FIGUEROA v FANNIE MAE ETC., ET AL., | FL 5DCA - failed to reestablish the lost note, prove its standing to foreclose on the note, prove the amount owed on the note, and did not prove compliance with a condition precedent listed in paragraph 22 of the mortgage.

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

FIGUEROA v FANNIE MAE ETC., ET AL., | FL 5DCA – failed to reestablish the lost note, prove its standing to foreclose on the note, prove the amount owed on the note, and did not prove compliance with a condition precedent listed in paragraph 22 of the mortgage.

FIGUEROA v FANNIE MAE ETC., ET AL., | FL 5DCA – failed to reestablish the lost note, prove its standing to foreclose on the note, prove the amount owed on the note, and did not prove compliance with a condition precedent listed in paragraph 22 of the mortgage.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JUAN FIGUEROA,
Appellant,

v.                                     Case No. 5D14-4078

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION, ETC., ET AL.,
Appellees.
________________________________/

Opinion filed December 4, 2015

Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Osceola County,

Robert J. Pleus, Jr., Senior Judge.
Melissa Alfonso, of My Law Solution, P.A.,
Orlando, for Appellant.
Nicole R. Ramirez, of eXL LEGAL, PLLC,
St. Petersburg, for Appellee Federal
National Mortgage Association.
No Appearance for other Appellees.
EDWARDS, J.

Juan Figueroa (“Appellant”) appeals the trial court’s entry of an in rem final
judgment of foreclosure in favor of Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie
Mae”). Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for involuntary
dismissal because Fannie Mae failed to reestablish the lost note, prove its standing to
foreclose on the note, prove the amount owed on the note, and did not prove compliance
with a condition precedent listed in paragraph 22 of the mortgage. No documents were
placed in evidence and the sole witness presented on behalf of Fannie Mae lacked
sufficient knowledge to testify with regard to most of the subjects relevant to trial. As
there is no competent, substantial evidence to support the judgment, we reverse and
order the trial court to involuntarily dismiss the case. We will issue a separate order
granting Appellant’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees and costs.

[…]

Down Load PDF of This Case

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 8571 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author

3 Responses to “FIGUEROA v FANNIE MAE ETC., ET AL., | FL 5DCA – failed to reestablish the lost note, prove its standing to foreclose on the note, prove the amount owed on the note, and did not prove compliance with a condition precedent listed in paragraph 22 of the mortgage.”

  1. Stupendous Man - Defender of Liberty, Foe of Tyranny says:

    Looks as if … they had no evidence, or proof, so they paid someone to lie for them on the stand.

  2. gina says:

    the pdf you display do not open

  3. Stupendous Man - Defender of Liberty, Foe of Tyranny says:

    Now (heh, heh) see here, Gina:

    http://www.5dca.org/Opinions/Opin2015/113015/5D14-4078.op.pdf

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com
Kenneth Eric Trent, www.ForeclosureDestroyer.com

Archives