Here it is folks, the bomb that we knew was coming. The draft of legislation that shows The State of Florida has been sold out to the banksters.
702.12 Attorney fee as sanctions for raising unsupported 1177 claims or defenses; exceptions; service of motions; damages for 1178 delay of litigation.— 1179
(1) In any mortgage foreclosure action, upon the court’s 1180 initiative or motion of any party, the court shall award a 1181 reasonable attorney fee, including prejudgment interest, to be 1182 paid to the prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing 1183 party and the losing party’s attorney on any claim or defense at 1184 any time during a civil proceeding or action in which the court 1185 finds that the losing party or the losing party’s attorney knew 1186 or should have known that a claim or defense when initially 1187 presented to the court or at any time before trial: 1188
(a) Was not supported by the material facts necessary to 1189 establish the claim or defense; or 1190 (b) Would not be supported by the application of then-1191 existing law to those material facts. 1192
(2) At any time in any civil proceeding or action in which 1193 the moving party proves by a preponderance of the evidence that 1194 any action taken by the opposing party, including, but not 1195 limited to, the filing of any pleading or part thereof, the 1196 assertion of or response to any discovery demand, the assertion 1197 of any claim or defense, or the response to any request by any 1198 other party, was taken primarily for the purpose of unreasonable 1199 delay, the court shall award damages to the moving party for its 1200 reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order, which may 1201 include attorney fees, and other loss resulting from the 1202 improper delay. 1203
Hint: This is NOT about borrowers, make sure you read the email in the link below!
“How do you think we can help out those poor defendants today? We may not be able to cure their legal issues, but we’d sure like to help give them some strong legal arguments in their case!”
MY MESSAGE TO COMPANIES LIKE NATIONWIDE TITLE CLEARING & OTHERS
When people, government officials or corporations come into the people’s cross-hairs and a decision is made that we will no longer allow, YOU ARE DONE! I will let history remind you that the proof of that statement is in the pudding. To all the powers that be:
If you are emotional and acting on emotion DON’T! Whoever is advising you to suppress freedom of speech as a means to strengthen your position has you ill advised…FIRE THEM! Do not confuse what you do to turn a profit with being morally correct and sound. This foreclosure crisis has been a direct attack against the American people on American soil for monetary gain. American’s (as you can see) are starting to stand up and say “We will no longer allow!” If you’ve learned anything from what has transpired with the Law Office of David J. Stern, it should be that when YOU get enough negative publicity in the American Press, no one will want to do business or associate themselves with YOU. For NTC, your efforts are misplaced. Attacking those who are advocates of the PEOPLE like Matt Weidner and Lisa Epstein makes you look bad. The robo-signer negative publicity has had its impact but you were better off cleaning up that mess by re-assigning people and assuring the AMERICAN PEOPLE that you will take steps and measures to ensure NO robo-signing exist. It would be better to agree with the people and show a positive support for the people rather than giving them the finger and hiring attorney’s to attack their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to voice their opinion. Truth be told, the American people don’t care about NTC or Stern or any other company. They care about their family and friends and do business with those who will further their needs. Your moves will only cause greater NEGATIVE PUBLICITY toward you which in turn, will cause YOUR CLIENTS to worry about their reputations and business if they associate and do business with YOU! You don’t believe me? Watch and learn how this Litigation Consultant gave you free insight that either saved or destroyed your business.
By MICHELLE CONLIN – Feb 6, 2011 7:29 PM ET
By The Associated Press
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. (AP) — During the housing crash, it was good to be a foreclosure king. David Stern was Florida’s top foreclosure lawyer, and he lived like an oil sheik. He piled up a collection of trophy properties, glided through town in a fleet of six-figure sports cars and, with his bombshell wife, partied on an ocean cruiser the size of a small hotel.
When homeowners fell behind on their mortgages, the banks flocked to “foreclosure mills” like Stern’s to push foreclosures through the courts on their behalf. To his megabank clients — Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, GMAC, Citibank and Wells Fargo — Stern was the ultimate Repo Man.
At industry gatherings, Stern bragged in his boyish voice of taking mortgages from the “cradle to the grave.” Of the federal government’s disastrous homeowner relief plan, which was supposed to keep people from getting evicted, he quipped: “Fortunately, it’s failing.”
The worse things got for homeowners, the better they got for Stern.
That is, until last fall, when the nation’s foreclosure machine blew apart and Stern’s gilded world came undone. Within a few months, Stern went from being the subject of a gushing magazine profile to being the subject of a Florida investigation, class-action lawsuits and blogger Schadenfreude that, at last long, the “foreclosure king” was dead.
“What Stern represents is an industry that was completely unrestrained, unchecked, unpunished and unsupervised,” says Florida defense attorney Matt Weidner. “This was business gone wild.”
The rise and fall of Stern, now 50, provides an inside look at how the foreclosure industry worked in the last decade — and how it fell apart. It also shows how banks, together with their law firms, built a quick-and-dirty foreclosure machine that was designed to take as many houses as fast as possible.
That seems to be the approach that notorious robo-signing firm Nationwide Title Clearing has taken in responding to some of its critics.
If you are unfamiliar with their name, you might recall earlier this Fall when depositions of several Nationwide robo-signers employees went viral on YouTube (We mentioned these here and here).
This, amongst other perceived sleights has upset Nationwide Title, who has sued a St. Petersburg foreclosure defense lawyer, Matthew Weidner, for alleged libel and slander.
This is likely to be a terrible, terrible idea.
For those of you who are not attorneys, I need to point out a few things out about Libel and Slander laws in the United States. These are Constitutional issues, as the First Amendment protects speech, opinion, arguments, viewpoints, etc. In these cases, (capital “T”) Truth is an absolute defense. So if any defendant can demonstrate that the damaging statements were indeed, accurate, they win.
This case turns on the bizarre claim that the term robo-signer so libels the plaintiffs that they are entitled to damages. Given that Truth is a defense, the defendant will prevail if they can demonstrate Nationwide’s approach was robotic. Not literally machines doing the work, but any showing of assembly line manufacturing, for profit, of a streamlined document production that failed to review the documents, evaluate them, analyze the contents should qualify.
Here’s where things get very very interesting: In civil litigation, the discovery process provides lots of opportunities for a defendant to gather information related to the accusations to prove they are true. This is a very broad standard, and it means nearly anything relevant is fair game. Depositions of senior executives, the firm’s accounting and records, balance sheets, low level employees are all legitimate aspects of pre-trial discovery.
Why any private firm would subject themselves to this degree of scrutiny is quite baffling to me.
“What you’re telling me is you pay lip service to me but yet I have not seen one single actual corrected policy procedure, you’re telling me your volume practice is going to remain because you can’t afford it,” Dunnigan said.
Judge fines major legal firm for foreclosure conduct
Lawyers to pay $49,000 for not showing up at scheduled hearings
Published: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 at 1:00 a.m.
Last Modified: Monday, August 30, 2010 at 10:46 p.m.
MANATEE COUNTY – A circuit judge singled out a Fort Lauderdale foreclosure firm on Monday, finding its business model violates legal ethics and leveling a $49,000 fine for scheduling hearings and then not showing up in court.
Circuit Judge Janette Dunnigan scolded five lawyers from the Smith, Hiatt and Diaz firm in connection with a Manatee County foreclosure case filed in 2007. The firm is one of several “foreclosure mills” filing thousands of foreclosure cases monthly.
The firm’s attorneys filed what amounted to “sham” paperwork setting seven hearings over two years, and then failed to appear in court or tell the judge or other parties when they were canceled. The case is still unresolved.
The behavior is willful, deliberate and flagrant and violates oaths of professional practice for lawyers, Dunnigan said. The firm also routinely does not comply with local court rules about how foreclosure cases should be handled, Dunnigan ruled.
“It is disrespectful and inconsiderate of the court’s time and impedes judicial administration,” Dunnigan said.
Sarasota attorney Michael Belle, who is trying to clean up the foreclosure process, said it was the first major penalty from a state judge about how the so-called “foreclosure mills” do business.
The firms handle the majority of foreclosure cases for lenders, bidding against each other to handle large numbers of cases.
In a judicial district that has taken a hard line on fraudulent or messy foreclosure filings, the judge’s ruling is the first time a court officer has openly attacked the methods of one of the firms responsible for thousands of foreclosures statewide.
Circuit Judge Janette Dunnigan scolded five lawyers from the Smith, Hiatt and Diaz firm in connection with a Manatee County foreclosure case filed in 2007. The firm is one of several “foreclosure mills” filing thousands of foreclosure cases monthly.
The firm’s attorneys filed what amounted to “sham” paperwork setting seven hearings over two years, and then failed to appear in court or tell the judge or other parties when they were canceled. The case is still unresolved.
The behavior is willful, deliberate and flagrant and violates oaths of professional practice for lawyers, Dunnigan said. The firm also routinely does not comply with local court rules about how foreclosure cases should be handled, Dunnigan ruled.
“It is disrespectful and inconsiderate of the court’s time and impedes judicial administration,” Dunnigan said.
I will write much more on this later, for now based on what happened today, I’m busy going through my files to make sure they’re all in order and reviewing my office and court procedures from top to bottom. Attached here is the Motion for Contempt that started all of this:
Buried in The Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, which the President signed into law yesterday, is an amendment to the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) that calls for a notice to the consumer when a ‘mortgage loan’ is transferred or assigned. The provision appears to be effective immediately, and violations are subject to TILA liability.
The text of the provision follows:
SEC. 404. NOTIFICATION OF SALE OR TRANSFER OF MORTGAGE LOANS. (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 131 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1641) is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(g) NOTICE OF NEW CREDITOR.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In addition to other disclosures required by this title, not later than 30 days after the date on which a mortgage loan is sold or otherwise transferred or assigned to a third party, the creditor that is the new owner or assignee of the debt shall notify the borrower in writing of such transfer, including— ‘‘(A) the identity, address, telephone number of the new creditor; ‘‘(B) the date of transfer; ‘‘(C) how to reach an agent or party having authority to act on behalf of the new creditor; ‘‘(D) the location of the place where transfer of ownership of the debt is recorded; and ‘‘(E) any other relevant information regarding the new creditor. ‘‘(2) DEFINITION.—As used in this subsection, the term ‘mortgage loan’ means any consumer credit transaction that is secured by the principal dwelling of a consumer.’’. (b) PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION.—Section 130(a) of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1640(a)) is amended by inserting ‘‘subsection (f) or (g) of section 131,’’ after ‘‘section 125,’’.
THIS OPENS UP A HUGE NEW AVENUE OF ATTACK AGAINST FORECLOSURE AND
TAMPA – The Florida Attorney General’s Office is investigating a Tampa-based foreclosure law firm that has become one of the state’s largest foreclosure mills.
On the agency’s Web site, the attorney general showed it has an “active public consumer-related investigation” into Florida Default Law Group. The agency notes that it is a civil investigation, rather than a criminal one, and the fact that is has an investigation isn’t proof of any violation of law.
Without going into much detail, the attorney general’s Web site says Florida Default Law Group, “Appears to be fabricating and/or presenting false and misleading documents in foreclosure cases.
“These documents have been presented in court before judges as actual assignments of mortgages and have later been shown to be legally inadequate and/or insufficient. Presenting faulty bank paperwork due to the mortgage crisis and thousands of foreclosures per month.”
Attempts to reach the Attorney General’s Office and Michael Echevarria, the head of Florida Default Law Group, were unsuccessful Thursday.
Based in a business park just off the Veteran’s Expressway, Florida Default Law Group files hundreds of foreclosure lawsuits alone in Hillsborough County on behalf of banks and mortgage servicing companies. The Tribune profiled Florida Default Law Group in January.
According to the Tribune’s review of 1,994 circuit court records, the firm filed initial legal documents for 323 foreclosure lawsuits in October. That was second only to the Law Offices of David J. Stern, a Broward County-based foreclosure firm that filed 352 foreclosure cases in October.
Florida Default Law Group operates in numerous counties in Florida, but it’s not clear how many lawsuits it files outside of Hillsborough County.
Reporter Michael Sasso can be reached at (813) 259-7865.
These are precarious times for lawyers in the business of filing foreclosure cases for banks. This is particularly true in one of the epicenters of the foreclosure crisis, Florida.
As we’ve noted before, the feds in Jacksonville recently started a criminal investigation of a company that is a top provider of the documentation used by banks in the foreclosure process. And a state-court judge ruled that a bank submitted a “fraudulent” document in support of its foreclosure case. That document was prepared by a local law firm.
For more Law Blog background on the foreclosure mess in our nation’s courts, this post will help.
The news today: the Florida Attorney General’s office said it has launched a civil investigation of Florida Default Law Group, based in Tampa, which is one of the largest so-called foreclosure-mill law firms in the state.
According to the AG’s website, it’s looking at whether the firm is “fabricating and/or presenting false and misleading documents in foreclosure cases.” It added: “These documents have been presented in court before judges as actual assignments of mortgages and have later been shown to be legally inadequate and/or insufficient.”
The issue: judges are increasingly running into situations in which banks are claiming ownership of properties they actually don’t own. Some of them end up chewing out the lawyers representing the banks.
The AG’s office said Florida Default Law Group appears to work closely with Lender Processing Services — the company we referenced earlier that is being investigated by the Justice Department.
LPS processes and sometimes produces documents needed by banks to prove they own the mortgages. LPS often works with local lawyers who litigate the foreclosure cases in court. Sometimes those same law firms produce documents that are required to prove ownership.
We’ve reached out to Florida Default Law Group and LPS and will let you know if we hear back.
The case file cited below relates to a civil — not a criminal — investigation. The existence of an investigation does not constitute proof of any violation of law.
Case Number:
L10-3-1095
Subject of investigation:
Florida Default Law Group, PL
Subject’s address:
9119 Corporate Lake Drive, Suite 300, Tampa, Florida 33634
Subject’s business:
Law Firm, Foreclosures
Allegation or issue being investigated:
Appears to be fabricating and/or presenting false and misleading documents in foreclosure cases. These documents have been presented in court before judges as actual assignments of mortgages and have later been shown to be legally inadequate and/or insufficient. Presenting faulty bank paperwork due to the mortgage crisis and thousands of foreclosures per month. This firm is one of the largest foreclosure firms in the State. This firm appears to be one of Docx, LLC a/k/a Lender Processing Services’ clients, who this office is also investigating.
AG unit handling case:
Economic Crimes Division in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
The Law Offices of David J. Stern has only about 15 attorneys, according to legal directories.
However, it’s the biggest filer of mortgage foreclosure suits in Florida, reports the Tampa Tribune. Aided by a back office that dwarfs the law firm, with a staff of nearly 1,000, the Miami area firm files some 5,800 foreclosure actions monthly.
The back-office operation, DJSP Enterprises, is publicly traded and hence must file financial reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It netted almost $45 million in 2009 on a little over $260 million in gross revenue that year. The mortgage meltdown of recent years apparently has been good to the company: In 2006, it earned a profit of $8.6 million on $40.4 million in revenue.
Stern, who is the company’s chairman and chief executive officer, could not be reached for comment, the newspaper says.
His law firm has been in the news lately, after one Florida judge dismissed a foreclosure case due to what he described as a “fraudulently backdated” mortgage document, and another said, in a hearing earlier this month concerning another of the Stern firm’s foreclosure cases, “I don’t have any confidence that any of the documents the court’s receiving on these mass foreclosures are valid.”
Earlier coverage:
ABAJournal.com: “Judge Dismisses Mortgage Foreclosure Over ‘Fraudulently Backdated’ Doc”
In a time when you can stroll over to the computer and rattle off an e-mail to your elected official because you think your taxes are too high or leave an anonymous comment on a blog or article voicing your disapproval with a particular reporter, it would seem that the days of face-to-face action and rallies are unfortunately a thing of the past.Not for a group of activists in Florida heading to the Capitol in Tallahassee on Wednesday, April 21.
Michael Redman (4closureFraud), and Lisa Epstein (Foreclosure Hamlet), in an effort to convince Florida legislators to listen to their constituents, are organizing a transport to the capital. An old fashion road trip of attorneys, advocates, and homeowners. Transportation is being organized and buses will be available from key areas throughout Florida and along major roadways. Redman and Epstein had initially dipped into their own pockets to charter buses for the event.
As of April 16th, according to Redman’s blog, in a Friday post,
“Team Ice in West Palm has sponsored their bus and now one of Pinellas County’s toughest foreclosure fighters has generously agreed to sponsor a bus to make sure any attorney and homeowner who wants to go to Tallahassee and make his or her voice heard has the opportunity to get up there and meet face to face.”
“One of the most inspiring things about all of this is seeing how the defense attorneys are all throwing their time, talent and treasure into this fight. We all share our ideas, insight and experience because doing so serves the interests of not just our clients but those folks out there who cannot afford an attorney and it especially serves the Constitution we took an oath to protect and the judiciary we respect,”
The most important piece of legislation the group was trying to stop was a push by bankers to change the way Florida handles foreclosures. Florida currently, and always has had Judicial foreclosures. The bank’s proposed legislation would have allowed banks to foreclose on Florida homes without going to court. According to Matt Weidner, a Florida attorney, the bill for now appears to have been stopped in the House, but the Senate will meet next week and according to an old Florida saying, “No one’s safe while the legislature is in session.”
A non-judicial foreclosure would mean that, “you the homeowner won’t automatically get your day in court if your lender tries to take your house away. The way it works right now is the lender is required by law to file a civil lawsuit against you in order to foreclose. You then have to answer it. If you don’t answer it or don’t show up to court, the judge issues a summary judgment against you. In a non-judicial foreclosure everything is done administratively and your right to due process is compromised and you have to beg for your day in court,” as explained by Steve Dibert of MFI-Miami.
Although the bill appears to have died, and the bankers appear to have conceded, this motivated band of advocates doesn’t want to leave anything to chance.
An e-mail from Weidner reads:
As Mark Twain said, ‘News of My death was greatly exaggerated.’ Although the legislation appears to have died, the passion and concern that its introduction incited has only increased with word of its demise. Tapping into broad based anxiety and concern felt by homeowners all across Florida, the group has turned its focus from defeating this legislation to demanding legislation that will increase protections for Florida homeowners. Talk about turning the tables. They are meeting with Senator Mark Aronberg and Rep. Darren Soto who introduced a “Homeowner’s Bill of Rights“. They’re asking that this legislation be resurrected… at the very least they want to make sure their legislators are fully aware of their concerns and the problems they’re facing.
According to Weidner’s press release,
“The response from legislators to this movement has been awe-inspiring. Our leaders in Washington may have trouble hearing the voices of their people, but the leaders who represent us in Tallahassee hear the voice of the people loud and clear! Already leaders from both houses have graciously agreed to meet with their voters, we’re confident many more will agree to meet with us when we arrive.”
Michael Moore spoke of the apathy and lack of action he witnessed despite his tireless work drawing attention to key issues affecting millions of Americans.
“Two years ago, I tried to get the health-care debate going, and it did eventually, and now where are we? We may not even have it. What am I supposed to do at a certain point?, ” Moore said in an 2009 Toronto press conference.
It’s refreshing and inspiring to think that may be changing.
Denise Richardson (givemebackmycredit.com) posted the following from Lisa Epstein on her blog:
This is not just for homeowners!We are ALL reduced by the actions behind the mortgage frauds and scams. Tenants! Anyone who relies on any public service funded by our now shrunken tax revenues! Anyone owning any property at all, fully paid off or not. Any business owner! Unemployed family members! Credit card/bank account fees victims! Those with drained 401Ks and college savings accounts!
We will be heard as was the Florida Bankers Association on their own “Capitol Day” on March 10, 2010. Florida Bankers, guess what? You wanted a “Taste of Florida”? You are gonna get one! We are having our own “Capitol Day”! But our collective voices will be a harmony; louder, clearer, unwavering, and with a foundation firmly planted in the historical roots of our country as a nation for WE, THE PEOPLE!
Bankers and other stealth foreclosing entities, listen up! We are NOT boobs, chumps, doormats, dupes, easy marks, fools, goats, gulls, patsies, pigeons, pushovers, saps, scapegoats, schmucks, sitting ducks, stooges, suckers, victims, or weaklings, And we most certainly are not “deadbeats”!
To find out more about the rally and let them know you’ll be along for the ride, see Redman’s site at 4closurefraud.org or Weidner’s blog for more information.
Looks like an Assignment of Mortgage was FRAUDULENTLY created by David Sterns office and signed by Cheryl Samons. Who woulda thunk…
“By now the fact that foreclosure mills, pretender lenders and their document mills across the country are perpetrating widespread and systemic fraud on the courts is not news. Well sure major questions remain unanswered such as what will be the ultimate price of all this fraud…as reported previously much of this fraud will go unpunished because much of the evidence is apparently being sent back to the law firms that commit the fraud. (In violation of court rules) But so much is sliding by these days.
We all must do everything we can to bring fraud to the court’s attention and to preserve the evidence when it is found. Attached here is the brilliant work of a Foreclosure Fraud Fighter, Ralph Fisher of Tampa, Florida who shows us what the courts are willing to do when a good attorney makes AND PROVES a case of fraud…..Case dismissed WITH PREJUDICE”.
From the order
The hearing time was set for March 1, 2010 at 3 p.m. for a 20-minute hearing but the Plaintiff failed to appear.
after sounding the halls and after awaiting telephonic communication from the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff still failed to appear. An assistant for Plaintiff s counsel called at about 3:44 p.m. to find out the outcome of the hearing.
Motion to Compel, the court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to produce answers to the Interrogatories for a period of 26 months
The Defendant’s Motion in Limine/Motion to Strike was based on an allegation that the Assignment of Mortgage was created after the filing of this action, but the document date and notarial date were purposely backdated by the Plaintiff to a date prior the filing of this foreclosure action.
The Assignment, as an instrument of fraud in this Court intentionally perpetrated upon this court by the Plaintiff, was made to appear as though it was created and notorized on December 5, 2007. However, that purported creation/notarization date was facially impossible: the stamp on the notary was dated May 19,2012. Since Notary commissions only last four years in Florida (see F .S. Section 117.01 (l )), the notary stamp used on this instrument did not even exist until approximately five months after the purported date on the Assignment.
The court specifically finds that the purported Assignment did not exist at the time of filing of this action; that the purported Assignment was subsequently created and the execution date and notarial date were fraudulently backdated, in a purposeful, intentional effort to mislead the Defendant and this Court. The Court rejects the Assignment and finds that is not entitled to introduction in evidence for any purpose. The Court finds that the Plaintiff does not have standing to bring its action.
IT IS THEREFORE. ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT:
The Motion to Compel is granted. As a sanction for egregious failure to comply with discovery Rules the Plaintiff shall be prohibited from presenting the alleged Promissory Note to this Court.
The Plaintiff shall be prohibited from introducing into evidence the alleged Promissory Note.
The Plaintiff’s recording and filing regarding the fraudulent Assignment of Mortgage is stricken, and the Plaintiff is prohibited from entering the Assignment of Mortgage into evidence.
The Motion for Rehearing of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted and the Motion to Dismiss is granted. The Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice, based on the fraud intentionally perpetrated upon the Court by the Plaintiff.
Moral to the story… ALL assignments are FRAUDULENT.
As most of you are aware, the Florida Supreme Court issued a new rule, effective February 11, 2010 that requires all homestead foreclosure complaints to be verified. Amazingly, it appears that many of the mills are just ignoring the new rule and continuing to file, business as usual.
In the Answer attached here, I attack the complaint and I also attack another component of most foreclosure complaint….the lost note count. As the research in the motion establishes, there is pretty good case law to support the proposition that most mortgage notes are not negotiable instruments.
If this case law gets correctly applied….more big trouble for the mills…happy hunting~
Foreclosure Fraud Fighters Weapon- Motion to Disqualify Counsel!
March 29th, 2010 ·
As more and more depositions are being taken of robo signers and other witnesses who appear in foreclosure cases by signing documents, a troubling issue has emerged….conflict of interest by the foreclosure mills that are staying up day and night to push their garbage foreclosure cases through.
There are only two or three documents that must be filed by the Plaintiff in order to be granted foreclosure. These documents must be trustworthy if a court is to rely upon them to grant foreclosure and deprive a homeowner of possession of the home. What we’ve found through deposition and discovery is that attorneys who work in the foreclosure mills are signing the key documents that allow their firms to prevail in their cases. This is a staggering violation of the rules of professional ethics, but this practice is apparently quite widespread with groups of attorneys in the mills routinely signing documents, especially assignments of mortgages, allegedly on behalf of MERS in particular. Any document signed by an attorney working for the Plaintiff is ethically improper, but very serious conflict of interest questions are raised when an assignment transfers the first mortgage to the Plaintiff while at the same time, there is any sort of second mortgage and certainly when the Plaintiff lists MERS as a Defendant.
An Absolute Conflict of Interest Anytime A Second Mortgage Exists
MERS is listed as the “mortgagee” or “nominee” on virtually every mortgage that is currently subject to foreclosure. As we know from depositions, whenever the Plaintiff’s law firm needs to show evidence that the named plaintiff has the right to foreclose a mortgage, either an attorney in the office creates this false assignment or they send instructions to a document mill where the false assignment is signed by a robo signer. Title attorneys and attorneys with a real estate background dispute the validity of any assignment from MERS (see Kessler v. Landmark) because MERS simply does not have the authority to issue assignments. Setting this argument aside for just a moment however, the problem with any party acting on instructions from the Plaintiff’s firm is that this party is an agent of the Plaintiff law firm…I cannot conceive of any litigation where it would be permissible for a law firm to instruct his client, “Here’s the evidence I need”, and that client would produce the “evidence” according to instruction and return to the attorney who submits this “evidence” to the court. And yet this happens in virtually every foreclosure across the country….but wait, I got sidetracked down one ethical minefield, when I started in another direction.
When MERS executes one questionable assignment of mortgage (all MERS assignments are questionable) for the first mortgage and there is also a second mortgage that must be foreclosed, Plaintiff’s firms are often not bothering to serve the holder of the second mortgage…all they’re bothering to do is get “service” for that second mortgage on MERS…problematic in any case, but especially problematic when the agent for MERs on either the first or the second mortgage are either an attorney working for the Plaintiff or an agent of the attorney. What follows here is a discussion of some of the ethical issues posed by such practices, and then posted here is a Motion to Disqualify Counsel which Foreclosure Fraud Fighter Mark Stopa has recently been using with great results…bottom line is the Motion to Disqualify must be heard before any substantive issues are addressed, and the foreclosure mills never want these Motions to Disqualify to be heard by a judge…..if judges started hearing these arguments on a regular basis they may never get around to granting foreclosure…and now, directly from the Florida Bar Journal:
Under the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct, an attorney generally must not act as advocate at a trial in which the attorney is likely to be a necessary witness on behalf of the client. 1 The purpose of the rule is to prevent evils that arise when a lawyer dons the hat of both advocate and witness for his own client, as such dual role can prejudice the opposing side or create a conflict of interest. 2
“At a trial,” as used in the rule, does not encompass pre-trial or post-trial proceedings, and thus, does not preclude the attorney from conducting a pre-trial deposition, even if it were likely that the attorney would be called as a witness at a trial. 3 Generally, where an attorney is a necessary witness for a client, the trial of the case should be left to other counsel; the dual capacity of counsel
and witness in the trial of a cause should be avoided if possible. 4 If, from the outset, an attorney knows or can reasonably anticipate that his or her testimony will be essential to the prosecution of his or her client’s case, the attorney should decline the representation altogether. 5 To avoid jeopardizing a client’s cause of action, the better practice is for counsel who must decline or withdraw from representation to arrange to have other counsel conduct the trial when it is apparent that either he or a member of his firm will be required to testify on behalf of his client. 6
The mere possibility that the attorney would or might be a necessary witness is insufficient. 7 Furthermore, unsubstantiated claims that plaintiff’s attorney is a material witness will not disqualify the attorney from representing his client. 8 Likewise, a defendant’s motion for disqualification of a plaintiff’s attorney will not be granted on the ground that the attorney “should be” a witness for the plaintiffs where the plaintiffs testify that they prefer to have their attorney act as their counsel rather than have him testify in their behalf, and where it appears that any information the attorney possess is not crucial and could be presented through the testimony of others. 9The rule requiring a lawyer to withdraw when he expects to be a necessary witness in a case is not designed to permit a lawyer to call opposing counsel as a witness and thereby disqualify him as counsel. 10 Indeed, the District Court of Appeal views with some skepticism motions to disqualify an attorney on the grounds that the attorney will be a material witness in the case, since such motions are sometimes filed for tactical or harassing reasons, rather than the proper reason. 11 Opposing counsel should not be permitted to force disassociation between counsel and client just by calling counsel as an adverse witness, and a lawyer need not withdraw from a case where the mere possibility exists that he or she might be called to testify by the adversary party, as this would create the situation in which the adversary could disassociate the client’s chosen counsel. 12
However, although disqualification of an attorney is an extraordinary remedy to be resorted to only sparingly, 13 when it is shown that the attorney will be an indispensable witness or when the attorney becomes a “central figure” in the case, disqualification is appropriate. Thus, disqualification of an attorney from representation of defendants at the trial was warranted in a defamation action where the attorney was likely to be the featured witness at the trial, adducing evidence as to plaintiff’s activities. 14 Likewise, an attorney was properly disqualified from representing the personal
representative in a will contest, where the attorney had prepared and witnessed the contested will, and, therefore, would be a witness on matters of substance at the trial. 15 Also, both an attorney and the attorney’s firm should have been disqualified from representation, where an attorney brought an action against a partnership for his wife in a slip-and-fall case and for himself on a claim for loss of consortium, and the attorney’s partner had represented the partnership and still served as its resident agent for service of process, because the attorney could well be called to testify, resulting in a violation of a rule of professional conduct, and the firm, through its representation, may have had access to privileged information of the partnership. 16
¨ Observation: A litigant’s action in causing the disqualification of its opponent’s trial counsel enjoyed absolute immunity from a later claim of tortious interference with a business relationship, where the litigant certified to the trial court an intent to call opposing counsel as a witness at trial, thereby causing opposing counsel to be disqualified, but later failed to subpoena and call counsel as a witness at trial, and when a judgment was entered against the litigant, disqualified counsel brought an action against the litigant for tortious interference with a business relationship. 17
FOOTNOTE 1. Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, Rule 4-3.7(a).
Annotation References
Attorney as witness for client in civil proceedings—modern state cases, 35
A.L.R. 4th 810.
Trial Strategy References
Attorney Malpractice in Real Estate Transactions, 27 Am. Jur. Proof of
Facts 3d 353.
Existence of attorney–client Relationship, 48 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d
525.
FOOTNOTE 2. Scott v. State, 717 So. 2d 908, 23 Fla. L. Weekly S175 (Fla.
1998), reh’g denied, (June 15, 1998).
FOOTNOTE 3. Columbo v. Puig, 745 So. 2d 1106, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D2705
(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1999).
Singer Island Ltd., Inc. v. Budget Const. Co., Inc., 714 So. 2d 651, 23
Fla. L. Weekly D1773 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1998).
A franchiser’s attorney was not required to be disqualified for conflict
of interest based on the attorney’s previous representation of a franchisee,
where the attorney previously had written two letters and had sat in on
meetings with the franchisee in connection with the franchisee’s claim that
its assignor was in breach of its noncompetition agreement and, when the
franchisee brought an action against the franchiser alleging a breach of the
franchise agreement, contended that the attorney should be disqualified,
even though there was no evidence that the attorney’s testimony would be
necessary or that his testimony would be averse to the franchiser’s position.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the attorneys at Ice Legal may be the most aggressive and hard charging Foreclosure Fraud Fighters in Florida. When this whole system comes crashing down and when judges and the Florida Supreme Court put an end to the systemic abuses of the court process being perpetrated by the foreclosure mills, the attorneys at Ice Legal will rightly take their fair share of the credit.
Attached here is a must read Motion along with a copy of a transcript from a hearing held in a Volusia County Courtroom. The Motion lays out a very disturbing set of allegations…
This is a foreclosure action filed by WELLS FARGO BANK, NA (the “BANK”). The BANK is represented by Florida Default Law Group, P.L. (“FDLG”). On behalf of the BANK in this case, and on behalf of other clients in other cases, FDLG filed affidavits to establish that the attorneys’ fees it was allegedly paid were reasonable. The affidavits purport to have been executed by Lisa Cullaro, the appointed expert on attorneys’ fees. The notary who allegedly administered the expert’s oath and vouched for her signature was Erin Cullaro, a former employee of FDLG and now an Assistant Attorney General in the Economic Crimes Division of the Office of the Attorney General.
Not only was Erin just a former employee, she was one of the lead counsel for Michael Echeverria, the owner of FDLG (Florida Default Law Group)
For a short period of time in Florida, pretender lenders and their attorneys had a field day in Florida courts, obtaining foreclosure judgments and title to property based on the flimsiest of evidence. Now courts are aware of many of the problems with these files and lenders can no longer count on a free ride to the foreclosure auction. Below is a sampling of case headnotes from recent circuit court opinions that denied foreclosure. Judges in circuits across the state are now standing up for consumers (or at least for the rule of law) and requiring lenders to prove their right to claim the relief they seek. A sampling of the headnotes follows:
Mortgages — Foreclosure — Stay — Foreclosure action is stayed until mortgagor has been afforded mitigation and modification opportunities of home affordable modification program
Mortgages — Foreclosure — Standing — Motion for final judgment of foreclosure denied — Plaintiff that did not become holder of note until after suit was filed did not have standing to bring action — Even if assignment could confer standing retroactively, assignment is deficient where jurat does not indicate that it was signed in presence of notary, and assignor does not have documented authority to assign mortgage — Further, motion for summary judgment is deficient where supporting affidavit was signed by person whose only demonstrated authority is to assign and release liens, not by individual with corporate authority and demonstrated knowledge.
Mortgages — Foreclosure — Complaint — Plaintiff has failed to state cause of action where partial terms sheet attached to foreclosure complaint omits details as to who gets paid, when and where payment is due, and amount of payment — Further, assignment that is dated after filing of suit is at variance with complaint — Complaint dismissed with leave to amend.
Mortgages — Foreclosure — Standing — Motion to dismiss is granted with leave to file new or amended complaint to allege that plaintiff is owner and holder of note and mortgage and to allege additional facts that support that allegation.
Mortgages — Foreclosure — Where note filed by plaintiff is endorsed but does not name entity to which it is made payable, plaintiff failed to plead in complaint that it is owner of note or mortgage, mortgage names entity other than plaintiff as mortgagee, plaintiff has filed assignment of mortgage executed and recorded after complaint was filed, and complaint does not demonstrate equitable assignment of mortgage to plaintiff before complaint was filed, plaintiff must amend complaint to allege that it is owner and holder of note and mortgage and identify documents upon which it relies to establish that it holds and owns note and mortgage
Continue reading…
These are precarious times for lawyers in the business of filing foreclosure cases for banks. This is particularly true in one of the epicenters of the foreclosure crisis, Florida.
Recent Comments