Tuesday, February 14, 2017, 11:39 PM
Posted by Administrator
Today, I went to a foreclosure hearing. Mine was number 68 out of, maybe, 100...so, I got to sit for a while and listen. At first, it was pretty dull. A Plaintiff lawyer would walk up to the podium and tell the judge what the previous Plaintiff's lawyer had told him...defaults were entered, give me a sale date 30 days from now, "thank your honor" (I think tradition is that you merge the you from "Thank you" and the your from "your honor" and say only the one word instead of both). The judge would then sign the Judgment of foreclosure, the sale date would be set and another house was destined for the auction market.

After a half hour, two lawyers got up and one of them said it was going to be a contested hearing. The Defendant's lawyer (a middle aged, tall, long-gray haired man with a little more than a goatee for a beard and a little bit of a paunch) went first. He said that the Plaintiff (the people or bank or investors who owned the mortgage on his client's house) shouldn't be able to get a judgment of foreclosure because they hadn't sent a letter to his client (the home owner) accelerating the note...that is, declaring the whole amount he/she owed to be due right then because he/she had defaulted in making payments. The terms of the Note, the lawyer said, required the letter, and without the letter, his guy didn't owe all that money and the Plaintiff should lose.

The Plaintiff's lawyer (a young brunette female who wore glasses) said "No." the gray haired guy was wrong. She said that in order to complain about the lack of the letter and deprive her of an automatic win, the Defendant had to have asserted an affirmative defense and said, specifically, what condition (the acceleration letter) the Plaintiff didn't perform before filing the lawsuit. She said (and I believe her) that she had a copy, with her, of a Florida Supreme Court case that said exactly what she was saying....that the Defendant had no right to complain because she was entitled to know he was claiming this defense way back in the beginning of the case. This, to her, was GOLD. A case from the highest court in Florida that said, in effect: "You, young woman are right and the old guy with more than a goatee was wrong and you will win your foreclosure case here and now because the Defendant didn't do what he was required to do."

This, to me, seemed like an obvious win for the Plaintiff. The gray haired Defense lawyer seemed to concede she was right. He had no more argument left in him after she was done with hers.

And then, the Judge said to the Defense lawyer "Do you have an Order?" By which, the judge meant that since lawyers are supposed to bring a proposed Order for the judge to sign if their position prevailed (they won)...where was his? He said he didn't have one (After all....why would he prepare a proposed order..... WHEN HE KNEW HE WAS GOING TO LOSE). Then, the judge said "Well, we need to set this for trial." Which meant the gray haired lawyer had won.

But........how did he win....why was the Plaintiff's lawyer now sitting in the back of the courtroom unable to comprehend that she lost an obvious win? The Florida Supreme Court said she would win....and the judge didn't even have a look at its ruling. So, is the judge just an idiot?

The judge didn't even ask to see the case. So, it would be easy to say "Yes, he is an idiot." But, that would be unfair......it also could be he just likes old men lawyers better than young woman lawyers. And, it could be that the judge had a history with this woman and knew that she was frequently full of crap (but, then he might have asked to see the case).

I dunno.
add comment ( 1 view )   |  0 trackbacks   |   ( 2.9 / 198 )

<Back | 1 | Next> >>