Skip to main content
Foreclosure Defense Florida

Hot Off The Presses- Taylor Motion For Rehearing

Foreclosure-case-pressJust a few short weeks ago the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals released its opinion in the case I had the privileged of arguing along with Greg Clark, Taylor v.   Deutsche Bank.   The trial court attorney and the attorney who prepared both the appellate briefs and this Motion for Rehearing was foreclosure defender George Gingo.

As most of you are aware, the opinion that was released in that case was disturbing to say the least because, in my opinion, and that of many other practitioners, the opinion was unclear in several key areas and addressed areas of the law which were not made of at issue in either the trial court or the appellate court briefs.   I believe the restatement of the law and the confusion caused by this lengthy opinion are so great that the a rehearing on the matter or review by another court is absolutely essential.

For those of you who are already confronting this opinion in your trial court practice the attached Motion for Rehearing should provide powerful arguments you need to support the judges who do examine the promissory notes at issues in these cases and who do not agree with the Taylor opinion as it currently stands.

We must all continue this fight and remember that this is not merely a fight over rules or legal technicalities, rather it is a fight for the foundations of our justice system and the heart and soul of this country.

The homeowners and borrowers did not create this chaos that reigns in our courtrooms and which is provoking such flawed and catastrophic legal outcomes…the Wall Street Wizards did.   The problems the foreclosure mills face in achieving their ill-conceived goal of forced dispossesion of hundreds of thousands of our neighbors cannot be solved through flawed legal process.   Our courts must apply the laws and rules as they currently exist and in so doing compel the Wall Street Wizards to engage in real world, practical problem solving to get out of the crisis they have created.



One Comment

  • indio007 says:

    Good Show!
    On another note. (no pun intended)
    Wouldn’t making the note dependant on the deed of trust’s verbiage serve to make the note non-negotiable or maybe even make it not a note at all?
    I remember a case ( i believe in florida) regarding car loans . The where putting the note and the securitization on the same piece of paper (perforated of course so they could seperate them after the fact). It ended up being voided or ruled a simple contract. I forget , it was back in the 90’s or late 80’s

Leave a Reply