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.
In 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.