IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 

AS TRUSTEE, ETC.,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D14-4033

JAMES W. LAIRD AND 

KAREN A. CRANE, ET AL.,

Appellees.

________________________________/

Opinion filed July 1, 2016

Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Osceola County,

Robert J. Pleus, Jr., Senior Judge.

Kimberly S. Mello, Jonathan S. Tannen, and 

John A. Wirthlin, of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., 

Tampa, Michele L. Stocker, of Greenberg 

Traurig, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, for Appellant.

Thomas Erskine Ice, Amanda Lundergan and 

Steven J. Brotman, of Ice Appellate, Royal 

Palm Beach, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

In this foreclosure case, Appellant challenges the final order entered following a 

bench trial in which the trial court denied Appellant's request for the entry of a final 

judgment of foreclosure and dismissed the action based upon Appellant's failure to 
2

establish standing at the inception of the lawsuit and failure to satisfy a condition 

precedent of providing notice of acceleration as required by paragraph 22 of the 

mortgage. We reverse.

We apply a de novo standard of review in determining whether a party has standing 

to bring an action. Boyd v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 143 So. 3d 1128, 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 

2014) (citing Dixon v. Express Equity Lending Grp., LLLP, 125 So. 3d 965, 967 (Fla. 4th 

DCA 2013)). A party seeking foreclosure has the burden to establish that it had standing 

at the time it filed the foreclosure complaint. Id. (citation omitted). Here, Appellant was 

not the original lender. However, if the promissory note does not name the plaintiff as the 

payee, the plaintiff may still foreclose if the note bears either a specific endorsement in 

favor of the plaintiff or a blank indorsement. See Riggs v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC., 36 

So. 3d 932, 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Appellant attached to its complaint a copy of the 

note and a copy of an allonge which contained a specific indorsement in favor of 

Appellant. Appellant later filed with the court the original note and allonge in the same 

condition as the copies attached to the complaint. This was sufficient to establish that 

Appellant had actual possession of the note at the time the complaint was filed and, 

therefore, had standing to bring the foreclosure action. See Ortiz v. PNC Bank, Nat’l 

Ass’n, 188 So. 3d 923, 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). Although Appellant's witness at trial did 

not know the specific date that the indorsement was placed on the allonge, this is not

critical here because, logically, the indorsement had to have occurred prior to the 

complaint being filed. 

As to the second basis for dismissing the action, the trial court essentially 

concluded that Appellant's evidence at trial was insufficient to establish that it timely 
3

mailed notice of acceleration to Appellees. Paragraph 22 of the mortgage contains 

various conditions precedent with which Appellant was required to comply before bringing 

the foreclosure action, including that Appellant had to provide Appellees thirty days’ notice

of the default on the note and the right to reinstate the loan. The acceleration letter from 

the loan servicer that was admitted into evidence was dated January 18, 2009, was 

correctly addressed to Appellees' address, and provided the requisite thirty days’ notice

under paragraph 22. However, in its final order, the trial court noted that January 18, 

2009, was a Sunday and found that the evidence presented by Appellant at trial regarding 

the mailing of the letter was contradictory. Essentially, the trial court determined that the 

evidence presented was not competent to establish that Appellant mailed the January 18 

letter on Sunday, January 18. We disagree.

Paragraph 15 of the mortgage permitted Appellant to send the notice letter in 

question by first class mail. Appellant's primary witness at trial testified that the date on 

the letter from the servicer of the note was the date the letter was drafted and mailed. 

Also admitted into evidence were business records from the servicer indicating that the 

letter was crafted and mailed on January 18, 2009. Although the witness later testified 

that she was uncertain whether the servicer worked on Sundays, she clarified that she 

did not work on weekends and never definitively testified that the servicer did not work on 

Sundays. Thus, the evidence was not contradictory.

Accordingly, we reverse the final order of dismissal and remand for a new trial.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

SAWAYA, EVANDER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.