Florida Judge Rules Chase/US Bank Failed to Prove Ownership of Couple’s Mortgage

Judge rules bank failed to prove ownership of couple’s mortgage

Some excerpts from the report…

The facts aren’t unusual: In 2008, a couple in Reddick defaulted on a home mortgage and the bank pursued foreclosure. The couple contested the action.

But the outcome defies the usual pattern. The defendants prevailed at a non-jury trial and, to date, have been allowed to keep the home.

According to the attorney handling the homeowners’ case, this didn’t happen because of some ground breaking ruling or unexpected turn of events during litigation. Rather, it’s a sign that judges are starting to hold more plaintiffs accountable in foreclosure actions.

Since May 2008, the Reddick couple has owed $482,170 on their home. Chase Home Finance, LLC filed a foreclosure lawsuit in August 2008. The case went all the way to a bench trial before Circuit Judge Brian Lambert in August 2010. The couple had a private attorney.

One month before the trial, however, U.S. Bank National Association, the new lender, and therefore the new plaintiff, filed an affidavit acknowledging the loss of the original promissory note.

It had been delivered to the law offices of Marshall C. Watson in October 2008 via Federal Express, then “placed in a secured and locked vault” in Fort Lauderdale.

The note had been “inadvertently lost or destroyed,” according to an affidavit. The note could not be located.

This past December, Lambert issued a final judgment in favor of the homeowners, saying that the plaintiff had failed to meet its burden of proof of showing that Chase — the previous lender and plaintiff — had standing to bring the lawsuit. He also ruled that U.S. Bank failed to meet its burden of proof re-establishing the mortgage note or that it was the owner of the note at the time of trial.

“I think the judges have been giving the banks the benefit of the doubt with these foreclosures and I think they’ve learned a valuable lesson with that,” he said. “You have to make them prove up their case and I think judges are starting to do that.”

Roger S. Rathbun, an attorney with the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson who pursued the Evans case on behalf of U.S. Bank, expressed caution when it comes to these types of judgments.

“I wish the tenants luck,” he said Friday. “I don’t expect the banks to give them a free house. I expect the bank to re-file the case. Even if the foreclosure was invalid, I can file under a different equitable theory and still take the property.”

You can check out the article in full here…

~

4closureFraud.org

Comments
14 Responses to “Florida Judge Rules Chase/US Bank Failed to Prove Ownership of Couple’s Mortgage”
  1. sunshine says:

    Hi underh20,

    Did you happen to find a good referral. I am interested in a referral in Escambia County also

  2. Fury says:

    doesn’t this just make your skin crawl?

    what has happened to this country?

  3. Fury says:

    Roger S. Rathbun, an attorney with the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson …….said Friday. “I don’t expect the banks to give them a free house. I expect the bank to re-file the case. Even if the foreclosure was invalid, I can file under a different equitable theory and still take the property.”

    mr. rathburn.
    not only does the defrauded homeowner want their house back (it’s not free. they earned it)
    but they will want damages. Full Restitution.

  4. tina brown says:

    Pitkin law firm in Naples Florida is very good. i don’t know how far away that is from Escambia County.

  5. indio007 says:

    Oh but they didn’t lose at trial , It was dismissed because the bank lacked standing i.e. the case had no merit and could be construed as a frivolous filing.

  6. indio007 says:

    It’s no wonder the bank lost the case if they were represented by this idiot lawyer. The bank can’t refile if they lost at trial. What a dumb ass.

  7. James M says:

    Interesting. I have appeared before Judge Brian Lambert myself, not in person but telephonic. (Both sides appeared by phone). He is a Judge in Marion County, where my Foreclosure case is located.

    I found him to be fair and genuinely respectful of my legal arguments, even though I was pro-se.

    Plaintiff brought 2 motions, one to strike my demand for a Jury Trial, one to strike my Affirmative Defenses.

    (Note: On a lost note count, Plaintiff may bring evidence in Law & Equity to re-establish a lost note. Because of the ability to bring evidence in Law, you can make a demand for a Jury Trial, on that count. The court must try that count and re-establish the lost note, BEFORE the court can proceed to hear the count for Foreclosure in Equity (where you don’t have a right to a jury). I can point you in the direction of the supporting case law if intrested.

    Judge Brian Lambert agreed with my argument and case law, if Plaintiff could not produce the lost note I was entitled to a trial by jury on a lost note count. He also denied Plaintiffs blanket motion attempting to strike my Affirmative Defenses, finding them sufficiently well plead to withstand Plaintiffs motion to dismiss them.

    Basically I won on both of plaintiffs motions.

    Unfortunately Plaintiff was able to get demand for jury trial struck by filing what they claim is the “orignal” lost note.

    I found him fair, professional and not at all condescending to pro-se litigants. It may have helped that I have some experience with the rules of Civil Procedure, and can draft sensible replies that make sound legal arguments. Something the attorney from the Plaintiffs failed to do. One of Shapiro & Fishman’s finest.

    My case was later assigned to a rocket docket system with a “Senior Judge”. After that it seems to have gone off the rails. Now it is “Administratively Closed” with the ability to re-open if they pay such fees as that may incur. We will see how that works out.

    Brian Lambert Two thumbs up, from what little contact I had with him, he is a good and competent Judge.

  8. housemanrob says:

    I am sure that Roger Rathbone has been instructed to diffuse all homeowner hopes with his spin and lies. Unfortunately for these guys…..THE CAT HAS GOTTEN COMPLETELY OUT OF THE BAG!

  9. Adam Karrsen says:

    It is truly amazing how these banks got ‘bailed out’ for their incompetence and now want to double dip the homeowner. It”s not enough these banks got paid for these mortgages now they want the home also! So much for the legal experts who put this TARP program into action. Terms of the bail out should have been that the mortgage is now paid in full. This is another burden being placed upon the taxpayer and courts that have way more serious issues to deal with.

  10. StuckinSoPa says:

    Roger S. Rathbun, an attorney with the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson …….said Friday. “I don’t expect the banks to give them a free house. I expect the bank to re-file the case. Even if the foreclosure was invalid, I can file under a different equitable theory and still take the property.”

    He’s going to file under a “THEORY” and take the house, even if the foreclosure was invalid due to lack of evidence(proof?)

    How??? Bankster’s slime balls show back up in court, no deed of trust, no promissory note, nothing (basically the same steaming pile of NON-evidence that they DIDN”T PRODUCE the first time, that lost them the first case.) Then they say “defendant owes us money your honor, we just can’t prove it, BUT, YOU CAN TRUST US?

    Then the judge, if he’s not a robo-judge already in the bankster’s hip pocket, says: I’m sorry, BUT I DON’T TRUST YOU, show me PROOF that this defendant owes you anything!

    We’re back to square one.

    Here in PA, the charge of Bagedry (hope I spelled it right) for wasting court time by filing charges for the sole purpose of intimidation, coercion or harassment carries a $25000 fine and 180+ days in the pokey. Lawyers can be charged as well. It has happened here.

    Fines are meaningless to big law firms. Start locking them up!

  11. underh20 says:

    Does anyone know of a law firm or attorney bringing actions for those who are current on their mortgages but docs are not adequate? I see in Utah they are doing quiet title actions.

Leave a Reply