Bickerstaff v. US Bank National Ass'n

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bickerstaff v. US Bank National Ass'n

155 So. 3d 1152, 2014 WL 839992, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 2798

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 28, 2014

DocketNo. 1D13-3115

StatusPublished

This text of 155 So. 3d 1152 (Bickerstaff v. US Bank National Ass'n) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bickerstaff v. US Bank National Ass'n, 155 So. 3d 1152, 2014 WL 839992, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 2798 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Bonnie Bickerstaff appeals a final summary judgment of foreclosure entered in favor of U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for Structured Asset Securities' Corporation Trust 2006-GEL4 (“U.S.Bank”). We reject Ms. Bickerstaff s first issue on appeal relating to U.S. Bank’s standing to foreclose on the note and mortgage, but we reverse and remand for further proceedings on her second issue because a genuine issue of material fact remains as to whether U.S. Bank adequately provided the notice of default required by the mortgage. As U.S. Bank properly concedes, the record evidence is inadequate to refute the affirmative defense challenging the provision of notice. Accordingly, U.S. Bank was not entitled to summary judgment. See Bryson v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 75 So.3d 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

CLARK, WETHERELL, and RAY, JJ„ concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Bonnie Bickerstaff appeals a final summary judgment of foreclosure entered in favor of U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for Structured Asset Securities' Corporation Trust 2006-GEL4 (“U.S.Bank”). We reject Ms. Bickerstaff s first issue on appeal relating to U.S. Bank’s standing to foreclose on the note and mortgage, but we reverse and remand for further proceedings on her second issue because a genuine issue of material fact remains as to whether U.S. Bank adequately provided the notice of default required by the mortgage. As U.S. Bank properly concedes, the record evidence is inadequate to refute the affirmative defense challenging the provision of notice. Accordingly, U.S. Bank was not entitled to summary judgment. See Bryson v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 75 So.3d 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

CLARK, WETHERELL, and RAY, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 So. 3d 1152, 2014 WL 839992, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 2798, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bickerstaff-v-us-bank-national-assn-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack