October 9, 2025
ShareKelley Kronenberg Secures Foreclosure Judgment in Complex Lost Note Case
Kelley Kronenberg Partner Danielle Spradley secured a significant foreclosure judgment for her mortgage servicing client in the First Judicial Circuit of Florida, Walton County, successfully obtaining summary judgment and re-establishment of a lost note with a judgment of approximately $832,000.00.
The case presented substantial challenges as it represented the third attempt to foreclose on a loan that had been in default since June 1, 2014. The complexity increased when the borrowers lost the property through a Homeowners Association foreclosure action, resulting in a third-party purchaser acquiring the property in 2014. Additionally, the case involved lost note issues that created standing complications.
The third-party purchaser aggressively challenged the foreclosure by arguing lack of standing. They contended that the mortgage servicer lacked standing because the copy of the note attached to the complaint did not contain an endorsement to the plaintiff. They further argued deficiencies existed in the lost note affidavits, claiming the affidavits contradicted each other regarding who owned the note when it was lost.
Danielle developed a comprehensive evidence strategy to overcome these challenges. She filed a motion for summary judgment supported by multiple affidavits establishing all elements of the foreclosure action, including the borrower’s agreement to pay, default under the agreement, and liability for amounts due. Most critically, she presented substantial competent evidence proving her client’s standing as the owner entitled to enforce the instruments pursuant to Florida Statutes sections 673.3011 and 673.3091.
At the hearing, opposing counsel for the third-party purchaser presented their opposition, challenging the conclusiveness of the lost note documentation. However, Danielle’s evidence proved decisive.
The judge granted summary judgment in favor of the mortgage servicer, finding that while the defendant raised “some possible doubts” and advanced “suggestion and speculation” about whether another holder might exist, they failed to present evidence proving anyone other than the documented chain of ownership—the original lender (originator), the first financial institution transferee, and the plaintiff (second transferee)—was the holder of the instruments.
The Court’s order specifically noted that “Plaintiff has produced substantial and competent evidence that it is the holder of said note and mortgage” and that “Defendant has failed to present evidence to defeat the Plaintiff’s evidence that it is the lawful owner of the note and mortgage in question.”
Additionally, the Court granted the plaintiff’s request to re-establish the lost note under section 673.3091, Florida Statutes, finding that the plaintiff had successfully re-established both the terms of the lost note and its right to enforce the instrument.
This victory demonstrates the critical importance of thorough documentation and strategic evidence presentation in lost note foreclosure cases, particularly when facing aggressive standing challenges from third-party purchasers. The case also reserves ruling on attorney’s fees, positioning the client for potential cost recovery.
Click here to learn more about Kelley Kronenberg’s Real Estate practice.
Stay abreast of the latest developments in real estate law with our newsletter, “In the Know: Real Estate Edition.” Get the latest issue here.