COMMENT: I think it is again time for all you homeowners, foreclosure defense attorneys, and para professionals who took this mission to heart to give each other a real “PAT ON THE BACK” because the following cases, and the many other cases coming down the pike from courts all over the country that plainly show the HOMEOWNER IS A PARTY to any CONTRACT that deals directly with the title to THE HOMEOWNERS’ LAND. The judiciary is tired of being embarassed in appellate court when they are overturned for clear errors of law committed to protect the bank servicers.
Counselor Brydges makes a key point to his listeners regularly throughout the show: only the LAND is real, the paper may not be. That’s why they call it REAL PROPERTY.
- Foreclosure: lender not entitled to final judgment of foreclosure where trial evidence insufficient to establish cause of action, especially where no note, mortgage, or allonge introduced into evidence –66 Team LLC v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 3D15-1140 (Fla. 3d DCA Mar. 23, 2016) (reversed and remanded)
- Foreclosure: where bank’s corporate representative’s knowledge of how bank became holder of note limited to what representative learned from search on internet, involuntary dismissal proper– Sosa v. The Bank of New York Mellon, Nos. 4D14-810 (Fla. 4th DCA Mar. 23, 2016) (reversed and remanded)
- Foreclosure: lender not entitled to final judgment of foreclosure where it did not put on any competent evidence at trial to show it was holder of note at filing of complaint – Cruz v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 4D14-3799 (Fla. 4th DCA Mar. 23, 2016) (reversed)
- Foreclosure: borrower entitled to involuntary dismissal where bank presented no evidence it was holder of note at the time complaint filed – Devries v. Citimortgage Inc., No. 5D14-1887 (Fla. 5th DCA Mar. 24, 2016) (reversed and remanded)