Skip to main content
Foreclosure Defense FloridaGeneral Information



  • phil says:

    this case as the transcript as written is impossible to understand if you are not an attorney

  • HungarianProse says:

    Matt, i love your work and i learned a lot from you. I am a pro se immigrant with a high school education. So i am not in a position to really critique anything, however i must say that this latest motion of yours maybe a bit ” too much” for a circuit court Judge to understand…..unfortunately.

  • JamesM says:

    The motion to dismiss the amended complaint is not an answer, but filed before an answer, so I assume your motion had no traction, and you were then complied to file an answer.
    You did not post the complaint or answer but the motion to dismiss your AD’s is good and competent when addressing some of the bigger issues, less so where the motion just asserts the affirmative defense in question is founded on an invalid legal argument, but fails to say why the argument is invalid.
    I don’t know what the standard is for a motion to dismiss AD’s. I would guess it is similar to the “all well plead” “must be taken as true” and inquiry limited to the four corners.
    A response might include reference to the rules that specifically authorize the affirmative deference asserted. Also the failure, with regard to some AD’s, to show why it was defective and how the defect could be cured rather than just alleging the legal argument is invalid.

  • totellthetruth says:

    I did come across a similar case with a car dealership and the situation with the negotiability of the note…and wondered why no one was using that argument in foreclosure cases…I also pointed it out to an attorney but guess perhaps my being a layman so to speak he did not see it the same way…good work, Mr. Weidner…let us know what was the final decision taken.

  • DolleyMadison says:

    I’m guessing you are joking – well written? Good grief. Now yours I intend to steal pretty much word for word!

  • ryan says:

    care to share the affirmative defenses they are arguing against?

  • RC says:

    Let me ask a dumb question. I live in S.C. and the code is exactly the same as the UCC code. An unconditional promise to pay a negotiable note basically means that the borrower should not be required to examine another document to determine rights with respect to payment, unless it deals with interest, prepayment or acceleration. Correct?
    If you have a FHA note that states your monthly payment is $1000 “which will be part of a larger monthly payment required by the security instrument”, and you have a separate document from closing that is not part of the note or mortgage or security instrument, that lists your monthly payment as $1500 because of taxes, hazard insurance, and mortgage insurance…does that not make it now a conditional promise? And if it does make it a conditional promise does it make the instrument non-negotiable?

Leave a Reply