I dissent because I cannot condone the unprofessional and unethical means
used by the bank’s counsel, with the trial court’s complicity, to obtain an amended
final judgment in this case. Counsel for Centennial Bank admitted at oral
argument that the amended final judgment, which more than doubled the amount
of the deficiency judgment, was obtained after an ex parte communication with the
judge’s chambers. Either the judge or her staff then advised counsel on how to
proceed. Not only was it improper for the trial court to give legal advice, but the
advice was wrong””directing counsel to send a letter with a proposed amended
final judgment, rather than to file a motion seeking appropriate relief. This was
then followed by another ex parte communication””a letter from the bank’s
counsel to the judge, that then resulted in a new final judgment two and half times
larger than the previous final judgment. The bank did not even send a copy of the
letter to the appellant. Incredibly, the majority of this panel is willing to condone
and reward such behavior.
I’m only half way through reading the dissenting opinion. Ugh!!
Is ANYONE working on an appeal? A rehearing?
This dissenting opinion seems to pretty much be writing either of the above.