Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Foreclosure Motion for Rehearing Reconsideration Saxon v. Jordan

Foreclosure Motion for Rehearing Reconsideration Saxon v. Jordan

Ratings: (0)|Views: 994|Likes:
Published by winstons2311

More info:

Published by: winstons2311 on Apr 26, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

11/07/2012

pdf

text

original

 
INTHECIRCUITCOURTOFTHESIXTHJUDICIALCIRCUIT,INANDFORPASCOCOUNTY,FLORIDACIVILDIVISIONSAXONMORTGAGESERVICES,INC.,CASENO.2009-CA-002709-ESPLAINTIFF,
v.
BREGINIADARLENEJORDANANDMICHAELANTHONYJORDAN,DEFENDANTS.
__________________________________________________________I
DEFENDANTS'MOTIONFORREHEARINGIMOTIONFORRECONSIDERATIONCOMESNOW,theDefendantsBREGINIADARLENEJORDANandMICHAELANTHONYJORDAN(hereinafter"Defendants"),byandthroughundersignedcounsel,andrespectfullyfileswiththisCourtDefendants'MOTIONFORRECONSIDERATION,pursuanttoRules1.530,1.510,and1.210(a),Fla.
R.
Civ.Pro.,precedentcaselaw,andthisCourt'sinherentauthoritytocontrolitsowninterlocutoryorderspriortofinaljudgment,andasgroundsthereofstates:FACTS1.ThisisanactionforforeclosureofresidentialrealpropertyownedbytheDefendants.2.ThenamedPlaintiffinthiscaseisSAXONMORTGAGESERVICES,INC.(hereinafter"Plaintiff').ThePlaintiffinitiatedthisactionwhenitfileditscomplaintonoraboutMarch20,2009.3.OnFebruary15,2011ahearingonthePlaintiff'sMotionforSummaryJudgmentwasheldbeforeSeniorJudgeWayneL.Cobb.Accordingtothetranscript,thehearinglastingfor
 
twelveminutes,from9:00a.m.until9:12a.m.AcopyofthetranscriptisattachedheretoandincorporatedasExhibit"A".4.InadditiontotheoralargumentpresentedbytheDefendants'counselattheFebruary
is"
hearing,theDefendantshadalsopreviouslyfiledawrittenObjectiontoSummaryJudgment.AcopyoftheDefendants'ObjectiontoSummaryJudgmentisattachedheretoandincorporatedasExhibit"B".5.WhileJudgeCobbultimatelyruledinfavorofthePlaintiffattheFebruary15
th
hearing,theDefendantsrespectfullyassertthathisdecisionwasinerrorand,therefore,thisMotionforRehearingIMotionforReconsiderationfollows.Thefactsregardingeacherrorareexplainedindetailbelow.
ErrorI-FailuretoConsiderImproperPartySubstitution
6.AttheFebruary15
th
hearing,theDefendants'counselobjectedtoanentryofsummaryjudgmentinfavorofthePlaintiffbaseduponanimproperpartysubstitution.
See
Transcript,pgs.9-11.Specifically,theoriginalparty-plaintifftotheinstantlawsuitwasTAYLOR,BEAN&WHITAKERMORTGAGECORP.(hereinafter"Taylor,Bean&Whitaker").7.ThedocketrevealsthatJanuary11,2010thePlaintifffiledaMotiontoSubstitutePartyPlaintiff.Additionally,thedocketrevealsthatonthatsamedayanOrdergrantingthePlaintiff'smotionwasalsoentered.Therefore,
nonoticeofhearingwaseverservedandnohearingwaseverheldonthePlaintiff'sMotiontoSubstitute.
8.TheDefendants'counselassertedattheFebruary15
th
hearingthatthefailureofthePlaintifftoserveanoticeofhearingalongwithitsMotiontoSubstitutewasafatalerrorbecauseitviolatedtheexplicitproceduralguidelinesofFla.
R.
Civ.Pro.1.260.
 
9.Therefore,becausethePlaintiffwasneverproperlysubstitutedintothisaction,itwasimproperfortheCourttograntsummaryjudgmentinfavorofthatpurportedplaintiff.
ErrorII-FailuretoConsiderAffirmativeDefenses
10.TheDefendants'counselalsoassertedatthesummaryjudgmenthearingthattheDefendantshadservedAffirmativeDefensesonthePlaintiffwhichthePlaintiffneverfactuallydisputedorshowedtobelegallyinsufficient.
See
Transcript,pgs.11-12.11.Moreexactly,theDefendantseleven(11)AffirmativeDefenseswiththisCourtwhichincludedsuchdefensesas:
(1)
lackofcapacity;(2)lackofstanding;(3)uncleanhands;(4)lackofnoticeandabilitytocure;and(5)failuretoshowrealpartyininterest.12.WhilethePlaintifffiledapurportedReplytotheDefendants'AffirmativeDefenses,thisReplywasnothingmorethanageneraldenialoftheDefendants'AffirmativeDefensesandthestatementthatsameamountedtonothingmorethanlegalconclusions.However,thePlaintifffailedtoshow,inanyway,howtheDefendants'allegationsintheirAffirmativeDefensesamountedtomerelegalconclusions.13.Therefore,becausethePlaintifffailedtofactuallyrefutetheDefendants'AffirmativeDefensesorshowhowtheywerelegallyinsufficient,itwasanerrorfortheCourttograntsummaryjudgmenttothePlaintiff.
Error
III-
GrantingSummaryJudgmentwhereCapacityHadNotbeenProven
14.MoreovertheDefendants'counselalsoobjectedtothePlaintiff'sabilitytoprocureasummaryjudgmentrulingbasedonitslackofcapacitytosue,evengoingsofarastostatethatcapacityhadbeenpledasanaffirmativedefense.
See
Transcript,pgs.12-13.15.ThePlaintiff'slackofcapacityisembodiedinthefactthatwhilethenameofthePlaintiffoftheinstantlawsuitisassertedinthecaptionofitsComplaint,nowhereinthebodyof

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->