Cowan v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cowan v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON

74 So. 3d 591, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 18610, 2011 WL 5864818

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 23, 2011

Docket4D10-3895

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 74 So. 3d 591 (Cowan v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON) 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

Cowan v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, 74 So. 3d 591, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 18610, 2011 WL 5864818 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Glynn v. First Union Nat’l Bank, 912 So.2d 357, 358 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (lack of standing is an affirmative defense that must be raised, failure to raise it results in waiver); Chem. Residential Mortg. v. Rector, 742 So.2d 300, 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (by failing to respond to complaint and default entered, appellants waived any denial of its allegations of lack of standing of plaintiff); Freemon v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Am., 46 So.3d 1202, 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (party not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on motion to set aside final judgment for fraud where motion failed to “specify the fraud with particularity and explain why the *592 fraud, if it exists, would entitle the movant to have the judgment set aside.”).

WARNER, LEVINE and CONNER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Glynn v. First Union Nat’l Bank, 912 So.2d 357, 358 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (lack of standing is an affirmative defense that must be raised, failure to raise it results in waiver); Chem. Residential Mortg. v. Rector, 742 So.2d 300, 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (by failing to respond to complaint and default entered, appellants waived any denial of its allegations of lack of standing of plaintiff); Freemon v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Am., 46 So.3d 1202, 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (party not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on motion to set aside final judgment for fraud where motion failed to “specify the fraud with particularity and explain why the *592 fraud, if it exists, would entitle the movant to have the judgment set aside.”).

WARNER, LEVINE and CONNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 So. 3d 591, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 18610, 2011 WL 5864818, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cowan-v-bank-of-new-york-mellon-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack