Comments on: “Stop the Slop” Legal Mess Over Foreclosures Deepening

By: lisamarie

lisamarie — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 00:26:06 +0000

I don’t think the ‘new’ rules or laws or whatever will change much of anything. The way it’s worded, one only has to swear under threat of perjury that the paperwork is legit. The banks lawyers have lied and committed fraud nintey to nothing from the get go, whats gonna stop them? They have to promise they arn’t lying or fabricating documents? Get real!

By: Richard F. Kessler

Richard F. Kessler — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 20:08:55 +0000

Chief Judge Haworth fails to mention that he was sued in April 2009 in the U.S. District Court because he refused to stop the slop and insisted upon the Court’s right to hand down summary judgment of foreclosure in uncontested cases relying upon paperwork known to be deficient and defective. In 2009, the Chief Judge claimed that the Court lacked the funds to read and examine the paperwork filed by counsel for the foreclosure mills.The Chief Judge’s change of heart is most welcome even if he takes credit for instituting reforms he initially refused to make.

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 15:50:45 +0000

All the appellate cases say that and they know it; it’s part of the appellate rules. They have thirty days to file a Motion for Rehearing; the appellate court responds quickly, and it’s over. In the interim they’re treading on dangerous ground; the cases will be subject to dismissal when the ruling becomes final (any day now). A rehearing won’t be granted: the only way that happens is if there’s a substantive point of law the justices overlooked or if something substantive changed in the interim: neither happened.

They can appeal to the US Supreme Court Bush v Gore style and ask the FL Supreme Court to stay the rule pending a decision on cert but that seems far-fetched. There is no issue of federal law here and, even if there were, there is no risk to the servicing companies or mills if the new rule applied while the issue was under consideration. Given the recent 7-2 Jarman decision it’s apparent that even the conservative Justices at SCOTUS are not sympathetic to legal fraud in debt collection.