Diroberto v. Bayview Loan Services LLC

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Diroberto v. Bayview Loan Services LLC

199 So. 3d 526, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 13454, 2016 WL 4699432

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 7, 2016

DocketNo. 4D15-749

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 199 So. 3d 526 (Diroberto v. Bayview Loan Services LLC) 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

Diroberto v. Bayview Loan Services LLC, 199 So. 3d 526, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 13454, 2016 WL 4699432 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the final judgment of foreclosure and remand for entry of an involuntary dismissal. There was no proof at trial that the original plaintiff, JP Morgan Chase, had standing to foreclose when it filed the original complaint. See Snyder v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, Nat’l Ass’n., 169 [527]*527So.3d 1270, 1271-74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (holding that Chase failed to prove standing where it did not prove it had possession of the note when it filed suit, and rejecting the argument that Chase established its right to foreclose through the Purchase Agreement between the FDIC and Chase for the assets of WAMU). In light of this disposition, it is unnecessary to reach the other issues raised on appeal.

Reversed.

WARNER, TAYLOR and GERBER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the final judgment of foreclosure and remand for entry of an involuntary dismissal. There was no proof at trial that the original plaintiff, JP Morgan Chase, had standing to foreclose when it filed the original complaint. See Snyder v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, Nat’l Ass’n., 169 [527]*527So.3d 1270, 1271-74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (holding that Chase failed to prove standing where it did not prove it had possession of the note when it filed suit, and rejecting the argument that Chase established its right to foreclose through the Purchase Agreement between the FDIC and Chase for the assets of WAMU). In light of this disposition, it is unnecessary to reach the other issues raised on appeal.

Reversed.

WARNER, TAYLOR and GERBER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 So. 3d 526, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 13454, 2016 WL 4699432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diroberto-v-bayview-loan-services-llc-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack