MICHELLE WROBLEWSKI, Appellant, v. AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC., Appellee.
Case No. 5D10-1068.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Opinion filed September 9, 2011.
Tanner Andrews of Tanner Andrews, P.A., Deland, for Appellant.
Michael Cavendish and Ana D. Johnson of Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the summary judgment of foreclosure because Appellee failed to overcome Appellant’s assertion in her answer that Appellee had failed to comply with the condition precedent contained in the mortgage, requiring notice and opportunity to cure. Morrison v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 36 Fla. L. Weekly D1646 (Fla. 5th DCA July 29, 2011); Konsulian v. Busey Bank, N.A., 61 So. 3d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).
To perpetuate the alleged fraud lawyers for Chase Mortgage Company, namely Bricker and Eckler and Lerner, Sampson and Rothfuss, are falsifying notices of foreclosure sale to Bucha, O’Donnell and Reid and leaving off the name of Chase Mortgage Company because they know it no longer exist, and this is after the mortgage company lawyers file a second suit before Cuyahoga Judge Carolyn Friedland who goes along with it but dismissed the second suit in a particular case after grassroots activists complained, and after Cuyahoga County Clerk of Courts Gerald Fuerst allegedly harassed the homeowner with numerous summons of the illegal second suit, and deputy sheriffs sent to harass her at her home to deliver them.
THE BANK OF NEW YORK
MELLON-fka THE BANK OF
NEW YORK TRUSTEE UNDER
THE POOLING AND SERVICING
AGREEMENT SERIES 2004-24 CB,
v
GEORGE S. ELGHOSSAIN and
MONA C. ELGHOSSAIN,
Excerpt:
In today’s widespread foreclosure litigation, the specific fact pattern this court addresses appears not to have been squarely decided before: does a mortgage lender’s “servicer’s” Notice of Intent to Foreclose satisfy the statutory mandates that notice be provided by the lender and that the lender as well as the lender’s representative be identified in that notice. The lender and the lender’s representation must be identified in the notice. Having not done so here, the motion is deficient. The foreclosure complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
LAW OFFICES OF DAVID J. STERN, P.A. vs. THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS,
NOTICE OF APPEAL
NOTICE IS GIVEN that Petitioner/Appellant LAW OFFICES OF DAVID J. STERN, P.A. appeals to the Fourth Court of Appeal the Order on Petitioner’s Amended Petition to Quash the Investigative Subpoena Duces Tectum Issued by Florida’s Attorney General
On November 26, 2010, the Company received a letter from NASDAQ notifying it that for the prior 30 consecutive business days, the Company’s listed securities failed to maintain a minimum market value of $50 million, consequently, a deficiency exists with regard to this requirement for continued listing pursuant to NASDAQ Listing Rule 5450(b)(2)(A) (the “MVLS Rule”). NASDAQ further stated that in accordance with NASDAQ Listing Rule 5810(c)(3)(C), the Company will be provided 180 calendar days, or until May 25, 2011, to regain compliance with the MVLS Rule. NASDAQ will deem the Company to have regained compliance if at any time before May 25, 2011 the market value of the Company’s listed securities closes at $15,000,000 or more for a minimum of ten consecutive business days .
These notifications do not impact the listing and trading of the Company’s securitiesat this time.However, the NASDAQ letters also state that, if the Company does not regain compliance with the MVPHS Rule by May 23, 2011 or the MVLS Rule by May 25, 2011, the Company will receive written notification from NASDAQ that the Company’s securities are subject to delisting. The Company is reviewing its options for regaining compliance with the MVLS Rule and MVPHS Rule and for remedying other future potential non-compliances with Nasdaq continued listing requirements, including the requirement to maintain a minimum bid price of at least $1.00 per share. There can be no assurance that the Company will be able to regain compliance with the MVLS Rule, MVPHS Rule or other Nasdaq continued listing requirements in a timely fashion, in which case its securities would be delisted from Nasdaq.
Recent Comments