Everyone seems to have missed the more important holding in this case, yet another example of where Mr. Roper has correctly articulated the law and the swindlers seek to mislead and deceive borrowers.
First, note that this case is:
Everhome Mortgage Company v. Janssen, Case No. 2D11-4592 (Fla. 2nd DCA November 14, 2012)
The Court held:
More fundamentally, however, "[e]ven if [the plaintiff] lacked standing when it filed suit, the final judgment is merely voidable, not void." Dage v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co.
, 95 So. 3d 1021, 1024 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (citing Phadael v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas
, 83 So. 3d 893, 895 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)). "A voidable judgment may not be set aside under rule 1.540(b)(4)." Id
. (citing Sterling Factors Corp. v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n
, 968 So. 2d 658, 665 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)).
Over and over the scam artists falsely tell people that they can still later recover their homes by challenging a final order of foreclosure.
The time to make the standing argument is during the original case. When a court rules in favor of the plaintiff granting foreclosure and the order becomes final, the only avenue to challenge the order is by timely appeal.
Courts have the inherent power to determine their own jurisdiction (subject only to Constitutional and statutory constraints). Where a court had the power to hear the case, the standing argument, while jurisdictional in many places, must be raised in order to be valid. Because the argument is jurisdictional, it can also be raised in many places for the first time on appeal.
But where the plaintiff lacked standing at commencement, the defect is one that makes the final order voidable rather than void. Mr. Roper covered this in a number of previous posts, many since deleted by the corrupt site administrator.
Pro se gadfly like Dick Davet of Ohio have been arguing for years that they could later overturn a final judgment because they claim the judgment is void ab initio. This argument has been soundly rejected everywhere.
Swindlers and scam artists, like Garfield and Mike H. just love this argument, because it enables them to string a distressed borrower along for years, soaking the borrower with thousands and thousands of dollars as part of their debt elimination scams.
Standing can be a very robust foreclosure defense, when timely presented. In some places, standing can also be raised for the first time in a timely appeal.
Nowhere can a borrower later recover a house already foreclosed and sold by a post judgment collateral attack on the judgment after either losing the appeal or letting the time lapse to set aside the judgment on appeal.
This post will almost certainly be deleted, because the scam artists DO NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW that your case is OVER once the judgment has become final and the appeal period has run. They still want to sell you more swindles. The false argument that you can get the judgment overturned later by renewed litigation is absolutely essential to their ongoing victimization of the gullible.
Take notice! If you already lost your house to a foreclosure and the judgment is final (and the appeal period has run), anything you pay these scam artists is a total rip off because you can NEVER, EVER recover your house. Any representation to the contrary is absolutely actionable FRAUD. If you paid Mike H. or Garfield even a nickel under these circumstances, you need to visit your D.A. right away and make a criminal complaint!