Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/68771833/Castillo-v-Deutsche-Appellant-Initial-Brief
Timestamp: 2016-07-24 05:58:09
Document Index: 239453990

Matched Legal Cases: ['§77', '§860', '§860', '§860', '§ 1', 'art 2', '§860', '§860', '§860', '§ 860', '§7', '§771', '§ 7', '§ 11', '§187', '§185']

UploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicEditors' Picks BooksHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks AudiobooksHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks ComicsHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks Sheet MusicHand-picked favorites from our editorsTop BooksWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop AudiobooksWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop ComicsWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop Sheet MusicWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreCategoriesArts & IdeasBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipChildren'sComputers & TechnologyCooking & FoodCrafts & HobbiesFantasyFiction & LiteratureHappiness & Self-HelpHealth & WellnessHistoryHome & GardenHumorLGBTMystery, Thriller & CrimePolitics & EconomyReferenceReligionRomanceScience & NatureScience FictionSociety & CultureSports & AdventureTravelYoung AdultCategoriesArts & IdeasBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipChildren'sComputers & TechnologyCooking & FoodFantasyFiction & LiteratureHappiness & Self-HelpHealth & WellnessHistoryHome & GardenHumorLGBTMystery, Thriller & CrimePolitics & EconomyReferenceReligionRomanceScience & NatureScience FictionSociety & CultureSports & AdventureTravelYoung AdultCategoriesAdaptationsChildren’sCrime & MysteryFictionHumorMangaNonfictionRomanceSciFi, Fantasy & HorrorSuperheroesYoung AdultPublishersArcanaArchie ComicsBOOM! StudiosDynamiteIDW PublishingKingstone ComicsMarvel ComicsSpace Goat ProductionsTop Cow ComicsValiant ComicsZenescopeDifficultyBeginnerIntermediateAdvancedMixedInstrumentBrassDrums & PercussionGuitar, Bass, and FrettedPianoStringsVocalWoodwindsGenreClassicalCountryFolkJazz & BluesMovies & MusicalsPop & RockReligious & HolidayStandardsWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out moreIN THE UISTRICTCOURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA~ THIRn DISTIUCT SANDRA P ~CASTILLO, A.p'p,e~lantlnefen.dant, vs.DEUTSCHE B,ANK NAT10NAL TRUST COMPA.NY AS TRUSTEE FOR MORGAN STANLEY ADS CAPITAL .1 INC. TRUST 200'o-HE'7MORTGAGE
Third DCA Case No.. : 3011 2;132 L,.T~No.: 09-88,614,CA21
CE'R.T.lF1CATES,
SERIES 2€t0'6-HE7, AppeUe,efPla.i.dff~
APpiEAL FROM T.DE ELEVENTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT IN AND
FOR l\OAl\1[][~UAnE 'COUNTY,FLORID'A
INITIAL BRIEF OF"APPELLANT" SANDRA P. CASTILLO
ROBERTR. JIMENEZ, ESQ,. JI1\mNlEZ, MILIAN & ASSOCIA TES;PL.LC 2025 SW 32 .AVE, ST'E 11tIt l\flAMl, FLORIDA 33145
err ATIONS
STATEMENT Of THE CASE AND FACTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED SUMMARY Of ARGUMENT ARGUMENT:
TRIBUN.AL E.RRED IN DENYlNGAPPELLANT'S MOTION FOR SUl\!IMARY JUDGMENT nE'CAUSE, AS A MATTER OF LAW, A DEF.ENDANT HAS THE STANDING AND ABI:LI.TY TO CHALLENGE A PLAINTIFF TRUST'S STAND'ING TO FILE SUIT BY CONTEST.ING TIlE TRUST"S: O'WNERSHIP OF A. NOTE AND MORTGAGE PURSUANT 'TO THE LIMITATIONS OUTLINED IN THE TRUST'S DOCUMlENTS~ 8
BECAUSE THE mUST CAN NOT TAKE OWNE,RSIDr OF A NOTE ANn
MORT'GAGE OR HOLD THEM IN V[OL.ALTION OF ITS TRUST DOClTMIENTS, AND BECAUSE THE TRUSTEE OF THE
TRUST CAN NOT ,COMMIT THE ULTRA VIRE-S ACT OF ENFORCIN'G LOAN DOCUMENTS THAT ITS TRUST nOES NOT OWN, TOlE TRIAL, ,COURT ERRED IN
DENYING APPELLANT"S .M.OTION .FOR SUMMARY JUDGM:ENT ANn .IN G.RANTING APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUUGMENT.
A. As a matter of law, a trust cannot tak.e ownership or hoM. a note and mortgage in violation of its trust documents .. 16 B. As a matter of law, the trustee of a trust cannot cO'mnm~the ultra vires act of e.rJlfnrd.ng lOGlfilJ t documents that its trust does not own.
CERTIfMCA TE OF SERVICE CERTTFICA IE OF CONIPLIANCE
T ABLE OF CIT A TIONS Statmtes Page
Florida Statutes: Section 73·(i08150 ) (a)
15 U.S.C.A. §77~(a}(2)
IRe §860A(a)
IRe §860A(b)
IRe §860F
21)22
Arn'lstrong v. Harris
773 So. 2d '7 (Fla. 2000) General Development Corp.
IV•.
Kirk 9, [0,
251 So. 2d 284 (Fla.. 2d DCA 1'971)
Griley v.. Marion Mor~gage Co. l32 Fla. 299 (f1a. ] 937) In Re Burton's Estate 45 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 1950) In Re Estate of Stillman
107 Misc. 2d 102 (Snrr.Ct, N.Y. 1980)
In Re Robin Hayes
3'93 B.R. 25'9 (Bankr .. Mass ..2008)
in the Matter of James D. Dana 465 N.V.S.2d 102 (N.Y. Sup. Ct 1982) In the .Matter ofthe Application ofEdward Cummings U~4 N Y.S. 404 (N.Y. App, nruv. lli9'20)
Jackson v. State 572 So ..2d :3 [ (Fla. Sd DCA 1991) Johns v. G.iUlaJ~ 134 Fla. 575 (Fla. ~9'38) Jones v. First National Bank in FortLauderdale 226 So. 2d 834) 835 (Fla. 4d DCA 19,69) Kemp ~}. aterson P ,6N.Y.2~d40 (N.Y. ] 95'9) MacFarlane v. First Nat 'I Bank
203 So ..2d 57 (F]a. 3d DCA [967)
2.0,27
Martin Properties •.Inc. v. Florida Industries.etc .. et al. ,
833 So. 2d 825 (Fla ..4d DCA 2002)
Muth v. AIU insurance Company
982 So. 2d 749' (Fla.. 4([ DCA 2008)
Providen; Life & Accident Insurance Co.mpany 82,6 So. 2d 250 (Fla.. 2(02) Shaps
Siegel v..Novak
920 So. 2d 89 (Fla ..4d DCA 2006)
Gross, etc. 316, So. 2d 596 (Fla. 4d .DCA 1~:n5)
'V.•
Your Construction Center, Inc.
.Fla. R. Civ .P. ] .51 O(b)
Other Authorlties
Florida Appellate Practice 148 (2nd ed. [9'97) New ~ork Civil Practice: EPTL P 7-2.4(2) (20] I) N.Y ..Est. Powers & Trusts Law, § 1]-1.l(b)
Restatement of the L-aw,. Second. Trusts, §] 87 (1992 ed.)
23 25.,26
STATEMENT OF mE CASE ANn FACTS
The Appellant, Sandra P. Castillo (he.rein~~Ap'Pen.anf'), an original
Defendant below, perfected this appeal from a. Final Order of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court inand for Miami-Dade County, Florida, entered on July 28, 201]1' a. copy of which is attached to the Notice of Appeal filed on August 9, 201] (R.349.36,9.). The Final Judgment of Foreclosure was entered. pursuant to a: prior order issued on January 24, 20m l that awarded Appellee Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (herein referred to as "Appen0e~'),~he original Pjaintiff below; a final summary judgment (also attached to the Notice of AppeaWat R.349'-369.). appeal also challenges, as reversible error, the denial of Appellent'sMoticrr This for
Summary Judgment on November 22) .2010. ld. The Orders were rendered. by the'
Honorable Judge William Thomas, one of the judges of the Bleventh Judicial Circuit Court. The Appellee filed its Complaint to' reform and foreclose a mortgage on December L, 2009. The Appelleeis the trustee of a. New York common law trust, Morgan Stanley ABC Capital I Inc. Trust 2006-HE7 (herein the "Trust"), which .~~ filed the instant suit onbehalf of. Said Trust was createdpursuant to Internal
Revenue Codes g,60A~860G for th.e purpose of constructing and selling mortgage'
backed securities as investments.
(RJ 53 -166.,) See also, ARGUM:ENT ~ n.15~
- - - .- .- -
...... - _ .. - - -
- - . ~~
As such, and pursuant to. federal securities laws, a securhies prospectus
containing the material trust terms was filed for the Trust with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. ki. Attached to the Complaint was a promissory note made payable to a lender nota party tothe instant action (WMC Mortgage Corp.) and amortgage instrument that listed Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, inc. as the mortgagee and nominee of the lender, \VIV!llCMortgage Complaint that the subject promissorynote Corp. (R.,6-42.) Appellee p'~ed.inthe
W3!S
transferred to it and that it owned
and. held the note and mortgage. Id. Appellant." vial her Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Complaint (R.146-] 52.)) Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment (R.140~]45.), and .~nan Affidavit (R,.~.35-137.) denied that the Trust and/or IDe Appellee properly owned or held the note or mortgage (and that, as such, neither had standing to foreclese), On or about March 29, 2010, Appellee filed into evidence a copy of the note w~~ch contained a blank endorsement signed by the original lender. (R.83-88.)
Subsequently, on July 14, 2010 and again on November 10~20]0, Appellant
into evidence copies of the trust documents fHed with the United States See-urities and Exchange Commission. (R.153~]66.) Seealso~ ARGUMENT~ n.15~ infra. The instant case proceeded to the summary judgment stage with. Appellee filing i~s Motiou for Summary Judgment on May l O, 2010 (R.103-M08.) and
Appellanr filing Iter Motion for Summary Judgment on August: ] 6, 20 l 0 (R.176184.). Appellant's MoHon for Summary Judgment raised the issues of I) whether
a defendant has the ability to challenge a plaintiff trust's standing by contesting its ownership of instrumen.tspursuant to~he limitations outlined in the trust
documents; 2) whether a trust can take ownership and hold a note and mortgage in violatioo of its trust documents; and 3) whether the trustee of thetrust can commit the ultra vires act ofenforcing loan. doenmentsthst its trust does not own. On October 25, 2010, his Honor, Judge William Thomas, orderedthat both
summary judgment motions be heard before him, and a. special set cross-summary
judgment hearing was scheduled for November 22, 2.0]0. (R.190.) Despite the
fa.c~that the AppeUee never disputed any of the facts alleged in Appellant's Motion
for Summary Judgment that the trust terms and documents had been violated
fARJGUMENT" n.18 infra)~ the trial court denied Appellant's Motion.
doing, thetrial court in essence held. that a d.efeodant cannot challengeeplaintiff
trust's standing by contesting the trust's non-ownership of instruments stemming from a viofation oftheterms regulatiegthe trust.
AU the parties present at the November 2211d hearing, as well as the Judge, overlooked that Appellee's Motien for Summary Judgment was abo supposed. to have been argued and ruled upon (but was not). (R.223, 224.) As such, a follow
- h e x· . o· " up ... anng on
J. >," .' -.~ -2-' ,3!T1l11:UUY"'lf,
.:112~~11 _ vm..
-. 'dii ,f .. !lor : regarumg- A-· - ,11,· " S M-- (hillOn ~;" 'S--,,'·'- -..~ppe_ee ummary
,.. _ ... - _,_.. - ~.,.. ,.,., ..... , -
Judgment was set, and the Court entered summary judgment in favor of Appellee at the hearing. (R,349-369'
See alsot ARGUMENT~ n.l ~ infra. An appeal was
filed two days later, but said appeal was dismissed by this Honorable Court as premature, (R.274-276.) On July 28, 2.0] 1) the trial court entered a Final
Judgment of Foreclosure, and the instant appeal followed. (RJ49- 369,)
1. \VHETHER A nEFENDANT IN A FORE'CLOSHRE
A.BILITY TO CHALLENGE~ A PLAlNTIFFJ THE TRUST'S OWNERSHIP TRUST'S OF
CASE HAS THE
ST.ANDING BY
'CONTEST'ING
NO-TE AND'
1\10RTGAGE .PURSUANT TO THE .LlM1!TAT[ONS OUTLINED IN 'THE
TRUST'S DOCUME-NTS.
2~WHETHER A TRUST CAN TAKE OWNERSHIP OR HOLD A NOTE IN VIOLATION OF ITS TRUST DOCUMENTS.,
3,. WHETHER
THE TRUSTE-E O.F A TRUST CAN COMMIT .LOAN DOCUMENTS
THE UL T'RA.
VIRES .ACT O.F ENFORCING
THA.T ITS TRUST'
DOES NOT OWN..
I' •.•
_~ ~ P 1
- _. - ,. _, ~ -
.~ _ -
- - ~ . .. -- - _. - - - ~ ~ - _. ~.. ... -
SUMMARY On summary judgment, not challenge Trusts's Appellee's
OF .A.RGUMrE,NT held that: Appellant could
the trial court improperly
file suit in the instant case by contesting the
of the note and mortgage through the vessel of the limitations Florida law is clear that Appellantactually
outlined in the Trust's own documents.
does have the ability to so challenge because standing: is based upon having a sufficient irrterest in the outcome of litigation, not privity of contract, Case law
also dictates that a defendant has the right to challenge a trust's ownership of a
note and mortgage standing to file suit. in a foreclosure case as at means of contesring the trust's
'[he trial court also erred when it denied. Appellant's Motion fo,r Summary
Judgment and granted Appellee's motion because, as a 111aUer of law;a trust cannot take ownership of a note and mortgage or hold it in violation of its trust
Itis elementarytrust
lawthat a trust's founding document controls the
limitations that must be adhered to by a trustee and its trust, New York and Florida law -vbcth applicablein mortgage the instant case ... _agree that, because the relevent note and · to the Trust at issue, the trust documents As sueh.jhe
were not properly transferred
were violated and the Trust does not own the subject instruments. Trust and ~ts Trustee (Appellee)
never had standing to tile the instant case to begin
Furthermore, a trustee cannot committhe
improper and ultra vires act of
enforcing Ioan documents that its trust does not own, especially when (as in the
instant case) the trust terms themselvesmandare
tbatthetrustee
ability or discretion to maintain possession of an improperly transferred note or mortgage, Trustee actions which contravene trust instruments are void as a matter of New York and even Florida. ]aw. Thusly, because the note and mortgage were
never properly transferred to the Trust, and because the Trust and Appellee Trustee
must follow the']! trust documents) the Trust does not own and cannot enforce the
subject moan documents and has no. standing in the instant case,
._. . _. __
__ ._ _._,
THE LO\'Vll:R TRIBUNAL ERRED IN DENYllNG APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGl\1ENT BECAUSE" AS A MATTER OF' L.AW, A. DEFENUANTHAS THE STANUING AND AB.ILITY TO CHALLENGE A PLAINTIFF TRUST'S STANDI:NG TO FILE SUIT' BY CONTESTING m·E TRUST'S OYlNERSHJP O.F A NOTE AND MORT'GAGE PURSUANT TO THE LIMITATIONS OUTLINED IN 'THE TRUST'S DOCUl\fENTS~
Although run its order denying
Motion for Summary Judgment motive, it
(R.225-257,.)1 the trial court ,d~dnot crystalize itsprecise jurisprudential
is clear from the November 22 hearingtranscript incerrectly
rejected the Appellant's
(R.222, 223.) that the tria] court challenge the Appellee's Indeed,
legal abilityte
standing with. relation to whether-the trust documents have been violated.'
because the evidenceand the recor-d clearly show that the trust documents and. trust tenus have been violated --a factual allegationnever there wo:umd have been
rebutted by Appellee below-~
other way for the trial court to deny Appellant's Motion
The trial court entered an order denying Appeljant's Defensive Motien for Summary Judgment on November 22~ 2010. The Index Record on Appeal does not reflect the order. Instead, said Index states "Plaintiff's And Defendant's CrossMotions for Summary Judgment" atpages 225-257 and with the date of January 25~ 20mL The Index Record on AfJ'Pea~also does not reflect the Final Judgment of Foreclosure on July 28, 2011 or the or-der granting Plaintiffs Motion For Summary Judgment on January 24, 2,011. Said documents were, however, attached to the Notice ofAppeal (R.J49-369.). 2lPages 4 and 5 of the transcript (R.l'95~, 1'96.) showcasesthatthe tr~a.m court judge's first question :mtthe November 22nd hearing, regarded. the ability ofthe A~)ipeU.antto challenge standing by pointing out violation of the trust documents. The judge asked the following: "What is that. -vplease forgive the vernacular of this-- but what is itany of your business whether or not the trust is basically taking property and. holding it ..in consradiceion to their own trust documents?" 8
---~""-
.,;-----
r.'1I"
for Summary Judgment unlessjt
held. that Appellant did not have the ability ~o
challenge the standing of the Appellee and the Trust. The trial court thus committed reversible error as Florida. law is clear that Appellant can contest standing by engaging in the aforementioned legal challenge, As such, the standard of review intheinstant In its reply to Appellant's appeal is de novo.'
affirmative defenses, Appellee stated that "the
borrower is not a party nor a third party benefieiary of this [trust] contract. Therefore, the borrowerhas no standing to attack. whether or not the provisions of
the agreement were met or whether there have been any violations," (R.170, para. 5.. ) However, as Appellantpointed out at the November 22
hearing and as
evinced .inthe transcript (R.223.)~ "the I[Appd~an;t]is not claiming any rights under the trust documents. The [Appellant] is utilizing her Florida law given right to
cballengethe standing of'the [Appellee] ..... Indeed, itis well settled law in Florida. that both standing and ownership of notes and mortgages can be challenged as
Appellant has set forth.
In General Development Corp. v. Kirk; 251 So. 2d 284 (fla. 2d DCA] fJ'71), the Second District Court of Appeal analyzed and explained precisely what constitutes See Armstrongv.Harri:s~ 773 So. 2d 7 (Pla, 2(00) (stating: that "the standard of review for a pure question of law is de novo" and also citing to Florida Appellate Practice 148 (2nd ed, 1997) (stating that "Summary judgments present a classic example of the type of decisions that are subject to the de novo standard of review' ')}.
the concept of standing. "Standing is, in the final analysis, that sufficient interest
in the outcome of Iitigation which will warrant the court's entertaining it. It is beyond doubt that standing. is, in most states, no longer determined by first: determining some absrract question such. as privity," The Second. District Court
further elaborated that "it is mot "privity" but a legitimate jnterest warranting. invocation of the judicial power of the state which ought to. determine standing ... " Interestingly, the Second District Court's explanation in General Development
Cmp,4 wasthe
foundation for a subsequent Fourth District Court decision that is
point with/to theinstam issue.
Corp., et al., 833 So.
Mll.Martin Properties, Inc. v, Florida Industries Investment
2d 825 (F~a:.4d DCA 20(2), the appellant, Martin Properties, Inc. (berein ".MP'ill"), appealed a trial court order that denied. it standing to challenge an assignment of the equity redemption regarding property that M.PI had been the high bidder for at: a mortgage foreclosure saJe.F]orida Industries Investment Corp .. (herein "FUC") had assigned its. equitable right of redemption to VOSR Industries) and the trial court ruled that MPI did not have standing to challenge said assignreem. Fourth District Court of Appealreversed The
and rejected the trial court's holding that:
~'tv[pI had no standing to c~aHenge the validity ofthe assignmeat because 1v1PM was
w www __ ~ ',. ,., w. ww w ww w w w. w.. ~,. ,w, w w ,.w.
WW.,.,
neither aparty to' it nor a third party beneficiary
of it," "That", the Fourth District
Coun pointed om, "is notthe test" Relying on and quoting from the Second District Court's opinion in General
Corp.,5 the Poerth
held that t'if ... the
bidder at the foreclosure standing.
was not valid, MEl, as the successful
sale, will own. the property .. This is sufficient to give MlPM
En the instam
case, the applicability
of the aforementioned .M]F"~'s
precedents js obvious.
The Issne in Marlin Properties, Inc. conceming
standing to challenge the; assignment. is analogous to the instant issue of whether Appellanthas standing to challenge the: Trust's non-ownership (and thus standing)
of the corresponding Note BInd Mortgage given the undisputed trust violations. Just as with Ml'I and the assignment, Appellant and. not a third party beneficiary thereof
Court pointed out, "that is not the test."
party to the trust documents
However, and as the Fcutth District
Rather, having a "sufficient
outcome of the litigation" =not '~privity'~--·s the standard, i 5251 so, 2d 2841 286 (Fla. 2d DCA 1'971),
By that token, there can
The fourth District Court of Appeals in Martin Properties, Inc.• 833 So .. 2d at 827~ quoted the Second District Court's exphmation on standing ill General Development Corp. that"S~anding:~s, in. the final analysis, that sufficient interest in the outcome of Iitigation which win warrant the court's entertaining it. It is beyond doubt that standing is, in most states, no jonger determined by first
determining some abstract question such as "privity.'?'
,_._ ,_.
- -_., _.
be no doubt that Appenan~bas
the abihty to utilize violations
cf fhe jrust
documents/tenus
as a mechanism to challenge the standing of the Appellee to
bring the instant foreclosure case.as wen as to chalfenge the ownership interests of the Trust inthe Note and Mortgage, 7 It is difficult to conceive of a greater interest ill the outcome ofth]s litigation than that of Appellant, who willlose her residential
homestead should Appellee succeed in the instant action. Furthermore, precedenr
exists which clearly dictates trust, a defendant
in cases such as this involving a. fbreclosure by a the trust's ownership of the note and
has the right to challenge
mortgage. In Your Construction Center, inc. v, Gross, as Trustee of Dominion Mortgage and R:ealty Trust, 316 So.. 2d 59'6 (Pla, 4d .DCA 1'975),. the instant issue of consideration was decided. Your Construction regarded a plaintifftrustee of a
Massachusetts business trust which brought a. foreclcsureaction and mortgage. The trial court had previously
pursuant to a note
denied the appellants'
dismiss, whichthe Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed due to the fact that the
subject instruments specifically .Hs~ed. he trustee as the sole payee, 8 However, the t
Fourth District. Court went on to explain. that, when a plaintiff files a complaint, Succinctly, Appellant clearly has the standing to, in this fashion, challenge the Appellee's standing to bring the foreclosure action, & The Fourth District Court held that t'where a note and mortgage are executed naming as payee one trustee to this sort of foreig[IiJJrust, and. not more, that trustee t is entitled to maintain an action on the note and mortgage and to discharge the obligatien. ,~ 12
• _ •• , _ ,. _, _
,_~ I
they must allege that they are the owner and holder of the note and mortgage in question. "SlllouJd. d.efen.dlant;s haveanyaflcgadan to the cnllua.ry they may join
issue on it, and mbtu~n adjmdieatioDJ as to the ,owne.rs,.lJJjpl.~'9 (Emphasis Added.) Anyone
of the jhree previously referenced cases, even
convincingly demonstrates that the trial court erred in its ruling below that the Appellant did not have the abilhy to challenge the Appellee's (arid Trust's)
standing by contesting its owne-rship of instruments pursuant to' the limitations outlined in the trust documents. Although florida law is abundantly clear, it ~s of
note that Honda is not alone in itsposition tbat trust law violations can be usedby a defendant to bring to light a plaimiff trust's lack of standing in a foreclosure case. Indeed, the trust documents under which Appellee functions as [rus~.eehav.e alreadybeen
utilized by a debtor in another state as part. of the inquiry as to
whether this same Appellee bas standing in a foreclosure matter, In the case of In Re Robin Hayes, 393 B.R. 259' (Bankr .. Mass. 2008), Appellee
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, in that case as trustee of Argent
Securities, Inc, Asset-Backed Pruss Through. Certificates
Series 20()4-
WI]~ 10 sought relief from a stay ofthe Chapter ]3 bankruptcy of the debtor, In her Id. at 597, 10 In the case of In Re Robin Hayes, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts stated that "Deutsche Bankis a party to a Pooling end Service Agreement e~PSA"], ated as of October 1,2004 .. The Depositor under the d Pooling and Service Ag;reem.e]1t,,~ame~y the seller of pass-through certificates
- ~..,...
Objection to Appelke's Appellee's
mction for relief from stey.jhe Debtor raised an issue of The specific issue for the
standing to seek the relief it sought.
Bankruptcy Courtto consider was whether Appellee Deutsche Bank National Trust Company successfully traced the identity of the various holders and servieers of the mortgage from the original helder to itself The to do
SO~ and
held that Appellee failed.
it noted that Appellee "failed to prove that the mortgage executed by
the Debtor and. her mother in favor of Argeru Mongage Company, LLC was ever assigned to an entity by that name or to Argent Securities Inc., the Depositor under
While the court in In Re Robin Hayes held that Appellee lacked standing for various reasons, it is clear tbat the court: looked to. the trust documents in its attempt to determine the standing of Appellee Deutsche Bank National Trust
r-eflecting.beneficial oWl1ersh~p' interests in certain real estate mortgage investment: conduits, is Argent Seourities l~c.)not: Argent Mortgage Seenrities.Tnc. Under the Pooling and Service Agreement, the Trustee of the Trust fund, consisting of a. segregated pool of assets comprised of mortgage loans and certain other related assets, is Deutsche Bank National Trust, Company. ),. ~] In footnote 7 of the opinion in In Re Robin .Hayes~[he court pointed out that "Deutsche Bank noted that Argent Mortgage Company, LLC was identified as an "Originator" in the PSA. Deutsche Bank failed to' explain the relationshipbetween Arge.nt Seeurities Inc .. and Argent Mortgage Company, LLC~ in its capacityes an originator, and Argent Securities Inc. '8 ownership of pass-through certiflcates backed by the mortgage originated by Argent Mortgage Company, LtC remains unclear. Deutsche Bank failed in its burden to explain the relationship and how it affectsi ts standing." 14
Company to file its motion for relief from s~ay.12 Although said opinion is merely persuasive _. upon Florida. courts, it is an example ofhow Florida law =embodied In .
C-3Ses
the precedents set forth above wnthe
of General Development Corp., Martin
Properties, Inc., and Your Construction Center. Inc= should be applied to the instant: situation on appeal, Thusly, it is, clear that the trial court err-ed in not
allowing Appellant to' contest Appellee and the Trust' s standing through a challenge based upon the Hmim~rl::ru~on8in thetrust documents,
B,ECAUSE mE TRUST CAN NOT TAKE OWNERSHIP OF A NOTE ANU MORT'GA'GE OR. HOLD THEM IN VIOLATION OF ITS T'ItUST DOCUMENTS~ ANDBE,CAUSE THE TRUSTEE OF THE TRUS'T ,CAN NOT COM1\OT THE ULTRA VJRES ACT OF ENFORCIN'G LOAN DOCUM:E,NTS THA T ITS TRUST" DOES NOT OWN, THE TRJAL COURT ERREn IN DENYING APPELLANT"SMOT[ON FOR SUM!MARY JUDGl\IENT AND IN GRANTING A.PPELLEE'S MOTION FOR. SUMMARY
As mentioned above, although in its order denying Appellant's Summary Judgment (R.225-257.
i3 the
trial court did not crystaline its exact
went: on to state that "moreover, De-utsche Bank failed to submit any evidence that the November J 2004 mortgage was included in the ['SA or was subject to Section 2.09 of the PSA as neither Scbedu~.e 1 to the PSA nor a Mortgage Loan Schedule attached. to a Subsequent Transfer Instrument were submitted. into evidence, Thus,..,,. he Court finds that Deutsche Bank failed to' t adequately trace the moan from the original holder, Argent Mortgage Company,
12. The COMfit,
LtC, to it.)" ~J~ee D ..1t supra. S' _.-
erred because a trust and a.trustee cannot violate trust law.
that, in the absence of a contractual provision specifying governing law, a contract is governed by law of the state in which the contract ismade.~']4 In. the, Instant
case, Florida law is clearthat because the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital J Inc, Trust
2006-HE7 is a New York common law trust (R.,~,53-166.)15) subatantive New York
trust law applies."
See, Shaps v. Provident Life & ,Accident Insurance Com:pany,~826 So. 2d, 250 (Fla. 20(2) (also stating tbat, "this COltmrt, has held, thaJtunder lex loci controcms, the
Mawof tbe jurisdiction where tbecontract was executed governs sobstanrive issues regarding the contract"), I,:} Tbe Notice of Filing with artaohments indicaeed by the Index Record on Appeal witha. date of July m4~ 2010 cootained e relevant Secerities Prospectes in electronic format 011 a data. compact disc. Said documentation shows that the Trust
]83.
New York common Iaw trust (which was never rebutted by Appellee),
same Securities Prospectus was filed in paper formst artachedjo another Notice of Filing on November 10, 2010. The Index Rec.ord. on Appea~ does not: Hst the November [atk Notice of Filing,
See Siegel v. Novak; 920 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 4d DCA 2006) (holdiog that substantive New York trustlaw applied to a challenge of distributions from the trust because New York bore the most significant relationship to the trust given the fact that, at the time the challenged distributions took place, the trust was a New York trustgoverned by New Yorklaw), In Siegel, the Fonrth District Court of Appeal also outlined th,aJ"generaUy.~when cenfronted by a: choice of law problem, a court will apply foreig~. law when it deals with the substance of the case and win apply the forum ~s maw to matters of procedure." Henceforth, standing issues in the instant case should be determined w~.threference to florida. law while substantive trust law issues ShOM~d. be decided by New York law ..
A. As amatte.r of law. a~rus~ ,carm.O:~. tate ownership mort.gage in violation of its trust documents.
or .bold. a. note and.
It is basic trust law that a trust's fou.nd~:Frug document controls what rules and
regulations must be adhered to bythe trustee and the trust Both Florida and New York maw are identical
iF1JJ.
this n:!gard.,]'7
See Jones v. First Nati(mal Bank ,in Fort Laud:erdal,e, 226 So.Zd 834, 835 (F~ja. 4th DCA 19'69) (stating that "the duties, powers and. liabilities of executors and trustees are ordinarily fixed by the terms of the will and trust agreement ... For instanee, the trust i~sdf~ whatever it be, constinues the charter of the trustee's power and duties, From the trust, the trustee derives the rulie of his conduct.the extent and limit of h]s authority, the measure of his obligation"). See aiso. In the Matter of James D. Dana, 465 N Y.S.2d m02 (N.Y .. Sup. Ct, 1982) (voiding a transaction that violated a trust document and upholding the trust); New York Civil Practice: EPTL P 7-2.4(2) (Article 7~ entitled t'Trusts"; Part 2,enutl,ed "Rules Governing Trustees"; stating that "a cardinal principle of the law of trusts is that themsmnnent under which thetrustee acts WS charter of his rights end he must the act in administering the trust in accordance with itsterms"); In the Matter of the Application oIEdw{,u~dCumming$~ 184 N.Y.S. 404 (N,Y. APfJ'.Div. ~9'20) (holding and sm.~dfTh.ghatt'tmstsare sacred and that trustees cannot vio late the express terms t thereof,ruf such terms are incorporated in the instrument creating thetrust"),
terms are contained within the Trust's Securities Prospectus"
filed electronically The'
online with tile United States SeciUritiesamd Exchange Commission."
Securities 'Prospectus contains tbe relevant trust terms from all pooling and servicing agreements and. any and. all other trust documents relevant
stemmlng from the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust: 200t'S-HE7. If any of the trust terms pertaining tothe Note and. Mortg;age at issue were violated, the
Appellee' s argument below was neverthat the trust terms were not viol ated or that they were not in front of the trial coert, Rather, Appellee's position was that such things were irrelevant At no time did jhe Appellee deny or file any document in opposition to any factual allegations contained within Appellant's .~ . Defensive Motion for Summary Judgment (which i~se~fequired no supporting r affidavits pUfSuanttoF]a.R,Civ,P. m,5lliO(b)), and tllilusly the lie can be 1][0 dispute that: the material trust terms are contained within the Securities Prospectus. See In Re Burton's Estate, 4S So, 2d 873 (Pla, 1950) (stating tbat statements made inan appellate briefthat haveno support in the record cannot be eonsidered on appeal); Jackson v. Suue, 572 So. 2d 3~. (Fla. 5d DCA 1'99'1 Se,e eisa. .Uutll :v. AlU J, Insurance Company, 982 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 4d DCA 2008) (affirming the trialli court's refusal to allow a plaintiff) whopreviously filednothing in opposition to tbe defendaru's summary judgment motion, to submit counrer-affldavits and evidence on rehearing), 19 'CT . ~ee flo,1·5~ supra. 20 At the hearing on Appellant's Motion for Summary Judgment on November 221ld~ Appellant, on page 12, of the bearing transcript (R ..203.. , stated to the trial ) court judge that: "the prospectus, prospectus supplement ... incorporate all the material trust terms; things from the pooling: and servicing agreement, trust agreement, all of i~,n~ a]1 here, These are tbe trust documents.' ~ See also, R.202" s
, ., '=.",
Trust would not be able to own or holdshe NO'~eand. Mortgage (which is the basic
The Securities corresponding
Prospecais
ill detail a. chain of ownership
Note and. Mortgage
must have been subjected
to in order for the
Trust to becomethe owner of said instruments,
In a section within the Securities
ownership is outlined as follows:
Pursuant tomortiage loam purchase and warranties agreements .... W}...f C .... sold the mortgage loans, wi thout recourseto MSMC [Morgan Stanley Mortgage CapaalInc.], and MSMC will sen and conveythe mortgage loans ... on ... the close of business on the cutoff-date, without recourse, to the depositor [Morgan Stamey ABS Capital 1 Ine.] on the dosing dalle.PUrsuant to the pooling and
servicing agreement, the depositor will sel], without recourse, tothe trust, allright, title and interest in and to each. mortgage loan .....he t dose of business on the cut-off date.
(RJ53-1'6ti}.22 requirements The Securities .. Prospeetusgnes on to further stipulate: the exact
for the Note and Mortgage
to he: transferred
and deposited. into the
See Your Construction Center, Inc. v. Gross-as Trustee of Dominion Mortgage and Realty Trust, 3 ~. So. 2d 5'96,(Fla. 4d DCA 197'5). 6
22('1 .:Jee fn'r_ • _. .
IS· ~ supra.
In connection withthetransfer and assignment of each mortgage loan to thetrust.the depositor win csuseto be delivered to (I) WeUs Fargo Bank, National Association, as custodian. on behalf of the trustee with respect to the VVMC mortgageloans ....o.n or before the closing date, the following documenrs with respectto each mortgage Ioen whic.h censtitutethemortgage file: (a) the originalmortg;age~o~:e~ endorsed witb.outrecourse in blank by fhe last endorsee, indmdi.ng a.1 .~:ntf!rv.tm.~ng endnfs.em,eD.t.s showmga eDmp,lete c:b:aim of
endors~ment fromllhe Griginatn.f tmthe last eadersee ....I{d) the rn.ortg.age assi.gnmellt(s) •••s.hG'IV~ng CiolU.pl~eteha.~n of .assi.gmlll.ent a. c from the originator of the t'e~a:ted mortgage ~oam to t,"e last
endorsee. (Emphasis Added.) (R. lliS3_166.).23 Showcasing that the trust terms have been violated is the fact that, in direct
endorsement that exists on the original note isa blank endorsement. (R.83-88.). If the trust terms had been. complied wifh the original note would show three endorsem ents:•. 0-.ne from the.. orig..."'.Mru len der (WM··C- ·M·· ..a. ... ortgag e ..., .... "'.... ",'. .. 1.~u.... v. ~ h"._1 ... lh..... .... .. sponsor (Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital
IFII.C .•),
orp.)• ~ .... fr om the i'fl·.,. v.. v.u.... . . ... n_
and one from the depositor
(Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc .. . Two of the three endorsements an! missing, )
and as such the Trust did mot become the owner or holder of the Note beeause t~.e
trust terms clearly mandate the presence of'allthree endorsements ..
mandatory chain of ownership is also a missing insttnment
the case that Florida law itse~f does Mot require an assignmeat evidence of
of mortgage upon
transferred debt/4 because the above referencedtrust terms require it"
from the originator to the depositoris another trust violation. Therefora.because the trust terms and documents have been violated, the; Trust
cannot and does not own or hold the Note and Mortgage as
~aw.2S Indeed, because the Trust is a Real Esrate Mortgage Investment Conduit
(hereil1~'REMIC~~)~ inclusion of a loan in the trust corpus that was notproperly the transferred. to' the Trust as of the closing da~e ontlieed in the trust doeuments"
would subject the Trust to greater tax liability pursuant to the Internal Revenue
Code (herein "I RC~,).:2; i Because the Trust elected to be treated as a REMIC for tax. purposes.i" any taxable gains on the loans property transferred and deposit jed intothe Trust (it is
_' = . .
unknown if any have been) would be or are "passed through" the Trust and directly
See Johns v. Gillian, ill 34 Fla . .575 (Fla, I '9381. S' n..1·7-..~ :ee supra. 26 The dosing date ofthe Trust is OctoberSl , 2:006. (R.153-Hi6.). See also., n.15, supra. 27 See IRe §860A-8,60G .. 28 S -ee n. ·15 supra. .', _.24 25
See IRe §860A{a) and (b). Subsection (a) of IRe §860A,entitled "General rule", states that "except as otherwise provided in tbis part, a REMIC shellnot be subject to taxation under this subtitle (and shall not be treated. as a eorporatien, 21
certain requirements forrhe REMIC~ax election to be maintained by the TruSt,l(1 It is these IRe requirements that forcedthe Trust to be designed with the framework se~ forth above (wtrlch is why thetnsstterms describe in great detailexactly which
types of loans can be accepted into the Trust, what the processes were for adequate transfers of the loans to the Trust, and what the procedures fbr curing any defects were). Thusly) thetrust terms are substantive and not merely a formality, and
because the trust terms were filed with the: United States Securities and Exchange Commission in relation with the offering for sale of investment certificates, any argument by Appellee that the trust terms did not have to be' followed conld be
partnership, or jrust for purposes. of this, subtitle). Subseetiorr (b) of said IRe, entitled "Income taxable to holders", states tham."tberuncome of any REMIC shall be-taxable to the holders of interests in such REMIC as provided inthis part..'~ J(:J. IR:C § 860f, entitled "Other rules", states as follows: a) llO'p,erC!fRttax on proh~bited. transacdons (1) Tax imposed. There is hereby imposed for each. taxable year of a REMTCa tax equal to ~.OO percent IOf the' net income derived from prohibited transactions, (2,) Prohi.billed t~ans3cti,on, For purposes of this part, the terrrrrprchibitedtransaction" means-> (A) Dispo,siti.on .of qnalified. mDrtgage The disposition of 3J1Y qualified mortgage transferred to the REMIC other than a disposition pursuant to-> (i) the substitution of a. qualified replecementmortgage for a qualified mortgage (or the repurchase in lieu of substitution of a defective obligatioa), (ii) a disposition. incident to the foreclosure, default, or hmninent defauU of the mortgage" (iii) the' bankruptcy or insolvency oftbeREM1C~ •. (iv) (]I: qualified liquidation .. or
.,(8) Imcome from nompermitted. assets
The receipt of any income attribusabie to any asset whichis mortgage nor a permitted irrvestment.
neither a quaHfi.oo
Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C.A. §7'l(a)(2)}?1
B. As a matter of law ..the trustee ofa. trust cannot (')ommw~,~heldtrn vives act of enforcing loan documents that its trust does not own,.
It is axiomatic that a trustee is limited in itt; conduct by the specifieatione of the trust documents and terms
serves under.32
Similar to the prior discussion
concerniag the inability ofatrustto
violate its own trust documents, a trustee may
also not" as a matter of law, engage in any conduct that centravenes themandates ofthe trust documents, Once more, both Florida and New York law are in
harmony em these points.
The Iaw in New York regarding acts of trustees in conrravention of trust makes dear that "if the trustis expressed in the instrument creatingthe estate of the
trust,e:xoept as authorized by this article and by any other provision of law, is
Section 12(2) of the Securities A,et of 1'933 (15 U.S.C.A. §771(a)(2"n imposes civil Iiability against a seller or offerer' ofsecumies if the seller or offerorhas made a misrepresentation or has omitted materia] information in or from a prospectus or oral statement IfJJ connection witb a. sale .. 32 See Kcemp 'V,. Paterson, 6, N .. ..2d 4 0 (N.Y. 1'9,59)(holdin.i that termination of a Y trust, along with transferring the entire corpus 1110 a beneficiary was not authorized by the trust and not within the scope ofthe power granted to the trustee). See also, n..33, n..35, infra .. 33 See NY CLS ElPTL § 7-2.4 (2011).
inherently"void.~'34
Furthermore, "the authority of the trustee is subjecs to any
[imitations imposed by the trust instrumenC~35
in. several of its pleadings, that it could foreclosure by virtue of the fact that it was
in possession of the original Note, which, as dis/cussed. above, was never
transferred into the Trust. However, the trust document spells out the exact actions Appellee was required to take if~t ,E!v,ert'ound itself in possession of loan documents that were improperly transferred in violation of the trust terms, ]n the sectionentitled "Delivery of Mortgage Loan Docuroents","
has. the obligation, pursuant to the trust terms, to. "review,
cause to be reviewed,
each mortgage file within ninety days .atler the dosing date' of the Trust. The trust terms clearly dictate that within the review period, the trustee (Appellee) has the obligation to cure the defect or remove the defective loan documents fromthe Trust. Theexact Ianguageis as follows: U thetrustee ....during the process of reviewing the mortgage files, finds any document constituting apart of a mortgage file that is not executed, has not been received or is unrelated to the mortgage loans, or thatany mortgage loan does not cenform jo tllil.emquire:m:ents above .....he trustee or the t applicable custodian, as applicable, is required to note such deficiencyin the required. trustee or custodian certification delivered to the applicable responsible party, the servieer and tbe depositor .. The appficable respensible
SfLe N .. ..Est Powers &. Trusts Law, § 11-1 .Ifb), pam. (8), Y
Seen ..~5, supra. .24
perty win be required to causejo be remedied a. material defect in a dOClUmentconstituting part ofa mortgage file ofwbiclru. it is so notified by the trustee .. .If however ...... applicable responsible party has not oaused the the defect to be remedied, the applicable responsible party wm be required to ,either (a) substitute He Substitute Mortgage Lean for the defective mortgage
moan. ,.or (bo)repurchase the defective mortgage loan.
As the qaoted trust langusge makesabundandy clear, the trust terms do not of an
accord Appellee the ability or the discretion to maintain possession improperly transferrednote
or mortgage, As such, the action of'Appellee in failing
to expel the' defectively transferred Note and Mortgage in jhe instant case contravenes the trust terms and is an improper/void action thai! New York. law condemns, As previously explained, llieIRC mandatesthat my non-qualifying
assets transferred to. the Trust could cause :~tto Iose its REMIC tax status (giving
rise to double taxation), and. this is precisely why the trustee is not affordedthe
discretion to maiIrutain possession of loan dooom.entsthat terms.
contravene the trust
New York law its clearthat only when a trustee is accorded discretion by its trust may the trustee exercise its own discretion in tating an action not specified by
discretion v-as in the instant ,case-- the trustee may not act in contravention to the mandates of tbe 'trust. Self In re Estate of Stillman~ l101Misc.
2d 102 (Surr .. t. C
ill 9'80) (holding
that tresteesmiscenstrued
the testator's will and therefore
abused. so-caned absolute and uncontrolled discretion),
In In re Estate of Stillman,ilie court stated thet, inthe case, "the paramount
consideration .. ,[regarded], ....he basic intention of the testator concerning invasions t and. whether the trustees have deviated fromthe testator's plan," The New York court outlined that "if discretion is conferrea uponthe trustee inthe exercise of a. power, the court will not ineerfere unless the trustee in exercising or failing to exercisethe dishonest power ac-ts dishonestly, or with an improper even though not a
motive, or tails to use Th1ws judgment,
acts beyond. the bounds of a
reasonable judgment."
The court cited to the Restatement of the Law, Second, of a [trustee jpoweris
Trusts, §187 (ill 992 ed.), which exp~ains~hat"th.eexercise
discretionary except tethe extent to wh:idl. ~.tsexereise is requlred by the terms oiftbe trust orby the principles of law applicable to jhe duties of trustees." (Emphasis added.) The Restatement of the Law, Second, Trusts (1'99'2 ed.) also
explains m §185 that "where by the terms of the trust it is provided. that inthe administration of the trust tbe uustee shall do certain acts ~f he is directed by
anotherpeesonto
do them, it illsordinarily hillsduty to comply with such directions
and he is ordinarily liable if he fails to do so. So also, where by the terms of the
trust it isprovidedthat tbe trustee shall
l'lU)~
do certain acts without the direction or
consent of another, it is ordinarily his duty not to do such acts without such
direction or consent. "~\VhHe New Yorik trust law is whal should. be applied to Appellee's Trust (and Appellee's actions), i~, of note that florida law is of the is
same posmon.
Despite the fact that the trust terms dearly
order Appellee to not be in despite the fact
possession of an improperly transferred set of loan documentsand
that New York. trust Iaw is clear fhat Appellee has no ability to proceed in
conrravention to the trust terms,
,ClIJt
the November 22I1l'I oral argument the Appellee
insisted that ithadtheright to successfully pursue a Florida foreclosure action by virtue of the fact that it had. possession of the original Note. (R..212.. Appellee's ) argument should havebeen rejected by the trialcourt, first, Appellee's argument at summary judgment that it oou~d.foreclose was premised uponFlorida's Uniform Commercial Code (herein ~VCC~1)as wen as a Yet,
variety of case law the lentirety of which is distinguishable and. inapplicable.
the provisions of Florida's UCC (and the case law which relies upon it) cited by AppeUee in the record do not contemplatethe existence of an external constraint
upon the ability to enforce a negotiable instrument (such as the lirmtations imposed See Griley v. Marion Mortgage Co.~ ]32 Filla.29'9 (Fla. 1937) (holding that that appellant mortgagee could not foreclose on a mortgage illSSTUOO by appellee mortgagor because appellee trustee did not have the authority to execute the mortgage), See elsa. Florida Statutes Section 736.0SlliS(m)(a), entitled "General powers of trustee", which states that "a trustee, without. authorization by the court, may, except as Hmited or restrictedby this code, exercise, ....powers conferred by
.~, . me terms o f- tue trust. ,.,
upon trusts and their trustees by trust law}. Indeed, e-ase law and supporting mateeials AppeUee cited in opposition
App,elhmes position make it dear that
they presuppose the absence of a. contingency or external force that would prevent
by Appellee that~ even under Appellee's
own theory andargument,
the UCC only
provides a presumption of oW.mlers~ip, that, if rebutted by Appellant, would defeat
posi~ilion.39
See Johns v., Gilli,an, 134 Fla. 5'75 (Fla .. 1'938).. In. Johns~ which AprpeUee heavily relied upon ~n estab~ishlng its position at the November 22~d hearing" the florida. Supreme Court stated that "any form of assignment of a mortgage, which transfers the real and beneficial interest in the securities uncondttlonally to the assignee,
Or ifthere had been no written assignmeet, the intended. assignee would. 'be entitled. to' foreclose in equity upoDln'oo,'( Df his pUlfichase ,oftbe deble~ (Emp,basisadded.) Therefere, the
entitle him to maintain an action for foreclosure,
decision in Johns clearly works against Appellee as the explicit intention in the trust documents 'Wasto not allow for the transfer of a note to the Trust which does not comply with the specifictransfer requirements, The opwmjona~soundermines Appellee's position because Appellee obviously cennor prove the purchase of the debtgiventhat the trustterms were violated .. 39 (R-J91-224.). Appellee made three distinct and separate admissions at the November 2211d summary judgment hearing regaJ:idiliWiJlg ability of Appellant to the rebut the presumption of the subject Note' s enforceability and ownersbipby Appellee (despite Appellee's own vee ergument). First, on page 23 of the transcript (R.214.), Appellee, concerning blank endorsements, stated that t'aay signature [on the endorsement] would be indicia. of intent to transfer, and. the
burdenis on the defendant to rebat.thatpresumpaion." Secondly, om page 25 of the: transcript (R.2lli6.), Appellee opined that "the holder of a negotiable instrument .~s presumedthe owner of the negotiable instrument. The burden is O[liJj. the defendant to demonstrate something to the contrary;" Finally, Appellee stated on page 26 of thetranscript (R.2lli7.) that "the physical transfer of the; note can se upon the; Plaintiff entitlementto [for-eclose] the mortgage. It is theirbcrden, YOm' Honor, to show something torebut that [p]resulUpt~on.~' AppeUee made the aferementiened
Interestingly, eventhe very act of filing the instant foreclosure suit is an u~tra
vires and void action by Appellee because.as mentioned above, the trust document
clearly instructs Appellee, to not maintain possession of any improperly rransferred
loan documents out of fear of losing the Trust's R~EMICtax staitus.40 Therefore, by
based upon an instrument that violates the Trust, while, simultaneously, Florida
maw precludes Appellee from having standing
es a resuh of the same
violations, Clearly, the trial court orders in tbe instant case granting Appellee's
Motion for Summary Judgment, entering a Final Judgment of Foreclosure, and denying Appellant' s Defensive Motion for Summary Judgment should be reversed,
statements without realizing that Appellant, by swum affidavit (R.135- ill 37.)) through a. memorandum in opposition to Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment (R.. 40~l4.5.. ~ and through her defensive summary judgment motion 1 ) (R.116~184.)" did rebut aWlof the presumptions that AppeHee discussed (if they even exist). However, Appellant does not concede Appellee's position regarding the existence ofthe presumptions, and. Appellant'sperpose inbringing to light the presumption issue is to evince the contradictions and fallacies in AppeUoo":s OWiru.
vee argument.
See MacFarlane 'V•. First Nat 'I Bank, 203 So, 2d 57 (Fla .. 3d DCA ill 967) (stating thatvif the method for the exercise of.:..[a trust power]. ...is set out inthe trust agreement.then the power must be exercised in strict coofarmity to its terms").
-- - --,- - - .... ,- - . -
- - _ .. - ~
_. ----_
The lower tribunal erredin granting, Appellee's Motion for Final Summary
Judgment, and by subsequently entering a Final Judgment of Foreclosure, erred by denying Appellant's
Defensive Motion for Summary Judgment.
mentioned, the trial court improperly- held that Appellant could not challenge
Appellee's standing, by coetestingthe
Trust's ownership ofthe note and mortgage Without question, florida law does Furthermore,
viathe limitations in ID.eTrust's documents.
indeed accord a foreclosure defendant that ,abili~y against a trust.
because the Trust in theiastans case never received a.proper transfer of the subjece
loan documents, it does not own the iostrumentsand
cannot hold them, Further
still, because of the lirni~at~ons and. mandates outlined in the trust deeaments, the
Trust cannot enforce the note and mortgage and has DO standing to file suit, rendering its Trustee (the Appellee) unable to belng a.foreclosure action.
The Final Judgment cf Foreclosure. fhe ordergranting _ _ =
Appellee's Motion ~
for Final Summary Judgment, and the order denying Appellant's Defensive Motion for Summary Judgment should all be reversed.and this matter should he remanded to the Jower court with instructions
enter an order granting Appellant's
Defensive Motion 'for Summary Judgment
ofO.(!_~
20] [ ..
'CERTIF.ICA TE OF SERVICE THE UNDERS~GNED HEREBY CERTIFIES that
true andcorrect
foregoing Initial Brief of Appellant,
Sandra P. Castillo, has been delivered by U,S . 1438, Fort Lauderdale, Florida
.Mail to' Smith, Hiatt & Diaz, P .. ., P.O. Box] A
],3339-1438, tbis
13 day of6l!~2;O]
P'.L.L.C .
Jimenez" Milian & Associates,
. bbe.rt R. Jimenez, E ..,. Florida Bar No.: 72020 2025 SW 321lJ Ave Suite no Miami" FL 33145 Telephone: 786.282. ill 314 Fax: 3.05.. 41.0688 4 Counsel For: Appellant Sandra P. Castillo
'CERT'IF.ICA TE OF COMPLIANCE
THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY CERT]fIES that the Initial Brief of Appellant,
Sandra P, Castillo, complies with the fontre~uiremen~s set forth in Ru~e
9.2lliO(a)(2)~ Fla ..R. App.lP.; to wit, Times New Roman l-l-point font.
Castillo v. Deutsche Appellant Initial Brief by winstons2311162 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionMatt Weidner Esq. comments : It’s just basic law. But this is even more important in the context of real estate and estates and trusts. I’m a title attorney and the explicit requirements of insuri...Matt Weidner Esq. comments :It’s just basic law. But this is even more important in the context of real estate and estates and trusts. I’m a title attorney and the explicit requirements of insuring title on properties held by trusts or estates is to obtain proof not just of the trust, but proof that the trustee has the powers to convey or encumber the property. And we cannot just take the word of the trustee for it…..CONVEYING TITLE FROM A TRUST OR ESTATE REQUIRES THE ACTUAL ORIGINAL “WET INK” TRUST OR OTHER PROOFCategories: Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedInitial Briefby Foreclosure FraudComplete Initial Briefby Dwayne ZookInitial Brief of Appellant, Bac Home Loans Servicing v William r. Stentz and Jacklyn l. Stentzby Search Books, Presentations, Business, Academics...Initial Briefby Myra NadineGlarum v La Salle Initial Brief FINALby winstons2311Appellate Brief Robert t. Frost vs. Lasalle Bank, Na, Etc., Et Al.by Foreclosure FraudFORECLOSURE FIGHTER April Charney Files Amicus Briefby DinSFLAGlarum+Appeal Answer+Briefby winstons2311AMICUS CURIAE - The Mortgage Specialists, Inc. v Implode-Explode Heavy Industries, Inc.by Foreclosure FraudResponse Briefby winstons2311 Rosenfield vs HSBC - TILA Amicus Brief of the Consumer Fin. Protectionby winstons2311Writ of Certiorariby winstons2311Hearing Transcript - US Bank - Who the attorney really represent ?by winstons23112014.03.13 Initial Briefby David H. CharlipGlarum v Lasalle Bank National Associationby Foreclosure FraudPETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM A NON-FINAL ORDERby winstons2311FL Appeal Brief - Lyttle v. BankUnitedby winstons2311bob motion to dismissby Robert MillerSJC-10694 09 Amicus McDonnell Briefby polychromeInitial Brief Appeal Order Vacating Dismissal by winstons2311Petition Writ of Prohibition, 2dDCA, Florida 2D11-2127, May-02-2011by Neil GillespieAppellants Initial Brief to Florida's 1st District Court of Appealby John CarrollForeclosure - Motion for Rehearing Reconsideration Saxon v. Jordanby winstons2311Appeal Brief FL 120326by Robert Lee ChaneyWhat to say for a Late Filed Proof of Claim for Bankruptcyby 83jjmackTranscript of Foreclosure Trial Ticktinby winstons2311Fraudclosure Appellate Brief MDby Todd WetzelbergerJill D Rein Amicus Brief Challenging MERS Standing to Forecloseby plaw15Similar to Castillo v. Deutsche Appellant Initial BriefInitial BriefComplete Initial BriefInitial Brief of Appellant, Bac Home Loans Servicing v William r. Stentz and Jacklyn l. StentzInitial BriefGlarum v La Salle Initial Brief FINALAppellate Brief Robert t. Frost vs. Lasalle Bank, Na, Etc., Et Al.FORECLOSURE FIGHTER April Charney Files Amicus BriefGlarum+Appeal Answer+BriefAMICUS CURIAE - The Mortgage Specialists, Inc. v Implode-Explode Heavy Industries, Inc.Response Brief Rosenfield vs HSBC - TILA Amicus Brief of the Consumer Fin. ProtectionWrit of CertiorariHearing Transcript - US Bank - Who the attorney really represent ?2014.03.13 Initial BriefGlarum v Lasalle Bank National AssociationPETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM A NON-FINAL ORDERFL Appeal Brief - Lyttle v. BankUnitedbob motion to dismissSJC-10694 09 Amicus McDonnell BriefInitial Brief Appeal Order Vacating Dismissal Petition Writ of Prohibition, 2dDCA, Florida 2D11-2127, May-02-2011Appellants Initial Brief to Florida's 1st District Court of AppealForeclosure - Motion for Rehearing Reconsideration Saxon v. JordanAppeal Brief FL 120326What to say for a Late Filed Proof of Claim for BankruptcyTranscript of Foreclosure Trial TicktinFraudclosure Appellate Brief MDJill D Rein Amicus Brief Challenging MERS Standing to ForecloseMatt Weidner Esq. - MEMORANDUM OF LAWHSBC Bank vs. Harley Def. Supplemental Memo