DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DIANA JELIC,

Appellant,

v.

BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, f/k/a COUNTRYWIDE HOME 

LOANS SERVICING, L.P.,

Appellee.

No. 4D14-516

[November 4, 2015]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Richard L. Oftedal, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

2009CA017255XXXXMB.

Peter Ticktin, Josh Bleil, Michael Vater, Heather Cherepkai, and 

Kendrick Almaguer of The Ticktin Law Group, P.A., Deerfield Beach, for 

appellant.

Tricia J. Duthiers and Kristen A. Tajak of Liebler Gonzalez & Portuondo, 

Miami, for appellee Bank of America, N.A., successor by merger to BAC 

Home Loans Servicing, LP, f/k/a Countrywide.

FORST, J.

We again consider the question of standing to foreclose upon a 

mortgage. Diana Jelic (“Owner”) signed a mortgage and note in 2005. In 

2008, she stopped making payments on the note. BAC Home Loans 

Servicing, LP, f/k/a Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP (and since 

merged into Bank of America, N.A.) (“the Bank” when used collectively) 

initiated a foreclosure proceeding. Owner challenged the Bank’s standing

to foreclose along with its compliance with contractual conditions 

precedent in the mortgage and note. For the reasons given below, we agree 

with Owner that the Bank did not properly demonstrate its standing and

therefore reverse the trial court’s Final Judgment of Foreclosure.

Owner initially executed a note and mortgage in favor of Sterling Bank. 

The note was later indorsed to Countrywide Bank. At some point, the note 

was indorsed from Countrywide Bank to Countrywide Home Loans 
2

Servicing. But the copy of the note attached to the complaint shows only 

the first indorsement (to Countrywide Bank). The second indorsement 

appears only on the note introduced at trial. No testimony was introduced 

giving the date on which the second indorsement was made, or stating that 

Countrywide Home Loans Servicing held the note at the time of the 

complaint.

The Bank provides two arguments as to how it proved that it was the 

holder of the note at the time the complaint was filed. Even if we ignore 

the fact that those arguments seem to contradict each other and instead 

address each individually, the Bank still has failed to show that it was the

holder as of the date that the complaint was filed.

The Bank’s first argument is that the indorsements alone transferred 

the note into its control. However, the failure to introduce testimony 

establishing the date the second indorsement was made is fatal to this line 

of reasoning. We have said before, and apparently need say again: if an 

indorsement is undated and appears for the first time after the complaint 

is filed, some evidence must be introduced that will support a finding that 

the indorsement was made prior to the complaint’s filing. Tilus v. AS 

Michai LLC, 161 So. 3d 1284, 1286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“Where the 

plaintiff files the original note after filing suit, an undated blank 

endorsement on the note is insufficient to prove standing at the time the 

initial complaint was filed”); Sosa v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 153 So. 3d 950, 

951 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); LaFrance v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 141 So. 3d 

754, 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (“A plaintiff’s lack of standing at the 

inception of the case is not a defect that may be cured by the acquisition 

of standing after the case is filed and cannot be established retroactively 

by acquiring standing to file a lawsuit after the fact.”) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted).

Statements that make exclusive use of the present tense (here: “Bank 

of America is the holder of the note” (emphasis added)) are insufficient. 

What is required is some evidence that the foreclosing party was the holder 

at the appropriate time. Although the Bank’s sole witness did say that the 

Bank “owned the loan prior to the filing of the complaint,” she immediately 

corrected herself, answering with “No” when asked “So Bank of America

never acted as the owner of this loan?” Because of that retraction, we 

cannot hold that the Bank introduced the necessary evidence to prove that 

the Bank held the note at the time the initial complaint was filed.

The Bank’s second argument as to how the note transferred is that a 

pre-complaint assignment of the mortgage to Countrywide Home Loans 

Servicing is evidence that the note was also transferred before the 
3

complaint. But that is not how the law operates. Again we repeat: the 

mortgage follows assignment of the note. Bristol v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l 

Ass’n, 137 So. 3d 1130, 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). The assignment of a 

mortgage cannot serve as evidence that the note was also transferred, even

though a transfer of the note usually will serve as a transfer of the 

mortgage. Lamb v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D1912 (Fla. 

4th DCA Aug. 19, 2015) (“A bank does not have standing to foreclose where 

it relies on an assignment of the mortgage only.”).

As part of this second argument, Bank also argues that one specific line 

in the mortgage assignment transferred the note itself. But again, Florida 

law does not allow for a transfer in this method. To transfer a note, there 

must be an indorsement, which itself must be “on [the] instrument” or on 

“a paper affixed to the instrument.” § 673.2041(1), Fla. Stat. Here, the 

signature on the mortgage assignment did not constitute an indorsement 

of the note because it was not on the note or an attached paper.

The Bank has failed to establish its standing to foreclose. We therefore 

need not consider the Owner’s argument based on conditions precedent.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed.

Reversed.

CIKLIN, C.J., and MAY, J., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.