SUMMARY JUDGMENT SOUGHT BY NEW YORK COMMUNITY BANK DENIED

March 17, 2015

The Palm Beach County, Florida Circuit Court has denied a Motion for Summary Judgment in a foreclosure filed by New York Community Bank. The homeowner is represented by Jeff Barnes, Esq. who prepared the formal response to the MSJ and argued the matter in court.

The case involves two separate alleged “allonges” on separate sheets of paper, which NYCB attempted to equate to “endorsements” by calling them “endorsement allonges”. There is no endorsement on the Note itself, and there are no dates on the “allonge” documents. Florida case law has specific requirements for an allonge to be effective, which requirements were not demonstrated by NYCB.

NYCB also took the position that one of the stamps on one of the “allonge” papers “was not a true endorsement” with reference to an argument that AmTrust Bank remained in possession of the original Note, which NYCB claimed to have inherited as a result of a purchase of assets from the FDIC as receiver for the failed AmTrust (which allegedly acquired the Note from Ohio Savings Bank which allegedly acquired the Note from the original lender). However, NYCB produced no evidence that the specific loan the subject of the case was purchased, with the Schedule of Certain Assets Purchased being blank.

The “Affidavits” filed by NYCB contained no personal knowledge as to the alleged transfers of the Note from the original lender (First Florida Mortgage Network, Inc.) to either Ohio Savings Bank, or AmTrust, or the FDIC, or the Federal Home Loan Bank of Cincinnati (which name appeared on one of the “allonge” documents).

Florida law provides that if there are issues as to an undated stamp which are timely and properly raised, the homeowner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the issues and under these circumstances summary judgment is improper and will be reversed on appeal.

Jeff Barnes, Esq., www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com

“DEFAULT” FORECLOSURE JUDGMENT VACATED ON LACK OF EVIDENCE OF PROPER SERVICE ON FOREIGN NATIONAL

March 10, 2015

A “default” judgment of foreclosure was vacated today by a Seminole County, Florida Circuit Judge based on lack of proof that the homeowner, who resides in the United Kingdom, was served with the Summons and Complaint. Jeff Barnes, Esq. represents the homeowner, filed the Motion to Vacate the judgment with supporting affidavits, and argued the motion in court this afternoon.

The foreclosing party claimed that it had complied with the requirements for service of court papers on a British subject in England pursuant to the Hague Convention. However, the Judge, in analyzing the law presented to her by the attorney for the foreclosing party, found that service was not proper as the papers were not placed in the homeowners’ drop mailbox but instead into the mailbox of an investment property owned by the homeowner which she had not lived in for years before the Complaint was filed.

The Judge found that the burden to show proper service shifted back to the foreclosing party after the filing of the affidavits of the homeowner and the tenant of the location where the papers were left, which affidavits consistently stated that the homeowner did not live at the property where the papers were dropped off. The Judge found that there was no diligent search for the proper address of the homeowner after the foreclosing party was put on notice by the affidavits (which were filed November 14, 2014) which showed that the homeowner did not live at the address were service was allegedly made.

The foreclosing party had instituted an action on a deficiency judgment in the UK based on the judgment which the Court vacated today, rendering the deficiency action moot. The underlying foreclosure will now be properly litigated with defenses and discovery.

Jeff Barnes, Esq., www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com

ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA JUDGE DISMISSES FORECLOSURE FILED BY CITIBANK AS TRUSTEE FOR A WAMU SECURITIZATION; MERS ISSUES TO BE ARGUED IN SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE

March 9, 2015

An Orange County (Orlando), Florida Judge dismissed a foreclosure filed by Citibank NA as alleged “trustee” for a WaMu securitization. The Plaintiff had failed for eight (8) months to respond to the homeowners’ requests for admissions, and filed a Motion just 8 days before trial asking to be excused from “technical admissions.” The trial Judge did not accept Citi’s argument that there would be “no prejudice” to the homeowners by letting Citi off the hook for its failure to comply with discovery, as the deeming of the admissions (due to Cit’s failure to respond thereto) materially affected the homeowners’ trial preparation (as they relied on the matters being deemed admitted by law), and relieving Citi of its discovery obligations at trial would have amounted to severe prejudice to the homeowners.

Jeff Barnes, Esq. represents the homeowners, who are now entitled to payment of their attorneys’ fees and costs from Citi as they were the prevailing parties in the action and as Florida law provides for the assessment of a homeowner’s attorneys’ fees and costs against the foreclosing party even if the case is dismissed without prejudice.

Mr. Barnes will also be arguing issues relating to MERS (e.g. whether a MERS assignment transferred any interest, the alleged equating of a MERS assignment to an endorsement, and whether the presence of these issues precluded summary judgment) in the Supreme Court of Delaware on Wednesday, March 11, 2015. Several of the issues in the appeal are of “first impression”, meaning that there is currently no Delaware case law “on point” as to those issues. Mr. Barnes represents the homeowner in the multi-tiered appeal.

Jeff Barnes, Esq., www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com