Foreclosure Defense FloridaGeneral Information



First they came for the gypsies, but I did not speak up because I was not a gypsie.

Then they came for the people who did not pay their mortgage, but I did not speak up because I could still pay my mortgage….

It remains disgusting and disturbing how many Americans still present the argument…..

“Too bad for them, they’re not paying their mortgage!”

I was completely crestfallen when, just this week, in the middle of a great oral argument before the 2nd DCA, full of deep and complex legal issues, the chief judge looked at me and asked:

“But your client isn’t paying your mortgage is he?”


“Why does it matter who owns the mortgage, your client should be paying someone!”

Well, the big deal about all this stuff is that while it may be great fun and good sport to allow those who are struggling among us to get beat up, kicked and abused.   And while it may seem of little consequence to ignore the Rule of Law and ignore their fundamental rights in the rush to punish them for being in foreclosure, the bigger principal is that we all have a vested stake in making sure our system of laws is upheld.   Our government is crumbling, and what little respect for our courts remains is being bulldozed away because people realize that there really are no rules or laws that apply to the banks and the more powerful.

Such were the warnings I have been belting out about the 49 State Attorney General Settlement.   Sure, when homeowner’s receive the “lottery letters” (Congratulations, Bank of America has reduced your loan balance   by $500,000!), that’s good news for the homeowner, but on the other side of that letter is another party who had $500,000 robbed from them, compliments of a conspiracy between the Banks, Wall Street and the state and federal governments. How exactly are the big shot investors gonna feel when they realize they’ve been conspired against and robbed?
And the headline reads:
In a surprising revelation, the Charlotte, N.C., lender also said that more than half of the nearly $5 billion in principal reductions will be paid for by investors, not the bank itself.  That matters little to delinquent borrowers who saw their monthly payments reduced, but it is sure to anger investors who have argued that they should not have to be punished for banks’ mistakes.
Whether B of A’s report is indicative of progress other banks are making in complying with the landmark settlement won’t be known until Joseph A. Smith, the settlement’s monitor, issues his own progress report on Monday.
(They were being lied to all along, as Matt Stoller details right here.)

One Comment

  • Phred says:

    Holder of note is not necessarily holder of the beneficiary interest, and Matt, Esq., let the court mix the two terms indiscriminately. AHMSI presented the evidence of transfer of custody of the note, but that does not necessarily transfer beneficiary interest or authority regarding a beneficiary’s interest in the loan. Even if an agency relationship was evidenced, there would need to be evidence of the beneficiary’s intent to declare default and then an election to foreclose. So there would need to be a specific order or request on the part of the beneficiary to an alleged agent regarding the subject loan. Anything else would allow rogue actions by unauthorized ‘agents’.

Leave a Reply