WELLS FARGO BANK NA v. FRANCISCO ET AL

Filing 83

ORDER denying 78 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by JUDGE RICHARD SMOAK on 9/10/2014. (jcw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as
successor-by-merger to Wachovia
Bank, National Association,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 5:13-cv-293-RS-EMT

PAMELA ATKINS FRANCISCO and
FRED P. KARSNER,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER
Before me is Defendant Karsner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
78).
The basic issue before the court on a motion for summary judgment is
“whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a
jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2512 , 91 L.
Ed. 2d 202 (1986). The moving party has the burden of showing the absence of a
genuine issue as to any material fact, and in deciding whether the movant has met
this burden, the court must view the movant’s evidence and all factual inferences
arising from it in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Adickes v. S. H.

Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157, 90 S. Ct. 1598, 1608, 26 L. Ed. 2d 142 (1970);
Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112, 1115 (11th Cir. 1993). Thus, if
reasonable minds could differ on the inferences arising from undisputed facts, then
a court should deny summary judgment. Miranda v. B & B Cash Grocery Store,
Inc., 975 F.2d 1518, 1534 (11th Cir. 1992) (citing Mercantile Bank & Trust v.
Fidelity & Deposit Co., 750 F.2d 838, 841 (11th Cir. 1985)). However, a mere
‘scintilla’ of evidence supporting the nonmoving party's position will not suffice;
there must be enough of a showing that the jury could reasonably find for that
party. Walker v. Darby, 911 F.2d 1573, 1577 (11th Cir. 1990) (citing Anderson,
477 U.S. at 251).
Karsner contends that his mortgage was indisputably released by Wells
Fargo. Wells Fargo counters that while the mortgage was released, it was only
released because they refinanced the mortgage, and they are now suing over the
newer mortgage.
Disputed issues of material facts clearly remain in this case. Accordingly,
Defendant Karsner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 78) is DENIED.

ORDERED on September 10, 2014.
/S/ Richard Smoak
RICHARD SMOAK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE