NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

 OF FLORIDA 

 SECOND DISTRICT 

AS LILY LLC, ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D14-863 

 ) 

HAROLD L. MORGAN and PHYLLIS ) 

MORGAN; WACHOVIA BANK; ) 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; BAYWAY ) 

ISLES HOMEOWNERS CLUB, INC.; ) 

MICHAEL W. WELLS and KATHERINE ) 

A. WELLS; CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA); ) 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION f/k/a ) 

CAPITAL ONE BANK; NORTHSTAR ) 

BANK, ) 

 Appellees. ) 

 ) 

Opinion filed May 8, 2015. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas 

County; Pamela A.M. Campbell, Judge. 

 

 

Stanford R. Solomon and J. Andrew Baldwin 

of The Solomon Law Group, P.A., Tampa, 

for Appellant. 

Russell L. Cheatham, III, of Russell L. 

Cheatham, III, P.A., St. Petersburg, for 

Appellees Harold Morgan and Phyllis 

Morgan. 

No appearance by remaining 

Appellees. 

 

CRENSHAW, Judge. 
- 2 - 

In this foreclosure case, the circuit court entered a final judgment of 

dismissal in favor of the homeowners, Harold and Phyllis Morgan. But because the 

bank, AS Lily LLC, was a proper party and had standing, we reverse. 

As relevant here, the Morgans executed an adjustable rate note and 

mortgage in favor of Option One Mortgage in 2006. Attached to the note was an 

allonge with a blank endorsement. After the Morgans' subsequent default, the note was 

assigned to Liquidation Properties, Inc. (LPI). LPI initiated this foreclosure proceeding 

in 2008 and filed a copy of the mortgage and included a lost note count. Then, in 2012, 

the circuit court granted AS Lily's motion to amend the complaint1 and AS Lily filed the 

Verified First Amended Complaint at issue here. With its complaint, it attached the 

adjustable rate note, the mortgage, and the allonge with the blank endorsement. After a 

bench trial, the court granted a final judgment in favor of the Morgans, and AS Lily 

timely appealed. 

The court granted judgment in favor of the Morgans largely based on its 

conclusion that AS Lily was not a proper party and that it lacked standing. 

A plaintiff who is not the original lender may establish 

standing to foreclose a mortgage loan by submitting a note 

with a blank or special endorsement, an assignment of the 

note, or an affidavit otherwise proving the plaintiff's status as 

the holder of the note. . . . [S]tanding must be established as 

of the time of filing the foreclosure complaint. 

Focht v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 124 So. 3d 308, 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (citing

McLean v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 79 So. 3d 170, 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 

2012)). 

 1The motion is not in our record, but the order on the motion is. 
- 3 - 

AS Lily was not the original lender in this case. But by the time the 

verified first amended complaint to foreclose the mortgage was filed, AS Lily was the 

holder of the note and mortgage. AS Lily established standing by "submitting a note 

with a blank . . . endorsement." See id. Regardless of the note's prior history, the 

operative complaint was in AS Lily's name and AS Lily held the note with the blank 

endorsement. That is sufficient for standing. See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Morcom, 

125 So. 3d 320, 322 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (citing Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. 

Azize, 965 So. 2d 151, 153 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)), review denied, 139 So. 3d 299 (Fla. 

2014)). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment. 

Though ultimately ruling against AS Lily on standing, the court allowed AS 

Lily to try to establish the default. The court sustained an objection to testimony from 

AS Lily's witness, a representative of Gregory Lending, that the servicer's testimony was 

hearsay that was not admissible as a business record. See §§ 90.802, .803(6), Fla. 

Stat. (2011).2 In reaching its decision the court erred in following Glarum v. LaSalle 

Bank National Ass'n, 83 So. 3d 780, 782 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). While we take no issue 

with Glarum, the facts of this case better track those in WAMCO XXVIII, Ltd. v. 

Integrated Electronic Environments, Inc., 903 So. 2d 230, 233 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). In 

this case, the witness was testifying to information she personally knew and relayed 

what she herself did in establishing the values in this case. In Glarum, the witness 

could only provide inadmissible hearsay because he was testifying to material he 

 2We note that as far as authentication is concerned, the note and allonge 

here are self-authenticating, and the servicer's representative's inability to authenticate 

them is immaterial in this case. See § 90.902(8); Bryson v. Branch Banking & Trust 

Co., 75 So. 3d 783, 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). 
- 4 - 

obtained from another servicer and he was unfamiliar with how any of the data entries 

were made, either at the servicer for whom he worked or the servicer on whose data he 

relied. 83 So. 3d at 782. In WAMCO, the witness testified to procedures the servicer 

for whom he worked used and testified about his personal experience in servicing the 

loans at issue. 903 So. 2d at 233. Because in this case the bank's witness testified to 

procedures the servicer for whom she worked used in some detail and also testified 

about her personal experience with these loans in particular, the evidence sought to be 

adduced could be admitted as a business record. See id. (citing § 90.803(6)). Thus, 

the court erred in concluding that the witness's testimony was inadmissible hearsay, and 

it should have admitted the evidence. 

Because the court erred in concluding that AS Lily was not a proper party, 

lacked standing, and that its witness's testimony was inadmissible, we reverse and 

remand for a new trial. 

Reversed and remanded. 

ALTENBERND and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.