Judge Gets Bagged Rubber-Stamping A Foreclosure Judgment Against Homeowner Mistakenly Believed To Be "Pro Se" At Least An Hour Before Court Hearing???

Florida foreclosure defense attorney Mark P. Stopa writes in Stopa Law Blog about a recent experience representing a homeowner in the courtroom of Pinellas County, Florida Circuit Court Judge Pamela Campbell:

• Yesterday, I had an experience in court that has absolutely rocked my world, causing me to wonder: When do judges decide who wins a foreclosure case?

***

• My experience yesterday, though, as outlined in this Motion to DQ Judge, makes me wonder, not about myself, but about the thousands of cases in Florida where homeowners don’t have an attorney. I strongly encourage you to read the entire Motion to DQ Judge, as it’s a matter of public record, but here’s the cliff notes version.

• On August 19, 2010 at 9:30, a summary judgment hearing was set on a mass-motion calendar. My clients were pro se until just a few days prior, so the documents I filed in opposition to summary judgment had not yet made it into the Court file yet. As such, the Judge thought my clients were pro se. At or before 8:15 a.m. on August 19, 2010, the Judge entered conformed copies of a Final Judgment of foreclosure even though the summary judgment hearing was not scheduled until 9:30 a.m. that day. That’s worth repeating: The judge entered a Final Judgment of foreclosure more than an hour BEFORE the scheduled hearing.

• Sounds impossible to believe, but it’s true. I learned about this, in fact, only by happenstance - my associate went to the courthouse to review the court file before the hearing, and, upon review of the court file, saw conformed copies of the Final Judgment in the file. The hearing was not set to begin for more than an hour, yet the Judge had already made copies of the executed Final Judgment, to be mailed to all parties.

For more, see When do judges decide who wins a foreclosure case?

Thanks to Deontos .is for the heads-up on this story.

(1) The following excerpts from the Motion to Disqualify Judge (paragraphs 7-12, 18-20) provides Mr. Stopa's account of part of what he alleges went on at the summary judgment hearing (bold text is my emphasis, not in the original text; "Mr. Del ‘Etoile" is the bank's attorney from foreclosure mill law firm Florida Default Law Group; "Mr. Healy" is the homeowner's attorney and Mr. Stopa's associate; "Mr. Hoffman" is the homeowner facing foreclosure):

• 7. As the hearing began, it was uncomfortable from the start. The Judge, very oddly, volunteered that Mr. Del ‘Etoile had been her intern, apparently just recently (since Mr. Del Etoile is a very young attorney), and spoke of him glowingly. It was as if the Judge was introducing Mr. Del Etoile to Mr. Stopa, Mr. Healy, and Mr. Hoffmann (an experience which Mr. Stopa can never recall seeing before in ten years of practicing law). The relationship and introduction was so odd that Mr. Hoffmann would indicate, after the hearing, he felt the hearing was "doomed" from that point forward.

• 8. As the hearing began, Mr. Stopa informed the Judge that Mr. Healy had found the conformed copy of the Final Judgment, in the Court file, that morning. Mr. Stopa advised the Judge that he was troubled by this and requested an explanation (of why there was a conformed Final Judgment in the court file before the hearing had begun).

• 9. The Judge was clearly and visibly annoyed at being "called out" like this, and told Mr. Stopa that he did not understand "procedures." The Judge indicated she was "not hiding anything," as seen by her willingness to provide the file, including her "notes," to Mr. Healy, but that "next time," she would refrain from showing Mr. Healy her "notes." (Apparently, the Judge was referring to the conformed copies of the Final Judgment as her "notes, even though there were no "notes" on that document.) The Judge then attempted to show Mr. Stopa an unsigned Final Judgment, taking the position that she had not signed a Final Judgment, as if she had done nothing wrong.

• 10. Unfortunately, despite Mr. Stopa’s request, the Judge was unwilling or unable to explain why there were conformed copies of the Final Judgment in the court file, as if the Final Judgment had already been entered, before the hearing had begun. Mr. Stopa was hoping for an innocent explanation, but none was forthcoming. In retrospect, and under the circumstances, the explanation seems clear. The Judge did not realize that Mr. Hoffmann had retained counsel (given that Mr. Stopa appeared in the case just before the summary judgment hearing and his filings had not yet appeared in the Court file), thought he was pro se (like many of the other defendants on the mass-motion calendar that morning), and had predetermined that Final Judgment would be entered, so she made conformed copies of the Final Judgment before the hearing even began. Whether the Judge predetermined the case because of her relationship with Mr. Del Etoile is unclear, but it was clear that the Judge had predetermined the outcome.

• 11. Worse yet, it seems that this is a routine practice of the Judge – to prepare conformed copies of Final Judgments in cases where the Defendants are pro se. This sounds harsh, but there seems to be no other explanation (particularly in light of the Judge’s inability or unwillingness to provide one).

• 12. Notably, the Final Judgment of foreclosure was many pages long, yet the Judge made multiple conformed copies to mail to the parties before the hearing. It was clearly a fair amount of work to prepare those conformed copies, and the envelopes that went with them, which of course begs the question – why did the Judge make these copies before the hearing rather than after? Was she so determined to get this case (and other foreclosure cases) off her desk that she predetermined the outcome of the case before the hearing even began? Respectfully, it certainly appears that way. Again, that sounds harsh, but if the Judge was willing to give the parties a "fair shake," why not wait until after the hearing to make the conformed copies? What was the rush?

***

• 18. As the hearing ended, Mr. Stopa, Mr. Healy, and Mr. Hoffmann left the Judge’s chambers, but Mr. Del Etoile remained in chambers, alone, with the Judge (apparently since Mr. Del Etoile was counsel in the next hearing).

• 19. When Mr. Hoffmann left chambers with Mr. Stopa, Mr. Hoffman immediately expressed his concerns about the Judge’s partiality, as set forth therein. These concerns were heightened even more, after the hearing, when Mr. Del Etoile confirmed to Mr. Healy that the Judge had engaged in ex parte communications with Mr. Del Etoile after the hearing and said "bad things" to Mr. Del Etoile about Mr. Stopa and Mr. Healy.

• 20. The fact that the Judge said "bad things" (in Mr. Del Etoile’s words) about Mr. Stopa and Mr. Healy, behind their backs, merely because they were concerned about the fact that the Judge had entered conformed copies of a Final Judgment before the hearing even began, says all that needs to be said about the Judge’s partiality.