Florida Court Says Foreclosure Law Firms Can’t Charge for Serving “Unknowns”

Florida Court Says Foreclosure Law Firms Can't Charge for Serving "Unknowns"

A recent decision by a Florida court has changed how foreclosure law firms can bill for serving defendants labeled as “unknowns,” such as the unknown spouse of a homeowner or an unknown tenant living on the property.

The case challenges a common practice in Florida where foreclosure firms add charges for separate summonses issued to “John Doe,” “Jane Doe,” or any unknown person who might have an interest in the home.

Fleysher Law Bankruptcy & Debt Attorneys helps homeowners understand how foreclosure paperwork, fees, and court decisions can affect their case. If you’re facing a lawsuit from your lender or bank, you need to know your rights, especially when firms try to collect payment for unnecessary or excessive legal actions. This ruling may reduce how much homeowners owe in court costs and could set the stage for more transparency and fairness in Florida’s foreclosure system.

Background of the Case — What Prompted the Legal Dispute?

The issue came to light after a Palm Beach County judge reviewed a foreclosure lawsuit where a law firm charged for multiple summonses served to “unknown parties,” including an unknown tenant and unknown spouse.

The firm attempted to collect payment from the borrower for serving each of these defendants, even though no evidence showed these people actually existed. The judge questioned whether this practice had a proper legal basis under state law and if it unfairly inflated foreclosure costs.

Overview of Foreclosure Filing Requirements in Florida

In Florida, a lender must serve foreclosure paperwork to anyone who might have a claim to the property. This includes not only the borrower, but also junior lienholders, mortgage lenders, or others with a security interest.

The documents include the complaint, summons, and other necessary paperwork. But some firms go further and serve additional summonses to hypothetical parties to “ensure clear title.”

Role of “Unknown Parties” in Foreclosure Cases

These “unknowns” are added to protect the plaintiff from future claims by someone who wasn’t part of the original suit. While this is meant to reduce legal risk, some law firms have turned it into a way to bill for extra forms, documents, and services that may not be needed in every case.

Who Are the “Unknowns” in Foreclosure?

Who Are the “Unknowns” in Foreclosure?

“Unknown parties” typically include names like “John and Jane Doe,” “unknown spouse,” or “unknown tenant.” These placeholders are used in a lawsuit when the plaintiff is unsure whether any other person has a legal claim to the property being foreclosed.

Why Law Firms Often Include Them in Foreclosure Lawsuits

It’s become a common practice to include unknown parties in a foreclosure lawsuit to avoid delays if someone later claims interest in the property. By serving them up front, banks and law firms aim to ensure clear title after the sale.

Standard Process for Serving Unknown Defendants

Firms often use separate summonses and sometimes post the documents publicly or use process servers. But these steps cost money. Until now, courts rarely questioned if this method was being abused or if it complied with the Florida Consumer Collection Practices and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The Florida Court’s Ruling

Summary of the Court’s Decision

The circuit judge ruled that foreclosure firms cannot charge homeowners for serving summonses to parties that don’t exist. Specifically, the court found no justification under state law for charging separate fees to serve fictitious names like “Jane Doe” or “unknown tenant” when there’s no actual evidence of another occupant.

Key Legal Reasoning Behind the Ruling

The judge cited the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act as part of the reasoning. The court stated that billing homeowners for additional summonses without a legal need is misleading and may qualify as foreclosure fraud. It also raised concerns about inflated legal bills and unfair practices by firms seeking to collect payment from already struggling homeowners.

What the Court Considered Excessive or Improper

What drew the court’s focus was the blanket use of summonses without checking if there was an unknown tenant, unknown spouse, or any other person at the property. In some cases, these charges were hundreds of dollars for forms that never reached a real entity or individual. The court found this both excessive and lacking a clear legal basis.

Impact on Foreclosure Law Firms

1. Change in Billing Practices

After the ruling, foreclosure law firms across Florida may need to revise their billing procedures. Charging for separate summonses will now require clear proof that the summons was necessary and tied to a real party with a valid interest in the property.

2. Limits on Recoverable Legal Fees

Firms will no longer be able to pass all legal costs onto the borrower, especially when those costs are tied to unnecessary or improper actions. This ruling may limit how much attorneys can recover in fees, especially in default cases where there’s no challenge to the mortgage.

3. Ethical and Procedural Implications

The decision raises ethical concerns and may push law firms to adopt stricter compliance procedures. The court implied that failure to change may lead to claims of fraud, violations of state law, or even complaints filed with the Attorney General’s Office.

What This Means for Homeowners Facing Foreclosure

What This Means for Homeowners Facing Foreclosure
  • Reduction in Legal Costs Added to Foreclosure Judgments: Homeowners may now see fewer charges on their final judgment, especially if the court strikes fees related to summonses served on “unknowns.” This could reduce what’s owed at sale or in a short sale scenario.
  • Greater Transparency in Fee Structures: The ruling pushes for clearer billing. Homeowners will be better able to see exactly what forms, documents, or services they are being charged for. This may also reduce surprise legal fees in foreclosure actions.
  • How to Challenge Improper Legal Fees: If you believe you were charged for unnecessary summonses, documents, or foreclosure paperwork, you may be able to challenge those costs. A foreclosure defense attorney can review your paperwork and look for signs of foreclosure fraud or violations of Florida Consumer Collection Practices law.

Reactions From Legal and Consumer Advocacy Groups

Several foreclosure defense attorneys praised the decision. They called it a step toward protecting homeowners from predatory billing. Many said that for years, law firms added fees without proper justification, making it harder for people to settle or save their homes.

On the other hand, some law firms argue the ruling limits their ability to protect their clients’ security interest in the property. They claim that naming unknown parties has long been accepted as a safeguard, and worry this may increase risks after foreclosure sales.

The ruling may face an appeal or result in further clarification from higher courts. Some experts believe it could lead to new case law or even action by the state legislature to more clearly define who can be named, served, and billed during foreclosure cases.

Broader Implications for Florida Foreclosure Law

Encouraging Fair Billing Practices: The case encourages law firms to charge fairly and avoid tacking on legal fees without a solid legal basis. This may influence how all forms and documents are used in future foreclosure cases.

Setting a Precedent for Other States: Though this decision is specific to Florida, it may influence how other courts address similar billing practices in foreclosure actions. States with similar consumer protection laws could follow this example.

Could Lead to Legislative Reforms: The outcome could spark new rules from lawmakers. There may be efforts to amend the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, clarifying limits on who can be served and how much firms can charge for doing so.

FAQs

Yes. If you fall behind on your mortgage loan, the lender has the right to sue you to recover the money owed. Once that happens, the firm handling the case will file a lawsuit in court and serve a notice to begin the foreclosure process. This is why it’s important to respond quickly, even if you just received your first late notice within the last week.

A promissory note is the legal document you signed when you took out your mortgage loan, promising to pay back the lender. It is different from the mortgage itself, but both are required for the bank to foreclose. Without a valid promissory note, the lender might not have a strong case to take your home.

Yes. A foreclosure will damage your credit and stay on your credit report for several years. It may lower your credit score significantly and make it harder to buy another home or apply for new credit cards or loans.

In Florida, you usually have 20 calendar days from the date the notice is served to respond to a foreclosure complaint. That’s less than three weeks, so it’s important to speak with an attorney right away to protect your rights.

Yes. Even if the foreclosure process has started, you are still responsible to pay your mortgage loan until the home is sold or the court finalizes the case. In some cases, you may still owe money after the sale, especially if the home sells for less than what you owe on the promissory note.

Call Our Florida Bankruptcy Lawyer for a Free Case Consultation

Call Our Florida Bankruptcy Lawyer for a Free Case Consultation

If you’re dealing with foreclosure and feel overwhelmed by legal fees, court papers, or unfamiliar names on your documents, you’re not alone. Many homeowners don’t realize they can challenge unfair charges or question what’s in their foreclosure paperwork. That’s where we come in.

Fleysher Law Bankruptcy & Debt Attorneys helps people understand their rights and fight back against improper billing and unfair court actions. Our legal team reviews your summonses, forms, documents, and all fees added to your case. We look for errors, inflated costs, or anything that violates the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act or the Florida Consumer Collection Practices rules.

If there’s a way to lower what you owe, or stop the process entirely, we’ll find it. Call us today for a free consultation with a Florida attorney who puts your rights first and works to protect your home and your future.

Borrowers in South Florida could get mortgage loan reductions

Nearly 1,500 South Florida borrowers may be eligible for reductions of their outstanding mortgage loan balances under a federal program announced in April. The intention of the program is to help “underwater” and severely delinquent borrowers. That is delinquents whose loans are owned or guaranteed by mortgage companies Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.

Who Qualifies?

The Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie and Freddie, said more than 30,000 borrowers coast-to-coast could qualify. Florida has 6,260 possibly eligible borrowers; leading number of any state, according to FHFA. The tri-county region of Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade counties has 1,487 homeowners who could qualify, fourth-most among metro areas after New York (4,164), Philadelphia (2,436), and Chicago (2,311).

To be suitable for the program, a borrower must reside in the home. And, they must be 90 or more days past-due as of March 1, 2016. And, they must have an unpaid balance of $250,000 or less. For a thorough list of eligibility requirements or for more information, visit FHFA.gov or send an email to PRM@FHFA.gov.

How Much Can You Save Off?

Representatives for the program could not specify how much buyers could expect to save off of their principal. The amount depends on the value of their property. And, the area of the country. “The national housing market has significantly improved in recent years, but there are still areas of the country where home values have not recovered and [underwater mortgages remain] a real problem,” FHFA Director Melvin L. Watt said in April.

Watt also stated that the plan “will no doubt be viewed by some as too small and too late and viewed by others as too large and unnecessary.“ Still, he said the program is warranted. This is because it will help proprietors avoid foreclosure. Additionally, it will not have a negative financial impact on Fannie and Freddie.

“There is still a significant number of folks who are saying, ‘I owe $450,000, my house is worth $400,000, why am I still making the payments?'” said Ken Johnson, an economist and real estate professor at Florida Atlantic University. “This program is a very good thing, even if it hits only a fraction of the market.” FHFA said distinct mortgage companies should be reaching out to possibly eligible borrowers for a so-called Streamlined Modification.

Therefore, that will momentarily stop any foreclosure proceedings. And, it will allow borrowers who think they may qualify for a principal reduction to start making reduced monthly payments. However, accepting the modification doesn’t guarantee a homeowner will get a mortgage principal reduction, FHFA said. In fact, lenders are projected to make all principal reduction offers by Dec. 31. Homeowners who think they are eligible should contact their mortgage companies directly, FHFA said.

Contact Us Today

If you have questions about Foreclosure, Loan Modification, Bankruptcy, Short Sale, or other alternatives, please feel free to call my office at 888-886-0020, send an e-mail to emil@fleysherlaw.com, or complete the contact form below.

Foreclosure turned over Paragraph 22 of the Mortgage

In this Third District Court of Appeals case, the bank tried to foreclose the homeowner’s mortgage at summary judgment; it entails that there be no questions of material fact. And, the bank should have permission to a foreclosure judgment as a matter of law – a stage before trial. Read more to find out how this connects to paragraph 22.

What Happened?

The homeowner also filed for summary judgment; in dispute that the bank did not fulfill paragraph 22 of the mortgage. This paragraph involves the bank notifying the homeowner of the default and certain rights and defenses the proprietor may have. The bank filed two separate affidavits proving that the paragraph 22 notice of default was mailed and significantly complied with the requirements of this paragraph of the mortgage.

The trial court judge ruled that the bank’s notice of default failed to comply with paragraph 22 of the mortgage; decided that the bank’s affidavits attesting to the mailing of paragraph 22 notice of default was hearsay. Then, denied the bank’s motion for summary judgment, approved the homeowner’s motion for summary judgment, entered a final money judgment for the bank, not a foreclosure judgment, for the amount claimed due on the mortgage (which the bank had not sought for or requested) and canceled the promissory note. The bank appealed.

Overturning of Rulings Because of Paragraph 22

The appellate court overturned all rulings above; specifically holding that the bank’s notice of default did significantly comply with paragraph 22 of the mortgage. And, the appellate court cited multiple new cases in support of that finding.

Notably, the appellate court determined that the bank’s notice of default was not hearsay. This is because its presentation was in the form of a verbal act going to show that the notice of default was known and complied with paragraph 22 of the mortgage; not to prove the truth of what was declared in the notice of default.  This is a seemingly stronger argument banks may make to have notices of default entered in future cases. This is because most banks depend on the business records exception to hearsay (meaning the notice of default is technically hearsay, but there is a reason that it should have an allowance); while the verbal act argument deems the notice of default not even hearsay.

If you have questions about Foreclosure, Loan Modification, Bankruptcy, Short Sale, or other alternatives, please feel free to call my office at 888-886-0020, send an e-mail to emil@fleysherlaw.com, or complete the contact form below.

Loan Servicer Failed to Verify Records from its Predecessors

Defense lawyer Bruce Jacobs claimed that beyond matching columns and fields and using a checklist to confirm receipt of key documents, the servicer did not verify details in the files. Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Beatrice Butchko vetoed Ocwen Financial Corp.’s banking records. And, she left out its testimony. This was after discovering the loan servicer failed to verify its predecessor’s records in a foreclosure case. Butchko allowed an involuntary dismissal in HSBC Bank USA’s suit against Miami homeowner Joseph Buset. His loan was initially serviced by Litton Loan Servicing LP, which Ocwen acquired in 2011.

The case hinged on whether the judge would allow the testimony about the servicing document transfer; which Ocwen calls its boarding process. Or, discount the financial documents as insufficient to meet the criteria for business records exempt from the hearsay rule. “This boarding process is a legal fiction, and it means something different to every entity,” Butchko ruled from the bench during a March 17 hearing. Ocwen bought Litton in a $264 million cash deal with Goldman Sachs Group Inc. that gave it servicing rights to Buset’s debt.

Employee to Testify against Loan Servicer

Butchko had to select how to treat loan documents that became part of Ocwen’s business records. But, they remained subject to hearsay objections. This is unless the company could show it independently confirmed the data after transferring the loans. She considered evidence on Ocwen’s boarding process. This is the procedure by which financial services companies transfer account data. The data gets transferred from one lenders’ management system to another once trading loan portfolios. Witnesses for lenders in foreclosure cases must show they did independent fact-checking. They must do this in order to qualify their files as business records and not hearsay. To achieve this, HSBC called an employee to testify. It was four-year Ocwen employee Sherry Keeley who testified about the servicer’s business loan boarding practices and procedures.

Keeley testified Ocwen ties dozens of points as part of a data mapping process to ensure accuracy. “Our starting point is identical to their ending point in regards to whether it’s payments or taxes, insurance, any financial information, late charges, fees,” she said. “Their ending figures are identical to our beginning.”

$1,900 Discrepancy

But Buset’s attorney, Miami foreclosure defense lawyer Bruce Jacobs, seized on a $1,900 discrepancy in two versions of the default letter; to argue that beyond similar columns and fields and using a checklist to ensure receipt of key documents, the servicer failed to verify details in the files.

“I have done this investigation for a long time,” he said, noting, “The appellate courts are going under this presumption that there is some type of meaningful auditing and verification.” But Jacobs maintained, “You just heard it from a lawyer who knows how to properly phrase the questions that she’s basically testifying to all — all of this is still hearsay.” Butchko was left weighing how to treat Ocwen’s post-acquisition files.

“This is a little different in that Litton was acquired by Ocwen, and so there isn’t a Litton employee that can come here and testify other than the ones they have working there because it’s all one company now,” she stated. “Let’s say that Ocwen was the only servicer ever. They would come in here, and they wouldn’t have to testify that their documents were checked for accuracy because it’s presumed that a business would keep accurate records, right?”

Sarah Stemer of Brock & Scott in Fort Lauderdale

Jacobs accepted the point. “Now that these companies are one and Ocwen has to continue to function with the prior servicer documents and they are one company, why should I require more from them?” the judge asked. Jacobs contended the bank witness failed to overcome the hearsay objection. But lender attorney Sarah Stemer of Brock & Scott in Fort Lauderdale argued; the bank offered a qualified witness with first-hand knowledge of the boarding process to testify about its verification procedures.

“They have the full payment history,” Stemer claimed. “It’s not like they are just scanning it in and calling it a day.” But Butchko disagreed. “No, but that is what she said,” the judge responded. “That they are scanning it in and calling it a day.” The judge omitted the prior servicer’s records. “Honestly, what I’ve heard here today is not what I imagined the boarding process is,” Butchko said. “Basically, adjusting the names of the categories of the documents so taxes and insurance from one agency become escrow funds in another. So that’s not checking for accuracy. That’s making sure that the columns match. There’s no mathematical calculation to make sure that the math is right unless there’s a contest.”

If you have questions about Foreclosure, Loan Modification, Bankruptcy, Short Sale, or other alternatives, please feel free to call my office at 888-886-0020. Or, you can send an e-mail to emil@fleysherlaw.com, or complete the contact form below.

HOA Foreclosure Sale Should Not Have Happened

The Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled against a Wellington homeowner association (HOA). The HOA barreled through a foreclosure sale despite the homeowner’s bankruptcy filing — and then failed to show up in court for the appeal. Scribner Village Homeowners Association Inc. won a final judgment of foreclosure against Marie Alexandre on a lien for unpaid assessments. The judgment set the property for sale, but Alexandre filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and notified the state court.

That move should have initiated the automatic stay. And, it should have delayed the foreclosure proceedings until the federal court resolved the bankruptcy —but it didn’t. “Despite appellant’s filing, the sale proceeded and the clerk of court issued a certificate of sale to HOA as the highest bidder as well as a certificate of title,” District Judge Dorian Damoorgian wrote in a unanimous decision Wednesday with Judges Melanie May and Jonathan Gerber concurring.

Sale Should Not Have Happened

Public records show the association paid $19,100 for the five-bedroom house in February 2015. Alexandre bought the house for $460,000 about 10 years earlier in April 2005. The HOA then filed for a writ of possession; prompting Alexandre to ask Palm Beach Circuit Court to deny the request and set aside the final foreclosure judgment and certificate of title. The state court rejected her request and ruled in the association’s favor, but the appeals court disagreed.

“The sale should not have proceeded until the stay was lifted,” Damoorgian wrote. “The trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to set aside the sale and everything that flowed from it.” Scribner Village appeared to have dropped out of the litigation, making no appearance on appeal. “The court got it right,” Alexandre’s attorney, James Jean-Francois of Hollywood, told the Daily Business Review. “It’s time to stand up to the associations because they’re bullying homeowners and not following the law. A lot of HOAs are getting all types of judgments without following the correct protocol.”

If you have questions about Foreclosure, Loan Modification, Bankruptcy, Short Sale, or other alternatives, please feel free to call my office at 888-886-0020, send an e-mail to emil@fleysherlaw.com, or complete the contact form below.

Association Hits Hurdle in Foreclosure

The trial court has a deficiency subject of matter jurisdiction to hear the Homeowners Association foreclosure action where a bank or superior lien has already recorded a notice of lis pendens.

In this Broward County case, a bank recorded a lis pendens and filed a foreclosure action against a borrower. Furthermore, they claimed the homeowners association as having a possible interest in the property.  While the bank’s lawsuit was pending, the association filed its own foreclosure lawsuit against the borrower in a different court. And, they received a final judgment of foreclosure. The borrower then attempted to have the association’s final judgment vacated. However, the trial court shut down that motion, and the borrower appealed that ruling.

The Fourth District Court of Appeals sided with the association’s final judgment; which was obtained after the bank’s foreclosure action was filed and lis pendens recorded, was void because the trial court that granted the final judgment to the homeowners association lacked jurisdiction to hear the association’s case.  The association’s only avenue to attain their past due assessments would be through the bank’s still pending foreclosure action.

This ruling is potentially very significant in affecting the rights of associations and junior lienholders. As well as investors whose business strategy is to purchase homes at the association or junior lienholder foreclosure sales.

If you have questions about Foreclosure, Loan Modification, Bankruptcy, Short Sale, or other alternatives, please feel free to call my office at 888-886-0020. Or, send an e-mail to emil@fleysherlaw.com, or complete the contact form below.

Condominium Reprimanded in Foreclosure

A North Miami condominium association got sharp scorn from the Third District Court of Appeal. They may penalize it for a lawsuit the panel called a “waste of time.”
Furthermore, Biscayne Point Condominium Association must show why it shouldn’t receive sanctions in its litigation with HSBC Bank USA N.A. over a condo unit the bank state the group illegally controls.

In fact, their quarrel centers on whether Biscayne Point gave suitable notice to the correct lienholder. That is if they did this prior to foreclosing on homeowner Michael Leavitt for unpaid condo assessments. For its part, the appeals court wants to distinguish if attorneys for both sides attempted to resolve the problem; before extending their fight. Moreover, in a mandate issued Feb. 24, it provided the bank with 30 days to file a memorandum; demonstrating whether it communicated with the association to reach a concession of error before filing the appeal.

Biscayne Point won a default judgment silencing title in January 2012 after HSBC didn’t secure the foreclosure suit. It secured a certificate of title nearly a month later after coming as the winning bidder in a foreclosure sale. Public records show the association paid $10,400 for the one-bedroom unit at 12105 NE 11th Place. Biscayne Point’s suit named HSBC Bank USA N.A., but the bank stated a related company, HSBC Trustee, held the mortgage. Years of litigation trailed.

Naming the Wrong Defendant?

At trial, the bank insisted the suit named the wrong defendant. And they argued the association improperly served court papers on a bank branch employee. The bank insisted HSBC Trustee, not HSBC Bank, held the purchase-money mortgage on Leavitt’s $107,920 promissory note, which was sold twice. And, it was eventually transferred to the company in 2009. Nearly a year after Biscayne Point got the title, the bank filed for foreclosure in 2013; naming Leavitt and the condo association as defendants. HSBC sought to vacate orders in the association’s favor. They wanted to do this by challenging Biscayne Point’s service and claiming the group misidentified the debtor.

Biscayne Point responded with a motion to dismiss, arguing the judgment quieting title extinguished the bank’s interest in the debt. The association acknowledged in its pleadings that its lien for unpaid assessments was junior to HSBC’s. However, they argued the certificate of title obtained through foreclosure was superior to the bank’s unsatisfied mortgage. Its lawyers also condemned the bank’s misidentification argument.

“HSBC Bank is HSBC Bank,” attorney Maria Garcia Larrabure, who teamed with Gustavo Gutierrez of Torres & Vadillo in Miami, contended at a 2014 hearing before Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Jorge Cueto. He denied the bank’s motion to vacate the judgment quieting title, finding the association appropriately served HSBC. HSBC Bank contoured with representation from Elliot Kula and Aaron Daniel of Kula & Associates in Miami.

The End Result

But Biscayne Point seemed to give up on the litigation, failing to appear through counsel or file an answer. The condominium association also failed to answer to appellate court orders to file a brief and a memorandum of points and authorities to back its position. “The end result of the frivolous legal proceedings below and here is a waste of time and judicial resources,” Third DCA Judge Vance Salter wrote in a unanimous conclusion with Judges Ivan Fernandez and Thomas Logue agreeing. On the court’s own motion, the panel ordered Biscayne Point to show why the association shouldn’t pay for the bank’s attorney fees.

If you have questions about Foreclosure, Loan Modification, Bankruptcy, Short Sale, or other alternatives, please feel free to call my office at 888-886-0020. Or, send an e-mail to emil@fleysherlaw.com, or complete the contact form below.

Civil Procedure – Orders of Dismissal contrasted with Final Judgments and Decrees

Terminology caused the bank to lose its case.

In this Third District Court of Appeals case, the bank’s foreclosure lawsuit against the borrower was set for trial. The bank never received notice of the trial. So, order of the court dismissed the bank’s foreclosure action. This happened when the bank did not appear for the trial. More than two years later, the bank filed a motion to set aside the court’s dismissal of its foreclosure lawsuit. And, it was granted. And, the bank then obtained a final judgment of foreclosure against the borrower.

The borrower then filed a motion to vacate the court’s order setting aside the dismissal of the plaintiff’s foreclosure lawsuit and all orders entered thereafter. The trial court denied that motion, encouraging this appeal.

Borrower’s Dispute

The appellate court agreed with the borrower’s dispute because of several reasons. Firstly, upon the dismissal of the action, which is a final order, the trial court was without authority to vacate the initial dismissal order more than two years later. Secondly, an order of dismissal is not a final judgment or decree under Rule 1.540(b)(4) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Lastly, because the order of dismissal was not a final judgment; the bank must have moved to set aside the order of dismissal within a year of its entry, not more than two years later.

So in conclusion, because of the terminology of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, an “order”, no matter if it is a final appealable order, is not a “judgment.” Thus, it cannot be argued more than a year after entry of the order. Because of this, the plaintiff’s foreclosure lawsuit must be dismissed as initially ordered.

De La Osa v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Third District Court of Appeals

Opinion issued February 10, 2016 (3D14-1455)

41 Fla. L. Weekly D382b

2016 WL 517466

If you have questions about Foreclosure, Loan Modification, Bankruptcy, Short Sale, or other alternatives, please feel free to call my office at 888-886-0020. Or, send an e-mail to emil@fleysherlaw.com, or complete the contact form below.

It Takes Two for the Foreclosure to be Through

Abusing the voluntary dismissal one too many times cost the foreclosure case for the lender who acquired the loan that had been previously sold at least twice.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal took into consideration the number of times there was a connection between the loan and a voluntary dismissal rather than the number of dismissals per plaintiff to overturn the foreclosure, leaving the homeowner attorneys to celebrate. The appellate invoked the two-dismissal rule under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(a)(1). They allow one voluntarily dismissal but not two.

The initial foreclosure came from Flagstar. They dismissed the suit and sold it to DKR Mortgage who began filing for foreclosure but later dismissed it. Finally, MIA Real Holdings bought the loan and started its own foreclosure but then voluntarily dismissed the suit. The defendant’s attorney argued that the same note got dismissal twice in prior cases. However, Palm Beach Circuit Judge Catherine Brunson ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant’s attorney challenged that decision and won. Fourth DCA Judge Robert Gross wrote in a unanimous decision with Judges Martha Warner and Spencer Levine concurring.

If you have questions about Foreclosure, Loan Modification, Bankruptcy, Short Sale, or other alternatives, please feel free to call my office at 888-886-0020. Or, send an e-mail to emil@fleysherlaw.com, or complete the contact form below.

Foreclosed homes to be rehabilitated for new buyers in South Florida

The housing organization in South Florida gets the opportunity to purchase over 2,000 homes in foreclosure. It could ultimately end up with individual homebuyers. The Federal Housing Finance Agency stated it is broadening its Neighborhood Stabilization Initiation Program to South Florida. And, 17 other metro areas across the nation.

How does Neighborhood Stabilization Initiation Program work?

Since the beginning of December, housing groups got the opportunity to purchase properties valued at $175,000 or less. This is before making them available to the general public. Such groups can then renovate, rent and or resell them to such individuals who meet the income qualifications. Some properties will be torn down alltogether and rebuilt.

Mortgage companies Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. own the properties under foreclosure. The FHFA oversees them all. The program started last year in Detroit and later in the Chicago area. Rob Grossinger, the president of the National Community Stabilization Trust, nonprofit partners with Freddie, Fannie, and community housing groups nationwide, stated that the homes will play a big role for first-time buyers. That is, for those who have been struggling to get in the housing market. The program’s design, however, is not for buyers in higher price rangers; where there continues to be a shortage of listings.

If you have questions about Foreclosure, Loan Modification, Bankruptcy, Short Sale, or other alternatives, please feel free to call my office at 888-886-0020. Or, send an e-mail to emil@fleysherlaw.com, or complete the contact form below.