Philogene v. Abn Amro Mortg. Group Inc., 4D05-3440.
| Decision Date | 27 December 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D05-3440.,4D05-3440. |
| Parties | Paul PHILOGENE and Nicole Philogene, Appellants, v. ABN AMRO MORTGAGE GROUP INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Jean-Francois of James Jean-Francois, P.A., Hollywood, for appellants.
Roger D. Bear of Echevarria, Codilis & Stawiarski, Tampa, for appellee.
We affirm the trial court's entry of final summary judgment of mortgage foreclosure in favor of appellee, ABN Amro Mortgage Group, Inc. Appellants Paul and Nicole Philogene presented three arguments on appeal: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant their motion to consolidate; (2) the trial court committed reversible error in entering final summary judgment of mortgage foreclosure in favor of ABN, where ABN did not comply with statutory notice requirements; and (3) ABN did not have standing to bring and maintain a mortgage foreclosure action in this case.
First, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Philogenes' motion to consolidate, as there was no danger of inconsistent verdicts and the existence of common questions of law or fact did not mandate consolidation. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.270(a);1 see also Pages v Dominguez, 652 So.2d 864, 866 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (); Barnes v. Meece, 530 So.2d 958, 958 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (). Second, we determine that the trial court did not err in entering final judgment in favor of ABN, as ABN complied with the notice requirements of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1692(g) (2006).2 Third, we conclude that ABN had standing to bring and maintain a mortgage foreclosure action since it demonstrated that it held the note and mortgage in question. See Chem. Residential Mortgage v. Rector, 742 So.2d 300, 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) ().
1. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.270 states in pertinent part:
(a) Consolidation. When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Citron v. Wachovia Mortg. Corp.
...mortgage have standing to seek enforcement of the note and mortgage in a foreclosure action); Philogene v. ABN Amro Mortgage Group Inc., 948 So.2d 45, 46 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2006) (holding that “we conclude that ABN had standing to bring and maintain a mortgage foreclosure action since it demo......
-
Gee v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n
...and mortgage in question in order to proceed with a foreclosure action. See Verizzo, 28 So.3d at 978; Philogene v. ABN Amro Mortg. Group Inc., 948 So.2d 45, 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). When Ms. Gee denied that U.S. Bank had an interest in the Mortgage, ownership became an issue that U.S. Bank, ......
-
Gorel v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 5D13–3272.
...a foreclosure action.” Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Lippi, 78 So.3d 81, 84 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (citing Philogene v. ABN Amro Mortg. Grp. Inc., 948 So.2d 45, 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) ). “The party seeking foreclosure must present evidence that it owns and holds the note and mortgage in que......
-
Roif v. JP Morgan Chase Bank
...36 So. 3d 927, 929 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) ; Verizzo v. Bank of N.Y., 28 So. 3d 976, 978 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ; Philogene v. ABN Amro Mortg. Grp. Inc., 948 So. 2d 45, 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) ). "[S]tanding may be established from a plaintiff's status as the note holder, regardless of any recorded ......