court re(erses Chase/@ 1en4s attempt to fore lose on a dis harged/satisfied mortgage.

Mc<inne$ /% &a$lor 4ean ? ,hitaker Mortgage8 3:o(. 20105 The trial ourt erred in granting summar$ %udgment in fa(or or T7W' on its a tion to fore lose ' Ninne$4s 0I.6insured mortgage 1ithout first determining that Ta$lor67ean had omplied 1ith Su!part C66 the onditions pre eden e to fore losure. We re(erse the trial ourt4s grant of summar$ %udgment and remand for further pro eedings. <ansas Supreme Court8 M+*S "andmark E<eslerF

<entuck$8 eutsche 4ank /% #ugustine E2/1P/11F After areful re(ie1 of the re ord# 1e (a ate !e ause .uets he 7an/ did not ha(e standing at the time it ommen ed this appeal.
Maine8 M+*S/ eutsche /% Saunders 3A/20105 We on lude that although 'G>S

is not in fa t a +mortgagee, 1ithin the meaning of our fore losure statute# 14 '.>.S. SS 6<2166<28# and therefore had no standing to institute fore losure pro eedings# the real part$ in interest 1as the 7an/ and the ourt did not a!use its dis retion !$ su!stituting the 7an/ for 'G>S. 7e ause# ho1e(er# the 7an/ 1as not entitled to summar$ %udgment as a matter of la1# 1e (a ate the %udgment and remand for further pro eedings.
Massachusetts8
&homas3/3Citimortgage3#llied3Flagstar3M+*S8 32/115 67e ause Allied did not sign the agreement# it ne(er !e ame !inding on the parties and is unenfor ea!le. 6While the assignment purports to assign !oth the mortgage and the note# 'G>S# 1hi h is a registr$ s$stem that tra /s the !enefi ial o1nership and ser(i ing of mortgages# 1as ne(er the holder of the note# and therefore la /ed the right to assign it. While 'G>S 1as the mortgagee of re ord# it 1as a ting onl$ as nominee for Allied# its su essors and assigns. 'G>S is ne(er the o1ner of the o!ligation se ured !$ the mortgage for 1hi h it is the mortgagee of re ord. 6=d. To !e effe ti(e# therefore# an allonge must !e affi&ed to a promissor$ note. See# e.g.# =n re Shapo(al# 2010 WL 4A11KA6# R2 37an/r. .. 'ass. 20105. =f the purported allonge signed !$ )lagstar is not affi&ed to the note# then despite ha(ing possession of the note# Citi'ortgage la /s the status of DholderD as defined !$ ICC S 162013205.

*o1inQ-a$esQ/%Q eutscheQ4ank "andmark Case

(1ane@ case compendium

U%S% 4ank /% (1ane@Q ,ells Fargo /% "a*ace (1ane@ 3 Memorandum in Opposition to !laintiff>s Motion &o 9acate Supreme Court8 ,ells Fargo *epl$ 1rief U%S% 4ank *epl$ 1rief 4+9("#CRU# /% *O *()U+G Case to 6atchRRR
Flaintiff )ran is 7e(ila*ua holds no title to the propert$ at 126612A Summer Street in 0a(erhill. That title is held !$ defendant Fa!lo >odrigue2. What 'r. 7e(ila*ua has is a *uit laim deed from IS 7an/# :.A.# 1hi h ondu ted an in(alid fore losure sale on the propert$ 3it 1as not the holder of the mortgage at the

time the sale 1as noti ed and ondu ted as re*uired !$ J.L. . 244# S 145 B:ote 1C and thus a *uired nothing from that sale. See IS 7an/ (. =!ane2# 1K LC> 202 3'ar. 26# 200;5 U 1K LC> 6K; 3@ t. 14# 200;5 and ases ited therein. IS 7an/ therefore had nothing to on(e$# and its purported on(e$an e to 'r. 7e(ila*ua 1as a nullit$. See 7ongaards (. 'illen# 440 'ass. 10 # 18 3200<5. .espite this# 'r. 7e(ila*ua no1 see/s to reate a full# fee simple title in himself " *uite literall$# something from nothing " through the +tr$ title, pro edure of J.L. . 240# SS 168. 0e annot do so# for the reasons set forth !elo1. A ordingl$# his omplaint is .=S'=SSG. in its entiret$# 1ith pre%udi e.

4+9("#CRU# /% *O *()U+G DDD34/1153Ami us 7rief of Frofessors Le(itin# Feterson# Forter# Fotto15

The prin iple of nemo dat quod non habet6that $ou an4t gi(e 1hat $ou don4t ha(e6is the !edro / prin iple on 1hi h all ommer ial la1 is !uilt. =t is irrele(ant 1hether 'r. 7e(ila *ua 1as a good faith pur haser# as the nemo dat do trine trumps the !ond fide pur hase do trine. A ordingl$# I.S. 7an/# :.A.# 1as no more apa!le of passing on good title to the >odrigue2 propert$ than a ommon thief. The >e ording of a .eed =s a 'inisterial A t that Cannot Create Title.

4+9("#CRU# /% *O *()U+G DDD34/1153Ami us 7rief of Attorne$ Jeneral Coa/le$5

This Court has onsistentl$ held that a plaintiff must ha(e a laim to legal title for the propert$ at issue in order to ha(e standing. 'r. 7e(ila *ua la /s legal title to the Fropert$. 7e ause I.S. 7an/ la /ed a (alid assignment# it 1as not the assignee of the mortgage upon 1hi h it purported to fore lose. Thus# the fore losure I.S. 7an/ ondu ted 1as in(alid.

Michigan8
-S4C /% ;ounge 30S7C .enied 6 'i h.5 310/125those ourts# ho1e(er# ha(e rea hed that on lusion through appli ation of the general rule that a nonpart$ to an assignment has no standing to hallenge its (alidit$. As dis ussed a!o(e# that is not the rule in 'i higan. )or the reasons stated a!o(e# plaintiff6appellee4s motion for re onsideration is denied. GEG>7A:N E. VGG> 3'i higan538/125: 7e ause plaintiff did not ha(e a mortgage interest 1hen it initiated fore losure pro eedings# and therefore# the foreclosure proceedings are void ab initio# 1e re(erse and remand for further pro eedings onsistent 1ith this opinion. 9ocardo /% S!S, FannieDDD 3'i higan538/125: Men/inson argued that den$ing the 7o ardos the right to ontest the merits of their fore losure after their redemption period 1ould (iolate their due pro ess rights under Arti le === of the I.S. Constitution. Mudge Mon/er agreed !$ stating# +Qfrom m$ perspe ti(e# standing is an Arti le === %urisdi tional issue. =t deals 1ith in%ur$ in fa t first of all. And = an?t imagine an$!od$ !etter than the part$ that sa$s the$ are entitled to la1ful possession of the house !e ause something 1as 1rong 1ith fore losure pro ess., After the de ision# Men/inson ommented that +it*s re#res'ing to see t'at someone is illing to loo& into 'o t'e #ore"losure mills spear'eaded by Fannie !ae and Freddie !a" 'ave been or&ing overtime to t'ro people out o# t'eir 'omes. +ope#ully t'is ill lead to more attempts by t'e ban&s to modi#y deserving 'omeo ners., MERS Sh($ 3own in Mi'higan
34/115 Court of Appeals / 7efore: W=L.G># F.M.# and SG>E=TT@ and S0AF=>@# MM. 0a(ing separated the mortgage from the loan# and dis laimed an$ interest in the loan in order

to a(oid the legal responsi!ilities of a lender# 'G>S ne(ertheless laims in the instant ase that it an emplo$ the rights of a lender !$ fore losing in a manner that the statute affords onl$ to those mortgagees 1ho also o1n an interest in the loan. 7ut as the :e!ras/a ourt stated in adopting 'G>S argument# D'G>S has no independent right to olle t on an$ de!t !e ause 'G>S itself has not e&tended an$ redit# and none of the mortgage de!tors o1e 'G>S an$ mone$.D 'G>S did not o1n the inde!tedness# o1n an interest in the inde!tedness se ured !$ the mortgage# or ser(i e the mortgage. 'G>S4 ina!ilit$ to ompl$ 1ith the statutor$ re*uirements rendered the fore losure pro eedings in !oth ases /oid a1 initio. Thus# the ir uit ourts improperl$ affirmed the distri t ourts4 de isions to pro eed 1ith e(i tion !ased upon the fore losures of defendants4 properties.

0endri /s6(6I6S67an/6fore losure6sale6(oid.pdf+endri"&s v. (.S. Ban& ,FC sale %-I./ ,0122/

3'e Court de"lares t'at t'e #ore"losure sale t'at o""urred on February 224 5626 "on"erning 7lainti##s8 real property is void ab initio pursuant to !CR 5.220 ,C/,9/4 as .e#endant4 (.S. Ban&4 $.A. as not entitled to #ore"lose on 7lainti##s8 property. .avenport v. +SBC .200)1 &n this case# defendant did not o?n the mortgage or an interest in the mortgage on 4ctober 2)# 200*. ;onetheless# defendant proceeded to commence foreclosure proceedings at that time. Buite simply# defendant did not yet o?n the indebtedness that it sought to foreclose. 6he circuit court erred by determining that defendantCs noncompliance ?ith the statutory requirements did not nullify the foreclosure proceedings. 9ecause defendant lac>ed the statutory authority to foreclose# the foreclosure proceedings ?ere void ab initio.

Missouri8 4+""(S&*( /% OC,+' E2HHSF 3@ 1en la /ed a legall$ ogni2a!le interest in the
propert$# and therefore# it has no standing to see/ relief.5

4+""(S&*( /% OC,+' Appeal E4/2H1HF Appeal 34/20105 3Separation of :ote U 'ortgage5 3'issouri Court of Appeals5 K(n the e/ent that the note and the deed of trust are split, the note, as a practical matter 1ecomes unsecured% &he practical effect of splitting the deed of trust from the promissor$ note is to make it impossi1le for the holder of the note to foreclose, unless the holder of the deed of trust is the agent of the holder of the note% (d% ,ithout the agenc$ relationship, the person holding onl$ the note lacks the po6er to foreclose in the e/ent of default% &he person holding onl$ the deed of trust 6ill ne/er e7perience default 1ecause onl$ the holder of the note is entitled to pa$ment of the underl$ing o1ligation% (d% &he mortgage loan 1ecame ineffectual 6hen the note holder did not also hold the deed of trust%K Id. Bellistri
Second Motion to ismiss and 0udgment (n the +state of -astings310/115Mudge 'ar/ Stephens: The ourt finds that 0S7C 7an/ ISA# :ational Asso iation# as Trustee for :omura 0ome G*uit$ Loan# meT Asset67a /ed Certifi ates# Series 200860G1 is not a DpersonD under the auspi es of either se tion. The$ are ertifi ates# 1hi h ha(e !u$ers and sellers# and ha(e no legal standing to sue. =: >G: M#*&; +U)+'+ 4O: 320105 3Mudge )ederman5 The .e!tors do not oppose the motion# !ut the Chapter K Trustee has hallenged 7AC?s standing to see/ relief from the sta$. )or the reasons that follo1# the Court finds that 7AC has not pro(en that it is the holder of the :ote. Therefore# it la /s standing# so its motion for relief from sta$ 1ill !e denied.

'e/ada8 M+*S crushed8 =n re 'it hell M+*S Smackdo6n in 'e/ada: =n re 0a1/ins XalignYDleftD'e6 0erse$8 4O'; /% +lghossain 34/115 .oes a mortgage lender4s :oti e of =ntent
to )ore lose satisf$ the statutor$ mandates that noti e !e pro(ided !$ the lender and that the lender as 1ell as the lender4s representati(e !e identified in that noti e. The lender and the lender?s representation must !e identified in the noti e. 0a(ing not done so here# the motion is defi ient. The fore losure omplaint is dismissed 1ithout pre%udi e does a mortgage lender4s Dser(i er4sD :oti e of =ntent to )ore lose satisf$ the statutor$ mandates that noti e !e pro(ided !$ the lender and that the lender as 1ell as the lender4s

representati(e !e identified in that noti e. The lender and the lender?s representation must !e identified in the noti e. 0a(ing not done so here# the motion is defi ient. The fore losure omplaint is dismissed 1ithout pre%udi e. XalignYDleftD X/alignYDleftDX/alignYDleftD

4ank of 'e6 ;ork /% *aftogianis E2H1HF (n this case, there are no compelling reasons to permit plaintiff to proceed in this action% #ccordingl$, the complaint has 1een dismissed% ,ells Fargo /% Ford Ere/ersed3lack of standingFE1/11F ,ell3reasoned opinion detailing 6h$ ,F
did not ha/e standing% K&he documents that ,ells Fargo relied upon in support of its motion for summar$ 2udgment to esta1lish its status as a holder 6ere not properl$ authenticatedK%

'orth Carolina8 (' &-+ M#&&+* OF &-+ FO*+C"OSU*+ in #dam3</20115 3.euts he# Sound(ie1# :o(astar and :ation1ide Trustee Ser(i es named5 Therefore# plaintiff is not the holder of the notes 1ithin the meaning of the Iniform Commer ial Code# J.S. Ch. 28# and the trial ourt erred in a ording her the rights of a holder under J.S. 286<6<01.,5T 0otel Corp. 1here a promissor$ note +had ne(er !een made pa$a!le to plaintiff or to !earer# nor had it e(er !een indorsed to plaintiff# . . . defendants esta!lished that plaintiff 1as not the o1ner or holder of the note,5. Therefore# 1e re(erse the trial ourt?s order authori2ing 'oni a Wal/er# 'atressa 'orris# and :ation1ide to a t as su!stitute trustees and pro eed 1ith fore losure under a po1er of sale for the propert$ des ri!ed in the .eed of Trust re orded in the Wa/e Count$ >egister of .eeds. >e(ersed. Oklahoma8 U%S% 4ank /% Moore 3Standing6@/la. Sup Ct.534/125 Standing refers to a person4s legal right to see/
relief in a %udi ial forum. The three threshold riteria of standing are 315 a legall$ prote ted interest 1hi h must ha(e !een in%ured in fa t" i.e.# suffered an in%ur$ 1hi h is a tual# on rete and not on%e tural in nature# 325 a ausal ne&us !et1een the in%ur$ and the omplained6of ondu t# and 3<5 a li/elihood# as opposed to mere spe ulation# that the in%ur$ is apa!le of !eing redressed !$ a fa(ora!le ourt de ision. The do trine of standing ensures a part$ has a personal sta/e in the out ome of a ase and the parties are trul$ ad(erse. A part$ 1hi h is assigned a mortgage 1ithout the a ompan$ing promissor$ note holds no rights of enfor ement. =d. Flainl$# a part$ must properl$ a *uire rights to !oth instruments !efore su h part$ is a!le to enfor e their terms. Inless the Appellee 1as a!le to enfor e the :ote at the time the suit 1as ommen ed# it annot maintain its fore losure a tion against the Appellants. =n the present ase# the onl$ instrument atta hed to Appellee4s petition 1as the 'ortgage. Appellee did not produ e the :ote until the summar$ disposition stage.

+U&SC-+ 4#'< '#&(O'#" &*US& /% Matthe6s 3@/la.Sup Ct. 6 2/125 The 7an/ then filed a do ument entitled DAssignment of >eal Gstate 'ortgageD 1ith the Count$ Cler/ of Cree/ Count$ si& months after the filing of the fore losure pro eeding. A trial ourt granted partial summar$ %udgment in .euts he 7an/4s fa(or against .efendant a month later. .efendant appealed the grant of summar$ %udgment arguing .euts he 7an/ failed to demonstrate standing. )inding that the 7an/ did not ha(e the proper supporting do umentation in hand 1hen it filed suit# the Supreme Court re(ersed. 4#C/M+*S /%,hite 312/106@/lahoma Court of Appeals5 Summar$ Mudgment re(ersed and remanded to
trial.

+U&SC-+ 4#'< '#&(O'#" &*US& /% 4*UM4#U)-31/125 3>e(ersed5 To ommen e a fore losure a tion in @/lahoma# a plaintiff must demonstrate it has a right to enfor e the note and# a!sent a sho1ing of o1nership# the plaintiff la /s standing. +U&SC-+ 4#'< '#&(O'#" &*US& COM!#'; /% 4;*#MS31/1253>e(ersed5 &he assignment of a mortgage is not the same as an assignment of the note. =f a

person is tr$ing to esta!lish it is a nonholder in possession 1ho has the rights of a holder it must !ear the !urden of esta!lishing its status as a nonholder in possession 1ith the rights of a holder. Appellee must esta!lish deli(er$ of the note as 1ell as the purpose of that deli(er$. !enns$l/ania8 4eneficial Mortgage /% 9ukmam 31/125 -omeo6ner>s +mergenc$ Mortgage #ct. DWhen a mortgagee pro(ides to a mortgagor a defi ient A t ;1 noti e and then files a mortgage fore losure a tion# the ourt la /s su!%e t matter %urisdi tion to entertain the a tion.D Dthe ourt properl$ set aside the sheriff4s sale# (a ated the %udgment# and dismissed Appellant4s omplaint 1ithout pre%udi e. A ordingl$# 1e affirm the ourt4s order.D &e7as8 M+*S /% ;oung / 2nd Circuit Court of #ppeals 'or6ood /% Chase 4ank, Chase -ome FinanceDD 31/1153A:.>GW W. AIST=:# I:=TG.
STATGS 'AJ=ST>ATG MI.JG5 3*eport and *ecommendation of the United States Magistrate 0udge to the United States Senior 0udge5 This De& ellent anal$sisD details the re*uirements of a fore losing part$ to pro(e standing to fore lose in Te&as.

Jreen Tree (. Woods 3A/125 We hold that the Woods? laim of Jreen Tree?s la / of standing ould not ha(e !een a !asis to support the trial ourt?s grant of no6e(iden e summar$ %udgment. We sustain Jreen Tree?s first issue. U&#-8 0U )+ O* +*S ('0U'C&(O' S&O!!(') #"" FO*+C"OSU*+ !*OC++ (')S
4; 4#'< OF #M+*(C#A *+CO'&*US&A -OM+ "O#' S+*9(C(')A M+*S +& #"

9ermont8 M+*S /% 0ohnson 3 (SM(SS+ for lack of standing% &he CourtLs Order, issued #ugust 2T, 2HHS, granting plaintiffLs Motion for efault 0udgment against the defendants Frank and +llen 0ohnston is 9#C#&+ % U%S% 4ank /% <im1allEermont Supreme Court 3K/115 What should ha(e here !een a fairl$
straightfor1ard# if not a summar$# pro eeding under the rules# 1as rendered ineffi ient !$ IS 7an/4s failure to marshal its ase !efore compelling homeo6ner and the court to 6aste time and resources, t6ice, 1$ responding to 6hat could not 1e pro/en. There 1as nothing ine*uita!le in dismissing this matter

,ashington8 (n *e8 0aco1son 3I7S53another hopped up mess5 KAs the motion 1as
not !rought in the name of the real part$ in interest# nor has standing to !ring it !een esta!lished# it 1ill !e .G:=G..D ,isconsin8 #urora /% Carlsen8 We on lude that the ir uit ourt?s finding that Aurora 1as the holder of the note# a finding essential to the %udgment# is not supported !$ admissi!le e(iden e. We therefore re(erse the %udgment. Conner la /ed the personal /no1ledge needed to authenti ate G&hi!it .. See W=S. STAT. S ;0;.01 3do uments must !e authenti ated to !e admissi!le# and this re*uirement is satisfied +!$ e(iden e suffi ient to support a finding that the matter in *uestion is 1hat its proponent laims,5.