Foreclosure Defense FloridaGeneral Information

Harvey and the Rehearing…..and Her Petition to The Florida Supreme Court! THIS WOMAN JUST WON'T GIVE UP! (GOOD FOR HER!)

I don’t know who Jacqueline Harvey is….BUT I LIKE HER!

When I first read the Fourth DCA Opinions in Harvey, I was critical of the fact that a pro se person filed the appeal that resulted in a bad opinion…made worse when it came out on rehearing.   Then I actually read her briefs..and frankly they were quite good….I take back my criticism.
And after she got kicked by the 4th DCA, she’s refusing to take NO! for an answer and has appealed to the Florida Supreme Court.
Good for her!
We need more people in this country to stand up and tell our courts we’re not going to take these games, these lies, this abuse from the banks….but enough of me, listen to what Jacquelyn has to say!~

This case cries out for resolution! The Fourth District opinion (the
“Opinion”) found Deutsche Bank (“Deutsche”) had standing to foreclose against
Jacqueline Harvey (“Harvey”) based on an assumption that Deutsche processes the
original mortgage note with blank endorsement – even though the record on appeal
and relied upon by the court in the Opinion is only a copy of the note. The
Opinion also found that filing a fraudulent assignment of mortgage is irrelevant in
foreclosure cases.

The Opinion not only conflicts with one hundred years of Florida
foreclosure law – it sweeps away un-contradicted precedent in this Court as well as
the district courts of Florida. If allowed to stand, the Opinion will transform
Florida into a foreclosure wasteland, where unscrupulous banks and their attorneys
(without worrying about the rules of evidence) can file fraudulent documents, i.e.
assignment of mortgages and copies of promissory notes, passing them off as the
“originals,” whose actions would be rejected virtually everywhere else.

Harvey in the Florida Supreme Court
Harvey
Harvey Supreme Court

2 Comments

  • Attorney Wendy Alison Nora says:

    Jacqueline Harvey’s Petition for Discretionary Review is so clear, concise and to the point that homeowners’ attorneys should all read it and follow her style. Often we get so carried away with our edification of the fine points of the laws that are being violated that we forget to keep it simple. Your post on Ms. Harvey’s work should be carried forward. It is far more meaningful than the blathering of Secretary Donovan which was carried forward beyond the date of the original post. We should all listen to Ms. Harvey and ignore Secretary Donovan. Ms. Harvey knows what is really going on in the foreclosure crisis and speaks the simple truth. She said in less than 10 pages what took me almost 40 pages to describe in a recent appellate brief! Outstanding work!

  • Attorney Wendy Alison Nora says:

    Note to Counsel for Deutsche Bank on Behalf of Jacqueline Harvey:
    1. Evidence of fraudulent mortgage assignments impeaches the credibility of Deutsche Bank’s claim of standing. Issues of credibility are not decided by summary judgment.
    2. Fraud in the court record is unclean hands which would render relief at equity (assignment of a mortgage to “follow” the note) an improper application of the equitable powers of the court.
    Note to all of us:
    This is where the cases can get complicated. We have to remind the courts that ” unclean hands” disqualify the proponent of an equitable remedy from obtaining the equitable remedy. ” He who seeks equity must do equity.”
    Ms. Harvey should have been allowed to view the mortgage note in the court file and challenge its authenticity. Procedural tricks to deprive litigants of information essential to combat a standing allegation are typical and confronts self-represented homeowners and homeowner lawyers in every case. Furthermore, the burden of proof of standing is on the party invoking the jurisdiction of the court and the burden of proof of clean hands is on the party seeking an equitable remedy. The Harvey court held: ” the mortgage in equity passes as an incident to the debt . . .” That requires a court determination that the claimant is entitled to the equitable remedy of assignment of the mortgage to follow the debt. The documentary evidence in the court file itself raises credibility issues sufficient to deny summary judgment granting the remedy of equitable assignment and foreclosure (which is also an equitable remedy.) I can see where we lawyers end up writing 4 times as many pages as a lay person advocating a straight forward view of right versus wrong. There is a place for simplicity but the application of equitable principles in foreclosure cases quickly becomes complicated. The trial court judge and the Florida District Court of Appeals apparently missed the Ms. Harvey’s clear argument that the proceedings themselves violated the principles of equity. This reminds me of Attorney Weidner’s case in which the bank’s attorney essentially argued that a thief can steal a house. While that might be true of negotiable instruments at law under the UCC, it not true at equity.

Leave a Reply