DCA 2015); 150 So.3d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Beauchamp v. Bank of New N.Y., 112 So.3d 778 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); SAS v. Federal National Mortgage Ass’n., see 183 So.2d 471 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)(bank failed also Septimus v. Christiana Trust, to submit evidence of assignment of the note and mortgage to its “FDIC’s predecessor before the complaint was filed”). But even if this Court recognizes there was a series of transfers of the servicing of the mortgage, Ocwen failed to present any evidence of authorization to Financial Freedom to file the lawsuit. A successor plaintiff is required to prove that the original plaintiff had the authorization to file the initial complaint. Here, the successor plaintiff, which was the real party in interest, failed to present any evidence demonstrating that it granted the original plaintiff/servicer the authority to enforce the note at the time the original plaintiff/servicer filed the foreclosure action. Thus, the successor plaintiff did not prove that the original plaintiff/servicer had standing to commence the foreclosure action. (reversing final See judgment of foreclosure for servicer where servicer filed foreclosure action in its own name but introduced no evidence showing that the real party in interest authorized it to bring the action); (reversing final judgment of foreclosure for servicer where the servicer to “failed provide sufficient proof that it was authorized at any time to prosecute the foreclosure action on behalf of [the note owner] ... or was otherwise ... entitled to enforce the Note at the time it filed the action”). 182 So.3d 930, 931-932 (Fla. 4th DCA Alfonso v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2016).
DCA 2015); Beauchamp v. Bank of New N.Y., 150 So.3d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); SAS v. Federal National Mortgage Ass’n., 112 So.3d 778 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); see also Septimus v. Christiana Trust, 183 So.2d 471 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)(bank failed to submit evidence of “FDIC’s assignment of the note and mortgage to its predecessor before the complaint was filed”). But even if this Court recognizes there was a series of transfers of the servicing of the mortgage, Ocwen failed to present any evidence of authorization to Financial Freedom to file the lawsuit. A successor plaintiff is required to prove that the original plaintiff had the authorization to file the initial complaint. Here, the successor plaintiff, which was the real party in interest, failed to present any evidence demonstrating that it granted the original plaintiff/servicer the authority to enforce the note at the time the original plaintiff/servicer filed the foreclosure action. Thus, the successor plaintiff did not prove that the original plaintiff/servicer had standing to commence the foreclosure action. See (reversing final judgment of foreclosure for servicer where servicer filed foreclosure action in its own name but introduced no evidence showing that the real party in interest authorized it to bring the action); (reversing final judgment of foreclosure for servicer where the servicer “failed to provide sufficient proof that it was authorized at any time to prosecute the foreclosure action on behalf of [the note owner] ... or was otherwise ... entitled to enforce the Note at the time it filed the action”). Alfonso v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 182 So.3d 930, 931-932 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).
Initial-brief-final-7-5-16.docx