Here’s the video of the 11-19-15 Oral Argument before the Fifth District.
The issue was whether HUD Regulations in an FHA mortgage operate as a condition precedent (putting the burden of proving compliance on the lender in a foreclosure trial) or an affirmative defense (putting the burden of proving failure to comply on the homeowner at trial).
This was a similar argument to that from 11-17-15 (below), yet the Court saw/handled the issues very differently.
It’s an interesting watch, and some of you may be amused by the court’s jokes about me needing “decaf” or “medication” and suggestion that I drive home “slowly.” Regardless of whether you interpret that as criticism or all in good fun (I consider it the latter), I’m pleased with how well the judges knew the arguments and how engaged they were with me … really, that’s all I ever ask for in foreclosure-world.
I’m thankful for many things this Thanksgiving, but right now, I feel particularly grateful for the handful of staff at Stopa Law Firm who have been so loyal/hard-working/great for a long time now.
The biggest “thank yous” go to my three longest-tenured staffers: Angela (been with me since 2008), David (intake paralegal since 2008, helped me pound “Stopa Law Firm” signs into telephone poles back when nobody knew who I was), and Rachel (answering phones on our 800-number since 2008).
Thank you also to Alice and Ashley, who are going on five years here, and Tiffany, in her fourth year, as the three of you have been great behind the scenes for a long time now.
Finally, thanks to all the others who have made it here beyond a year (no small task!): Bernie, Chris, Al, Kevin, Christina, Teresa, and Deanna.
Here’s the video of my 11-17-15 Oral Argument before the Second District.
We discussed two novel, cutting edge issues:
(1) a foreclosing lender’s obligation to comply with HUD Regulations before acceleration and foreclosure in an FHA mortgage, and whether such compliance is a condition precedent or the absence of such is an affirmative defense at trial; and
(2) whether a foreclosing lender can avoid proving it had standing when it filed suit by proving such standing upon the filing of the amended complaint.
I have two Oral Arguments this week, one in Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal and one in the Fifth District. The issue in both appeals is whether the face-to-face counseling requirement of 24 C.F.R. 203.604 is a condition precedent to foreclosure of an FHA Mortgage (such that the burden of proving such counseling is on the lender) or an affirmative defense (such that the burden of proving the lack of such counseling is on the borrower).
I think the counseling is a condition precedent, but there’s no case law in Florida on point. So … let’s go make some law. 🙂
Here are the briefs for these two appeals:
Corrigan: Tues., Nov. 17, 2015 at 9:30 before the Second District, though I’m last on the docket