Foreclosure AppealsForeclosure Defense Florida

Rushmore Loan Servicing And The Foreclosure That They Just Will Not Complete.

By December 9, 2015No Comments

I am currently involved in a foreclosure case on appeal that frankly I just cannot, for the life of me, understand just what the heck Rushmore Loan Servicing is doing.

You see, they obtained a foreclosure judgment more than a year ago…but then there was also something quite odd. Along with all the personal and expected loan servicing records that you would expect a loan servicer to have…Rushmore came loaded up with all kinds of other documents and statements from Rushmore’s witness David Winston that far exceeded what I typically hear in foreclosure cases.

What was revealed after the trial, was that Rushmore had apparently obtained hundreds of pages of documents from CitiMortgage…what remains unclear even now…after more than a year is to what extent Rushmore and their witness relied upon those documents as part of the evidence they presented to the judge, which evidence he used to grant judgement against my client.

Well we’ve had hearing after hearing over this issue and motion after motion that’s been filed, and still it’s not real clear…

As you read in the motions below…Rushmore just keep filing the wackiest motions in both the trial court and the appellate court….

First, they want an evidentiary hearing, then they don’t want one…

Next, they want to let me take depositions, then they argue the judge abused her power by granting me the right to take depositions.

(I just love that position…a litigant wants to tell a judge that somehow she doesn’t have the right to order discovery in a case where she has jurisdiction.)

Over and over again Rushmore keeps trying to fool the court into thinking that the court should just ignore all the very real problems in this case in the interests of “judicial economy”.

Funny…the appellate and trial courts are being blasted with motions and hearings and requirements that judicial labor be invested in this file…and yet….and yet…Rushmore suggests that somehow the court should be concerned with “judicial economy”. In the next motion Rushmore asserts…we should just vacate the judgment…and let’s make sure there are no findings about anything when we do so….

I’ve got a really practical idea…let’s just get right down to very simple discovery…taking depositions of David Winston and the people that put their hands all over all these records so we can figure out what really happened…and then let’s talk about “judicial economy”

The whole thing is just really, really bizarre….(Me wonders why Rushmore is fighting so hard to prevent depositions from being taken in this case)?

· ·MS. GAITA:· Okay.· I do want to make an
25· ·objection to this hearing going forward.· I think
·1· ·that this was noticed without enough time.· I’m not
·2· ·really sure what the emergency was.· There’s no
·3· ·sale set in this matter.· This was noticed on the
·4· ·15th for hearing on the 20th.· Counsel seeks to
·5· ·vacate under Rule 1.540(b)(3), which is fraud on
·6· ·the Court.
·7· · · ·And I believe that not only should it be heard
·8· ·in front of the trial judge, but also that an
·9· ·evidentiary hearing would be appropriate.

·6· · · ·MR. WEIDNER:· What we’re trying to do is to
·7· ·have this misconduct that occurred with
·8· ·plaintiff’s counsel addressed here locally without
·9· ·having to go to Lakeland with an appeal yet.
10· ·Judge, what happened was we got 300 pages worth of
11· ·documents without providing notice to us and
12· ·they —
13· · · ·MS. GAITA:· Your Honor, he’s arguing the motion
14· ·and I’ve already made an objection.· He’s making
15· ·very serious allegations.· He’s made them time and
16· ·time again, and I want to be able to address them
17· ·but in an appropriate manner and time with an
18· ·evidentiary hearing.· I would want to be able to
19· ·appear in person to defend these allegations.
20· · · ·THE COURT:· I understand.

 Appellees Opp to Appellant’s MTN to Relinquish Jurisdiction

Response to Order Show Cause (WallAppeal)

Motion To Vacate Judgement Set Matter for New Trial

Motion to Cancel Evidentiary Hearing

Motion to Quash Subpoena

Leave a Reply