Wells Fargo Bank v. Schultz, 164 N.H. 608 (2013)
- Citation
- Wells Fargo Bank v. Schultz, 164 N.H. 608 (2013)
- Parent Document
- Wells Fargo Bank v. Schultz, 164 N.H. 608 (2013)
- Jurisdiction
- New Hampshire (state)
- Effective Date
- 2013-02-25
Other Sections in This Document (17)
- Wells Fargo Bank v. Schultz, 164 N.H. 608 (2013)
- Wells Fargo Bank v. Schultz, 164 N.H. 608 (2013)
- Wells Fargo Bank v. Schultz, 164 N.H. 608 (2013)
- Wells Fargo Bank v. Schultz, 164 N.H. 608 (2013)
- Wells Fargo Bank v. Schultz, 164 N.H. 608 (2013)
- Wells Fargo Bank v. Schultz, 164 N.H. 608 (2013)
- Wells Fargo Bank v. Schultz, 164 N.H. 608 (2013)
- Wells Fargo Bank v. Schultz, 164 N.H. 608 (2013)
- Wells Fargo Bank v. Schultz, 164 N.H. 608 (2013)
- Wells Fargo Bank v. Schultz, 164 N.H. 608 (2013)
- Wells Fargo Bank v. Schultz, 164 N.H. 608 (2013)
- Wells Fargo Bank v. Schultz, 164 N.H. 608 (2013)
- Wells Fargo Bank v. Schultz, 164 N.H. 608 (2013)
- Wells Fargo Bank v. Schultz, 164 N.H. 608 (2013)
- Wells Fargo Bank v. Schultz, 164 N.H. 608 (2013)
- Wells Fargo Bank v. Schultz, 164 N.H. 608 (2013)
- Wells Fargo Bank v. Schultz, 164 N.H. 608 (2013)
Full Text
529 charsThe defendant argues that even if the plaintiff satisfied Kevlik, “in the current mortgage market, the mere provision of a foreclosure deed . . . should not be sufficient to establish the standing of a possessory plaintiff to bring an eviction action, particularly where there are intervening transfers between the original lender and the foreclosing entity.” He argues that the plaintiff should be required to prove in the district division its “record title” through assignments leading up to the foreclosure sale. We disagree.