Editor’s Comment: Without inventing anything, an increasing number of Judges are coming to the same conclusion. If they apply the rules and deny the pretender lender the benefit of presumptions to which they were not entitled in the first place, the case can be heard on the merits. They don’t need to decide who is right or who is wrong. They need to call balls and strikes.
In this submission from 4closurefraud.com the Judge simply states the obvious — an affidavit from some stranger who says that he looked at some papers and arrived at some conclusions in his or her own mind is not evidence or even a proffer of evidence. It is nonsense. Summary Judgment denied. Motion to lift stay should similarly be denied. Any motion based upon such an affidavit from EITHER side should be denied. AND NOW THEY ARE…..
I SHOULD ADD THAT THE NAME “ICE” ESQ. IS COMING UP MORE FREQUENTLY. I’D LIKE TO SEE MORE FROM THIS LAWYER. He seems to be talking the same tack as Gator Bradshaw in Central Florida (Ocala et al) , Jon Lindemen (S. Fla and Orlando), George Gingo (Northern Florida) and others, to wit: we are out to win these cases not just “mix it up” to justify the fees. Very gratifying to me. 3 years ago, nobody would listen. Now they are taking the ideas developed here, by Max Gardner and April Charney and taking it to the next level. I hope they leave us in the dust.
Full Hearing Transcript attached . Courtesy of T. Ice Esq. Palm Beach Florida
Florida – June 2010 – MSJ denied. Affidavits Hearsay Insufficient
What we are starting to see here is a pattern of Judges not excepting these affidavits from these robo-signers.
I can tell you that, if properly challenged, they will pull the affidavits across the board.
Don,t let that stop you from deposing these people, because once you do it will clearly show that they DO NOT have the authority to produce them. It will also show you they know absolutely nothing about the documents that they are signing even though they state it is of their personal knowledge.
Below is a transcript of how one Judge, in Palm Beach County, DENIED a motion for summary judgment on pending issues, including the insufficient affidavit.
Another key issue was an affidavit presented by the defense from Expert Witness Lynn Szymoniak regarding the fraudulent assignment presented in the case.
Lynn’s expert testimony has stopped many foreclosures in its tracks.
If you are interested in talking to Lynn about her services she can be reached at [email protected] and just tell her 4closureFraud sent ya…
Some excerpts from the transcript…
THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST
COMPANY, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR
CHASEFLEX TRUST SERIES 2007-3,
DAVID J. MOSQUERA; ELIZABETH
THE COURT: Okay. Without going into
anything else, I’m not about to enter a motion –
granting a motion for summary judgement based onan affidavit of Mr. Reardon.
MR. CHANE: Your Honor, there is simply no — there’s no basis to –
THE COURT: I’m sorry. It’s just — it
basically just says he looked at some records. I
don’t know what he looked at and he plugged some
MR. CHANE: Your Honor, it’s based on his
personal knowledge. That’s all he needs to do
according to the Rule.
THE COURT: Well, motion denied.
MR CHANE: On what basis, Judge?
THE COURT: On the basis that the Court
fears that there are many issues of fact to be
determined. This is not a matter in which
everything is undisputed.
MR. CHANE: What issues of fact?
THE DEPUTY: Sir, the Judge ruled. The
hearing is over.
THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR CHASEFLEX TRUST SERIES 2007-13 PLAINTIF VS. DAVID MOSQUERA
CASE NUMBER 50 2008 CA 04969 XXXX MB PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA
Filed under: CASES, CORRUPTION, Eviction, evidence, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, GTC | Honor, HERS, investment banking, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motions, Pleading, securities fraud, Servicer, STATUTES, trustee Tagged: affidavit, evidence, Florida, judges, motion for summary judgment, Rules