Connect with us

Bankers

The Fl. Bar Complaint by Judge Hanzman Against Attorney Bruce Jacobs is Personal

Judge Michael Hanzman’s name is appearing frequently in sanctions orders and Florida bar complaints of late and LIF investigates.

Published

on

Judge Michael Hanzman’s name is appearing frequently maligning lawyers and judges in orders, sanctions and/or bar complaints of late. Upon review LIF notes a trend; apparent abuse of office and power for personal vendetta’s.

LIF will be highlighting his cases separately and updating this and other articles frequently to expand on this breaking news story.

Update: July 25, 2021

On July 12, 2021, The Florida Bar’s amended request for extension of time is granted and the referee is allowed to and including September 17, 2021, in which to file the required referee’s report. ALL OTHER TIMES ARE EXTENDED ACCORDINGLY.

NOV 3, 2020 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: JUN 20, 2021

COMPLAINT

The Florida Bar, Complainant, files this Complaint against Bruce Jacobs, respondent, pursuant to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar and alleges the following:

1. Respondent is, and at all times mentioned in the complaint was, a member of The Florida Bar, admitted on September 24, 1997, and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida.

2. Prior to the filing of this Complaint, there has been a finding of probable cause by a grievance committee as required by Rule 3-7.4(l) Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. The presiding member of that committee has approved the instant Complaint.

COUNT I: AS TO THE FLORIDA BAR FILE NO. 2019-70,188(11H)

3. Respondent’s conduct came to the attention of The Florida Bar as a result of a referral by the Third District Court of Appeal for the State of Florida.

4. Respondent represented the defendant in a civil lawsuit in the case styled HSBC Bank et. al, v. Aquasol Condominium Association, Inc., Case No.:13-29724-CA-01.

5. After a final judgment of foreclosure was entered in favor of the bank, respondent filed an appeal to the Third District Court of Appeal.

6. One of the issues raised by respondent on appeal was that the bank lacked standing to foreclose against his client because the bank was not the holder and owner of the note.

Yet, that issue had been addressed and ruled on in the seminal case HSBC Bank, USA, NA v. Buset, 241 So.3d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018), which held that in order to establish standing in a foreclosure action you must prove that you were either the holder or owner of the note.

7. Respondent did not cite to, acknowledge, or address, the controlling adverse decision in Buset in his briefs, even though respondent was counsel of record in both the trial court and on appeal and was, therefore, fully aware of Buset’s holding and its binding nature on the court.

8. Notwithstanding same, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding no merit in the arguments raised by the appellant.

9. Respondent then filed a motion for rehearing and rehearing en banc.

In his motion, respondent made disparaging and reckless comments regarding the judiciary. Excerpts of his comments are highlighted below:

  • “Most disturbing, the opinion sends the wolves after Aquasol’s counsel personally by commending the trial court’s ‘patience’ for not holding him in contempt of court. Truthfully, no court should dare make the front page of the paper for jailing an attorney for asking about a false document in evidence. This Court’s opinion intentionally emboldens judges to abuse their contempt ”

 

  • “This Court’s insistence on ignoring established Florida Supreme Court law to benefit bad corporate citizens is certain to cause ”

 

  • “Fla. Stat. § 673.3011 controls enforcement of negotiable instruments, not mortgages. Ownership controls the right to enforce the mortgage. This Court is acting illegally by instructing the law is ”

 

  • “I refuse to accept the idea that you cannot win when you are right. This is a biblical, spiritual journey for me. I have faith I will be protected because I am acting so clearly within the law and this Honorable Court is ”

 

  • “It’s become clear to me that the ‘powers that be’ support this fraudulent foreclosure system that took so long to put in place. If only the Courts enforced the 2001 amendments to Article 9 and forced Banks to bring their contracts to prove their purchase of the debt to prove standing. This foreclosure crisis was such an interesting phenomenon. Courts kept covering up for Banks that were intentionally doing it wrong.”

 

  • “Banks have all the resources to do it right but made business decisions to do it fraudulently. It’s as if they knew the Courts would always let them get away with it. Some out of fear as elected officials. Some out of indifference. Some out of belief that banks and bad corporate citizens got them to their position and they are on that team. The banks should always win. I call those judges traitors to the constitution.”

 

  • “These banks have so much and keep taking more. They don’t care if you are rich or poor, white or It is easy to win when the game is rigged.”

 

  • “In the decade that I’ve fought on the trenches of foreclosure court, I’ve been blessed to help so many clients save their homes. Yet, I’ve had to warn them this broken system is riddled with fraud and The judges decide the rule of law, and whether any rule of law exists. Maybe the rule of law only applies to the rest of us.”

 

·        “This Court is sworn to protect and defend the constitution of the United States of America, not the foreclosure fraud of Bank of America or HSBC.”

 

  • “Why would anyone sworn to protect and defend the constitution stay silent while domestic enemies destroy our democracy from within? Is this really the world Americans should live in where those in power do not do what is right?”

 

  • “I’m fighting the modern-day monopoly. I am calling all the patriots who swore the oath to protect and defend the Constitution to join me. Any court that protects the monopoly over the rule of law is a traitor to the constitution and should be tried for ”

 

  • “This Court should not ignore Florida Supreme Court precedent and the actual facts of the dispute to reach a pre-determined result of blow the dogwhistle for judges to attack Aquasol’s counsel with contempt and jail for doing his job.

10. Upon review of respondent’s motion, which included a review of his initial and reply briefs, on or about September 26, 2018, the court issued an Order to Show Cause within ten days as to why the court should not impose sanctions against respondent for filing a motion and briefs which violated both the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure and The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. (A copy of the Third District Court of Appeal’s order is attached as Exhibit “A”).

11. On or about December 5, 2018, the court entered its order imposing sanctions. (A copy of the Third District Court of Appeal’s order is attached as Exhibit “B”).

Specifically, the court found that respondent impugned the qualifications or integrity of the court without any objectively or reasonable basis for doing so. The court further found that respondent filed a motion that was frivolous or in bad faith and was subject to sanctions pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410(a) which provides:

“After 10 days’ notice, on its own motion, the court may impose sanctions for any violation of these rules, or for the filing of any proceeding, motion, brief, or other document that is frivolous or in bad faith. Such sanctions may include reprimand, contempt, striking of briefs or pleadings, dismissal of proceedings, costs, attorneys’ fees, or other sanctions.”

12. Additionally, the court found that not only did respondent’s conduct violate the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, but it also violated the elementary norms of civility and professionalism.

13. As such, the court imposed reasonable attorney’s fees against Respondent not to exceed $5,000.00 and referred this matter to The Florida Bar.

14. Based on the foregoing, Respondent is in violation of Rule 4-8.2(a)

Impugning Qualifications and Integrity of Judges or Other Officers.

(A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, mediator, arbitrator, adjudicatory officer, public legal officer, juror or member of the venire, or candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.

COUNT II: AS TO THE FLORIDA BAR FILE NO. 2019-70,358(11H)

15. Respondent’s conduct came to the attention of The Florida Bar as a result of a referral by the Third District Court of Appeal for the State of Florida.

16. Respondent represented the defendant in a civil lawsuit in the case styled Bank of America, N.A., v. Ryan Atkin, Case No. 3D18-1840, Lower Tribunal No. 09-87096.

17. The plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of prohibition with regard to a denial of a motion to disqualify the trial judge.

18. On or about September 17, 2018, respondent filed a Response to the Writ and a Motion to Disqualify the Third District Court of Appeal from ruling in the Atkin matter.

19. In his response, respondent made disparaging and reckless comments regarding the judiciary. Excerpts of his comments are highlighted below:

• “In Simpson [sic], this Court violated the standard of review, ignored Florida Supreme Court precedent, and falsified the facts in contradiction to the record.”

• “The impartiality of this Court is objectively questioned and it cannot issue a ruling with integrity in this case.”

• A named circuit court judge acted with “blatant disregard for the rule of law and the client’s constitutional rights” in an unrelated case and was upheld by this Court.

• The same circuit court judge has “recently escalated her illegal conduct.”

• A different, unnamed circuit court judge changed a favorable ruling because opposing counsel “threw a fundraiser for the new judge who rotated into the division.”

20. Similarly, respondent made the following disparaging and reckless comments regarding the judges of the Third District Court of Appeal, as well as the justices of the Florida Supreme Court, in his jurisdictional brief to the United States Supreme Court which he attached as Appendix 1 to his Response to the Writ:

• “The opinion [of this Court] mispresented facts, ignored Florida Supreme Court law, and disregarded evidence showing fraud. The Florida Supreme Court declined jurisdiction to address this factually and intellectually dishonest result.”

• “The Third District Misrepresented the Amended Rule 1.540(b) Motion to reach a pre-determined result – foreclosure.”

• “… the Dishonesty of the Third DCA’s opinion.”

• “The Florida Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to protect the constitutional rights of foreclosure defendants.”

• “[I]n virtually every appeal where the trial judge ruled in favor of undersigned counsel’s client, including Simpson, the Third DCA reversed with intellectually and factually dishonest opinions.”

• This Court “attempt[ed] to cover up, protect, and ignore well- documented fraud on the court in foreclosures. All to ensure a pre- determined result – foreclosure.”

• “The Third DCA’s Opinion is pretextual and arbitrary.”

• “This Court is called on to act because the Florida Supreme Court has taken no action to prevent the Third DCA from improperly ignoring fraudulent conduct in foreclosures.”

• “It is objectively reasonable to fear the Third DCA acted to reach a predetermined outcome that favors banks over homeowners – foreclosure. If the Florida Supreme Court will not act, this Court must.”

• “Democracy will not fail if financial institutions are held to the rule of law. To the contrary, democracy falls if the public is allowed to believe Courts are biased in favor of bad corporate citizens and a fraudulent foreclosure process.”

21. Upon review of respondent’s pleadings, on or about December 14, 2018, the court issued an Order to Show Cause requiring respondent, within ten days, to address why the court should not impose sanctions against him for violations of both the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure and Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. (A copy of the Third District Court of Appeal’s order is attached as Exhibit “C”).

22. Specifically, the court found a reasonable basis to conclude that respondent violated Rule 4-8.2(a) on September 17, 2018 when he filed his response to the petition for writ of prohibition.

23. The court also concluded that same was violated when respondent filed as Appendix 1 to his Response a copy of a jurisdictional brief that was filed in an unrelated case to the United States Supreme Court.

24. On or about April 10, 2019, the court entered its order of referral to The Florida Bar. (A copy of the Third District Court of Appeal’s order is attached as Exhibit “D”).

25. Based on the foregoing, Respondent is in violation of Rule 4-8.2(a) Impugning Qualifications and Integrity of Judges or Other Officers.

(A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, mediator, arbitrator, adjudicatory officer, public legal officer, juror or member of the venire, or candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.

COUNT III: AS TO THE FLORIDA BAR FILE NO. 2020-70,056(11H)

26. Respondent’s conduct came to the attention of The Florida Bar as a result of a referral by the Honorable Michael A. Hanzman of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court in Miami-Dade County.

27. Notably, Judge Hanzman’s referral raised similar concerns with regard to respondent’s conduct as those raised and sanctioned by the Third District Court of Appeals of Florida.

28. Here, respondent represented the defendant in a civil lawsuit in the case styled Bank of New York Mellon v. Ryan Atkin, Case No. 2009-87096 CA.

29. On or about July 26, 2019, respondent filed a Verified Motion for Judicial Disqualification. In his motion, respondent continued to make disparaging and reckless comments regarding a member of the judiciary.

(A copy of respondent’s Verified Motion for Judicial Disqualification excluding attachments is attached as Exhibit “E”).

Excerpts of his comments are highlighted below:

• Judge Hanzman refused to respect the notice of unavailability and his office advised the hearing was still scheduled to move forward at this juncture.

This is the latest of a series of improper actions by Judge Hanzman that gives rise to Mr. Atkin’s objectively reasonable fears that he will not be given a fair hearing in this court.

• Judge Hanzman Has Repeatedly Ignored Obvious Fraud on the Court by Large Financial Institutions in Foreclosures While Abusing His Power to Chill Defense Counsel’s Zealous Advocacy Against Those Financial Institutions.

• Judge Hanzman has made repeated statements on the record and off the record that reflect his indifference to large financial institutions presenting false evidence to the court to obtain the equitable relief of foreclosure.

His personal finances appear to be heavily invested in the financial services sector which gives Mr. Atkin a reasonable fear Judge Hanzman will not be fair and impartial because it will negatively impact his significant personal financial holdings.

• Here, this Honorable Court has allowed the most rich and powerful segment of our society, the financial sector in which he is personally heavily invested in, to engage in felony misconduct and walk away without any punishment in violation of the Judicial Canons and the rule of law.

The Court was “unimpressed” with these allegations of felony misconduct based on a prior foreclosure trial that involved entirely different misconduct which the Court similarly excused.

30. On July 29, 2019, respondent’s motion for disqualification was denied as untimely and legally insufficient.

31. In addition to the incident described above, on or about May 3, 2019 and July 14, 2019, respectively, respondent filed a Motion for Determination of Entitlement to Prevailing Party Attorneys’ Fees and Re-hearing, and a Motion for an Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs for Order Determining Entitlement of Multiplier.

32. In denying the motions, the court found that the defendant was not entitled to attorney’s fees and costs because same was neither plead nor requested in his pleadings.

The court further explained that the rule with regard to a claim for attorney’s fees is well established pursuant to controlling authority which respondent did not cite to, acknowledge or address in his motion.

(A copy of Judge Michael A. Hanzman’s order is attached as Exhibit “F”).

33. Judge Hanzman’s July 31, 2020, order further stated:

“Apparently Defendant’s counsel – Bruce Jacobs – has not gotten the message or been deterred by our appellate court’s issuance of an Order to Show Cause based upon its finding of ‘a reasonable basis to conclude Mr. Jacobs violated his duty of candor to the tribunal … by failing to disclose to this court controlling adverse case law, ” Aquasol Condo Ass ‘n, Inc v. HSBC Bank USA, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D2271 (Fla. 3d Sept. 26 2018), or its later Order Imposing Sanctions” and referral to the Florida Bar for appropriate disciplinary proceedings based – in part- on Mr. Jacobs’ ‘extraordinary and corrosive ‘ attacks ‘on the integrity of the trial court and this court.

‘Aquasol Condo Ass ‘n, Inc v. HSBC Bank USA, Nat’/ Ass ‘n, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D2699 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec. 5, 2018). Despite the appellate court’s findings and Bar referral, Mr. Jacobs’ recently filed a scurrilous motion to disqualify this Court and once again violated Rule 4-8.2(a) of the Rules and Regulation of the Florida Bar by impugning the integrity of this Court, and he has once again failed to cite controlling authorities.

In sum, Mr. Jacobs is unrepentant, undeterred, and continues to engage in the exact same behavior he was sanctioned for and which is now presumably being investigated by the Bar. Accordingly, this Order will be sent to the Florida Bar so it may be considered as part of any disciplinary proceeding. ”

34. Based on the foregoing, Respondent is in violation of Rules 4- 3.3(a)(3) False Evidence; Duty to Disclose.

(A lawyer shall not knowingly: fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel) and Rule 4-8.2(a) Impugning Qualifications and Integrity of Judges or Other Officers.

(A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, mediator, arbitrator, adjudicatory officer, public legal officer, juror or member of the venire, or candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.

WHEREFORE, The Florida Bar prays respondent will be appropriately disciplined in accordance with the provisions of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar as amended.

The court further explained that the rule with regard to a claim for attorney’s fees is well established pursuant to controlling authority which respondent did not cite to, acknowledge or address in his motion.

(A copy of Judge Michael A. Hanzman’s order is attached as Exhibit “F”).

Tonya L. Avery,
Bar Counsel
The Florida Bar
Miami Branch Office
444 Brickell Avenue
Rivergate Plaza, Suite M-100
Miami, Florida 33131-2404
(305) 377-4445
Florida Bar No. 190292
tavery@floridabar.org

Patricia Ann Toro Savitz,
Staff Counsel
The Florida Bar
651 E. Jefferson Street
Tallahassee,
Florida 32399-2300
(850) 561-5839
Florida Bar No. 559547
psavitz@floridabar.org

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that this document has been efiled with The Honorable John A. Tomasino, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Florida; with copies provided via email to Benedict P. Kuehne, at ben.kuehne@kuehnelaw.com and Roy D. Wasson, at roy@wassonandassociates.com Attorneys for Respondent, and that copies have been furnished by United States Mail via certified mail No. 7017 3380 0000 1082 7201, return receipt requested to Benedict P. Kuehne100 SE 2nd St. Ste. 3105, Miami, FL 33131-2100 and to Roy D. Wasson via certified mail No. 7017 3380 0000 1082 7218 at 28 W. Flagler St. Ste. 600, Miami, FL 33130-1893 and to Tonya L. Avery, Bar Counsel, The Florida Bar, via email at tavery@floridabar.org, on this 3rd day of November, 2020.

Patricia Ann Toro Savitz Staff Counsel

NOTICE OF TRIAL COUNSEL AND DESIGNATION OF PRIMARY EMAIL ADDRESS

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the trial counsel in this matter is Tonya L. Avery, Bar Counsel, whose address, telephone number and primary email address are The Florida Bar, Miami Branch Office, 444 Brickell Avenue Rivergate Plaza, Suite M-100Miami, Florida 33131-2404, (305) 377-4445 and tavery@floridabar.org; and Respondent need not address pleadings, correspondence, etc. in this matter to anyone other than trial counsel and to Staff Counsel, The Florida Bar, 651 E Jefferson Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300, psavitz@floridabar.org.

MANDATORY ANSWER NOTICE

RULE 3-7.6(h)(2), RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR, PROVIDES THAT A RESPONDENT SHALL ANSWER A COMPLAINT.

YOUR DONATION(S) WILL HELP US:

• Continue to provide this website, content, resources, community and help center for free to the many homeowners, residents, Texans and as we’ve expanded, people nationwide who need access without a paywall or subscription.

• Help us promote our campaign through marketing, pr, advertising and reaching out to government, law firms and anyone that will listen and can assist.

Thank you for your trust, belief and support in our conviction to help Floridian residents and citizens nationwide take back their freedom. Your Donations and your Voice are so important.



Appellate Circuit

Judge Jill Pryor on a Panel about Judicial Recusals? That’s a Contradiction, Right There.

Judge Cooke has a conflict of interest based on her financial statements, which revealed interests in companies doing business with one of the defendants.

Published

on

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit

No. 20-13674
Non-Argument Calendar

JAMES BUCKMAN, MAURICE SYMONETTE,

versus
LANCASTER MORTGAGE CO.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO.,
as Trustee under the pooling and servicing agreement series rast 2006-A8,

SECURITY AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,

U.S. TREASURY,

Defendants-Appellees,

ONE WEST BANK, et al.,

Defendants.

OCT 7, 2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: OCT 7, 2021

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-24184-MGC

Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

James Buckman and Maurice Symonette (“Buckman and Symonette”) appeal from the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of their second amended complaint as an impermissible shotgun pleading.

They argue that the district court erred and demonstrated bias by dismissing their case because they had filed a motion for an additional three-day extension of time and the district court provided a window for responses to the motion by the defendants, but then dismissed the case before the responses were due.1

After review, we affirm.

1 Over four months after filing their notice of appeal from the dismissal of their complaint, Buckman and Symonette filed two motions for recusal of the district court judge, arguing that she had a conflict of interest based on her financial statements, which revealed interests in companies doing business with one of the defendants. (LIF: THAT DEFENDANT WOULD BE DEUTSCHE BANK)

The district court denied the motions.

Buckman and Symonette did not file an amended or new notice of appeal following entry of that order.

Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of the motion for recusal.

See McDougald v. Jenson, 786 F.2d 1465, 1474 (11th Cir. 1986) (holding that, although we liberally construe notices of appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3 to include orders not expressly designated, that allowance does not extend to an order that was not entered when the notice of appeal was filed);

see also LaChance v. Duffy’s Draft House, Inc., 146 F.3d 832, 837–38 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding that we lacked jurisdiction over a post-judgment order awarding attorney’s fees where the motion for attorney’s fees was not filed until after the notice of appeal and the plaintiff failed to file an amended notice of appeal from the order awarding fees).

I. Background

In October 2019, Buckman and Symonette filed a pro se 45-page complaint against eight defendants including numerous banks, a mortgage company, the Security and Exchange Commission, the U.S. Treasury, and other entities, raising numerous claims including:

(1) quiet title;
(2) slander of title;
(3) unjust enrichment;
(4) violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act;
(5) fraud and concealment;
(6) violation of timely assignment and lack of consideration;
and
(7) various violations of several Florida statutes.

Thereafter, in December 2019, Buckman and Symonette filed a 51-page amended complaint asserting a total of 11 causes of action.

On July 24, 2020, the district court, sua sponte, struck the amended complaint as an impermissible shotgun pleading.

The district court set forth the pleading rules in its order, and provided that the plaintiffs had until July 31, 2020 to file a second amended complaint.

The district court emphasized that, in the second amended complaint, Plaintiffs are required to make a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . .”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

Plaintiffs must also state each theory of liability separately “in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).

The newly amended complaint should clearly delineate which factual allegations and cited laws are relevant to the asserted cause of action.

This includes specifying which Defendant is liable under each cause of action and which Defendant is implicated in each factual allegation.

Failure to comply with this Order may result in the dismissal of this case with prejudice or other appropriate sanctions.

On July 31, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for an extension of time to file their second amended complaint. The district court granted the motion and ordered that the second amended com- plaint be filed on or before August 6, 2020.

On August 6, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking three more days to file their second amended complaint. On the same date, after filing their extension motion, they filed their second amended complaint.

The 92-page second amended complaint added 4 new causes of action and suffered from many of the same issues as the first amended complaint.

On August 17, 2020, the district court dismissed with prejudice the second amended complaint explaining that the second amended complaint “does not cure the defects that required striking of the initial Complaint.”

This appeal followed.2

2 Following the dismissal of their complaint, Buckman and Symonette filed a motion for reconsideration in the district court, which was denied. However, they do not raise any arguments related to the denial of their motion for re- consideration in their brief. Accordingly, the district court’s resolution of the motion for reconsideration is not before us.

II. Discussion

Buckman and Symonette argue that the district court erred and demonstrated bias when it dismissed their case with prejudice while their motion for extension of time was pending.

Specifically, they argue that the district court docketed their motion for a three- day extension of time to file the second amended complaint and set “responses due by 8/20/2020,” but then dismissed the case before that date.

They also raise arguments related to the merits of their underlying claims.

The district court did not err in dismissing the case. On the day the second amended complaint was due, Buckman and Symonette filed the request for a three-day extension of time, but they then filed a second amended complaint the same day.

The filing of the second amended complaint on the day it was due mooted the motion for an extension of time and the related re- sponse period.

Once the second amended complaint was filed, there was nothing left for the district court to do except review the complaint to determine whether the plaintiffs corrected the previously identified pleading issues.

To the extent that Buckman and Symonette’s brief could be liberally construed as challenging the district court’s dismissal of the second-amended complaint as an impermissible shotgun pleading, we review the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion.

Barmapov v. Amuial, 986 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2021); see also Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998)

(“Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.”).

“A shotgun pleading is a complaint that violates either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) or Rule 10(b), or both.”

Barmapov, 986 F.3d at 1324.

Rule 8 requires that the complaint set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim” demonstrating an entitlement to relief, and Rule 10 requires that a plaintiff “state [his] claims in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) and 10(b).

Rule 10 further provides that each claim be stated in separate counts “[i]f doing so would promote clarity.” Id. R. 10(b).

We have repeatedly condemned the use of shotgun pleadings.

See Barmapov, 986 F.3d at 1324; Magluta v. Samples, 256 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001).

When a plaintiff files a shotgun pleading, a district court must give him one chance to replead before dismissing his case with prejudice on shotgun pleading grounds.
Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1295–96 (11th Cir. 2018).

The district court should explain how the pleading violated the shotgun rule so that the plaintiff can remedy his next pleading.

Id.

Where, as here, the plaintiff is provided fair notice of the specific defects in his complaint and a meaningful chance to fix it but fails to correct the defects, the district court does not abuse its discretion by dismissing with prejudice on shotgun pleading grounds.

Jackson v. Bank of Am., N.A., 898 F.3d 1348, 1358–59 (11th Cir. 2018).

Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the second amended complaint with prejudice because Buckman and Symonette failed to correct the pleading defects.

Id.

Consequently, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

YOUR DONATION(S) WILL HELP US:

• Continue to provide this website, content, resources, community and help center for free to the many homeowners, residents, Texans and as we’ve expanded, people nationwide who need access without a paywall or subscription.

• Help us promote our campaign through marketing, pr, advertising and reaching out to government, law firms and anyone that will listen and can assist.

Thank you for your trust, belief and support in our conviction to help Floridian residents and citizens nationwide take back their freedom. Your Donations and your Voice are so important.



Continue Reading

Bankers

Judge Brian Davis of M.D. Fl. Ends Class Action Against Wells Fargo

Judge Davis suggests the “wait and see” approach to claims Wells Fargo fraudulently changed maturity dates on HELOC loans ends this case.

Published

on

Tippett v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

(5:20-cv-00342)

District Court, M.D. Florida

This is a follow up to LIF’s original article in this case – click here.

SEP 24, 2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: SEP 28, 2021

YOUR DONATION(S) WILL HELP US:

• Continue to provide this website, content, resources, community and help center for free to the many homeowners, residents, Texans and as we’ve expanded, people nationwide who need access without a paywall or subscription.

• Help us promote our campaign through marketing, pr, advertising and reaching out to government, law firms and anyone that will listen and can assist.

Thank you for your trust, belief and support in our conviction to help Floridian residents and citizens nationwide take back their freedom. Your Donations and your Voice are so important.



Continue Reading

Acceleration

Who is Presiding Judge Andrea Gundersen, Mortgage Foreclosure Division, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit?

Judge Gundersen presides over all foreclosures in Broward County. She has been referred to JQC, asking that she be removed from the bench.

Published

on

FL Honest Lending Report

REPUBLISHED BY LIT: JUL 5, 2021

After orchestrating one of the largest consumer frauds in American history, the banking industry continues the unethical and illegal servicing and foreclosure practices that were uncovered during the “robo-signing” scandal which eventually led to the $25b settlement with 49 State Attorneys General in 2012.

While some of the unethical practices regarding origination were curbed after the settlement, unethical servicing and fraudulent foreclosures continue to plague homeowners.

Floridians for Honest Lending (FHL) reviewed several hundred foreclosure complaints filed in 2019 by Bank of America, the Bank of New York Mellon, and JP Morgan Chase in the Eleventh and Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Courts that comprise Miami-Dade and Broward counties respectively. Upon that review, FHL found 369 foreclosure complaints were filed with rubber-stamped blank endorsements with signatures of David SpectorLaurie MederMichele Sjolander, and Cynthia Riley, whose names became synonymous with the robo-signing scandal. Of those, 325 were loans originated by Countrywide, the disgraced mortgage company that was bought by Bank of America in 2008.

In addition, FHL found that in Miami-Dade alone, 310 homes had been sold at auction since January 2019 that included these same rubber-stamped blank endorsements from these same rubber-stamped blank endorsements, 21 of which were sold during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The fraudulent rubber-stamped blank endorsements are used to establish standing and the banks’ right to foreclose on homeowners, the same homeowners that were sold predatory loans and pushed into foreclosure with unethical servicing practices.

This practice of filing false documents was documented by 60 Minutes in 2011 and was part of the complaint filed by the 49 State Attorneys General.

It was discovered after the $25b National Mortgage Settlement that Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase continued to submit forged documents, now relying on forgery and perjury, in foreclosures across the nation.

Unfortunately, the banks’ reckless greed left millions of properties with mortgages and promissory notes corrupted and the chain of title on those properties broken, putting trial court judges in an uncomfortable position of either taking the banking industry to task for these forged documents or kicking a family out of their home.

Unfortunately, with little scrutiny from the media, legislators, or regulators, our court system has heavily favored the latter.

In fact, FHL’s review found that in Broward county, 217 of the 219 foreclosure complaints filed in 2019 that included fraudulent rubber stamps were assigned to Judge Andrea Gundersen.

Of these cases assigned to Judge Gundersen, 126 of them have been closed, none of which were ruled in favor of the defendant.

Currently, Judge Gundersen presides over all foreclosures in Broward County.

She was reassigned from Family Court and does not have prior experience in foreclosure litigation.

Since her reassignment, defense attorneys have filed motions for judicial disqualification against Judge Gundersen for allowing attorneys for Bank of America to misrepresent the law and argue that “fraud on the court” is allowed in foreclosure because of a “litigation privilege” and ordering the defendant to pay the Bank’s attorney’s fees for challenging the fraud.

In April 2021, Judge Gundersen granted nineteen motions for disqualification in cases she presided over.

The clients have referred Judge Gundersen to the Judicial Qualifications Commission asking that she be removed from the bench.

These fraudulent foreclosures impact real people like Ana Rodriguez, an 82-year-old homeowner who was a former Cuban political prisoner, who now faces eviction because she was sold a predatory loan by Countrywide.

It impacts people like Mrs. Marie Williams-James who never missed a mortgage payment but Bank of America foreclosed on her anyway and Mr. and Mrs. Simpson who were working on a mortgage modification when the Judge refused the bank’s motion for continuance and forced the Simpsons into a fraudulent foreclosure judgment.

There is a new foreclosure crisis looming due to the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. As we get the pandemic under control, the federal government will be under increased pressure from the banking industry to lift the FHFA moratorium for federally-backed mortgages from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

That moratorium only protects borrowers who had strong enough credit scores to qualify for government-backed mortgages. The elderly, communities of color, and first-time homebuyers who took subprime mortgages are not protected by any moratorium and are still being evicted during the pandemic.

The issue of fraudulent foreclosures must be resolved before this new crisis begins. This is an issue that demands action at the local, state, and federal levels from legislators, regulators, and our judicial system.

We cannot continue to allow fraud in our justice system for the convenience of the banking industry and at the expense of homeowners’ American Dream.

Floridian for Honest Lending is a project of Opportunity For All Floridians, a 501c4 non-profit organization. We believe that our system will only work with transparency, honesty, and accountability. Our research can be found here.

Each complaint filed by the banks’ attorneys is linked in the second column. The forged rubber stamps can usually be found on the promissory notes that are included in the exhibits.

Below you can also find a sample of the varied David Spector signatures.

YOUR DONATION(S) WILL HELP US:

• Continue to provide this website, content, resources, community and help center for free to the many homeowners, residents, Texans and as we’ve expanded, people nationwide who need access without a paywall or subscription.

• Help us promote our campaign through marketing, pr, advertising and reaching out to government, law firms and anyone that will listen and can assist.

Thank you for your trust, belief and support in our conviction to help Floridian residents and citizens nationwide take back their freedom. Your Donations and your Voice are so important.



Continue Reading

Most Read

Copyright © 2021 LawsInFlorida.com is an online brand name which is wholly owned by Blogger Inc., a nonprofit 501(c)(3) registered in Delaware | Caricatures by DonkeyHotey