DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

BARRY KRONEN and

MICHELLE KRONEN, a/k/a MICHELE KRONEN,

Appellants,

v.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as trustee for WAMU 

pass-through Certificates, Series 2006-AR3, WINDMILL RANCH 

ESTATES MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION, INC., a/k/a BETA 

MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION, INC., THE TOWN FOUNDATION, INC., 

and SABADELL UNITED BANK,

Appellees.

No. 4D18-1137

[April 3, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Barry J. Stone, Senior Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE15-

005265.

Bruce K. Herman of The Herman Law Group, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for 

appellants.

Sara T. Weitz of Weitz & Schwartz, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee 

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company.

WARNER, J.

In entering final judgment of foreclosure, the trial court found that the 

appellee had proved standing, relying on the presumption created in Ortiz 

v. PNC Bank, National Ass’n, 188 So. 3d 923, 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). We 

affirm, as we agree that the presumption applies and write to distinguish 

this case from Friedle v. Bank of New York Mellon, 226 So. 3d 976 (Fla. 4th 

DCA 2017).

Under Ortiz, if the lender “files with the court the original note in the 

same condition as the copy attached to the complaint, then . . . such 

evidence is sufficient to” show that the lender actually possessed the note 

when it filed the complaint, and thus, had standing to bring the foreclosure 
2

action. Ortiz, 188 So. 3d at 925. However, if there is any evidence or 

testimony to the contrary, additional proof may be required to show 

standing. Id. n.2. Here, the trial court held that the appellee had proved 

its standing because the note attached to the complaint was the same as 

the note introduced at trial. Although the loan number at the top of the 

copy of the note was redacted, this was for filing purposes. Thus, the 

presumption established in Ortiz applied.

In Friedle, we held that the bank had not proved standing under Ortiz

because the copy of the promissory note was not in the same condition as 

the original note introduced at trial, even where those differences were 

minor but unexplained. Friedle, 226 So. 3d at 978-79. We noted that 

Ortiz had not been decided at the time of the trial in Friedle, so there was 

no explanation of the differences between the copy of the note filed with 

the complaint and the original introduced at trial. Id. at 979.

Because both Ortiz and Friedle were decided at the time of the trial in 

this case, the court addressed the discrepancy, and it noted that the only 

difference between the copy of the note attached to the complaint and the 

original note was the redaction of the loan numbers at the top of the 

instrument. Redaction of loan numbers is required upon filing by Florida 

Rule of Judicial Administration 2.425(a)(4)(I). Although the rule requires 

the redaction of only the last four numbers, we see no issue with the 

application of the Ortiz presumption when more of the loan numbers are 

redacted. Here, the court viewed both the electronically filed copy attached 

to the complaint and the original note presented at trial, and it concluded 

that only the loan number was redacted, as required for filing. Thus, there 

was an explanation of the difference between the copy and the original. 

Other than the redaction, the original note was in the same condition as 

the copy attached to the complaint, and such evidence was sufficient to 

invoke the Ortiz presumption. Because the appellant offered no evidence 

to rebut the presumption, the court could rely on it to determine that 

appellee had proved standing to foreclose the mortgage.1

We affirm as to all other issues raised. 

1 The court also relied on the Pooling and Service Agreement, by which the 

appellee acquired the loan, which was properly admitted into evidence and 

included the appellants’ loan among those assets transferred into the trust. See 

Bolous v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 210 So. 3d 691, 693-94 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)

(finding Bank had standing to bring foreclosure action where the subject PSA was 

moved into evidence without objection; the PSA identified the Bank as the trustee, 

and the corresponding mortgage loan schedule listed the appellant’s loan).
3

GROSS, J., and WEISS, DALIAH, Associate Judge, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.