Filed: Apr. 24, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, ETC., Appellant, v. Case No. 5D15-3302 JEFFERY EICHER, ROBERTA EICHER, ET AL., Appellees. _/ Decision filed April 28, 2017 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Theotis Bronson, Judge. Diana B. Matson and Joshua R. Levine, of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, Fort Laude
Summary: IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, ETC., Appellant, v. Case No. 5D15-3302 JEFFERY EICHER, ROBERTA EICHER, ET AL., Appellees. _/ Decision filed April 28, 2017 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Theotis Bronson, Judge. Diana B. Matson and Joshua R. Levine, of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, Fort Lauder..
More
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, ETC., Appellant, v. Case No. 5D15-3302 JEFFERY EICHER, ROBERTA EICHER, ET AL., Appellees. ________________________________/ Decision filed April 28, 2017 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Theotis Bronson, Judge. Diana B. Matson and Joshua R. Levine, of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant. Jose G. Oliveira, of Jose G. Oliveira, PA, Orlando, and Raymer F. Maguire, III, of Maguire Lassman, P.A., Orlando, for Appellees, Jeffery and Roberta Eicher. No Appearance for Other Appellees. PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. SAWAYA and PALMER, JJ., concur. COHEN, C.J., concurs specially, with opinion. CASE NO. 5D15-3302 COHEN, J., concurring specially, with opinion. Our affirmance should not be read as approval of the rulings in this case. The trial court accepted arguments that conflated standing with the authority of a servicing agent to testify. Our decision merely rejects the argument that the errors below, unpreserved by objection, rise to the level of fundamental error. 2
