181581_1709_11142018_09410550_i by DinSFLA on Scribd
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
Comments
Related posts:
- SOSA v THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON | FL 4DCA – the witness’s entire body of knowledge on the subject was limited to what the witness learned from a search on “the internet.” Such evidence is not competent to establish the Bank’s standing as nonholder in possession with the rights of a holder. H/T CORONA LAW FIRM DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE...
- BANK OF HAWAI’I V MOSTOUFI | ICA OF HAWAI’I – Plaintiff’s Motion of Summary Judgment; Interlocutory Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale Filed 10/1/12 & 2/25/13 Judgment are VACATED IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF...
- RENALDO vs DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST | FL 4DCA – we find that the Bank failed to prove compliance with the condition precedent of mailing Borrowers a default notice as required by paragraph 22 of the mortgage. Thus, we reverse and remand for the trial court to enter an order of involuntary dismissal. Renaldo vs Deutsche Bank National Trust by DinSFLA on Scribd...
- Peuguero v. Bank of America | FL 4DCA – the Bank failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the judgment amount NATACHA PEUGUERO and ANGELO PEUGUERO, Appellants, v. BANK OF...
- Dixon v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA | FL 4DCA – because Bank did not substantially comply with paragraph 22 of Borrowers’ mortgage, we reverse and remand to the trial court to grant Borrowers’ motion for involuntary dismissal LORENZO DIXON and LAHOMA DIXON, Appellants, v. WELLS FARGO...