Filed: Oct. 21, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 21, 2015
Summary: MAY , J. A homeowner appeals a final judgment of foreclosure, raising six issues. She challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, standing, and the trial court's procedural and evidentiary decisions. We find no merit in any of the issues raised and affirm the final judgment. We note, however, that the final judgment is in favor of the original named plaintiff, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., not Ventures Trust 2013 1-H-R, which was substituted as the plaintiff. As a substituted plaintiff, Ventu
Summary: MAY , J. A homeowner appeals a final judgment of foreclosure, raising six issues. She challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, standing, and the trial court's procedural and evidentiary decisions. We find no merit in any of the issues raised and affirm the final judgment. We note, however, that the final judgment is in favor of the original named plaintiff, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., not Ventures Trust 2013 1-H-R, which was substituted as the plaintiff. As a substituted plaintiff, Ventur..
More
MAY, J.
A homeowner appeals a final judgment of foreclosure, raising six issues. She challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, standing, and the trial court's procedural and evidentiary decisions. We find no merit in any of the issues raised and affirm the final judgment.
We note, however, that the final judgment is in favor of the original named plaintiff, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., not Ventures Trust 2013 1-H-R, which was substituted as the plaintiff. As a substituted plaintiff, Ventures Trust 2013 1-H-R stands in the shoes of the original named plaintiff, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Miller v. Kondaur Capital Corp., 91 So.3d 218, 219 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Nevertheless, we remand the case to the trial court to enter final judgment for the proper plaintiff, Ventures Trust 2013 1-H-R.
Affirmed, but Remanded for Correction of Judgment.
CIKLIN, C.J., and FORST, J., concur.
