Castillo v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Castillo v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.

89 So. 3d 1069, 2012 WL 2009701, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8884

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 6, 2012

DocketNo. 3D11-2132

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 89 So. 3d 1069 (Castillo v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.) 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

Castillo v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 89 So. 3d 1069, 2012 WL 2009701, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8884 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

SHEPHERD, J.

The appellant in this case challenges the appellee’s standing to bring a foreclosure action against the appellant, arguing the appellee, a common-law trust, failed to comply with its pooling and servicing agreement when it took possession of the original note and mortgage and thus the trust cannot legally be in possession of the note and mortgage when it was obtained in violation of its trust documents. Because the appellant is neither a party to nor a third-party beneficiary of the trust, we find the appellant lacks standing to raise this issue and affirm the final judgment of foreclosure in favor of the appellee, as the holder of the original note and mortgage. See In re Walker, 466 B.R. 271, 280-81 [1070]*1070(Bankr.E.D.Pa.2012); In re Almeida, 417 B.R. 140, 149 (Bankr.D.Mass.2009); see also Riggs v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 36 So.3d 932, 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

Affirmed.

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

SHEPHERD, J.

The appellant in this case challenges the appellee’s standing to bring a foreclosure action against the appellant, arguing the appellee, a common-law trust, failed to comply with its pooling and servicing agreement when it took possession of the original note and mortgage and thus the trust cannot legally be in possession of the note and mortgage when it was obtained in violation of its trust documents. Because the appellant is neither a party to nor a third-party beneficiary of the trust, we find the appellant lacks standing to raise this issue and affirm the final judgment of foreclosure in favor of the appellee, as the holder of the original note and mortgage. See In re Walker, 466 B.R. 271, 280-81 [1070]*1070(Bankr.E.D.Pa.2012); In re Almeida, 417 B.R. 140, 149 (Bankr.D.Mass.2009); see also Riggs v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 36 So.3d 932, 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 So. 3d 1069, 2012 WL 2009701, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/castillo-v-deutsche-bank-national-trust-co-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack