Collins Asset Group, LLC v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, Frank Bosier

198 So. 3d 1161, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 13577, 2016 WL 4734296
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedSeptember 9, 2016
Docket1D15-1253
StatusPublished

This text of 198 So. 3d 1161 (Collins Asset Group, LLC v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, Frank Bosier) 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
Collins Asset Group, LLC v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, Frank Bosier, 198 So. 3d 1161, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 13577, 2016 WL 4734296 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Collins Asset Group, LLC appeals an order denying its Motion to Substitute Party Plaintiff and Motion for Entry of Deficiency Judgment. This case is similar to Collins Asset Group, LLC v. Prop. Asset Mgmt, Inc., 197 So.3d 87, 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016), involving a challenge to the trial court’s Order on Motion to Substitute Party Plaintiff and Motion for Entry of Deficiency Judgment. In that case, Appellant Collins Asset Group filed a Motion to Substitute Party Plaintiff and Motion for Entry of Deficiency Judgment, but the trial court summarily denied the motion with an order that contained the following language: “Plaintiffs motion is hereby DENIED on the basis of lack of standing in that Certificate of Title was issued to Property Management, Inc., and no document or verified pleading has been filed to indicate transfer of judgment.” This Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings, finding that the trial court erred in two ways. First, the motion was facially sufficient. Second, the trial court erroneously applied the *1162 pleading requirements of rule 1.115(c), Florida Rules of Givil Procedure. That is, the motion before the court was not a complaint for foreclosure that would require the note to be attached or for it be verified.

■ The motion here contains the same facts and assertions, the only differences are the defendant/appellee, the relevant dates, and the dollar amounts. So the order here suffers from one of the same problems: it denied a facially sufficient motion. Accordingly, the order is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

RAY, MAKAR, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Collins Asset Group, LLC v. Property Asset Management, etc.
197 So. 3d 87 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
198 So. 3d 1161, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 13577, 2016 WL 4734296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collins-asset-group-llc-v-aurora-loan-services-llc-frank-bosier-fladistctapp-2016.