Central Florida Chief Judge "Objects" To Foreclosure Defense Attorney's "Attempts" To Gum Up "Rocket Docket;" Jurist: "It's Just A Stall"

In Central Florida, St. Petersburg Times' staff writer James Thorner blogs:

• A piece I wrote last week about Tampa Bay foreclosure defense attorney Mark Stopa [see Delaying foreclosure can lead to ethical 'heebie jeebies'] has attracted what could be unwanted attention from the top judge in Pinellas/Pasco County civil court. Judge Thomas McGrady summoned yours truly to his office this morning and gently, but pointedly, objected to Stopa's technique of delaying foreclosures by filing motions to dismiss lenders' lawsuits.

• McGrady described a court system that's drowning in foreclosure cases. Just three years ago 12 judges who deal with foreclosures handled about 800-1,000 open cases. These days each judge juggles about 3,400 cases. So McGrady clearly didn't appreciate attempts to gum up the works further. He said foreclosure cases are rarely dismissed, and lawyers who use the tactic have little chance of succeeding.(1) Even if the lender's case is thrown out, they almost always refile. "It's just a stall," McGrady said.(2)

• The judge went further. While appreciating that lawyers need to make a buck, he recommended most home owners NOT hire an expensive defense attorney if their goal is simply to postpone repossession of their house. The calendar is so jammed that many people wouldn't be thrown out of their homes for more than a year after they stopped paying their mortgage.

Source: Pinellas County chief judge "irritated" by foreclosure lawyer tactics.

(1) One reason why at least some of these foreclosure cases aren't dismissed, I suspect, is that some judges, knowing that the underfinaced homeowners can't afford the legal firepower necessary to seek a review of their rulings by an appeals court of any lousy, erroneous rulings, will simply rationalize a dismissal of the homeowners' motions (judges who take this rubber-stamp approach to adjudicating foreclosures, thereby keeping their "foreclosure rocket docket" moving deserve nomination for The Broken Gavel Awards). Further, some of these same judges may figure that the homeowners can't afford to pay for the posting of the appeals bond necessary to halt the foreclosure sale while the appellate court conducts its review of their rulings. Without posting the bond, the homeowners get booted from their homes while an appeal is pending, thus rendering a request for an appellate court review of a ruling impractical for them (assuming, of course, they could afford to appeal the ruling to a higher court in the first place).

(2) The solution seems simple. If the motions to dismiss filed by the foreclosure defense attorney are frivolous, the judge should simply sanction the attorney filing the motions. If not, then due consideration should be given to the motion. EpsilonMissingDocsMtg