TERRY A. KELLY AND LISA 

LOVINGOOD KELLY,

Appellants,

v.

BANK OF NEW YORK 

MELLON, FKA THE BANK OF 

NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE FOR 

CWALT INC., ALTERNATIVE 

LOAN TRUST 2007-25 

MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH, 

CERTIFICATE SERIES 2007-25,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D13-2778

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 14, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Aaron K. Bowden, Judge.

Lisa Lovingood Kelly, pro se, for Appellants.

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

LLP, Fort Lauderdale, and Joseph S. Troendle of Akerman, LLP, Jacksonville, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants claim the trial court erred in entering a final judgment of 

foreclosure in favor of appellee after a nonjury trial because appellee failed to
2

establish it had standing to bring the foreclosure action. When they challenged 

appellee’s standing below, appellants correctly noted that appellee did not file the 

original note bearing an undated blank endorsement until after the filing of the 

complaint. “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.” Tilus v. AS Michai LLC, 161 So. 3d 1284, 1286 (Fla. 

4th DCA 2015). Thus, “[w]hen a plaintiff asserts standing based on an undated 

endorsement of the note, it must show that the endorsement occurred before the 

filing of the complaint through additional evidence, such as the testimony of a 

litigation analyst.” Lloyd v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 160 So. 3d 513, 515 (Fla. 4th 

DCA 2015). 

The only additional evidence offered by appellee on this issue came from 

Natasha Moodie, a mortgage resolution associate for a prior servicer of the loan, 

who testified that appellee was the holder of the note based on her review of the 

loan servicer’s records. She also testified that the loan servicer’s routing history 

showed the “collateral file” was sent to appellee’s foreclosure counsel prior to the 

filing of the complaint. When appellee sought to offer into evidence a copy of the 

collateral file routing history, the trial court sustained appellants’ objection and 

stated, “I don’t see the probative value.” Because Moodie’s testimony did not 

establish the note had been endorsed at the time of the filing of the complaint, 
3

appellee failed to establish it had standing to foreclose when it filed the complaint. 

See Kiefert v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 153 So. 3d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) 

(holding that the successor plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure action failed to 

establish the original plaintiff had standing to foreclose when it filed the 

foreclosure complaint where the testimony established only that the original 

plaintiff was in possession of the note at the time the complaint was filed, not that 

the note had been endorsed at that time, even though the successor plaintiff 

subsequently acquired the note endorsed in blank). Accordingly, we must reverse 

the final judgment of foreclosure. Id.

REVERSED.

RAY, SWANSON, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.