Blind Justice in Foreclosure Court
As the “Foreclosure Crisis” has borne out over years now, there are countless horror stories and countless examples of a judicial process that should give us all great cause for concern. But after all these years, I am aware of precious few (if any) credible assertions that the court system in Sarasota County does not play with an absolutely level playing field. And I know my perception of reality is (largely) shared by not only the lawyers and activists on the defense side of the equation, but also on the Plaintiff side of the equation.
Certainly there are some bad stories here or there…I’m certain there are properly defended cases that have gone wrong…but I’m not aware of any real discontent among members of the defense community. Likewise, the attorneys that represent banks…even when they don’t like the results (because the hammer of justice can swing against them), they largely acknowledge that the court is fair….(Although they might object that by applying rules fairly otherwise winnable cases are lost.)
That’s all any of us can (and should) ask for. Blind justice with rules evenly and fairly applied. Good judges thoughtfully considering cases and applying the law.
That’s all any of us want….
Now, many homeowners are going to lose their homes. But quite frankly, many consumers have cases that deserve to be lost. From what I see however, most of those homeowner cases that are lost are lost by consumers who do not hire proper legal counsel that present the arguments in a way that would permit a judge to grant the relief they want. There’s nothing more devastating or painful to watch a homeowner standing in front of a judge that truly is being neutral and really would find a homeowner entitled to judgment…..
IF ONLY THE HOMEOWNER GAVE THE JUDGE THE TOOLS THE JUDGE NEEDS TO GRANT THAT JUDGMENT!
It is quite frankly unfair and improper to criticize judges and our justice system when they are actually following the law and applying the rules fairly…and when that application provides a harsh outcome because the case was not defended properly. That’s not the judge’s fault. That’s the fault of the litigant that appears before the court.
SARASOTA COUNTY – The morning roll call was long: GMAC Mortgage vs. Thomas Brady. SunTrust Mortgage vs. Scott Dodat. Wells Fargo vs. Janet Winn.
On it went.
One-by-one, foreclosure cases were called out by a retired judge — many dating back to the trough of the crisis in 2008 — and dismissed by the court in just seconds.
The local judicial system, still burdened with a backlog of more than 10,000 foreclosures, cleared a 60-page docket with nearly 300 languishing cases Friday in about an hour.
The hearing was set to remove stagnant defaults that had fallen through the cracks and that had not been touched in the past 10 months — housekeeping that is still done a few times each year.
A couple dozen attorneys scurried into the cramped downtown justice center promptly at 9 a.m., trying to save their case from the purge.
For most, it was too late.
I was foreclosed on a Heloc that was a 2006 loan closed by NREIS in a state that requires attorneys prepare the docs. There were no TILA or RESPA references or APR models disclosed.
The Lender was Citibank,NA, and the payments went to Citibank,NA each month not CitiMortgage, the later Servicer who manufactured a default using a bogus late fee. The foreclosure firm’s affidavits all are the same and they indicate an instruct to do a robo fashion document. Not only fraud upon the Court to win the foreclosure, but in the first section of the Affidavit it references the acceleration letters that were issued which included the very same bogus late fee that 1. a year later fessed up it was not a late fee, but tried to charge the insurance against a Heloc that had made advances already to take care of the premiums long before. 2. Citibank, NA deemed the Holder of the note which was consistent with the DOT beneficiary status simply gave an authorization to CitiMortgage, Inc. to foreclose in the Affidavit it states.
Foreclosure, then a 1099A from CitiMortgage, Inc. as the Lender it states. They never had legal standing.There is no need to argue the point for long because next Citibank, NA engages a collection company which contacts us after the sale and CitiMortgage is trying to evict us. So in court technically the property sold less on a credit bid, and gone from the so called servicer, and then the Lender presents the Holder of the Note card back in play and assumes to believe they have a scam than will work to double collect twice. Once in real property and once by collection of a debt that does no longer exist. This is the amount of the loan in full, plus the insurance they were still wanting to collect that had been already paid by the account (by the way had $200,000 more In the credit line before reaching the Lender’s obligated limit of $500,000) What we realized is the state statute declares/directs the Heloc’s advances are fine to pay insurance premiums. However, since the insurance is to protect the creditor who has the security interest in tact in the asset the Lender/Creditor will advance to protect their interest, but can not collect interest on the portion of the principal representing the premiums because the policies were only protecting the creditor’s interest as this is the type of policies they utilized when they make placement. The fact that they had money not earning interest was too much for a bank to stand, so they tried to recapture it by unfair and deceptive fraudulent means.
10 months, then a notice to all parties, then another 60 days.
If Plaintiff’s ignored the notice they deserve to be dismissed.