BREAKING NEWS! Your input needed as we craft the Florida Rules of Rocket Docket Procedure.

Comment

Comment by James M on July 26, 2011 at 6:35pm

* At a summary judgement hearing all facts alleged by the moving party, if that party is the Plaintiff, are assumed to be true and taken in the best light for the Plaintiff.

* Affidavits of bank staff are considered unassailable because the affient is not available for cross examination.

* Original notes do not have to be on file 20 days before the hearing to protect the privacy of innocent non-parties who may have added an endorsement at the Plaintiff's request.
   
* Affidavits about summary's of extractions of hearsay records are admissible evidence, even though none of the original transaction records or the summary is attached.

* Authentication of evidence is not necessary if the Plaintiffs counsel, an officer of the court, says it is good to the best of his absent client's ability.

* Summary Judgement hearings now allow the introduction of evidence not in the record, so long as it is somewhat similar to something the moving party has served, or in good faith intended to serve before the hearing.

* Plaintiff counsel shall not be held responsible or sanctioned for presenting misleading or fabricated evidence if the counsel only prepared the documents and it was the client, or clients agent, who executed them.

*  Actions filed and judgements made in the wrong name, or the name of a non-existent entity, may be cured by later bringing a motion to substitute party, or by creditor writing a nice letter to the clerk asking them to make the sale proceeds check out to the servicer-trustee.

* A response to discovery is considered sufficient if there is a response to each and every one of the numbered items, either by an answer, or in the form of the standard objections approved by the objecting counsel. 

* The court may, and should, limit a motion to compel discovery to the allegations defending party can prove are materially true at the hearing on a motion to compel.

* Motions to compel on discovery matters are not necessary if the matter does not go to support the issues before the court: Defendant signed a note and mortgage, failed to make payments and therefore foreclosure is granted.

*  Clerks and Judicial Assistants may decide ministerial matters like preparing and granting summary judgements, but should use the judges rubber stamp when rendering them if the judge is not in that day.

* During a summary judgement hearing, by written or oral motion, the sufficiency of affirmative defenses can be overcome by affirmation of counsel for the moving party as to their total lack of merit, based on counsels foreclosure experience.
- The burden then shifts to the non-moving party to prove the affirmative defenses. Defending counsel is allowed the remaining time on the noticed hearing to prove their case before summary judgement is granted.

* Affirmative defenses the judge has seen before in other cases, and previously ruled against, may be disregarded as it is settled law since that class of affirmative defense does not work in this court.

* Summary Judgement hearings in foreclosure cases allow Plaintiffs counsel to make new argument of law, or theory of standing, not previously made in the motion: Providing it is somewhat similar to an argument counsel has made in other cases before the court.

* Arguments made by Plaintiffs counsel in prior hearings before the same judge are settled law in that circuit, even if that argument prevailed in an unopposed hearing.

Comment by James M on July 26, 2011 at 6:35pm

* The court will strike and disregard any salacious ad hominem attacks on the integrity of an affient, for example calling them derogatory names like "Robo-signers" or "Officers in name only", and may sanction the client by striking affirmative defenses and referring counsel to the bar for discipline under the rules of professional conduct.

* Any court officer of the court caught looking at a pro-se litigant while they are arguing their case must put $5 into the jar that funds the Friday night judge and plaintiff dinner.  This rule may be waved if the officer of the court manages a look of complete incredulity, as judged by the bailiff.

* Side bets by bailiffs are considered void if bailiff sent the litigant to the wrong floor or wing of the court house.

Comment by hm on January 19, 2011 at 2:34pm

1. The first step is to send a late notice payment charging you $30.00 becuase your payment was received late. If you think damn I made the payment on time but don't question it then you are on the short list as someone who doesn't keep track of the payments

 

Comment by VIRGINIA on November 21, 2010 at 5:21pm

Not every District elects judges - in Hawaii they are appointed and said to play golf and cards with the banks... so it depends upon the state. Maybe they should recuse themselves if they have or have had any social activities with the lenders involved. Or have the Feds appoint specially vetted judges on this subject.

Comment by Randye on November 21, 2010 at 3:50pm

FACT: Over 90+% of foreclosure actions are uncontested

In cases where a foreclosure action IS contested, those cases MUST be removed from any "senior judge" and remanded back to a properly ELECTED judge in a regular court and set for hearing.

Comment by L on October 14, 2010 at 12:53pm

From an attorney friend in Florida:

1) In re: Amendments to Rules Regulating the Florida Bar 1-3.1(a) and Rules of Judicial Administration 2.065 (Legal Aid), 630 So.2d 501(Fla. 1994):

“Justice is not truly justice if only the rich can afford counsel and gain access to the courts.” Id. at 502.



The entire focus of this action has been to address the legal needs of the poor. That objective is distinguishable from other types of uncompensated public service activities of the legal profession. Clearly, this Court has the constitutional responsibility to ensure access to the justice system. Although other public service by the legal profession is important, no authority exists for this Court to address, through the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, uncompensated public service activities not directly related to services for the courts and the legal needs of the poor. As such, we find that the proposed rules should be modified to eliminate any reference to services not related to the legal needs of the poor. Additionally, we find that the rules should clearly indicate that their purpose is to establish aspirational goals and to motivate the legal profession to provide necessary legal services to the poor. To accomplish these purposes, we find that the definition of legal services to the poor should be narrow, expressing simply that Florida lawyers should strive to render (1) pro bono legal services to the poor or (2) to the extent possible, other pro bono service activities that directly relate to the legal needs of the poor. It is also our intention that the definition include legal services not only to indigent individuals but also to the “working poor.” The rules have been modified accordingly. Id. at 503. (emphasis in original italics- emphasis added in bold letters)

Comment by VIRGINIA on September 20, 2010 at 3:02pm

I think we said the same thing - just start hounding the legislators in both the State and Federal offices.

Comment by Grady on September 20, 2010 at 7:45am

@Virginia,
Did I say not to contact legislators? No I did not. Please do not misrepresent what I said. I simply pointed out the reality of the situation. Another reality is this. Anyone that thinks that the majority of our elected officials and Judges serve the people, rather than their true masters, is extremely naive.

Change will come when the people take to the streets in mass. When we protest in mass in front of our Courts. When we name names and distribute examples of the fraudulent documents in front of those very Courts that ignore and even assist in perpetrating this fraud.

Look to history. Did the civil rights movement get results from "contacting legislators" or from mass protests, sit-ins, etc.? How about a woman's right to vote?

The reality is, we all need to get off our butts and get out in the streets. That is how we will plant the real seeds for real change and bring justice back into our Courts.

Comment by VIRGINIA on September 20, 2010 at 7:27am

If that were totally true Bernie Madoff wouldn't be in jail. While I agree too much bank money is spent on lobbying, there is something fundamentally wrong with lumping all of the politicians together and refusing to call it to their attention because you think they all drink from the same cup. Ask them to refuse financial lobbysts funds this year. You know, it took an entire generation to stop Viet Nam. Its going to take that much will power and more to stop Wall Street... but it can be done - and they are collapsing one by one...

Comment by Grady on September 20, 2010 at 6:12am

The banks and their lobbyists own the politicians. They are in office at their will, and to do their bidding. Laws are of little effect if the Judges do not follow them. In many Courtrooms today, Judges and the fraudsters from the mills are ignoring the law, and in some cases breaking it, without consequence.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page