ROMAN PINO vs THE BANK OF NEW YORK | Homeowners Lose in Landmark Foreclosure Decision, Attorneys Say

“I would say the Supreme Court has spoken loud and clear that it doesn’t care about litigants that abuse the court system and that fraud is OK,” Ice said about the ruling. “There are no ramifications if you get caught defrauding the court. Just take a voluntary dismissal and start over.”


Homeowners Lose in Landmark Foreclosure Decision, Attorneys Say

A Florida Supreme Court ruling involving a Greenacres foreclosure allows banks to get away with fraud, as long as they voluntarily dismiss the case, attorneys said today.

The case, Roman Pino v. the Bank of New York, was the first significant foreclosure complaint heard by the high court since the state’s legendary housing collapse.

At issue was whether a bank can escape punishment for filing flawed or fraudulent documents in a case by voluntarily dismissing it. A voluntary dismissal allows the bank to refile at a later date.

Royal Palm Beach-based foreclosure defense attorney Tom Ice, who represented Pino, had challenged a document created by the former Law Offices of David J. Stern and sought to question employees about its veracity. On the eve of those depositions, the bank moved to dismiss the case, blocking the court’s ability to address any sanctions.

Rest here…




11 Responses to “ROMAN PINO vs THE BANK OF NEW YORK | Homeowners Lose in Landmark Foreclosure Decision, Attorneys Say”
  1. talktotennessee says:

    Still hoping someone cn answer my question. If there was never a deed of trust recorded is there a statute of limitations on whether it can recorded without the homeowner again signing the note? Lender says modification held up because they are waiting for homeowner to sign a deed of trust so it can be recorded. Homeowner wants confirmation of modication before signing anyting but signed the modification papers. So there is a stand off here. Who moves and what are the consequences in a deal like this. Deed of trust should have been recorded in 2004 or 2005 but never was.

  2. Mike says:

    Ice won this house FREE AND CLEAR for Pino…..Bank of New York Mellon released the lien on July 22 2011….


  3. Mike says:

    Ice won this case. There was a confidential settlement between the parties which included a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice. Ice merely was seeking to set new case law for other cases.

  4. talktotennessee says:

    “A trustee must have a recorded deed of trust and provide a payoff statement including per diem prior to commencing foreclosure proceedings.” The preceding statement was found on a TN attorney’s website. Is this a true statement? A lender asked a homeowner to execute a new deed of trust because the original had never been recorded. Homeowner received modification of the loan but the lender pulled it back because the homeowner refused to execute a new deed of trust.
    Can the lender foreclose if he has no recorded DOT? Homeowner signed mod papers but has not signed the new Deed of Trust.What are the homeowner’s choices. Lots of arm twisting and threats going on.
    Opinions needed, ,

  5. triumphant says:

    There was, however, nothing from the Supreme Court addressing Pino’s attorneys’ assertion that “the info from the previous case” could NOT be introduced in the second case and was therefore barred per Supreme Court of Florida decision in Wallraff v. TGI Fridays (1986). Any thoughts?

  6. Mike says:

    Ice can simply file their own complaint alleging the bank filed a fraudulent, frivilous complaint and request sanctions and damages equal or greater to the value of the note.

  7. kayewolf says:

    How is this a lose for the homeowner? Follow the same strategy. Sue your bank. Dismiss before decision. No res judicata. Sue again.

    Shut down the courts with multiple filings if they want to be jerks. Millions of people suing their banks, using the “fee waiver” …

  8. Sarah says:

    This is appalling. George Carlin: “…they got the judges in their back pocket”

  9. Just like in Arizona, here is an email i recieved (which obly took a month and three previous letters to get btw) ….in response to a 12 page letter i have sent all over our government and my additional SHORT STORY…reply is added to what our caring Justice system here in AZ and even across this country do to us “Pino’s” of America… VERY SAD……….From: Senator Jeff Flake
    Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 9:51 AM
    To: Subject: Thank You For Contacting Me

    Thank you for contacting me to share your concerns and opinions. If you have an urgent matter and would like to request immediate assistance, please contact my office at (202) 224-4521.

    Senator Jeff Flake


    Really?, well then okie dokie,
    Ya, nahhhhhh, Sorry to have troubled your inbox, truly……… Your right….nothing for you to worry about here…..No, I (we) just poured our life drama out to you because I enjoy how my native state treats their homeowners so well in our case home theft victims. Just, like the Judges, the Governor and her office, the Attorney General, and most of his office, a few wonderful folks actually cared even though they couldn’t do much but SINCERELY cared enough to try, nothing to be concerned about. Nope not a bit concerned as to one of the FACTS in our nightmare is that, How did the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) suddenly appear at the last minute – at the trustee’s sale in Arizona – and allegedly purchase OUR home? Especially since Aurora Loan Services and Cal-Western Reconveyance, the foreclosing entities, did not have the right to institute a non-judicial foreclosure, nor did MERS. Our Note had been securitized by Fannie Mae at its inception of the loan and only the Certificate holders of the Fannie Mae Guaranteed REMIC Pass-through Certificates or the MEGA securities that the SEC already nailed them for or the Money Market Accounts that our loan is “floating”, somewhere in, like a tumbleweed, making its way across our dry desert landscapes. Nope not concerned. Not the fact that so far I have traced our “pool and Cusip” numbers to (so far) 10 “Fannie Mae Mega Securities, 8 or more Remic Trusts, 2 Credit Default Swap Securities, 4 Money Market Obligations, 6 other securities such as, Target, Hallmark, Multiple and various state retirement funds, yet Fannie Mae states they “were never involved in our loan or home until the Refi of 2006, Funny cause the POOL and CUSIPs our “loan” is in as provided to me by the PRESIDENT of CITIMORTGAGE, shows that it originated in 03/1999, wow, we signed our docs in 01/29/1999. Nope no immediate attention needed Mr. Flake. Unlike the 5 Judges we had who rather overlook our very laws we are suppose to obey and they are suppose to enforce to everyone, not just whom they choose too, Ya see there is a difference Between Notes and Deeds of Trust, As I am sure you know, during a residential real estate closing in Arizona the borrower signs two key documents – a promissory note that represents the legal obligation to repay the loan.

    There is only one promissory note because it is a negotiable instrument payable “to the order of the Lender” as identified on the face of the note. At the same time, the borrower also signs a Deed of Trust (“DoT”). It is conceivable a borrower might sign more than one DoT because unlike the note,the DoT does not represent a legal obligation to pay anything. (Under A.R.S. § 33-801(5), a deed of trust is defined as: [A] deed executed in conformity with this chapter and conveying trust property to a trustee or trustees qualified under § 33-803 to secure the performance of a contract or contracts…. It is not a document establishing any obligation to payment of anything) All of this is important because the note and DoT constitute a contract. But no nothing of grave concern here, …..And, while the DoT does give the Lender the right to transfer the DoT, there is nothing in the Note or DoT that establishes that we were not/are not allowed to know who we are/were in business with. Clearly, Don’t ya Think….. We are entitled to know who had/has privy of contract with us?? To state or hold we don’t or did not have this right overturns 400 years of American contract law. Rule 26 Discovery would show the loan never appeared on the books of any of the foreclosing entities that made a claim to such right, something in the 2 years of court most as pro se ( as we had no alternative but to be) we did not get by ANY of the 5 judges. In addition, the Deed of Trust requires that changes of the “Lender” be provided to the Borrower, but they were not, but that’s nothing to worry about, its common practice and Gosh forbid, an actual homeowner who did the right thing get their title cleaned and help in troubled times, not for a free house as we never once said we wanted it free….. But Hey, that’s ok The BANKS got a free house and as it seems to show, our humble home has made them 5 times or more what it was originally sold for, why stop the money train now.

    Heck we all know that the sale/s/ cannot be private. Yet today, virtually all original trustees are fired and a new or “substitute trustee” is named in place of the old trustee because of the right of the beneficiary to change trustees any time they want. But we have seen that the substitutions of trustee are virtually all robo-signed, fabricated, forged and fraudulent documents ( as the multiple in our case shows) which means that the original trustee is or should be considered the trustee under the deed of trust. The acts of the “substitute trustee” are therefore void and constitute a private sale — exacerbated by the fact that most “substituted trustees” are either owned directly by the new party claiming to be the lender or beneficiary or operated by a consortium of banks and servicers and lawyers who answer only to the party claiming to be the new lender or beneficiary, heck they are all related aren’t they? No nothing to here needs immediate attention. Note the fact that our “lender” doesn’t exist, was told to liquidate by the OTS 4 years prior, not that Lehman Bros Holding actually, in writing told me “Yes we had a loan at that address and sold it to Fannie Mae on May 26, 2006” Wait what???, No no problems here. Not they fact that my husbands signature was forged yet the next document attached is his…. not once but several times…. not to mention given to us by not one but 3 lenders…. showing the fraud continues….. Not the fact we have never received a trial by jury, a fair hearing, discovery, or even a Fully ended judgment and they are trying to sell our home as we speak but “buyer must waive disclosures and SPDS”…..Heck no there is not one single thing needing your immediate attention that neither the original trustee on the deed of trust nor the substitute trustee perform any review or due diligence to match up the lender shown on the promissory note, the beneficiary shown on the deed of trust, and the new parties claiming to be lenders, creditors and servicers pursuant to documents that were never disclosed much less signed by the borrower (us).The key role of the trustee has been inverted by the illegal substitution of trustee and the acts and process that followed. If this practice is allowed by state court, then the appropriate action would be a civil rights action against the state allowing the power of sale to be used without confirmation of the parties, the amount due, and the identity of the creditor, the lender, and the beneficiary. No no help needed or requested here. You must not have even read my previous novel, not like I truly expected you would anyway…………………………

    Here is the problem: The reality is that that under real property law in every state you must record transfers of interest in real property if you want to be able to protect yourself against subsequent buyers or lenders who know nothing about prior off-record dealings. Recording is what stabilizes the market. Where the recording rules are followed then there is notice to the world of who has what stake in any particular piece of property. A buyer or lender can buy or lend without worrying if they are really getting title or a perfected lien. But its ok again, No one that matters cares. Sorry to have wasted your time Senator, at least you still have a home my child’s was stolen and justice will never occur. I’m getting use to it.
    But, Really…..

    Thank you,
    Have a good day

  10. Richard F. Kessler says:

    Read Pino carefully. It does not preclude monetary compensation for damages suffered by the defendant or sanctions imposed by the court, as a result of a fraudulent attempt to foreclose. What it prohibits is a reinstatement to obtain a dismissal with prejudice. The answer to Pino is to file counterclaims as party of the defendant’s answer.

    • yvonne says:

      also, it appears as if Ice had filed it differently, he would have succeeded…he should not have requested a reinstatement but a new case using the info from the previous case and also filed for Quiet title simultaneously…he could have won for the homeowners if he had taken a different approach to accomplish the intended result he wanted…

Leave a Reply