Tag: Creditor-Debtor Relations

Articles and information on commercial litigation, business disputes, real estate litigation. Call (954) 440-0901, (561) 406-0440, (813) 510-5800

Standing–A Common Defense to Mortgage Foreclosure

December 15, 2015

By: Justin C. Carlin

There is, unfortunately, a lot of misinformation among the public regarding mortgage foreclosure cases.  As an attorney who has both prosecuted and defended mortgage foreclosure cases, I believe that those holding misconceptions about foreclosures can usually be placed into two groups—those who believe that there are virtually no defenses to a mortgage foreclosure case, and those who (for whatever strange reason) believe that they are unlikely to lose a foreclosure case (despite having not paid their mortgage for months) and, therefore, underestimate a lender’s ability to foreclose.  In reality, banks and lenders rightfully win the overwhelming majority of mortgage foreclosure cases, but there are occasionally times when the borrower should (and does) win a foreclosure action.

By far, the most common defense to a foreclosure action is a lender’s purported lack of standing—i.e., the claim that the lender is not the party entitled to bring the foreclosure lawsuit.  (An example of standing in the non-foreclosure context: A (but only A) is injured in a car accident caused by B‘s negligence.  A would be legally permitted to bring a lawsuit against B, but C could not, because he has not suffered any injury as a result of B‘s negligence.  An exception might exist if there was an assignment, by which A, for value or for some other reason, transferred his claim against B to C.)  Standing is a legal defense that is often frivolously asserted in a mortgage foreclosure case, but it is occasionally (more often than some would expect) validly asserted.  The legal principle not only prevents a borrower from potentially being sued twice on the same debt obligation, but it also prevents an entity that is not owed funds from a homeowner from forcing the sale of the homeowner’s property in satisfaction of a debt owed to someone else. READ MORE

Florida’s Fraudulent Lien Statute

November 17, 2015

By: Justin C. Carlin

In the Florida construction law context, contractors, subcontractors, and sub-subcontractors sometimes assert liens on property for (i) amounts that exceed that which is actually owed by a property owner, or (ii) work that was not actually performed on the property.  When either of such events occurs, a court may find that the lien is fraudulent, declare that the lien unenforceable, and award actual and punitive damages to any person who is damaged by the fraudulent lien.

Concept For Corruption, Bankruptcy Court, Bail, Crime, Bribing, Fraud, Auction Bidding. Judges or Auctioneer Gavel, Soundboard And Bundle Of Dollar Cash On The Rough Wooden Textured Table Background.
Concept For Corruption, Bankruptcy Court, Bail, Crime, Bribing, Fraud, Auction Bidding. Judges or Auctioneer Gavel, Soundboard And Bundle Of Dollar Cash On The Rough Wooden Textured Table Background.

Section 713.31(2)(a) of the Florida Statutes defines a fraudulent lien as a lien containing:

  •  A willful exaggeration as to the amount of the claim; or
  •  A claim for work not performed upon the property upon which the lienor seeks to impress its lien; or
  •  A claim for materials not furnished for the property upon which the lienor seeks to impress it lien; or
  •  A claim that is compiled “with such willful and gross negligence as to amount to a willful exaggeration.”

READ MORE