Therefore, because there was absolutely no evidence introduced at the trial that RCS’s principal joined in or ratified its act of suing in the principal’s name, RCS failed to prove it had standing to sue. Because the promissory note is not negotiable, RCS’s mere possession did not confer onto it standing to sue RCS will probably assert that its possession of the promissory note in blank conferred onto it standing to foreclose the mortgage citing “endorsed” 36 So.3d 932 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) and its Riggs v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, progeny. While and other appellate decisions seem to suggest that all Riggs mortgage promissory notes are negotiable instruments, see e.g. Taylor v. Deutsche 44 So. 3d 618, 622 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (providing Bank National Trust Company, that promissory note is a negotiable instrument”); 888 So. Perry v. Fairbanks, “a 2d 727, 727 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (stating that promissory note is clearly a “[a] negotiable instrument within the definition of section 673.1041(1)”), negotiability appears to be an issue which is never preserved for appeal by defending homeowners in the trial court. In fact, there are only forty-two cases decided over the past twenty years in the entire United States in which a decision was on the merits” regarding “reached the negotiability of a mortgage note. Dale A. Whitman, How Negotiability Has 37 Pepp. L. Fouled Up the Secondary Mortgage Market, and What to Do About it,
Therefore, because there was absolutely no evidence introduced at the trial that RCS’s principal joined in or ratified its act of suing in the principal’s name, RCS failed to prove it had standing to sue. Because the promissory note is not negotiable, RCS’s mere possession did not confer onto it standing to sue RCS will probably assert that its possession of the promissory note “endorsed” in blank conferred onto it standing to foreclose the mortgage citing Riggs v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, 36 So.3d 932 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) and its progeny. While Riggs and other appellate decisions seem to suggest that all mortgage promissory notes are negotiable instruments, see e.g. Taylor v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, 44 So. 3d 618, 622 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (providing that “a promissory note is a negotiable instrument”); Perry v. Fairbanks, 888 So. 2d 727, 727 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (stating that “[a] promissory note is clearly a negotiable instrument within the definition of section 673.1041(1)”), negotiability appears to be an issue which is never preserved for appeal by defending homeowners in the trial court. In fact, there are only forty-two cases decided over the past twenty years in the entire United States in which a decision was “reached on the merits” regarding the negotiability of a mortgage note. Dale A. Whitman, How Negotiability Has Fouled Up the Secondary Mortgage Market, and What to Do About it, 37 Pepp. L.
initial-brief.docx