Skip to main content


The judgment must be vacated because Plaintiff failed to SURRENDER the original promissory note or give a reasonable explanation for its failure to do so

Plaintiff’s parlor tricks do not constitute competent, substantial evidence that Plaintiff has surrendered the original note to the Court

 In its opening statement, Plaintiff alleged that

This is a foreclosure matter,

the original Note and Mortgage were filed

with the court back in September 30, 2010.

Trial Transcript, pg. 4, lines 12-14.

However, Plaintiff thereafter contended that the September 30, 2010 “filing” was in fact not the original note:

Well, I was unaware that

this was not an original blue ink copy of

the Note. So I’m going to be moving the

Court to amend to allow the plaintiff to

proceed under a lost note when it’s clear

that there is partial –

Trial Transcript, pg. 27, lines 7-12.

  1. Plaintiff thereafter “withdrew” its motion to amend to “conform to the evidence” because it represented that that the purported original note “was misfiled and I don’t know why.” Trial Transcript, pg. 29, lines 11-12.
  2. When Plaintiff presented this purported original note to defendant testified as follows:

I don’t know if this is the exact one

I signed because that’s where I had — I had

been requesting to inspect these documents. So

when you said you didn’t have any knowledge that

it wasn’t in here, I’d been requesting this

since this whole thing started. I even

requested special dates and times to meet with

you guys to see it, and I never got any of that

afforded to me.

So I’ve also had other documents here

where I saw date changes. I don’t know what’s

original and what’s not.

Trial Transcript, pg. 30, lines 14-25. Bold emphasis added.


I don’t see any blue ink on that, so I

don’t know that that’s the original. You said

the other one is a copy, now you’re showing this


Trial Transcript, pg. 30, lines 14-22. Bold emphasis added.

  1. On cross-examination, Mr.  testified as follows:

I want you to compare what is marked

as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1B, I suppose, and I want

to ask you, for the record, is there anything

that’s different about this signature and the

way it appears on 1A and 1B?

A. Yes.

Q. What’s the difference, sir?

A. The color is different.

Q. And Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2, I’m showing

that to you, do you recognize that as the

original Mortgage that you signed?

A. Yes.

Q. And were these — are these documents

all dated on the exact same day?

 A. Yes.

Q. Did you sign these documents the same


 A. Yes.

 Q. Can you explain to the Court why one

is — well, can you describe what this subset of

Exhibit 1 is? Read from the top there.

A. The name affidavit.

Q. Yes, sir. Can you describe it for the


A. Yes. It’s all in blue ink

Trial Transcript, pg. 46, lines 1-25. Bold emphasis added.

Q. The next document, this I believe is

Plaintiff’s 2, can you describe what that

document looks like to you?

A. The Mortgage where we initialled the

bottom of every page.

Q. What color is that initial?

 A. All in blue ink.

 Q. And then turning to the last page of

that document, describe this document for the

record, please.

A. The signatures for the Mortgage.

Q. And what else can you tell us about


 A. Those are all in blue ink.

Trial Transcript, pg. 47, lines 9-22. Bold emphasis added

Leave a Reply