CLICK HERE FOR LINK TO VIDEO OF ARGUMENT
(Taylor v. Deutsche Bank)
Today’s oral argument before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in Daytona Beach Florida was one of the highlights of my career. The only thing I take more personal and professional pride and satisfaction from is going to war against the aggressive and well-funded firms and winning for clients who don’t have the means or resources to pay big law firm fees.
The arguments were tough and these judges knew this case inside and out. The research the judges had done and the comments that the Chief Judge, “did a nationwide search of cases”, shows just how much attention these judges are paying to the important issues raised in this case. A key thing I want everyone in this community to know is just how much work was contributed to this case by many other people. The key point of this experience is the emerging understanding that these issues are far more significant than “merely foreclosure”. The brightest and most experienced lawyers, judges and advocates now recognize just how complex and confounding the foreclosure catastrophe is. Recognition is an important first step…and what is this fight?
This fight we are engaged in is a fight to PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND our homes, our courts, our Constitution and fundamentally our country. I am convinced that this 5th District Court of Appeals really gets it and I am more convinced than ever that the solution to the foreclosure crisis –the long term solution that benefits lenders, financial markets, communities, courts and homeowners is to BRING THESE ISSUES BEFORE APPELLATE COURTS.
Our commitment must be to selflessly give to support the effort to protect our clients, develop this law area of the law and CONVINCE OUR JUDGES THAT THEY HAVE A SOLEMN AND UNAVOIDABLE DUTY to apply the law in support of homeowners, their communities and the Constitution they took an oath to uphold.
Its time for more appeals. Time to stop complaining about motions being denied and law not being applied. Time to join together, contribute the resources, time and talent to make this right. Stay tuned and be ready to pitch in.
(A special thanks to my hero and the mentor of many great lawyers across the country, April Charney who traveled with her daughter [an emerging attorney to be reckoned with in her own right] to watch the argument live. )
Well argued by both of you. Whatever the ruling all other cases need to adopt the findings in their defense.
Why I don’t get is why you simply don’t demand and subpeona Deutsche bank’s and Suntrust’s Business records to prove the selling of the instrument. Where is the canceled check? wire transfer or other devise that supports that there was a transaction in fact. After watching this appeals process , it seems like a lot of fiction. Simple parol evidence should be able to prove Deutsche’s right. It seems so simple so what the hell is the problem?
Matt,
You guys did a great job. I must say however that as I watched the proceedings and the Judges’ questions and comments, it appeared that they are searching for a way to issue a ruling that will “solve” for the Plaintiffs and mill fraudsters, their problems with chain of title, capacity, and standing, issues, sweeping the fraud that they are committing under the table in one fell swoop. I may be wrong but it appeared to me that quite possibly, “the fix is in.”
I watched the Fifth DCA arguments and while it is always hard to predict where the court is going, it was my impression that Judges Lawson and Monaco did not think much of the argument that since DB was not a holder they could not bring suit in light of the fact the UCC statute states a non holder can enforce the note. I thought the attorney’s argument on MERS not taking a beneficial interest and therefore not being able to convey/transfer that on to DB was very concise and cogent but again Lawson and Monaco were not impressed. Lastly, I was disappointed that only the sitting Circuit Court Judge, Judge Stephens was concerned about the validity of the affidavits. DB had stated blatantly they were the holder when in fact they were not. Rather than looking at that as a fraud on the court, Monaco and Lawson just seemed to view it as a DB tactic that did not need to be done particularly in light of the statute stating nonholders can enforce the note.
As someone who is defending foreclosure matters, I was encouraged by Weidner’s perspective pre argument, but having seen the Judge’s behavior and questions, I am less encouraged.
I also agree that trial court rulings need to face more appeals. Even bringing a court reporter to the hearings keeps them in line and focused. Keep up the great work.