http://www.reuters.c...E84902920120510
Florida Supreme court - forclosure cases
Started by
ICANHASMUNY?
, May 12 2012 07:25 AM
8 replies to this topic
#2
Posted 12 May 2012 - 11:26 AM
Great article; thanks for posting.
While it would be a victory for "Truth and Justice" IMO if the FL SC ruled against the Plaintiff's who have dismissed cases only after their hand has been caught in the proverbial cookie jar, something tells me that such a ruling would be a little too much "Alice in Wonderland". One can hope though, and news of the ruling will certainly be shouted from the mountaintops, no matter which side prevails. I'm still rooting for T&J, of course.
While it would be a victory for "Truth and Justice" IMO if the FL SC ruled against the Plaintiff's who have dismissed cases only after their hand has been caught in the proverbial cookie jar, something tells me that such a ruling would be a little too much "Alice in Wonderland". One can hope though, and news of the ruling will certainly be shouted from the mountaintops, no matter which side prevails. I'm still rooting for T&J, of course.
Edited by SportsNut, 12 May 2012 - 11:26 AM.
#3
ICANHASMUNY?
- Forum Leads
-
- 11,552 posts
Forum Leads - State Laws
Posted 12 May 2012 - 02:53 PM
Great article; thanks for posting.
While it would be a victory for "Truth and Justice" IMO if the FL SC ruled against the Plaintiff's who have dismissed cases only after their hand has been caught in the proverbial cookie jar, something tells me that such a ruling would be a little too much "Alice in Wonderland". One can hope though, and news of the ruling will certainly be shouted from the mountaintops, no matter which side prevails. I'm still rooting for T&J, of course.
lower florida courts have been pro consumer for a while - be interesting to see if it floats up, or it's been floating down.
#4
Posted 12 May 2012 - 04:23 PM
lower florida courts have been pro consumer for a while - be interesting to see if it floats up, or it's been floating down.
Am aware, but there has never been a case before them that I am aware of that will have such far reaching impact on this magnitude of cases. My gut feeling says that the FL SC doesn't have the fortitude to shake the tree that hard for fear of what may fall from it after their action if they rule hard line. So they will strongly admonish past actions but rule down the middle, in that future and similar actions by Plaintiffs in foreclosure cases will be terminal to enforecement of the mtg, but be forgiving of past actions, or not instill the death penalty for enforcement of the mortgageee's rights. Hope I am wrong here, but that is how I see it.
#5
ICANHASMUNY?
- Forum Leads
-
- 11,552 posts
Forum Leads - State Laws
Posted 12 May 2012 - 05:04 PM
it's equitable estoppel that is the issue here and fraudulent documents.
the fact that the bank settled with him is a real clear indication that the bank didn't want the FL supreme court to issue a ruling
the fact that the bank settled with him is a real clear indication that the bank didn't want the FL supreme court to issue a ruling
#6
Posted 12 May 2012 - 05:52 PM
it's equitable estoppel that is the issue here and fraudulent documents.
the fact that the bank settled with him is a real clear indication that the bank didn't want the FL supreme court to issue a ruling
Yes that was certainly their intent however the SC seems to have short circuited their plan by hearing the case anyway. They played some high stakes poker here and apparently lost by allowing this case to go as long as it did. The outcome will certainly be of interest to an untold number of people, both in FL and around the entire country.
#7
Posted 12 May 2012 - 06:21 PM
it's equitable estoppel that is the issue here and fraudulent documents.
the fact that the bank settled with him is a real clear indication that the bank didn't want the FL supreme court to issue a ruling
The actual FL SC decision 2 in favor with 1 dissent, for refusal to accept or permit the dismissal of the case. So it sounds more like they will be arguing the merits of whether the Plaintiff has the right to dismiss such a case, more so than the fraudulent docs and the effects on all the foreclosure cases, past and present. Decision Dec 8,2011
#8
Posted 13 May 2012 - 07:33 PM
lower florida courts have been pro consumer for a while - be interesting to see if it floats up, or it's been floating down.
Some judges follow the law, no matter who it benefits. That's how it should always work. Unfortunately with regards to foreclosures in Florida, all bets are off. From circuit to circuit, rules and procedures are different. Some circuits are set up to stymie the homeowner, particularly those without representation.
Some judges are so caught up in giving banks the benefit of the doubt that it borders on misconduct.
One chief judge left the bench to work for one of Florida's largest foreclosure firms (a firm that was investigated by the AG for fraudulent and illegal practices). That judge was responsible for setting up a docket system in his circuit, that many felt deprived homeowners of their rights.
#9
ICANHASMUNY?
- Forum Leads
-
- 11,552 posts
Forum Leads - State Laws
Posted 13 May 2012 - 08:58 PM
it's equitable estoppel that is the issue here and fraudulent documents.
the fact that the bank settled with him is a real clear indication that the bank didn't want the FL supreme court to issue a ruling
The actual FL SC decision 2 in favor with 1 dissent, for refusal to accept or permit the dismissal of the case. So it sounds more like they will be arguing the merits of whether the Plaintiff has the right to dismiss such a case, more so than the fraudulent docs and the effects on all the foreclosure cases, past and present. Decision Dec 8,2011
that's just the order regarding why they are not going to dimiss the case - they are hearing arguments regarding the actual case lasst week
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
