Laveria Ann Knowles a/k/a Laveria Knowles v. The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York, etc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Laveria Ann Knowles a/k/a Laveria Knowles v. The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York, etc.

186 So. 3d 1147, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 4927, 2016 WL 1243556

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 30, 2016

Docket4D15-630

StatusPublished

This text of 186 So. 3d 1147 (Laveria Ann Knowles a/k/a Laveria Knowles v. The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York, etc.) 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

Laveria Ann Knowles a/k/a Laveria Knowles v. The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York, etc., 186 So. 3d 1147, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 4927, 2016 WL 1243556 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ON CONCESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

The bank properly concedes that the trial court erred in entering a final judgment of foreclosure. The bank’s concession is based upon case law which this court issued after the trial. See Jelic v. LaSalle Bank, Nat'l Ass’n, 160 So.3d 127, 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015): (reversing a final judgment of foreclosure, in part because there was no evidence that the party transferring the note into the trust had any intent to transfer ah interest to the trustee); and Balch v, LaSalle Bank NA., 171 So.3d 207, 209 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (reversing a final judgment of foreclosure, in part because “evidence that the note was transferred into the trust prior to the foreclosure action is insufficient' by itself to confer standing because there was no evidence that the indorsee had the intent to transfer any interest to the trustee”).

Contrary .to the bank’s request that we remand this case for a new trial, the proper remedy, as in both Jelic and Balch, is remand for entry of an involuntary dismissal. Jelic, 160 So.3d at 130; Balch, 171 So.3d at 209.

Reversed and remanded for entry of involuntary dismissal,

CIKLIN, C.J., MAY and GERBER, JJ., concur.

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

ON CONCESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

The bank properly concedes that the trial court erred in entering a final judgment of foreclosure. The bank’s concession is based upon case law which this court issued after the trial. See Jelic v. LaSalle Bank, Nat'l Ass’n, 160 So.3d 127, 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015): (reversing a final judgment of foreclosure, in part because there was no evidence that the party transferring the note into the trust had any intent to transfer ah interest to the trustee); and Balch v, LaSalle Bank NA., 171 So.3d 207, 209 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (reversing a final judgment of foreclosure, in part because “evidence that the note was transferred into the trust prior to the foreclosure action is insufficient' by itself to confer standing because there was no evidence that the indorsee had the intent to transfer any interest to the trustee”).

Contrary .to the bank’s request that we remand this case for a new trial, the proper remedy, as in both Jelic and Balch, is remand for entry of an involuntary dismissal. Jelic, 160 So.3d at 130; Balch, 171 So.3d at 209.

Reversed and remanded for entry of involuntary dismissal,

CIKLIN, C.J., MAY and GERBER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 So. 3d 1147, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 4927, 2016 WL 1243556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laveria-ann-knowles-aka-laveria-knowles-v-the-bank-of-new-york-mellon-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack