Foreclosure AppealsForeclosure Defense Florida

Florida Appellate Court: There Are No Longer ANY Defenses To Foreclosure.

By January 20, 2016One Comment

Let’s be clear about what is occurring all across this state….Florida’s entire court system is turning against consumers, and against any real defenses of challenges to the overarching power of the banks and corporations.

The latest example comes out of Florida’s Second District Court of Appeals where they destroyed one of the last remaining defenses to foreclosure:

Brendan and Suzanne Brindise appeal a final foreclosure judgment. They
raise but one issue—one that may be of first impression in the district courts of appeal.
They claim that the trial court erroneously entered final judgment because, prior to filing
suit, U.S. Bank National Association, the holder of the note, failed to give them written
notice of the assignment of their mortgage loan as required by section 559.715, Florida
Statutes (2012). According to the Brindises, such notice was a condition precedent to
suit. The Brindises posit that U.S. Bank’s failure of pleading and proof on this issue
barred foreclosure. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). We affirm
the final foreclosure judgment. In doing so, we hold only that providing the notice
described in section 559.715 is not a condition precedent to foreclosure.


One Comment

  • Mark Bowen says:

    One thing that stands out to me in this case is that the alleged “original” promissory note is allegedly endorsed by David A. Spector who left the employ of Countrywide in September of 2006. If the mortgage were assigned in 2011, just prior to the commencement of the lawsuit, then is seems fit to conclude that the note was transferred at or around the same time. How then was the note transferred by someone who hadn’t worked at Countrywide, at that time, for over 5 years? One of the problems that I see with the defensive strategy in this case is the almost total lack of discovery; no admissions, minimal production, and totally non-existent arguments pertaining to holder in due course or any other challenge to the enforceability of the note and mortgage. But, then, I would expect little else from a foreclosure defense attorney who’s primary arguments for the past few years have been centered on paragraph 22 violations.

    I have to agree whole-heartedly with the dissenting view in the case on appeal though.

Leave a Reply