Comments on: ROMAN PINO vs THE BANK OF NEW YORK – Florida Supreme Court: Trial Court Did Not have Jurisdiction to Reinstate Dismissed Foreclosure Action Based on Fraud https://4closurefraud.org/2013/02/07/roman-pino-vs-the-bank-of-new-york-florida-supreme-court-trial-court-did-not-have-jurisdiction-to-reinstate-dismissed-foreclosure-action-based-on-fraud/ - Fighting Foreclosure Fraud BY SHARING THE KNOWLEDGE Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:00:15 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0.7 By: BOBBI SWANN https://4closurefraud.org/2013/02/07/roman-pino-vs-the-bank-of-new-york-florida-supreme-court-trial-court-did-not-have-jurisdiction-to-reinstate-dismissed-foreclosure-action-based-on-fraud/#comment-408388 Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:00:15 +0000 https://4closurefraud.org/?p=57506#comment-408388 This sentence strikes a question: “Because Pino sought no other available sanctions, and the case has since been resolved between the parties, we need not reach the question of whether the trial court should be able to award monetary sanctions under the circumstances of this case.” So, if I am reading this correctly, there has been some sort of ‘settlement’ between BNY Mellon and Pino, and because of this no sanctions (monetary) were awarded by this (review) court, correct? What was the settlement? Does it not have to be revealed if the case is still ongoing? BNY Mellon can’t file a voluntary dismissal since they already filed one before so is the case still pending?

]]>