William Rouser v. Theo White

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that given appellee’s “ownership of the mortgage and possession of the [n]ote, we find he has standing as a real party in interest to pursue the underlying foreclosure action.”
• stating that “[t]he foreclosing party can prove standing [] by showing that it … is the holder of the note specially indorsed[.]” (citation omitted)
• concluding that, where the evidence of record established that appellees held the mortgage by valid assignment, and appellants offered no evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact, the trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of appellees
• concluding that, where the evidence of record established that appellees held the mortgage by valid assignment, and appellants offered no evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact, the trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of appellees
• concluding that the trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of appellee where appellee properly held the mortgage by valid assignment and appellants offered no evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the assignment
• concluding that, where the evidence of record established that appellees held the mortgage by valid assignment, and appellants offered no evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact, the trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of appellees

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).