Matt Weidner – Fighting For The American People

Posts Tagged ‘riggs v aurora’

On July 12, 2010, I’m going to trial against an entity that lacks the authority to be in court, Indymac Bank.  I’ve been arguing for more than a year that Indymac doesn’t have the legal authority to throw my 84 year old woman out of her home because their assets were sold and only the new entity could pursue those assets.  As recently as June 10, 2010, attorneys for “Indymac” were still moving for summary judgment.  On June 18, 2010 apparently recognizing that the fraud of their improper pursuit was now exposed to the court, attorneys have now filed a “Motion to Substitute Party Plaintiff“.

(“Yes your honor we admit that Indymac lacks the legal authority to throw this woman out of her home…our mistake, sorry, please give that right on the eve of trial and only after we’ve been caught to the only party who had that right, Duetsche Bank who should have been the party since 2006″)

There is a very real pattern of facts and positions changing right before the court’s eyes to suit newly developed contrary facts or to respond to defenses presented by those harmed by the improper facts.  Attached here are two documents which serve to dramatically illustrate these problems.  The first is an appeal pending in the Fourth District Court of Appeals which clearly details changing facts in a foreclosure case, going so far as to suggest that forgery or material alterations occurred in that case.  This appeal offers an excellent road map to investigate other examples of fraud or material misrepresentation on the court.  Please take the time to read it and understand all the issues in the cases cited.

Frost+Final+Brief

This appeal is particularly relevant given the recent reversal of the Riggs v. Aurora case, which was also heard in the Fourth District.  The rehearing brief is attached below and offers the important details about this very confusing situation.

Riggs+Motion+for+Rehearing

These cases all remind us of the absolute necessity to have court reporters in all hearings, and to properly document all legally operative facts.  As issues surrounding negotiable instruments become increasingly important, it is critical that attorneys obtain a certified copy of the original note when it is filed.

The cases also show the chaos that is occurring when plaintiffs are permitted to engage in totally improper practice of dropping these promissory notes into files without amending the complaints to make these documents part of the record….this procedure must be insisted upon because it’s the only way the legitimacy of these documents can be challenged…see also Florida Statutes, 673.3081.

One of the greatest things about this foreclosure crisis is the fact that normal, everyday people are learning more about their courts and our system of justice than probably any other time in our country’s history than perhaps the civil rights movement.  I continue to be very impressed with some of the great legal work and excellent information that comes out of non-lawyers.

One of the figures that I am most impressed by is Lisa Epstein from Foreclosure Hamlet.  This amazing woman runs an excellent website, but more than that, she’s become one heck of an expert in foreclosure issues. She is a real example of a hero emerging from the midst of tragedy and crisis. From Lisa comes this next very interesting issue.

So Just What Are The Facts?

On April 21, 2010, the Fourth District Court of Appeals announced its decision in RIGGS v. AURORA LOAN SERVICES. This was a great decision for those in the foreclosure fight because it rejected summary judgment when the endorsement did not match up with the named plaintiff…here is an excerpt from the opinion:

Aurora Loan Services, LLC, filed a mortgage foreclosure action against Jerry Riggs, Sr., alleging that it was the “owner and holder” of the underlying promissory note. Aurora filed a copy of the mortgage and a copy of the promissory note, which named Riggs as the mortgagor and First Mangus Financial Corporation as the mortgagee. The promissory note reflected an “endorsement in blank,” which is a stamp with a blank line where the name of the assignee could be filled in above a pre-printed line naming First Mangus. (emphasis added)

On June 16, 2010, the Fourth District issued a new opinion in this case which affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment.

Aurora filed a mortgage foreclosure action against Jerry Riggs, Sr., alleging that it was the “owner and holder” of the underlying promissory note. With the complaint, Aurora filed copies of the mortgage and promissory note, which named Riggs as the mortgagor and First Mangus Financial Corporation as the mortgagee. Aurora asserted that the original note was in its possession. Aurora moved for summary judgment. In support of the motion, it filed two affidavits attesting that it owned and held the note and mortgage. At the hearing on the motion, Aurora produced the original mortgage and promissory note. The note had an indorsement in blank with the hand printed signature of Humberto Alday, an agent of the indorser, First Mangus. (emphasis added) The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Aurora over Riggs’s objections that Aurora’s status as lawful “owner and holder” of the note was not conclusivelyestablished by the record evidence.

It was our friend Lisa Epstein who first alerted the legal community to the fact that the legally operative fact in this case, i.e. whether the note was endorsed properly or not changed from the first opinion to the second opinion.  No explanation is provided in either opinion so inquiring legal minds all across the country are wondering….

WAS THERE NO PROPER ENDORSEMENT AS REFLECTED IN THE APRIL 21, 2010 RULING OR WAS THERE A POTENTIALLY PROPER ENDORSEMENT AS CITED IN THE

JUNE 16, 2010 ORDER?

I’m just dying to find out the answer to this very significant question……

The Florida Supreme Court has made it clear that Plaintiffs must establish the basic facts they claim entitle them to foreclose prior to filing, with the implementation of the new Verified Complaint Rule.

The Second DCA has made it clear that the Plaintiff’s facts must be established prior to granting foreclosure bacfunding, verizzo. The Fourth DCA has made it clear that the Plaintiff’s facts must be established prior to granting foreclosure riggsfourth.

Most circuit court judges, recognizing the clear mandates of the Supreme Court and the District Courts of Appeals are now (finally) requiring the Plaintiffs to come before them with proper allegations in order to withstand a Motion to Dismiss.  In many courtrooms, gone are the days when sloppy allegations and contracts between parties not before the court are enforced, but this is unfortunately not the case across the state.

Attached below are a few recent circuit court Orders which confirm the growing consensus that Plaintiffs must provide a proper evidentiary and pleading basis in order to proceed with their cases.  In addition to those found here, a search of Florida Law Weekly reveals similar Orders from across the state. When you know you’re going into a hostile courtroom, make sure you copy all these decisions, cite them in your memos and motions and leave the cases with the judge.  He or she may not grant your motion, but in quiet times of reflection, they may take the time to read the Orders and then the powerful judicial intellect will shift to join the growing consensus against the Putrid Plaintiff’s Practice.  Read on and enjoy:

Ordermtd, Order+Granting+Motion+to+Dismiss-1, orderjirotka, capacity

More, much More about the Rally later…much to be fearful of and much more work to be done…but that’s for tomorrow…for now

The opinion is short and sweet, so I won’t take much time to comment other than to say….

NO MORE SUMMARY JUDGMENTS OF FORECLOSURE

Read on….

riggsfourth