Carty v. Bank of America, NA | FL 4DCA - a genuine issue of material fact was created by the two different versions of the note filed by the appellee bank

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Carty v. Bank of America, NA | FL 4DCA – a genuine issue of material fact was created by the two different versions of the note filed by the appellee bank

Carty v. Bank of America, NA | FL 4DCA – a genuine issue of material fact was created by the two different versions of the note filed by the appellee bank

GASTON CARTY and MARLENE J. CARTY, Appellants,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Appellee.

No. 4D16-635.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 8, 2017.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Joel T. Lazarus, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 13-002348 (11).

Anthony J. Badway and Kendrick Almaguer of The Ticktin Law Group, PLLC, Deerfield Beach, for appellants.

Adam M. Topel of Liebler Gonzalez & Portuondo, Miami, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the summary final judgment of foreclosure because a genuine issue of material fact was created by the two different versions of the note filed by the appellee bank. Attached to the original complaint was a copy of the original note which contained three indorsements on the last page of the note. Attached to the amended complaint and to the summary judgment motion was a purported copy of the original note which contained two indorsements on the last page of the note and a third indorsement on an allonge. Appellants’ amended answer raised lack of standing as an affirmative defense and challenged the validity of the allonge. In support of its motion for summary judgment, the bank neither addressed the discrepancy between the notes nor countered the lack of standing defense.

Reversed and remanded.

GROSS, MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

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



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 8610 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

One Response to “Carty v. Bank of America, NA | FL 4DCA – a genuine issue of material fact was created by the two different versions of the note filed by the appellee bank”

  1. John Edward Broccoli says:

    I am a victim of foreclosure prevention Fraud. Signed fiduciary with debt relief agency, yet , The agencies LAWYER’S, colluded to have foreclosure date pass, without, communicating a sign off, and, a named fiduciary , sole bidded, bought property at well below market price, and, fiduciary LAWYER, Conducted eviction and resold my property for double, the purchase price.I have a RI Superior Court Complaint pending.The only response, I received, after filing were, direct threat’s from, atty., fiduciary-lawyer, and, indirect from fiduciaries, buyer’s lawyer. Sound peculiar.All fact. Not 1 bit of assistance, or, option’s after signing. Debt company said pay us later. WE’LL THEY GOT PAID. BAY VIEW LOAN SERVICING, was mortgagor.

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