Foreclosure Defense Florida

Motion To Disqualify A Judge- Is Setting A Foreclosure Trial Violating The Court’s Neutrality?

Courts all across this State of Florida have set themselves into the role of prosecuting cases for Plaintiffs.   If a case has not been “moving toward resolution”, the court will in fact move that case toward trial and resolution for that Plaintiff.   In many cases, the Plaintiff is more than willing to let the case sit idly by, but the court is moving them forward.

As you read below, the test for disqualification is whether the consumer feels the court is not impartial and reasonable people could definitely articulate this belief….especially when the act of trial setting is combined with other unfair procedures…

E. Disqualification

(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned….

Both Canons 2A and 3E(1) require a judge to protect the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. In Canon 2A, a judge must consider whether any act he or she takes promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Similarly, Canon 3E(1) requires a judge to recuse when his or her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

An independent judiciary is essential for our society. The judiciary cannot function without the trust and confidence of the public in the integrity and independence of its judges. Violations of the Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct cause the public to lose confidence and trust in the judiciary.

The commentary to a statute is not controlling over the statute’s clear language, but is a highly persuasive aid to construing that statute. McGrew v. State, 338 Ark. 30, 991 S.W.2d 588 (1999). The same is true with respect to the judicial canons. The commentary to Canon 2A provides in part as follows:

Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny. A judge must therefore accept restrictions on the judge’s conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly.

* * *

The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge’s ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired.

The commentary to Canon 3E(1) provides:

Under this rule a judge is disqualified whenever the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless whether any of the specific rules in section 3E(1) apply….

A judge should disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might consider relevant to the question of disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no real basis for disqualification.

In a case where a judge and his or her spouse have an economic interest in a party litigant, the first question the judge should consider is whether that economic interest would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge’s ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired. The judge should disclose on the record the judge’s and his or her spouse’s economic interest in the party litigant. If the answer to the question is “yes,” the judge should recuse, and one need not consider whether the economic interest in the party litigant was de minimis or not.



  • BOBBI SWANN says:

    Matt – I have a question for you on this matter. Just how many Judges (that you are aware or in cases you represent) have actually recused themselves for ‘economic’ interest? Judges are paid via state/county government, who invests it’s retirement funds for the employees with Banks. City/County/State operating funds are also placed in banks. Any losses incurred by these banking institutions would/could have an impact on the (investment/savings) return for these investments. Would that not obviously constitute an ‘economic’ interest for the Judge(s)?

  • me says:

    Well then why don’t you move your own cases forward? Is it because you have no real defenses? Or because your only goal is to delay for delay’s sake? And what about your defense attorney buddies who charge a monthly fee for as long as they keep a non-paying borrower in a property; now tell us they are not just delaying? Do your clients understand that at some point they must pay a housing expense, ie: rent or mortgage payment, or go live under a bridge.
    It was asked of you some time ago and you never answered, Do you pay a housing payment every month? (and that means rent or mortgage, unless you still live at home with your parents.)

  • what a surprise! we have conflict of interest also..but what can we do?..A police Chief with a Bank-Security Co..Veritas holdings..and board of our SCHOOL District?! sweet deal! specially with the mortgage fraud!…

    Dec 8, 2011 ““ Veritas Worldwide Security Says Its Associates Were Only In Mexico To Collect Money …
    Bejarano, who is also a former San Diego police chief, said Wednesday he was a vice president with the company on paper … is on the board of directors at Vibra Bank and the Chula Vista Elementary School District.
    May 7, 2010 ““ Police chief co-owns security company Vibra Bank board memberVibra – Vibra Bank“Ž
    Former Chief of Police of the San Diego Police Department.

    May 7, 2010 ““ Police chief co-owns security company Vibra Bank board member …

    Bejarano, a former San Diego police chief, has filed suit in San Diego 10News – U-T: SD Firm Linked To Mexican Plot To Smuggle ……/u-t-sd-firm-linked-to-mexican-plot-to-smuggle-gad...”Ž

    Dec 8, 2011 ““ Chula Vista Police Chief David Bejarano’s holdings and sources of income … $100,000 to $1 million: Stock in Vibra Bank, where he serves as a …

    Be the first to re view Chula Vista chief cuts ties to security company Page 1 of 2 ……/chula-vista-chief-cuts-ties-security-company/“Ž
    Dec 8, 2011 ““ Chula Vista Police Chief David Bejarano’s holdings and sources of income … $100,000 to $1 million: Stock in Vibra Bank, where he serves as a …

  • common law private attorney general Chris says:

    Should the alleged Judasial Officials or “Undersigned Jurist” conduct[ing] his/herself particular[ly] with egregious contumacious, cupidic traits or demonstrate malice based conscious indifference or with specificity in retaliatory class based animas,(HATES pro se[s] or law based Consul[s], some may: Petition for a Writ for Quo Warranto; removal for ever for causa, from any Public trust based employment and LOSS of any beneficium or incentive$? Be sure to Motion to have the Bad Actor provide for his OWN Private legal representation and NOT further abuse the public Trust? Use this Legal tactic for Specially mentally deficient or nasty Black Robed Terrorists Only! sic semper tyrannis!

  • JamesM says:

    Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct ????

  • Rebecca says:

    How would i know if this happened in our cases, I am firm in my belief it did, but where would i look in AZ to see, and is there a way you can give me examples of what to look for? Thank you

  • Anne-Marie Henderson says:

    As a victim of the ROCKET DOCKET Judge Thompson, and buddy lawyer Kass denied my case to be postponed. As members of the criminals who are defrauding the public. Because I spoke out against their group for Racketeering. BofA’s agent called them to ask for a postponement wheel we finished the modification. They both denied it and took my property,in spite of not having proper documents,my evidence of bank documents and EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT was ignored by Thompson. It was an inside set-up for my exposing their pals at PAVESE law firm. I was denied Due process, evidence ignored, first Amendment, etc.

  • Attorney Jon says:

    Ms. Henderson. Did you stop paying your 2nd mortgage? Were you in default? I presume both answers are yes. Then I’m sorry, but you lost your property. The bank has no legal duty to modify you. If you believe otherwise, please point out the state or federal law, because none exist that and lawyers are aware of. You situation is one of millions where the bank took a property while the borrower was trying to modify. Unfortunately, only a small percentage of people even qualify for modifications, most of the time because they cannot afford the loan, even with reduced payments. This is simply reality whether you want to accept it or not. You went to court and you had due process. No judge or law firm is against you. You are a faceless person and just another case. Please cease being delusional as is does not help your argument.

    On the topic, I had one judge in Dade disclose his interest in a servicer at trial (he was only the judge hearing the trial) and asked us to waive the conflict, or we could be heard by another judge. While appropriate, I did not feel this judge would be impartial by any means. I am not quite sure how a judge’s financial interest would be hurt by issuing a foreclosure judgment in favor of a company he/she may own stock in. I have never felt a judge was being unfair because of some favoritism towards a certain lender what so ever, in the tri count at least. While I blanket disagree with a lot of their rulings, I have never seen a judge lean towards a particular bank or servicer that would indicate bias and make one wonder their financial stake in said bank/servicer.

  • Kevin says:

    Sent an email to secretary of state and received Judges financial filings. Yes he is in the retirement system and yes he disqualified himself!

    A worthy direction indeed as they can’t be impartial since a huge majority of State pensions hold these bank stocks for their future retirements. Yes conflict of interest and yes it worked!

Leave a Reply