Foreclosure Defense Florida



Holy Bombshell Batman, this is HUGE—-read this order, a federal judge stopping foreclosures….there’s undoubtedly a whole lot more going on here than we can see at first read…..stay tuned.

But it’s interesting how some states are taking bold steps to take help consumers while here in Florida our “leaders” are only pushing for more “fair” foreclosures….”fair” to the banks, “fair” to the foreclosure mills, “fair” to the Wall Streeters and “fair” to the banksters.



  • palmbeachdreaming says:


    Just wanted to let you know that I have 5 more petitions heading up to you this week. Please keep us updated.

    We also need Mark Stopa to get on board as well.


    • Thank you and yes, I have drafted Stopa as well…..i expect he will be next!

    • DAVID SHAW says:

      hi matt i will sign any petition against the banks as i am in missouri and have seen it first hand here and still fighting local bank but we still cannot find an ethical attorney here to help as we have also found out through 5 years of letting our local bank use forced place insurance on our 3 propertiesthey were not not separated policies,and 1 was my parents that has had insurance on it for more than 20 years.we just keep finding errors but no luck in both are veterans we are getting ready to rise up against all the corruption as this is why we fought to keep this country free of this.

  • chunga says:

    Could Judge John J. McConnell Jr. be the next Judge Schack? His Order is picking up steam.

    Judge puts RI foreclosure cases on hold – Banks ordered to negotiate with homeowners

  • Attorney Wendy Alison Nora says:

    Stay away from the PSA arguments. The homeowners best claim is risk of double liability on the fabrication of pseudo-endorsed notes and assignments of mortgages from bankrupt entities via MERS.
    The Rhode Island situation is not good for homeowners. By raising the PSA argument, the homeowners in Cosajay and Fryzel have pushed the envelope to the point where forged promissory notes and fraudulent assignments may become acceptable because the homeowners may be found to lack standing to raise direct issues of fraud in the foreclosure process.
    It does not appear that the Rhode Island federal court stay is more than a calendar control issue until the magistrate judges decisions in Cosajay and Fryzel are reconsidered. Rhode Island’s Superior Court upheld MERS’ standing to sue for foreclosure in Bucci v. Lehman Brothers. The standing issue under reconsideration in Rhode Island is whether or not the homeowners have standing to object to MERS conduct–which the homeowners lost at the magistrate judge level.
    My advice is to stay away from the PSA argument and hold tight to the instances of standing of the foreclosure claims being made under fabricated endorsements and allonges and facially questionable mortgage assignments–there are so many instances of that practice. The PSA argument is on the verge of making bad law in Rhode Island. The issue of double liability on phoney paperwork is most appealing to the courts.
    Here is an article from a judicial foreclosure state’s bar journal (Wisconsin) which relies on the standing issue based upon fabricated allonges and mortgage assignments from MERS as nominee only.
    Wisconsin’s Fourth District Court of Appeals has been remanding cases on evidentiary grounds only(personal knowledge; authenticated documents.)
    The Rhode Island Superior Court has upheld MERS standing as nominee of bankrupt Lehman Brothers: Bucci v. Lehman Brothers.
    Just my thoughts, but we have to avoid overshooting the issues which homeowners can establish standing to raise which do not include the beneficial interests and contractual rights of investors in the PSAs.

    • Attorney Wendy Alison Nora says:

      Thank you, Chunga, for getting the article quoting Attorney Babcock whose cases are pending in the Rhode Island federal district court. It is good to see Attorney Babcock’s view of this situation. Fair opportunity for homeowners to keep their homes and make reasonable payments to ??? with the homeowner being held harmless from duplicate claims under the manufactured documents is the goal. If the PSA issue sheds enough light on the subject to bring the court to the point of realizing that the foreclosing parties do not have clean hands in making their foreclosure claims, I think that the argument is a good one. It is just that the homeowners clearly are not third party beneficiaries of the PSAs and I would hate to see the issue of phoney documents lost under a strained holding that the homeowners don’t have standing to object to the standing of the servicer coming into court with manufactured documents as happened in the magistrate judges’ rulings which are being reconsidered. It seems clear to me that the real party in interest must come before the court and the court must determine whether a foreclosure should proceed in the name of an entity in a judicial foreclosure state. In nonjudicial foreclosure states, the reasoning in the Ibanez case in Massachusetts is an outstanding analysis of the equities involved.

Leave a Reply