A bank, which was the current holder of the promissory note, initiated a foreclosure action against a borrower and his wife who had failed to make required payments. The bank moved for summary judgment and the defendants opposed the motion. The circuit court granted summary judgment and the defendants appealed. The defendants argued that the note produced by the bank in the complaint was not the original note, making the main issue on appeal whether there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the authenticity of the note. Specifically, one of the borrowers claimed she had never signed the promissory note.
In Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Cano, No. 2022AP1596, 2024 WL 1328423, 2024 Wisc. App. LEXIS 278 (WI App. March 28, 2024), the court reversed the summary judgment because it determined there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding the authenticity of the promissory note produced by the parties. The bank alleged the note produced was a true and correct copy of the original note, but one borrower denied that she had signed the note produced by the bank. The bank did not address the disputed signature in its brief and the defendants continued to dispute it. The court decided that the issue of authenticity of the signature on the note constituted a genuine issue of material fact, making the granting of summary judgment improper.
By: The Editors