Search for: "In the Matter of: Mortgages Ltd." Results 101 - 120 of 263
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Aug 2014, 2:57 pm by Cathy Holmes
National Australia Bank Ltd., which limits the SEC’s jurisdiction to bring anti-fraud actions to claims that involve the purchase or sale of securities made in the U.S. or involving a security listed on a domestic exchange. [read post]
3 Aug 2014, 11:34 am by Law Lady
STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. 2nd District.Jurisdiction -- Non-residents -- Service of process -- Service by publication pursuant to Venezuelan law was sufficient to confer in personam jurisdiction where service was made in compliance with Hague Service Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters -- Personal service is not required for Florida court to have jurisdiction to render a money judgment against defendant -- Where service… [read post]
21 Jul 2014, 1:37 am by Matrix Legal Information Team
Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd & Anor, heard 3 – 5 March 2014. [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 5:05 am
’ (Puren Ventures) or `Baylor Holdings, Ltd. [read post]
20 Jun 2014, 2:56 pm by Giles Peaker
Not strictly speaking a housing case, though it is a mortgage repossession matter. [read post]
20 Jun 2014, 10:14 am by John Elwood
  First up is Wellness International Network, Ltd. v. [read post]
14 May 2014, 8:24 am
The claim to rental, for example, is extinguished or rendered unenforceable after three years.A judgment obtained for a debt in South Africa will prescribe or fall away after 30 years; so would a debt for a mortgage bond, taxation and certain debts owed to the State.Prescription is a way to 'punish' the creditor for taking long to claim her/his debt (Daily News, August 13, 2013).The act also refers to 'acquisitive prescription', the real right a person acquires over a… [read post]
28 Apr 2014, 8:13 am by Jocelyn Hutton, Matrix
Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd & Anor, heard 3 – 5 March 2014. [read post]
9 Apr 2014, 1:16 pm by Giles Peaker
Rahman v Sterling Credit Ltd [2001] 1 WLR 496 [Also on Bailii] was a mortgage possession case. [read post]
9 Apr 2014, 1:16 pm by Giles Peaker
Rahman v Sterling Credit Ltd [2001] 1 WLR 496 [Also on Bailii] was a mortgage possession case. [read post]
8 Apr 2014, 5:25 pm by Law Lady
WYNDSONG ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee. 4th District.Mortgage foreclosure -- Trial court erred in granting summary judgment to bank because an issue of material fact existed as to when the bank took possession of the note -- Argument that the note followed the mortgage when the mortgage was assigned to bank is flawed because the mortgage follows assignment of the noteJOSEPHINE BRISTOL, Appellant, v. [read post]
31 Mar 2014, 1:43 am by Laura Sandwell
Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd & Anor, heard 3 – 5 March 2014. [read post]
24 Mar 2014, 3:19 am by Laura Sandwell
Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd & Anor, heard 3 – 5 March 2014. [read post]
17 Mar 2014, 4:34 am by Laura Sandwell
Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd & Anor, heard 3 – 5 March 2014. [read post]
3 Mar 2014, 2:02 am by Laura Sandwell
Listed for two and a half days from this morning is the appeal of Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd & Anor. [read post]
24 Jan 2014, 12:57 am by Kevin LaCroix
Liability may attach if the officer is adjudged in hindsight to have acted outside the scope of his or her delegated authority or to have failed to act on a matter that was not (sic) within his or her expected areas of responsibility.[8]   More recently, five decisions by federal district courts in California ruled that the business judgment rule applies only to independent directors, not officers. [read post]
24 Jan 2014, 12:57 am by Kevin LaCroix
Liability may attach if the officer is adjudged in hindsight to have acted outside the scope of his or her delegated authority or to have failed to act on a matter that was not (sic) within his or her expected areas of responsibility.[8]   More recently, five decisions by federal district courts in California ruled that the business judgment rule applies only to independent directors, not officers. [read post]