Background
U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as trustee of the Chalet Series IV Trust, sued Rosy Esprecion Thomas and others in 2016 to foreclose a residential mortgage. The Circuit Court of the First Circuit denied the bank’s first two summary-judgment motions. In 2024, the bank filed a third motion, supported by a declaration and business records from the law firm that filed the complaint. The circuit court granted the motion and entered an amended foreclosure judgment on November 8, 2024.
Thomas, proceeding without counsel, sought reconsideration and a default judgment against the bank. On appeal, she argued that the bank had not proved it held the note when the complaint was filed, that a prior denial of summary judgment barred the bank from relitigating standing, and that the note was forged or otherwise inauthentic.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed. The bank’s evidence showed that its counsel possessed the original note, indorsed in blank, when the foreclosure complaint was filed. That established the bank’s standing as the note’s holder. Thomas did not submit admissible evidence creating a genuine factual dispute.
The court rejected Thomas’s law-of-the-case and res judicata arguments. The 2022 denial of the bank’s prior summary-judgment motion rested on inadequate evidentiary foundation, not a legal determination that the bank lacked standing. It was also an interlocutory order in the same lawsuit, so res judicata did not apply. Thomas waived her forgery argument by failing to raise it in the circuit court, and her filings contained no affidavit, declaration, or exhibit supporting a genuine dispute about the note’s authenticity.
Key Takeaways
- A foreclosure plaintiff may establish standing by showing it possessed the original note indorsed in blank when it filed suit.
- A prior interlocutory denial based on deficient evidence does not conclusively decide standing or bar renewed proof in the same case.
- Arguments not properly raised below, including forgery claims, may be waived on appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that an earlier failure of proof in a foreclosure case does not prevent a lender from later curing the evidentiary defect. It also reinforces that a borrower opposing summary judgment must submit evidence—not merely allegations—to create a triable issue.