A Florida appeals court reverses dismissal of a foreclosure case involving BNY Mellon, highlighting what lenders need to prove in court
On June 4, 2025, a Florida appeals court gave The Bank of New York Mellon another chance to pursue foreclosure against a South Florida borrower, reversing a trial court’s earlier dismissal over questions of legal standing.
The case stems from a foreclosure action the bank filed against Paula E. Cohen, also known as Paula Lawler, in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in Broward County. At the outset, the bank did not attach the original promissory note to its complaint and instead included a count to reestablish a lost note. After filing the complaint, the bank located the original note—which included an undated blank endorsement—and then voluntarily dropped the lost note count.
During the non-jury trial, the bank acknowledged it couldn’t prove the note was endorsed in blank before the lawsuit began. To establish standing, the bank presented testimony from its loan servicer, who said the bank had acquired the borrower’s loan in 2005 through a pooling and servicing agreement. That agreement included a mortgage loan schedule identifying the borrower’s specific loan.
The borrower objected to the records, arguing the servicer lacked personal knowledge to support their admission into evidence. The trial court allowed them anyway. Once the bank rested its case, the borrower moved for an involuntary dismissal, claiming the bank hadn’t shown it possessed the note at the time the suit was filed. She cited the 2017 case Kumar v. U.S. Bank to argue that ownership alone wasn’t enough.
The trial court agreed and granted the dismissal. But the Fourth District Court of Appeal said that was a misreading of Kumar. Unlike in that case, the appeals court found, the bank in this instance had provided testimony and documentation clearly identifying the loan in question within the mortgage loan schedule. That was enough to establish standing at the time the case was filed, the court said.
Citing previous rulings, the court also reaffirmed that a foreclosure plaintiff doesn’t need to prove both ownership and possession of the note at inception. It reversed the dismissal and sent the case back for a new trial. The borrower’s cross-appeal, which challenged how the business records were admitted, was denied without further comment.
While the case hasn’t yet resulted in a foreclosure judgment, the decision provides clarity for mortgage lenders and servicers on how to meet standing requirements in court. For those managing securitized portfolios or defending foreclosure actions, the ruling underscores the importance of maintaining detailed records and presenting credible testimony to back them up.
