Cases

41 So.3d 401 (2010) Jose E. VIDAL, Appellant, v. SUNTRUST BANK, Appellee. No. 4D09-3019. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. August 4, 2010. *402 Thomas E. Ice of Ice Legal, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant. Stephen Maher and Aliette D. Rodz of Shutts & Bowen LLP, Miami, for appellee. WARNE

PER CURIAM: After oral argument in this case, the United States Supreme Court decided AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742 (2011). The district court’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration is VACATED, and this case is remanded to the district court for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion. VACATED AND REMANDED.1

699 S.E.2d 846 (2010) DuPREE v. SUNTRUST BANK. No. A10A1233. Court of Appeals of Georgia. August 4, 2010. Cohen, Pollock, Merlin & Small, Gus H. Small, Jr., for Appellant. Arnall, Golden & Gregory, Matthew T. Covell, Brent W. Herrin, Atlanta, for Appellee. MIKELL, Judge. Tom E. DuPree, Jr., appeals from the grant of summary judgment to S

OPINION BY JUSTICE WILLIAM C. MIMS In this appeal, we consider whether the circuit court erred by placing the burden of proof in a garnishment proceeding on SunTrust Bank, the garnishee, rather than on PS Business Parks, L.P. ("PS Business"), the judgment creditor. Additionally, we consider whether the circuit court erred by finding that SunTrust was indebted to Deutsch & Gilden, In

342 F.Supp.2d 943 (2004) EVOLUTION, INC., Plaintiff, v. SUNTRUST BANK, et al., Defendants. No. CIV.A. 01-2409-CM. United States District Court, D. Kansas. May 12, 2004. Order Denying Reconsideration September 23, 2004. *945 Gregory B. Hancks, Kansas City, MO, Lance Y. Kinzer, Michael R. Clarke, Schlagel, Damore &

SECOND DIVISION MARKLE, LAND and DAVIS, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules February

385 F.Supp.2d 1377 (2005) David W. SENTERFITT, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC., Defendant. No. CV 105-059. United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Augusta Division. August 31, 2005. *1378 John B. Long, Tucker, Everitt, Long, Brewton & Lanier, PC, Raymond J. Doumar, Raymond J. Douma

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, STAY IN FAVOR OF ARBITRATION JAMES LAWRENCE KING, District Judge. THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) and Wachovia Bank, N.A.’s (‘Wachovia”) Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Stay in Favor, of Arbitration (DE # 1384), filed ■ April 29, 2011. The Court is fully briefed in the m

ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT UNION BANK’S MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT JAMES LAWRENCE KING, District Judge. THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant Union Bank’s Motion to Dismiss (DE # 1355), filed April 20, 2011. Therein, Defendant seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint (DE # 1317), claiming both that 1) Plaintiffs’ claims are preempted by the Natio

ORDER GRANTING CLASS CERTIFICATION JAMES LAWRENCE KING, District Judge. THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (DE # 1387) (“Motion”).1 The Court has carefully considered the Motion, response, reply, and the documents attached to them, as well as Plaintiffs’ voluminous evidentiary submissio

ORDER PRELIMINARILYAPPROVING CLASS SETTLEMENT AND CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT CLASS JAMES LAWRENCE KING, District Judge. The parties to the above-captioned actions currently pending against Bank of America, N.A. (“BofA”) as part of this multidistrict litigation have agreed to a settlement, the terms and conditions of which are set forth in an executed Settlement Agreement and Release (the “Settlement”

OMNIBUS ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION JAMES LAWRENCE KING, District Judge. THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.’s Motion to Dismiss on Grounds of Preemption and Further Reconsideration (DE # 1484), filed May 17, 2011.1 Defendants move for reconsideration of the Court’s earlier Omnibus Order Denying Dism

Edward J. Coleman, III, Chief Judge On November 16, 2017, Tremar K. Ward (the "Plaintiff") filed this adversary proceeding against his mortgage lender, Fidelity Bank (the "Defendant"). The Plaintiff, proceeding pro se , alleges that the Defendant "monetized" a promissory note signed by the Plaintiff and used the funds therefrom to finance the Plaintiff's purchase of real property. He contends that the Defendant's conduct d

EDWARDS, J. Appellants/borrowers, Margaret and James Martins (“Martins”), appeal from the final summary judgments entered in this mortgage foreclosure case against them and in favor of Appellee, PNC Bank, NA as Successor by Merger to National City Bank, as Successor by Merger to National City Bank of Indiana (“PNC Bank”). The Martins assert that summary judgment should not have been entered as there were disputed issues of m

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. This case involves an attempt by a Chapter 13 debtor to avoid foreclosure on her residential mortgage through a lender liability suit in an adversary proceeding within her bankruptcy case. Agreeing with the bankruptcy court, we find all claims to be either time-barred or without merit, and therefore affirm its grant of summary judgment in favor of the cre

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND RELATED MOTIONS JAMES I. COHN, District Judge. THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the following: 1. Defendant Bank of America, N.A.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint [DE 37], Plaintiffs Response [DE 45], and Defendant’s Reply [DE 50].

ORDER CECILIA M. ALTONAGA, District Judge. THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant, PNC Bank, National Association’s (“PNC[’s]”) Motion for Summary Final Judgment ... (“Motion”) [ECF No. 104], together with a Statement of Material Facts (“Defendant’s SMF”) [ECF No. 103], both filed on February 19, 2013. Plaintiffs, Dantzler, Inc. and Dantzler Trade, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or

PARIENTE, J. The issue before the Court involves the application of the five-year statute of limitations to “[a]n action to foreclose a mortgage” pursuant to section 95.11(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2012).1 The Fifth District *1012Court of Appeal relied . on this. Court’s reasoning in Singleton v. Greymar Associates, 882 So.2d 10

Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC14-1265 ____________ LEWIS BROOKE BARTRAM, Petitioner, vs. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, etc., et al., Respondents. ____________ No. SC14-1266 ____________ THE PLANTATION AT PONTE VEDRA, Petitioner, vs. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, etc., et al.,

311 B.R. 721 (2004) In re Tenisha D. BROWN, Debtor. Beal Bank SSB, Movant, v. Tenisha D. Brown, Respondent. No. 04-25874 BM. United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Pennsylvania. July 12, 2004. *723 Leslie E. Puida, Goldbeck, McCafferty & McKeever, Philadelphia, PA, Donna M. Donaher, Tucker Arensberg, PC, Pittsburgh, PA, for