IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

,
IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL DIVISION
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE CASE NO. 08-018162-CI-ll
FOR OPTION ONE MORTGAGE LOAN
TRUST 2007-CPl ASSET -BACKED
CERTIFICATE SERIES 2007-CPl,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
DANIEL DYMINSKI,
DEFENDANT.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ /
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS ACTION
COMES NOW, the Defendant DANIEL DYMINSKI (hereinafter "Defendant") by and
through the undersigned counsel MATTHEW D. WEIDNER and respectfully moves this Court
to DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE the above entitled civil action, pursuant to Rules 1.210(a) and
1. 140(b)(6) Fla. R. Civ. P., and precedent case law, and in support thereof states:
FACTS
1. This is an action for foreclosure of real property owned by the Defendant.
2. The named Plaintiff in this case is WELLS FARGO, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR OPTION
ONE MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-CPt ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES
2007-CPl (hereinafter "Plaintiff').
3. In its Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that "[o]n August 25, 2006, [the Defendant],
executed and delivered a promissory note and a mortgage securing payment of same to SAND
CANYON CORPORATION F/KfA OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORPORATION."I
1 See Complaint, ~ 2 .
4. SAND CANYON CORPORATION (hereinafter "Sand Canyon") is not the named lender
on the Mortgage and Promissory Note attached to the Plaintiff's Complaint and, as further
described below, Defendant has no idea how Sand Canyon is a party to this case. The named
lender is OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORPORATION, a California Corporation (hereinafter
"Option One").
5. Records obtained from the California Division of Corporations reflect that Option One,
has had its status as a California corporation suspended since 1990. (California Division of
Corporations Records attached hereto as "Exhibit A.") The California Division of Corporations
lists Sand Canyon as an active corporation, but the only name appearing on the documents shows
that Option One Mortgage Corporation is the real party in interest in this litigation. There is no
record or mention of any connection between the two entities and the contradictory information
contained both within the pleadings and the attached exhibits introduce a real question of fact
regarding who the real parties in interest ares.
6. When the complaint was initially filed, attached to the complaint was a copy of the note
at issue in this case along with a blank allonge which, if authentic, may have made the note in
question payable to bearer.
7. On or about July 24,2009, the original note, including the alleged allonge, was filed with
the court, but the allonge now appearing in the court file was changed to provide a special
endorsement in favor of, "Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. As Trustee for Option One Mortgage Loan
Trust 2007-CPI Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2007-CPI"
8. The allonge is not dated, or notarized and it is unclear when the alleged allonge was
changed to specially endorse the note in question to the lender but the fact that the special
endorsement appears on the original note after the instant litigation was initiated raises questions
as to the veracity of the alleged special endorsement via allonge. Specifically, how can a
corporation which the public records reveal has been suspended since 1990 endorse or pledge
any security and what person had the authority to create the special endorsement that appears
now on the original document after the instant litigation was initiated?
9. Next and most importantly, the Defendant asserts that the purported allonge is ineffective
to transfer ownership of the note at issue given the facts of this particular case and the existing
case law and statutes. Quite simply, while an allogne may be authorized by statute and case law
in cases where there is not ample space on the promissory note to affix an original endorsement,
an allonge is not authorized when, as in this case, the document sought to be transferred and
entered into evidence includes abundant space upon which to record a proper endorsement.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
10. In ruling on a defendant's motion to dismiss, a trial court is limited to the four corners of
the Complaint, and it must accept all the allegations in the Complaint as true. See Lutz Lake Fern
Rd. Neighborhood Groups, Inc. v. Hillsborough County, 779 So.2d 380, 383 (Fla. 2d DCA
2000). However, when a question has not been previously decided by a Florida court, the
decisions of a court of another state may be considered. Old Plantation Corp. v. Maule
Industries, Inc., 68 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1953). Such a decision, when on point, is regarded as
persuasive. Tonkovich v. South Florida Citrus Industries, Inc., 185 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 2d DCA
1966).
INTRODUCTION
11. There is surprisingly small universe of case law in the entire body of American
jurisprudence to which this Court could look to for guidance when deciding matters dealing with
allonges. A search on Westlaw reveals that the entire universe of Florida cases, both in State and
Federal courts, is limited to two cases: Booker v. Sarasota, Inc., 707 So. 2d 886 (Fla 1st DCA
1998) and In re Canellas, 2010 WL 571808 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Feb. 9,2010). {note especially the
late date on the Canellas case} Moreover, a search of the word "allonge" on Westlaw for the
entire American judicial system, both State and Federal, reveals only 274 documents. It should
be noted, however, that the vast majority of these cases only mention allonges in passing, most
often reciting the Black's Law Dictionary definition of an allonge in the footnote ofthe decision
or simply making reference to an allonge when reciting the facts of the case. According to the
only Florida appellate case which deals with these ancient documents, "[a]n allonge is a piece of
paper annexed to a negotiable instrument or promissory note, on which to write endorsements for
which there is no room on the instrument itself. Such must be so firmly affixed thereto as to
become a part thereof." Booker, 707 So. 2d at 886 (Fla 1st DCA 1998). See also U.S. Bank
National Association v. Weigand, 2009 WL 1623764 (Conn. Super. 2009); P&B Properties 1,
LLC v. Owens, 1996 WL 111128 (Del. Super. 1996). Furthermore, while "Florida's Uniform
Commercial Code does not specifically mention an allonge, [the Code] notes that 'for purposes
of determining whether a signature is made on an instrument, a paper affixed to the instrument is
made part of the instrument.' Fla. Stat. §673.2041(1) (1995)." Booker, 707 So. 2d at 886 (Fla.
t st DCA 1998). Amazingly, very few opinions in the entire country delve into actual substantive
matters regarding allonges and there is scant direction in these opinions on the technical and
legal requirements particular to allonges. As exhibited by the facts of this case, and as would be
shown by a review of the hundreds of thousands of foreclosure cases filed across the state and
country, allonges are being used to show evidence of ownership of debts when this "evidence"
may not be authorized by any law.
LEGAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S ARGUMENT
I. Plaintifrs Complaint Should Be Dismissed for Failure to be Prosecuted in the
Name of the Real Party in Interest
a. Legal Standards
12. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.210(a) provides, in pertinent part, that "[e]very action may be prosecuted
in the name of the real party in interest, but a personal representative, administrator,
guardian, trustee of an express trust, a party with whom or in whose name a contract has been
made for the benefit of another, or a party expressly authorized by statute may sue in that
person's own name without joining the party for whose benefit the action is brought."
13. Recently, the Second District held that Plaintiffs in foreclosure actions are required to
establish, through admissible evidence, that it held the note and mortgage in question and so
had standing to foreclose the mortgage before it would be entitled to summary judgment in
its favor. BAC Funding v. Jean-Jacques, 2010 WL 476641 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).
Furthermore, the Second District held that whether such a Plaintiff does so through valid
assignment, proof of purchase of the debt, or evidence of an effective transfer, they are
nevertheless required to prove that it validly held the note and mortgage which it sought to
foreclose. rd. In BAC Funding, the Second District ultimately ruled that an incomplete,
unsigned and unauthenticated assignment of mortgage attached as an exhibit to the Plaintiff's
response to the Defendant's motion to dismiss did not constitute admissible evidence
establishing the Plaintiff's standing to foreclose on the note and mortgage in question.
14. Additionally, the Bankruptcy Court of the Middle District of Florida recently denied a
movant's motion for relief from stay so the movant could foreclose on real property owned
by a debtor, in part, because the movant did not establish that it was the real party in interest
through a valid allonge. In re Canellas, 2010 WL 571808 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Feb. 9,2010).
There, the movant accompanied its motion with a mortgage and note which were endorsed to
someone other than itself. Some three months later, the movant filed an allonge with the
Court which purportedly endorsed to it the mortgage and the note. However, the allonge was
not notarized nor was it dated. The Court ultimately denied the movant's motion and
questioned the veracity of the allonge because, amongst other reasons, the allonge was not:
(1) dated; or (2) notarized.
b. Argument
15. In this case before the court, the Plaintiff filed its case and attached documents that showed
affinnatively that another party, namely, Option One Mortgage was entitled to proceed on
the mortgage foreclosure count. The named lender according to the Plaintiff sown
Complaint is SAND CANYON CORPORATION FIKIA OPTION ONE MORTGAGE
CORPORATION; however, Option One, the actual named lender on the Mortgage and Note,
has had its corporate status suspended since 1990 and the Record is completely devoid of
how Sand Canyon has come into existence or how it can legally hold a mortgage or note.
Furthennore, the purported allonge which the Plaintiff alleges gives it the power to enforce
the Mortgage and Note in question is not dated nor is it notarized. Option One's suspended
corporate status, the unclear and undefined existence of Sand Canyon, and the lack of a date
or notarization on the purported allonge itself are firm grounds for the Court to doubt the
veracity of this document and, as an extension, the Plaintiffs status as the real party in
interest.
WHEREFORE, because the Plaintiff failed to prosecute this cause in the name of the
real party in interest, the instant case must be dismissed.
II. Plaintiff's Complaint Should be Dismissed for Failure to State a Cause of Action
Because the Purported Allonge was not Firmly Affixed to the Promissory Note
a. Legal Standards
16. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140(b)( 6) provides, in pertinent part, that "the following defenses may
be made by motion at the option of the pleader ... failure to state a cause of action." In ruling
on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the trial court must assume that
all allegations in the complaint are true and decide whether the Plaintiff would be entitled to
relief. Carmona v. McKinley, Ittersagen, Gunderson & Bemtsson, P.A., 952 So.2d 1273
(Fla. 2d DCA 2007). Nevertheless, as indicated in the Standard of Review discussion, supra,
exhibits attached to the Plaintiff s complaint are part of the complaint, and where the
allegations made in the complaint do not agree with the exhibits attached, the exhibits
control.
17. There is no Florida case on point which provides guidance as to how an allonge must be
physically attached to an instrument in order for it to become "firmly affixed" to same, but
the court can rely on the plain meaning of the words, "firmly affixed" and the Court may
look to decisions of courts in other states for persuasive authority. To begin, two reasons
have been cited for the "firmly affixed" rule: (1) to prevent fraud; and (2) to preserve a
traceable chain of title. See Adams v. Madison Realty & Development, Inc., 853 F. 2d 163,
167 (3d Cir. 1988). A draft of the 1951 version of the UCC Article 3 included the comment
that "[t]he indorsement must be written on the instrument itself or an allonge, which, as
defined in Section __, is a strip of paper so firmly pasted, stapled or otherwise affixed to
the instrument as to become part of it." ALI, Comments & Notes to Tentative Draft No.1
Article III 114 (1946), reprinted in 2 Elizabeth Slusser Kelly, Uniform Commercial Code
Drafts 311, 424 (1984). More recently, however, courts have held that "stapling is the
modem equivalent of gluing or pasting." Lamson v. Commercial Credo Corp., 187 Colo. 382
(Colo. 1975). See also Southwestern Resolution Corp. V. Watson, 964 S.W. 2d 262 (Texas
1997) (holding that an allonge stapled to the back of a promissory note is valid so long as
there is no room on the note for endorsement, but affixed does not include paperclips.).
Regardless of the exact method of affixation, numerous cases have rejected endorsements
made on separate sheets of paper loosely inserted in a folder with the instrument and not
physically attached in any way. See Town of Freeport v. Ring, 1999 Me. 48 (Maine 1999);
Adams V. Madison Realty & Development, Inc., 853 F. 2d 163 (3d Cir. 1988); Big Builders,
Inc. V. Israel, 709 A. 2d 74 (D.C. 1988).
b. Argument
18. Here, the Plaintiffs purported allonge, as found in the Court File, is in no way so firmly
affixed to the Promissory Note as to give the Plaintiff the ability to raise a cause of action for
foreclosure of a mortgage and note which is made out to someone other than itself.
Specifically, when undersigned counsel examined the Court File, this purported allonge was
not affixed to the Promissory Note at all, but is unattached and "floating" in the court file.
Because the purported allonge is not affixed to the Note, the twin aims of affixation, namely
to prevent fraud and to preserve a traceable chain of title, have expressly not been met.
WHEREFORE, because the Plaintiff failed to state a cause of action upon which relief
can be granted within the four comers of the Complaint or in any other Pleading or Filing, the
instant case must be dismissed.
III. Plaintiff's Complaint Should be Dismissed for Failure to State a Cause of Action
Because the Promissory Note Contained Room for Endorsement
a. Legal Standards
19. There is also no Florida case law which provides guidance on how to decide "No-Space
Tests", or how to proceed when there is room on the instrument for an endorsement but an
allonge is nevertheless attached instead. However, numerous jurisdictions permit allonges
only where, because of multiple endorsements, no additional space for signatures remains on
the negotiable instrument. See Shepherd Mall St. Bank v. Johnson, 603 P. 2d 1115, 1118
(Okla. 1979); Tallahassee Bank & Trust Company v. Raines, 187 S.E. 2d 320, 321 (Ga. App.
1972); James Talcott, Inc. v. Fred Ratowsky Assoc., Inc., 38 Pa. D. & C.2d 624 (Pa. Ct. of
Common Pleas 1965). But see Crosby v. Roub, 16 Wis. 616,626-27 (Wis. 1863) (allonge
permitted even where space remains on note). Perhaps the seminal case which deals with the
issue is Pribus v. Bush, 118 Cal. App. 3d 1003 (Cal. App. 1981), which reasoned that
the law merchant rule [which permits the use of allonges only when there is no
room on the instrument itself! ... was developed as a refinement of the basic rule
that an indorsement must be on the instrument itself. This basic rule must have
become impractical when strictly applied in certain multiple indorsement
situations, due to the finite amount of space on any given instrument. The allonge,
then, was apparently created to remedy the inconveniences of the basic rule, not
as an alternative method of indorsement. Id at 1008. Emphasis added.
The Pribus court ultimately decided that the majority view is to follow the law merchant rule and
only permit allonges when there is no physical space left on the instrument itself. Id.
h. Argument
20. Here, the allonge was improper because there is ample blank space on the Promissory
Note filed with the Plaintiff s Complaint to stamp an endorsement. This includes abundant space
both below the Plaintiff's alleged signature and on the back of the Note. Florida courts, in the
absence of a Florida case directly on point, should follow the majority rule which only allows the
use of an allonge when there is no room on the instrument itself for endorsement. Doing so
preserves the law merchant rule, an ancient principal of commercial law. Because the allonge
was improper, the Mortgage and the Note are endorsed to someone other than the Plaintiff, and
therefore the Plaintiff does not have the ability to raise the cause of action for foreclosure.
WHEREFORE, because the Plaintiff failed to state a cause of action upon which relief
can be granted within the four comers of the Complaint or in any other Pleading or Filing, the
instant case must be dismissed.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY c E R T ~ r u e and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by
U.S. Mail on this -.May of March, 2010 to PASCALE ACHILLE, Ben-Ezra & Katz, P.A.,
2901 Stirling Road, Suite 300, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312.
or Defendant
122 Central Avenue
St. Petersburg, FL 33705
(727) 894-3159
FBN: 0185957
DISCI_AlMER: The information displayed here is current as of DEC 26, 2008 and is updated weekly. It is not
a complete or certified record of the Corporation.
Corporation
iOPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORP.
i
iJurisdiction: California
,**3109 LOS FLORES A
iLYNWOOD, CA 90262
............•............
Address
Agent for Service of Process
RESIGNED ON 10/0311990
Blank fields indicate the information is not contained in the computer file.
If the status of the corporation is "Surrender", the agent for service of process is automatically revoked. Please
refur to California Corporations Code Section 2114 for information relating to service upon corporations that
have surrendered
DISCLAIMER: The information displayed here is current as of DEC 26, 2008 and is updated weekly. II is not
a complete or certified record of the Corporation.
Corporation
SAND CANYON CORPORATION
... ... ..
11/3/1992 N IIInh..r, C1 846488
California
Address
Agent for Service of Process
.»»....» .
C T CORPORATION SYSTEM
l818 WEST SEVENTH ST
ANGELES, CA 90017
Blank fields indicate the information is not contained in the computer file.
lflbe stalUs of the corporation is "Surrender", the agent for service of process is automatically revoked. Please
refer to California Corporations Code Section 2114 for information relating to service upon corporations that
have surrendered.

the original note. Series 2007-CPI" 8.2009. "Wells Fargo Bank.4. Records obtained from the California Division of Corporations reflect that Option One. may have made the note in question payable to bearer. was filed with the court. 7. including the alleged allonge. SAND CANYON CORPORATION (hereinafter "Sand Canyon") is not the named lender on the Mortgage and Promissory Note attached to the Plaintiff's Complaint and. or notarized and it is unclear when the alleged allonge was changed to specially endorse the note in question to the lender but the fact that the special endorsement appears on the original note after the instant litigation was initiated raises questions . but the allonge now appearing in the court file was changed to provide a special endorsement in favor of. There is no record or mention of any connection between the two entities and the contradictory information contained both within the pleadings and the attached exhibits introduce a real question of fact regarding who the real parties in interest ares. a California Corporation (hereinafter "Option One"). (California Division of Corporations Records attached hereto as "Exhibit A. as further described below. has had its status as a California corporation suspended since 1990. As Trustee for Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-CPI Asset Backed Certificates. Defendant has no idea how Sand Canyon is a party to this case. N.") The California Division of Corporations lists Sand Canyon as an active corporation. The named lender is OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORPORATION. On or about July 24.A. The allonge is not dated. 6. if authentic. but the only name appearing on the documents shows that Option One Mortgage Corporation is the real party in interest in this litigation. When the complaint was initially filed. 5. attached to the complaint was a copy of the note at issue in this case along with a blank allonge which.

Such a decision.2d 380. Inc. 2d 180 (Fla. Hillsborough County. the Defendant asserts that the purported allonge is ineffective to transfer ownership of the note at issue given the facts of this particular case and the existing case law and statutes. South Florida Citrus Industries. Inc. Neighborhood Groups. Specifically. STANDARD OF REVIEW 10. 2d DCA 1966). In ruling on a defendant's motion to dismiss. an allonge is not authorized when. 2d DCA 2000).as to the veracity of the alleged special endorsement via allonge.. v. v. 185 So. 68 So. Quite simply. as in this case. when a question has not been previously decided by a Florida court. while an allogne may be authorized by statute and case law in cases where there is not ample space on the promissory note to affix an original endorsement. However. 383 (Fla. a trial court is limited to the four corners of the Complaint. Maule Industries. the decisions of a court of another state may be considered. See Lutz Lake Fern Rd. and it must accept all the allegations in the Complaint as true. Inc. There is surprisingly small universe of case law in the entire body of American jurisprudence to which this Court could look to for guidance when deciding matters dealing with allonges. INTRODUCTION 11. how can a corporation which the public records reveal has been suspended since 1990 endorse or pledge any security and what person had the authority to create the special endorsement that appears now on the original document after the instant litigation was initiated? 9. the document sought to be transferred and entered into evidence includes abundant space upon which to record a proper endorsement.. 779 So. Next and most importantly. Old Plantation Corp. A search on Westlaw reveals that the entire universe of Florida cases. 1953). when on point. both in State and . Tonkovich v. is regarded as persuasive. 2d 710 (Fla.

very few opinions in the entire country delve into actual substantive matters regarding allonges and there is scant direction in these opinions on the technical and legal requirements particular to allonges. 707 So. 1996 WL 111128 (Del.. 2d at 886 (Fla 1st DCA 1998). 707 So. P&B Properties 1. on which to write endorsements for which there is no room on the instrument itself. both State and Federal. Super. Amazingly. a paper affixed to the instrument is made part of the instrument. 707 So. t st DCA 1998). Feb. Weigand. Sarasota. Furthermore.' Fla. Inc. reveals only 274 documents. Fla. 1996). It should be noted.S. allonges are being used to show evidence of ownership of debts when this "evidence" may not be authorized by any law. Owens. [the Code] notes that 'for purposes of determining whether a signature is made on an instrument.D. As exhibited by the facts of this case. "[a]n allonge is a piece of paper annexed to a negotiable instrument or promissory note. Bank National Association v. 2d at 886 (Fla.2010). See also U. 2009 WL 1623764 (Conn. M. According to the only Florida appellate case which deals with these ancient documents. 2010 WL 571808 (Bankr. §673." Booker. that the vast majority of these cases only mention allonges in passing.Federal courts. a search of the word "allonge" on Westlaw for the entire American judicial system. and as would be shown by a review of the hundreds of thousands of foreclosure cases filed across the state and country. {note especially the late date on the Canellas case} Moreover. Stat. is limited to two cases: Booker v. LLC v. 9. Super." Booker.2041(1) (1995). however. Such must be so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof. most often reciting the Black's Law Dictionary definition of an allonge in the footnote ofthe decision or simply making reference to an allonge when reciting the facts of the case. 2d 886 (Fla 1st DCA 1998) and In re Canellas. . while "Florida's Uniform Commercial Code does not specifically mention an allonge. 2009).

in part. proof of purchase of the debt. Jean-Jacques. that "[e]very action may be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. or a party expressly authorized by statute may sue in that person's own name without joining the party for whose benefit the action is brought. or evidence of an effective transfer." 13. BAC Funding v. the Bankruptcy Court of the Middle District of Florida recently denied a movant's motion for relief from stay so the movant could foreclose on real property owned by a debtor. the Second District held that whether such a Plaintiff does so through valid assignment. they are nevertheless required to prove that it validly held the note and mortgage which it sought to foreclose. Legal Standards 12. because the movant did not establish that it was the real party in interest . P. that it held the note and mortgage in question and so had standing to foreclose the mortgage before it would be entitled to summary judgment in its favor. a party with whom or in whose name a contract has been made for the benefit of another. Recently. trustee of an express trust. unsigned and unauthenticated assignment of mortgage attached as an exhibit to the Plaintiff's response to the Defendant's motion to dismiss did not constitute admissible evidence establishing the Plaintiff's standing to foreclose on the note and mortgage in question. in pertinent part. through admissible evidence. rd. Fla. 2d DCA 2010). In BAC Funding. Furthermore. R. the Second District held that Plaintiffs in foreclosure actions are required to establish. guardian. Additionally. 1. administrator. Civ. the Second District ultimately ruled that an incomplete. Plaintifrs Complaint Should Be Dismissed for Failure to be Prosecuted in the Name of the Real Party in Interest a.210(a) provides. but a personal representative. 2010 WL 476641 (Fla. 14.LEGAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S ARGUMENT I.

However.2010). M. In this case before the court. the Plaintiffs status as the real party in interest. 9.through a valid allonge. has had its corporate status suspended since 1990 and the Record is completely devoid of how Sand Canyon has come into existence or how it can legally hold a mortgage or note. Furthennore. because the Plaintiff failed to prosecute this cause in the name of the real party in interest. the unclear and undefined existence of Sand Canyon. Option One Mortgage was entitled to proceed on the mortgage foreclosure count. the purported allonge which the Plaintiff alleges gives it the power to enforce the Mortgage and Note in question is not dated nor is it notarized. . however. In re Canellas. Option One's suspended corporate status. the movant accompanied its motion with a mortgage and note which were endorsed to someone other than itself. The named lender according to the Plaintiff sown Complaint is SAND CANYON CORPORATION FIKIA OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORPORATION. amongst other reasons. Feb. Option One. Fla. the Plaintiff filed its case and attached documents that showed affinnatively that another party. the allonge was not: (1) dated. as an extension. the actual named lender on the Mortgage and Note. and the lack of a date or notarization on the purported allonge itself are firm grounds for the Court to doubt the veracity of this document and. WHEREFORE. The Court ultimately denied the movant's motion and questioned the veracity of the allonge because. the allonge was not notarized nor was it dated.D. namely. the movant filed an allonge with the Court which purportedly endorsed to it the mortgage and the note. 2010 WL 571808 (Bankr. Argument 15. b. the instant case must be dismissed. There. or (2) notarized. Some three months later.

More recently. and where the allegations made in the complaint do not agree with the exhibits attached. Legal Standards 16. however. P. 1988).A. as defined in Section _ _. Nevertheless. Gunderson & Bemtsson. A draft of the 1951 version of the UCC Article 3 included the comment that "[t]he indorsement must be written on the instrument itself or an allonge. There is no Florida case on point which provides guidance as to how an allonge must be physically attached to an instrument in order for it to become "firmly affixed" to same. Madison Realty & Development." ALI. as indicated in the Standard of Review discussion. reprinted in 2 Elizabeth Slusser Kelly. exhibits attached to the Plaintiff s complaint are part of the complaint. P. "firmly affixed" and the Court may look to decisions of courts in other states for persuasive authority. Inc. 167 (3d Cir. supra. Comments & Notes to Tentative Draft No.. stapled or otherwise affixed to the instrument as to become part of it. is a strip of paper so firmly pasted. 2d DCA 2007).. which. Uniform Commercial Code Drafts 311.. Civ. 2d 163. To begin. See Adams v. 952 So.2d 1273 (Fla. 424 (1984).140(b)(6) provides. 1.II. and (2) to preserve a traceable chain of title. but the court can rely on the plain meaning of the words. two reasons have been cited for the "firmly affixed" rule: (1) to prevent fraud. 17. 853 F.1 Article III 114 (1946)." In ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. the trial court must assume that all allegations in the complaint are true and decide whether the Plaintiff would be entitled to relief. McKinley. courts have held that "stapling is the . failure to state a cause of action. Ittersagen. Fla.. R. Carmona v. Plaintiff's Complaint Should be Dismissed for Failure to State a Cause of Action Because the Purported Allonge was not Firmly Affixed to the Promissory Note a. that "the following defenses may be made by motion at the option of the pleader . the exhibits control. in pertinent part.

See also Southwestern Resolution Corp. 382 (Colo.W.. Big Builders. Because the purported allonge is not affixed to the Note. Specifically. the twin aims of affixation. is in no way so firmly affixed to the Promissory Note as to give the Plaintiff the ability to raise a cause of action for foreclosure of a mortgage and note which is made out to someone other than itself. this purported allonge was not affixed to the Promissory Note at all. Watson. V.). Plaintiff's Complaint Should be Dismissed for Failure to State a Cause of Action Because the Promissory Note Contained Room for Endorsement a. but is unattached and "floating" in the court file. Israel. 187 Colo. when undersigned counsel examined the Court File. Ring. Here. Argument 18. 1999 Me.. 1988). Inc. 964 S. namely to prevent fraud and to preserve a traceable chain of title. Legal Standards 19. because the Plaintiff failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted within the four comers of the Complaint or in any other Pleading or Filing. There is also no Florida case law which provides guidance on how to decide "No-Space . Regardless of the exact method of affixation. 853 F. V. WHEREFORE. the Plaintiffs purported allonge. 48 (Maine 1999). have expressly not been met. 709 A. 1975). the instant case must be dismissed. 2d 163 (3d Cir. III. numerous cases have rejected endorsements made on separate sheets of paper loosely inserted in a folder with the instrument and not physically attached in any way. Adams V. Madison Realty & Development." Lamson v. but affixed does not include paperclips.C. 2d 74 (D. Commercial Credo Corp. b. 2d 262 (Texas 1997) (holding that an allonge stapled to the back of a promissory note is valid so long as there is no room on the note for endorsement. Inc. as found in the Court File.modem equivalent of gluing or pasting. 1988). See Town of Freeport v.

then. h. Tallahassee Bank & Trust Company v. no additional space for signatures remains on the negotiable instrument. 2d 1115.. an ancient principal of commercial law. Florida courts. James Talcott.was developed as a refinement of the basic rule that an indorsement must be on the instrument itself. Argument 20. D. This basic rule must have become impractical when strictly applied in certain multiple indorsement situations. Raines. Fred Ratowsky Assoc. 187 S. Perhaps the seminal case which deals with the issue is Pribus v. 1979). App. because of multiple endorsements. But see Crosby v. Id at 1008. of Common Pleas 1965). 603 P. Bank v. However.Tests". due to the finite amount of space on any given instrument. 3d 1003 (Cal. 38 Pa.2d 624 (Pa. Because the allonge . 1118 (Okla. Doing so preserves the law merchant rule. Here. the allonge was improper because there is ample blank space on the Promissory Note filed with the Plaintiff s Complaint to stamp an endorsement. 2d 320. v. This includes abundant space both below the Plaintiff's alleged signature and on the back of the Note. 616. 16 Wis. Inc.. See Shepherd Mall St.626-27 (Wis. Id. or how to proceed when there is room on the instrument for an endorsement but an allonge is nevertheless attached instead.. which reasoned that the law merchant rule [which permits the use of allonges only when there is no room on the instrument itself! .E. Emphasis added. Ct. should follow the majority rule which only allows the use of an allonge when there is no room on the instrument itself for endorsement. 118 Cal. not as an alternative method of indorsement. The Pribus court ultimately decided that the majority view is to follow the law merchant rule and only permit allonges when there is no physical space left on the instrument itself. 1972). 321 (Ga. numerous jurisdictions permit allonges only where. The allonge. Roub. Johnson. Inc. in the absence of a Florida case directly on point.. App. & C. Bush. 1863) (allonge permitted even where space remains on note). was apparently created to remedy the inconveniences of the basic rule. 1981). App.

2901 Stirling Road. Suite 300. Mail on this -. 2010 to PASCALE ACHILLE. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY cERT~rue and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Ben-Ezra & Katz. WHEREFORE. because the Plaintiff failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted within the four comers of the Complaint or in any other Pleading or Filing. P. the instant case must be dismissed. Fort Lauderdale. or Defendant 122 Central Avenue St.was improper.May of March. FL 33312. and therefore the Plaintiff does not have the ability to raise the cause of action for foreclosure.. the Mortgage and the Note are endorsed to someone other than the Plaintiff. Petersburg.A. FL 33705 (727) 894-3159 FBN: 0185957 .

.1989 iJurisdiction: California Address ...... the agent for service of process is automatically revoked.. 2008 and is updated weekly. Agent for Service of Process RESIGNED ON 10/0311990 Blank fields indicate the information is not contained in the computer file.DISCI_AlMER: The information displayed here is current as of DEC 26.... If the status of the corporation is "Surrender"... Corporation iOPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORP.... !·Numt.... It is not a complete or certified record of the Corporation.. Please refur to California Corporations Code Section 2114 for information relating to service upon corporations that have surrendered . CA 90262 ...~~Ci5621·92-·.d:-7/i9.Fii.**3109 LOS FLORES A iLYNWOOD..•..i D~t..

. ~------~------ . -~--~ . .. Please refer to California Corporations Code Section 2114 for information relating to service upon corporations that have surrendered.» Agent for Service of Process ... the agent for service of process is automatically revoked.-c-------~.r. lflbe stalUs of the corporation is "Surrender"... C T CORPORATION SYSTEM l818 WEST SEVENTH ST ANGELES. II is not a complete or certified record of the Corporation... Corporation SAND CANYON CORPORATION ..--- N IIInh. CA 90017 Blank fields indicate the information is not contained in the computer file. 2008 and is updated weekly.-.DISCLAIMER: The information displayed here is current as of DEC 26.------------. C 1846488 11/3/1992 Address JUlriS!~iction: California .»». ».

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful