Source: http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/tag/florida/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 18:14:50+00:00

Document:
But that didn’t happen. Instead, they say, West Palm Beach-based Ocwen Loan Servicing charged them about $2,000 in penalties because they stopped monthly mortgage payments.
What’s even more amazing is that this law firm is still in GOOD…yes GOOD standing with the Florida bar! But we all know exactly what’s going on here.
The so-called foreclosure king of Florida knew his reign was over four months before his law firm’s doors would officially shutter.
“There’s nothing left for you here. There’s nothing left for me here. We’re done. And that’s the end of the story,” one of David J. Stern’s chief employees remembers him telling her in November 2010, according to her deposition.
The conversation followed what Stern characterized in his own deposition as the “unexpected catastrophic event” of being fired by the two biggest clients of his massive home repossession empire.
On March 31, 2011, he closed the firm, leaving as many as 100,000 Florida foreclosures, or nearly a third of the state’s backlog, in limbo.
A year later, thousands of his company’s former cases are still sputtering through the courts, sometimes stalled as new attorneys get their bearings or even dismissed so fresh paperwork can be filed, foreclosure defense attorneys say.
In fact, in the year since the epic collapse of Stern’s firm, much is unresolved.
Despite 377 complaints to the Florida Bar related to foreclosure fraud, not a single attorney has been sanctioned. Stern remains a member in good standing.
The attorney general’s investigation into foreclosure mills withered this year when the state’s power to subpoena them was quashed.
A required mediation program ordered by the Florida Supreme Court for lenders and homeowners died in December after a lack of participation and cooperation rendered negotiations impotent.
And the 368,000-case backlog in the state’s foreclosure courts has grown as the Stern firm’s wayward files added to the logjam, some attorneys said.
GUERRERO v. CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC. | FL 3rd DCA – Chase tries to re-establish a lost note without a lost note count in its original complaint.
Juan Luis Guerrero and Patricia Guerrero, Appellants, v. Chase Home Finance, LLC., Appellee. No. 3D11-1404.
Opinion filed March 21, 2012.An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Eugene J.
Carrillo & Carrillo and Felix R. Carrillo, for appellants.
Marshall C. Watson and Robert R. Edwards, (Ft. Lauderdale), for appellee.
Before WELLS, C.J., and RAMIREZ, and LAGOA, JJ.
Juan Luis Guerrero and Patricia Guerrero appeal from a final judgment of foreclosure complaining of a number of technical deficiencies in the record below. Faced with a record that may best be described as a “mess,” we conclude that at least one of these “technicalities” mandates reversal.
On April 27, 2011, this matter came on for trial. When the proceedings began, Chase’s counsel informed the court that the original note and mortgage at issue could not be located but that his law firm’s records custodian was present with an affidavit regarding these lost documents. The Guerreros objected arguing that no lost note claim had been alleged. The court reserved ruling on the Guerreros’ objection and proceeded to take testimony on the foreclosure claim.
As to this claim, Chase called a representative from IBM, Lender Business Process Services Company, who testified that IBM was now the servicing agent for Fannie Mae, the most recent assignee of the Guerrero note and mortgage. According to this witness, because no payments had been made by the Guerreros since August 1, 2007 on the $316,000 note and mortgage at issue, the Guerreros were in default thereby entitling Chase/IBM/Fannie Mae (for convenience “Chase” throughout) to a foreclosure judgment.
THE COURT: That we would do at the conclusion of the case, not as a preemptive motion.
The records custodian was permitted to testify.
According to this witness, the original note and mortgage had been delivered to the law firm where he worked (the firm representing Chase) and had been placed in a limited access safe. He also testified that despite these precautions, when he went to look for the mortgage and note the day before the trial began, they were not in the safe and search as he might he had not been able to locate them.
Q. [BY COUNSEL FOR CHASE]: Is it true that, according to this affidavit . . . the plaintiff is willing to indemnify . . . ?
A. I’m not sure what you mean by that.
THE COURT: Counselor’s cross examination was getting right to the heart of it. If this note is found, and after this proceeding . . . would the plaintiff be in a position to indemnify anybody for that note that was lost, now found? . . .
[A.]: I apologize, I’m not sure what the word “indemnify” means.
Q. [BY COUNSEL FOR THE GUERREROS]: By the way, are you authorized to indemnify the defendants by the servicer or the holder of this note? Can you make that statement in this courtroom?
A. Again, I don’t really understand exactly.
Q. Did you understand what you were signing?
A. I understood the parts about the — that have to do with the searches that we did and when the notes came in. I guess my answer is, No. [This statement] is not completely understood.
The affidavit was stricken. There was no other testimony on the subject of indemnification.
At the close of the testimony, the Guerreros unsuccessfully requested entry of judgment in their favor claiming that Chase could not prevail (1) because Chase could not surrender the original mortgage and note and (2) because Chase could not reestablish the mortgage and note without having asserted a lost note claim and without having introduced sufficient evidence to satisfy the requirements of such a claim. See § 673.3091 (2), Fla. Stat. (2010) (stating “[t]he court may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking enforcement [of a lost, destroyed, or stolen instrument] unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument”). A final judgment of foreclosure nonetheless was entered.
The Guerreros repeat the same arguments they made below here. We agree with their argument that in this case no foreclosure could be ordered unless the mortgage and note were reestablished. See Emerald Plaza West v. Salter, 466 So.2d 1129, 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (“Agreeing with appellant that the trial court erred in granting foreclosure of a mortgage without requiring either production of the original promissory note and assignment of mortgage or reestablishment of those documents.”) (Citations omitted). We cannot, however, agree that the court below was without authority to allow Chase to amend to assert a lost note claim. While it is well established that a trial court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate matters outside the pleadings, Rule 1.190(b) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure expressly authorizes amendments to conform to the evidence when an unpled matter has been tried—even over objection—when “the merits of the cause are more effectually presented thereby and the objecting party fails to satisfy the court that the admission of such evidence will prejudice the objecting party in maintaining an action or defense upon the merits.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(b); Instituto Partiotico Y Docente San Carlos, Inc. v Cuban Am. Nat’l Found., 667 So.2d 490,492 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (“[T]he law in Florida is well established that a trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain and adjudge matters which have not been the subject of proper pleadings and notice.”); see also Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So.2d 334, 337 (Fla. 1957) (same); Freshwater v. Vetter, 511 So.2d 1114, 1115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (same).
The sole purpose of the instant action was to foreclose a mortgage securing a promissory note (copies of which were attached to the complaint) on which the Guerreros concededly had made no payment for years. The undisputed testimony was that IBM was the current servicing agent for Fannie Mae the current owner and holder of these instruments and that the Guerreros were in default. Since the evidence confirmed the current owner/holder’s entitlement to foreclose the mortgage attached to the complaint, submission of the original documents or alternatively reestablishment of them was all that remained. In light of the undisputed testimony that the originals of these documents had been received by the law firm representing Chase, stored carefully by that firm, but ultimately misplaced, we see no error in allowing Chase to amend to state a claim to reestablish these lost documents.
We cannot, however, agree that the burden of reestablishing these documents was met. Other than representations made in the records custodian’s stricken affidavit, there is no evidence that the Guerreros will be “adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the[se] instrument[s]” as required by section 673.3091 of the Florida Statutes. See § 673.3091(2), Fla. Stat. (2010)2.
We therefore reverse the final judgment of foreclosure and remand for reestablishment of the lost mortgage and note, this time on a proper pleading, naming the appropriate parties, and upon competent evidence—all of which we believe may be accomplished expeditiously. We do not, by virtue of this determination, invite frivolous claims or the addition of frivolous defenses and do not preclude imposition of sanctions authorized by section 57.105 of the Florida Statutes, as a consequence of same, if appropriate.
For the first time since the real estate crash crippled Florida’s economy and battered struggling homeowners, a bill to hasten foreclosures through the courts is headed to the full House and Senate.
A narrow 6-4 vote Monday in a specially scheduled meeting of the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee was the final hurdle for the proposal (SB 1890) to be heard by both chambers. The plan aims to reduce the amount of time a bank can pursue a homeowner for unpaid mortgage debt, while speeding foreclosures on abandoned homes and in cases where homeowners have no legitimate defenses.
Bill opponents fear borrowers will get caught up in a quickie foreclosure wheel without time to question bank documents, and argue that not only are portions of the plan unconstitutional, but that the overall proposal is unnecessary.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 673
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 673