FL 5th DCA | Foreclosure Judgement Reversed SHAKIL KHAN AND DINA KHAN v BANK OF AMERICA

Shakil and Dina Khan appeal a final summary judgment of foreclosure entered in favor of Bank of America, N.A.

We reverse.

In its amended complaint to foreclose a mortgage on the Khans’ home, Bank of America alleged that it was the owner and holder of the note and mortgage. However, the copy of the note attached to the amended complaint bears an endorsement from Bank of America to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as trustee for the holders of Banc of America Mortgage Securities, Inc. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-B.

The Khans correctly raised the issue of Bank of America’s standing to prosecute the foreclosure based on the assignment of the note to Wells Fargo Bank.

Full opinion below…

~

4closureFraud.org

~

Shakil Khan and Dina Khan v Bank of America

Comments
4 Responses to “FL 5th DCA | Foreclosure Judgement Reversed SHAKIL KHAN AND DINA KHAN v BANK OF AMERICA”
  1. Lit Gant says:

    This is a simple case of legal stupidity. The shyster lawyer for the plaintiff should have known BOA had no standing. They use these sham foreclosure suits to scare people into packing up and leaving the home. These kinds of people do not have any fighting resolve. They have been reduced to being willing victims of a bank thug beat-up. Scared of sheriffs knocking at the door, shyster lawyers, law suits, courts, robo-judges and the government, they high-tail it and run away and find a bridge, thicket, or a cheap apartment. They then do not care what happens to the house. So the banks can use these sham foreclosure cases to take a house without a fight. And the shyster plaintiff lawyers make easy $1500 in shame-money. That is why they are able to get by with this kind of legal thuggery. These lawyers need to be disbarred. But neither the Florida Bar, Florida Supreme Court, or the AGs office cares if there are thugs with a JD degree filing UNVERIFIED complaints. Why don’t the Supreme Court put some stiff penalties for shyeter lawyers who file these UNVERIFIED sham complaints? Why don’t they insist the robo-judges issue heavy sanctions and dismiss with prejudice? These sham pleadings are a violation of the rule of law. I APPLAUD Shakil and Dina Khan for fighting this court fraud. And to think that a Florida judge granted a foreclosure KNOWING the complaint was UNVERIFIED. This is the kind of sham these judges get away with. It is a shame our appellant courts cannot levy a sanction on these robo-judges for knowingly graning a foreclosure on an UNVERIFIED complaint. And it is a low-down rotten stinking out-house shame these judges are not stripped of their black robes and sent home naked to collect unemployment. The Florida legal system is a sham on the circuit level of the judiciary. Thank God on the appellant level there appears to be justice.

  2. Funny thing is… the 5th DCA said (re: Taylor) that the Note follows the Mortgage. Did Judge Monaco finally come to his senses?

  3. talktotennessee says:

    According to the Appellate court’s ruling, the holder of a note, which designates “assigns and MERS” as “trustee nominee” for an original lender, who may be ancient history at the time of foreclosure, could stand up in court, allowing MERS to foreclose, bypassing chain of title requirements and state law. Circumventing state law denying individuals due process could be contrary to the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and negate current state law requiring transfer of ownership laws now on the books. If some state courts allow MERS to foreclose in their own name, bypassing the safe guards and state laws and other states do not, where is the individual homeowner/borrower in this chaos of non-conformity? Federal Courts need to define a clear consensus of opinion based on state laws.
    Is something missing that this is NOT being made clear now unless an individual case actually goes to court?
    Would this not be a function for the Attorney Generals current settlement negotiation? It would seem that those losing their homes would have a right to know who owns their loan and have access to them?

    • Katheryn says:

      Basic contract law would be breached if a contract was entered into without disclosure and assent of all parties to the contract. This is so basic in any contract of any kind and it is unbelievabe tthe courts can find in their favor.

Leave a Reply