Foreclosure Defense Florida

URGENT! Florida House Committee Will Hear Foreclosure Legislation! CALL NOW!


Every citizen who cares about justice, public policy and the rule of law should take an interest in what’s happening in Tallahassee.

The Florida House Subcommittee on Civil Justice will hear, and will likely pass, House Bill 87, a bill that aims to speed up foreclosures.   CALL THESE MEMBERS NOW AND URGE THEM NOT TO SUPPORT THIS BILL! This bill is wrong for many reasons, but let’s start first with the premise upon which it is founded….a premise which is totally false and misleading:

As a preliminary matter, public policy decisions should not be made relying upon data and information from industry sources, particularly when the methods and meaning of said data is not revealed.   In the house report on House Bill 87, they cite heavily to RealtyTrac data and other data which is not properly explained or put into proper context.   For instance, the report reads:

The average length of time between the first foreclosure filing and bank repossession is 853 days.

This statement ignores the fact that the primary reason for banks not completing foreclosures is the federal lawsuits into their crimes and wrongdoing and the related holds.

The banks, either because of the litigation or for their own business purposes are reviewing many more files for modification than before and many of the foreclosures that are “stalled” are not moving because the homeowner is in a long term modification.   A foreclosure case that has a loan that is in modification will just be “stalled” out, not moving at all in court, but this is not at all reflected in the case progress.

Current law provides for an alternative procedure that is designed to speed up the foreclosure process in uncontested cases or cases where there is no legitimate defense.

This is correct, there already exists an expedited procedure that the banks could use if they chose to….but they are choosing not to….and they cannot be forced to use this process.   Currently there are a significant portion of the foreclosure caseload for which the homeowner has not responded.   In these cases, a bank could move for judgment and get title in a matter of 60-90 days.   Before voting on this bad bill, members should consult with their chief judge and find out what percentage of cases currently pending could be quickly moved to judgment because it is investment or abandoned property or property for which no homeowner has responded to the lawsuit.

If the property is not residential real estate, the plaintiff may request a court order directing the defendant to show cause why an order to make payments during the pendency of the proceedings or an order to vacate the premises should not be entered.

This already exists in statute, but it is not being used.   Why add to a statute that the industry chooses not to use?   What percentage of current foreclosure filings in a circuit use this process currently and why has it not been used?   Why add a companion to this existing if the industry does not use it?

Provides finality of a mortgage foreclosure judgment for certain purchasers of a property at a foreclosure sale while allowing for damages in some instances.

The title insurance industry was more than willing to accept premiums knowing full well that many of their agents were engaging in improper conduct.   To allow the title insurance industry to evade their existing contracts and responsibilities to policy holders is misguided. And you cannot replace property which is unique, with any amount of money. This is a backdoor bailout to the title insurance industry and it rewards conduct that was either criminal, wreckless or grossly   improper.
Amends the expedited foreclosure process to allow all lienholders to use the procedures, instead of just the mortgagee; reduces the number of hearings from 2 to 1; and prohibits service by publication when using the expedited process, unless the property is abandoned.

Only a party who initiates the litigation can make that litigation proceed.   There is no way that a junior lienholder can force the primary plaintiff to proceed with their case to judgment if they choose not to.   It is the Plaintiff’s case to proceed as it choose, and the existing law and court resources permit them to do so.
Allows any party to request a case management conference to expedite the lawsuit.

Any party to litigation may already demand that a court have case managment, and the courts will do so…the court already has resources and the law gives them tools to move cases along.   And while a party cannot be forced to take a judgment, a judge can impose sanctions or enter orders that move cases toward resolution…..IF THAT’S WHAT THE PLAINTIFFS WANT!

Defines adequate protections where there is a lost, destroyed or stolen note.

The Uniform Commercial Code, adopted across the United States, and in Florida already provide protections.   This is totally unnecessary

Florida has the largest share of foreclosure inventory of any state in the nation, with 305,766 properties in some stage of foreclosure or bank-owned as of the end of 2012.1 Seven of the top 10 highest foreclosure markets in the nation are in Florida, with Palm-Bay-Melbourne-Titusville having the highest rate of foreclosure of any metro area in the nation.2
Foreclosing on a mortgage in Florida is an unusually long process. Florida trails only New York and New Jersey in terms of the length of time between the first foreclosure filing and bank repossession, at 853 days. The national average is less than half that, at 414 days.3.

Relying on all this data from RealtyTrac, which data is not adequately explained and which contains other factors and reasons should be disfavored.   Our state policy makers should only rely on data that comes from our judges and from Clerks of Courts.

Upon proper notice of default to the defendant, the mortgage servicer files a foreclosure complaint8, which must allege that the plaintiff is the present owner and holder of the note and mortgage,

Unfortunately, the underlined statement is wrong….the appellate courts across this state have made a disaster of the distinction between Owner and Holder such that it is not uniformly required anymore…this is a major problem….but this legislation does not address this….if the legislation were to change making that element a requirement would be positive

This bill is just wrong in so many ways, and making policy decisions based on flawed, and unclear data just makes no sense….call your represntative and tell them to reject the bill


Email Them Here:

Larry…,  Bill…,  Cynthia…,  Jim…,,,  Tom.G…,  Jose…,,,  Ross…,,


One Comment

  • The legislature (and, in fact, anyone who is NOT having issues with their mortgage note payment) couldn’t care any less about the reality of the situation. My parents immigrated here from Cuba a long time ago because of Castro and his communist ways. Everyone called it the “Revolucion de los Cayos” which literally translates into English as the “Revolution of the Corn.” What happened was that when a successful neighbor of yours had his factory or business taken away from him by Castro, everyone sort of stood around and did nothing because it didn’t affect them. Some say that there were some who were secretly happy to see it happen out of jealousy and envy. Either way, they remained silent. That is, until the Castro regime came and took your own business or your home (or whatever). Then you would scream bloody murder. In other words, not until the government stepped on the “corn” on your foot, did you scream and complain about the injustice of it all. Thus the Revolution of the Corn.

Leave a Reply