This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Fraudclosure Fail | ROMAN PINO vs THE BANK OF NEW YORK – Florida Supreme Court: We Can't Stop the Fraud

4closureFraud's picture




 

Supreme Court

Homeowners Lose in Landmark Foreclosure Decision

From the PB POST...

A Florida Supreme Court ruling involving a Greenacres foreclosure allows banks to get away with fraud, as long as they voluntarily dismiss the case, attorneys said today.

The case, Roman Pino v. the Bank of New York, was the first significant foreclosure complaint heard by the high court since the state’s legendary housing collapse.

At issue was whether a bank can escape punishment for filing flawed or fraudulent documents in a case by voluntarily dismissing it. A voluntary dismissal allows the bank to refile at a later date.

Royal Palm Beach-based foreclosure defense attorney Tom Ice, who represented Pino, had challenged a document created by the former Law Offices of David J. Stern and sought to question employees about its veracity. On the eve of those depositions, the bank moved to dismiss the case, blocking the court’s ability to address any sanctions.

“I would say the Supreme Court has spoken loud and clear that it doesn’t care about litigants that abuse the court system and that fraud is OK,” Ice said about the ruling. “There are no ramifications if you get caught defrauding the court. Just take a voluntary dismissal and start over.”

The case was unusual because the Supreme Court decided to pass judgment on the case even after Ice had negotiated a settlement with the bank that allowed his client to keep his house.

Florida law professors said the case, which was heard by the Supreme Court in May, was significant because it speaks to the integrity of Florida’s judiciary.

The 4th District Court of Appeal had previously agreed that a voluntary dismissal couldn’t be reversed, but said it wanted the high court to weigh in because “many, many mortgage foreclosures appear tainted with suspect documents.”

Banks warned of a “widespread financial crisis” if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Pino.

They argued banks will cut back on awarding home loans and be discouraged from filing legitimate claims if, when they find a paperwork error, they can’t voluntarily dismiss the case, correct the error and refile.

“With large numbers of defaulted loans in their portfolios, members of the Mortgage Bankers Association and Florida Bankers Association no doubt occasionally will make clerical errors, lose promissory notes, or discover other deficiencies in their foreclosure complaints that mandate correction in the interest of fairness,” the brief states.

Ice made headlines with the Pino case in 2010 when he was featured in a national magazine article about Florida’s so-called “foreclosure mills” and the discovery of allegedly fraudulent documents.

The robo-signing scandal was just breaking at the time, Florida’s foreclosure “rocket dockets” were full speed ahead, and David J. Stern’s Plantation-based firm was a foreclosure empire handling more than 100,000 cases statewide. It has since closed after losing most of its clients in the wake of the scandal.

Lenders halted home repossessions to revamp and rework cases. Beginning last year, foreclosures ramped up again.

“The banks won again, and like everything else in this state, we missed the chance to just say ‘stop,’” said St. Petersburg defense attorney Matt Weidner about the Pino ruling. “This is the final piece, we have legalized bank fraud and we now have a court system, an entire judicial system, that supports fraud.”

 

CONCLUSION FROM THE FL SUPREME COURT OPINION

Based on the above, we answer the certified question in the negative. We hold that when a defendant alleges fraud on the court as a basis for seeking to set aside a plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal, the trial court has jurisdiction to reinstate the dismissed action only when the fraud, if proven, resulted in the plaintiff securing affirmative relief to the detriment of the defendant and, upon obtaining that relief, voluntarily dismissing the case to prevent the trial court from remedying the effects of the fraudulent conduct. Any affirmative relief the plaintiff obtained against the defendant as a result of the fraudulent conduct would clearly have an adverse impact on the defendant, thereby entitling the defendant to seek relief to set aside the voluntary dismissal pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(3).

In this case, because BNY Mellon did not obtain affirmative relief before taking the voluntary dismissal, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to reinstate the dismissed foreclosure action for the purpose of dismissing the action with prejudice. We also conclude that the trial court did not have the inherent authority to strike the notice of voluntary dismissal. Because Pino sought no other available sanctions, and the case has since been resolved between the parties, we need not reach the question of whether the trial court should be able to award monetary sanctions under the circumstances of this case. We therefore approve the result reached by the Fourth District affirming the trial court’s denial of Pino’s motion.

While affirming the decision of the Fourth District, we also understand the concerns of those who discuss the multiple abuses that can occur from fraudulent pleadings being filed with the trial courts in this state. While rule 1.420(a)(1) has well served the litigants and courts of this state, we request the Civil Procedure Rules Committee review this concern and make a recommendation to this Court regarding whether (a) explicit sanction authority should be provided to a trial court pursuant to rule 1.110(b), even after a case is voluntarily dismissed, (b) rule 1.420(a)(1) should be amended to expressly allow the trial court to retain jurisdiction to rule on any pending sanction motions that seek monetary sanctions for abuses committed by either party during the litigation process, or to allow the trial court explicit authority to include attorney’s fees in any award to a party when the dismissed action is reinstated, or (c) to adopt a rule similar to Federal Rule 11 to provide explicit authority for the trial court to impose sanctions.

 

It is so ordered.

LEWIS, QUINCE, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.
POLSTON, C.J., and CANADY, J., concur in result only.

 

Florida Supreme Court Oral Arguments
(A MUST VIEW)

 

Full opinion below…

Welcome to the wild wild south…

www.4closureFraud.org

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 02/08/2013 - 12:48 | 3226080 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Isn't college itself a lesson in fraud?  You come out with a paper degree (worthless) and a lot of debt and no way to repay it sans hooking.  Actually, representations must be believable to a reasonable person, and colleges tend to tell some whoppers...  not sure it's actually fraud...  more of a lesson in skepticism than anything...  but still, for the most part, colleges already teach all the traits necessary for fraudsters...  basically committing fraud, but without actually stepping over the legal line where remedy would be available against them.

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 16:26 | 3226952 Thisson
Thisson's picture

It's fraud when they knowingly lie about post-graduation employment numbers.  Which they do all the time.

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 17:43 | 3227274 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Possibly...  the problem here is that: (a) they can base their figures off of fraud and still possibly be free of liability; or (b) the representations aren't reasonable to be relied upon because they're outlandish in the first place...  Further, promises as to future conduct do not amount to fraud... [there have been more than a few cases dismissed with your stated cause of action and fact pattern; the mad law school graduates being one].

In reality, the whole issue is sour grapes...  I paid all my loans (wife's)...  time to grow a pair and pay the fiddler...  at least tina turner isn't going to be making them spin the wheel for breaking a deal.

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 12:38 | 3226041 donsluck
donsluck's picture

It's called an Ethics class. Just do the opposite.

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 03:39 | 3225288 Dre4dwolf
Dre4dwolf's picture

You commit fraud, they take your house, sell  your kids to CPS child sex slave ring, and throw you in jail.

 

Bank Commits Fraud, OOOOO POOR BANK, ITS OK JUST SAY YOU DID A BOO BOO AND COME BACK LATER.

 

 

People, are you that stupid that you will let this govt continue to abuse you like this?

 

Where is the rule of the law?

 

 

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 11:04 | 3225781 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Does this ruling only apply to banks?  If not, then what do you suppose might be the reason?  Care to articulate the pros and cons of the decision?

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 12:37 | 3226040 donsluck
donsluck's picture

Macho Man you are spoiling the fun. The critical thinking you are asking for is not a common trait. A dispassionate debate based on facts and probable consequences is not the way this site works. Just look at the vast majority "fuck you Bernanke" etc. We want PASSION damn it!

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 04:06 | 3225296 Colonel Klink
Colonel Klink's picture

"Where is the rule of law?"

Dead on arrival now.  The rule of law now exists in the citizens hands when they finally decide to lay it down.

It's right there in the Constitution.

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 02:57 | 3225278 Peter Pan
Peter Pan's picture

One of these days North Korea is accidentally going to press a button but until then the decision of the Florida Court is par for the course of American society.

I am straining to think of the last truly high minded and principled decision of the government or of the US courts.

The courts are either stacked in advance or massaged at a later stage to deliver on the agenda and interests of those who own the system.

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 11:02 | 3225776 MachoMan
Fri, 02/08/2013 - 12:45 | 3226073 Milestones
Milestones's picture

Thanks for posting the long winded decision of Heller. It is a shame of the court(s) decision that was not clear cut and definative as it cried  out be done. My first read of that case.            Milestones

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 15:09 | 3226647 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Also, in case you missed it, one of Heller's progeny: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

 

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 16:30 | 3226971 Thisson
Thisson's picture

Looking forward to your gun control articles.  I hope you address NYC's situation, where they won't allow you to have a gun unless you get a license, and they make getting a license impossible unless you're politically connected.  The license application fee costs more than many guns do, and they routinely deny applications for arbitrary and capricious reasons, as I'm sure you know.  I also assume you'll cover the NY nunchucks case in there... 

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 17:31 | 3227254 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

The initial focus is going to be on how to properly advocate gun rights and to specifically combat certain arguments from those who seek to limit our rights...  I think this will have the most impact as quickly as possible into reframing the debate...  because it's literally nothing but logical fallacy after logical fallacy...  often times by both sides.  Time to clean up the debate and the true answer will come to the fore.

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 03:41 | 3225289 Dre4dwolf
Dre4dwolf's picture

I think North Korea is waiting for someone else to push the button so that they can take credit and say that their button worked.

 

The other day they launched monkeys into space and they came back resembling buttered toast, O/C they pulled another monkey out of a trunk and said thet monkey survived but sure...

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 02:14 | 3225257 pherron2
pherron2's picture

I can't help wondering if these Judges share any tribal affilliations.

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 16:31 | 3226979 Thisson
Thisson's picture

That's because you're an idiot with no substantive analysis to contribute - just bigotry.  Go away.

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 21:25 | 3227839 pherron2
pherron2's picture

Methinks Thou Dost Protest Too Much

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 01:18 | 3225220 Rearranging Dec...
Rearranging Deckchairs's picture

I am ashamed of the judiciary. Anyone know if the justices are elected in Florida or merely appointed?

The emperors aren't wearing any clothes.

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 02:00 | 3225248 economics9698
economics9698's picture

 The Supreme Court consists of seven judges: the Chief Justice and six Justices who are appointed by the Governor to 6-year terms and remain in office if retained in a general election near the end of each term. The Court is the final arbiter of Florida law, and its decisions are binding authority for all other Florida state courts.

They never lose their elections so for life.

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 02:53 | 3225275 Rearranging Dec...
Rearranging Deckchairs's picture

Hmm I don't get it. If you have life tenure and don't have to run for office you don't need to be bribed by the banks. You can make sane decisions which support rule of law and consider the policy implications.

Me guesses that the banks have the goods on the justices. I guess that's what those weird sex parties from Eyes wide shut were really about. Getting blackmale material on important people.

Either that or their affraid they'll lose all their wealth if the banks all go under.

I would give equal odds to either theory.

 

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 09:01 | 3225457 Vince Clortho
Vince Clortho's picture

Never underestimate the power of bribes and kickbacks.  Supreme court justices are in a very good position to make serious under-the-counter cash.  Bribery is not the only tool in play.  Justices can be removed and have their careers and reputations destroyed.

They are simply one more tool in the arsenal of the banksters.

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 11:01 | 3225770 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

This is nonsense...  never attribute to corruption what can be explained through ineptitude.  You have to realize that, often times, the judiciary is filled with people who couldn't hack it in private practice (else they'd be making a lot more money in private practice).  Further, the general equities in foreclosure cases DO NOT FAVOR DEADBEAT DEBTORS...  The law does not give a shit about people who: (a) default on the lawsuit by failing to answer; or (b) default on their contractual obligations [the natural finding upon a failure to answer].

I'm not even sure the decision is incorrect under general policy arguments, precedent, or any other ground...  The non-suit statute clears up the docket very well and offers complaining parties a second bite at the apple for some procedural or other snafus....  In the end, the courts would like for matters to be heard on the merits rather than decided on technicalities...  this is what justice demands.  But, before you get to seek justice, you'll need to first appear in the case.  Once you do, you're afforded a multitude of safeguards.  Would you care to argue the merits of the decision rather than make blanket accusations?

Practically speaking, do you think that creditors are going to be able to cure fatal defects in the year tolled from the non-suit?  Get real...  they're fucked and we know it...  settle down francis.

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 01:12 | 3225208 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

This really shouldn't be particularly new...  most states have voluntary non-suit statutes...  you then have a statutory period of time following dismissal to re-file...  (often times 1 year).  It gets a lot of folks out of trouble (especially lawyers).  Non-suiting after a decree is fairly interesting...  but I'm not sure this suit is breaking any new ground materially...

If they fuck up a second time or if they fail to re-file within the requisite period, then they've shit the bed...  dismissal with prejudice...  and, if they sued on the note also, then it's free house time.

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 10:55 | 3225743 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

You're probably correct that this decision hasn't broken any new ground materially.

However, it does appear to legitimize abuse of process, at least the initial abuse. That mat have unintended consequences which the Florida Supreme Court didn't consider.

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 11:45 | 3225893 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Not really, you have to put the decision into context and its parameters become apparent.  Nothing in this decision prohibits the trial court from finding contempt or otherwise penalizing plaintiffs for abusing his court (the court didn't rule on it given it was settled)...  yes, you have a right to file a non-suit...  but, do you think the exposure of your prior fraud is going to weigh, at all, on the court's decision the next time around?  [the trial judge is going to be PISSED].  Settlement was a foregone conclusion at that point...

The decision noted that the debtor didn't request any additional remedy...  so the question really wasn't before the court.

My guess is that you fuck around with a trial judge's court and you're going to get the horns...  it sounds like this is what he tried to do anyway, by striking their motion to take a nonsuit and tried to get the thing decided with prejudice...  the jig was up for the bank anyway.

This really has a lot more to do with preserving the nonsuit statute than banks...

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 00:57 | 3225193 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

"Banks warned of a “widespread financial crisis” if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Pino."

Indeed, psychotic "national security" took another step with this decision. The rule of law can no longer be enforced, because that would cause the whole system to collapse. The biggest banks are too big to fail, and too big to jail, and therefore, the individuals within that system are reduced to slaves standing before that new royalty.

We are watching the runaway triumph of supreme organized crime taking complete control over the government of the USA, in faster and worse ways than ever before, although it started long ago. Tragically, there is no longer any possible way to fix this system that can still survive and operate within itself.

Psychotic concepts regarding "national security" have been allowed to grow and grow, towards transforming the USA into a fascist police state, serving the interests of a runaway fascist plutocracy juggernaut, that IS going to turn most Americans into road kill.

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 03:02 | 3225280 Bunga Bunga
Bunga Bunga's picture

"Banks warned of a “widespread financial crisis” if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Pino."

Isn't that blackmailing?

If financial institutions are sound and healthy and did nothing illegal, why should such a court rule cause a widespread financial crisis? 

Or do too many have too much to hide? Too many skeletons in the closets?

 


Fri, 02/08/2013 - 10:25 | 3225640 Popo
Popo's picture

"Banks warned of a “widespread financial crisis” if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Pino."

 

Actually, we *have* a widespread financial crisis.  The Supreme Court just decided that the guilty party would be the winner.   The crisis hasn't gone anywhere.

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 08:58 | 3225450 NoDebt
NoDebt's picture

Hey, it was a good enough reason for the Assistant AG of the United States, why not a good enough reason for the Florida courts, right?

This is more fall-out from institutionalizing the idea of TBTF.  They should have been broken up, period.  But tank goodness Ben is a student of the Great Depression so we don't have to worry about big bank failures again EVER.

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 10:50 | 3225717 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Lanny Breuer doctrine: justice must be served, unless it inconveniences those that the Department of Justice serves.

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 10:38 | 3225678 Bob
Bob's picture

They should still be broken up and it could be done under existing law.   

For what that's worth.

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 11:10 | 3225802 NoDebt
NoDebt's picture

I'll go one better than that.  They could be broken up without resorting to the law or government at all.  Many are worth more in pieces than they are in total.  Where's Gordon Gekko when you need him?  Where's are the cries to "unlock shareholder value" when it comes to TBTF banks? 

It'll never happen, of course, because the minute the label TBTF was put on them they BECAME de facto GSEs.  They ARE the new Fannie and Freddie.  And they will suffer the same fate someday.  As will we whose tax dollars will bail them out (again).

 

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 12:30 | 3226015 donsluck
donsluck's picture

You're being silly. There is no shareholder value in a TBTF because...drum roll...they have failed. Get it? Bankrupt? Liabilities exceed assets? Is this thing ON?

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 16:36 | 3227008 Thisson
Thisson's picture

Agreed, in theory, but there's a workaround: you split the assets and liabilities, putting the assets into a good bank that you take private, and the liabilities into a bad bank that you foist onto the taxpayers.

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 04:48 | 3225320 bank guy in Brussels
bank guy in Brussels's picture

Blackmailing, and the powers that be expressing their ownership of the courts

Much better was the ancient principle -

Fiat justitia ruat coelum ... Let justice be done, though the heavens may fall

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 10:10 | 3225595 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

The heavens must fall or we'll never recover.

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 12:57 | 3226126 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

This ain't heaven.

Besides, the food supply is so toxic now, the sheeple can only survive in captivity, as they no longer have the capacity to recover.

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 01:05 | 3225203 percolator
percolator's picture

Very well said RM.

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 09:54 | 3225560 overmedicatedun...
overmedicatedundersexed's picture

jon corzine approved this ruling..justice has been done.

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 00:54 | 3225189 Seasmoke
Seasmoke's picture

and this is why the people can NEVER give up their rights to bear arms..........

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 00:44 | 3225173 Red Herring
Red Herring's picture

How do I become a bank?

 

Bank of Red Herring TV ad (read by someone resembling John Wayne or someone else perceived as "trustworthy")

 

(cue snapshots of Wall St. collapsing, people protesting, judges hitting their tables with little wooden hammers, family tossed out of their home)  As a consumer, you have been pushed around by Big Banks, Big Business, Big Government, all the while suffering the consequences of someone else's indiscretions. (picture changes to snapshots of green lawn in front of a ranch-style house, lit fireplace, turkey dinner, etc.) All you want is security, stability and fairness.  And we understand that.  We were not involved in foreclosure fraud.  We offer double (*) national average interest rate on your savings.  We are too small to bail out.

BRH - rediscovering honesty in banking".

(*) - small print of 0.25% annual interest on savings for deposits up to $100,000. First 500 customers only.  No withdrawals for the first 12 months, substantial penalties and loss of interest apply.

 

With a shtick like that, I will be rolling in small deposits, levering it out 10:1, and selling out to one of the TBTF in a couple of years.  

So how do I become a bank?

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 02:51 | 3225273 leftcoastfool
leftcoastfool's picture

"I will be rolling in small deposits, levering it out 10:1"

Only 10:1???  AMATEUR!  You'll never get a banking license with such a ridiculous business plan...

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 02:05 | 3225251 economics9698
economics9698's picture

Kill a few presidents, bribe former presidents to run on a third party ticket, buy off professors and politicians, control the media, print propaganda, kill more presidents when they challenge you, control congressional elections and kick out those that oppose you, get your friends to control movies, media, defense, politics, and you too will get your very own money counterfeiting criminal organization.  Kill when needed and never be afraid to snuff out the opposition with whatever tactics work.

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 09:36 | 3225525 goldfish1
goldfish1's picture
Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-...

"In September 2011, it killed US citizen Anwar Awlaki in a drone strike in Yemen, along with US citizen Samir Khan, and then, in circumstances that are still unexplained, two weeks later killed Awlaki's 16-year-old American son Abdulrahman with a separate drone strike in Yemen."

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 14:09 | 3226448 Bastiat
Bastiat's picture

Apparently some ex-cop in LA has written a memo also justifying assassinations at his discretion.

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 05:46 | 3225335 Boris Alatovkrap
Boris Alatovkrap's picture

Maybe is also sign contract with Satan Grand Master, no?

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 03:59 | 3225293 Colonel Klink
Colonel Klink's picture

The tribe is doing Ghads work!

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 09:21 | 3225490 goldfish1
goldfish1's picture

They act with impunity. Make them fear acting with impunity. Problem solved.

Fri, 02/08/2013 - 20:06 | 3227642 Cloud9.5
Cloud9.5's picture

Our family, our obligations make cowards of us all.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!