Florida 5th DCA – More Heat for Rubber Stamping Judge for Denying Motions to Cancel Foreclosure Sales Over and Over and Over and Over

Funny how the banks cant even get their sales canceled…

Ex-Volusia County Circuit Court Judge John V. Doyle is drawing renewed heat for issuing rubber-stamped denials over and over and over and over…

Although this appeal is brought by the Plaintiff / Lender, it speaks to the issues of the procedure followed by the rubber-stamping trial judges that leaves doubt that motions are even given any merits consideration.

LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee for Merrill Lynch First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust, Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-3 [“LaSalle”] appeals the trial court’s non-final order denying its objection to sale and emergency motion to vacate summary final judgment and to vacate foreclosure sale and to return funds to the third party purchaser.

On December 4, 2008, LaSalle filed a complaint to foreclose a mortgage on real property owned by Daisy E. Alicea a/k/a Daisy Alicea [“Alicea”] that she had purchased in 2007 for $225,000. Thereafter, in March 2009, LaSalle filed a motion for summary final judgment and notice of a hearing to be held on April 14, 2009. On that date, the trial court entered its summary final judgment of foreclosure, finding that $201,019.00 was due and owing to LaSalle and scheduling the foreclosure sale for May 14, 2009.

On May 12, 2009, LaSalle filed a motion to cancel/vacate foreclosure sale, stating: “Since the date of the entry of the Final Judgment of Foreclosure and the notice of sale, the borrowers have entered into a Non-FNMA Home Affordable Modification Program in an effort to retain their home and avoid the sale of their home.” The trial court denied the motion without a hearing, using a “DENIED” stamp with a handwritten date of May 13, 2009. LaSalle then filed a renewed motion to cancel/vacate foreclosure sale, providing: “Since the date of the entry of the Final Judgment of Foreclosure and the notice of sale, the borrowers have entered into arrangements with the Plaintiff for a short sale of the property, which sale is scheduled to take place on May 20, 2009.” A docket entry indicates that the trial court denied the renewed motion.

On May 14, 2009, the foreclosure sale took place as scheduled, at which “Equitable Gain Inc.” purchased the property for a bid of $8,000.00. “Equitable Gain Inc.” provided proof of publication on May 15, 2009.

LaSalle filed an objection to the sale and an emergency motion to vacate summary final judgment and to vacate foreclosure sale and to return funds to the third party purchaser. It asserted that the judicial sale of the property should be set aside because the sale price was grossly inadequate. LaSalle stated that Alicea “purchased the property for the amount of $225,000.00 on 03/28/2007″ and that the current tax appraisal value was $160,644.00. LaSalle noted other irregularities: that the affidavits filed in support of its motion for summary final judgment were not in compliance with the time requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(c), and the sale should not have taken place because proof of publication of the notice of sale had not been filed with the Clerk prior to the sale date. The trial court again denied LaSalle’s objection and motion without a hearing, using the “DENIED” stamp with a handwritten date of May 20, 2009.

On May 27, 2009, the Clerk filed a certificate of title, which showed that the property was sold to Third Party Purchasers as follows: “HILL & BECKMAN INC 2/3, AND TAMCO CORP OF VOLUSIA COUNTY 1/3 . . . .”

LaSalle filed a motion for rehearing or in the alternative motion to vacate certificates of sale and title.

The trial court denied the motion; the motion bears a “DENIED” stamp, with the handwritten date of June 3, 2009, and a reference to the previous order dated May 20, 2009.

This case is virtually identical in all material respects to two other cases recently before this Court. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Bjeljac, 17 So. 3d 862 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Lupica, 17 So. 3d 864 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). The trial judge was the same in all three of these cases and the procedure he consistently followed is the problem.

Full opinion below…


Lasalle Bank National Association, Etc., Appellant, V. Daisy e. Alicea, Appellee.
[scribd id=31996450 key=key-2cbrvmkritvv4e4bzx1d mode=list]

9 Responses to “Florida 5th DCA – More Heat for Rubber Stamping Judge for Denying Motions to Cancel Foreclosure Sales Over and Over and Over and Over”
  1. BuddyT says:

    Here is the biggest issue in this case… LaSalle Banks charter was canceled on October 17th 2008. How can a defunct bank be plaintiff?? How can they file Complaints or answers… They DONT EXIST!

    I have the same LaSalle as trustee for a WAMU Pass thru…. in My case of which I am challenging and taking my case to appeals. These Law-firms purportedly representing LaSalle are committing fraud and perjury!

    I have verified the non existence of LaSalle and the lower court would not hear it.
    Even Bank of America has sent me a letter (they absorbed LaSalle when the charter collapsed) stating that they (LaSalle) are no longer doing business under that name and it is now under the B of A. Interesting isn’t it.

    This is yet another reason for all of us to be diligent! These supposed Officers of the Court are nothing more than con artists and are willingly commiting Civil Fraud, Conversion and Perjury! Yet the Lower courts are not hearing it!
    Wish me Luck as I am formulating my Appeals Brief now, (any on want to assist?)
    Keep up the good fight everyone, the TRUTH has to win out, doesn’t it?

    • dave says:

      can you provide a copy of the letter from BOA, i am in the same position except i am before a bankruptcy juudge, also you may want to look at the pooling and servicing agreement, normally it says, the trustee must be a bank doing business in the usa, lasalle doesn’t do any business in the usa.

  2. lisamarie says:

    Vote is ass out!

  3. Michael says:

    Sounds like more than enough to merit a referral to the JQC. Let the judge rocket docket her/himself right off the bench. If they’re not willing to do their job — adjudicating cases, and not just rubber stamping them — there are plenty of qualified attorneys that would be happy to take their place.

  4. So, for once the rocket docket, blindfold rubber-stamping judge works AGAINST the bank who “accidentally” lost out to a third party purchaser of the property. Here’s the bank’s attorneys, scrambling to get that sale reversed and the judge is just stamp-stamp-stamp (denied-denied-denied).

    Damn frustrating to be on the other side of a disinterested judge.

    I seriously wonder if that judge, too lethargic to review the actual pleading was so biased that he assumed those three emergency motions to cancel the sale were filed by yet another “scamming deadbeat borrowers”.

    Also, I have a feeling that the bank’s ultimate goal was to have the sale reversed, push the borrowers into a second default by “misapplying their HAMP payments”, foreclosure again with the borrower having newly waived all his rights by signing the modification packet, and then foreclose again for a more reasonable sale price.

    Homeowners still end up homeless if I’m guessing correctly.

    • Whats amazing that no one touched on is that the lenders motion claimed there own pleadings were insufficient to grant a summary judgment. THis is a great defense for everyone else. The summary judgment mut be posted so every person fighing this ank can provided the motion to set a side and identical motion for summary judgment, let the bank fight against there own estoppel.

      • Bill,

        You are 100% right! Um, DUH! “Your Honor, that summary judgment should never have been granted in the first place! We were not in compliance with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure so PLEASE don’t let us get away with this foreclosure and reverse this sale IMMEDIATELY!”

        Butler & Hosch? Goes without saying!

        See here where a S.C. Federal Judge finds some “issues” of material fact with B&H’s pleadings: http://tinyurl.com/y9eohv7

    • would seem to me that someone is cherry picking em’ for their investment club? there are plenty of people working in govt. and who wouldn’t want to “steal” a home for a mere 8k… makes perfectly logical sense to me!

Check out what others are saying...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *