Fla Court Destroys Garfield Arguments in Maslanka

Zdzislaw Maslanka wrote paid in full on a mortgage payment check, and then sued for quiet title in 2011. He kept his loan payments current, though. He named as defendants his home loan creditor, Wells Fargo, and the loan originator Embrace, who had sold WF the loan soon after closing.  Maslanka didn’t fare well in the litigation, so he hired Neil Garfield to soup up and manage the case, and to show those bumpkins how a real pro handles things.

Garfield hosed his client as you will read in the case documents, specifically, the court’s orders granting of the Embrace and Wells Fargo motions to dismiss the final amended complaint, the appellate docket, and Embrace’s appellate reply brief showing Garfield’s complaints as cut-and-paste, jibberish-filled lunacy.

The creditors’ attorneys rightly called the effort an abuse of the judicial process, complaining as follows about Garfield’s 5th amended complaint:

The trial judge dismissed the complaints for failure to state a claim for which the court could grant relief.  In a 12 May 2016 decision, the appellate panel affirmed without comment, and it awarded unconditional attorney fees to the creditors.  Maslanka told me that they did not press him to pay those fees.  He should have sued Garfield for legal malpractice.

See the main case documents zipped for easy download.  If you prefer more torture, access the rest of the trial documents for Case CACE11028853.

BozoIn fairness, maybe I’m too harsh on Neil Garfield.  Maybe he did his best for Maslanka, or maybe Maslanka forced him to lodge those inane arguments that I have complained against for years. And maybe Garfield has reformed since he wrote that 5th amended complaint.

But if Garfield did that on his own, he deserves severe discipline by the Florida Bar, in my humble opinion, for he just made Maslanka look like a fool. And that makes Garfield a Bozo in my book.

Mort Gezzam photo
Mort Gezzam

Published by

Bob Hurt

See http://bobhurt.com Consumer advocate helping borrowers in foreclosure save their homes and obtain compensation for their injuries.

10 thoughts on “Fla Court Destroys Garfield Arguments in Maslanka”

  1. Pingback: Mortgage Attack
  2. Maslanka called me to discuss what Garfield did to him. He hit him up for over $35K for a nonsensical complaint, and after his loss will have to go bankrupt to not have to pay the attorney fees of the banks, which most likely will be way over $100k!


    1. Well… If I were Maslanka, I would sue Garfield personally, as the attorney and/or the LLC I paid money to (I would sue both). With the money he’s made preying on homeowners while drawing a full pension (remember that he “came out of retirement to help out homeowners”), he is smart enough to have purchased Professional Liability insurance. Malanska doesn’t have to be out of one penny he paid Garfield and/or Garfiled LLC if either was covered. Maslanka can, at least, recover all he paid from the minute Garfield got involved. PLUS his legal expenses to go after Garfield. I seriously would look into it.


      1. Oh, I forgot a few points: Professional Liability Insurance allows to get back ALL the money lost in a judgment if the breach of duty arose from the get go, with damages. AND it goes against the attorney’s license: reportable to the Board too. Boy was AIG a good teacher until it went astray! A judgment naming Garfield? I would catch that ball and grab onto it ’til a home run!


      2. Hi,
        Are you able to communicate with my Blindness? Can you explain in detailed writting how this issue occurred? I will connect with my medical devices that will read your reply bad


      3. Deirdre:

        Maslanka started his trouble by trying to scam his mortgage creditor by
        writing on the back of the monthly mortgage payment check something like
        “cashing this check constitutes acknowledgement that the associated debt
        is paid in full.” He sued the creditor and original lender, hoping the
        court would declare the mortgage debt paid in full.  He then hired
        Garfield to manage the litigation because he believed Garfield could win
        the case for him.  He learned the hard way that Garfield is utterly
        incompetent. Garfield formulated absurd, incomprehensible arguments in
        his amended complaints.  The judge dismissed the final (5th) amended
        complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Garfield appealed. 
        The appellate court upheld the trial court’s dismissal, and ordered
        Maslanka to pay the creditor and lender the amount of their attorneys’ fees.

        This case is an appalling example of the kind of damage incompetent
        attorneys can and will do to foolish mortgagors who try to scam the

        The lessons: don’t try to scam the creditor/lender, and don’t hire
        attorneys like Garfield.

        Bob Hurt


  3. Maslanka could owe over $100K in his adversaries’ legal fees because his lawyer (Neil Garfield) propounded lunatic arguments in a lawsuit against a mortgage lender and creditor. If Maslanka gets a mortgage examination, he might have the evidence to prove that Garfield committed legal malpractice.


  4. Pingback: Mortgage Attack
  5. Garfield is a total embarrassment to the legal profession; and obviously anyone associated with his madness, or uses any of it, is a big a clown as he is.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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