HB 87 Foreclosure Bill Countdown

The Florida Senate passed the final version of the bank friendly foreclosure bill HB 87 on May 3.   The bill finally appeared on Governor Rick Scott’s the legislative web site May 30 with May 27 as the date the bill was presented to the governor.  May 27 was Memorial Day.  According to the “Official Website of the Florida House of Representatives,” the bill was presented to the governor on May 28. (Screen shots 1 and 2)

Using the May 28 presentation date, the governor has until June 12 to veto the bill (15 days).  If he signs it or does nothing by that date, the bill becomes law.  There is still time for those opposed to sign the petition requesting a veto by Governor Scott.

The mainstream media has barely covered this controversial legislation.   Activist groups have been silent for the most part.   Nevertheless, if signed, HB 87 may become the supercharger for the powerful foreclosure engine that operates in Florida.   Florida had 20,000 more foreclosures than California over 12 months, a state twice its size.

On May 29, the Orlando Sentinel covered PICO United Florida, a social justice organization consisting of 60 religious congregations in the Orlando area.  The group attacked the notion that Florida’s current foreclosure court hearings are somehow responsible for Florida’s lingering low property values. PICO urges Floridians to contact Governor Scott and ask him to veto the legislation.  In April, PICO supported Senator Darren Soto (D-Orlando) who opposed the bill citing a lack of due process for homeowners.

The Florida foreclosure process was very friendly to banks and a challenge for homeowners before HB 87.  If the bill is signed, the banks will have an even greater advantage.  The burden of proof will be shifted to homeowners at foreclosure hearings.  They will need to prove that they should not be evicted.  Currently, the plaintiff, the bank, has the burden of proof in accord with nearly 250 years of legal tradition in the United States.  For homeowners who contest the foreclosure, the ability to gather evidence and test the bank’s claims is virtually eliminated.

The banks may be unveiling some grand strategy to boost their efforts to evict homeowners and take their homes.   March 2013 foreclosure starts were up 200% in New York, 194% in Maryland, and 154% in Washington State.  Were those huge increases preceded by some supposedly consumer friendly legislation like HB 87?

Florida is next in line.

END

This article may be reposted with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.

Petition to veto HB 87

Also see:

Florida HB 87, Homeowners, and the Foreclosure Inferno By Michael Collins, on May 10th, 2013

Last Chance – Stop Florida’s HB 87 and ForeclosureGate II By Michael Collins, May 17th, 2013

~

4closureFraud.org

Comments
2 Responses to “HB 87 Foreclosure Bill Countdown”
  1. Yode says:

    For going on four years now, I have been fighting a battle against a fraudulent foreclosure attempt while at the same time helping others who have the courage to do the same. (As we all know, the banks never provided any valuable consideration during the mortgage “loan” process as we the people are the actual Creditors of this Nation and were tricked into thinking otherwise, so ALL FORECLOSURE ATTEMPTS ARE FRAUDULENT). In working on a Judicial Notice for one of my Appellate cases, I decided to look into what I believe are violations of ethics and Judicial Canons by the Judges of the 4th District Court of Appeal, here in Florida. Admittedly, I have never visited this aspect of possible errors by the Appellate Judiciary before and now I am compelled to believe I was led to this new discovery by a higher power. Please notice the very recent (just over two weeks ago) amendment to the 3rd Judicial Canon. It should prove useful to anyone who is fighting foreclosure without the assistance of a “Bar” member whose hands are tied by limitations on how far they can go in defense of your interest in any case. As one of the people, you can represent yourself in any civil or even criminal action, calling out a member of the Judiciary for perjuring their oath (which has unfortunately become routine), betraying the Public Trust (also now a common practice by Judicial impersonators) or outright conspiracy and collusion without fear of hurting your chances of becoming a Judge or securing some other high paying “cushy” public service job, like a DA or something.

    http://www.lasc.org/rules/supreme/cjc.asp (scroll down just a little)

    Also, you may wish to ask Why Now?….. Could it possibly be members of the Judiciary wish to do what they should have been doing all along???? That is to say, representing the best interests of those to whom they serve rather than the money-changers and ficticious corporations? Time will tell…. and perhaps this is an effort for members of the Judiciary to distance themselves from that which they have supported for their own financial gain for so very long, but which they now see as a possible liability and even a danger to their very lives if they do not appear to oppose.

  2. The counterpart to HB-87 is Colorado HB 06-1387 where the top foreclosure attorneys eliminated the burden of proof that lenders had to show in the Rule 120 foreclosure proceeding to demonstrate that they were the real party in interest with standing to foreclose. The Rule 120 is limited in scope as to what can be determined before the property is taken by the lender. A Rule 120 is not a full and fair hearing; there is no right to a jury, no right to counter sue; no right to discovery and most of all no right to appeal. The only recourse a homeowner has is a separate action which shifts the burden on the homeowner to prove that the lender is not the real party in interest. The lender need only provide copies of the Promissory Note and Deed of trust coupled with a statement of Qualified Holder attesting(not under penalty of perjury that the lender has the legal right to foreclose.
    Here is an excerpt of Lisa Kay Brumfiels Argument:

    THE LENDER’S BURDEN OF PROOF WAS CHANGED BY HB 06-1387
    At p. 7 of Defendants Motion to Dismiss [Docket # 51] defendants say “Factually, of course, an analysis of HB 06-1387 shows that it had no effect on the foreclosing party’s burden of proof at a Rule 120 proceeding.”
    This court should take judicial notice under 201 of an article in the Denver Post entitled “Colorado public trustees pushed to make it easier to foreclose on homes”
    When Christina Whitmer, Grand County public trustee said:
    Despite the concerns, minutes show Hopp “defended having attorneys doing the drafting, stating that they are better qualified to properly word the changes.”

    Whitmer recalled in an interview a process that allowed the lawyers to run roughshod over the trustees. “Unfortunately Castle and the other lawyers were very powerful and they, in my opinion, put in a lot of stuff that should not have happened,” Whitmer said. “And it was to benefit their lender clients, absolutely.”
    On January 20th, 2012 HB 1156 sought to address inequities in the Rule 120 :
    Current law allows a “holder of an evidence of debt” (holder), generally, a bank or other financial institution, to foreclose ……. simply by providing a statement from the holder’s attorney that the holder’s interest in the property is valid. …
    This Court took judicial notice [Docket # 51, p 15, fn 4] of an article in the Denver Post of March 14th, 2012 which referred to HB 12-1156 which stated:
    Former foreclosure attorney Keith Gantenbein gave vivid testimony about how, while working for Castle Stawiarski***signed “thousands” of documents — called statements of qualified holder — saying a bank had the right to foreclose when all he had was an e-mail or uncertified copy of a loan.
    The banks and Castle rightly say a homeowner has the right, under Goodwin , to challenge standing at a Rule 120. What they fail to note is that the amendments to state law that Castle and crew pushed through provided them with the defense of that challenge:
    CRS 38-38-101 (6)(b)
    Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this subsection (6), the original evidence of debt or a copy thereof without proper indorsement or assignment shall be deemed to be properly indorsed or assigned if a qualified holder presents the original evidence of debt or a copy thereof to the officer together with a statement in the certification of the qualified holder or in the statement of the attorney for the qualified holder pursuant to subparagraph (II) of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section that the party on whose behalf the foreclosure was commenced is the holder of the evidence of debt. This is where the no-doc foreclosure resides. The statement of qualified holder alone is good enough to prove they are the party of interest … and defeat any Goodwin challenge.
    If you put a provision in a statute which allows a foreclosure attorney to just provide a statement that the holder’s interest in the property is valid, you have effectively eliminated the burden of proof required to show that the lender is the Real Party in Interest. Thus CS Defendants, Robert J Hopp and the Public Trustee Association muted the court in Goodwin vs District Court 779 P.2d 837 (Colo. 1989) which said:
    A court’s refusal to consider such properly offered evidence*** is tantamount to the taking of property in a summary fashion without any hearing at all—a deprivation clearly violative of due process of law.” [B, I ].
    The burden of proof should be by “clear and convincing evidence to show that the lender is the real party in interest with standing to foreclose as the court in Goodwin vs District Court, 779 P.2d 837 (Colo. 1989) had intended and as can be seen through federal case law. In U.S. v. $49,576.00 U.S. CURRENCY, 116 F.3d 425, 9th Circuit citing Mathews vs Eldridge at pg 429 said:
    ***The Supreme Court in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, (1976), held that civil administrative proceedings which result in deprivations of property must provide meaningful due process safeguards. Subsequently, the Court specified that one such safeguard is the imposition of a heightened burden of proof on the government. (cites)
    Finally, we observe that allowing the government to forfeit property based on a mere showing of probable cause is a “constitutional anomaly.”*** Burdens of proof are intended in part to “indicate the relative importance attached to the ultimate decision.” (Cite) Claimants are threatened with permanent deprivation of their property, from their hard-earned money, to their sole means of transport, to their homes. [B, U]
    Depriving a homeowner pursuant to a Rule 120 on what is now the court’s acceptance of a lenders standing on ‘blind faith”, is no less a “constitutional anomaly” than the above court observed based on a showing of “probable cause”.
    In Lindsey vs Normet the Supreme Court of the United States said:
    “If a full and fair hearing is provided, the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment doe not require a state to provide appellate review.
    Conversely, if a full and fair hearing is not provided the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment requires appellate review. The Rule 120 is not a full and fair hearing nor does it provide appellate review and therefore is unconstitutional.
    The case of Lisa Kay Brumfiel has ramification in Florida because the arguments are applicable to the due process considerations enmeshed in HB 87

    Lisa Kay Brumfiel’s fight is your fight as well. Track the case in pacer it is 12cv02716 before the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Her website is LibertyLisa.com or connect with her in FaceBook which has her link to LibertyLisa.com Sign the petition to the Judge and if you can donate to the cause through paypal
    All other issues raised in this Motion to Dismiss not specifically addressed by plaintiff have been addressed in Plaintiff’s prior Opposition to Dismiss against CS Defendants, MERS and US Bank and Plaintiff hereby incorporates those arguments in Docket 86.

    The Constitutionality of the Rule 120 has been put in the cross hairs of the federal court in a case called Lisa Kay Brumfiel vs US Bank N.A. as Trustee et al. Involved is a Broad conspiracy to deprive homeowners of due process by the foreclosure attorneys, MERS, US Bank.

Leave a Reply