Skip to main content
Foreclosure Defense Florida

Rushmore Loan Servicing- Dirty Tricks in Pursuit of a Foreclosure Case

hammer-620011_1280I can take an honest, hard fought loss…but it frankly drives me insane when a party pulls a fast one, a sucker punch wins…and then continues to rub my nose in that loss.  I recently “lost” a foreclosure trial…but I don’t count it as a real loss because when my opponent doesn’t play straight…and when there’s a very, very reasonable chance the appellate court is going to smack them for it….well…I’ll just sit back and wait.  Rushmore was represented by Juliana Gaita and Courtney Copeland. Their witness was David Winston.


The banks and servicers have become very successful in convincing judges, “this loan was boarded, so those records are good and you should admit them.”  But we all need to pay a lot more attention to the boarding process based on some very unusual things that were demonstrated in this trial…

Put simply and real clearly, in this particular case it seems clear that the servicer received my client’s personal financial information and records not from the “boarding” but because they issued a third party subpoena to a prior servicer.  Now, in civil litigation if you want to get records from a non party in litigation, you must provide notice.  That was not done here.  Instead, Rushmore’s attorneys got more than 300 pages worth of documents from a prior servicer, failed to provide those documents to me, failed to advise the court that they got those records from an improperly issued subpoena and then set down records in front of their witness during trial, where he testified over and over again that the records were “boarded” and that was their basis to admit those records. After trial I examined those records carefully and noted that they had a date stamp for just a few days before trial….not the months before when the loan was allegedly “boarded”.

From my briefing on the case:

To summarize the wrongdoing which entitles the Defendant relief from judgment it is suffice to say that:

  • AFTER the trial had concluded, your undersigned became aware that Plaintiff’s attorneys had apparently issued two subpoena duces tecum to non parties CitiBank and CitiMortgage. Counsel did not issue notice to Defendant that they sought records from third parties and critically, at no time during or after trial did counsel for plaintiff advise Defendant or this court that they had done so;


  • AFTER the trial concluded your undersigned contacted both CitiBank and CitiMortgage your undersigned contacted both who provided to your undersigned counsel the more than 300 pages worth of documents that they had provided to counsel for plaintiff (and their witness) prior to trial;


  • DURING the trial the witness testified that the records he was authenticating and testifying were “his” business records were probably not “his” records at all, but were the records that his attorneys had obtained improperly from third parties. Every single one of Defendant’s numerous hearsay and other objections must be reconsidered given the very serious possibility that the witness mislead or flat out lied to the court when he said the records he were looking at here “his”, when in fact they were more than likely the records which were obtained directly (and improperly) from CitiMortgage directly.


The Plaintiff’s admissions appear to make it clear that they have engaged in very real wrongdoing but these allegations have not yet been formally considered by the court. Given these allegations, your undersigned asks the court to consider, could this court ever imagine a case where such wrongdoing would be allowed to stand by the trial court? In a personal injury case if it were determined after trial that Plaintiff’s counsel had violated the rules of discovery and then mislead the court during trial testimony, if these violations were brought to the court’s attention, would the court just shrug its shoulders and confirm the judgment? In a family law case if a petitioner violated rules of procedure and likewise obtained a judgment, would the court allow that judgment to stand? And what now are the facts that are apparently (but not definitively) demonstrated in this case? Based on Plaintiff’s failure to respond directly to Defendant’s very serious allegations and based on their admissions quoted above, it appears that:

This court has entered a nearly quarter million dollar judgment in favor of Plaintiff based on grossly improper conduct of trial counsel and probably their witness during the trial.


The judgment should not stand.

This ain’t even close to over….I’m chomping at the bit to bring this before Florida’s Second District Court of Appeals. I can’t wait to hear what Rushmore’s attorneys have to say.



Leave a Reply