(Chase is Not the Lender!)
I recently had a trial before a senior judge in Tampa where it was revealed that the note and mortgage and all closing documents were made out to a completely wrong party at closing when the loan funded years ago. Years before trial, plaintiff was advised of these fundamental errors through motions and through affidavits of the owner of the company improperly identified as the “lender” and the “mortgage holder”.
At trial, the owner of the company wrongly involved in the litigation testified that his company’s name should not be on any of the documents and that he was angry that the plaintiff, Chase failed to correct the errors or to even notify him. It was incredible to me that the Plaintiff’s attorneys…having been made aware of these errors made no effort to amend their pleadings, to make a count for reformation or do anything at all to admit their errors and seek judicial relief. Over defense counsel’s strenuous objections, the court even granted the plaintiff a continuation of trial when they claimed they were surprised about all this…(even though the very law firm through numerous pleadings and affidavit had been aware of this issue for years and the witness who was testifying had been specifically identified for years.)
Sadly, we’re used to this…banks and their attorneys get away with all kinds of gross conduct, dirty tricks and abuses…and are rewarded for it.
This is, regrettably the status of the legal system today. Banks and their attorneys, favorable treatment from the courts.
Here are some aspects from the actual case:
- Foreclosure is not appropriate where the mortgage misidentifies the Lender.
Your undersigned truly hopes that the entry of the Uniform Final Judgment in this matter was the product of inadvertence or mistake because the facts of this case show that the errors that exist are anything but “uniform.”
Specifically, it was conclusively established at trial, and Plaintiff presented not one shred or scintilla of evidence or testimony to contradict the fact that E-LOANS 2000, was not in fact the “Lender” as specified on the note:
(Actual photographic representation of Note)
Further, it was conclusively established that E-LOANS 2000 was not the Lender as specified in the mortgage.
Check out the pictures of the documents so you see exactly what I mean….
Motion for rehearing final draft 6-10-15
Now that was just the most glaring and ugliest aspects of the case…there were others…fatal deficiencies that should have led to a verdict for the defense such as the fact that the note was not attached to the complaint as required by the Rules of Civil Procedure…something that appellate courts uniformly have based reversals on and this fact was in fact recognized by the court:
·MR. WEIDNER:· It’s not attached to the
·5· ·complaint. (The Note)
·6· · · · ·THE COURT:· .· I do think
12· ·that certainly you’re right, it was either misspoken
13· ·or incorrect.· There’s nothing attached to the
14· ·complaint.·
Even more incredible though is the fact that just a few days ago (after this two day trial) the court issues a Uniform Final Judgment of Foreclosure granting Chase Home Finance a Foreclosure….
WITH NO EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER ABOUT ALL THE PROBLEMS WITH THE CASE
It is infuriating for me to spend countless hours prepping up a case and demonstrating the black and white fatal errors and then cleanly prove those errors up at trial only to have the court just completely disregard those errors and enter a judgement with no explanation.
Of course an appeal will follow, and it will be a good appeal. There will likely be oral arguments on this case. We can only hope that the appellate court will speak to these issues, but appellate courts are increasingly just rubber stamping such travesties, with no explanation either.
Transcript Of Proceedings 5-1-15
Transcript Of Proceedings 03-25-2015.fullprint
