Lee County, 20th Circuit Court of Florida Responds to ACLU Petition for Writ of Prohibition


My favorite quote from their response…

“In cases where the defendants do appear and defend, the liability issue is usually straightforward and summary judgment is often appropriate to determine if the mortgage has been paid. And the amount of the judgment in a foreclosure action is a “liquidated” sum, making it appropriate for disposition on summary judgment without the absolute necessity of a trial.  So the great majority of mortgage foreclosure cases will be resolved on preliminary motions without the necessity of a full trial on the merits.

Other than that, they basically tell the ACLU to kiss off…

Full response below…

~

4closureFraud.org

~

THE TWENTIETH CIRCUIT’S RESPONSE TO THE ACLU PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION

[scribd id=55854691 key=key-4yl71xrmmyqg3dhzgm3 mode=list]

Comments
7 Responses to “Lee County, 20th Circuit Court of Florida Responds to ACLU Petition for Writ of Prohibition”
  1. Marla Buchwald says:

    And remember, the banks and servicers are so bold, they have already been paid on those loans with the credit default swaps that the bailout money was to cover. So the mortgage has been paid off by a third party. So, Whoo do I owe and what do I owe. They don’t know!!!

  2. pparke500 says:

    I can just hear the sneering and condescension dripping from this document. The Judge thinks he’s pulled a fast one, but he has sidestepped the issue in the case completely. But the statement about the only issue is the amount due is entirely consistent with a statement that he gave in an interview where he said “The guy hasn’t paid his mortgage in a year. What’s to talk about?” That guy is the chief judge of the 20th and we wonder why we have a Rocket Docket. It’s clear that the judges take their cue from Judge Cary. He is a blot on the judicial landscape.

  3. JamesM says:

    I meant to say “familiar” not “failure”, they are right next to each other on the keyboard. I should read before posting !

  4. JamesM says:

    Looks like the ACLU has the right issue, but possibly the wrong legal vehicle to get there. This may be that the ACLU is from out of state and is not as failure with Florida state writs and legal processes.

    I think the Judges evaluation of the “Docket Sounding” may prompt some Florida De fence Lawyers to add their own friend of the court brief addressing docket soundings. Addressing both the lack of support in the Rules for docket soundings, the mandatory attendance by parties at a hearing where no motion is before the court, and the idea that a docket sounding can also contain random motions for summary judgement, in circumvention of the summary judgement rule and procedure.

    To the extent that the docket sounding attempts to do more than a case management conference, and sometimes results in substantive rulings that are not properly noticed or briefed, the proceedings are not within the rules. There are proper ways to manage a docket and that ain’t one of them.

    I also suspect the defense attorneys will also take issue with the idea that in actions where a defense has been mounted and the defendant has admitted not paying, the ONLY ISSUE left to resolve is the amount of the debt. Maybe capacity, standing, fraud, unclean hands etc. are just for corporate defenses, not the little people. That the chief judge thinks the amount owed is the ONLY thing that could be unresolved is both a mark of legal incompetence and lack of impartiality.

    I take exception to the implications of “In cases where the defendants do appear and defend , the liability issue is usually straightforward and summary judgment is often appropriate to determine if the mortgage has been paid.”

    It is so easy, they did not pay, therefore judgement for the plaintiffs. This is exactly what drives the defense lawyers nuts, the idea that if you admit you have not paid then you have no other legitimate defenses.

    Let’s just sweep under the carpet the fact that the servicer is not the real party, that the note was pooled, that there were no contemporaneous assignments of mortgage and when there are they are between the wrong parties.

    Let’s just ignore the Plaintiffs pleading that claims it does not possess the note and wants to re-establish it, and that the pleading was never amended so as to remove that count.

    Neither do Plaintiffs ever seriously try to establish standing at time of commencement but just wave a note that magically appeared years later, claiming that it is a negotiable instrument, (most notes are not for they do not qualify), and that the undated and dubious fresh endorsement gives them standing at commencement, which, without other supporting evidence, it don’t.

    Lets just ignore the AOM’s and affidavits by admitted robo-signers.

    Let’s ignore a tremendous number of quite provably fraudulent documents have been filed in the public records in support of dubious forclosure claims. And ignore the duty of officers of the court and the county clerks to protect the integrity of the public records and prevent them being used as a vehicle for fraud in the courts. (See prior AG advisory opinion on the duty of clerks of courts to actively prevent, or draw the courts attention too, public records which might be fraudulent and being used to commit frauds on the court.)

    I wonder if he will resign and go to work for Marshal C. Watson. Seems to be the trend.

    • LVLawman says:

      To James M:

      Good legal analysis. This is what is helpful to litigants trying to understand what is going on and why some attornies lose cases that seem just.

      When I post I usually try to educate.

      The emotional rants of most of the posters to articles on this site do not help their fellow litigants. Just help themselves feel better about their predicament.

      Thanks

  5. Hell NO - No More Bail-Outs or FALSE Modification Programs (Ahem or A-hamp) says:

    I’m not an attorney. But I question if the ACLU is going to ‘roll over’ or if they will appeal. I can no imagine that the ACLU would have filed a case that had no merits.

  6. Pamela says:

    Wow well I guess we can add to the growing list lying to the ACLU an basicaly telling them to bite the big one.They are trying to turn the whole country against them or so it seems.Not thier wisest course of action but one they seem bent on.

Leave a Reply

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