F'closure Mill Dodges Appellate Court Reversal On Merits; Opts To 'Confess Error' Instead In Agreeing To Reversal Of Rubber-Stamped Lower Court Ruling

Florida's 4th District Court of Appeal recently rejected another foreclosure judgment - this time from a Broward County trial court. The guilty rubber stamper in this case - Circuit Court Judge Peter M. Weinstein.

The appellate court issued this one sentence reversal of the lower court ruling (bold text is my emphasis, not in the original text):

• Based on appellee’s confession of error, we reverse the circuit court’s final summary judgment of foreclosure and remand for further proceedings.

While this case certainly represents a victory for the homeowner involved, it arguably represents something of a loss for foreclosure defense advocates in the bigger picture in that, by confessing error, the lender and its foreclosure mill law firm, arguably, skillfully dodged(1) the:

• potentially unfavorable precedent that may have been created had the appeals court based its ruling on the merits of the case, and

• addressing, by the court, of potentially damning facts that allegedly surrounded this foreclosure action.(2)

All of which was ably laid out by the homeowner's attorney in this appellate brief (made available online courtesy of Ice Legal). In effect, the foreclosure mill law firm may have thrown the case to avoid even more negative precedent and publicity that these faulty foreclosure cases have been generating.(3)

Representing the homeowner was foreclosure defense attorney Michael Wrubel of Michael Jay Wrubel, P.A., Davie, Florida.

The bank was represented by the notorious Florida foreclosure mill, Shapiro & Fishman, LLP, Boca Raton Florida.

For the ruling, see Frost v. LaSalle Bank, No. 4D09-2668 (Fla. App. 4th DCA October 27, 2010).

(1) Not all attempts by lenders and foreclosure mills to skillfully dodge having to answer the tough questions in court succeed. See, for example, Ohio Judge Nixes GMAC F'closure Action Withdrawl; Orders Lender To Fork Over “Proof Of Integrity Of All Docs Submitted" As State AG Files Amicus Brief, where a Cleveland, Ohio trial court judge refused to allow a lender and its attorney to withdraw a foreclosure action, and instead, ordered the attorney to provide proof that its earlier court filings are legitimate.

(2) See Appellate Brief (bold text is my emphasis, not in the original text):

• Part IV - The Original Note with a Blank Endorsement Produced for the First Time at the Summary Judgment Hearing Was Materially Altered from the Note Attached to the Complaint and Was Provided in an Untimely Manner Precluding its Use (begins at page 21),

• Part V - Reasonable Inferences Within the Record Support the Conclusion that the Endorsement Signature on the Original Note is an Unauthorized Forgery and that Robert T. Frost Was denied his Constitutional Right to a Trial on the Merits (begins at page 25).

(3) Note that on the very same day this ruling was issued, a different 3-judge panel of Florida's 4th District Court of Appeal issued a more extensive ruling in another faulty foreclosure case in favor of the homeowner, and in which the plaintiff-lender there (different from the one in this case) was represented by the same foreclosure mill law firm. See Servedio v. US Bank National Association, 4D10-1898 (Fla. App. 4th DCA October 27, 2010).