Diana Matson is of counsel in Baker Donelson's Fort Lauderdale office, where she represents major banks and residential mortgage servicing companies in all matters related to mortgage loans. She brings more than twenty years of experience as a litigator, including significant experience handling commercial and consumer financial services litigation that includes contested foreclosures, title defense, real estate litigation and appellate work. Ms. Matson also defends her clients against charges of lender liability and other issues related to real estate foreclosure and mortgage fraud.

Representative Matters

Assisting attorney in landmark Florida standing case. Originally obtained summary judgment in favor of bank in a foreclosure case that was then appealed to Fourth District court of Appeal, with main issue being lender's standing to bring a foreclosure action. Although the Fourth District initially rendered an opinion contrary to the lender's position and held that standing was not established, the lender ultimately prevailed after rehearing. As a result, the court issued a new decision in the bank's favor, which held that the holder of an original promissory note endorsed in blank has standing in a foreclosure case.
On appeal to Second District Court of Appeal, successfully overturned lower court's ruling against lender client in a foreclosure action in which a subsequent owner of the subject property sought to invalidate the lender's earlier-recorded mortgage based on the fact that the lender had failed to record an assignment of mortgage. The Court determined that the failure to record an assignment of mortgage did not protect the new owner of the property, when the closing agent failed to obtain a satisfaction of the mortgage in question.
Prevailed in an appeal to the Third District Court of Appeal by borrower in a mortgage foreclosure action in which the borrower sought to challenge the lender's standing by attempting to establish non-compliance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA). The court ruled that since the borrower was neither a party nor third-party beneficiary of the PSA, the borrower had no standing to challenge standing on the basis of the PSA. The decision serves as a useful tool in limiting the scope of discovery in foreclosure cases in Florida.