Mortgage Servicing Fraud
occurs post loan origination when mortgage servicers use false statements and book-keeping entries, fabricated assignments, forged signatures and utter counterfeit intangible Notes to take a homeowner's property and equity.
Articles |The FORUM |Law Library |Videos | Fraudsters & Co. |File Complaints |How they STEAL |Search MSFraud |Contact Us
Unregistered
A FREE HOUSE - IS IT POSSIBLE ?

Read this Final Judgment.

http://www.stayinmyhome.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Final-Judgment.pdf
Quote 0 0
texas
As I read it, if a true holder of the note surfaced with a proper claim, the note's owner (payee) would possibly have actions available to file suit for collection of the note. Just meant TB&W was not the correct party to sue on the note or the security securing.

As to whether under law, the security still secures the note in another note owners name, the courts may not to sort that out later.
Quote 0 0
Unregistered

Thanks J. While you are at it, search for more cases Dismissed with Prejudice  and post the pleadings/Court Order so we the ignorant Homeowners can learn.

It would be nice to have our cases dismissed with Prejudice too.  

Quote 0 0
Unregistered
I believe that Court Order are public record. Court hearings are public accessible. All Court Orders are published almost immediately in legal journal such as Florida Law Weekly for every one to see . What is the problem ?

FLW ExpressA Service of Florida Law Weekly--
Serving Florida's Lawyers for Over 35 Years
http://www.FloridaLawWeekly.com
The Florida Law Weekly
P.O. Box 4284
Tallahassee, FL 32315
Telephone: (800) 351-0917
Fax: (850) 222-7938
Quote 0 0
t

See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 36:

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_36

 

The Florida equivalent of Federal Rule 36 is Rule 1.370:

RULE 1.370. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
(a) Request for Admission.  A party may serve upon any other party a written request for the admission of the truth of any matters within the scope of rule 1.280(b) set forth in the request that relate to statements or opinions of fact or of the application of law to fact, including the genuineness of any documents described in the request.  Copies of documents shall be served with the request unless they have been or are otherwise furnished or made available for inspection and copying.  Without leave of court the request may be served upon the plaintiff after commencement of the action and upon any other party with or after service of the process and initial pleading upon that party.  The request for admission shall not exceed 30 requests, including all subparts, unless the court permits a larger number on motion and notice and for good cause, or the parties propounding and responding to the requests stipulate to a larger number.  Each matter of which an admission is requested shall be separately set forth.  The matter is admitted unless the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a written answer or objection addressed to the matter within 30 days after service of the request or such shorter or longer time as the court may allow but, unless the court shortens the time, a defendant shall not be required to serve answers or objections before the expiration of 45 days after service of the process and initial pleading upon the defendant.  If objection is made, the reasons shall be stated. The answer shall specifically deny the matter or set forth in detail the reasons why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter.  A denial shall fairly meet the substance of the requested admission, and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of the matter of which an admission is requested, the party shall specify so much of it as is true and qualify or deny the remainder.  An answering party may not give lack of information or knowledge as a reason for failure to admit or deny unless that party states that that party has made reasonable inquiry and that the information known or readily obtainable by that party is insufficient to enable that party to admit or deny.  A party who considers that a matter of which an admission has been requested presents a genuine issue for trial may not object to the request on that ground alone; the party may deny the matter or set forth reasons why the party cannot admit or deny it, subject to rule 1.380(c).  The party who has requested the admissions may move to determine the sufficiency of the answers or objections.  Unless the court determines that an objection is justified, it shall order that an answer be served. If the court determines that an answer does not comply with the requirements of this rule, it may order either that the matter is admitted or that an amended answer be served.  Instead of these orders the court may determine that final disposition of the request be made at a pretrial conference or at a designated time before trial.  The provisions of rule 1.380(a)(4) apply to the award of expenses incurred in relation to the motion.

 

(b) Effect of Admission.  Any matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission.  Subject to rule 1.200 governing amendment of a pretrial order, the court may permit withdrawal or amendment when the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved by it and the party who obtained the admission fails to satisfy the court that withdrawal or amendment will prejudice that party in maintaining an action or defense on the merits.  Any admission made by a party under this rule is for the purpose of the pending action only and is not an admission for any other pur-pose nor may it be used against that party in any other proceeding.

 

Mr. Roper gave us some good additional discussion of discovery rules within this post within thread "Summary Judgment affidavit" (11/24/10 at 12:06 AM):

 

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/show_single_post?pid=1266241046&postcount=14

 

Mr. Roper seems to understand the discovery rules and the cases on the rules.  Mr. Stopa, despite being a licensed attorney, seems not to understand these rules.

 

For a more thorough exposition on this topic, consult the discussion on Rule 36 within either Miller & Wright or Moore's Federal Practice.

 

Anyone consulting these authoritative sources will find that both Mr. Roper and ka's analysis is correct.

 

I will try to quickly locate a couple of cases, but the correctness of ka's analysis is not at all in doubt.  This is a good reason to employ an experienced litigator rather than a self-aggrandizing dilettante.

Quote 0 0
t

Here are a couple of Ohio decisions which fully support ka's original analysis:

BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Devoll, Case No. 11CAE080075, 2011 Ohio 6607; 2011 Ohio App. LEXIS 5437 (Ohio App. 5th Dist. 2011)

 

Freedom Mortg. Corp. v. Petty, No. 95834, 2011 Ohio 3067; 2011 Ohio App. LEXIS 2608 (Ohio App. 8th Dist. 2011)

 

But compare the result in this case where the borrower is plaintiff rather than defendant:

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ballestas, NO. 01-10-00020-CV, 355 S.W.3d 187; 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 3597 (Tex. App. -- Houston [1st Dist.] 2011)

 

Quote 0 0
t

Mr. Roper repeatedly warned against posting of either identifying information or live pleadings:

 

"my law suit opinions welcome" (04/07/11 at 07:11 PM)

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/show_single_post?pid=1268029665&postcount=4

 

"my law suit opinions welcome" (04/09/11 at 05:03 PM)

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/show_single_post?pid=1268055145&postcount=7

 

Others have continued to remind Forum participants of this:

 

Mortgage Note Endorsement Fraud (03/03/12 at 11:10 AM)

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/show_single_post?pid=1272509760&postcount=20

 

(This was before Anh registered and expropriated the additional alias "Unregistered" to the exclusion of all other users.)

 

Others, including Bill, have similarly sounded this warning.

 

ATTORNEYS KNOW BETTER!

 

Against this backdrop, we see an incompetent attorney posting information harmful to the client.  We also see Anh celebrating this posting.

Quote 0 0
t

See also Mr. Roper's post within thread "Tactical Considerations in fighting foreclosure" (6/24/11 at 05:18 PM):

 

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/show_single_post?pid=1269151344&postcount=84

 

Quote 0 0
ka

t mentioned that he might post some cases on discovery.  Since he seems to have neglected to do so, I have located several topical Texas cases:

"As Nichols contends, appellants' own responses to Nichols's request for disclosure do not constitute summary judgment proof.  See TEX. R. CIV. P. 197.3 (stating answers to interrogatories may only be used against responding party); Yates v. Fisher, 988 S.W.2d 730, 731 (Tex. 1998) (same); Jeffrey v. Larry Plotnick Co., 532 S.W.2d 99, 102 (Tex. Civ. App.-Dallas 1975, no writ) (stating answers to requests for admissions and interrogatories can be used only against responding party)."
STAUDER v. Nichols, (Tex. App. -- Houston [1st. Dist. 2010)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4486341152646658634

 

"Jeffrey's contention that his answers to the interrogatories and requests for admissions are sufficient to raise issues of fact to defeat the motion for summary judgment is without merit.  Answers to requests for admissions and interrogatories can be used only against the party filing the answers.  Sympson v. Mor-Win Products, Inc., 501 S.W.2d 362 (Tex.Civ.App.— Fort Worth 1973, no writ) and Sprouse v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n, 459 S.W.2d 216, 220 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1970, writ ref'd n.r.e.)."
Jeffrey v. Larry Plotnick Co., Inc., 532 SW 2d 99 (Tex. App. -- Dallas 1975)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8624697193470079070

 

"Further, we note the lack of compliance by plaintiff with the provisions of Rule 166-A, Subsection (e) in the following particulars: (1) counsel was not shown "affirmatively" to be competent to testify as to the truth of the matters therein contained; (2) no "sworn or certified copies of all papers or parts thereof referred to in the affidavit" were attached thereto; (3) the pleadings would not defeat the motion for summary judgment [State v. Rope, 419 S.W.2d 890, 900 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin, 1967, error ref., n. r. e.)]; and, (4) plaintiff's self-serving answers to the interrogatories and requests could be used only against him and the answers were not binding upon his adversary [Black v. Frank Paxton Lumber Co., 405 S.W.2d 412, 414 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas, 1966, error ref., n. r. e.) construing Rule 168]."
Sprouse v. TEXAS EMPLOYERS'INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, 459 SW 2d 216 (Tex. App. -- Beaumont 1970, writ ref'd n.r.e.)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14687334397041462033

This Texas case concerns interrogatory responses only:

 

"Answers to interrogatories of a party opposing a motion for summary judgment cannot be used to defeat the motion on the ground that they raise a material fact issue.  Walker v. Horine, 695 S.W.2d 572, 575 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1985, no writ); Thurman v. Frozen Food Express, 600 S.W.2d 369, 370 (Tex.Civ.App. —Dallas 1980, no writ).  This is because answers to interrogatories can be used only against the party answering the interrogatories, Jeffrey v. Larry Plotnick Co., Inc., 532 S.W.2d 99, 102 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1975, no writ); TEX.R.CIV.P. 168, rather than to be used as self-serving statements for the party making them.
Keever v. Hall & Northway Advertising, Inc., 727 S.W.2d 704 (Tex. 5th Dist. 1987)"
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6578642511334563934

 

Miller & Wright or Moore probably have some better national cases under the Federal Rules, as t explained.  Corpus Juris Secundum and American Jurisprudence 2nd ought to have some further exposition, as well, though I am unsure of the topic.

Quote 0 0
Walt

ka said:

 

Quote:

t mentioned that he might post some cases on discovery. Since he seems to have neglected to do so, I have located several topical Texas cases:

"As Nichols contends, appellants' own responses to Nichols's request for disclosure do not constitute summary judgment proof. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 197.3 (stating answers to interrogatories may only be used against responding party); Yates v. Fisher, 988 S.W.2d 730, 731 (Tex. 1998) (same); Jeffrey v. Larry Plotnick Co., 532 S.W.2d 99, 102 (Tex. Civ. App.-Dallas 1975, no writ) (stating answers to requests for admissions and interrogatories can be used only against responding party)."
STAUDER v. Nichols, (Tex. App. -- Houston [1st. Dist. 2010)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4486341152646658634

"Jeffrey's contention that his answers to the interrogatories and requests for admissions are sufficient to raise issues of fact to defeat the motion for summary judgment is without merit. Answers to requests for admissions and interrogatories can be used only against the party filing the answers. Sympson v. Mor-Win Products, Inc., 501 S.W.2d 362 (Tex.Civ.App.— Fort Worth 1973, no writ) and Sprouse v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n, 459 S.W.2d 216, 220 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1970, writ ref'd n.r.e.)."
Jeffrey v. Larry Plotnick Co., Inc., 532 SW 2d 99 (Tex. App. -- Dallas 1975)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8624697193470079070

"Further, we note the lack of compliance by plaintiff with the provisions of Rule 166-A, Subsection (e) in the following particulars: (1) counsel was not shown "affirmatively" to be competent to testify as to the truth of the matters therein contained; (2) no "sworn or certified copies of all papers or parts thereof referred to in the affidavit" were attached thereto; (3) the pleadings would not defeat the motion for summary judgment [State v. Rope, 419 S.W.2d 890, 900 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin, 1967, error ref., n. r. e.)]; and, (4) plaintiff's self-serving answers to the interrogatories and requests could be used only against him and the answers were not binding upon his adversary [Black v. Frank Paxton Lumber Co., 405 S.W.2d 412, 414 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas, 1966, error ref., n. r. e.) construing Rule 168]."
Sprouse v. TEXAS EMPLOYERS'INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, 459 SW 2d 216 (Tex. App. -- Beaumont 1970, writ ref'd n.r.e.)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14687334397041462033

This Texas case concerns interrogatory responses only:

"Answers to interrogatories of a party opposing a motion for summary judgment cannot be used to defeat the motion on the ground that they raise a material fact issue. Walker v. Horine, 695 S.W.2d 572, 575 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1985, no writ); Thurman v. Frozen Food Express, 600 S.W.2d 369, 370 (Tex.Civ.App. —Dallas 1980, no writ). This is because answers to interrogatories can be used only against the party answering the interrogatories, Jeffrey v. Larry Plotnick Co., Inc., 532 S.W.2d 99, 102 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1975, no writ); TEX.R.CIV.P. 168, rather than to be used as self-serving statements for the party making them.
Keever v. Hall & Northway Advertising, Inc., 727 S.W.2d 704 (Tex. 5th Dist. 1987)"
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6578642511334563934

Miller & Wright or Moore probably have some better national cases under the Federal Rules, as t explained. Corpus Juris Secundum and American Jurisprudence 2nd ought to have some further exposition, as well, though I am unsure of the topic.

 

 

These cases by ka are interesting.  Has anybody found any Florida cases in support of ka's argument?

 

I found this Florida case, which is not exactly on point, but discusses some Florida law as to requests for admissions:

 

Lutsch v. Smith, No. UU-411, 397 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 1st Dist. 1981)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5649076433292992400

 

If anyone sees a Florida case following the holdings in ka's Texas cases, I would be appreciative if you could post the citation and a link.  Thanks!

Quote 0 0
Walt

It seems as though t's prediction that Miller & Wright would contain an explanation and authority to support the assertion that admissions are binding only on the respondent is correct:

 

Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedures, Civil § 2264 it is stated:

 

"The preceding discussion has been concerned with the extent to which an admission made under Rule 36 binds the parties who made it. The admission does not bind the party who requested it."

 

This would seem to totally support t's and ka's assertion that LaFalce could have chosen from amongst the judicially admitted facts those admissions which would result in a dismissal on the merits with prejudice and to any extent that the defendant's attorney sought dismissal based upon those admissions which related to standing, it would seem that LaFalce's attorney is one hell of a fool who squandered any opportunity to win the case on the merits by his incompetent trial practice.

Quote 0 0
Walt

The holding in this Florida case seems to be more directly supportive of ka's analysis:

"While it is true that the owners/developers admissions are binding upon them, in Florida, and elsewhere, these admissions are not binding upon the party requesting the admission.  Black v. Palm Beach County, 342 So.2d 1034 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); see also discussion in Shell Oil Co. v. Murrah, 493 So.2d 1274 (Miss. 1986) citing Black.  Certainly, if these admissions are not binding on Cox, they are not binding on the Kendricks who were not parties to this discovery.

Kendrick v. Middlesex Dev. Corp., 586 So.2d 436 (Fla. 1st Dist. 1991)

 

It would seem that LaFalce could have used the admissions that supported a judgment on the merits and that the additional admissions by the plaintiff which supported a finding of lack of standing could not have formed the basis for an alternative holding if these simply had not been put forward as proof by the defendant

 

I asked an attorney with extensive litigation experience about this and he confirmed that t was precisely correct.

 

The plaintiff might have voluntarily dismissed the action had it done so in a timely way.

Quote 0 0
Jim

Two days after Mark Stopa's irresponsible blog post announcing the judgment in the case Bank of New York v. LaFalce, Hillsborough County, FL, Case No. 10-CA-006966, the plaintiff filed a Motion for Clarification (March 15, 2012).  No doubt, the plaintiff is seeking a correction of the judgment to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice.

 

ka and t hit this matter dead on.  The original order is probably void, but in an abundance of caution and to preserve error for appeal, Bank of New York is no doubt seeking correction by timely motion.

 

Any possibility of obtaining a free house was eliminated when Mr. LaFalce employed this incompetent attorney Mark Stopa, who put his own interests in promoting new business ahead of the interests of his client.  I certainly hope that Mr. LaFalce files a bar disciplinary complaint!

 

Michael LaFalce's only prayer of getting a "free house" is to fire his attorney and bring a legal malpractice action against Mark Stopa!

Quote 0 0
J

Jim, yesterday I pulled up the LaFalce docket sheet, I was curious about the last two entries:

 

03/142012: Motion for Rehearing or to vacate order;  filing party: Lafalce, MIchael

 

03/15/2012: Motion for Clarification: Unsigned Order Exhibit Attached US Bank

 

I have requested both filings from the clerk.

 

?why would Lafalce file a Motion for Rehearing, which was followed by US Bank's Motion for Clarification?

 

just curious?  thanks

Quote 0 0
George Burns

Most likely both parties saw the same problems and independently are trying to either get the Order fixed or get a "do-over". The timimng is just coincidental and as cose to simultaneous as you can get. They were each probably trying to be first in line.

Quote 0 0
Jim

Quote:

Jim, yesterday I pulled up the LaFalce docket sheet, I was curious about the last two entries:

03/142012: Motion for Rehearing or to vacate order; filing party: Lafalce, MIchael

03/15/2012: Motion for Clarification: Unsigned Order Exhibit Attached US Bank

I have requested both filings from the clerk.

?why would Lafalce file a Motion for Rehearing, which was followed by US Bank's Motion for Clarification?

just curious? thanks

 

 

I, too, noticed the "Motion for Rehearing" filed by LaFalce.  It is unclear what this might include.  It is really rather inexplicable, given that the court was in all likelihood reacting to the evidence offered as proof by the defendant.

 

Of course, as ka and t noted, the defendant seems to have made an epic blunder in pressing the standing argument.  It will be hard to un-ring that bell, given that a court can and should act sua sponte to dismiss whenever it ascertains that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

 

But here is another puzzle.  How does one explain a blog post on Tuesday, March 13, 2012, celebrating that the defendant has achieved what Matt Stopa describes as the "Holy Grail" -- a free house -- but that the defendant files a motion to vacate the immediately following day.

 

Does anyone else sense deceit and misrepresentation by the defendant's attorney?  My guess is that even before Anh re-posted Mr. Stopa irresponsible braggadocio at the Forum some reasonably intelligent lawyer quietly pointed out to Mr. Stopa that the order was probably void, as written, just as ka and t have asserted.

 

Note that the plaintiff is generally OK with the order and seeks only clarification.  A dismissal with prejudice based upon lack of standing is a legal impossibility.  The plaintiff merely needs to get the order to correctly reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice.  Then the plaintiff cleans up its case and re-files, totally escaping any serious consequences from its discovery default!

 

On Tuesday Mr. Stopa was dancing a drunken jig.  On Wednesday, he was in a blind panic and the defendant is seeking to get the order vacated through rehearing!  Mr. Stopa is a total idiot!  I hope that Mr. LaFalce can get his free house from Mr. Stopa's malpractice insurer! 

Quote 0 0
Jim

Quote:
I have requested both filings from the clerk.

 

It will be interesting to see both motions.  It would also be interesting to see the defendant's motion that brought about this epic clusterf*ck!

Quote 0 0
Jim

Quote:
Most likely both parties saw the same problems and independently are trying to either get the Order fixed or get a "do-over". The timing is just coincidental and as cose to simultaneous as you can get. They were each probably trying to be first in line.
 

 

I doubt that the timing is coincidental.

 

The filing by LaFalce probably arose from the back-channel reaction to Mr. Stopa's blog post by a competent attorney who is a friend of distressed borrowers.  Someone like Max Gardner.

 

The filing by the plaintiff was probably also precipitated by Mr. Stopa's intemperate blog post.  The foreclosure mills are far, far too busy to be rushing back to court two days after an order unless provoked.

 

The foreclosure mill is unlikely to have received and reacted to the LaFalce filing the immediate following day, nor would they have otherwise reacted this quickly.  They might have very easily missed a deadline for filing had Mr. Stopa not waved the judgment in their face like waving a red cape at a bull.  The foreclosure mill probably overlooked the order.  It was likely brought to their attention by an astute and attentive person within the employ of the servicer client.  Or the order may have been brought to the lawyer's attention by a news reporter energized by a call from Mr. Stopa seeking publicity.

 

The client probably e-mailed the foreclosure mill a message saying essentially "WTF"!

Quote 0 0
J

Lafalce 'Final Judgment':

 

3.  On march 7, 2012, plaintiff failed to attend the hearing on the above-listed motions, ....

 

4. Plaintiff failed o submit any affidavits or other record evidence in opposition to def motion for sj.

 

 

ps i think the atty who alerted stopa is the original atty of record: David Graham who in my opinion is an effective litigator - but that is just my opinion

 

Quote 0 0
J

why won't stopa just take that order, sit on it knowing that if he just waited ---bingo " The Holy Grail of Foreclosure Defense: A Free House"

 

--- just think if you were that homeowner, WOW AFTER ALL THIS MY FAMILY AND I GET TO STAY IN OUR HOME --- AND NOW  A WTF MOMENT --- IT STARTS ALL OVER AGAIN ---with a not so good outlook!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

ps and the homeowner paid for this to happen to him! geeezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Quote 0 0
J

sorry one more thought --- i can just see stopa telling Michael Lefalce, "you know the system is rigged, you know the judges are bought, you know the banks payoff these people --- thats the way it is!   with him 'Stopa' knowing full well that he is the ONE the screwed it up! 

 

ps: don't pay attention to those, what did Anh call Roper, t etc "WANNABE ATTORNEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote 0 0
Jim

Quote:
why won't stopa just take that order, sit on it knowing that if he just waited ---bingo " The Holy Grail of Foreclosure Defense: A Free House"
 

As discussed by t and ka above on the prior page, the key to succeeding would be to present selective admissions to the court in a motion for summary judgment on the merits.  Holding some of the admissions back wouldn't have waived these admissions.  If the defendant couldn't have obtained a summary judgment with prejudice on the merits, the issue of standing would still be in place and could be obtained in a renewed motion with the other admissions.

 

A lot of people, even a few incompetent lawyers, seem not to understand that a denial of a motion for summary judgment is an interlocutory order.  Unless there are docket control orders in place limiting the time frame for another renewed motion, either party can file either an amended or second motion for summary judgment.  In fact either party could file a third motion for summary judgment. 

 

Another point made by ka and t in this and other threads is that getting a case dismissed on standing is not something that someone usually wants to do sooner.  If one has an exceptionally robust case on standing, rather than getting a sooner dismissal, it is usually better to let the matter go all the way to trial.  Deemed admissions can be used at trial as well as in support of summary judgment.

 

Here, if the deemed admissions were not enough to win a judgment on the merits with prejudice, they still might have been enough to prevail in a trial on the merits in respect of other evidence.

 

This attorney Mark Stopa seems to be a real loser with no sense of litigation strategy whatsoever. 

Quote 0 0
J

Jim, George Burns, Walt ...... all of the above responses have certainly added a 'new dimension' to one's overall strategy'. TU!

Also, isn't it nice to have an on-going discussion without the 'Anh' distraction? I hope it stays that way!

 

ps how is it possible that the 'seniors of msfraud' have soooo much knowledge of the 'court room' than 'top rated foreclosure attorneys' how??

 

I believe that William A. Roper Jr addresses whether one should hire an attorney or to fight as a pro se ~ and it seem to me that he strongly suggested that if one had an 'educational background', the TIME, and required energy, it would be better to hire yourself!  Again, he is right on point! 

Quote 0 0
J

sorry forgot to mention and thank all msfraud forum participants since the beginning, as alot of their 'points' are still viable even in today's legal environment!

Quote 0 0
Walt

Quote:
I have requested both filings from the clerk.
 

 

It will be interesting to see whether attorney Mark Stopa had the good sense to plead and argue the "Unclean Hands" equitable defense as has been argued by Mr. Roper for several years:

 

Some Florida "Clean Hands" Cases

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/Some-Florida-quotClean-Handsquot-Cases-5061467

 

The Clean Hands Doctrine presents a judge with some middle ground between foreclosure and a "free house".  A judge can deny the plaintiff's requested foreclosure relief, while granting a judgment at law for damages for breach of the note.  This has the overall legal effect of leaving a borrower in his home, while denying the plaintiff of the requested remedy of foreclosure.

 

Where there is some mischief in servicing or foreclosure, pleading Clean Hands in detail and even seeking defensive summary judgment on this argument is one way to take all of the wind out of the plaintiff's sails.

 

The mortgage investor ends up with a judgment for money damages, but cannot directly reach the subject property.  Stripped of the right to enforce the lien, a borrower could then rely on a state's homestead laws for further protection.  A judgment for money damages could also be extinguished in bankruptcy.

 

Quote 0 0
George Burns
J

The first part of the problem, is that we, as a society, think and behave as if being a lawyer, doctor or professor etc, is some special god given power, and as such deserve special treatment, deference, respect etc.

They are not god given and are nothing special. Being a lawyer, doctor, judge etc only means that you passed the exam and got the job. Senators etc only got elected by begging for the votes.

To become a lawyer etc means that you pursued successfully a prescribed course of study and passed the exams. It does not matter if you were an "A" student, a "C" student or even the class dummy who had to repeat course. Then there is the problem of the quality and thoroughness of the course of study. If a subject is not adequately addressed, if it is at all, then we have to hope that the lawyer, doctor, accountant, etc, pick up this knowledge outside.

It is a professional designation not an indicator of knowledge or competence.

Some of us have our knowledge because we paid attention, questioned each and every step or action and learned the rules. We also learned by doing the same with cases other than our own, in other words, we learned from the mistakes and efforts of others also.
Quote 0 0
John Lewis

My question George Burns is why is it possible that Mr. Roper, George Burns, Bill, t, etc ~whose professions/backgrounds have little to do with the court room~ have a greater knowledge/understanding of what seems to be 'basics' of the court room, a greater understanding of 'the law' and how 'it applies' compared to these attorneys who have no clue but hold themselves out to be 'defenders'!  They promise to 'defend you' they take your money and then...leave you homeless with your kids looking at you wondering 'whats next"!

Quote 0 0
George Burns
Maybe we just pay more attention to details.

Maybe some of us have more nnative or inherent talent for it, but, for any number of reasons, chose other occupations instead.

I have this same situation in the medical and accounting fields also. I regularly have conflicts and confrontations with medical doctors. The AMA some time ago, admitted that it took 7 - 10 years for new developments to become widely known and another 5 - 10 years to become general practice. In other words 12-20 years for an old or incorrect idea to be widely replaced. Be thankful that lawyers are not as bad.

I chose not to go into a profession where my continuity depended on a Board whose agenda was unknown, whose power over my license was almost unchallengeable and who could victimize me for not conforming with their agenda. Lawyers and doctors stand to lose their licenses to practice for reasons that have nothing to do with competence but rather to do with "professional image" or political expedience.

Also bear in mind that some took the same courses while pursuing other occupation, we just did not bother to subject ourselves to the Bar or other Board exam and registraton.

So there are some posters to this Forum who might have taken most of the same law school courses that lawyers took.
Quote 0 0
t

This thread was started by the spam post of that horrid uber-SPAM artist Anh, who champions incompetent Florida lawyers and seeks to mislead Forum participants into using attorneys of questionable ability.

 

It is worth noting that the Hillsborough, Florida, Docket in the case Bank of NY v. LaFalce, has been updated with a couple of new items.

 

As was previously noted within this thread, after the irresponsible blog post of incompetent Florida attorney Mark STOPA, the Defendant filed a motion for rehearing (14 Mar 2012).  U.S. Bank N.A. filed a motion for clarification (15 Mar 2012).  A notice of Hearing was filed on 13 Mar 2012, setting a hearing for 13 Apr 2012.  Then, U.S. Bank filed a motion to vacate the final judgment (21 Mar 2012).  It appears that this motion was also set for hearing on April 13, 2012 (30 Mar 2012). 

 

So the hearing was last week.

 

Of course, we haven't heard anything further about this from incompetent attorney Mark STOPA.  Neither is SPAM artist-idiot Anh posting about this case any further.

 

While it is certainly possible that Mr. STOPA suddenly discovered his prior ethical lapses and had the good sense to refrain from any further posts, it seems likely that there was another bad outcome for Mr. LaFalce.  Hopefully, he will soon have the good sense to change attorneys and bring the appropriate legal malpractice action against Mr. STOPA. 

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...