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 half photo

Garfield hosed his client as you will read in the case documents, specifically, the court’s dismissal order to the 3rd amended complaint, the 5th amended complaint, the motions to dismiss it, the order to dismiss it, and the appellate docket. The complaints read like jibberish-filled lunacy.

In short, the creditors’ attorneys rightly called the effort an abuse of the judicial process.  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 worries that he will have to pay it.  Maybe he should sue Garfield for it.

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

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


See http://bobhurt.com

8 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!


  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

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s