Incredibly, U.S. Bank argues that “[i]t would be inequitable for [Ms. Gee] to avoid foreclosure based on the absence of an endorsement to [it].” But that argument flies in the face of well-established precedent requiring the party seeking foreclosure to present evidence that it owns and holds the note and mortgage in question in order to proceed with a foreclosure action. See Verizzo, 28 So. 3d at 978; Philogene v. ABN Amro Mortg. Group Inc., 948 So. 2d 45, 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). When Ms. Gee denied that U.S. Bank had an interest in the Mortgage, ownership became an issue that U.S. Bank, as the plaintiff, was required to prove. See Lizio, 36 So. 3d at 929; Carapezza v. Pate,143 So. 2d 346, 347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). As U.S. Bank failed to offer any proof of American Home’s authority to assign the Mortgage, we conclude that it failed to establish its standing to bring the foreclosure action as a matter of law.3 See Servedio v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 46 So. 3d 1105, 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (explaining that plaintiff may submit evidence of assignment from payee to plaintiff or affidavit of ownership to prove its status as holder of note); see also Khan v. Bank of Am., N.A., 58
So. 3d 927, 928 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (holding that bank failed to establish it had standing to foreclose mortgage as matter of law where copy of note attached to amended complaint bore endorsement assigning note to another bank); Verizzo, 28 So. 3d at 977 (finding genuine issue of fact as to whether bank owned and held note where record did not reflect assignment or endorsement of note to bank). Cf. Isaac v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 36 Fla. L. Weekly D727 (Fla. 4th DCA Apr. 6, 2011) (holding that assignee of promissory note and mortgage adequately established its ownership of note and mortgage, as necessary to confer standing to bring foreclosure
action, where assignee filed original note and mortgage, along with allonge payable to bearer, and affidavit from representative of successor in interest to previous assignee); Taylor v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 44 So. 3d 618 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (holding that written assignment of promissory note and mortgage from nominee of original lender to bank was sufficient to confer upon bank authority to foreclose mortgage, even though nominee had no beneficial interest in note and note was not endorsed by original lender; mortgage gave nominee explicit power to enforce note by foreclosing
note and nominee assigned that right to bank). Ms. Gee also asserts that the trial court improperly entered summary judgment on the reestablishment and reformation claims when these claims were not raised in U.S. Bank’s summary judgment motion. We agree. A motion for summary judgment must “state with particularity the grounds upon which it is based and the substantial
matters of law to be argued . . . .” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c). The burden to conclusively establish the nonexistence of a disputed issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law rests squarely with the movant. See Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40, 43-44 (Fla. 1966); Bloch v. Berkshire Ins. Co., 585 So. 2d 1137, 1138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). The purpose of this rule is “to prevent ‘ambush’ by allowing the nonmoving party to be prepared for the issues that will be argued at the summary judgment
hearing.” City of Cooper City v. Sunshine Wireless Co., 654 So. 2d 283, 284 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). “It is reversible error to enter summary judgment on a ground not raised with particularity in the motion.” Williams v. Bank of Am. Corp., 927 So. 2d 1091, 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).
Full Opinion at