castillo v. deutsche appellant initial brief
TRANSCRIPT
8/3/2019 Castillo v. Deutsche Appellant Initial Brief
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/castillo-v-deutsche-appellant-initial-brief 1/37
IN THE UISTRICTCOURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA~
THIRn DISTIUCT
SANDRA P~CASTILLO,
A.p'p,e~lantlnefen.dant, Third DCA Case No..:
3011M2;132L,.T~No.:
09-88,614,CA21
vs.
DEUTSCHE B,ANK NAT10NAL TRUST
COMPA.NY AS TRUSTEE FOR
MORGAN STANLEY ADS CAPITAL .1
INC. TRUST 200'o-HE'7MORTGAGE
PASS-THROUGH CE'R.T.lF1CATES,
SERIES 2€t0'6-HE7,
AppeUe,efPla.i.dff~
APpiEAL FROM T.DE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT IN AND
FOR l\OAl\1[][~UAnE 'COUNTY,FLORID'A
INITIAL BRIEF OF"APPELLANT" SANDRA P. CASTILLO
ROBERTR. JIMENEZ, ESQ, .
JI1\mNlEZ, MILIAN & ASSOCIA TES;PL.LC
2025 SW 32 .AVE, ST'E 11t I t
l\flAMl, FLORIDA 33145
8/3/2019 Castillo v. Deutsche Appellant Initial Brief
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/castillo-v-deutsche-appellant-initial-brief 2/37
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE Of errATIONS
STATEMENT Of THE CASE AND FACTS
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
SUMMARY Of ARGUMENT
ARGUMENT:
I. THE LOWER TRIBUN.AL E.RRED INDENYlNGAPPELLANT'S MOTION FOR
SUl\!IMARY JUDGMENT nE'CAUSE, AS A
MATTER OF LAW, A DEF.ENDANT HAS
THE STANDING AND ABI:LI.TY TO
CHALLENGE A PLAINTIFF TRUST'S
STAND'ING TO FILE SUIT BY
CONTEST.ING TIlE TRUST"S:
O'WNERSHIP OF A. NOTE AND
MORTGAGE PURSUANT 'TO THE
LIMITATIONS OUTLINED IN THE
TRUST'S DOCUMlENTS~
II. BECAUSE THE mUST CAN NOT TAKE
OWNE,RSIDr OF A NOTE ANn
MORT'GAGE OR HOLD THEM INV[OL.ALTION OF ITS TRUST DOClTMIENTS,
AND BECAUSE THE TRUSTEE OF THETRUST CAN NOT ,COMMIT THE ULTRA
VIRE-S ACT OF ENFORCIN'G LOAN
DOCUMENTS THAT ITS TRUST nOES
NOT OWN, TOlE TRIAL, ,COURT ERRED IN
1
Page
in
1
5
6
8
8/3/2019 Castillo v. Deutsche Appellant Initial Brief
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/castillo-v-deutsche-appellant-initial-brief 3/37
DENYING APPELLANT"S .M.OTION .FOR
SUMMARY JUDGM:ENT ANn .IN
G.RANTING APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUUGMENT.
A. As a matter of law, a trust cannot tak.e ownership
or hoM. a note and mortgage in violation of it s
trust documents ..
B. As a matter of law, the trustee of a trust cannot
cO'mnm~the ultra vires act of e.rJlfnrd.ng lOGlf i lJ
documents that its trust does not own.
CONCLUSION
CERTIfMCA TE OF SERV ICE
CERTTFICA IE OF CONIPLIANCE
~, ..u
il l 5
16
22
30
3[
31
8/3/2019 Castillo v. Deutsche Appellant Initial Brief
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/castillo-v-deutsche-appellant-initial-brief 4/37
TABLE OF CITATIONS
Statmtes
Page
Florida Statutes:
Section 73·(i08150 )(a)
15 U.S.C.A. §77~(a}(2) 22
IRe §860A(a) 21
IRe §860A(b)
IRe §860F
21
21)22
Arn'lstrong v. Harris
773 So. 2d '7 (Fla. 2000) 9
General Development Corp. I V • . Kirk
251 So. 2d 284 (F la.. 2d DCA 1'971) 9, [0, n, ]5
Griley v..Marion Mor~gage Co.
l32 Fla. 299 (f1a. ]937) 26
In Re Burton's Estate
45 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 1950) 17
In Re Estate of Stillman107 Misc. 2d 102 (Snrr.Ct, N.Y. 1980) 25
In Re Robin Hayes
3 '9 3 B .R . 2 5'9 (Bankr ..Mass ..2008) 1 3
8/3/2019 Castillo v. Deutsche Appellant Initial Brief
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/castillo-v-deutsche-appellant-initial-brief 5/37
in the Matter of James D. Dana
465 N.V.S.2d 102 (N.Y. Sup. Ct 1982)
In the .Matter ofthe Application ofEdward Cummings
U~ 4 N .sY.S. 404 (N.Y. App, n r u v . lli9'20)
Jackson v. State
572 So..2d : 3 [ (Fla. Sd DCA 1991)
Johns v. G.iUlaJ~
134 Fla. 575 (Fla. ~9'38)
Jones v . First National Bank in FortLauderdale
226 So. 2d 834) 835 (Fla. 4d DCA 19,69)
Kemp ~}.Paterson
,6N.Y.2~d40 (N.Y. ]95'9)
MacFarlane v . First Nat 'IBank
203 So ..2d 57 (F]a. 3d DCA [967)
Martin Properties •.Inc. v. Florida Industries.etc .. et al.
833 So. 2d 825 (Fla .. 4d DCA 2002)
Muth v. AIU insurance Company982 So. 2d 749' (F la.. 4([ D CA 2008)
Shaps 17. Providen; Life &Accident Insurance Co.mpany
82,6 So. 2d 250 (Fla.. 2(02)
Siegel v..Novak
920 So. 2d 89 (Fla ..4d DCA 2006)
Your Construction Center, Inc. ' V . • Gross, etc.
316, So. 2d 596 (Fla. 4d .DCA 1~:n5)
17
2.0,27
17
22
28
i o , 11,15
17
16
8/3/2019 Castillo v. Deutsche Appellant Initial Brief
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/castillo-v-deutsche-appellant-initial-brief 6/37
.F la. R . Civ .P. ] .51 O (b)
Other Authorlties
Florida Appellate Practice 148 (2nd ed . [9'97)
New ~ork Civil Practice: EPTL P 7-2.4(2) (20] I)
N.Y ..Est. Powers & Trusts Law, § 1]-1.l(b)
Restatement of the L-aw,.Second. Trusts, §]87 (19192 ed.)
[ 7
9
17~23
23
25.,26
8/3/2019 Castillo v. Deutsche Appellant Initial Brief
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/castillo-v-deutsche-appellant-initial-brief 7/37
STATEMENT OF mE CASE ANn FACTS
The Appellant, Sandra P. Castillo (he.rein~~Ap'Pen.anf'), an original
Defendant below, perfected this appeal from a . Final Order of the Eleventh Judicial
Circuit Court inand for Miam i-D ad e Cou nty , Florida, entered on July 28, 201]1' a .
copy of which is attached to the Notice of Appeal filed on August 9, 201] (R.349-
.36,9.). The Final Judgment of Foreclosure was entered. pursuant to a : prior order
issued on January 24, 2 0 m l that awarded Appellee Deutsche Bank National Trust
Company (herein referred to as "Appen0e~'),~he original Pjaintiff below; a final
summary judgment (also attached to the Notice of AppeaWat R.349'-369.). This
appeal also challenges, as reversible error, the denial of Appellent'sMoticrr for
Summary Judg ment on Nov em be r 22) .2010. ld. The O rd ers were r ende red . by the'
Honorable Judge William Thomas, one of the judges of the Bleventh Judicial
Circuit Court.
The Appellee filed its Complaint to ' reform and foreclose a mortgage on
December L,2009. The Appelleeis the trustee of a.New York common law trust,
Morgan Stanley ABC Capital I Inc. Trust 2006-HE7 (herein the "Trust"), which .~~
filed the instant suit onbehalf of. Said Trust was createdpursuant to Internal
Revenue Codes g,60A~860G for th.e purpose of constructing and selling mortgage'
b ack e d se cu ritie s as investments. (R J 5 3 - 16 6.,) See also, ARGUM:ENT ~ n .1 5~
8/3/2019 Castillo v. Deutsche Appellant Initial Brief
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/castillo-v-deutsche-appellant-initial-brief 8/37
. . . . . ., - - - .- .- - . . . . . . - _ .. - - - ., - - . ~.- - - - .,---- - •• --- -,. --- ---- •• ~-- - ------ • r~
infra. As such, and pursuant to . federal securities laws, a securhies prospectus
containing the material trust terms was filed for the Trust with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission. ki.
Attached to the Complaint was a promissory note made payable to a lender
nota party tothe instant action (WMC Mortgage Corp.) and amortgage instrument
that listed Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, inc. as the mor tgagee and
nominee of the lender, \VIV!llCMortgage Corp. (R.,6-42.) Appellee p'~ed.inthe
Complaint that the subject promissorynote W3!S transferred to it and that it owned
and. held the note and mortgage. Id. Appellant." vial her Answer and Affirmative
Defenses to the Complaint (R.146-] 52.)) Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's
Motion For Summary Judgment (R.140~]45.), and .~nan Affidavit (R,.~.35-137.)
denied that the Trust and/or IDe Appellee properly owned or held the note or
mortgage (and that, as such, neither had standing to foreclese),
On or about March 29, 2010, Appellee filed into evidence a copy of the note
w~~ch contained a blank endorsement signed by the original lender. (R.83-88.)
Subsequently, on July 14, 2010 and again on November 10~20]0, Appellant m o o
into evidence copies of th e trust documents fHed with the United States See-urities
and Exchange Commission. (R.153~]66.) Seealso~ ARGUMENT~ n.15~ infra.
The instant case proceeded to the summary judgment stage with. Appellee
filing i~s Motiou for Summary Judgment on May lO, 2010 (R.103-M08.) and
2
8/3/2019 Castillo v. Deutsche Appellant Initial Brief
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/castillo-v-deutsche-appellant-initial-brief 9/37
•- - -- - -- ~" - -- --, - -- -- ..,. I •• I _ ••__ .,__ •• _ _~ I •• I •• __ ••• _
Appellanr filing Iter Motion for Summary Judgment on August: ]6, 20 l 0 (R.176-
184.). Appellant's MoHon for Summary Judgment raised the issues of I) whether
a defendant has the ability to challenge a plaintiff trust's standing by contesting its
ownership of instrumen.tspursuant to~he limitations outlined in the trust
documents; 2) whether a trust can take ownership and hold a note and mortgage in
violatioo of its trust documents; and 3) whether the trustee of thetrust can commit
the ultra vires act ofenforcing loan. doenmentsthst its trust does not own.
On October 25, 2010, his Honor, Judge William Thomas, orderedthat both
summary judgment motions be heard before him, and a . special set cross-summary
judgment hearing was scheduled for November 22, 2.0]0. (R.190.) Despite the
fa.c~that the AppeUee never disputed an y of the facts alleged in Appellant's Motion
for Summary Judgment that the trust terms and documents had been violated
fARJGUMENT" n .181, infra)~ the trial court denied Appellant's Motion. In so
doing, thetrial court in essence held. that a d.efeodant cannot challengeeplaintiff
trust's standing by contesting the trust's non-ownership of instruments stemming
from a viofation oftheterms regulatiegthe trust.
AU the parties present at the November 221 1 dhearing, as well as the Judge,
overlooked that Appellee's Motien for Summary Judgment was abo supposed. to
have been argued and ruled upon (but was not). (R.223, 224.) As such, a follow
- h x· . o· " J. > , " . ' - . ~ - 2 - ' . : 1 1 2 ~ ~ 1 1 - . 'dii - A - · - ,1 1 ,· " M - - ,f .. ~;" 'S - - , , ' · ' - - . -p ...eanng on , 3 ! T 1 l 1 1:UUY"'lf, _ vm.. regarumg .~ppe_ee S (hillOn !lor ummary
3
8/3/2019 Castillo v. Deutsche Appellant Initial Brief
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/castillo-v-deutsche-appellant-initial-brief 10/37
· ,.. _ ... - _,_.. - ~.,.. ,.,.,- ..... , . r.
Judgment was set, and the Court entered summary judgment in favor of Appellee
at the hearing. (R,349-369' .e ) See alsot ARGUMENT~ n.l ~infra. An appeal was
filed two days later, but said appeal was dismissed by this Honorable Court as
premature, (R.274-276.) On July 28, 2.0] 1) the trial court entered a Final
Judgment of Foreclosure, and the instant appeal followed. (RJ49- 369,)
8/3/2019 Castillo v. Deutsche Appellant Initial Brief
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/castillo-v-deutsche-appellant-initial-brief 11/37
QUESTIONS PRESENTED.
1. \VHETHER A nEFENDANT IN A FORE'CLOSHRE CASE HAS THE
A.BILITY TO CHALLENGE~ A PLAlNTIFFJ TRUST'S ST.ANDING BY
'CONTEST'ING THE TRUST'S OWNERSHIP OF THE NO-TE AND'
1\10RTGAGE .PURSUANT TO THE .LlM1!TAT[ONS OUTLINED IN 'THE
TRUST'S DOCUME-NTS.
2~WHETHER A TRUST CAN TAKE OWNERSHIP OR HOLD A NOTE
AND MORTGAGE IN VIOLATION OF ITS TRUST DOCUMENTS.,
3,.WHETHER THE TRUSTE-E O.F A TRUST CAN COMMIT THE ULT'RA.
VIRES .ACT O.F ENFORCING .LOAN DOCUMENTS THA.T ITS TRUST'
DOES NOT OWN..
5
8/3/2019 Castillo v. Deutsche Appellant Initial Brief
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/castillo-v-deutsche-appellant-initial-brief 12/37
_ _ ........ _ .- - - _ • - •• I •.• _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ ~ P 1 - _ . - ,. _, ~ .~ _ - -~~... .. -- - _ . - - - ~..~- _ .
SUMMARY OF .A.RGUMrE,NT
On summary judgment, the trial court improperly held that: Appellant could
not challenge Appellee's standingto file suit in the instant case by contesting the
Trusts's ownership of the note and mortgage through the vessel of the limitations
outlined in the Trust's own documents. Florida law is clear that Appellantactually
does have the ability to so challenge because standing: is based upon having a
sufficient irrterest in the outcome of litigation, not privity of contract, Case law
also dictates that a defendant has the right to challenge a trust's ownership of a
note and mortgage in a foreclosure case as a t means of contesring the trust's
standing to file suit.
'[he trial court also erred when it denied. Appellant's Motion fo, r Summary
Judgment and granted Appellee's motion because, as a 111aUer of law;a trust cannot
take ownership of a note and mortgage or hold it in violation of its trust
documents. Itis elementarytrust lawthat a trust's founding document controls the
limitations that must be adhered to by a trustee and its trust, New York and Florida
law -vbcth applicablein the ins tant case..._agree that, because the relevent note and
mortgage were not properly transferred to the Trust at issue, the trust documents
were violated and the Trust does not own the subject instruments. As sueh.jhe
Trust and ~ts Trustee (Appellee) never had standing to tile the instant case to begin
willi.
6
8/3/2019 Castillo v. Deutsche Appellant Initial Brief
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/castillo-v-deutsche-appellant-initial-brief 13/37
I .... - -- •~ • ____ __•••• ~I 1__ •• •_ I. I _ ___ • _
Furthermore, a trustee cannot committhe improper and ultra vires act of
enforcing Ioan documents that its trust does not own, especially when (as in the
instant case ) th e trust te rm s th em se lv e sm and are tbatthetrustee doe s not hav e the
ability or discretion to maintain possession of an improperly transferred note or
mortgage, Trustee actions which contravene trust instruments are void as a matter
of New York and even Florida. ]aw. Thusly, because the note and mortgage were
nev e r properly tra ns fe rre d to th e Trust, and be cause the Trust and A ppe lle e Truste e
must follow the']! trust documents) the Trust does not own and cannot enforce the
subject moandocuments and has no. standing in the instant case,
7
8/3/2019 Castillo v. Deutsche Appellant Initial Brief
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/castillo-v-deutsche-appellant-initial-brief 14/37
_ _ . . . . . _. - - - _ . _ _ ,"
.. - _._. _ - _ - .." . _ . ._ . _ _ . - -- - . _. -_ _ . _ _ . _ , - . .... - - - _ . - _
ARGUMENT
r, THE LO\'Vll:R TRIBUNAL ERRED IN DENYllNG APPELLANT'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGl\1ENT BECAUSE" AS A
MATTER OF' L.AW, A . DEFENUANTHAS THE STANUING AND
AB.ILITY TO CHALLENGE A PLAINTIFF TRUST'S STANDI:NG
TO FILE SUIT' BY CONTESTING m·E TRUST'S OYlNERSHJP
O.F A NOTE AND MORT'GAGE PURSUANT TO THE
LIMITATIONS OUTLINED IN 'THE TRUST'S DOCUl\fENTS~
Although run its order de nying Appe llant's Motion for Summary Judgment
(R.225-257,.)1 the trial court ,d~dnot crystalize itsprecise jurisprudential motive, it
is clear from the November 22 hearingtranscript (R.222, 223.) that the tria] court
incerrectly rejected th e Appellant's legal abilityte challenge the Appellee's
standing with. relation to whether-the trust documents have been violated.' Indeed,
because the evidenceand the recor-d clearly show that the trust documents and. trust
tenus have been violated --a factual allegationnever rebutted by Appellee below-~
there wo:umd have been AlO other way for the trial court to deny Appellant's Motion
I The trial court entered an order denying Appeljant's Defensive Motien fo rSummary Judgment on November 22~ 2010. The Index Record on Appeal does
not reflect the order. Instead, said Index states "Plaintiff's And Defendant's Cross-
Motions for Summary Judgment" atpages 225-257 and with th e date of January
25~20mL The Inde x R ecord on A fJ 'Pe a~also doe s not re fle ct the F in al J ud gm e n t of
Foreclosure on July 28, 2011 or the or-dergranting Plaintiffs Motion For Summary
Judgment on January 24, 2,011. Said documents were, however, attached to th e
Notice ofAppeal (R.J49-369.).
2lPages 4 and 5 of the transcript (R.l'95~,1'96.)showcasesthatthe t r ~ a . m court judge'sfirst question :mtthe November 22
ndhearing, regarded. the ability ofthe A~)ipeU.antto
challenge standing by pointing out violation of the trust documents. The judge
asked the following: "What is that. -vplease forgive the vernacular of this-- but
what is itany of your business whether or not the trust is basically taking property
and. holding it..in co nsrad ice io n to their own trust documents?"
8
8/3/2019 Castillo v. Deutsche Appellant Initial Brief
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/castillo-v-deutsche-appellant-initial-brief 15/37
•• - ... - ---~""- .•• .,;----- ..... ,. r.'1I" __ . __ .. _
for Summary Judgment unlessjt held. that Appellant did not have the ability ~o
challenge the standing of the Appellee and the Trust.
The trial court thus committed reversible error as Florida. law is clear that
Appellant can contest standing by engaging in the aforementioned legal challenge,
As such, the standard of review intheinstant appeal is de novo.'
In its reply to Appellant's affirmative defenses, Appellee stated that "the
borrower is not a party nor a third party benefieiary of this [trust] contract.
Therefore, the borrowerhas no standing to attack. whether or not the provisions of
the agreement were met or whether there have been any violations," (R.170, para.
5..) However, as Appellantpointed out at the November 221l
i: ! hearing and as
evinced .inthe transcript (R.223.)~ "the I[Appd~an;t]is not claiming any rights under
the trust documents. The [Appellant] is utilizing her Florida law given right to
cballengethe standing of'the [Appellee] ..... Indeed, itis well settled law in Florida.
that both standing and ownership of notes and mortg ag e s can be cha l lenged as
App ellant has se t forth .
In General Development Corp. v. Kirk; 251 So. 2d 284 (fla. 2d DCA] fJ'71), the
Second District Court of Appeal analyzed and explained precisely what constitutes
. 3 See Armstrongv.Harri:s~ 773 So. 2d 7 (Pla, 2(00) (stating: that "the standard of
review for a pure question of law is de novo" and also citing to Florida Appellate
Practice 148 (2nd ed, 1997) (stating that "Summary judgments present a classic
example of the type of decisions that are subject to the de novo standard of
review' ')}.
9 '
8/3/2019 Castillo v. Deutsche Appellant Initial Brief
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/castillo-v-deutsche-appellant-initial-brief 16/37
_ . 1 11__ •__ ._. • ,_ ~~ •• • _r ~
the concept of standing. "Standing is , in the final analysis, that sufficient interest"" ., '_
in the outcome of Iitigation which will warrant the court's entertaining it. It is
beyond doubt that standing. is, in most states, no longer determined by first:
determining some absrract question such. as privity," The Second. District Court
further elaborated that "it is mot "privity" but a legitimate jnterest warranting.
invocation of the judicial power of the state which ought to . determine standing ... "
Interestingly, the Second District Court's explanation in General Development
Cmp,4 wasthe foundation for a subsequent Fourth District Court decision that is
precisely Of! point with/to theinstam issue.
Mll.Martin Properties, Inc. v, Florida Industries Investment Corp., et al., 833 So.
2d 825 (F~a:.4d DCA 20(2), the appellant, Martin Properties, Inc. (berein ".MP'ill"),
appealed a trial court order that denied. it standing to challenge an assignment of
the equity redemption regarding property that M.PI had been the high bidder for at:
a mortgage foreclosure saJe.F]orida Industries Investment Corp..(herein "FUC")
had assigned its. equitable right of redemption to VOSR Industries) and the trial
court ruled that MPI did not have standing to challenge said assignreem. The
Fourth District Court of Appealreversed and rejected the trial court's holding that:
~ 'tv [pI h ad no standing to c~aH eng e the validity ofthe assignmeat because 1v1PMwas
8/3/2019 Castillo v. Deutsche Appellant Initial Brief
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/castillo-v-deutsche-appellant-initial-brief 17/37
• - w ._ • w w _ - ' _ 'w w • _ • w • w w w r ••• " • w _ w w ww w w w ~ , r r, ,. w w w
www __ ~ ' , w ww w ww w w w w ~ ,w w w ,w W W. , . , , ••
neither aparty to ' it nor a third party beneficiary of it," "That", the Fourth District
Coun pointed om, "is notthe test"
Relying on and quoting from the Second District Court's opinion in General
Deve lopmen t Corp.,5 the Poerth District COUlt of Appeal held that t'if ... the
assignment of the equity of redemption was not valid, MEl, as the successful
bidder at the foreclosure sale, will own. the property .. This is sufficient to give MlPM
standing. ~~6
En the instam case, the applicability and relevance of the aforementioned
precedents js obvious. The Issne in Marlin Properties, Inc. conceming .M]F"~'s
standing to challenge the; assignment. is analogous to the instant issue of whether
Appellanthas standing to challenge the:Trust's non-ownership (and thus standing)
of the corresponding Note BInd Mortgage given the undisputed trust violations. Just
as with Ml'I and the assignment, Appellant is not (it party to the trust documents
and. not a third party beneficiary thereof However, and as the Fcutth District
Court pointed out, "that is not the test." Rather, having a "sufficient interest in the
outcome of the litigation" =not '~privity'~--·s the standard, By that token, there can
5251 so , 2d 2841 286 (Fla. 2d DCA 1'971),
6 The fourth District Court of Appeals in Martin Properties, Inc.• 833 So .. 2d at827~ quoted the Second District Court's exphmation on standing ill General
Development Corp. that"S~anding:~s, in. the final analysis, that sufficient interest in
the outcome of Iitigation which win warrant the court's entertaining it. It is
beyond doubt that standing is, in most states, no jonger determined by first
determining some abstract question such as "privity.'?'
11
8/3/2019 Castillo v. Deutsche Appellant Initial Brief
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/castillo-v-deutsche-appellant-initial-brief 18/37
- -, r _.... _ __ _ 1 r ~ ,__,_ _r ,.,. _•
--_, _ - ,.'' --- -- -- - •••. -- -r ., IJ • _ .,
be no doubt that Appenan~bas the abihty to utilize violations cf fhe jrust
documents/tenus as a mechanism to challenge the standing of the Appellee to
bring the instant foreclosure case.as wen as to chalfenge the ownership interests of
the Trust inthe Note and Mortgage,7It is difficult to conceive of a greater interest
il l the outcome ofth]s litigation than that of Appellant, who willlose her residential
homestead should Appellee succeed in the instant action. Furthermore, precedenr
exists which clearly dictates that, in cases such as this involving a . fbreclosure by a
trust, a defendant has the right to challenge the trust's ownership of the note and
mortgage.
In Your Construction Center, inc. v , Gross, as Trustee of Dominion Mortgage
and R:eal ty Trust, 316 So.. 2d 59'6 (Pla, 4d .DCA 1'975),. the instant issue of
consideration was decided. Your Construction regarded a plaintifftrustee of a
Massachusetts business trust which brought a . foreclcsureaction pursuant to a note
and mortgage. The trial court had previously denied the appellants' motion to
dismiss, whichthe Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed due to the fact that the
subject instruments specifically .Hs~ed.the trustee as the sole payee , 8 Howev e r , the
Fourth District. Court went on to explain. that, when a plaintiff files a complaint,
" 1 Succinctly, App el la nt cle arly has the standing to, in this fashion, challenge theAppellee's standing to bring the foreclosure action,
& The Fourth District Court held that t'where a note and mortgage are executed
naming as payee one trustee to this sort of foreig[IiJJrust, and. not more, that trustee
is entitled to maintain an action on the note and mortgage and to discharge theobligatien. ,~
12
8/3/2019 Castillo v. Deutsche Appellant Initial Brief
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/castillo-v-deutsche-appellant-initial-brief 19/37
- - - --.. ... -- -- ,-,-- ~I I •_•• ,_,.__ •_ ~•~ _•- - - - - I ,.__ ~. •_•__ _••,_~I
they must allege that they are the owner and holder of the note and mortgage in
question. "S l llouJd . d .e fen .d lant;s haveanyaflcgadan to the cnllua.ry they may join
issue on it, and mbtu~nadjmdieatioDJ as to the , o w n e . r s , . l J J j p l . ~ ' 9 (Emphasis Added.)
Anyone of the jhree previously referenced cases, even standing alone,
convincingly demonstrates that the trial court erred in its ruling below that the
Appellant did not have the abilhy to challenge the Appellee's (arid Trust's)
standing by contesting its owne-rship of instruments pursuant to ' the limitations
outlined in thetrust
documents. Although florida law is abundantly clear,it~sof
note that Honda is not alone in itsposition tbat trust law violations can be usedby
a defendant to bring to light a plaimiff trust's lack of standing in a foreclosure case.
Indeed, the trust documents under which Appellee functions as [rus~.eehav.e
alreadybeen utilized by a debtor in another state as part. of the inquiry as to
whether this same Appellee bas standing in a foreclosure matter,
In the case of In Re Robin Hayes, 393 B.R. 259' (Bankr ..Mass. 2008), Appellee
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, in that case as trustee of Argent
Mortgage Securities, Inc, Asset-Backed Pruss Throug h. C ertificate s Se rie s 20()4-
WI]~ 10 sought relief from a stay ofthe Chapter ]3 bankruptcy of the debtor, In her
9 ' Id. at 597,
10 In the case of In Re Robin Hayes, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Massachusetts stated that "Deutsche Bankis a party to a Pooling end
Service Agreement e~PSA"],dated as of October 1,2004 .. The Depositor unde r the
Pooling and Service Ag;reem.e]1t,,~ame~y the seller of pass-through certificates
13
8/3/2019 Castillo v. Deutsche Appellant Initial Brief
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/castillo-v-deutsche-appellant-initial-brief 20/37
- - _ . _ ., _ .., - ~..,... _ ., - - - _ , - -
Objection to Appelke's mction for relief from stey.jhe Debtor raised an issue of
Appellee's standing to seek the relief it sought. The specific issue for the
Bankruptcy Courtto consider was whether Appellee Deutsche Bank National Trust
Company successfully traced the identity of the various holders and se rv iee rs of
the mortgage from the original helder to itself The CGul1 held that Appellee failed.
to do SO~and it noted that Appellee "failed to prove that the mortgage executed by
the Debtor and. her mother in favor of Argeru Mongage Company, LLC was ever
assigned to an entity by that name or to Argent Securities Inc., the Depositor under
While the court in In R e Robin Haye s held that Appellee lacked standing for
various reasons, it is clear tbat the court: looked to . the trust documents in its
attempt to determine the standing of Appellee Deutsche Bank National Trust
r-eflecting.beneficial oWl1e rsh~p ' interests in certain real estate mortgage investment:
conduits, is Argent Seourities l~c.)not: Argent Mortgage Seenrities.Tnc. Under the
Pooling and Service Agreement, the Trustee of the Trust fund, consisting of a .
segregated pool of assets comprised of mortgage loans and certain other related
assets, is Deutsche Bank National Trust, Company. ),.
~] In footnote 7 of the opinion in In Re Robin .Hayes~[he court pointed out that
"Deutsche Bank noted that Argent Mortgage Company, LLC was identified as an
"Originator" in the PSA. Deutsche Bank failed to ' explain the relationshipbetweenArge.nt Seeurities Inc..and Argent Mortgage Company, LLC~ in its capacityes an
originator, and Argent Securities Inc. '8 ownership of pass-through certiflcates
backed by the mortgage originated by Argent Mortgage Company, LtC remains
unclear. Deutsche Bank failed in its burden to explain the relationship and how it
affectsi ts standing."
14
8/3/2019 Castillo v. Deutsche Appellant Initial Brief
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/castillo-v-deutsche-appellant-initial-brief 21/37
Company to file its motion fo r relief from s~ay.12 Although said opinion is merely
persuasive upon Florida. courts, it is an example ofhow Florida law =embodied In. .
the prece dents se t forth abov e w nthe C-3Ses of General Development Corp., Martin
Properties, Inc., and Your Construction Center. Inc= should be applied to th e
instant: situation on appeal, Thusly, it i s , clear that the trial court err-ed in not
allowing Appellant to' contest Appellee and the Trust' s standing through a
challenge based upon the H m i m ~ r l : : r u ~ o n 8in thetrust documents,
II. B,ECAUSE mE TRUST CAN NOT TAKE OWNERSHIP OF A
NOTE ANU MORT'GA'GE OR. HOLD THEM IN VIOLATION OF
ITS T'ItUST DOCUMENTS~ ANDBE,CAUSE THE TRUSTEE OFTHE TRUS'T ,CAN NOT COM1\OT THE ULTRA VJRES ACT OF
ENFORCIN'G LOAN DOCUM:E,NTS THA T ITS TRUST" DOES
NOT OWN, THE TRJAL COURT ERREn IN DENYINGAPPELLANT"SMOT[ON FOR SUM!MARY JUDGl\IENT AND IN
GRANTING A.PPELLEE'S MOTION FOR. SUMMARY
JUDGMENT,.
As mentioned above, although in its order denying Appellant's Motion for
Summary Judgment (R.225-257.i the trial court did not crystaline its exact
12 . The COMf i t , went: on to state that "moreover , De-utsche Bank failed to submit any
evidence that the November Jt 2004 mortgage was included in the ['SA or was
subject to Section 2.09 of the PSA as neither Scbedu~.e 1 to the PSA nor a
Mortgage Loan Schedule attached. to a Subsequent Transfer Instrument weresubmitted. into evidence, Thus,..,,.the Court finds that Deutsche Bank failed to '
adequately trace the moanfrom the original holder, Argent Mortgage Company,LtC, to it.)"~JS' 1 _.-~ee D.. t supra.
m s
8/3/2019 Castillo v. Deutsche Appellant Initial Brief
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/castillo-v-deutsche-appellant-initial-brief 22/37
erred because a trust and a.trustee cannot violate trust law.
that, in th e absence of a contractual provision specifying governing law, a contract
is governed by law of the state in which the contract ismade.~']4 In. the, Instant
case, Florida law is clearthat because th e Morgan Stanley ABS Capital J Inc, Trust
2006-HE7 is a New York common law trust (R.,~,53-166.)15) subatantive New York
trust law applies."
14 See, Shaps v. Provident Life & ,Accident Insurance Com:pany,~826 So. 2d, 250
(Fla. 20(2) (also stating tbat, "this C O l t m r t , has held, thaJtunder lex loci controcms, the
Mawof tbe jurisdiction w he re tbe contract w as e xe cute d g ov erns sobstanriv e issue s
re g ard in g th e contract"),
I,:} Tbe Notice of Filing with artaohments indicaeed by the Index Record on Appeal
witha. date of July m 4 ~ 2010 cootained e re levant Secerities Prospectes ine l ec tro nic fo rma t 011 a data. compact disc. Said documentat ion shows that th e Trust
]83. New York common Iaw trust (which was never rebutted by Appellee), The
sam e Se curitie s Prospe ctus w as file d in pape r form st artache djo anothe r N otice of
Filing on Novembe r 10, 2010. The Index Rec.ord. on Appea~ doe s not: H st th e
November [atkNotice of Filing,
1 1 6 See Siegel v. Novak; 920 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 4d DCA 2006) (holdiog that
substantive New York trustlaw applied to a challenge of distributions from the
trust because New York bore the most significant relationship to the trust given the
fact that, at the time the challenged distributions took place, the trust was a New
York trustgoverned by New Yorklaw), In Siegel, the Fonrth District Court of
Appeal also outlined th,aJ"generaUy.~when cenfronted by a : choice of law problem,
a court w ill apply foreig~. law w he n it d eals w ith the substance of the case and win'" - "_
apply the forum ~s m a w to m atte rs of proce dure ." H ence forth, standing issue s in the
instant case should be de te rm ine d w ~.th re fe re nce to florida. law while substantive
trust law issues ShOM~d.be decided by New York law ..
]16
8/3/2019 Castillo v. Deutsche Appellant Initial Brief
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/castillo-v-deutsche-appellant-initial-brief 23/37
8/3/2019 Castillo v. Deutsche Appellant Initial Brief
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/castillo-v-deutsche-appellant-initial-brief 24/37
terms are contained within the Trust's Securities Prospectus" filed electronically
online with tile United States SeciUritiesamd Exchange Commission." The'
Securities 'Prospectus contains tbe relevant trust terms from all pooling and
servicing agreements and. any and. all other trust documents relevant jn and
stemmlng from the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust: 200t'S-HE7. If any of
the trust terms pertaining tothe Note and. Mortg;age at issue were violated, the
18 Appellee' s argument below was neverthat the trust terms were not viola ted or
that they were not in front of the trial coert, Rather, Appellee's position was that
such things were irrelevant At no time did jhe Appellee deny or file any
document in opposition to any factual allegations contained within Appellant's. ~ - .
Defensive Motion for Summary Judgment (which i~se~fequired no supporting
affidavits pUfSuanttoF]a.R,Civ,P. m,5lliO(b)), and tllilusly the lie can be 1][0 disputethat: th e material trust terms are contained within the Securities Prospectus. See In
Re Burton's Estate, 4S So, 2d 873 (Pla, 1950) (stating tbat statements made inan
appellate briefthat haveno support in th e record cannot be eonsidered on appeal);., '=",
Jackson v. Suue, 572 So. 2d 3~ . (Fla. 5d DCA 1'99'1 , Se ,e e isa . .Uut l l : v . AlU
Insurance Company, 982 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 4d DCA 2008) (affirming the trialli
court's refusal to allow a plaintiff) whopreviously filednothing in opposition to
tbe defendaru's summary judgment motion, to submit counrer-affldavits and
evidence on rehearing),19 'C T . 1 · 5 ~~ee flo, supra.
20 At the hearing on Appellant's Motion for Summary Judgment on November
2 2 1 l d ~ Appellant, on page 12,of the bearing transcript (R..203..), stated to the trial
court judge that: "the prospectus, prospectus supplement ... incorporate all the
material trust terms; things from the pooling: and servicing agreement, trust
ag re em ent, all of i~,n~a]1 h ere , The se are tbe trust docum ents.' ~ Se e a lso , R.202"204.
8/3/2019 Castillo v. Deutsche Appellant Initial Brief
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/castillo-v-deutsche-appellant-initial-brief 25/37
Trust would not be able to own or holdshe NO'~eand. Mortgage (which is the basic
The Securities Prospecais describes il l detail a . chain of ownership that the
corresponding Note and. Mortgage must have been subjected to in order for the
Trust to becomethe owner of said instruments, In a section within the Securities
ownership is outlined as follows:
Pursuant tomortiage loam purchase and warranties
agreements ....W}...f C. ... sold the mortgage loans, wi thout recourseto
MSMC [Morgan Stanley Mortgage CapaalInc.], and MSMC will sen
and conveythe mortgage loans ... on ... the close of business on the cut-
off-date, without recourse, to the depositor [Morgan Stamey ABS
Capital 1 Ine.] on the dosing dalle.PUrsuant to the pooling and
servicing agreement, the depositor will sel], without recourse, tothe
trust, allright, title and interest in and to each. mortgage loan .....he
dose of business on the cut-off date.
(RJ53-1'6ti}.22 The Securities ..Prospeetusgnes on to further stipulate: the exact
requirements for the Note and Mortgage to he: transferred and deposited. into the
Securities Prospectus provides that:
2:l See Your Construction Center, Inc. v. Gross-as Trus tee of Dominion Mortgage
and Realty Trust, 3 ~ .6 So. 2d 5'96,(Fla. 4d DCA 197'5).22('1 fn ' I S ·:J ee . r _ • _ . ~ sup ra .
19
8/3/2019 Castillo v. Deutsche Appellant Initial Brief
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/castillo-v-deutsche-appellant-initial-brief 26/37
In connection withthetransfer and assignment of each mortgage loan
to thetrust.the depositor win csuseto be delivered to (I) WeUs Fargo
Bank, National Association, as custodian. on behalf of the trustee with
respect to the VVMC mortgageloans ....o.n or before the closing date,
the following documenrs with respectto each mortgage Ioen whic.hcenstitutethemortgage file: (a) the originalmortg;age~o~:e~ endorsed
witb.outrecourse in blank by fhe last endorsee, indmdi.ng a.1
.~:ntf!rv.tm.~ng endnfs.em,eD.t.s showmga eDmp,le te c:b:aim of
endors~ment fromllhe Griginatn.f tmthe last eadersee ....I{d) the
rn.ortg.age assi.gnmellt(s) •••s.hG'IV~nga. CiolU.pl~eteha.~n of .assi.gmlll.ent
from the originator of the t'e~a:ted mortgage ~oam to t,"e lastendorsee. (Emphasis Added.)
(R. lliS3_166.).23
Showcasing that the trust terms have been violated is the fact that, in direct
endorsement that exists on the original note isa blank endorsement. (R.83-88.). If
the trust terms had been. complied wifh the original note would show three
endorsem ents: 0-ne from the orig h"._1 le n der (WM· ·C- ·M· ·rtg ag e .C - orp.) ....'fl·.,. from the.., .... "'.... ",'. •. . .. 1.~u.... .. v. ~.."'.Mru ... lh..... .... .. ..a. ... . v.. • ~ v.u.... . . ... n_
sponsor (Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital IFII.C .•), and one from the depositor
(Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc..). Two of the three endorsements an! missing,
and as such the Trust did mot become the owner or holder of the Note beeause t~.e
trust terms clearly mandate the presence of'allthree endorsements ..
mandatory chain of ownership is also a missing insttnment that was never
23 ld~
2 0
8/3/2019 Castillo v. Deutsche Appellant Initial Brief
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/castillo-v-deutsche-appellant-initial-brief 27/37
the case that Florida law itse~f does Mot require an assignmeat of mortgage upon
evidence of a , transferred debt/4 because the above referencedtrust terms require it"
from the originator to the depositoris another trust violation.
Therefora.because the trust terms and documents have been violated, the;Trust
cannot and does not own or hold the Note and Mortgage as (]I matter of New York
~aw.2S Indeed, because th e Trust is a Real Esrate Mortgage Investment Conduit
(hereil1~'REMIC~~)~he inclusion of a loan in the trust corpus that was notproperly
transferred. to ' the Trust as of the closing da~e ontlieed in the trust doeuments"
would subject th e Trust to greater tax liability pursuant to the Internal Revenue
Code (herein "IRC~,).:2;i
Because the Trust elected to be treated as a REMIC for tax. purposes.i" any
taxable gains on the loans property transferred and deposit je d intothe Trust (it is_' = . - .
unknown if any have been) would be or are "passed through" the Trust and directly
24 See Johns v . Gillian, il l 34 Fla . .575 (Fla, I '9381.25 S ' 1 · 7 -:ee n.. ..~supra.
26 The dosing date ofthe Trust is OctoberSl , 2:006. (R.153-Hi6.). See also., n.15,
supra.
27 See IRe §860A-8,60G..28 S · 1 5 _ . --e e n. .', supra .29 See IRe §860A{a) and (b). Subsection (a) of IRe §860A,entitled "General
rule", states that "except as otherwise provided in tbis part, a REMIC shellnot be
subject to taxation under this subtitle (and shall not be treated. as a eorporatien,
21
8/3/2019 Castillo v. Deutsche Appellant Initial Brief
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/castillo-v-deutsche-appellant-initial-brief 28/37
certain requirements forrhe REMIC~ax election to be main tain ed by the TruSt,l(1 It
is these IRe requirements that forcedthe Trust to be designed with the framework
se~forth above (wtrlch is why thetnsstterms describe in great detailexactly which
types of loans can be accepted into the Trust, w hat the proce sse s w ere for ade quate
transfers of the loans to the Trust, and what the procedures fbr curing any defects
were). Thusly) thetrust terms are substantive and not merely a formality, and
because the trust terms were filed with the:United States Securities and Exchange
Commission in relation with the offering for sale of investment certificates, any
argument by Appellee that the trust terms did not have to be' followed conld be
partnership, or jrust for purposes. of this, subtitle). Subseetiorr (b) of said IRe,
entitled "Income taxable to holders", states tham."tberuncome of any REMIC shall
be-taxable to the holders of interests in such REMIC as provided inthis part..~
J ( : J . IR:C§ 860f, entitled "Other rules", states as follows:
a) llO'p,erC!fRttax on proh~bited. transacdons(1) Tax imposed.
There is hereby imposed for each. taxable year of a REMTCa tax equal to ~.OO
percent I O f the' net income derived from prohibited transactions,
(2,) Prohi.billed t~ans3cti,on,
For purposes of this part, the terrrrrprchibitedtransaction" means->
(A) Dispo,siti.on .of qnalified. mDrtgage
The disposition of 3J1Y qualified mortgage transferred to the REMIC other than a
disposition pursuant to->
(i) the substitution of a . qualified replecementmortgage for a qualified mortgage
(or the repurchase in lieu of substitution of a defective obligatioa), (ii) a disposition.
incident to the foreclosure, default, or hmninent defauU of the mortgage" (iii) the'
bankruptcy or insolvency oftbeREM1C~ •.r (iv) (]I: qualified liquidation ..
.,(8) Imcome from nomperm itte d . a sse ts
The receipt of any income attribusabie to any asset whichis neither a quaHfi.oo
mortgage nor a permitted irrvestment.
22
8/3/2019 Castillo v. Deutsche Appellant Initial Brief
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/castillo-v-deutsche-appellant-initial-brief 29/37
Securities Act of 1933 (1 5 U.S.C.A. §7'l(a)(2)}?1
B . As a matter o f l aw .. th e tru ste e ofa. tru st c anno t ( ')ommw~,~heldtrn v iv e s a ctof e nfo rcing loan do cum e nts that it s trust doe s not ow n,.
It is axiomatic that a trustee is limited in itt; conduct by the specifieatione of the
trust documents and terms jt serves under.32
Similar to the prior discussion
concerniag the inability ofatrustto violate its own trust documents, a trustee may
also not" as a matter of law, engage in any conduct that centravenes themandates
ofthe trust documents, Once more, both Florida and New York law are in
harmony em these points.
The Iaw in New York regarding acts of trustees in conrravention of trust makes
dear that "if the trustis expressed in the instrument creatingthe estate of the
trust,e:xoept as authorized by this article and by any other provision of law, is
31 Section 12(2) of the Securities A,et of 1'933 (15 U.S .C .A . § 771(a )(2 "n impo se s
civil Iiability ag ainst a seller o r o ff e re r ' o fs e cumie s if the se lle r or offe rorhas m ade
a misrepresentation or has omitted materia] information in or from a prospectus or
ora l s ta temen t I fJ Jconnec tion witb a . sal e ..
32 See Kcemp ' V , . Paterson, 6, N..Y..2d410 (N.Y. 1'9,59)(holdin.i that termination of a
trust, along with transferring the entire corpus 1 1 1 0 a beneficiary was not authorized
by the trust and not within the scope ofthe power granted to the trustee). See also,
n..33, n..35, infra ..
33 See NY CLS ElPTL § 7-2.4 (2011).
8/3/2019 Castillo v. Deutsche Appellant Initial Brief
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/castillo-v-deutsche-appellant-initial-brief 30/37
inherently"void.~'34 Furthermore, "the authority of the trustee is subjecs to any
[imitations imposed by the trust instrumenC~35
in. several of its pleadings, that it could foreclosure by virtue of the fact that it was
in possession of the original Note, which, as dis/cussed. above, was never
transferred into the Trust. However, the trust document spells out the exact actions
Appellee was required to take if~t ,E!v,ert'ound itself in possession of loan
documents that were improperly transferred in violation of the trust terms,
]n the sectionentitled "Delivery of Mortgage Loan Docuroents"," the trustee
has. the obligation, pursuant to the trust terms, to . "review, O[ cause to be reviewed,
each mortgage file within ninety days .atler the dosing date ' of the Trust. The trust
terms clearly dictate that within the review period, the trustee (Appellee) has the
obligation to cure the defect or remove the defective loan documents fromthe
Trust. Theexact Ianguageis as follows:
U thetrustee ....during the process of reviewing the mortgage files, finds any
document constituting apart of a mortgage file that is not executed, has not
been received or is unrelated to the mortgage loans, or thatany mortgage
loan does not cenform jo t l l i l .emqui re :m:ents above .....he trustee or the
applicable custodian, as applicable, is required to note such deficiencyin the
required. trustee or custodian certification delivered to the applicable
responsible party, the serv ieer and tbe depositor ..The appficable respensible
341d.
35 S f Le N..Y..Est Powers &. Trusts Law, § 11-1.Ifb), pam. (8),3 ,6 .
Seen ..~5, supra.
.24
8/3/2019 Castillo v. Deutsche Appellant Initial Brief
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/castillo-v-deutsche-appellant-initial-brief 31/37
perty win be required to causejo be remedied a . material defect in a
dOClUmentconstituting part ofa mortg ag e file ofwbiclru. it is so notified by th e
trustee .. .If however ......he applicable responsible party has not oaused the
defect to be remedied, the applicable responsible party w m be required to
,either (a) substitute H e Substitute Mortgage Lean for the defective mortgagemoan. ,.or (bo)repurchase the defective mortgage loan.
As the qaoted trust langusge makesabundandy clear, the trust terms do not
accord Appellee the ability or the discretion to maintain possession of an
improperly transferrednote or mortgage, As such, the action of'Appellee in failing
to expel the' defectively transferred Note and Mortgage in jhe instant case
contravenes the trust terms and is an improper/void action thai! New York. law
condemns, As previously explained, llieIRC mandatesthat my non-qualifying
assets transferred to. the Trust could cause :~tto Iose its REMIC tax status (giving
rise to double taxation), and. this is precisely why the trustee is not affordedthe
discretion to maiIrutain possession of loan dooom.entsthat contravene th e trust
terms.
New York law its clearthat only when a trustee is accorded discretion by its
trust may the trustee exercise its own discretion in tating an action not specified by
discretion v-as in the instant ,case-- the trustee may not act in contravention to the
mandates of tbe 'trust. Self In re Estate of Stillman~ l101Misc. 2d 102 (Surr ..Ct.
25
8/3/2019 Castillo v. Deutsche Appellant Initial Brief
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/castillo-v-deutsche-appellant-initial-brief 32/37
N . Y . il l 9 '8 0 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t t r e s t e e s m is c e n s t r u e d t h e testator's w il l a n d t h e r e f o r e
abused . so-caned absolute and uncontrolled discretion),
In In re Estate of Stillman,ilie court stated thet, inthe case, "the paramount
consideration .. ,[regarded], ....he basic intention of the testator concerning invasions
and. whether the trustees have deviated fromthe testator's plan," The New York
court outlined that "if discretion is conferrea uponthe trustee inthe exercise of a .
power, the court will not ine e rfe re unle ss the trustee in exercising or failing to
exercisethe power ac-ts dishonestly, or with an improper even though not a
dishonest motive, or tails to use Th1wsudgment , O i l : " acts beyond. the bounds of a
reasonable judgment." The court cited to the Restatement of the Law, Second,
Trusts, §187 ( i l l 992 ed.), which exp~ains~hat"th.eexercise of a [trustee jpoweris
discretionary except tethe extent to wh:idl. ~.tsexereise is requlred by the terms
oiftbe trust orby the principles of law applicable to jhe duties of trustees."
(Emphasis added.) The Restatement of the Law, Second, Trusts (1'99'2 ed.) also
explains m §185 that "where by the terms of the trust it is provided. that inthe
administration of the trust tbe uustee shall do certain acts ~fhe is directed by
anothe rpee sonto do them, it i ll sord inari ly h il lsduty to comp ly with such d ire cti ons
and he is ordinarily liable if he fails to do so. So also, where by the terms of the
trust it isprovidedthat tbe trustee shall l'lU)~do certain acts without the direction or
consent of another, it is ordinarily his duty not to do such acts without such
2 6
8/3/2019 Castillo v. Deutsche Appellant Initial Brief
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/castillo-v-deutsche-appellant-initial-brief 33/37
direction or consent. "~\VhHe New Yorik trust law is whal should. be applied to
Appellee's Trust (and Appellee's actions), i~,s of note that florida law is of the
... 37
s am e posmon.
Despite the fact that the trust terms dearly order Appellee to not be in
possession of an improperly transferred se t of loan documentsand despite the fact
that New York. trust Iaw is clear fhat Appellee has no ability to proceed in
conrravention to th e trust t e rms, , C l I J t th e N ov emb er 2 2 I 1 l ' I o ral arg umen t the Appe l l e e
insisted that ithadtheright to successfully pursue a Florida foreclosure action by
virtue of the fact that it had. possession of the original Note. (R..212..) Appellee's
argument should havebeen rejected by the trialcourt,
first, Appellee's argument at summary judgment that it oou~d.foreclose was
premised uponFlorida's Uniform C omm ercial C ode (herein ~VCC~1)aswen as a
variety of case law the lentirety of which is distinguishable and. inapplicable. Yet,
the provisions of Florida's UCC (and the case law which relies upon it) cited by
AppeUee in the record do not contemplatethe existence of an external constraint
upon the ability to enforce a negotiable instrument (such as the lirmtations imposed
37 See Griley v. Marion Mortgage Co.~ ]32 Filla . 29 '9 (Fla. 1937) (holding that that
appellant mortgagee could not foreclose on a mortgage i l l S S T U O O by appel lee
mortgagor because appellee trustee did not have the authority to execute the
mortgage), See e lsa . Florida Statutes Section 736.0SlliS(m)(a), entitled "General
p ow ers of truste e", w hich state s that "a trustee, without. authorization by th e court,
may, except as Hmited or restrictedby this code, exercise, . ...powers conferred by~l. f - . ~ , . , . ,me te rm s o tue trust.
27
8/3/2019 Castillo v. Deutsche Appellant Initial Brief
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/castillo-v-deutsche-appellant-initial-brief 34/37
up on trusts and their trustees by trust law} . Inde e d, e -ase law and support ing
m ate e ials A pp eU e e cited in opposition to App,elhmes p ositio n m ak e it dear that
t hey pre suppose the abse nce of a. conting ency or e xte rnal force that would p re ve nt
by Appellee that~ even under Appellee's own theory andargument, the UCC only
p rov ide s a pre sum ption of oW .m le rs~ ip ,hat, if rebutted by Appellant, would defea t
Appellee's posi~il ion.39
.3 8 See Johns v., Gilli,an, 1 34 F la. 5 '7 5 (F la .. 1 '9 38 ).. In . Johns~ which AprpeUe e heavily
relied upon ~n estab~ishlng its position at the November 22~dhear ing" the florida.
Supreme Court stated that "any form of assignment of a mor tgage , which transfers
the real and beneficial interest in the securities uncondttlonally to the assignee ,
w m entitle him to maintain an action fo r foreclosure, Or ifthere had been no
w ritte n assig nm e et, the intended. as sig n e e wou ld . 'b e entitled. to ' fo re clo se in equity
upoDln'oo,'( Df his pUlfichase ,oftbe deble~(Emp,basisadded.) T he re fe re , the
decision in Johns clearly works against Appellee as th e explicit intention in th e
trust docum ents 'W as to not allow for the transfe r of a note to the Trust which does
not comply with the specifictransfer requirements, The opwmjona~sounderminesAppe ll ee 's p os itio n because A ppe lle e obv iously ce nnor prov e the purchase of th e
debtgiventhat the trustterms were violated ..
39 (R-J91-224.). Appellee made three distinct and separate admissions at the
Novembe r 2 2 1 1 d s ummary ju dgme nt h e a r in g r e g a J : id il iW iJ lgth e ability of Appe llant to
rebut the pre sumption of the subject N ote ' s e nforce ability and ow ne rsbipby
Appellee (despite Appellee's own vee ergument). First, on page 23 of thetranscript (R.214.), Appellee, concerning blank endorsements , stated that t'aay
sig nature [on the endorsem ent] would be indicia. of in te nt to transfe r, and. th e
burdenis on the defendant to rebat.thatpresumpaion." Secondly, om page 25 of the:
transcript (R.2lli6.), Appellee opined that "the holder of a negotiable instrument .~s
presumedthe owner of the negotiable instrument. The burden is O [ l i J j. the defendant
to de monstrate som ething to the contrary;" Finally, A ppe lle e state d on page 26 of
thetranscript (R.2lli7.) that "the phy sical tra nsfe r of the; note can r o o se upon the;
Plaintiff entitlementto [for-eclose] the mortgage. It is theirbcrden, YOm' Honor , to
show something torebut that [p]resulUpt~on.~' AppeUee made th e a fe remen tie n e d
28
8/3/2019 Castillo v. Deutsche Appellant Initial Brief
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/castillo-v-deutsche-appellant-initial-brief 35/37
Interestingly, eventhe very act of filing the instant foreclosure suit is an u~tra
v ire s and v oid action by Appe l le e b e ca us e.a s mentioned ab ov e, th e trust docum e nt
clearly instructs Appellee, to not maintain possession of any improperly rransferred
loan docum ents out of fe ar of losing the Trust's R ~EM IC tax staitus.40 Therefore, by
based upon an instrument that violates the Trust, while, simultaneously, Florida
m a w precludes Appellee from having standing es a resuh of th e same jmst
violations, Clearly, the trial court orders in tbe instant case granting Appellee's
Motion for Summary Judgment, entering a Final Judgment of Foreclosure, and
denying Appellant' s Defensive Motion for Summary Judgment should be reversed,
statements without realizing that Appellant, by swum affidavit (R.135- il l 37.))
through a . memorandum in opposition to Appellee's Motion for Summary
Judgment (R..140~l4.5. .~ and through her defensive summary judgment motion
(R.116~184.)" did rebut aWlof the presumptions that AppeHee discussed (if they
even exist). However, Appellant does not concede Appellee's position regarding
the existence ofthe presumptions, and.Appellant'sperpose inbringing to light the
p re sump tio n issu e is to e vince the contradictions and fallacie s in A ppe Uoo":s OWiru .
vee argument .
40 See MacFarlane 'V•. First Nat 'I Bank, 203 So, 2d 57 (Fla ..3d DCA il l 967) (stating
thatvif the method for the exercise of.:..[a trust power]. .. .is set out inthe trustagreement.then the power must be exercised in strict coofarmity to it s terms").
29
8/3/2019 Castillo v. Deutsche Appellant Initial Brief
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/castillo-v-deutsche-appellant-initial-brief 36/37
, ,,- - - - - - , - - - .... ,- - . - - - _ .. -~ ,- .,-- ----- ,.. . " _ . - - - - _ .... _ -
CONCLUSION
T he low er tribunal erredin granting, Appel lee ' s Motion for F inal Summ ary
Judgment, and by subsequently entering a Final Judgment of Foreclosure, It also
erred by denying Appellant's Defensive Motion for Summary Judgment. As
mentioned, th e trial court improperly held that Appellant could not challenge"" ., - ""
Appellee's standing, by coetestingthe Trust's ownership ofthe note and mortgage
viathe limitations in ID.eTrust's documents. Without question, florida law does
indeed accord a foreclosure defendant that ,abili~y against a trust. Furthermore,
be cause the Trust in the iastans case ne ve r re ce iv ed a.prope r transfe r of the subjece
loan documents , it doe s not own the iostrum entsand cannot hold them , Furthe r
still, because of the lirni~at~onsand. mandate s o utl in e d in th e trust deeaments, the
Trust cannot enforce the note and mortgage and has DO standing to file suit,
rendering its Trustee (the Appellee) unable to belng a.foreclosure action.
The Final Judgment cf Foreclosure. fhe ordergranting Appellee's Motion- - ~
for Final Summary Judgment, and the order denying Appellant's Defensive Motion_ = .J
for Summary Judgment should all be reversed.and this matter should he remanded
to the Jower court with instructions [0 enter an order granting Appellant's
De fe nsiv e Mo tio n 'for Summary J ud gmen t
Respectfully Submitted this /3 day ofO.(!_~ 20] [..
3 '0
8/3/2019 Castillo v. Deutsche Appellant Initial Brief
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/castillo-v-deutsche-appellant-initial-brief 37/37
'CERTIF.ICA TE OF SERVICE
THE UNDERS~GNED HEREBY CERTIFIES that H , true andcorrect copy of the
foregoing Initial Brief of Appellant, Sandra P. Castillo, has been delivered by U,S .
.Mail to ' Smith, Hiatt & Diaz, P..A., P.O. Box] 1438, Fort Lauderdale, Florida
],3339-1438, tbis 13 day of6l!~2;O] L
Jimenez" Milian & Associates, P'.L.L.C .
. bbe.rt R. Jimenez, E .. ,.
Florida Bar No.: 72020
2025 SW 321l JAve
Suite noMiami" FL 33145
Telephone: 786.282. il l 314
Fax: 3.05..441.0688
Counsel For: Appellant Sandra P. Castillo
'CERT'IF.ICA TE OF COMPLIANCE
THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY CERT]fIES that the Initial Brief of Appellant,
Sandra P, Castillo, complies with the fontre~uiremen~s set forth in Ru~e
9.2lliO(a)(2)~ Fla ..R. App.lP.; to wit, Times New Roman l-l-point font.
3 m