Did you read LOL? They say that there is another case where the judge is challenging the constitutionality of the 120 hearing.
In addition, you are forgetting something very important because you don't understand Colorado law. Had she dropped this case they could have reinitiated the same 120 hearing that was being challenged only under some other banks name. Assignments aren't required in Colorado so anyone can claim they have a right to your property. All they need is the signature of a corrupt attorney. You've heard of no doc loans? In Colorado it's no doc foreclosure at the 120 hearing.
You posters that call everyone swindlers and scum and swine and scam artists are what you accuse others. Only I'll add to it. You are trolls and shills for the banks.
Here we get the same tired old garbage, protecting those who are ripping off borrowers.
Subject matter jurisdiction and, for that matter, personal jurisdiction, are Constitutional imperatives to bringing a lawsuit and obtaining a judgment that can withstand collateral attack. When the issue and purported injury becomes moot, the court loses jurisdiction. Moreover, suing one lender only to later learn that another different lender unnamed and unserved in the lawsuit is the owner and the holder of a loan accomplishes nothing. Getting a judgment against one lender effects no res judicata against a suit involving another lender.
Once more, those peddling these debt elimination scams are intent on assuring that no one perceives that their legal mumbo jumbo is completely legally erroneous and that what they are peddling is worse than useless.
No one in this thread is defending the banks or suggesting that borrowers ought not resist foreclosure. Instead, the wise ones are pointing out that the legal strategy employed by the bank in this instance is going to be completely effective and that the very idea that a borrower ought to bring on an attack rather than playing a very strategic defense is simply a defense of the useless in support of the criminal swindles.
Those who are actually experiencing non-judicial foreclosures in Florida and subject to Rule 120 are the ones that ought to be challenging the Constitutionality of this Rule. To beat the drum and have someone who is not subject to the Rule bring the challenge is simply an exercise in futility designed only to line the pockets of corrupt swindlers and the crooked lawyers who partner with these villains!