Florida Appeals Court To Trial Judges, Banksters In Foreclosure Cases: "The First Lesson In "Foreclosures 101": A Lender Must Prove It Had Standing Before The Complaint Is Filed To Foreclose On A Mortgage!"

In the very first paragraph of a court ruling issued earlier this month, a Florida appeals court (possibly growing weary of having to continually reverse trial judges - both the dimwitted and the corrupt(1) - for their screw-ups in their incorrect rulings in foreclosure cases unfavorable to homeowners) appears to send this seemingly fundamental message to all the trial judges throughout the state, as well as the sloppy foreclosing bankster's that bring these cases:

• The first lesson in "Foreclosures 101": a lender must prove it had standing before the complaint is filed to foreclose on a mortgage. The borrower appeals a final judgment of foreclosure after a non-jury trial. She argues, among other issues, that the bank failed the first lesson—it failed to prove standing. We agree and reverse.

For the entire court ruling, see Peoples v. Sami II Trust 2006-AR6, Bank of New York as Successor in Interest to JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 4D14-2757 (4th DCA, October 14, 2014).

-----------------------------------

(1) Buried in footnote 248 of a recent article in the William & Mary Business Law Review co-authored by two Florida foreclosure defense lawyers who, coincidentally, were part of the successful team of attorneys representing the homeowner in this case, they describe their experiences with some trial judges who, in their opinion, "have engaged in conduct that is such an egregious violation of the law that it extends into malfeasance, rather than simple judicial error":

• In these instances, trial judges have clearly stated that they know what the law is, that they are bound to follow it, and if they did so they would have to rule in favor of the borrower. They have then ruled in favor of the lender despite their clear acknowledgement that by doing so they are acting in clear disregard for what the law requires of them.
  
  The authors have seen trial courts enter judgments after acknowledging that the bank’s figures in the judgment could not possibly be correct based simply on the fact that “this is a 2008 case. We are under strict instruction from the Florida Supreme Court to move these cases." Interestingly enough, they are probably under a much stricter oath of office to apply the law.
  
  The authors of this Article have also seen judges act in complete disregard of their jurisdictional limits to relieve lenders and their counsel from their legal blunders, including vacating final judgments long after they have been rendered based on incorrect legal descriptions and failure to name necessary parties in the original complaint.
  
  In doing so, trial court judges have repeatedly ignored the law in order to make favorable decisions in favor of lenders on the grounds that “if I don’t have jurisdiction to grant this motion, then your client gets a free house, and I’m just not ok with that.” The authors of this Article have even seen judges vacate a lender’s own voluntary dismissal of a case on the grounds that the judge was mistaken as to the facts, and the lender, therefore, should somehow be absolved of its own strategic errors.
  
  Roy D. Oppenheim & Jacquelyn K. Trask-Rahn, The Emperor’s New Clothes: How the Judicial System and the Housing-Mortgage Market Have Turned a Blind Eye to the Destruction of the Negotiability of Mortgage Promissory Notes, 6 William & Mary Business Law Review 557, footnote 248.