You are on page 1of 4


05-2008-CA-065811 Gregory Taylor Appellant, v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for FFMLT 2006-FF4, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-FF4 Appellee. ____________________________________/ MOTION TO ALLOW APPELLANT TO FILE A REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC The Appellant, Gregory Taylor, by and through his undersigned counsel moves this Court to grant him permission to file his attached Proposed Reply in Support of his Motion for Rehearing En Banc, and as grounds therefore states as follows: On August 6, 2010 a panel of this Court issued its opinion in Taylor v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, No. 5D09-4035, 2010 LEXIS 11431. As was noted in footnote 1 of Appellants Motion for Rehearing En Banc the panels opinion provided a rationale different from any argument presented

by either party at the trial or appellate level. Consequently, the Appellants Motion for Rehearing En Banc was the first time either party addressed the issue of whether MERS and the Appellee, Deutsche Bank, qualified pursuant to Fla. Stat. 673.3011(2) (2008) to be categorized as a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder. The Appellee, Deutsche Bank, in its Response has properly brought before the Court the applicability of Fla. Stat. 673.2031 (2008) and the application of Official Comment 2 to that statute for the purpose of determining if the alleged transfer of the unindorsed note has been sufficiently proven to enable the transferee, Deutsche Bank, to enforce the unindorsed note. The proposed Reply of the Appellant in Support of Motion for Rehearing En Banc further explores the applicability of Fla. Stat. 673.2031, Official Comment 2 to that statute along with case law directly on point in an effort to assist this Court with reaching the correct decision based upon the facts of the case currently being reviewed. The proposed Reply demonstrates that the evidence that MERS was ever in possession of Note is minimally inferential rather than conclusive. Further, as a consequence of Official Comment 2 to Fla. Stat. 673.2031 placing the burden on Deutsche Bank to prove the transaction through which it acquired

the note, it became necessary to more closely examine the Assignment of Mortgage. This examination reveals that the panel of the Court

misapprehended the language contained within the first two paragraphs of the second page of the assignment and that the panels conclusion that that MERS assigned to the Appellee, Deutsche Bank, the Mortgage and Note is not conclusively supported by the assignments language and, at best, can only be classified as ambiguous. (Taylor at *10, 11 and Assignment of Mortgage, R. I/p. 85) WHEREFORE the Appellant, Gregory Taylor, requests this Court to grant him permission to file his Proposed Reply in Support of his Motion for Rehearing En Banc.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was furnished by

mail to Thomasina Moore, Butler & Hosch, P.A., 3185 South Conway Road, Suite E, Orlando, FL 32812 this 23rd day of September, 2010. ____________________ George Gingo, Esq. 13239 N. Hwy. 1 Mims, Florida 32754 Telephone: (321) 264-9624 Facsimile: (866) 311-9573 Fla. Bar No: 879533 Greg Clark, Esq. 1201 South Highland Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 Telephone: (727) 446-1200 Facsimile: (727) 446-2334 Fla. Bar No: 334316 Matthew Weidner, Esq. 1229 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, FL 33705 Telephone: (727) 894-3159 Facsimile: (727) 894-2953 Fla. Bar No: 185957 Michael J. Wrubel, Esq. 4801 S. University Drive, Suite 251 Davie, FL 33328 Telephone: (954) 434-5353 Facsimile: (954) 981-2987 Fla. Bar No: 285757 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT