gallarum-case-fl
On September 7, 2011, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals released their opinion in Glarum v. Lasalle…this opinion sent shock waves across the banking and big business community into an uproar…but the fact of the matter is the opinion just restated the law that has existed in this country forever….
But a most bizarre thing has happened…..the banking community has filed a Motion for Rehearing in which they ask the Appellate court to reconsider its opinion…and here’s the BIZARRE BOMBSHELL….(in part) because the opinion has been reported in the press!
Huh? Restart….Do over? Say What? Just read the pleadings below…especially the Motion to Take Judicial Notice. They are asking the court to rehear their quite clear opinion because they don’t like the way it has been reported in the press. Huh? Restart….Do over? Say What?
Just read the pleadings below…especially the Motion to Take Judicial Notice. They are asking the court to rehear their quite clear opinion because they don’t like the way it has been reported in the press….yeah, that’s part of what’s going on here……
The world just gets way, way, way too bizarre.
Appellate courts issue opinions….and (unfortunately to some) because of this pesky thing called THE CONSTITUTION AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT, those opinions get reported. But that’s the darnedest thing about the press and the First Amendment…it ain’t always what the banksters and the Wall Street types and the thugs want to hear.
This world just get’s way, way, way too bizarre, Team Ice (again) does a masterful job. “Our” courts apply the law…and it just so happens that in that instance the common man takes some benefit from the law….and the banksters go nuts. Then from deep within the secret lairs and starchambers, alarms and sirens start going off…..“WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED UP THERE…SOMEHOW THE LAW WORKS AGAINST US…THIS CANNOT BE!”
And they immediately set their minions……“IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT IT TAKES OR HOW MUCH IT COSTS….THESE LAWS CANNOT BE APPLIED AGAINST US!”
Well I still have hope that the Lady Themis truly is independent, that those eyes are still blindfolded and that she directs our courts to apply the laws as they are intended…..
STAND FAST HONORABLE COURTS, SERVE THE LAW!
Glarum (Fla.) – Motion for Rehearing
Glarum (Fla.) – Motion to Take Judicial Notice
The banksters could very well end up with a single page clarification that will set their hair on fire … Do they REALLY want this?
The banks and servicers brought this upon themselves. If they hadn’t been caught fabricating documents, charging junk fees, and performing every other egregious act that is now their standard business practice, the courts would have continued taking them at their word. But now that banks and servicers have proven themselves to be completely untrustworthy, every piece of evidence must be questioned.
Now, with the CITY OF ST. CLAIR SHORES GENERAL EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM v. LPS suit, it’s clear that NONE of the bank/servicer records can be trusted. Employees of LPS were given carte blanche access to bank/servicer databases and borrower records, and they were passing around their userids and passwords like cookies. The error rate on borrower records was estimated to be as high as 78%, according to former LPS employees. (https://findsenlaw.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/5-20-2011-city-of-st-clair-shores-employees-retirement-system-v-lps-et-al-amended-complaint-may-18-2011.pdf)
The banks and servicers have nobody to blame but themselves. They have lost all credibility. It’s a pity, considering banks used to be the gold standard in record keeping, and were universally believed to track every single penny, every time.
Didn’t the clock for re-hearing run out after 15 days from date of the September 7th decision by the 4th DCA?
In other words, isn’t LaSalle Bank’s (Bank of America’s) October 6th “Motion for Re-hearing” moot because it was untimely served?
Bankster echo-chamber strategy:
1) Feed articles full of histrionics to industry-friendly media outlets
2) Cite resultant articles as a basis for reconsideration of adverse decision
Oh wait, I see that on September 20th LaSalle moved for an extension of time and was granted extension until October 7th.
It must have been that September 20th article in “American Banker” (cited in the “Motion to Take Notice”) that had the banksters spitting mad, throwing their cigars at their attorneys and demanding that they “GET IN THERE AND GET THAT DECISION CHANGED!”
Matt, here are 12 questions on the Glarum ” Motion for Re-hearing”:
1. Even though ” LaSalle as Trustee” was found to have standing to foreclose, can ” LaSalle” have the standing and authority to file a motion for Rehearing of the Opinion for ” relief” that is clearly outside of and beyond the instant foreclosure case? Was this Motion authorized by the alleged ” Trust” (i.e. ” ultra vires”)?
2. Can ” LaSalle as Trustee” really be found to represent the entire Florida banking industry in this matter, when ” LaSalle” is not a Florida business entity??
3. As you point out, Matt, absent any actual subsequent Court decisions, can histrionic stories in ” certain state and national media” (most of which are banking industry-friendly) really be the basis for establishing that the Opinion ” raises significant questions regarding Florida Rules of evidence,” ” injects calamitous confusion into hundreds of thousands pending foreclosure cases in Florida,” and caused ” widespread uncertainty and confusion???”
4. Outside of “bad press,” what real and actual ” harm” can ” LaSalle Bank, NA as Trustee” point to relating to the recent 4th DCA decision (” the Opinion”)?
5. Can ” LaSalle as Trustee” raise arguments and case law that it never raised in the initial Circuit Court case or the actual Appeal?
6. Is the 4th DCA really constrained by 2nd DCA decisions?
7. Has the 4th DCA certified a conflict with any other DCA in this decision?
8. Even if this decision is found to be in conflict with a prior decision by another Florida DCA, so what? Don’t conflicts between DCA decisions happen from time to time?
9. Isn’t there a mechanism for resolving conflicts between DCA via the Florida Supreme Court?
10. Isn’t the Florida banking industry, through proxy ” LaSalle Bank, NA as Trustee,” simply attempting to subvert the constitutional process for resolving conflicts by preemptively declaring this decision to be a conflict because the Opinion may serve as a precedent that runs against its own selfish business interests?
11. Wouldn’t one possible outcome of a conflict (IF there actually was one and IF the Supreme Court actually took up the question) resolution via the Florida Supreme Court be the quashing of one or more other conflicting DCA decisions in favor of this thoughtful and consumer-friendly 4th DCA opinion?
12. Rather than kowtowing to the Florida banking industry, wouldn’t it be better for the 4th DCA to demonstrate that it truly is ” of the people, for the people” by denying ” LaSalle’s” absurd Motion for Rehearing?
All excellent points and questions…..the whole rehearing can be summed up with your word, “Histrionics” but our state has a long and ignominious history of kowtowing to fraud and abuses of the land shysters and con artists.
Re: Questions 1 and 2 above – Did the proper number of certificate holders of “Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors Trust, Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-FFI” (aka “the Trust”) really read those “calamitous” media reports, especially the one in “American Banker” on September 20, 2011 (specifically cited in the Motion for Re-Hearing) and direct “The Trustee” (LaSalle Bank, NA – does it still really exist?) to IMMEDIATELY file a Motion for Extension of Time on the very same day???? Did it REALLY also authorize the subsequent “Motion for Re-Hearing” for clarification of legal issues that are clearly outside of any purported duties of “The Trustee” to the purported “trust,” especially since “The Trustee” did not challenge the Court’s reversal of summary judgment?” Certainly, the “relief requested” has NO apparent or claimed relationship whatsoever to the purported duties of the purported “trust” and so couldn’t it actually construed as a breach of fiduciary duty for “The Trustee” to be spending this alleged “trust’s” alleged resources to essentially advocate for (bankster) plaintiffs in “all other pending foreclosure cases in Florida!”
If not properly authorized, then are these motions themselves patently fraudulent? This is NOT your typical DCA Appellee asking for relief…
triumphant, et. al.,
I went out to find the rule relating to rehearing in the Florida Appellate Rules (pursuant to my mantra “Read the rules. Read the rules. Read the rules.”) to see about your comment of 15 days being the limitations period. You were correct in that (in my jurisdiction that period is 20 days).
Point 5 here is also a good question, and the same rule (9.330) addresses that as well. See below:
RULE 9.330. REHEARING; CLARIFICATION; CERTIFICATION
(a) Time for Filing; Contents; Response. A motion for rehearing, clarification, or certification may be filed within 15 days of an order or within such other time set by the court. A motion for rehearing shall state with particularity the points of law or fact that, in the opinion of the movant, the court has overlooked or misappre-hended in its decision, and shall not present issues not previously raised in the proceeding. A motion for clarifi-cation shall state with particularity the points of law or fact in the court’s decision that, in the opinion of the movant, are in need of clarification.
I can’t highlight the pertinent portion here that addresses your question so will retype.
“…and shall not present issues not previously raised in the proceeding.”
It looks to me that LaSalle will limited solely to issues already raised on appeal.
There was a case with very nice language that I cited in my response in opposition to appellee’s petition to rehear. My circumstance was a bit different as Plaintiff/Appellee had presented virtually no issues/arguments to the trial court, and then failed entirely to file an Appellee’s brief. But the rules consistently require that the arguments must have been previously presented, and the errors preserved, in order for them to be considered in further adjudication.
“Furthermore, an appellant ‘will not be permitted to feed one can of worms to the trial judge and another to the appellate court.'”