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

There is an interesting new appellate decision out of Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeals which reflects continued incompetence by Florida's foreclosure defense bar:

[i]Congress Park Office Condos v. First Citizens Bank & Trust, No. 4D11-4479 (Fla. 4DCA Jan. 16, 2013)[b/]

The case is actually a commercial foreclosure, but the very same legal rules and standards are applied.

There have been several recent threads in which Forum contributors have furnished a far better dicussion of Florida foreclosure law (and the application of Mr. Roper's suggested defenses) far better than Florida attorneys seem to be capable of setting forth in argument.

A reading of the case shows several legal errors which directly pertain to recent topics of Forum discussions.  Perhaps someone can find those discussions and link them to this thread for additional discussion and clarity.

First, note that the defense improperly labeled several of its defenses as affirmative defenses.  Once more, keying off of what was filed by the appellant, the Court in dicta follows that erroneous nomenclature, also misidentifying some regular defenses as affirmative defenses.

The Court of Appeals identifies these "affirmative defenses" in this way:

"The borrowers1 filed an answer and four affirmative defenses:[2] (1) failure of contractual condition precedent, (2) unclean hands, (3) failure to comply with certain unspecified conditions, and (4) failure to produce the original note and mortgage."

Only the second of these -- unclean hands -- is actually an affirmative defense.  Each of the other defenses is a regular defense, which, when properly plead by a defendant, reflects a defense against essential elements of the plaintiff's cause of action.

The Court also noted that the defendant later sought to interpose an additional affirmative defense of "fraud":

"Additionally, on October 11, 2011, the borrowers filed a response to First-Citizens’ motion for summary judgment, alleging for the first time an affirmative defense of “fraud.” [4] . . .

[4]  We use the term “fraud” only because that is the term used by the borrowers.  We do not agree that the borrowers produced any set of facts that comprised the traditional elements of fraud: “(1) a false statement of material fact; (2) the maker of the false statement knew or should have known of the falsity of the statement; (3) the maker intended that the false statement induce another’s reliance; and (4) the other party justifiably relied on the false statement to its detriment.” Prieto v. Smook, Inc., 97 So. 3d 916, 917 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (quoting Shakespeare Found., Inc. v. Jackson, 61 So. 3d 1194, 1199 n.1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (internal quotations omitted))."

Fraud really is an affirmative defense, but needs to be plead with sufficient particularity as to the elements of fraud that it can be understood and distinguished.  It is never enough to simply allege "fraud" without explaining the nature of the fraud.  In a recent post, another Forum contributor expressly warned about the necessity of pleading the actual elements of a fraud allegation when making that defense and this is precisely what the Court of Appeals tells the appellant in respect of this belated and vague allegation.

A second instructive theme in the decision regards the necessity of pleading conditions precedent with particularity.  This, too, was the theme of a recent post by a Forum contributor pointing to Federal Rule 9 as requiring the defensive pleading of conditions precedent with particularity:

See also:

Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d)$FILE/Civil.pdf

The first -- (1) failure of contractual condition precedent -- and third defense -- (3) failure to comply with certain unspecified conditions -- seem to be essentially the same issue.  These needed to be plead with particularity.  In failing to do so, the defendant waived the issue.  In erroneously pleading these as affirmative defenses, the defendant/appellant invited both the trial court and the Court of Appeals to impose the burden of proof on the defendant rather than the plaintiff! 

It has previously been discussed in other threads that standing, capacity, and conditions precedent are NEVER affirmative defenses.  See also:

Federal Rule 9(c)

See also:

Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.120$FILE/Civil.pdf

It should be noted that the fourth defense -- failure to produce the original note and mortgage -- is also not an affirmative defense, but rather simply a denial of the plaintiff's right of enforcement, an essential element of the plaintiff's cause of action.  While it is possible for an entitity to have a right of enforcement of a lost note, if the holder when the note was lost, in all other instances possession of the note is essenital to establishing that it is the holder.  This is the plaintiff's burden of proof, but by erroneously denominating this as an affirmative defense the defendant assumed the burden of proof on this point.

This decision continues the Florida muddle as to misidentifying standing as an affirmative defense.  In this case, standing was never plead as a defense at all, affirmative or otherwise, until the summary judgment response and then it was misdenominated as an affirmative defense.  Basically, the appellant went into both the trial court and the Court of Appeals misdenominating the argument and INVITING the Court to continue to muddle this important issue.  (See Page 5 of the decision.)

Be sure to find and carefully read the posts of other Forum contributors who explained the affirmative defense confusion lucidly in prior posts.

A third problem identified within the appellate decision was the defendant's failure to exercise diligence in respect of its discovery dispute.

In so many Florida cases the trial courts have trampled on defensive rights to discovery.  Here, the trial court seemed to act reasonably fairly.

When faced with the defendant's discovery, the plaintiff sought a protective order and the defendant moved to compel.  The court DENIED the plaintiff's motion for a protective order, but deferred ruling on the motion to compel, no doubt to give the parties an opportunity to resolve their discovery dispute.  But rather than setting the motion to compel for a hearing, the defendant sat on its hands and waited until the eve of the summary judgment hearing to seek a resolution of the discovery dispute.  This is never a good idea.

See the Court's discussion about the Appellant's failure to act diligently (See pages 6-7).

Since the court had already continued the summary judgment hearing and had given the parties an opportunity to resolve their discovery disputes, waiting until the eve of the hearing was improvident.  Usually, it would be error for a court to prematurely rule in the face of parties' agreement to resolve discovery issues, but here it seems that the outstanding discovery pertained only to issues which had not been included as defenses in the defendant's answer at all -- standing and fraud -- which were raised for the first time in the summary judgment response without the defense seeking to file an amended answer.

Fourth, the defendant failed to actually set fourth the Unclean Hands defense with sufficient particularity to make out a valid affirmative defense.  This is really basis.  Again, it was a subject of comment in another recent thread.  The 4th DCA nailed the Appellant on this point.  If one is going to plead Unclean Hands, one needs to explain what this means in reference to specific allegations of wrongdoing in this particular case (See pages 7-9).

One of the mistakes that many defendants and all too many defense lawyers make is to only read and crow about appellate victories.  Reading the decisions of the appellate courts where a trial court's decision was affirmed can be especially instructive.

Quote 0 0

See also these recent threads:

Also see these old classics:

The Conditions Precedent Affirmative Defense

Note that Mr. Roper corrects himself!

Quote 0 0
Bless you for sharing your wealth of knowledge!!! Most of the old regulars left in disgust when their posts were deleted by the site administrator. It is good that some new contributors have chosen to participate. Most days the only regulars are those seeking to steal from borrowers.
Quote 0 0
Lucy wrote:
Bless you for sharing your wealth of knowledge!!! Most of the old regulars left in disgust when their posts were deleted by the site administrator. It is good that some new contributors have chosen to participate. Most days the only regulars are those seeking to steal from borrowers.


He's (?) providing some very informative, well reasoned and supported posts.
Quote 0 0
Another mean-spirited post that makes me think this person is a foreclosure mill attorney.   I refuse to read your posts or links because they discourage me and I know the courts are bending over backwards to please the banks.  Our courts are corrupt.
Quote 0 0
Another mean-spirited post that makes me think this person is a foreclosure mill attorney. I refuse to read your posts or links because they discourage me and I know the courts are bending over backwards to please the banks. Our courts are corrupt.

Please just GO AWAY then! You have nothing to contribute to this Forum.

Intelligent parents teach their children at an early age to learn from their mistakes and to learn from the mistakes of others. Idiots distinguish themselves by continuing to repeat the same mistakes over and over and over.

The truly insane distingush themselves by continuing a course of behavior that is well established to produce a particular outcome with no hope of a different result.

You have distinguished yourself as a delusional idiot at best, but more likely an apologist and shill for scam artists who are preying on distressed borrowers. A critical part of all debt elimination scams is the alibi that the only reason that the borrower doesn't prevail is due to judicial corruption. Since NONE of the strategies you extol and sell have EVER succeeded, you use this alibi of judicial corruption to explain away the failure of the quack remedies you sell in every single case. Whenever called upon to actually show a single case where a borrower succeeded, you post only cases where a borrower merely survived the first motion to strike, etc. You explain away ALL losses -- losses in every single case -- by asserting that the courts are corrupt.

While we have all seen more than a few odious trial decisions, most of the appellate decisions are very sound and consistent with mainstream American law. Borrower's chances are always improved by making the CORRECT arguments.

It is WELL KNOWN who you ARE and that you ALREADY LOST YOUR HOUSE. But now, rather than learning from your mistakes, you seek to profit by leading others to slaughter. You and the scam artists you work for are the worst kind of vile scum!
Quote 0 0
Here we go again with the name calling and mean spirited behavior of some. It is disconcerting to read all these worthless bickering.
Quote 0 0

Maybe one day the people will learn to let a sleeping dog lie, pun intended.

Read the lies, learn and say nothing and the lies will not perpetuate, percolate into something where no one will read the lies after just a sentence or two. Fastest way to shut up a liar, say nothing.
Quote 0 0
Texas fanned and faved.  Thanks for reminding me of good advise.
Quote 0 0
Texas fanned and faved. Thanks for reminding me of good advise.

It didn't work, Texas. She is still here!!
Quote 0 0
Give it time, even God did not create all in a single day, nor was Rome built in a day not that that has anything to do with how fast one can destroy.
Quote 0 0
The topic of "basis" is worthy of research, in its own right.
Quote 0 0
Give it time, even God did not create all in a single day, nor was Rome built in a day not that that has anything to do with how fast one can destroy.

Some say Sharon has already lost her house. Others say that Sharon has lost one house but is now litigating in Colorado over her second house.

Whether she has lost one house or two, it is gratifying to read that the spam b$tch Anh that used to inhabit this Forum (finding new victims for crooked Florida lawyers) got her just rewards on Earth. Hopefully, Sharon will not only lose her other house, but will be arrested and criminally charged for her various crimes.

It is unforgiveable that these people continue to seek to prey upon distressed borrowers when what they most need is honest information.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...