Amstone v. The Bank of New York Mellon | Therefore, genuine issues of material fact remained, summary judgment should not have been entered, and we must reverse for further proceedings. …. We conclude that the Bank did prove standing but failed to refute the Amstones’ affirmative defenses - FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Amstone v. The Bank of New York Mellon | Therefore, genuine issues of material fact remained, summary judgment should not have been entered, and we must reverse for further proceedings. …. We conclude that the Bank did prove standing but failed to refute the Amstones’ affirmative defenses

Amstone v. The Bank of New York Mellon | Therefore, genuine issues of material fact remained, summary judgment should not have been entered, and we must reverse for further proceedings. …. We conclude that the Bank did prove standing but failed to refute the Amstones’ affirmative defenses

 Amstone v. The Bank of New York Mellon (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

View original: From the court   |   Our backup

 

. . .

Charles and Carolyn Amstone appeal the final summary judgment of

foreclosure entered against them and in favor of The Bank of New York Mellon. The

Amstones argue that the Bank failed to show that it had standing to foreclose and failed

to refute their affirmative defenses. They claim that summary judgment should have

been granted in their favor. We conclude that the Bank did prove standing but failed to

refute the Amstones’ affirmative defenses. Therefore, genuine issues of material fact

remained, summary judgment should not have been entered, and we must reverse for

further proceedings.

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 11558 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD.

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

Contact the author

Leave a Reply

Advert

Archives