Case Title: Bank of America, N.A. v. Kabba

Citation: 

Docket Number: 109660

State: oklahoma

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Date: 2012-03-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
BANK OF AMERICA, NA v. KABBA2012 OK 23Case Number: 109660Decided: 03/06/2012THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN 
THE PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR 
WITHDRAWAL. 

BANK OF AMERICA, NA, Plaintiff/Appellee,v.MOMODU 
AHMED KABBA, Defendant/Appellant,andHUMU HAWAH KABBA, JOHN DOE and JANE 
DOE, Defendants.
ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURTOF CLEVELAND 
COUNTYHONORABLE TOM A. LUCAS, DISTRICT JUDGE
¶0 Appeal of a June 13, 2011, summary judgment granted in favor of Bank of 
America, NA, against Momodu Ahmed Kabba (hereinafter Kabba) and his wife Humu 
Hawah Kabba (defendant below). This Court retained the matter on August 18, 
2011. Kabba appeals the granting of Summary Judgment asserting Bank of America, 
NA, did not have standing to bring the action. 
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS
A. Grant Schwabe, KIVELL, RAYMENT AND FRANCIS, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for 
Plaintiff/Appellee.James P. Cates, BAER TIMBERLAKE COULSON & CATES, PC, 
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellee.J.R. Matthews, J R MATTHEWS 
LLC, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Defendant/Appellants.
COMBS, J.
FACTUAL AND PROCURAL HISTORY
¶1 In a petition filed on March 11, 2010, Bank of America, NA, claiming to be 
the present holder of the note (hereinafter Bank of America) initiated a 
foreclosure action against Kabba and his wife. Bank of America claimed, at that 
time, to hold the note and mortgage as Successor by Merger to LaSalle Bank 
National Association, as Trustee under the Trust agreement for the Structured 
Asset Investment Loan Trust Series 2004-BNC2. A review of the note shows a blank 
indorsement. This blank indorsement was filed with the lower court for the first 
time in the motion for summary judgment. The blank indorsement was not mentioned 
or referenced in the original petition.
BNC Mortgage, Inc., was the original lender. Bank of America filed with the 
Court Clerk of Cleveland County, a document entitled "Assignment of Real Estate 
Mortgage" on January 17, 2011, therein claiming the assignment to be effective 
as of February 9, 2010. This was nine months after the filing of the petition to 
foreclose. Additionally, this "Assignment of Mortgage," signed by Mortgage 
Electronic Registrations Systems, Inc. (hereinafter MERS), as nominee for BNC 
Mortgage, Inc., and its successors and assigns, merely named Bank of America as 
Successor by Merger to LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee under the 
Trust agreement for the Structured Asset Investment Loan Trust Series 2004-BNC2. 
There was no mention of the note in this "Assignment of Mortgage". On June 13, 
2011, Summary judgment was granted and memorialized by a Final Journal Entry of 
Judgment order in Bank of America's favor, against Kabba and his wife. Kabba 
appeals this summary judgment asserting Bank of America failed to demonstrate 
standing.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶2 An appeal on summary judgment comes to this court as a de novo 
review. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, ¶2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. All inferences and conclusions 
are to be drawn from the underlying facts contained in the record and are to be 
considered in the light most favorable to the party opposing the summary 
judgment. Rose v. Sapulpa Rural Water Co., 1981 OK 85, 621 P.2d 752. Summary judgment is 
improper if, under the evidentiary materials, reasonable individuals could reach 
different factual conclusions. Gaines v. Comanche County Medical 
Hospital, 2006 OK 
39, ¶4, 143 P.3d 203, 205.
ANALYSIS
¶3 Appellant argues Appellee does not have standing to bring this foreclosure 
action. Although Appellee has argued it holds the note, there is nothing in the 
record that shows when Appellee became the holder. The face of the note 
indicates it was indorsed in blank. However, this indorsement was not filed with 
the petition but with the motion for summary judgment. The purported "Assignment 
of Mortgage" was filed after the filing of the foreclosure proceedings and was 
signed by MERS, and not BNC Mortgage, Inc. The "Assignment of Mortgage" at no 
time mentioned the note. 
¶4 The issue presented to this Court is standing. This Court has previously 
held:
Standing, as a jurisdictional question, may be correctly raised at any level 
of the judicial process or by the Court on its own motion. This Court has 
consistently held that standing to raise issues in a proceeding must be 
predicated on interest that is "direct, immediate and substantial." Standing 
determines whether the person is the proper party to request adjudication of a 
certain issue and does not decide the issue itself. The key element is whether 
the party whose standing is challenged has sufficient interest or stake in the 
outcome.
Matter of the Estate of Doan, 1986 OK 15, ¶7, 727 P.2d 574, 576. In Hendrick v. Walters, 
1993 OK 
162, ¶ 4, 865 P.2d 1232, 1234, this Court also held:
Respondent challenges Petitioner's standing to bring the tendered 
issue. Standing refers to a person's legal right to seek relief in a judicial 
forum. It may be raised as an issue at any stage of the judicial process by 
any party or by the court sua sponte. (emphasis original)
Furthermore, in Fent v. Contingency Review Board, 2007 OK 27, footnote 19, 163 P.3d 512, 519, this Court stated "[s]tanding 
may be raised at any stage of the judicial process or by the court on its own 
motion." Additionally in Fent, this Court stated:
Standing refers to a person's legal right to seek relief in a judicial forum. 
The three threshold criteria of standing are (1) a legally protected interest 
which must have been injured in fact- i.e., suffered an injury which is 
actual, concrete and not conjectural in nature, (2) a causal nexus between the 
injury and the complained-of conduct, and (3) a likelihood, as opposed to mere 
speculation, that the injury is capable of being redressed by a favorable court 
decision. The doctrine of standing ensures a party has a personal stake in the 
outcome of a case and the parties are truly adverse.
Fent v. Contingency Review Board, 2007 OK 27, ¶7, 163 P.3d 512, 519-520. In essence, a plaintiff who 
has not suffered an injury attributable to the defendant lacks standing to bring 
a suit. And, thus, "standing [must] be determined as of the commencement of 
suit; . . ." Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 570, n.5, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2142, 119 L. Ed. 351 (1992).1
¶5 To commence a foreclosure action in Oklahoma, a plaintiff must demonstrate 
it has a right to enforce the note and, absent a showing of ownership, the 
plaintiff lacks standing. Gill v. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Oklahoma 
City, 1945 OK 
181, 159 P.2d 717.2 An assignment of the mortgage, however, is of no 
consequence because under Oklahoma law, "[p]roof of ownership of the note 
carried with it ownership of the mortgage security." Engle v. Federal Nat. 
Mortg. Ass'n, 1956 OK 
176, ¶7, 300 P.2d 997, 999. Therefore, in Oklahoma it is not possible to bifurcate the 
security interest from the note. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. White, 
2011 OK CIV APP 
35, ¶ 10, 256 P.3d 1014, 1017. Because the note is a 
negotiable instrument, it is subject to the requirements of the UCC. A 
foreclosing entity has the burden of proving it is a "person entitled to enforce 
an instrument" by showing it was "(i) the holder of the instrument, (ii) a 
nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder, or 
(iii) a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce 
the instrument pursuant to Section 12A-3-309 or subsection (d) of Section 
12A-3-418 of this title." 12A O.S. 2001 §3-301.
¶6 To demonstrate you are the "holder" of the note you must establish you are 
in possession of the note and the note is either "payable to bearer" (blank 
indorsement) or to an identified person that is the person in possession 
(special indorsement).3 Therefore, both possession of the note and an 
indorsement on the note or attached allonge4 are required in order for one to be a "holder" of the 
note.
¶7 To be a "nonholder in possession who has the rights of a holder" you must 
be in possession of a note that has not been indorsed either by special 
indorsement or blank indorsement. Negotiation is the voluntary or involuntary 
transfer of an instrument by a person other than the issuer to a person who 
thereby becomes its holder. 12A O.S. 2001, § 3-201. Transfer occurs when the 
instrument is delivered by a person other than its issuer for the purpose of 
giving to the person receiving delivery the right to enforce the instrument. 
12A O.S. 2001, § 
3-203. Delivery of the note would still have to occur even though there is no 
negotiation. Delivery is defined as the voluntary transfer of possession. 
12A O.S. 2001, § 
1-201(b)(15). The transferee would then be vested with any right of the 
transferor to enforce the note. 12A O.S. 2001, 3-203(b). Some jurisdictions have 
held, without holder status and therefore the presumption of a right to enforce, 
the possessor of the note must demonstrate both the fact of the delivery and the 
purpose of the delivery of the note to the transferee in order to qualify as the 
person entitled to enforce. In re Veal, 450 B.R. 897, 912 (B.A.P. 9th 
Cir. 2011). See also, 12A O.S. 2001, § 3-203. 
¶8 In the present case, Appellee has only presented evidence of an 
indorsed-in-blank note and an "Assignment of Mortgage." Appellee must prove that 
it is the holder of the note or the nonholder in possession who has the rights 
of a holder prior to the filing of the foreclosure proceeding. In the 
present matter the timeliness of the transfer is in question. Since Bank of 
America did not file the blank indorsement until it filed its motion for summary 
judgment it is impossible to determine from the record when Bank of America 
acquired its interest in the underlying note.
¶9 The assignment of a mortgage is not the same as an assignment of the note. 
If a person is trying to establish they are a nonholder in possession who has 
the rights of a holder they must bear the burden of establishing their status as 
a nonholder in possession with the rights of a holder. Appellee must establish 
delivery of the note as well as the purpose of that delivery. In the present 
case, it appears Appellee is trying to use the "Assignment of Mortgage" in order 
to establish the purpose of delivery. The "Assignment of Mortgage" purports to 
transfer "[f]or value received, the undersigned, Mortgage Electronic 
Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for BNC Mortgage, Inc., and its 
successors and assigns does hereby assign, transfer and set over unto Bank of 
America, National Association as Successor by Merger to LaSalle Bank National 
Association, as Trustee under the Trust Agreement for the Structured Asset 
Investment Loan Trust Series 2004-BNC2, that certain real estate mortgage dated 
August 30, 2004, granted by Momodu Ahmed Kabba and Humu Hawah Kabba, husband and 
wife...." This language has been determined by other jurisdictions to not effect 
an assignment of a note but to be useful only in identifying the mortgage. 
Therefore, this language is neither proof of transfer of the note nor proof of 
the purpose of any alleged transfer. See, In re Veal, 450 B.R. 897, 905 
(B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2011).
¶10 Appellee must show it became a "person entitled to enforce" prior 
to the filing of the foreclosure proceeding. In the present case, there is a 
question of fact as to when and if this occurred and summary judgment is not 
appropriate. Therefore, we reverse the granting of summary judgment by the trial 
court and remand back for further determinations. If it is determined Bank of 
America became a person entitled to enforce the note, as either a holder or 
nonholder in possession who has the rights of a holder after the foreclosure 
action was filed, then the case may be dismissed without prejudice and 
the action may be re-filed in the name of the proper party.
CONCLUSION
¶11 It is a fundamental precept of the law to expect a foreclosing party to 
actually be in possession of its claimed interest in the note, and to have the 
proper supporting documentation in hand when filing suit, showing the history of 
the note, so that the defendant is duly apprised of the rights of the plaintiff. 
This is accomplished by showing the party is a holder of the instrument or a 
nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder, or a 
person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the 
instrument pursuant to 12A O.S. 2001, § 3-309 or 12A O.S. 2001, § 3-418. Likewise, for the 
homeowners, absent adjudication on the underlying indebtedness, the dismissal 
cannot cancel their obligation arising from an authenticated note, or insulate 
them from foreclosure proceedings based on proven delinquency and therefore, 
this Court's decision in no way releases or exonerates the debt owed by the 
defendants on this home. See, U.S. Bank National Association v. Kimball 27 A.3d 1087, 75 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 100, 2011 VT 81 (VT 2011); and Indymac Bank, 
F.S.B. v. Yano-Horoski, 78 A.D.3d 895, 912 N.Y.S.2d 239 (2010).
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS
¶12 CONCUR: TAYLOR, C.J., KAUGER, WATT, EDMONDSON, REIF, COMBS, 
JJ.
¶13 DISSENT: WINCHESTER (JOINS GURICH, J.), GURICH (BY SEPARATE WRITING), 
JJ.
¶14 RECUSED: COLBERT, V.C.J.
FOOTNOTES
1 The dissenting opinion in 
this matter relies upon Justice Opala's concurring opinion in Toxic Waste 
Impact Group, Inc. v. Leavitt, 1994 OK 148, 890 P.2d 906, for the proposition that standing is not 
a jurisdictional question. Justice Opala's concurring opinion was not the 
majority opinion of this Court and as such "a minority opinion has no binding, 
precedential value." 20 Am.Jur. 2d Courts §138. 
2 This opinion was promulgated prior to the enactment of 
the UCC. It is, however, possible for the owner of the note not to be the person 
entitled to enforce the note if the owner is not in possession of the note. (See 
the REPORT OF THE PERMANENT EDITORIAL BOARD FOR THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, 
APPLICATION OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE TO SELECTED ISSUES RELATING TO 
MORTGAGE NOTES (NOVEMBER 14, 2011)). 
3 12A O.S. 2001, §§ 1-201(b)(21), 3-204 and 3-205. 

4 According to Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009) an allonge is "[a] slip of paper sometimes 
attached to a negotiable instrument for the purpose of receiving further 
indorsements when the original paper is filled with indorsements." See, 
12A O.S. 2001, § 
3-204(a). 

GURICH, J., with whom WINCHESTER, J. joins dissenting: 
¶1 I respectfully dissent. In this case, the record indicates that attached 
to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment was an indorsed-in-blank note, an 
assignment of mortgage, and an affidavit verifying Plaintiff was the holder of 
the note and mortgage.1 Because the Plaintiff was the proper party to pursue 
the foreclosure and because the Plaintiff presented the proper documentation at 
summary judgment to prove such, I would affirm the trial court. 
¶2 The majority states that "[t]o commence a foreclosure action in Oklahoma, 
a plaintiff must demonstrate it has a right to enforce the note, and absent a 
showing of ownership, the plaintiff lacks standing," citing Gill v. First 
Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 1945 OK 181, 159 P.2d 717.2 See Majority Op. ¶ 5. I agree that in any 
foreclosure action a party must demonstrate it is the proper party to request 
adjudication of the issues. However, the issue of whether a party is the proper 
party to request adjudication of the issues is a real-party-in-interest issue, 
not an issue of "standing," as the majority frames it. See Toxic Waste 
Impact Group, Inc. v. Leavitt, 1994 OK 148, 890 P.2d 906 (Opala, J., concurring). Justice Opala 
framed the issue correctly in Toxic Waste Impact Group: 
Standing in the federal legal system is imbued with a 
constitutional/jurisdictional dimension, while in the body of state law it 
fits under the rubric of ordinary procedure. The U.S. Constitution, 
Article III, has long been held to require that a "case" or "controversy" is 
essential to invoke federal judicial jurisdiction and that a person's competence 
to bring an action is a core component of standing in a case-or-controversy 
inquiry. It is for this reason that standing is an integral part of the 
mechanism for invoking the federal judiciary's power. 
Oklahoma's fundamental law places no restraint on the judiciary's power 
analogous to the federal case-or-controversy requirement. Under the earlier Code 
of Civil Procedure the suit had to be brought by the real party in interest. 
That requirement has always been non-jurisdictional. If a state court proceeded 
to adjudicate a claim pressed by one not in that status, its decision was not 
fraught with jurisdictional infirmity but rather regarded as erroneous for want 
of proof to establish an important element of the claim. An error in this 
category is waivable at the option of the defendant; and, if not asserted on 
appeal, the reviewing court may reach the merits of the case despite a 
plaintiff's apparent lack of standing at nisi prius.
Toxic Waste Impact Group, Inc. v. Leavitt, 1994 OK 148, 890 P.2d 906 (Opala, J., concurring, ¶¶ 2-3) (emphasis 
added); see also Black Hawk Oil Co. v. Exxon, 1998 OK 70, ¶ 24, 969 P.2d 337, 344 ("Using the term 'standing' to 
designate real-party-in-interest issues tempts courts to apply standing 
principles outside the context in which they were developed. . . . A defendant 
is entitled to have the suit against him prosecuted by the 'real party in 
interest' but 'his concern ends when a judgment for or against the nominal 
plaintiff would protect defendant from any action on same demand by another.") 
(Watt, J., Majority Op.)
¶3 The majority in this case cites Hendrick v. Walters, 
1993 OK 162, ¶ 4, 865 P.2d 1232, 1234 and Fent v. Contingency Review 
Board, 2007 OK 
27, n.19, 163 P.3d 512, 519 for the proposition that "standing may be raised at any stage of 
the judicial process or by the court on its own motion." See Majority Op. 
¶ 4. Those cases cite Matter of the Estate of Doan, 1986 OK 15, ¶ 7, 7272 P.2d 574, as authority for this 
proposition. Arguably, however, Doan misstates the law: 
Ever since the Code of Civil Procedure was replaced in 1984 by the Pleading 
Code, our nomenclature for identifying the party entitled to sue, which began to 
follow that of federal jurisprudence, has used "standing" as if it were a 
functional equivalent of the earlier procedural terms of art--real party in 
interest, one with appealable interest, one occupying the aggrieved-party or 
pecuniary-interest status. It was during this transition that one of our 
opinions inadvertently referred to "standing" in terms of a jurisdictional 
requirement, thus creating the misimpression that the term has a jurisdictional 
dimension. Oklahoma's constitution has no case-or-controversy clause. Standing 
is hence to be viewed as an adjective-law concept. The inadvertent reference to 
the contrary should be treated as ineffective to alter standing's true character 
in the body of our procedural law.
. . . .
I concur in today's opinion and in the disposition of the cause. If I were 
writing for the court, I would additionally declare that Doan's 
inadvertent reference to federal law is to be viewed as withdrawn. 
Lujan's tripartite standing test, which we adopt today, must be treated 
as having been received sans its federal jurisdictional baggage. 

See Toxic Waste Impact Group, 1994 OK 148 (Opala, J., concurring ¶ 4). 
¶4 Additionally, both Hendrick and Fent were original actions 
in this Court. As such, "standing" could have been raised at any point by this 
Court sua sponte. However, in a proceeding in District Court, because it is a 
non-jurisdictional issue, failure to assert that the Plaintiff is not the real 
party in interest may be waived. See Liddell v. Heavner, 
2008 OK 6, n.5, 180 P.3d 1191 (Opala, J., Majority Op.); see also 
12 O.S. 2012 § 2008(D). 
¶5 In this case, the facts demonstrate that the Defendant argued below that 
Plaintiff did not have a stake in the foreclosure and was not the real party in 
interest. As such, the issue was properly appealed. However, the facts also 
demonstrate that the Plaintiff was in fact the real party in interest and was 
the proper party to pursue the foreclosure. 12 O.S. 2012 § 2017. As such, I would affirm 
the trial court.
¶6 The majority also holds that a foreclosing party must have the "proper 
supporting documentation in hand when filing suit." See Majority 
Op. ¶ 10 (emphasis added). Oklahoma pleading procedure does not require a 
plaintiff to have all evidence necessary to prevail on its claim at the time of 
the filing. Rather, what is required is a "short and plain statement of the 
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." 12 O.S. 2012 § 2008(A)(1). Additionally, 
12 O.S.2012 § 2011(B)(3) provides that an 
attorney filing anything with the court certifies that to "the best of the 
person's knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable 
under the circumstances . . . the allegations and other factual contentions have 
evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have 
evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or 
discovery." 12 O.S. 2012 § 
2011(B)(3) (emphasis added).3 
¶7 Mortgage foreclosures, like other civil actions, allow the parties to 
continue to investigate and discover evidence up until the time of judgment. In 
this case, the Plaintiff continued to investigate its claim up until the time of 
summary judgment. At the time of summary judgment it offered sufficient proof to 
the trial court that it had the right to foreclose on the mortgage.4 
¶8 Plaintiff satisfied its burden of proof, and the trial court was correct 
in sustaining the motion and granting judgment to the Plaintiff. On appeal where 
no evidence indicates otherwise, there is a presumption that the judgment of the 
trial court conforms to the proof present at the trial. Gilkes v. Gilkes, 
1964 OK 28, 389 P.2d 503. I cannot agree with the majority's 
holding that the plaintiff must have the "proper supporting documentation in 
hand when filing suit" because no authority states such and the Oklahoma 
pleading code requires otherwise. The procedure imposed by the majority in this 
case will result in delay, will not affect the inevitable outcome of 
foreclosure, and will increase the homeowner's debt. 5 
FOOTNOTES
1 The record also indicates 
that the Defendant filed an answer and counterclaim pro se, but was later 
represented by counsel who filed a Combined Response and Objections to 
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and a Counter-Motion for Summary 
Judgment. At the hearing on the motions, the trial judge considered arguments of 
Counsel for the parties and reviewed the evidentiary materials offered, 
including the original note, the original mortgage, the assignment of the 
mortgage, and the affidavit.
2 In Gill, the plaintiff brought an action to 
foreclose a mortgage on real property. There was no discussion in the case of 
whether the plaintiff had standing to bring the action or whether the plaintiff 
was the real party in interest. In fact, the case was tried to the Court, and 
the appeal turned on the sufficiency of evidence presented at trial. The 
Gill decision stands for the proposition that the assignment of the note 
carries with it an assignment of the mortgage. It is not relevant to the 
standing analysis, nor does it stand for the proposition that the plaintiff must 
prove at the time of filing that it has a right to enforce the note. 
3 Likewise, while I agree that the UCC applies in this 
case because the note is a negotiable instrument, the UCC does not require that 
a foreclosing entity prove at the time of filing that it is the person 
entitled to enforce the instrument. 
4 Rule 13 of the Rules for District Courts permits a 
party to file evidentiary material with a motion for summary judgment. In this 
case, Plaintiff offered an indorsed-in-blank note, an assignment of mortgage, 
and an affidavit verifying Plaintiff as the holder of the note and mortgage. 

5 On remand, rather than dismiss the petition, the trial 
court may allow the Plaintiff to amend its petition. HSBC Bank USA v. 
Lyon, 2012 OK 
10, ¶ 1, __ P.3d __.