IN THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "IN THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA"

Transcription

1 THOMAS CORRIGAN and DEBORAH CORRIGAN, IN THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA v. Appellants, BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 2D L.T. Case No.: 2008-CA Appellee. / ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA APPELLANTS REPLY BRIEF Mark P. Stopa, Esquire FBN: STOPA LAW FIRM 2202 N. Westshore Blvd. Suite 200 Tampa, FL (727) ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS

2 ARGUMENT Corrigans appeal the Final Judgment of Foreclosure at bar on two grounds: (1) BANA failed to prove it had standing to foreclose at the inception of this lawsuit; and (2) BANA failed to prove it complied with the face-to-face counseling requirements of 24 C.F.R In its Answer Brief, BANA does not even argue it proved these issues at the underlying trial. Likewise, BANA does not contend that lack of standing and failure to comply with the subject HUD Regulation does not mandate dismissal as a matter of law. Rather, BANA tries to excuse its failure of proof on both issues by arguing they were affirmative defenses, not conditions precedent, so the burden of proof was on Corrigans. BANA is mistaken. Under established precedent, standing at the inception of a lawsuit is part of a foreclosure plaintiff s prima facie case at trial. BANA s contention that the Corrigans bore the burden of proof on this issue is misguided and contrary to law. This Court should reverse on this basis. Similarly, BANA was obligated to prove compliance with 24 C.F.R as part of its prima facie case at trial. Though this is an issue of first impression in this Court, case law from other jurisdictions shows face-to-face counseling is a condition precedent to foreclosure of an FHA mortgage, just as paragraph 22 is a condition precedent to foreclosure of a Fannie Mae mortgage. This Court should reverse on this basis as well. 1

3 BANA does not even argue for any remedy on remand other than dismissal without prejudice, much less present any case law supporting such a position. As such, this Court should reverse and remand with instructions to dismiss this case without prejudice. I. STANDING AT INCEPTION WAS PART OF BANA S PRIMA FACIE CASE AT TRIAL, NOT AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFNSE. Numerous Florida courts, including this Court, have reversed final judgments of foreclosure entered after a trial where the foreclosing lender failed to prove standing as part of its prima facie case. These decisions all make clear that borrowers do not bear the burden of proving the lender s lack of standing; rather, standing is an element of the lender s case for which it bears the burden of proof at trial. See Russell v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, So. 3d (Fla. 2d DCA, April 24, 2015); Seffar v. Residential Credit Solutions, Inc., So. 3d (Fla. 4th DCA, March 25, 2015); Lloyd v. Bank of New York Mellon, So. 3d (Fla. 4th DCA, March 25, 2015); Jelic v. LaSalle Bank, N.A., So. 3d (Fla. 4th DCA, March 25, 2015); Matthews v. Federal Nat l Mortg. Ass n, So. 3d (Fla. 4th DCA, March 25, 2015); Murray v. HSBC Bank USA, 157 So. 3d 355 (Fla. 4th DCA, Jan. 21, 2015); Joseph v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, 155 So. 3d 444 (Fla. 4th DCA, Jan. 7, 2015); Wright v. Deutsche Bank Nat l Trust Co., 152 So. 3d 1289 (Fla. 4th DCA, Jan. 6, 2015); Kiefert v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 153 So. 3d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA, Dec. 16, 2014); Sosa v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 153 So. 3d 950 (Fla. 2

4 4th DCA, Dec. 10, 2014); Pennington v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 151 So. 3d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA, Nov. 6, 2014); May v. PHH Mortg. Corp., 150 So. 3d 247 (Fla. 2d DCA, Oct. 22, 2014); Lacombe v. Deutsche Bank Nat l Trust Co., 149 So. 3d 152 (Fla. 1st DCA, Oct. 14, 2014); Hunter v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, 137 So. 3d 570 (Fla. 1st DCA, April 25, 2014). To wit, each one of these decisions reversed a foreclosure judgment where the lender did not prove standing as part of its case and remanded with instructions to dismiss the suit. That is 14 different, published appellate decisions on the DCA level, all within the past year, all requiring dismissal of a foreclosure lawsuit where the lender did not prove standing as part of its prima facie case at trial. Suffice it to say BANA bore the burden of proof on the issue of standing at trial in this cause, not the Corrigans. BANA s argument otherwise is flat wrong. See cases, supra. Some of the cases cited herein do indicate the borrower pled standing as an affirmative defense, see e.g. Lacombe, 149 So. 3d at 153, just as the Corrigans did in this case. R , 16. Nonetheless, all 14 of these cases plainly require the lender prove standing as part of its case in chief at trial (failing which dismissal is required); the borrower has no burden of proof on this issue. In the words of this Court: [S]tanding must be established at the time the complaint was filed. Thus, the bank needed to introduce evidence that it was in possession of the original note with the blank endorsement at the time it filed the complaint. The bank failed to do so; none of the evidence 3

5 adduced at trial demonstrated when, if at all, the bank came into possession of the note. The bank s failure to prove a prima facie case warrants dismissal. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions for the trial court to enter an order of involuntary dismissal. May, 150 So. 3d at (internal citations omitted); see also Russell, So. 3d at. Hence, though standing may be pled as an affirmative defense, the obligation to prove standing in a foreclosure case lies with the lender. In light hereof, BANA s attempts to avoid reversal by arguing the Corrigans bore the burden of proof at trial on the issue of standing are wholly without merit. BANA was obligated to prove its standing as part of its prima facie case and it failed to do so. As such, this Court should reverse the Final Judgment of Foreclosure and remand with instructions to dismiss this case without prejudice. II. THE FACE-TO-FACE COUNSELING REQUIREMENT OF 24 C.F.R IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO ACCELERATION AND FORECLOSURE, NOT AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. In their Initial Brief, the Corrigans argue at length why BANA was obligated to comply with the counseling requirements of 24 C.F.R before accelerating and before foreclosing. Significantly, BANA does not argue otherwise in its Answer Brief, implicitly conceding the issue. That bears reflection: BANA implicitly concedes it was obligated to comply with 24 C.F.R before accelerating and before foreclosing, as it does not even argue otherwise in its Answer Brief. Instead, BANA argues that its compliance with this HUD Regulation was an 4

6 affirmative defense, not a condition precedent, so the burden of proof fell onto the Corrigans at trial. BANA is mistaken. First off, the Corrigans and BANA pled the counseling issue as a condition precedent, not an affirmative defense, and litigated the issue in that manner through trial. In the Amended Complaint, BANA alleged compliance with conditions precedent generally. R , 9. In their Answer, the Corrigans specifically denied compliance with the pre-foreclosure counseling requirements. R , 9. This is precisely how a defendant is supposed to deny a condition precedent. As the Fifth District has explained: The denial of the occurrence of conditions precedent is not an affirmative defense, which relates only to matters of avoidance. Fla.R.Civ.P (d). Rather, it is a special form of denial that must be pled with specificity. Fla.R.Civ.P (c). Motor v. Citrus County School Board, 856 So. 2d 1054, 1055 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (Torpy, J., specially concurring). Once the parties pled the issue in this manner (BANA by alleging compliance with conditions precedent generally and the Corrigans via a specific denial), BANA bore the burden of proof at trial. In the words of the Fifth District: In the instant case, appellee pled performance of all conditions precedent as required by rule 1.120(c) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and, pursuant to the same rule, appellant specifically denied that appellee complied with the requirements of section (6). A specific denial of a general allegation of the performance or occurrence of conditions precedent shifts the burden to the plaintiff to prove the allegations concerning the subject matter of the specific denial. Fidelity 5

7 & Casualty Co. of New York v. Tiedtke, 207 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968), quashed on other grounds, 222 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 1969); 1967 comments to Fla.R.Civ.P (c). See also Mellon Bank, N.A. v. Aetna Business Credit, Inc., 619 F.2d 1001 (3d Cir. 1980). Consequently, appellee had the burden to prove compliance with the applicable statutory claim provisions of section (6) Appellee failed to present any evidence indicating that the claim had been filed with the Department. This failure was fatal to her case. We note that appellee did not ask the trial court to reopen her case when this deficiency was raised in appellant's motions for directed verdict. Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment entered in this cause and remand for entry of a final judgment in favor of appellant. Sheriff of Orange County v. Boultbee, 595 So. 2d 985, 986 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); see also In re Standard Jury Instructions Contract and Business Cases, 116 So. 3d 284, 320 (Fla. 2013) ( once the defendant has made a specific denial of a condition precedent to a contract, the burden reverts to the claimant to prove satisfaction of the condition. ). BANA s argument that the requisite counseling was an affirmative defense interposed, tellingly, for the first time on appeal was waived, not preserved, and litigated by consent where the parties pled this issue as a condition precedent and argued it as such, both at summary judgment and trial. See e.g. Hemraj v. Hemraj, 620 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Put differently, it is not as if BANA introduced no evidence showing it complied with the Regulation because it was unaware of the issue or believed the counseling to be an (unpled) affirmative defense. In fact, BANA never even argued this was an (unpled) affirmative defense! R On the contrary, BANA took the position that it introduced the requisite 6

8 evidence to prove its prima facie case, and that the Regulation did not apply. T Suffice it to say the parties treated the counseling required by 24 C.F.R as a condition precedent, so this Court should as well. See id. Second, regardless of how these parties treated the issue in this case, the counseling required by 24 C.F.R actually is a condition precedent. There is no case law in Florida adjudicating whether the counseling required by 24 C.F.R is a condition precedent as opposed to an affirmative defense. Though BANA cites Laws v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., So. 3d (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) and Real Estate Mortg. Network, Inc. v. Knight, 149 So. 3d 121 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), those cases are not on point. 1 That said, other jurisdictions have deemed 24 C.F.R a condition precedent to foreclosure of an FHA mortgage, not an 1 In Knight, the lender asked this Court to rule the counseling was not a mandatory condition precedent, yet this Court refused to do so. 149 So. 3d at 122. Also, Knight was adjudicated at summary judgment and turned on the existence of disputed, material facts, so whether the counseling was a defense or a condition precedent was not (and need not have been) adjudicated. Id. After all, at summary judgment, the burden of proof is always on the moving party, regardless of who bears the burden of proof at trial. See Fla.R.Civ.P Laws was also a summary judgment case, so the First District did not decide (and need not have decided) who would have borne the burden of proof at trial. So. 3d at. Moreover, the borrower in Laws chose to plead the issue as an affirmative defense, id., so, unlike here, the existence of a condition precedent was not even argued. Suffice it to say Knight and Laws were not decisions emanating from a trial, so neither court decided whether compliance with HUD Regulations in an FHA mortgage are a condition precedent at trial (and part of the lender s prima facie case) or an affirmative defense (for which the borrower bore the burden). 149 So. 3d at 122; So. 3d at. 7

9 affirmative defense. See Teed, N.Y.S.2d ( Because Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that it complied with all of the servicing requirements set forth in the applicable regulations, it failed to satisfy a condition precedent to the accrual of its rights of acceleration and, thus, its foreclosure action cannot be maintained. ); PNC Mortg. v. Garland, 2014 WL (Ohio 2014) (containing lengthy discussion explaining why face-to-face counseling in an FHA mortgage is a condition precedent, not an affirmative defense); Mathews, 724 S.E. 2d at 207 ( PHH failed to first comply with a condition precedent to its right to enforce this remedy i.e. the face-to-face interview requirement under 24 C.F.R as incorporated into the deed of trust. ); U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Detweiler, 946 N.E. 2d 777, 784 (Ohio 2010) ( Those requirements, therefore, are conditions precedent. ); Pfeifer, 211 Cal. App. 4th at ; Citimortgage, Inc. v. Kinney, 2012 WL (Ohio 2012) ( Appellants loan at issue was a FHA insured loan; thus, subject to the requirements of 24 C.F.R , including a face-to-face interview as a condition precedent to foreclosure. ). As far as Florida law goes, the most obvious starting point in deciding what constitutes a condition precedent in a mortgage foreclosure case and whether the language in paragraph 6 of the Note and paragraph 9 of this FHA mortgage qualifies is analogous case law construing the language in paragraph 22 of the standard, Fannie Mae mortgage. In that context, Florida courts have routinely characterized 8

10 the lender s giving of the notice required by paragraph 22 not as an affirmative defense, but a condition precedent to acceleration and foreclosure. 2 See Haberl v. 21st Mortg. Corp., 138 So. 3d 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014); Samaroo, 137 So. 3d at 1128; Dominko v. Wells Fargo Bank, 102 So. 3d 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); Zervas v. Wells Fargo Bank, 93 So. 3d 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Laurencio v. Deutsche Bank Nat l Trust Co., 65 So. 3d 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Konsulian, 61 So. 3d at 1284 (repeatedly characterizing the paragraph 22 notice as a condition precedent to foreclosure ); Frost v. Regions Bank, 15 So. 3d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). In fact, in recent months, the Fourth District has twice held that paragraph 22 is a condition precedent which the lender must prove at trial, failing which dismissal of the lawsuit is required. Blum v. Deutsche Bank Nat l Trust Co., So. 3d (Fla. 4th DCA 2015); Holt v. Calchas, LLC, 155 So. 3d 499 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). 3 2 This concept is consistent with David v. Sun Federal, where the Florida Supreme Court set forth certain circumstances which justify relief from foreclosure, including where the mortgagee failed to perform some duty upon which the exercise of his right to accelerate was conditioned. 461 So. 2d 93, 96 (Fla. 1984). 3 The Fourth District s initial opinion in Holt did not require dismissal upon failure to comply with this condition precedent. After that decision came out, the undersigned moved for rehearing as an amicus, citing the DCA decisions set forth herein and hundreds of decisions from dozens of circuit court judges throughout Florida construing paragraph 22 as a condition precedent to acceleration and foreclosure. Based thereon (as well as the appellant s joinder in that motion), the Fourth District withdrew that decision and issued the revised opinion which now exists, then followed that existing decision in Blum. Suffice it to say dismissal for paragraph 22 non-compliance is plainly the law in this context, and no contrary authority exists. 9

11 Paragraph 22 of the standard, Fannie Mae mortgage provides [l]ender shall give notice to the borrower prior to acceleration. Konsulian, 61 So. 3d at Paragraph 20, which the Holt court quoted in support of its ruling that compliance with paragraph 22 was a condition precedent, provides: Neither Borrower nor Lender may commence... any judicial action pursuant to this Security Instrument or that alleges that the other party has breached any provision of, or any duty owed by reason of, this Security Instrument, until such Borrower or Lender has notified the other party... of such alleged breach and afforded the other party hereto a reasonable period after the giving of such notice to take corrective action.... The notice of acceleration and opportunity to cure given to Borrower pursuant to [paragraph] shall be deemed to satisfy the notice and opportunity to take corrective action provisions of this [paragraph] So. 3d at 507, n.4. The Corrigans quote this language from paragraphs 20 and 22 of the standard, Fannie Mae mortgage because it quite similar to the language in paragraph 6 of the Note and paragraph 9 of FHA Mortgage in this case. Compare Konsulian, 61 So. 3d at 1284 and Holt, 155 So. 3d at 507, n.4, with R.100, 6 ( Lender may, except as limited by regulations of the Secretary in case of payment defaults, require immediate payment in full of the principal balance remaining due and all accrued interest. ) and R.107, 9 ( Lender many, except as limited by Regulations of the Secretary in case of payment defaults, require immediate payment in full of all amounts secured by this Security Instrument if This Security Instrument does not authorize acceleration or foreclosure if not permitted by regulations of the 10

12 Secretary. ). The obligation the lender must perform is different, of course (in the Fannie Mae mortgage, the obligation is to send a default notice; in the FHA mortgage, it is to comply with HUD Regulations), yet in both mortgages, the rights of the lender to accelerate and foreclose are made expressly contingent upon it performing said tasks. In light hereof, this Court should construe the pre-foreclosure counseling requirement in 24 C.F.R in an FHA mortgage the same way all Florida courts have done vis a vis paragraph 22 in a Fannie Mae Mortgage as a mandatory condition precedent. There is simply no basis to treat the paragraph 22 notice as a condition precedent while treating the counseling required by paragraph 6 of the Note and paragraph 9 of an FHA mortgage as an affirmative defense particularly where the language in both is so similar. The former is a condition precedent, and so, too, is the latter. 4 Florida courts treatment of the language in paragraph 22 as a condition precedent is hardly an anomaly. As the Third District has explained, a contract imposes a condition precedent any time it: calls for the performance of some act, or the happening of some event after [the] contract is entered into, upon the performance or happening of which its obligation to perform is made to depend. 4 At least one court has reached this same conclusion using this exact same analysis. See Detweiler, 946 N.E. 2d at

13 Cohen v. Rothman, 127 So. 2d 143, 147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). That is precisely the situation here. Under the terms of its own contract, BANA could not accelerate and foreclose unless it complied with HUD Regulations. As a result, compliance with HUD Regulations is not something the Corrigans needed to prove to avoid liability, but something BANA needed to prove to accelerate and foreclose. See id. In Hamilton v. Title Ins. Agency of Tampa, Inc., a contract which specified that two earnest money deposits be returned in the event building permits were not secured made the contract s entire performance dependent and conditioned upon the plaintiff s procurement of these permits. 338 So. 2d 569, 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). Here, similarly, BANA s ability to foreclose was contingent upon it complying with HUD Regulations, including 24 C.F.R R.5-7, 6; 8-16, 9. This makes face-to-face counseling a condition precedent, not an affirmative defense. Similar case precedent exists when adjudicating the existence of statutory conditions precedent. For example, in Hallstrom v. Tillamook County, the United States Supreme Court construed the statutory obligation to give 60 days notice prior to filing suit in 42 U.S.C. 6972(b) as a mandatory, not optional, condition precedent to suit. 492 U.S. 20, 25 (1990). Though the words condition precedent did not appear in the statute, the Supreme Court could not interpret a statute requiring notice 60 days before filing suit any other way than that the notice was a condition 12

14 precedent to suit. Id.; see also Neate v. Cypress Club Condo., 718 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (en banc) (treating Fla. Stat (4)(a) as a condition precedent even where the term condition precedent was not contained in the statute); Freni v. Collier County, 588 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (regarding Fla. Stat (4)(a)). Here, likewise, paragraph 6 of the Note and paragraph 9 of the Mortgage plainly require compliance with HUD Regulations before BANA can accelerate or foreclose, making it a mandatory condition precedent. See Hallstrom, 492 U.S. at 25. In the face of all of these authorities and arguments, all BANA does is stringcite a handful of cases on page 7 of its brief with an assertion that compliance with HUD Regulations is an affirmative defense. See A.B., p. 7. The cases cited do not support BANA s position. As explained at n.1, supra, Knight and Laws were summary judgment cases, so those courts never decided whether HUD Regulations are an affirmative defense or condition precedent at trial. 149 So. 3d at 122; So. 3d at. Cross v. Federal Nat l Mortg. Ass n, 359 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), does not help BANA s position, either, as that case was decided before Congress codified the HUD Regulations into law. See I.B., pp BANA cites Lacy-McKinney v. Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortg. Corp., but that case actually supports the Corrigans position that HUD Regulations serve as 13

15 conditions precedent, not an affirmative defense. 937 N.E. 2d 853, 859 (Ind. 2010) ( the HUD regulations are binding conditions precedent that must be complied with before a mortgagee has the right to foreclose on a HUD property ). And while BANA cites one intermediate appellate court decision from Ohio, that judge did not adjudicate who bears the burden of proof at trial because that was a summary judgment case. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Goebel, 6 N.E. 3d 1220, 1227 (Ohio 2014). Moreover, several other Ohio cases have disagreed with Goebel, deeming the face-to-face counseling requirement in 24 C.F.R a condition precedent, not an affirmative defense. See Garland, Detweiler, and Kinney, supra. In light hereof, a lender s compliance with 24 C.F.R is not an affirmative defense for which the borrower bears the burden of proof at trial, but a condition precedent, i.e. a part of the lender s prima facie case, failing which dismissal is required. The lower court erred in ruling otherwise, and this Court should reverse. CONCLUSION For all of these reasons, this Court should reverse the Final Judgment of Foreclosure at bar and remand with instructions to dismiss this case without prejudice to BANA filing a new lawsuit. 14

16 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via electronic mail to Adam Topel, Esq., on this 25th day of April, Mark P. Stopa, Esquire FBN: STOPA LAW FIRM 2202 N. Westshore Blvd. Suite 200 Tampa, FL Telephone: (727) ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the font used in this brief is Times New Roman 14-point, in compliance with Fla.R.App.Pro (a)(2). Mark P. Stopa, Esquire FBN:

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT CRISTOBAL COLON, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. Case No.

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED PATRICK HICKS AND TAMAICA HICKS, Appellants,

More information

CASE NO. 1D13-3072. George Gingo and James E. Orth, Jr. of Gingo & Orth, P.A., Titusville, for Appellant.

CASE NO. 1D13-3072. George Gingo and James E. Orth, Jr. of Gingo & Orth, P.A., Titusville, for Appellant. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA MARK PENNINGTON, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D13-3072

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT MARIA GONZALEZ and BORIS GONZALEZ, ETC., Appellants, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF

More information

Illinois Official Reports

Illinois Official Reports Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Bukowski, 2015 IL App (1st) 140780 Appellate Court Caption CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANNA BUKOWSKI and KATHERINE D. BUKOWSKI,

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2014

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2014 DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2014 WE HELP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a Florida non-profit corporation, Appellant, v. CIRAS, LLC, an Ohio limited liability

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Case: 15-10426 Document: 00513359912 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/28/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT CYNTHIA TREVINO GARZA, Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth

More information

2015 IL App (1st) 143589-U. No. 1-14-3589 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

2015 IL App (1st) 143589-U. No. 1-14-3589 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2015 IL App (1st) 143589-U SIXTH DIVISION September 11, 2015 No. 1-14-3589 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 12-16065. D.C. Docket No. 2:12-cv-14312-KMM. versus

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 12-16065. D.C. Docket No. 2:12-cv-14312-KMM. versus Case: 12-16065 Date Filed: 09/19/2013 Page: 1 of 20 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 12-16065 D.C. Docket No. 2:12-cv-14312-KMM BETTY BOLLINGER, versus

More information

2015 IL App (5th) 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT

2015 IL App (5th) 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT NOTICE Decision filed 10/15/15. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2015 IL App (5th 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227

More information

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS REL: 6/30/11 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed September 3, 2014. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D13-2240 Lower Tribunal No. 11-23031 Carmen A. Ramos,

More information

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY INTRODUCTION

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY INTRODUCTION [Cite as BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP. v. Taylor, 2013-Ohio-355.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP fka COUNTRYWIDE HOME

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT EMPIRE BEAUTY SALON, ETC., ET AL., NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED Appellants,

More information

Case 2:06-cv-13665-MOB-VMM Document 9 Filed 03/02/2007 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case 2:06-cv-13665-MOB-VMM Document 9 Filed 03/02/2007 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Case 2:06-cv-13665-MOB-VMM Document 9 Filed 03/02/2007 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION In re: CARLA CRAIG-LIKELY, Debtor, / CARLA CRAIG-LIKELY, v.

More information

2015 IL App (1st) 150001-U. No. 1-15-0001 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

2015 IL App (1st) 150001-U. No. 1-15-0001 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2015 IL App (1st) 150001-U FOURTH DIVISION December 31, 2015 No. 1-15-0001 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited

More information

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 14a0721n.06. No. 13-2126 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 14a0721n.06. No. 13-2126 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 14a0721n.06 No. 13-2126 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT PATRICK RUGIERO, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC; FANNIE MAE; MORTGAGE

More information

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY [Cite as Bank of Am. v. Kuchta, 2012-Ohio-5562.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA ) BANK OF AMERICA Appellee C.A. No. 12CA0025-M v. GEORGE M. KUCHTA,

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA LOANS, INC.; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO BAC HOME LOANSERVICING, LP F/K/A LOANS SERVICING, LP; RBS FINANCIAL PRODUCTS, INC. F/K/A GREENWICH CAPITAL FINANCIAL PRODUCTS, INC.; MORTGAGE

More information

v. CASE NO.: 2010-CV-15-A Lower Court Case No.: 2008-CC-19076-O

v. CASE NO.: 2010-CV-15-A Lower Court Case No.: 2008-CC-19076-O IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA MAURICIO CHIROPRACTIC WEST, as assignee of Alesha Kirkland, Appellant, v. CASE NO.: 2010-CV-15-A Lower Court Case No.:

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: THOMAS B. O FARRELL McClure & O Farrell, P.C. Westfield, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA ALFRED McCLURE, Appellant-Defendant, vs. No. 86A03-0801-CV-38

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. JAMES BEEKMAN, Appellee. No. 4D13-4086 [August 19, 2015] Appeal and cross-appeal from

More information

CASE NO. 1D13-3336. Angela L. Leiner, Douglas C. Zahm, and Douglas M. Bales, St. Petersberg, for Appellant.

CASE NO. 1D13-3336. Angela L. Leiner, Douglas C. Zahm, and Douglas M. Bales, St. Petersberg, for Appellant. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO.

More information

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA PETITIONER S INITIAL BRIEF ON JURISDICTION

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA PETITIONER S INITIAL BRIEF ON JURISDICTION AA-53816-5/reo/20330947 L.T. CASE NO. 5D06-3639 SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RANDALL B. WHITNEY, M.D., JAMES SCOTT PENDERGRAFT, IV, M.D., and ORLANDO WOMEN'S CENTER, INC., a Florida corporation, Petitioners,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case :-cv-000-l-blm Document 0 Filed 0 Page of 0 0 IN RE: ELEAZAR SALAZAR, Debtor, U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, v. ELEAZAR SALAZAR, Appellant, Appellee. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT

More information

1:12-cv-12580-TLL-CEB Doc # 14 Filed 01/11/13 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 545 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION

1:12-cv-12580-TLL-CEB Doc # 14 Filed 01/11/13 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 545 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION 1:12-cv-12580-TLL-CEB Doc # 14 Filed 01/11/13 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 545 DAVID SALEWSKE and SHARON SALEWSKE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION Plaintiffs, Case Number

More information

No. 05-11-00700-CV IN THE FOR THE RAY ROBINSON,

No. 05-11-00700-CV IN THE FOR THE RAY ROBINSON, No. 05-11-00700-CV ACCEPTED 225EFJ016616444 FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 11 November 30 P8:40 Lisa Matz CLERK IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DALLAS, TEXAS WELLS FARGO BANK,

More information

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., v. Plaintiff, GARANG M. MAJOUK, REBECCA A. MAJOUK, & PARTIES IN POSSESSION, Equity No. EQCE073412 RULING ON PLAINTIFF S MOTION FOR SUMMARY

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, CASE NO.: 2014-CV-000005-A-O Lower Case No.: 2012-SC-012076-O v. EMERGENCY

More information

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT JOHN J. BENZ and TRICIA McLAGAN, Appellants, v. Case No. 2D13-974

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D14-279

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D14-279 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED JESSE SANCHEZ, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D14-279

More information

Alert. Litigation May 2014

Alert. Litigation May 2014 Alert Litigation May 2014 Statute of Limitations Update in Florida Foreclosure Actions: Fifth District Court of Appeals Holds that Each Default Creates a New Case of Action I. The Opinion On April 25,

More information

v. CASE NO.: CVA Lower Court Case No.: 06-CC-6108

v. CASE NO.: CVA Lower Court Case No.: 06-CC-6108 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA JACQUELINE ACOSTA, Appellant, v. CASE NO.: CVA1 06-87 Lower Court Case No.: 06-CC-6108 MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY OF

More information

Case 6:14-bk-09462-CCJ Doc 48 Filed 07/20/15 Page 1 of 7

Case 6:14-bk-09462-CCJ Doc 48 Filed 07/20/15 Page 1 of 7 Case 6:14-bk-09462-CCJ Doc 48 Filed 07/20/15 Page 1 of 7 ORDERED. Dated: July 20, 2015 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION www.flmb.uscourts.gov In re: RICHARD S.

More information

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc SHELBY E. WATSON, Appellant, v. No. SC93769 WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, INC., ET AL., Respondents. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS The Honorable

More information

The N.C. State Bar v. Wood NO. COA10-463. (Filed 1 February 2011) 1. Attorneys disciplinary action convicted of criminal offense

The N.C. State Bar v. Wood NO. COA10-463. (Filed 1 February 2011) 1. Attorneys disciplinary action convicted of criminal offense The N.C. State Bar v. Wood NO. COA10-463 (Filed 1 February 2011) 1. Attorneys disciplinary action convicted of criminal offense The North Carolina State Bar Disciplinary Hearing Commission did not err

More information

Illinois Official Reports

Illinois Official Reports Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Pieczonka, 2015 IL App (1st) 133128 Appellate Court Caption BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, f/k/a Countrywide Home Loans Servicing,

More information

v. VERIFIED ANSWER TO FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT

v. VERIFIED ANSWER TO FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF v. Plaintiff, Index No. VERIFIED ANSWER TO FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT Defendant(s). Defendant answers as follows: I generally deny each allegation of the Complaint,

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2012

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2012 Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2012 Opinion filed September 19, 2012. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D12-353 Lower Tribunal No.

More information

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS REL: 09/25/2015 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate

More information

Case 5:06-cv-00503-XR Document 20 Filed 09/28/06 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

Case 5:06-cv-00503-XR Document 20 Filed 09/28/06 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION Case 5:06-cv-00503-XR Document 20 Filed 09/28/06 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, VS. Plaintiff, HENRY D. GOLTZ, EVANGELINA

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION 2:13-cv-13095-PJD-MJH Doc # 12 Filed 01/30/14 Pg 1 of 10 Pg ID 725 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION In re: DAVID C. KAPLA, Civil Case No. 13-13095 Honorable Patrick

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL SECOND DISTRICT, LAKELAND, FLORIDA. v. Case No.: 2D11- PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL SECOND DISTRICT, LAKELAND, FLORIDA. v. Case No.: 2D11- PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION MARGARITA WHIDDEN, DON J. PEREZ, and PEREZ & PEREZ, M.D., P.A. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL SECOND DISTRICT, LAKELAND, FLORIDA Petitioners, L.T. Case No. 08-DR-2175 v. Case No.: 2D11- HONORABLE CATHERINE

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: MARCH 13, 2015; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2014-CA-000056-MR RAMONA SPINKS, EXECUTRIX OF THE WILL OF BENJAMIN SPINKS, DECEASED APPELLANT APPEAL

More information

2015 IL App (5th) 140355-U NO. 5-14-0355 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT

2015 IL App (5th) 140355-U NO. 5-14-0355 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT NOTICE Decision filed 05/12/15. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2015 IL App (5th) 140355-U NO. 5-14-0355

More information

David P. Healy of Law Offices of David P. Healy, PL, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

David P. Healy of Law Offices of David P. Healy, PL, Tallahassee, for Appellant. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA JAMES E. MAGEE, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D07-2050

More information

S14G1862. BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, L.P. v. WEDEREIT. Brian Wedereit sued BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. f/k/a Countrywide

S14G1862. BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, L.P. v. WEDEREIT. Brian Wedereit sued BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. f/k/a Countrywide 297 Ga. 313 FINAL COPY S14G1862. BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, L.P. v. WEDEREIT. MELTON, Justice. Brian Wedereit sued BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. f/k/a Countrywide Home Loans Servicing ( BAC ) for, among

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed March 2, 2016. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D14-2631 Lower Tribunal No. 13-35088 Johnnie Mae Edwards,

More information

v. CASE NO.: CVA1 09-16 Lower Court Case No.: 2008-CC-7009-O

v. CASE NO.: CVA1 09-16 Lower Court Case No.: 2008-CC-7009-O IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA ELOURDE COLIN, Appellant, v. CASE NO.: CVA1 09-16 Lower Court Case No.: 2008-CC-7009-O PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, CASE NO.: 2014-CV-000079-A-O Lower Case No.: 2012-SC-002127-O Appellant, v.

More information

Case: Document: Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 1. NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 13a0272n.06. No.

Case: Document: Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 1. NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 13a0272n.06. No. Case: 11-2178 Document: 006111624068 Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 1 NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 13a0272n.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT HAIFA GORYOKA, v. Plaintiff-Appellant,

More information

Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the

Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the ****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal

More information

Court of Appeals. First District of Texas

Court of Appeals. First District of Texas Opinion issued April 19, 2016 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-15-00361-CV FREDDIE L. WALKER, Appellant V. RISSIE OWENS, PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE TEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS AND

More information

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 15a0631n.06. No. 14-2147 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 15a0631n.06. No. 14-2147 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 15a0631n.06 No. 14-2147 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL LETVIN; KEITH PHILLIPS, v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, JACK LEW, Secretary

More information

Case 0:11-cv-62570-RSR Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2014 Page 1 of 6

Case 0:11-cv-62570-RSR Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2014 Page 1 of 6 Case 0:11-cv-62570-RSR Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2014 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION Case No.: 11-62570-CIV-ROSENBAUM/HUNT

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE B254585

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE B254585 Filed 2/26/15 Vega v. Goradia CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified

More information

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED OF FLORIDA NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT ANDRE SAS, Appellant, v. Case No. 2D14-1003 FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: FRED R. HAINS PETER M. YARBRO Hains Law Firm, LLP South Bend, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA MARIA A. MITCHELL, ) ) Appellant-Respondent, ) ) vs. )

More information

Insight from Carlton Fields

Insight from Carlton Fields Insight from Carlton Fields 2011 Nuts and Bolts of the Florida By Kathleen S. McLeroy Introduction Florida is a judicial foreclosure state. Mortgage foreclosures in Florida are judicial proceedings, and

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2008. v. Case No. 5D07-1738

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2008. v. Case No. 5D07-1738 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2008 OCALA JOCKEY CLUB, LLC, DANIEL L. CASE, ET AL., Appellants, v. Case No. 5D07-1738 RANDY ROGERS, Appellee. / Opinion

More information

Case 3:07-cv-01180-TEM Document 56 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

Case 3:07-cv-01180-TEM Document 56 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION Case 3:07-cv-01180-TEM Document 56 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION JAMES E. TOMLINSON and DARLENE TOMLINSON, his wife, v. Plaintiffs,

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Macklin v. Citimortgage, Inc., 2015-Ohio-97.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 101077 STEPHEN M. MACKLIN, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA BARBRA R. JOYNER, Appellant, CASE NO.: 2012-CV-000003-A-O Lower Case No.: 2010-CC-010676-O v. ONE THOUSAND OAKS, INC.,

More information

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) [Cite as Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Dvorak, 2014-Ohio-4652.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee

More information

Case: 1:10-cv-00363-WHB Doc #: 31 Filed: 09/02/10 1 of 14. PageID #: 172

Case: 1:10-cv-00363-WHB Doc #: 31 Filed: 09/02/10 1 of 14. PageID #: 172 Case: 1:10-cv-00363-WHB Doc #: 31 Filed: 09/02/10 1 of 14. PageID #: 172 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JAMES MEYER, v. Plaintiff, DEBT RECOVERY SOLUTIONS

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. Case Nos. 06-2262 and 06-2384 CON-WAY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC. Appellant No.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. Case Nos. 06-2262 and 06-2384 CON-WAY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC. Appellant No. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Case Nos. 06-2262 and 06-2384 NOT PRECEDENTIAL CON-WAY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., Appellant No. 06-2262 v. REGSCAN, INC. CON-WAY TRANSPORTATION

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY, ETC., Appellant,

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT HEATHER EPSTEIN, Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION ORDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION VISTA MARKETING, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 8:12-cv-1640-T-30TBM TERRI A. BURKETT and JOSEPH R. PARK, Defendants. / ORDER THIS CAUSE

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-IA-00181-SCT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-IA-00181-SCT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-IA-00181-SCT VICKSBURG HEALTHCARE, LLC d/b/a RIVER REGION HEALTH SYSTEM v. CLARA DEES DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/22/2013 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ISADORE W. PATRICK, JR.

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KATHRYN MCOMIE-GRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 10-16487 v. D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02422- BANK OF AMERICA HOME LOANS, FKA Countrywide Home Loans,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral

More information

Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the

Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the ****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal

More information

2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U. Order filed September 23, 2013 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2013

2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U. Order filed September 23, 2013 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2013 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). 2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U Order

More information

CASE NO. 1D13-3086. John H. Adams, P. Michael Patterson, and Cecily M. Welsh of Emmanuel, Sheppard, and Condon, Pensacola, for Appellant.

CASE NO. 1D13-3086. John H. Adams, P. Michael Patterson, and Cecily M. Welsh of Emmanuel, Sheppard, and Condon, Pensacola, for Appellant. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA ALAN B. BOOKMAN, AS SUCCESSOR PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF DEBORAH E. IRBY, DECEASED, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC11-1173 L.T. NO. 3D10-488. JOAN RUBLE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of LANCE RUBLE, deceased,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC11-1173 L.T. NO. 3D10-488. JOAN RUBLE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of LANCE RUBLE, deceased, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC11-1173 L.T. NO. 3D10-488 JOAN RUBLE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of LANCE RUBLE, deceased, Petitioner, vs. RINKER MATERIALS CORPORATION, RINKER

More information

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee County: MICHAEL GUOLEE, Judge. Affirmed.

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee County: MICHAEL GUOLEE, Judge. Affirmed. COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED December 23, 2014 Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear

More information

2013 IL App (1st) 121562-U. No. 1-12-1562 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

2013 IL App (1st) 121562-U. No. 1-12-1562 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2013 IL App (1st) 121562-U FIRST DIVISION March 25, 2013 No. 1-12-1562 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances

More information

Short Form Order NEW YORK SUPREME COURT - QUEENS COUNTY PRESENT: HON. ORIN R. KITZES PART 17 Justice

Short Form Order NEW YORK SUPREME COURT - QUEENS COUNTY PRESENT: HON. ORIN R. KITZES PART 17 Justice Short Form Order NEW YORK SUPREME COURT - QUEENS COUNTY PRESENT: HON. ORIN R. KITZES PART 17 Justice -----------------------------------------------------------------X NC TWO, L.P., as successor in interest

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before KELLY, ANDERSON, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before KELLY, ANDERSON, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges. FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit WILLIAM MOSHER; LYNN MOSHER, Plaintiffs - Appellants, FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT November 19, 2014 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA MEDICAL THERAPIES, LLC, f/k/a MEDICAL THERAPIES, INC., d/b/a ORLANDO PAIN CLINIC, as assignee of SONJA M. RICKS, CASE

More information

Appeal Bonds, Sureties, and Stays

Appeal Bonds, Sureties, and Stays Appeal Bonds, Sureties, and Stays Appellate Lawyers Association April 22, 2009 Brad Elward Peoria Office The Effect of a Judgment A judgment is immediately subject to enforcement and collection. Illinois

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO [Cite as BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Hodous, 2015-Ohio-5458.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP fka : O P I N I O N COUNTRYWIDE

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY [Cite as BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Mapp, 2013-Ohio-2968.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, L.P., : CASE NO. CA2013-01-001 Plaintiff-Appellee,

More information

2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U. No. 1-14-1985 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U. No. 1-14-1985 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U No. 1-14-1985 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: KENT M. FRANDSEN Parr Richey Obremskey Frandsen & Patterson, LLP Lebanon, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: ANDREW B. JANUTOLO JON C. ABERNATHY Goodin Abernathy,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC04-1012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC04-1012 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC04-1012 CAROLYN R. WADE, f/k/a CAROLYN R. HIRSCHMAN, Petitioner, v. L.T. No. 5D03-2797 MICHAEL D. HIRSCHMAN, Respondent. ON REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF

More information

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS 2014 UT App 187 THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS LARRY MYLER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BLACKSTONE FINANCIAL GROUP BUSINESS TRUST, Defendant and Appellee. Opinion No. 20130246-CA Filed August 7, 2014 Third

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS NORTHERN MARIANAS HOUSING CORPORATION, DONALD T. FLORES and SHIRLINA DLG.

SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS NORTHERN MARIANAS HOUSING CORPORATION, DONALD T. FLORES and SHIRLINA DLG. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS NORTHERN MARIANAS HOUSING CORPORATION, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. E-FILED CNMI SUPREME COURT E-filed: Dec 13 2006 4:27PM Clerk Review:

More information

jurisdiction is DENIED and plaintiff s motion for leave to amend is DENIED. BACKGROUND

jurisdiction is DENIED and plaintiff s motion for leave to amend is DENIED. BACKGROUND IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 1 1 1 1 TRICIA LECKLER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Plaintiffs, CASHCALL, INC., Defendant. /

More information

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ) Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Champion ) Mortgage Company ) Plaintiff ) v. ) ) Naomi J. Carey, Heir and Personal ) Representative of the Estate of Dennis

More information

STEPHEN S. EDWARDS, individually and as Trustee of the Super Trust Fund, u/t/d June 15, 2001, Plaintiff/Appellant,

STEPHEN S. EDWARDS, individually and as Trustee of the Super Trust Fund, u/t/d June 15, 2001, Plaintiff/Appellant, NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STEPHEN

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Mackey v. Luskin, 2007-Ohio-5844.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 88874 MAURICE L. MACKEY, SR. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT vs. JOHN

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 12-12181. D.C. Docket No. 6:10-cv-01103-GAP-GJK. versus

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 12-12181. D.C. Docket No. 6:10-cv-01103-GAP-GJK. versus Case: 12-12181 Date Filed: 08/06/2013 Page: 1 of 11 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 12-12181 D.C. Docket No. 6:10-cv-01103-GAP-GJK STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY

More information

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO Filed 8/27/14 Tesser Ruttenberg etc. v. Forever Entertainment CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before HOLMES, MATHESON, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before HOLMES, MATHESON, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. ELBERT KIRBY, JR.; CALEB MEADOWS, FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit TENTH CIRCUIT February 5, 2016 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court v. Plaintiffs - Appellants,

More information

ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS

ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS Appellate Court Hart v. Kieu Le, 2013 IL App (2d) 121380 Appellate Court Caption LYNETTE Y. HART, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOAN KIEU LE, Defendant-Appellee. District & No. Second

More information

Case 2:10-cv-02263-JAR Document 98 Filed 05/04/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Case 2:10-cv-02263-JAR Document 98 Filed 05/04/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS Case 2:10-cv-02263-JAR Document 98 Filed 05/04/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS SANDRA H. DEYA and EDWIN DEYA, individually and as next friends and natural

More information

CASE NO. 1D09-0765. Rhonda B. Boggess of Taylor, Day, Currie, Boyd & Johnson, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

CASE NO. 1D09-0765. Rhonda B. Boggess of Taylor, Day, Currie, Boyd & Johnson, Jacksonville, for Appellant. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA ATHENA F. GRAINGER, as personal representative of the ESTATE OF SAMUEL GUS FELOS, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION

More information