Winston Muhammad and Janet Muhammad v. BAC Home Loans Servicing

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Winston Muhammad and Janet Muhammad v. BAC Home Loans Servicing

147 So. 3d 624, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 14001, 2014 WL 4426741

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 10, 2014

Docket4D13-1580

StatusPublished

This text of 147 So. 3d 624 (Winston Muhammad and Janet Muhammad v. BAC Home Loans Servicing) 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

Winston Muhammad and Janet Muhammad v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, 147 So. 3d 624, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 14001, 2014 WL 4426741 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

On Motion for Rehearing

PER CURIAM.

We grant the motion for rehearing, withdraw our prior opinion and substitute the following in its place.

We reverse the final judgment of foreclosure entered in this case. Appellants allege that the appellee failed to prove its standing to foreclose at the trial. Not only was there no evidence of standing, but the trial court treated the matter as though it were ruling on a motion for summary judgment. It never took testimony and merely interrogated the parties as to their respective positions, then ruled in favor of foreclosure. As no trial was ever conducted, a final judgment should not have been entered. We remand for a new trial, in which both parties may submit evidence necessary to sustain their respective positions.

Reversed and remanded.

DAMOORGIAN, C.J., WARNER and MAY, JJ., concur.

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

On Motion for Rehearing

PER CURIAM.

We grant the motion for rehearing, withdraw our prior opinion and substitute the following in its place.

We reverse the final judgment of foreclosure entered in this case. Appellants allege that the appellee failed to prove its standing to foreclose at the trial. Not only was there no evidence of standing, but the trial court treated the matter as though it were ruling on a motion for summary judgment. It never took testimony and merely interrogated the parties as to their respective positions, then ruled in favor of foreclosure. As no trial was ever conducted, a final judgment should not have been entered. We remand for a new trial, in which both parties may submit evidence necessary to sustain their respective positions.

Reversed and remanded.

DAMOORGIAN, C.J., WARNER and MAY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 So. 3d 624, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 14001, 2014 WL 4426741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winston-muhammad-and-janet-muhammad-v-bac-home-loans-servicing-fladistctapp-2014.