West Palm Beach Judges To Stop Ignoring Court Procedural Rules In Uncontested Foreclosure Actions

In West Palm Beach, Florida, The Palm Beach Post reports:

• Thousands of Palm Beach County homes have been repossessed by lenders that failed to follow a court rule requiring evidence be attached to foreclosure affidavits, something judges often allowed to happen when no one contested the case.(1)

• After revelations in recent weeks that sworn affidavits from several major banks and home loan servicers may be flawed, Palm Beach County Chief Judge Peter Blanc said banks will increasingly have to prove their foreclosure claims with sworn or certified supporting paperwork.

***

• "In the past when affidavits came in on defaults, the judges haven't been requiring the documents because no one was there objecting," said Blanc, who added that about 80 percent of foreclosures in the county are not contested. "Dealing with the volume we are dealing with we want to make sure that all or i's are dotted and t's crossed."

***

• Foreclosure defense attorneys have argued for months that in the rush to take back homes, that large law firms representing lenders and overwhelmed judges ignored the evidence rule. Only when attorneys or homeowners protested did the rush to summary judgment slow, they claim.

For more, see Palm Beach County judges want more evidence in uncontested foreclosures.

(1) What happens now to all the foreclosures that have slipped through in disregard of this rule. Are those foreclosure judgments now absolutely void (ie. void ab initio), or are they merely voidable, but nevertheless subject to attack?

While they're at it, in cases where foreclosure mills and others submit bogus "lost note" affidavits to cover up for their inability to "produce the note" prior to obtaining a foreclosure judgment, Florida judges should at least be sure to comply with Section 673.3091(2) of the Florida Statutes ("Enforcement of lost, destroyed, or stolen instrument"), which states the following with regard to a lender's attempt to enforce a lost, destroyed, or stolen promissory note or other negotiable instrument (bold text is my emphasis, not in the original text of the statute):

• The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument. Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means.

"Adequate protection" has commonly been believed to mean the posting of a "lost note" indemnification bond in the amount of double the face amount of the homeowner's mortgage to adequately protect the homeowner against loss that might occur if, in the future, someone else comes along with the actual note that was purportedly lost and attempts to enforce it against the homeowner.

For an example of what one Miami judge did when a lender proceeded to foreclose without posting a "lost note" indemnification bond after being court ordered to do so, see Daily Business Review: Blasting Bank's Lawyer, Judge Wipes Out Homeowner's $207,000 Mortgage. Go here for the associated transcript of the May 6, 2010 court hearing, in which Judge Jennifer Bailey voided the promissory note and stuck the bank with the tab for the homeowner's attorney fees for good measure.