IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APP EAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, ETC., Appellant, v. Case No. 5D15-143 ARI F. MARCIANO, ET AL.,

Appellees. ________________________________/ Opinion filed April 8, 2016

A ppeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Charles N. Prather, Senior Judge. Michael W. Smith, of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, Orlando, for Appellant. Robert A. Fox, of Fox & McAdams, PLLC, Orlando, for Appellees.

PALMER, J. In this foreclosure matter, Deutsche Bank National Trust Compan y, the lender, appeals the trial court's order entering final judgment in favo r of the borrowers, Ari and

Nilda Marciano. The trial court held that the lender had failed to present sufficient evidence as to standing. Determining that the record contains sufficient evidence of standing, we reverse.2 The borrowers executed a promissory note in favor of American B rokers Conduit, with an accompanying mortgage. Thereafter, pursuant to the term s of a pooling and servicing agreement (PSA), the note was transferred into a trus t, with the lender as trustee. The borrowers failed to pay the monthly installment du e on April 1, 2008, and they made no further payments. Consequently, the lender filed t his foreclosure action against the borrowers; the lender did not attach a copy of the note to the complaint. The borrowers answered and raised various affirmative defenses, inc luding the defense that the lender lacked standing to foreclose. The lender subsequentl y filed the original note with the trial court; the note contained an undated indorsement in blank. The case proceeded to trial. At trial, the only witness called by either party was Sally Tor res, a senior litigation specialist employed by the current servicer of the subject loan , Ocwen Loan Servicing. Through Torres, the following documents were admitted into evid ence: the original note, a copy of the mortgage, the PSA, a power of attorney authorizin g Ocwen to service the borrowers' loan, the borrowers' payment history, and default le tters. Of importance to this appeal, the parties t o the PSA included: 1) American Home Mortgage Assets LCC (as depositor ), 2) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (as Master Servicer and Securities Administrator), and 3) the lender (as trustee). The PSA evidenced a closing date which pre-dated the filing of the instant complain t. Also, the PSA contained a Master Loan Schedule (MLS) which “list[ed] . . . all the loan s that [were] in the [pool or trust].” Torres identified the borrowers' loan in the MLS, and stated that the MLS showed that the lender had possession of the borrowers' note prior to the closing of the pool or trust. Moreover, section 2.01 of the PSA provided:3 The Depositor, as of the Closing Date, and concurrently with the execution and delivery hereof, does hereby assign, transfer, sell, set over and otherwise convey to the Trustee without recourse all the right, title and interest of the Depositor in and to the Mortgage Loans identified on the Mortgage Loan Scheduled . . . . In connection with such transfer and assignment, the Depositor has caused the Sponsor, with respect to each Mortgage Loan, to deliver to, and deposit to or at the direction of the Trustee, as described in the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement, with respect to each Mortgage loan, the following documents or instruments: . . . (a) the original Mortgage Note endorsed without recourse to the order of the Trustee or in blank . . .

. Upon review of the evidence, the trial court entered judgment i n favor of the borrowers, concluding that the lender had not presented sufficient evidenc e as to its standing to foreclose upon the note. The lender contends that the trial court erred in concluding th at it lacked standing

to foreclose because the PSA demon strated that it had possessio n of the blank-indorsed note at the time the complaint was filed. We agr ee. A “de novo standard of review applies when reviewing whether a party has standing to bring an action.” Figueroa v. Fed. Nat.'l Mortg. As s'n, 180 So. 3d 1110, 1115 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). See also Gorel v. Bank of New York Mellon, 165 So. 3d 44, 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). “‘A crucial element in any mortgage foreclosure proceeding is t hat the party seeking foreclosure must demonstrate that it has standing to fo reclose, when the complaint is filed.” Angelini v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 41 Fla. L . Weekly D370 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb. 10, 2016) (quoting McLean v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Nat. 'l Ass'n , 79 So. 3d 170, 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)). In Gonzalez v. BAC Home Loans Se rvicing, L.P., 180 So. 3d 1106 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015), we explained:4 The requirements for standing are provided in section 673.3011, Florida Statutes, (2009), as follows: The term “person entitled to enforce” an instrument means: (1) The holder of the instrument; (2) A nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder; or (3) A person not in possession of the instrument who is entitle d to enforce the instrument pursuant to s. 673.3091 or s. 673.4181(4 ). Id. at 1108. A lender may prove its status as holder by introdu cing evidence that it had possession of the original note, bearing a blank indorsement, a t the time the foreclosure complaint was filed. Angelini, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D370. Relying on the MLS, Torres testified that the subject note beca me a trust asset prior to the trust’s closing, which pre-dated the filing of the complaint. Section 2.01 of the PSA, in turn, provides that “the Depositor has caused the S ponsor, with respect to each Mortgage Loan, . . . to deliver . . . [to] the Trustee the original Mortgage Note

endorsed without recourse to the order of the Trustee or in bla nk.” Thus, the lender presented sufficient evidence that it had possession of the bla nk-indorsed note prior to the filing of the complaint and, therefore, had standing to for eclose. 1 Decisions from courts outside of Florida are consistent with our holding. See, e.g., Deutsche Bank Nat.'l Tr. Co. v. Pietranico, 928 N.Y.S. 2d 818, 823 (Sup. Ct. 2011) ( relying on comparable PSA provision in holding that the lender proved its standing to foreclose), aff'd, 102

1 We have not overlooked our decision in Schmidt v. Deutsche Ban k, 170 So. 3d 938, 940 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) or the Fourth District’s recent de cision in Lewis v. U.S. Bank Nat.'l Ass'n, No. 4D14-815 (Fla. 4th DCA Mar. 9, 2016). In each case, the court determined that the lender failed to prove standing despite the admission of a PSA. Lewis; Schmidt. However, neither decision discussed any particu lar provisions of the respective PSAs. Our independent research has found no Florida decision discussing comparable language in a PSA within the context of a lender’s s tanding to foreclose.5 A.D.3d 724, 957 N.Y.S.2d 868 (2013); accord OneWest Bank, F.S.B . v. Jacobs, 333 P. 3d 979, 981 (Okla. Civ. App. 2014).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

LAWSON, C.J. and SAWAYA, JJ., concur.