The new decision reached by Florida’s 3rd District Court of Appeals in the landmark case is nothing sort of earth shattering. The most incredible thing about the opinion is the heated conflict between the majority who changes their minds and finds that NOPE…NO WAY…SORRY….THERE IS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR BANKSTERS…and the dissent that says
WHAT THE HELL KIND OF COURT IS THIS WHEN A DECISION LIKE THIS FLIPS THE LAW ON ITS HEAD?
So let’s just (again) dig deeper into this most interesting opinion that has the banksters cheering aloud because long standing interpretation of law has been flipped back into something that totally benefits them, shall we?
You’ll note first that it is 66 pages long….that’s an incredibly long piece of work in any area of law coming out of a state court…and it’s an unbelievable…almost unprecedented opinion in our area of law.
- It seems that virtually every bankster lawyer in the state signed on to lobby for an appellate decision that suits them.
- It’s just incredible that an appellate court completely reverses its prior course and inserts an entirely new opinion. What happened with the prior (thoughtful?) legal analysis that caused an entire court to just throw it all out the window and write out in detail just how incorrect they were over 33 pages of wrong?
- The appellate panel “discovers” a long standing Florida Supreme Court case that had long been in existence prior to the first opinion being written…why was that opinion…(Singleton) so important now when it was not before?
- If a mortgage and note were accelerated but now it’s not accelerated what happens to all those payments and liability in the interim? Well, here’s what the court says:
- There was no obligation on the bank to take any action to “decelerate” this loan following dismissal of the first foreclosure action
BUT NOW…HEY…HERE’S THE GOOD STUFF….HERE’S WHERE THE BANKSTER LOBBYING OF THE APPELLATE COURT IS EXPLICIT
6. This reading of the mortgage contract is in accord with Florida and national mortgage industry practices and best serves the interests of both mortgagees and mortgagors.
7. This conclusion is wholly consistent with both national and local industry custom and practice. As amici Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac advise in an amicus brief provided on request, the mortgage at issue here is one of their “uniform mortgage instrument[s]” drafted “to ensure uniformity in the residential housing finance market” nationwide. According to them,
DID YOU CATCH THAT? In this appellate opinion the court is relying on the banking industry to tell them why this decision fits within what they need…..
8. But the really….really interesting thing is when the majority opinion is compelled to respond to the very real criticism of the dissent….
In summary, as set out above, we reject the dissent’s concerns in the following manner:
1) Our analysis in no way perpetuates an upheaval to the contract at issue.
5) Our conclusion is not the result of any perceived “moral imperative” or quest for equity run amuck.
4) Our conclusion in no way results in a cataclysmic change in Florida law or the way in which lenders proceed against defaulting borrowers. Rather, as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Florida Bar confirm, our analysis is in keeping with the understanding of members of the mortgage industry and those who represent both borrowers and lenders.
And then the real, critical part of the dissent,
I am not unmindful of the moral imperative driving both the majority’s opinion and a host of other State appellate court and federal decisions: borrowers should pay their mortgage obligations. The expiration of a statute of limitations, however, generally results in a windfall for the escaping defendant. In my view, neither the moral imperative that borrowers pay their obligations, nor Singleton, has abrogated decades of Florida jurisprudence governing the statute of limitations in foreclosure cases. I would affirm that part of the trial court’s final judgment holding that the statute of limitations precludes Deutsche Bank’s foreclosure action.