DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DEBRA JARVIS,

Appellant,

v.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR 

GSR 2006-OA-1,

Appellee.

No. 4D14-991

[June 17, 2015]

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

Beach County; William R. Slaughter, II, Senior Judge; L.T. Case No. 

2009CA017506 (AW).

Jacqulyn Mack of The Mack Law Firm, Englewood, for appellant.

Nancy M. Wallace of Akerman LLP, Tallahassee, William P. Heller of 

Akerman LLP, Fort Lauderdale, and Celia C. Falzone of Akerman LLP, 

Jacksonville, for appellee.

STEVENSON, J.

Debra Jarvis (“Homeowner”) appeals a final judgment of foreclosure. 

We find merit in her argument that Deutsche Bank National Trust 

Company (“Deutsche Bank”) lacked standing at the time it filed its 

foreclosure complaint. On this basis, we reverse and remand for further 

proceedings.

Facts

On May 14, 2009, Deutsche Bank filed its complaint, seeking to reform 

the mortgage and to foreclose on the mortgage. It attached to the 

complaint a copy of the mortgage and a copy of the note. The copy of the 

note listed the lender as America’s Wholesale Lender and contained no 

indorsements. The original note, introduced at trial, also contained no

indorsements.

At trial, Deutsche Bank relied on a Pooling and Servicing Agreement 

(“PSA”) to argue that it had standing at the time it filed its complaint. 
2

Specifically, one of Deutsche Bank’s witnesses testified that it had 

standing because “[t]he loan was entered into the trust shortly after 

origination, and we also have business records that show that they were 

in possession of the note.” Put more simply, the witness stated Deutsche

Bank was entitled to enforce the note “through possession.”

Homeowner moved for an involuntary dismissal of the action, arguing 

that Deutsche Bank failed to prove it had standing at the time it filed its 

complaint. The trial court denied the motion, but later granted 

Homeowner’s motion for involuntary dismissal on Count I (reformation of 

mortgage) and entered a final judgment of foreclosure on Count II.

Analysis

“We review the sufficiency of the evidence to prove standing to bring a 

foreclosure action de novo.” Lacombe v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 149 

So. 3d 152, 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (citing Dixon v. Express Equity Lending 

Grp., LLLP, 125 So. 3d 965 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)). “[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). “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.” Id. (citing McLean v. JP Morgan Chase 

Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 79 So. 3d 170, 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)).1

Here, Deutsche Bank failed to establish standing using any of these 

available methods. The original note contained no blank or special 

indorsements, and Deutsche Bank did not introduce into evidence an

assignment. Further, evidence that the note was physically transferred 

into a trust prior to Deutsche Bank filing its foreclosure complaint does 

not, by itself, establish standing. See Kiefert v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 153 

So. 3d 351, 353 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (“Such a plaintiff must prove not only 

physical possession of the original note but also, if the plaintiff is not the 

named payee, possession of the original note endorsed in favor of the 

plaintiff or in blank (which makes it bearer paper).”). 

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for entry of an order of involuntary

dismissal of the action. See Lacombe, 149 So. 3d at 156 (“We decline to 

remand the case for the presentation of additional evidence because 

‘appellate courts do not generally provide parties with an opportunity to 

1 Of course, at a contested trial, as opposed to summary judgment, an affidavit 

would most likely be inadmissible in the absence of an agreement from the 

opposing party. 
3

retry their case upon a failure of proof.’” (quoting Morton’s of Chicago, Inc. 

v. Lira, 48 So. 3d 76, 80 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010))).

Reversed and remanded.

GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.