News

 

Archive for September, 2015

Judge #49 on Fla. Stat. 559.715

I’m now up to 49 different circuit court judges who have dismissed a foreclosure lawsuit based on the lender’s failure to give the notice required by Fla. Stat. 559.715.  49!!

Here’s the Order written by the latest judge to so rule.

Trust me, it’s worth the read.  🙂

Judge McClellan, Bay County:  Order on 559.715

 

Mark Stopa

www.stayinmyhome.com

Posted in Main | 4 Comments »

559.715: Oral Argument Against Akerman

Here’s another video of an Oral Argument before the Second District on 559.715.

Do you think I have their attention yet?  😉  I’d say so, given how Judge Khouzam started the argument by noting how many times I’ve been there on this issue.

FWIW, this one was against Akerman.

 

 

Mark Stopa

www.stayinmyhome.com

Posted in Main | 8 Comments »

559.715 Oral Argument, with Extra Time

Here’s a video of my Oral Argument on Sept. 1, 2015 before the Second District.

The topic was Fla. Stat. 559.715 (what else?).  The coolest part of the argument was the panel’s interest in the issue – so much so that they let us go on for twice as long as usual.  Twice as much time to argue?  Sign me up.  😉

A written decision on this issue is coming.  Cross your fingers!  🙂

Mark Stopa

www.stayinmyhome.com

Posted in Main | 6 Comments »

Oral Argument: 559.715

Here’s a video of my Oral Argument before the Second District on September 2, 2015 before Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal.

I argued the lower court ruled correctly when it dismissed the case where the bank did not give my client the notice required by Fla. Stat. 559.715.

Mark Stopa

www.stayinmyhome.com

Posted in Main | No Comments »

Substantial Compliance on Par. 22: Milam Motion for Rehearing

Anyone who watched today’s Oral Argument in the Second District on Fla. Stat. 559.715 observed an inside joke, mid-argument, exchanged between me and Judge Altenbernd.  It’s probably time I elaborate on what happened.

Recently, a two-judge panel of the Second District decided “substantial compliance” is the legal standard to employ in the paragraph 22 context.  I’ve been stewing about this for some time now, deciding how I wanted to present the issue in this blog, and I guess I realized there is no good way.  Let’s just say I can’t stand it.

Ironically, saying “I can’t stand it” aren’t my words, but those of Judge Altenbernd in today’s argument, who brought up this ruling out of the blue with a chuckle.  We laughed, and he laughed again when I asked if the Court was going to rule en banc, as I requested in my Motion for Rehearing.

How would Judge Altenbernd know about my Motion for Rehearing in Milam when he wasn’t on that panel?  Well, check out the Motion.  I mention him by name repeatedly.  Clearly, word got around (and that’s a good thing).  It’s also good that the motion has been pending for nearly a month now without getting denied.  (Motions for rehearing are typically denied quickly.)  Who knows, perhaps I got someone’s attention.

I’m obviously disappointed in the court’s opinion in Milam.  My Motion for Rehearing barely scratches the surface on why.

Sometimes in life, I suppose I have to know I gave it my very best and live with the results.

The battles wage on.  I’ll post the arguments I’ve been doing on 559.715 when I receive the videos.  An opinion on that issue is coming.  🙂

Mark Stopa

www.stayinmyhome.com

Posted in Main | No Comments »