Skip to main content
Foreclosure Defense Florida

Improper and Pro Se Foreclosure Defense Filings, Could Be A Felony Under New Legislation….

HB 917

Every week, I am contacted by consumers presenting odd, creative and sometimes off the wall foreclosure defenses.   Occasionally, some of these creative defenses have some kind of merit, but more often than not, especially in the case of most of the quiet title, copyright, admiralty and other bizarre concepts that are being sold to consumers, they are simply scams.

I have seen consumers that have been convinced to record all sorts of documents in the public records, things like, “notice of name copyright” or “notice of revocation of trustee power” or “satisfaction of mortgage” and all kinds of things that sound too good to be true and in fact are because they are not real.

Well, Florida’s Legislators, who have made it entirely clear that they will not do one single thing to punish the banks for all their fraud, their lies, their surrogate signing and robosigning and just plain old fraud, are instead turning their attention to the kinds of things that I mentioned first….while clearly ignoring all the big bank and institutional fraud.   The bill they will pass this legislative session, (a bill entirely different than Florida’s new (un)Fair Foreclosure bill, could make a whole lot of pro se filings felonies.

Here’s the text:

Prohibits certain actions relating to filing of certain false or fraudulent documents affecting real or personal property; prohibits certain actions done with intent to intimidate or harass any person in connection with any license, authorization, claim, demand, or account; provides for reclassification of certain offenses; provides that certain offenders forfeit gain-time or early release credits; provides that adjudication of guilt or imposition of sentence for violations may not be suspended, deferred, or withheld; provides for injunctions prohibiting violators from filing certain documents; provides for actions to obtain sealing of certain records; provides for ex parte injunctions; provides for hearings; provides for maintaining certain records under seal; provides legislative intent relating to provisions prohibiting certain actions under color of law against persons or property.

HOUSE BILL 917

 

 

7 Comments

  • Sure sounds to me to go against the banks as well. This is exactly what the banks have been doing.

  • Laura says:

    It’s vague. What does it mean, “against any licensed person”? I have no clue. Who is the bill aimed at? It seems it could be aimed at anyone trying to falsely claim an interest in real estate(isn’t that already illegal – and warranted – and pro-consumer?), or pseudo debt collectors who have no real claim? It could be anti-pro-se litigant too, but it’s sure a strange, and unclear bill. At least to me.

  • neidermeyer says:

    Use it against LPS.

  • indio007 says:

    Why is this bill bad? The prohibited behavior is EXACTLY what the banks have been doing for years.

    They are the ones filing fraudulent documents into the public record.

    Like bogus release of mortgage. I’m sure you have doc dumps just like this in Florida.
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OdFaLKtGzg8bYxD3DBXcSGo0rM_CTtkmQHcXXpyoC1g/pub

    That ain’t John Hancock at the bottom either.

  • JamesM says:

    I read it, carefully. I don’t see where an affirmative defense could in anyway be covered by the new law, or construed to be a felony action, and there is an exclusion for legal proceedings, not to mention the existing litigation privilege.

    However I do see where fake AOM’s filed by Plaintiff’s are covered and are now made into serious felonies, and would also be directly open to a civil change in short order, through process and a prompt show cause hearing, with fees and costs to homeowner by statute. That should fund some fine depos.

    This would, in effect, allow defendant to bring process to challenge a fake AOM and get a final judgement on that issue prior to the foreclosure trial.

    Think for a moment about who the defendant will be when you bring a separate action against the entity that filed the AOM…..?

    Is it the guarantor, now out of business so an easy default?

    Is it the person who prepared and filed it, commonly the foreclosure mill? If so are they are going to be unprepared for a short order show cause hearing? Later discovery could be way fun, and pierce their claims of attorney-client privilege.

    You can also think of this as an almost automatic counterclaim with statutory attorney fees built in, with the added delight of Plaintiff having to defend at short order show cause hearing.

    My mind just had a brain wave. Got AOM attached to foreclosure complaint? Then by separate process is you get that ruled fraudulent, (probably through a default), then amend your foreclosure AD’s for unclean hands. Now go for defensive SJ on that single issue.

  • jerry says:

    intent seems to be in the mind of the reader, i took it to say the banks r subject to penlites ” provisions prohibiting certain actions under color of law against persons or property.” sounds like banks have been doing just that

Leave a Reply