Foreclosure Defense Florida

Foreclosure Mediations- Get Ready To Be Part of The Solution!


  • jesse says:

    What is going on here???????

    Here you are suggesting the consumer go to mediation but on the other hand we are fighting and saying, “do you have standing”, “are you the real party in interest”.

    How can anyone recommend mediation with an unknown lender in most cases who has yet to prove up who they are, how they got the note, if the have the note, and if they have the right to foreclose?

    I did a cove letter to the so called banks mediator which in part states:

    “I am not able to provide you with financial information because it would violate my rights to privacy under the banking and privacy laws that govern your client’s organization. You should know this. You have no legal right to obtain my financial information and I will not waive my rights to disclosure. You have not established jurisdiction in the above captioned matter and we have no stipulation to mediate and there is no legal duty upon me to participate in the matter as you can clearly understand from my objections.”

    Here is the objection filed along with the letter:


    Come now the defendants and hereby object to the plaintiff’s notice of mediation, ” mediation order” and proposed ” mediation order” for the reasons herein. The defendants will not attend the February 9th conference for the reasons herein and not appearing does not constitute failure to appear because the defendants are under no duty to appear or participate in mediation with the plaintiff. The defendants are no more required to stipulate to mediation than anyone would be required to paint his car red, since again, no law or agreement requires it.

    1. The ” mediation order” is actually not an order of the court as it is not executed by the court and there is no order of referral or stipulation in this matter.

    2. The proposed mediation order is untimely because the defendant’s unopposed motions to dismiss and motion to strike are pending.

    3. Defendants’ objections to mediation are sustained as the issue presents a question of law. The defendants objected and continue to object to mediation because, while untimely, would also unfairly require the waiver of certain rights and create an agreement with the plaintiff where none has previously existed. This again would create and continue the substantial prejudice against the defendants.”

    Furthermore, this matter is excluded from mediation because there is no petition by all the parties made in conjunction with arbitration upon stipulation of the parties; and no party has made a motion in conjunction with arbitration and the court has failed to determine the specific benefits to the parties, especially how waiving certain rights in mediation would benefit or adversely affect the defendants.

    Why would I or anyone give anyone who in reality has no authority to make a decision?

    That is the first question if you attend that should come out of your mouth, do you have authority to reduce my principal and approve this today? If not, what is your authority to do?

    Mediation is a joke for most at best and in 99% of the mediation cases my friends have attended were attended by mediators that have no real authority and are nothing but a waste of time and resources.

    Good luck,


  • cklunt says:

    Foreclosure Mediation – Quick or Fair? Where is Plaintiff’s proof of standing in all this?

    Am I missing something? Or is justice again being outsourced in the name of expediency … and again quite possibly to the bias of the plaintiff?

    It seems to me that the requirement for all foreclosure cases in the state courts that involve residential homestead property to be referred to mediation is a convenient way for the courts to cheaply outsource the determination of only those cases which are not being actively contested and thus provide checkbox justification for more foreclosures going to judgement without adequate scrutiny of proper standing and procedure.

    From what I understand, a preponderance of plaintiff’s legal representation are still NOT providing any oath, affirmation or verification per Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.110(b) . and yet many such cases are still being heard and proceeded upon.

    Additionally, there are an increasing amount of contested cases that are being dismissed because of lack of proof of standing for a variety of other reasons concerning legal ownership of the note and mortgage, bogus assignments etc.

    However it seems the legal standing of the Plaintiff’s right to file suit is NEVER considered unless contested – as is evidenced by the many flaws that are pointed out in adequate defense. Certainly these same flaws exist in uncontested cases.

    Shouldn’t this be considered PRIOR to the court ordering mediation?

    Do these cases now get sent to mediation PRIOR to firmly establishing the Plaintiffs standing? If so – where is the justice in that? Why should the defendant be forced to participate in mediation when the plaintiffs standing may be at issue?

    Will the defendant “opting out” of the mediation process in order to use the court to force the plaintiff to prove standing somehow pre-posture him in the eyes of the court?

    Does this mean ALL have to go through mediation to avoid the potential of pre-posturing to the court even though at the onset it’s likely anyone trying to contest the foreclosure on the basis of standing will not be aggressively chasing a mediated solution.

    My fear is that the mediation route does not solve any of the basic flaws that exist today as far as proof of initial standing – it just sidesteps the issue and throws another process into the mix that conceivably can obfuscate the issue to the benefit of the plaintiff ( and presumably to the benefit of courts case load – but that’s yet to be seen) and result in quicker but not necessarily fairer judgments.

    I understand that the court is heavily weighed down by the sheer volume of foreclosure cases – However this does not change the fact that Florida is a “Judicial Foreclosure” state – and in my opinion, proceeding without plaintiff’s proof of standing is hardly judicial.

Leave a Reply