The Florida Foreclosure Judge’s Bench Book

Here is a little gem from Matt Weidner…

BOMBSHELL- The Florida Foreclosure Judge’s Bench Book

This may be my most important and most valuable post yet.  I have come into possession of a document which is purported to have been distributed to the judges that are hearing foreclosure cases across the State of Florida.

The Foreclosure Bench Book is a very valuable resource that every defense practitioner should be using as part of our efforts to assist the judiciary in deciding these foreclosure cases.  The Bench Book is just a book, it’s not The Bench Bible, but to the extent it is helpful, it would be most valuable to reference and cite the book in support of your cases.

The release of this important document truly is a valuable resource for all of us involved in the ethical fight and the defense and protection of our courts.  We should all be working for a uniform and consistent body of foreclosure law and rules across the state and the proliferation of this important document will only help in that effort.


You can read more about Matt here…


I sure could use some…


The Florida Foreclosure Judge’s Bench Book

15 Responses to “The Florida Foreclosure Judge’s Bench Book”
  1. lisamarie says:

    amen. That ‘bible’ is just another weapon in their artillary belt. sealing our fate.

  2. Recoveryless Recovery says:

    The BEST application for the Florida Foreclosure Judge’s Bench Book would be to use it as a bludgeon in order to beat a Florida judge on the head until he/she is reduced to an unrecognizeable heap of bloody pulp.

  3. housemanrob says:

    Should be called ” HENCHBOOK” or……………… how to handle non-compliant, non-paying ” PEASANTS”. It’s so disgusting, I wish I could leave. But,………….. there is no place insulated from this.

  4. Naaman Fletcher says:

    Looks like this says MERS has standing.

  5. James M says:

    I have given it a quick read. There are a number of legal and factual errors in the document. For example the common misconception that for a Summary Judgment hearing Rule 1.510(c) requires non-moving party to file their argument with the court in advance of the hearing. This is NOT what the rule says. It just says the non-moving party must file the EVIDENCE they will rely on by the non-moving party deadlines.

    The rule is clear that it applies to non-moving EVIDENCE not ARGUMENT. Argument can be made at any time prior to the hearing, at the hearing, and even after the hearing in the form of a motion for reconsideration.

    Also the mention of non-moving party needing to file a notice of opposition is, I believe, incorrect. Burden of proof is on moving party, there is no requirement for non-moving party to affirmatively argue, notice or disprove motion.

    That said, it is a very good idea to have a REPLY to the summary judgement motion served and in the record prior to the hearing. You have more room, time, thought and ability to make good argument and point to the evidence in support of the reasons the SJ should not be granted. Even lawers should file a will thought out REPLY to the SJ motion to make sure they don’t forget what could be a winning argument.

    That judges regularly tell pro-se defendants that they should have had their REPLY argument in the record before the hearing. This appears to be wrong. Rule 1.510(c) requires the issues of law to be argued at the hearing must be specified in the motion for SJ, along with identifying with specificity the evidence in the record on which it relies. BUT there is no section of the rule stating that the non-moving party must do the same with their argument, points of law or case law. The deadline for the non-moving party is just for their evidence.

    This document is good. It helps, but it seems to have been written from a pro-plaintiff point of view. For example it fails to go into the issue that the court may not weight the merits of the evidence, that is for trial. The court may only look to see if there are material facts in despite, not who’s facts are more likely or more credible.

    The document does mention that the moving party has to address the non-moving parties Affirmative Defenses, but gives short shift to the legal problem that the court must have disposed of the Affirmative Defenses before a SJ can be granted. This means the moving party must have previously moved to have them struck, or must somehow prove in the SJ motion they are not valid, while not raising any dispute as to any materiel fact: Not an easy trick.

    Well plead Affirmative Defenses are a bar to the summary judgement that is given short shift in this document.
    It is a good start but it needs more work, especially from the point of view of the court needing to make sure the defendants get their rights too, and for the court to red flag items suggesting fraud on the court.

    Service is well explored, but other issues like alleged out of state successor trustees for a trust with no direct tie to the note or mortgage, Affidavits not made on personal knowlage, fake custodian of the records affidavits, attorney fee affidavits without fixed amount, statements of intrest owed without any indication on how that was calculated, affidavits that are acknowledged and not sworn, non-certified documents attached to affidavits or used as evidence. There should be checklists of things to check on affidavits other than the total alleged to be owed.

    • RAMONA says:

      they probably threw this together over a yr ago when it first hit the fan that there was fraud involved in stealing our homes.

  6. lisamarie says:

    I’m floored by the No Note Required! And as far as that form A for the RMFM program, all that is is a piece of paper that needs another crooked lawyer to perjur theirself to get by the judge. They’ve already prooved thats no problem. So the foreclosures can continue unverifed. No note required. Thats bad news.

  7. yvonne says:

    WOW! What next? This does not show due process for the defendant…this book should be exposed in the media and and ripped apart to expose those who are behind this and to question the judge who put it together…I noted many discrepancies already and I am not an attorney…

    There was nothing said about how to identify if the note is actually negotiable or not…existing contingencies; reason to accelerate/foreclose due to non payment…not all foreclosures/ accelerations are a result of non payment….
    defense attorneys need to cite those cases that contradict the mers examples…there are several….and defense attorneys really need to draw on their understanding of the law and do some more research also….

    What about fraudulent documents that were recorded such as the mortgage to begin with …and the fraud upon the courts regarding the affidavits? The defense attorney should continue to do this…
    and dos anyone know what April Charney’s opinion of this is?
    Never give up. Keep the faith. We will overcome and we will defeat these people who keep trying to remove the landmarks of our homes….

    God is faithful…and He will continue to expose more fraud and uproot these banks and judges and everyone else that are trying to stop us. Agree with me….

    Recorded assignments of note…enforceable, providing they were not fraudulently prepared with on of Jeffrey Stephan signature!????????? Your thoughts…..

  8. Officer of the Law says:

    Since the banksters and their bought and paid for minions in government and the media have turned fraud into paperwork errors, now they leak their Residential Foreclosure Bench Book so that everyone can see that they are doing everything by the book, at least the one that their minions wrote. As usual, those who run Florida’s judiciary produce a distorted statement on the law which ignores key issues in order to favor the rich and powerful.

    Not only is this Bench Crook Book intended to mislead ignorant judges, ignorant attorneys and the general public, it is also intended to protect judges and attorneys from criminal prosecution for violating the rights of homeowners under color of law which is a Federal crime!

    You can see by simply reviewing the table of contents that this Bench Crook Book is a CON JOB because it omits any discussion of affirmative defenses!!! Naturally, the banksters and their bought and paid for minions don’t want anyone to know anything about any defenses. That would slow things down, clog up the courts and make the banksters’ plan to steal everything too expensive, well not really, but just more expensive and that’s bad for the banksters’ bottom line.

    Ask your prosecutors why they continue to ignore the crimes of the banksters and their minions in government which include the prosecutors and many judges, like Bailey. Once enough people realize that these people use what they claim is the law to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else, I expect that we will end up like Mexico where prosecutors, judges, bankers and police officers are not trusted, are righteously hated and are never safe. I wonder if they really want that or if they are just a bunch of greedy morons who are happy to go along with the flow like so many fools who are part of the power structure have done throughout history.

  9. Zoe says:

    I agree, John, and this bench book also says MERS is okay. To me, this is a huge disappointment for the people of Florida, and ultimately everyone who is fighting foreclosure.

    • Officer of the Law says:

      If a judge says that black is white, does that make him right or does it show that he is willing to ignore the facts to favor one side for some reason?

      • Zoe says:

        Well, I think that is our whole battle, judges who say black is white when it’s not.

        Of course, it should be noted here that Matt wrote when he posted this that it is a bench “book” not the bench bible. Still, lazy judges will eat it up–making our fight take a few steps backwards with such judges. Just when we had momentum going to force them to look at the LAW about this, we are confronted with this book for judges that encourages them not to rethink the old rubber-stamp-it mentality. It’s a lot of mental work for them to come out of that ditch.

        I was impressed when Iowa threw out all their judges in the election. Whether one agrees with their reason or not, it’s good for judges not to feel secure in their positions. This is a nation built on rule of law, and should remain that way without question. One would think judges shouldn’t have to be reminded.

  10. John says:

    Assignment of note enforceable.

    Doesn’t have to have the original.

    There goes our strongest arguments!

  11. Dawn Buchanan says:

    Thanks for the post – this is very helpful and interesting.

Leave a Reply