Posted in Uncategorized

Federal and State Judges Think they Can Overrule the US Supreme Court

Livinglies's Weblog

Jeff Barnes has put into words what I have been thinking about for several weeks. Barnes is a lawyer who has concentrated on foreclosure defense and has won many cases across the country. He is a good lawyer, which means that he understands how to get traction. So when he complains about Judges, people ought to sit up and take notice.

I think he has hit the nail on the head:

Posted on October 22, 2015

October 22, 2015

In recent months, we have been advised by homeowners in different states that certain Judges in those states have taken the position that decisions by either the Supreme Court of that state or decisions of the United States Supreme Court are not binding on them. Taking such a position violates the Judge’s duties as an officer of…

View original post 880 more words

One thought on “Federal and State Judges Think they Can Overrule the US Supreme Court

  1. This isn’t news.

    Courts have frequently been refusing to enforce the rules of procedure, and evidence, refusing to enforce state, and/or federal, statutes and regulations, and refusing to rule in accordance with state, and federal, precedent and authority for some time now.

    The prevailing attitudes of trial courts seems to be 1) “If you don’t like my decision, and you can afford it, you can take it up on appeal,” 2) “You want me to rule for you? Try and make me. I dare you,” and/or 3) “I can get away with whatever you can’t stop me from doing.”

    Many of the opinions reversing trial court rulings in foreclosures … are reflective of blatant abuse by the trial courts.

    Recent examples I can remember (just off the top of my head, and as someone not in the legal profession in any way I shouldn’t be able to remember ANY of these, much less have read and comprehended them to start with):

    Colon v JP Morgan Chase, FL 5th DCA, Case No. 5D14-1191. The 5th DCA opined “the court erred in entering the summary final judgment because no competent evidence was presented to refute his affirmative defense that Bank failed to satisfy the notice
    requirement of paragraph 22 of the mortgage. We agree and reverse.” The rules of evidence are not hard for the trial courts to comprehend.

    Jelic v LaSalle, FL 4th DCA, No. 4D13-4040. The 4th DCA opined “We find merit in Homeowner’s argument that the bank lacked standing to foreclose at the time the complaint was filed.” At this point standing, or the lack thereof, is not a difficult issue for the trial courts to comprehend.

    Poor Jelic won another appeal last week, Jelic v. BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, f/k/a COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, L.P., No. 4D14-516. ” The Bank has failed to establish its standing to foreclose.” Again (the 4th DCA used the word “again” several times, and also pointed out that it was repeating itself) standing, or the lack thereof, is not a difficult issue for the trial courts to comprehend.

    Boumarate v HSBC Bank, FL 5th DCA, Case No. 5D14-1379. Note this was also Boumarate’s 2nd appellate victory. The 5th DCA opined “Here, the trial court found that the Bank proved entitlement to enforce because “they [i.e., the Bank] have possession of the note, that’s all they need.” The trial court’s ruling was erroneous. In order to enforce a negotiable instrument, the Bank must prove more than mere possession—it must prove its entitlement to enforce the instrument at
    the time of loss. The Bank, in this case, was unable to do so. The copy of the note introduced into evidence was payable to Novelle, not to the Bank, and it did not contain any indorsements. Nor was there any evidence of an assignment; in fact, the Bank’s sole witness did not know of any assignments or indorsements and could not otherwise explain how the Bank was entitled to enforce the note. In sum, the Bank failed to reestablish the lost note because it failed to prove by competent, substantial evidence that it was entitled to enforce the note at the time of its loss. ” The Florida UCC is not difficult for trial courts to comprehend, and again neither are the rules of evidence.

    Cardona v Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, FL 4th DCA, No. 4D14-1609. Here the 4th opined “the trial court erred in allowing the bank’s witness to testify about the content of business records not introduced into evidence, and in finding the bank proved standing. We agree with the homeowners on the first issue and reverse.” Again the rules of evidence (business records, and witness testimony) are not difficult for trial courts to comprehend.

    BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., v Smith, Ohio First Appellate District, APPEAL NO. C-130306. Here the 1st opined “In her first assignment of error, Smith argues that Bank of America failed to meet its burden under Civ.R. 56 by failing to properly submit evidence establishing that there was no genuine issue of material fact for trial. We agree.” The reversal was based on failings of plaintiff to provide extrinsic authentication of documents. The rules of evidence are not difficult for trial courts to comprehend.

    So, this isn’t news.

    It would be news if a trial judge was disciplined, or even removed from office, for egregious error, or engaging in a pattern of misconduct.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s