Foreclosure Defense Florida

State Supreme Court Appeal of Foreclosure Issues

The important issues we’re busy fighting every day at the trial court level are bubbling their way up to the highest courts of the land.   And whether the courts are Maryland or Florida, the issues remain the same– should our courts ignore fundamental law and rules to appease those who created their own problem?

The briefs in this case are fascinating because here the bank articulates a concern that I’ve been voicing for some time now…the prospect that thousands of foreclosure judgments may be VOID because of flawed trial court procedures.   This is clearly a game changing issue if we now see the banks warning about it….read the excellent briefs below and see how the issues can be found in nearly every foreclosure case…..





One Comment

  • edgetraderplus says:

    Tuesday 7 September 2010

    Color me simple, but I do not trust any “lender,” let alone trust a “trustee.” I stop automatically when I read USBank making the statement that the borrower defaulted. Too late to challenge, but who had the authority to declare a default?!

    USBank states Ibanez obtained a loan from Rose Mortgage. Rose Mtg then sold the loan to Option One…Option One to Lehman Brothers Holding, etc, etc. The pleading then goes on to describe the mechanics of how mortgages are “assigned” en masse per terms in the securitization documents.

    Rather than follow that maze, I would stop USBank right there and demand to know if Rose were a table funder, [most likely], and if so, then Rose was NOT the original lender who has the only authority to assign anything, except maybe servicing rights, if that is what Rose retained.

    Where is the assignment from the unidentified original lender?

    Don’t razzle-dazzle me with the “See Talcott J Franklin & Thomas F Nealon III, Mortgage & Asset Backed Securities Litigation Handbook, section 1:3-1:10.

    Don’t tell me the Fed approves the securitization of MBS.

    I don’t give a flying F.

    Let’s keep it simple. Show me the assignment from the original lender to Rose Mortgage. If there is no such assignment, your fancy legal two-step is a pile of crap designed to blow smoke up the court’s backside.

    No assignment from the original lender, no need to discuss anything further, and all the years of foreclosure procedures that are so well entrenched are now being brought into the light of defendant’s day.

    All of those procedures contained in in the brief are superfluous without an original assignment. The rest of the so-called “assignments” are merely a version of “find the pea under one of the three shells.”

Leave a Reply