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
Bill
Because of Mr. Stopa's and Mr. Weidner's blogs about a trial transcript where the judge refuses to accept Mr. Levitin's securitization theories and refuses to give the homeowners a "free" house I think this point deserves it's own thread.

Quote:
 
A comment by ka
While Mr. WEIDNER can rightfully take indignation about the tone of the Court, I find the transcript to hardly be a recommendation for Mr. Joshua BLEIL and the Ticktin Law Group.  To the contrary, while Mr. BLEIL certainly would be far better than most attorneys lacking experience in foreclosure, the fascination with the Levitin argument and misplaced focus on several arguments, including admissibility of exhibits, to the exclusion of so many good and WINNING arguments relating to Objections to hearsay testimony is disturbing.


http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/show_single_post?pid=1271775026&postcount=163

What does this really mean??

The attorney for the defendant was SO worried about the Levitin argument (securitization) and a few others that he FAILED to point out BASIC FLAWS in the testimony of the Plaintiff's witness.  He should have been objecting to this hearsay testimony.

Here is an attorney that GOT IT RIGHT.  Had Mr. Bleil made the same argument, even with a hostile judge, he MAY have prevailed.  In this case because of some FLAWED additional arguments this attorney also "snatched defeat from the jaws of victory" as Mr. Roper use to put it, but I feel it is VERY important for people to read how this attorney kept almost all the Servicer's evidence and testimony OUT OF EVIDENCE.  Some long time readers will quickly realize if this attorney just changed a few arguments he could have kicked the bank to the curb.  

If you are planning on defending your home pro se this should be MANDATORY reading.  IF you have an attorney, this should be MANDATORY reading for him.  This argument has been messed up way to many times.

The examination of the witness starts around page 20.  It is a little long but worth every second you spend to read it.  If you do not understand the arguments made by the defendant's attorney, you need to keep re-reading until you do. 

For your enjoyment................

05-2008-CA-052491-XXXX-XX - DEUTSCHE BANK VS J FASTIGGI


Quote 0 0
ka

Bill,

 

I think that starting a thread to discuss the actual employment of the hearsay argument and Objection to business records not properly authenticated is a terrific idea.

 

But I also think that it is useful to link several other related threads and documents.

 

First, there is some value in comparing and contrasting the ineffective evidentiary arguments made by Mr. BLEIL in Cuenca, with the somewhat better articulation by George GINGO, Mr. FASTIGGI's attorney in Deutsche Bank v. Fastiggi.

 

To that end, we should probably directly link the posted transcript from the Cuenca case:

 

Trial Transcript of Deutsche Bank v. Cuenca (Florida)

 

There are also two threads started by Mr. Roper which merit reading when thinking abut the evidentiary arguments:

 

Personal Knowledge, Hearsay, Conclusory Averments and the Best Evidence Rule

 

On the Origins of the Business Records Exception To the Hearsay Rule

 

Also, read and bear in mind these additional threads by Mr. Roper:

 

Special Nuance To Business Records Exception in Massachusetts

 

Maine Supreme Court Further Clarifies and Applies Business Records Exception in Reversing: Beneficial Maine, Inc. v. Carter

 

Defendants should read and bear in mind these latter threads even if they are not in Massachusetts or Maine, because they serve as a reminder that there are variations in the Rules and the cases interpretting these rules from state to state.  In other words, the business records exception is not the same everywhere. 

 

After obtaining a basic understanding of the hearsay argument based upon Mr. Roper's other threads, it is essential to READ THE RULE FOR THE BORROWER'S JURISDICTION AND THE CASES INTERPRETTING THAT RULE.

 

Ii would also encourage Forum participants to read the ancient case identified by Mr. Roper within the second thread mentioned above:

 

Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. Norwich Pharmacal Co., No. 249, Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 18 F.2d 934; 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 2109, April 4, 1927 

Read this case and the cases citing this case!

 

A central idea set forth by Judge Learned HAND in Massachusetts Bonding v. Norwich is the extreme division of labor in banking in the modern world.  Developments in banking in the past two decades, particularly with use of computers, online banking and direct automated payments makes these concepts even more important.

 

Think about it for a moment.  Which employee of a bank can testify to the authenticity of each and every transaction shown on a borrower's account based upon personal knowledge?

 

It is the business records themselves which are admissible, NOT the employee's hearsay descriptions or conclusions of these business records.

 

But the business records are admissible ONLY upon a showing as to their validity and authenticity.  Proving up the records is singularly challenging for a servicer under the best of circumstances where there has been a change in the ownership or holdership of the note or mortgage during the pendency of the foreclosure litigation OR a change in the servicer during the litigation. 

Quote 0 0
Disappointed

I’ve seen this case a couple of times here and there in my reading and do like some of the arguments and do not like others. The plaintiff here was unable to use the business exception rule and its amazing reading the way the plaintiff’s attorney was rewording the questions, with no luck. The plaintiffs attorney gets an A for effort but and F for execution. Basically here the witness for the plaintiff was dead weight.

 

What I do not like is the weak argument of equitable entitlement to the note. The weak argument by the Defendants attorney, that is. There seemed to be an opportunity to argue unclean hands, from the perspective of the expert witness, but wasn’t. There is mention of condition precedents not being met and wasn’t argued. Not only were these arguments not articulated well but the plaintiff never proved it had paid a dime for the note. They made many claims but never entered anything into evidence to a monetary exchange. Their argument was possession alone. Possession does not entitle to an equitable relief without a transfer or purchase, especially without the mortgage being excluded in the decision.  Ok, "some other bank gave these people money, now we have there note, we failed to meet the criteria of their contract but were going to take the house anyway". Oh and "sorry Mr. Judge that you believe we were to blame for this mess but....wait for it..."so what". Read on page 163 of the document linked, even the judge knew they had no case, maybe he got a case of amnesia or a nice deposit before he made the final decision, just throwing the idea out there.

 

They make a claim in closing that the defendants would be unjustly enriched if not made to pay the mortgage back. That statement is rather amusing because they did not show the court how they would be harmed if not awarded a foreclosure, will they not be unjustly enriched in reverse fashion? They should only be entitled to amount paid on an equitable decision minus amounts the defendants pay towards the note. They don’t get all the money loaned at the table form years past.

 

For arguments sake, let’s say the defendants were in the home for 15 years and paid down ½ the notes face value. And let’s say the plaintiff had been able to prove they were entitled to the note. Should an equitable lien for FULL face value of the note be proper? They were unable to admit into evidence any payment history or accounting records of any sort. To make a ruling solely on equity, disallowing the accounting records or the contract, (mortgage) to influence the outcome is nonsense. It’s almost as if the judge and the mortgage company believe the mortgage, (you know that 10 page packet of useless verbiage) is only for the barrower and the bank and does not need to be followed in a court of law setting when it cannot be proved an effective means of taking one property. What the plaintiff was saying in plain English, as I read it, "look ,we cannot prove that there was a default, we cannot prove that conditions of the mortgage were met, we cannot prove the amount they have paid towards the balance of the principal"  but "we want our money back anyway" you know the money we can’t prove we lent. They admit they are not the "holder in due course", just the “holder". Florida judges seem to read all the same comic books, or that seems to be the trend. If there is a dispute of a mortgage the hand is tipped to the bank, period.

What’s even more amusing is how the judge words his decision. On the last two pages of this document is the weirdest part of the whole mess.

 

So how do you cure a lien without a contract? Ok, so let’s say they are entitled to an equitable lien, what are the terms of repayment? Since the foreclosure is denied on the basis of the mortgage, is the note unsecured? Remember, they want a decision in equity without showing equity invested.

 

In the letter the judge refers to a sale date?? Why would there be a sale date without a foreclosure? The judge is more absurd than the plaintiff. If a bank gets a lien outside of the provisions of a standing contract, does that mean that the customer must forfeit the property? What is the meaning of a contract if it can be set aside and property can be taken without it? Why do we have mortgages? We should just sign notes, mortgages don’t seem to mean a lot, just messy nuisances, if they can’t be enforced.

Quote 0 0
t

Disappointed -

 

I agree with you that there are several uneven aspects of the transcript from the Fastiggi case.  While I cannot speak for ka, my own reading of the transcript and Bill's post was that Bill was celebrating the superior job that George Gingo did in impeaching the plaintiff's witness.

 

I think that there is a valuable lesson there and it is totally consistent with what Mr. Roper has been teaching at the Forum for some time.

 

On the other hand, the Fastiggi case also shares some serious strategic defects with Cuenca.

 

But these do not appear to me to be those that you have identified.

 

Rather, like the Cuenca case, there seemed to be a fascination with defensive avenues which were both unnecessary and a distraction.

 

Proving unclean hands is a challenge.  This is an affirmative defense upon which the defendant bore the burden of proof.

 

But if the plaintiff cannot make out a prima facia case, then it is GAME OVER.  There is NO NEED to prove unclean hands or any other affirmative defense.

 

Attorney George Gingo made a very serious strategic miscalculation in the Fastiggi case.  This miscalculation underscores the reason why Mr. Roper remains the leading luminary nationally in foreclosure defense.  Smart attorneys employ his guidance.  Arrogant fools experiment and LOSE cases where they snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

In the Fastiggi case, it is my understanding that neither of the defendants John or Kristy FASTIGGI were identified on the plaintiff's witness list for the trial.  Neither was subpoenaed to appear and in Florida, neither had a duty to voluntarily appear in person at trial in a civil case.

 

Once the plaintiff's sole witness was impeached, the FASTIGGI's had WON the case.  Impeachment of this witness could have been reasonably expected given the change in servicer.

 

But due to the fascination of the attorneys with other possible defenses, including unclean hands, both Mr. and Mrs. FASTIGGI attended the trial.

 

After the plaintiff's sole witness was disqualified, the plaintiff's attorney called Mr. and Mrs. FASTIGGI to the stand and used the defendants to prove up most of the documents which had been otherwise excluded!

 

There are actually two lessons there for foreclosure defendants. 

 

First, if a pro se defendant can get PAST SUMMARY JUDGMENT, it is BETTER to employ an attorney for the trial!  A pro se defendant is going to HAVE TO ATTEND TRIAL.  A represented defendant in a civil case does NOT ordinarily have to attend a trial unless subpoenaed to do so.

 

Second, if NOT subpoenaed to attend and NOT on the plaintiff's witness list, a defendant who is WELL REPRESENTED is usually BETTER OFF not attending the trial.  This is particularly true where (a) the defendants were never deposed and never required to answer interrogatories or requests for admissions, and/or (b) the plaintiff is likely to face a serious proof problem, as where there has been one or more transfer of servicing after the suit is filed.

 

The NEW servicer is always going to have some difficulty authenticating exhibits and business records.  Bill has done the Forum a service in identifying a case where the transcript shows this disqualification done well.

 

Unfortunately, in Fastiggi the defendant's attorney failed to think this problem through and had his clients IN ATTENDANCE.  The Judge seems to have RULED AGAINST the Fastiggis and this might have been avoided if the Fastiggis had simply gone on vacation.  (The matter might still be reversed on appeal.)

 

There are a LOT of plausible defenses to a foreclosure action.  Some are more potent and easier to prove than others.  Sometimes, winning involves LETTING GO of defenses which might be difficult to prove, which are unnecessary or which might actually CONFLICT WITH the WINNING defense.

 

I would encourage Forum participants to focus on how to IMPEACH and DISQUALIFY the plaintiff's witness.  This is something that the defendant needs to help his attorney doEvery business record that is subject to exclusion by impeaching the sole witness put on by the servicer could still be proved up by putting the defendant(s) on the stand.

 

Quote 0 0
Crystal
Damn it, this won't work in non-judicial states...  Well maybe in a BK, motion for relief. The servicer normally brings it in the name of the "trustee" for the trust and the real property declaration, it is normally the employee of the servicer making the declaration on the standard court form and attaches exhibits (note, deed, assignments, etc.)  I think this may work in that scenario?
Quote 0 0
ka

Quote:
Damn it, this won't work in non-judicial states...  Well maybe in a BK, motion for relief. The servicer normally brings it in the name of the "trustee" for the trust and the real property declaration, it is normally the employee of the servicer making the declaration on the standard court form and attaches exhibits (note, deed, assignments, etc.)  I think this may work in that scenario?

 

It is very difficult to successfully defend against a foreclosure in non-judicial states.  The most successful approach in these states is usually in a bankruptcy setting, which forces the alleged creditor to come into court to (a) file its proof of claim and (b) to file motion for relief of stay.

 

In bankruptcy, the borrower is once again in a defensive position versus being required to be a plaintiff in a TRO action.  The creditor has the burden of proof in both proceedings.

 

The Federal Bankruptcy Courts are usually even more strict as to evidentiary standards than most state courts.  So usually, Mr. Roper's evidentiary arguments, the standing argument, and conditions precedent arguments present some basis to resist. 

 

Of course, bankruptcy has other consequences for borrowers, including some negative consequences as to credit as well as the borrower's control and disposition of other assets.

 

Also,Bankruptcy requires a whole other set of legal skills.  I have rarely seen pro se litigants succeed in Bankruptcy court.  They often make basic and careless mistakes due to unfamiliarity with Bankruptcy Rules.  Even some bankruptcy attorneys make mistakes in failing to fully appreciate viable foreclosure defenses available.

 

Mistakes often begin with the filing.  Very often, borrowers essentially CONFESS to the creditor's claim by listing the creditor in the schedules.  A better strategy is to disclose the identity of the creditor and the possible asserted amount, WHILE NOTING that the matter is a subject of dispute.  Mr. Roper has previously posted about this.

 

For example, suppose that there is a note made out in favor of Option One, AHMSI is servicing the loan and a foreclosure is initiated which is asserted to be in favor of U.S. Bank, as trustee.

 

The safer approach is probably to identify each of these as possible creditors in respect of their assertion that they are possibly owed money.

 

In this way, one does not admit the indebtedness, but rather only admits that these three entities may be claiming indebtedness, possibly in respect of the same alleged promissory note.

 

A borrower must take care that the representations in the bankruptcy filing are true.

 

This should generally force one of these entities to present its proof of claim, which may be opposed.  Similarly, the borrower can oppose a motion for relief of stay.  This still requires some valid basis for the opposition, but often the carelessness and paperwork issues will present just such a defense.

Quote 0 0
ka wrote:

Quote:
Damn it, this won't work in non-judicial states...  Well maybe in a BK, motion for relief. The servicer normally brings it in the name of the "trustee" for the trust and the real property declaration, it is normally the employee of the servicer making the declaration on the standard court form and attaches exhibits (note, deed, assignments, etc.)  I think this may work in that scenario?

 

It is very difficult to successfully defend against a foreclosure in non-judicial states.  The most successful approach in these states is usually in a bankruptcy setting, which forces the alleged creditor to come into court to (a) file its proof of claim and (b) to file motion for relief of stay.

 

In bankruptcy, the borrower is once again in a defensive position versus being required to be a plaintiff in a TRO action.  The creditor has the burden of proof in both proceedings.

 

The Federal Bankruptcy Courts are usually even more strict as to evidentiary standards than most state courts.  So usually, Mr. Roper's evidentiary arguments, the standing argument, and conditions precedent arguments present some basis to resist. 

 

Of course, bankruptcy has other consequences for borrowers, including some negative consequences as to credit as well as the borrower's control and disposition of other assets.

 

Also,Bankruptcy requires a whole other set of legal skills.  I have rarely seen pro se litigants succeed in Bankruptcy court.  They often make basic and careless mistakes due to unfamiliarity with Bankruptcy Rules.  Even some bankruptcy attorneys make mistakes in failing to fully appreciate viable foreclosure defenses available.

 

Mistakes often begin with the filing.  Very often, borrowers essentially CONFESS to the creditor's claim by listing the creditor in the schedules.  A better strategy is to disclose the identity of the creditor and the possible asserted amount, WHILE NOTING that the matter is a subject of dispute.  Mr. Roper has previously posted about this.

 

For example, suppose that there is a note made out in favor of Option One, AHMSI is servicing the loan and a foreclosure is initiated which is asserted to be in favor of U.S. Bank, as trustee.

 

The safer approach is probably to identify each of these as possible creditors in respect of their assertion that they are possibly owed money.

 

In this way, one does not admit the indebtedness, but rather only admits that these three entities may be claiming indebtedness, possibly in respect of the same alleged promissory note.

 

A borrower must take care that the representations in the bankruptcy filing are true.

 

This should generally force one of these entities to present its proof of claim, which may be opposed.  Similarly, the borrower can oppose a motion for relief of stay.  This still requires some valid basis for the opposition, but often the carelessness and paperwork issues will present just such a defense.

Ka

I like the strategy of forcing each entity to prove standing on the debt.

However will the BK court approve of a filer listing three separate entities for a single debt?

IE- Debtor owes BOA 5k in CC debt. Boa sells the debt to a CA, then the CA sells the debt to another collection agency. So now a 5k debt becomes a 15k debt on paper. Will the BK court approve this approach of debt inflation on the filers debt schedule? It surely is beneficial to the person filing the BK to actually inflate ones debt from 300k to 900k . Very interesting.

Thank you for your opinion and your valuable time in responding.

Best regards

Acesfull

Quote 0 0
ka

Quote:
I like the strategy of forcing each entity to prove standing on the debt.

 

However will the BK court approve of a filer listing three separate entities for a single debt?


IE- Debtor owes BOA 5k in CC debt. Boa sells the debt to a CA, then the CA sells the debt to another collection agency. So now a 5k debt becomes a 15k debt on paper. Will the BK court approve this approach of debt inflation on the filers debt schedule? It surely is beneficial to the person filing the BK to actually inflate ones debt from 300k to 900k .  Very interesting.

 

Thank you for your opinion and your valuable time in responding.


Best regards

Acesfull

 

Aces,

 

This suggestion is not original.  Mr. Roper made this suggestion, but I cannot find the post.

 

As I understood the suggestion, the emphasis was on using language in footnotes or otherwise to clarify to the Bankruptcy court that these various debts were both identified as possible asserted debt and in respect of the same alleged indebtedness.

 

The emphasis would not be that the debtor was asserting that amounts were owed to these creditors, but rather that these possible creditors might be asserting claims to the bankrupt estate.

 

Which, if any claimants appear, would then await the claims process.

 

I would think that in complex bankruptcies, there might frequently exist contingent or speculative claims.  And I would think that these might be treated in such a way.

 

I have not been involved in a personal bankruptcy proceeding and have never tried this.  My recollection is that Mr. Roper said much the same thing.

 

Overall, I think his point was that if one was intending to oppose a possible claim that it might be better to avoid filing a schedule that seemed to admit that claim, which makes sense to me.

 

How to handle the totals is yet another matter.  I would think that this could again be handled with a footnote.  The important thing is for the information to appear clearly and to achieve transparency with it clear that there is no intention to mislead or deceive.

 

I would not recommend inflating any debt figures.  If this was the effect, I would think that this could be viewed with great disfavor by the Court.

 

I WOULD SUGGEST CONSULTING A BANKRUPTCY ATTORNEY ABOUT THIS BEFORE ATTEMPTING AND WOULD CATEGORIZE IT AS A SUBJECT OF POSSIBLE DISCUSSION WITH AN EXPERIENCED BANKRUPTCY ATTORNEY! 

Quote 0 0
Hi Ka/ Hi All

Another possible scenario is for example. You have a mortgage in default of $330K with AHMSI as servicer, Option One is the originator and US Bank is suing as a trustee , In theory your total debt amount is $330k.
So you list Ahmsi at $110k and Option One at $110k and US Bank trust ASSN at 110k.  THEN Let the attorneys for the three entities decide who gets a bigger piece of the pie.
In this scenario the BK filer is keeping the total amount owed in check however still forcing the three entities to fight for there share of the pie and try to prove which entity has a bigger stake in the game.
Such a strategy may delay the BK process and potentially buy the bankrupt homeowner some extra time in the property. Seems like a small win for the bankrupt homeowner.
Thank you in advance for your opinions and your replies.
Best regards
Acesfull
Quote 0 0
ka

Aces,

 

I found one of Mr. Roper's posts that I had in mind.  It is probably better to let Mr. Roper speak for himself:

 

bankruptcy question

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/bankruptcy-question-4882473

 

See in particular Mr. Roper's post of 09/12/10 at 01:53 PM:

 

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/show_single_post?pid=41837126&postcount=4

 

I would not think that showing amounts other than that asserted would be a very good idea.  I think that the whole point is to inform the court as to the identities of all of the entities which might have a possible claim.

 

I think when a creditor is omitted from bankruptcy schedules and has no notice of the proceeding, that this might preclude a bar of that creditors debts.

 

So I think that a debtor would want to list EVERYBODY.  Over disclosing is better than under disclosing.  But misleading the court would always be wrong.

 

But if there are three entities, each of which at some point is claiming that it is owed the same debt, wouldn't it be best to list all three, show amounts that each might be claiming and then let the Bankruptcy Court sort things out based upon actual claims?

 

Your point about smalled unsecured amounts and the role of collection agencies seems to me to be a good one and possibly best handled in much the same way.

 

Suppose that you owed $5,000 to BOA on a Visa card and then three successive collectors begin dunning you over this same debt.  Absent the claim and a valid proof of ownership, who is to say who is owed the amount outstanding.  Wouldn't it be better to list BOA and all three debt collectors and then show that all of these seemed to be asserting a right to collect this same underlying debt?

 

I really do not know that much about Bankruptcy, but Mr. Roper's approach seemed to me to make pretty good sense.

 

For that matter, we see examples all of the time where there is an originator, MERS, a servicer, a mortgage investor.  The foreclosure mill is forging various inconsistent documents.  How is the borrower to know who the holder might be?  Listing ALL of these, to include MERS, seems to cover all of the bases and words that show that the debtor is not admitting to owing this amount to any of those shown, but is merely advising the court of a possible assertion of a claim seems well on the mark.

 

Maybe somebody actually in bankruptcy can run this past an attorney and get a reaction.

 

P.S. -- Upon re-reading Mr. Roper's post, I think I got it pretty close to right!  Yay!

Quote 0 0
Cabinetmaniac
t wrote:

 

Attorney George Gingo made a very serious strategic miscalculation in the Fastiggicase.  This miscalculation underscores the reason why Mr. Roper remains the leading luminary nationally in foreclosure defense.  Smart attorneys employ his guidance.  Arrogant fools experiment and LOSE cases where they snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

In the Fastiggi case, it is my understanding that neither of the defendants John or Kristy FASTIGGI were identified on the plaintiff's witness list for the trial.  Neither was subpoenaed to appear and in Florida, neither had a duty to voluntarily appear in person at trial in a civil case.

 

Once the plaintiff's sole witness was impeached, the FASTIGGI's had WON the case.  Impeachment of this witness could have been reasonably expected given the change in servicer.

 

But due to the fascination of the attorneys with other possible defenses, including unclean hands, both Mr. and Mrs. FASTIGGI attended the trial.

 

After the plaintiff's sole witness was disqualified, the plaintiff's attorney called Mr. and Mrs. FASTIGGI to the stand and used the defendants to prove up most of the documents which had been otherwise excluded!

 

There are actually two lessons there for foreclosure defendants. 

 

First, if a pro se defendant can get PAST SUMMARY JUDGMENT, it is BETTER to employ an attorney for the trial!  A pro se defendant is going to HAVE TO ATTEND TRIAL.  A represented defendant in a civil case does NOT ordinarily have to attend a trial unless subpoenaed to do so.

 

Second, if NOT subpoenaed to attend and NOT on the plaintiff's witness list, a defendant who is WELL REPRESENTED is usually BETTER OFF not attending the trial.  This is particularly true where (a) the defendants were never deposed and never required to answer interrogatories or requests for admissions, and/or (b) the plaintiff is likely to face a serious proof problem, as where there has been one or more transfer of servicing after the suit is filed.

 

The NEW servicer is always going to have some difficulty authenticating exhibits and business records.  Bill has done the Forum a service in identifying a case where the transcript shows this disqualification done well.

 

Unfortunately, in Fastiggi the defendant's attorney failed to think this problem through and had his clients IN ATTENDANCE.  The Judge seems to have RULED AGAINST the Fastiggis and this might have been avoided if the Fastiggis had simply gone on vacation.  (The matter might still be reversed on appeal.)

 



The Fastiggis are listed as witnesses in the Plaintiff's Second Amended Witness/Exhibit List.

I can't verify that they were subpoenaed but they were definitely listed as witnesses.


Quote 0 0
Wondering

Quote:
The Fastiggis are listed as witnesses in the Plaintiff's Second Amended Witness/Exhibit List.

I can't verify that they were subpoenaed but they were definitely listed as witnesses.


What do the Florida Rules say about the necessity of a personal appearance of a party named on a witness list but not subject of a subpoena?  Isn't a subpoena required in most places to compel a person to attend?

If a subpoena isn't necessary, does this mean that defendants can just add the names of various corporate officers of a plaintiff to a witness list to compel their attendance?

Quote 0 0
Cabinetmaniac
Wondering wrote:



What do the Florida Rules say about the necessity of a personal appearance of a party named on a witness list but not subject of a subpoena?  Isn't a subpoena required in most places to compel a person to attend?

If a subpoena isn't necessary, does this mean that defendants can just add the names of various corporate officers of a plaintiff to a witness list to compel their attendance?



If a person is not listed on the witness list then they can not be called as a witness. The list does nothing to compel attendance. A subpoena is required for that.

I can't find a subpoena listed online but that doesn't mean they were not served with one.

't' made a good point in that if a defendant is not subpoenaed as a witness then they should stay away.
Quote 0 0
FnDoomed
An excellent thread I missed and thanks to Wondering for topping the post. 

Whoever said it's hard to fight a non-judicial foreclosure was right.  I've unfortunately acquired non-judicial experience and BK-13 experience fighting a foreclosure from NH.  I used a fairly simple plan to drag things out as long as possible, and I got good at it.  

In one sense it doesn't really matter how you list the debt because you can believe it was true when listed, and then change your mind when proof of claim arrives. 

There's also a checkbox on the forms that you can use next to each listed debt indicating whether the debt is disputed or not at the time of filing.

"They point to "admissions" in the Veals' bankruptcy schedules and their chapter 13 plan, which both list AHMSI as a secured creditor with a lien on the Property. We disagree. What these writings evidence is far from clear on this record. In addition to the conclusion AHMSI advances, they might also tend to show: (1) that AHMSI was the current loan servicer, but not a "person entitled to enforce" the Note, (2) that AHMSI was the holder of the Note, (3) that AHMSI was the only entity currently dunning the Veals for payment on the Note, or (4) that someone had highjacked the payment stream, and up until the claims objection, the Veals had been duped." In re Veal, 450 BR 897 - Bankr. Appellate Panel, 9th Circuit 2011.





Quote 0 0
FnDoomed
And correction:  It was CabinetManiac who topped the post...
Quote 0 0
xy
From the thread: Judge is sitting..."

2. find the thread started by "Bill" Hearsay - business records --- go to last part of Bills comment -- and pull up the Fatiggi transcript give it to your atty to read -- and then

give him all info from ka's response to Bill ---

hope this helps!
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...