Op-Ed, Research —
I am attaching a 3rd DCA opinion [Martinez v Bank of New York Mellon et al, 3D15-2350 (July 27, 2016)] as an example of what constitutes Abuse of Discretion, which I attribute strictly to bias on the judge’s part, based on two things …
(1) AGENDA – Your judge may have a mortgage loan that he/she pays on every month, so why shouldn’t you be paying yours? This creates bias, especially in light of servicer fraud. The judge does not care that the banks and their servicers, especially the servicers, have already either been made whole multiple times over through securitization or about potential frauds on the court. You can bet that opposing counsel knows how this judge behaves and is betting on the fact they know how to push his buttons to get what they want. They’ve studied this judge long enough because they’ve used his court to steal homes from Florida homeowners, vis a vis servicer fraud.
(2) MANDATE – Many judges strictly adhere to state-mandated orders to “clear their dockets” AT ALL COSTS … even if it means turning into a royal prick and trampling all over the homeowner’s rights! The 3rd DCA, after reading the transcript, must have been “shitting its pants” to think that a judge could act like that. But … then again, we have come to expect this given the servicer’s propensity to create documents, record them and then lie to the court to steal the property, relying on their recorded and “completely manufactured, self-serving and self-dealing” assignments of mortgage.