Plaintiffs must prove agency relationship!
Mortgage Promissory notes are not necessarily negotiable!
“Our” courts must defend the Rule of Law, Protect Consumers and not cave into the failed and corrupt business practices of the banks and their servicer/agents!
This was a hard fought case. Â A case I am determined not to let go down. Â It was wrong that I lost at trial, (something that very rarely happens) so I appealed. Â I was very, very encouraged that the 2nd DCA accepted Oral Arguments on the case and, as you watch the video, you’ll see that these very bright judges dug deep into these arguments.
In many ways, this case is yet another bellwether for this nation. Â Where are we heading as a country? Â Well, from where we sit today that’s real clear. Â The question presented in this appeal is,
“Where will this nation go from here?”
If there is any appellate court that I think would issue the hard opinions, Florida’s Second District Court of Appeals is it. Â Tough, brilliant judges who do heavy intellectual lifting. Â What an honor to enter courtroom and argue the big issues with the brightest legal minds!
Please watch these oral arguments and share with me your best criticisms, your best commentary, tell me what you think!
After reviewing the playback, especially after my intimate familiarity with the precise facts of this case, I am certain the arguments I presented represent the correct interpretation of law. The question is, will these correct issues of law prevail over the  overwrought failures of the banking industry?
So much of what the opposing side was arguing was just plain wrong….but that didn’t stop them from making those arguments…compare their misstatements with the actual facts and proceedings at trial.
I hope the argument honors the great Max Gardner, one of the early fathers of the negotiability argument and April Charney for the standing at inception argument!~!
(And then to an extraordinary associate, Michael Fuino)
ORAL ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE 2ND DCA
And the briefs and transcript:
The attorney for the alleged hold of the Note, did not say how they became to hold the blank Note and why is the Note blank in the first place?
Just because on is in possession of a blank Note does not make it the “holder in due course” if there is no proof of purchase. If there is no proof of purchase there is no debt due.
This attorney is not providing to the court the day the check was cut to own the loan, and is only alleging that before the foreclosure filing her client was in possession of Note, however how does a blank Note get into title if the Note is blank? It cannot get into title.
Wow, Matt,
fabulous job!! I’m so glad to have you defending our rights in the courtrooms, and particularly in front of the 2nd DCA. I think you did a stellar job. Hope the judges absorbed all that you offered up.
Eagerly awaiting the result of this one…
Matt, I thought you did an awesome job! Compelling arguments, very well prepared, passionate…you nailed it.
These are such critical questions, and it’s astonishing that anyone would ever think you don’t need to prove agency status or disclose your principal.
Hopefully this court will take the opportunity to answer that question, and finally start analyzing the note negotiability question.
thank you MAT for all you do for all the homeowners of florida. I felt these judges have “NO IDEA” about these foreclosures. i hear clueless remarks. that is sad comming from men/woman that are elected inividuals in charge of our lives/homes. The obviously need to get an inservice in foreclsoure defense law. They have no idea. you know a doctoe or nurse that does not know a procedures gets an inservice regarding the procedure or medication. Imagine a cardiac surgeon doing your cardiac bypass but was not inserviced on the new ” cautery machine” and then die. well sorry about the gruesome anology but as a nurse for 25 years going through foreclosure i can say it. please if anything, all the judges need an inservice they need to learn what is happening. is there anyway you can help. our children deserve to stay in their homes.
thank you
Matt,
Interesting argument. I am not an attorney but here are some of the assumptions I am operating under:
-UCC3 imposes an obligation on makers of notes to ensure they are paying the correct party and allows for double collection where a maker fails to exercise reasonable care.
– I was under the impression FL law is well settled on the issue of agency and places burden on one claiming to be an agent to prove agency relationship exists when that relationship is challenged.
-UCC3 shifts burden to note holder to prove authenticity of signatures and endorsements on a note once the same are challenged. The challenge has to be specifically asserted by a maker.
-Most Fannie notes incorporate terms contained in mortgages such as prepayment penalties. Many of those notes specifically state that the mortgage modifies the note.
correct….but that of course does not matter…
very disappointing that the judge feels only relevant point is if payments were missed. Vigilant Foreclosure anyone?
Thank God for folks like you and Max – you are doing God’s work.
Bravo! downloading the video now.
I thought the last point was the hammer smashing the nail… point on sir ! My case, has a one dollar Assignment, on a $193,000 loan, that is definitively non-negotiable. FSS 673.2031 ( 4 ) If a transferor purports to transfer less than the entire instrument, negotiation of the instrument does not occur. The transferee obtains no rights under this chapter and has only the rights of a partial assignee.
Thank-you