“We review the sufficiency of the evidence to prove standing to bring a foreclosure action de novo.” Lacombe v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 149 So. 3d 152, 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (citing Dixon v. Express Equity Lending Grp., LLLP, 125 So. 3d 965 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)).
It is axiomatic that a plaintiff in a foreclosure case must have standing at the time the complaint is filed. See Focht v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 124 So. 3d 308, 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (“[S]tanding must be established as of the time of filing the foreclosure complaint.”). “A plaintiff who is not the original lender may establish standing to foreclose a mortgage loan by submitting a note with a blank or special endorsement, an assignment of the note, or an affidavit otherwise proving the plaintiff’s status as the holder of the note.” Id. at 310 (citing McLean v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 79 So. 3d 170, 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)).
In the instant case, Bank failed to provide sufficient evidence that it had standing at the time it filed its foreclosure complaint. First, the assignment did not confer standing upon Bank since it was executed after Bank filed its complaint. See Rigby v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 84 So. 3d 1195, 1195–96 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (reversing entry of final summary judgment because the bank failed to establish it had standing to foreclose when the evidence showed the assignment was dated one day after the complaint was filed). Further, Bank’s attachment of a copy of the note with a blank indorsement was insufficient to establish standing because Bank’s only witness testified that his employer—the servicer—had been the holder of the note since August of 2005. Based on this testimony, the servicer was the proper party to initiate the action, not Bank. See BAC Funding Consortium Inc. ISAOA/ATIMA v. Jean-Jacques, 28 So. 3d 936, 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“The proper party with standing to foreclose a note and/or mortgage is the holder of the note and mortgage or the holder’s representative.”);
