I love reading about judges who actually insist that foreclosure attorneys you know, provide the right paperwork and sue on behalf of the right client.But who has time for that?
There are just so many homes to repossess:
It’s at least the second time in as many months that Circuit Judge J. Michael Traynor has dismissed with prejudice a foreclosure case where homeowners disputed who owns the mortgage.
Lawyers representing New York-based M&T Bank gave three separate accounts of the ownership, with documentation that kept changing, before Traynor tossed the case Friday.
“The court has been misled by the plaintiff from the beginning,” the judge wrote in his order.
He added that documents filed by M&T’s lawyers seemed to contradict each other and “have changed as needed to benefit the plaintiff.”
The latest account was that another bank, Wells Fargo, owned the note, and M&T was a servicer, a company paid to handle payments and responsibilities tied to a mortgage.
To believe that, the judge wrote, the “plaintiff is asking the court to ignore the documents filed in the first two complaints.” He added that Wells Fargo can still sue on its own, if it has evidence that it owns the mortgage.
Right, I’m pretty sure the judge is referring to the ancient equitable doctrine of “mend the schmeckle.”Uh oh, the judge isn’t done yet:
Traynor has scheduled a hearing in August for lawyers from the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, a Fort Lauderdale-based firm, to explain the evidence they presented before deciding whether he should impose sanctions on either them or the bank.
Attorneys at the Watson firm referred questions to a supervising attorney who didn’t respond to messages left by phone and email.
Did you try carrier pigeon?
Well at least they have a clear explanation and a sound media strategy.