Legal Opinion
Marlene Rattigan and Errol Rattigan v. Central Mortgage Company
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided June 1, 2016No. 4D15-1087PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtForst, J.
Appellants Marlene and Errol Rattigan had their property foreclosed upon by Ap-pellee Central Mortgage Company (“the Bank”). Because the Bank failed to introduce the note that was the basis for the foreclosure, we reverse and remand for the entry of involuntary dismissal. 1
Rulings on motions for involuntary dismissal are reviewed de novo. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. v. Huber, 137 So.3d 562, 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). This Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id.
The best evidence rule, codified at section 90.952, Florida Statutes (2015), says that…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. ClarkeDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2012
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. HuberDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2014
- In the Interest of J.H. v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1985
3Cited by8 opinions
- MARLYN TRACEY v. WELLS FARGO BANK N. A.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2019
- LUIS H. MORALES and CECELIA MORALES v. FIFTH THIRD BANKDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2019
- Mathis v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLCDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2017
- JOANNE LIUKKONEN v. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLCDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2018
- Bank of New York Mellon v. GarciaDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2018
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.