Action Alert: HB 87 – Last Chance to Stop the Bank-Friendly Foreclosure Bill

Star Chamber Unfair

Action Alert: HB 87 – Last Chance to Stop the Bank-Friendly Foreclosure Bill

Last week an article in the Palm Beach Post stated “Calls in favor of the [bank friendly foreclosure] legislation stood at 632 on Thursday, with opposition calls at 563.”  This means more callers to the governor’s office are in support this bill than are against it.

Governor Rick Scott has until June 12, 2013 to veto and stop House Bill 87, the speedy foreclosure process bill that will strengthens banks’ ability to take ownership of homes while greatly weakening the property and constitutional rights of homeowners in the state of Florida.  You can follow the House Bill 87’s status on the Governor’s bill action webpage here.  The only action that will stop this bill from passing and becoming a Florida law is for the governor to VETO the bill.  If he signs it or ignores it, it WILL become law that affects us all.  Please dedicate a few minutes again this week to voice your opposition to the “faster, more bank-friendly foreclosure process” that will become law if Governor Rick Scott does not veto the bill.

Please, call and voice your opposition!  Even if you took this action in previous weeks, please again this week take five minutes to call AND email Governor Scott and tell him to VETO HO– USE BILL 87!  Remember to give your name and county in Florida.


1)      Call (850) 488-7146 – Press 1 – Hold for a few minutes to speak to a staff member.  Speaking personally to one of the Governor’s legislative staff is best but if you are pressed for time, you can press 5 to be directed to a voice mail so you can leave a message that the Governor VETO HO– USE BILL 87! 

2)      Email to VETO HO– USE BILL 87! 

3)      Sign the Petition.  Click here.

4)      Encourage others to call and email Governor Scott on this issue.  The more Floridians opposed to this bill the better chance he’ll VETO it.  He wants to get re-elected and there are a LOT of Floridian voters struggling with mortgage debt.


Thank you!


One Response to “Action Alert: HB 87 – Last Chance to Stop the Bank-Friendly Foreclosure Bill”
  1. 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:

    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 or connect with her in FaceBook which has her link to 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