It says that EVERYTHING we’ve been saying for all these years is true. Everything; back-dated documents, fake assignments, perjury, lying – I don’t think that any of us could have done a better job. It’s one thing when we say it, even when we present overwhelming evidence.
But all of you know it’s another when a major bank — one of his clients — says the same thing.
How many people lost their homes while this garbage was going on? What are they going to do about that?
One question I’ve never seen addressed: GMAC filed a legal malpractice claim. I haven’t checked but assume other banks have too. Isn’t the FL Bar the largest legal malpractice provider? Are they Stern’s provider? People have raised concerns about the conflicts this brings up but, assuming the FL Bar doesn’t have a few extra billion dollars on hand, is there a chance that FL taxpayers are on the hook — since the Bar is officially part of the FL Supreme Court — for the massive claims against Stern and the rest?
Some of the best excerpts from the complaint…
(much more in there, just to much to pull)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FT. LAUDERDALE DIVISION
THE LAW OFFICES OF
DAVID J. STERN, P.A.,
GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC,
ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS OF DEFENDANT
In light of the on-going investigations by the Florida Attorney General, as well as other events and information, GMACM contacted DJSPA and conducted an on-site review of many of GMACM‟s files maintained by DJSPA.
On or about November 16, 2010, GMACM terminated its relationship with DJSPA and sought to recover its files from DJSPA.
DJSPA refused to release any files to GMACM until GMACM placed funds allegedly owed to DJSPA into escrow. In order to obtain its files as quickly as possible, GMACM agreed to this arrangement, without conceding that any amounts were owed to DJSPA.
Since recovering its files from GMACM, GMACM has expended significant time and money transitioning files to other law firms. Upon information and belief, GMACM has expended over $1.5 million in order to recover and transition files previously handled by DJSPA.
Because of its concern over the allegations and evidence of unprofessional practices followed by DJSPA, GMACM directed these newly-assigned law firms to review the recovered files and to take appropriate steps to attempt to remedy errors committed by DJSPA, as well as re-initiating foreclosure proceedings, in whole or part, due to concerns over the documents previously filed by DJSPA.
GMACM has since learned that DJSPA committed gross malpractice in the handling of GMACM matters. For example, in one foreclosure matter assigned to DJSPA for handling, DJSPA failed to communicate to GMACM that counterclaims had been brought. Indeed, DJSPA neglected to put forward any defense to such counterclaims, with the result that a default judgment was entered on or about May 5, 2011 for over $450,000. DJSPA‟s conduct in this and other instances has been wanton or reckless.
By reason of the foregoing, GMACM has incurred, and may continue to incur in the future, substantial costs attributable to the following: (i) costs associated with conducting its review of DJSPA‟s files, policies and practices; (ii) costs associated with the need to seize numerous files previously maintained and handled by DJSPA; and (iii) costs associated with having newly-assigned law firms to conduct a review of the
recovered files seized from DJSPA and to correct errors and re-initiate foreclosure proceedings as appropriate.
By reason of the foregoing, GMACM has also incurred, and may continue to incur in the future, substantial additional costs attributable to the following: (i) the cost of paying duplicative legal fees and court costs to the newly-assigned law firms for handling the files from DJSPA; (ii) the time value cost of money lost due to any additional delays in prosecuting the files from DJSPA; and (iii) the cost of foreclosure-related fees and costs previously incurred and paid on the recovered files when handled by DJSPA.
GMACM repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 – 27 of this Counterclaim as if fully set forth herein.
During the relevant period, an attorney-client relationship existed between DJSPA and GMACM.
DJSPA, including its attorneys individually, owed a duty of professional care to GMACM with respect to the legal services provided by DJSPA, including the duty to comply with all applicable Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, including: (1) the duty to control the law firm‟s workload so that each matter can be handled for the client adequately and within the accepted standard of professional care for a law firm in the State of Florida in accordance with Florida Bar Rule 4-1.3; (2) the duty to take reasonable measures to ensure that non-lawyer conduct is compatible with professional obligations of the lawyer in accordance with Florida Bar Rule 4-5.3; (3) the duty to keep a client reasonably informed and to explain a matter to the client to the extent reasonably necessary for the client to make informed decisions about the lawyer‟s professional handling of the client‟s matters in accordance with Florida Bar Rule 4-1.4; (4) the duty to deal honestly with third parties when acting on behalf of the client in accordance with Florida Bar Rule 4-4.1; and (5) the duty not to engage in conduct otherwise involving dishonesty or misrepresentation in accordance with Florida Bar Rule 4-8.4.
DJSPA negligently, recklessly and/or wantonly breached its professional duties owing to GMACM by, among other things:
(i) causing and/or permitting DJSPA‟s employees to execute, witness and/or notarize assignments of mortgage that were back-dated;
(ii) causing and/or permitting DJSPA‟s employees to witness and/or notarize assignments of mortgages, affidavits of indebtedness and/or other affidavits on a daily basis prior to and without actually witnessing execution of the document by the person whose signature was to be witnessed and/or notarized;
(iii) causing and/or permitting DJSPA‟s employees to prepare and execute affidavits of indebtedness for submission to the foreclosure court that failed to follow appropriate professional practices and procedures;
(iv) causing and/or permitting DJSPA‟s employees to sign the name of another person on various foreclosure-related documents without any indication of that fact on the documents;
(v) charging GMACM substantial fees and costs for legal services that DJSPA knew or should have known was not in accordance with the terms and conditions of its agreement with GMACM and that fell below the minimum standard of professional care owed by DJSPA to GMACM;
(vi) providing legal work on behalf of GMACM as to various files assigned to DJSPA that fell below the applicable standard of care; and
(vii) committing acts or omissions that have subjected GMACM to claims, losses and liabilities of third-parties.
Full answer and counter claim below…