In an opinion issued today, Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal joined other Florida appellate courts in holding that the five-year statute of limitations to bring an action to enforce a promissory note and/or mortgage does not prohibit a lender from collecting amounts more than five years past due.
In Grant v. Citizens Bank, N.A., slip op., Case No. 5D17-726 (Fla. 5th DCA Dec. 26, 2018), the Fifth District, sitting en banc, examined whether the trial judge erred in awarding to a foreclosing lender interest that had accrued more than five years prior to acceleration and the filing of the foreclosure complaint. The court noted that while Florida has a five-year statute of limitations to foreclose, the impact of the statute of limitations is simply that acceleration and foreclosure must be based on a default that occurred within the five year period prior to filing the foreclosure action. Each missed monthly installment payment constitutes a new default on which foreclosure may be based. Furthermore, forbearance from accelerating the note upon a borrower’s default does not constitute waiver of the lender’s right to subsequently seek all sums due and owing. Therefore, even if the lender does not file an action on a note or mortgage until more than five years after the borrower’s initial default, the lender may still recover amounts more than five years past due so long as the action commences within five years of maturity or a subsequent missed installment payment.
In reaching this conclusion, the Fifth District receded from its previous opinions in Velden v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, 234 So. 3d 850 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) and U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Diamond, 228 So. 3d 177 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017), cases in which the court concluded that the statute of limitations prohibited the collection of amounts more than five years past due. With Grant, the Fifth District now joins the Third and Fourth District Courts of Appeal in holding that a lender is entitled to recover all outstanding payments upon maturity or acceleration, even those that came due more than five years earlier. See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Graybush, 253 So. 3d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018); Gonzalez v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, — So. 3d —, 2018 WL 3636467 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 1, 2018).
The First and Second Districts have not directly addressed the interaction between the statute of limitations and the amounts a lender may collect. Given that neither those appellate courts nor the Florida Supreme Court has spoken on the topic, and now that there is no longer interdistrict conflict between the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Districts on the issue, trial courts in all districts of Florida are bound by the Grant, Graybush, and Gonzalez opinions. Thus, lenders throughout the state of Florida are able to recover all amounts owed to them—not just those that accrued within the previous five years.
Eddie Craig, who FALSELY claims to be a “FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF” (a “former cop” and a “former law enforcement officer”) and an “EXPERT” in the law. Specifically, Eddie Craig FALSELY claims that he was a “DEPUTY SHERIFF” in Nacogdoches County, Texas. Eddie Craig claims that during his “CAREER IN LAW ENFORCEMENT” as a “DEPUTY SHERIFF”, he found out that all traffic law (and all traffic-related law enforcement) was unconstitutional, illegal, invalid, fraudulent and corrupt.
Eddie Craig makes these intentionally fraudulent claims about himself and his background in order to deceptively “TRICK” the American people into thinking that he is a GENUINE AUTHORITY in the law. But, none of this is so.
The closest that Eddie Craig ever came to being a “DEPUTY SHERIFF” was as a “PART-TIME JAILER” for a period of TWO WEEKS in 1992, at which time, he was unceremoniously “FIRED” (“NOT ELIGIBLE FOR RE-HIRE”)!
That’s right. On 8-17-1992, Eddie Craig was HIRED for a “PART-TIME” job as a county “JAILER” in Nacogdoches County, Texas and he was “FIRED” TWO WEEKS LATER on 8-31-1992 (“NOT ELIGIBLE FOR RE-HIRE”)! It is this TWO WEEK TENURE as a “PART-TIME JAILER” in Nacogdoches County, Texas that Eddie Craig refers to as his “CAREER IN LAW ENFORCEMENT” as a “DEPUTY SHERIFF” for which he claims he “left the Air Force”.
See this case. Muniz v. Davis, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4860473033812235072&q=%22Eddie+Craig%22+muniz&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, “Muniz [a litigant in a traffic-related case who Eddie Craig duped] also asks the Court to consider the [written] expert statement of Eddie Craig, attached as an exhibit to Muniz’s First Amended Complaint… . In the statement, Craig opines that the actions of the law enforcement officers in this case were unlawful [as if Eddie Craig would know]. ALTHOUGH MUNIZ CLAIMS THAT CRAIG IS A FORMER SHERIFF’S DEPUTY, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE BEFORE THIS COURT [TO THIS EFFECT OR] OF CRAIG’S PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE OR QUALIFICATIONS [AS AN ALLEGED “EXPERT WITNESS]. Simply put, THE COURT HAS NO BASIS TO CREDIT CRAIG’S ASSERTIONS [AS AN ALLEGED “EXPERT” WITNESS]… . ” On this basis, the court CORRECTLY determined that EDDIE WAS NOT AN “EXPERT WITNESS” AND REFUSED TO CONSIDER HIS AMATEUR STATEMENT. (in the 10th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 35% through the text). Note that the reason that there was “no evidence before the court” that Eddie Craig was a former Sheriff Deputy is that HE IS WAS NOT A DEPUTY SHERIFF, much less an “EXPERT WITNESS” in matters of the law.
Accordingly, Eddie Craig NEVER obtained any “valuable inside knowledge” of traffic law or traffic law enforcement. Second, Eddie Craig NEVER received any training in traffic law or in traffic law enforcement. Finally, Eddie Craig NEVER even once sat behind the wheel of a law enforcement vehicle, much less made a single traffic stop. (So much for Eddie Craig’s “EXPERIENCE” in his “CAREER” as a “LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER” and “DEPUTY SHERIFF”.).
OTHER FACTS ABOUT EDDIE CRAIG:
REAL law and amateur legal theories ARE NOT the same thing. Instead, REAL law and amateur legal theories are the exact OPPOSITES of one another. Eddie Craig does not use REAL law in court. Instead, he only uses amateur legal theories in court (the same amateur legal theories that he peddles in his videos, seminars and on the radio). For this reason, Eddie Craig has LOST EVERY SINGLE ONE OF HIS OWN CASES, including HIS OWN MISDEMEANOR SPEEDING CASE. State of Texas v. Eddie (Eugene) Craig, Case no. C-1-CR-12-100045, offense date 12-12-2011, ARREST date 06-25-2012, CONVICTION date 06-28-2013, Travis County, Texas. What’s more, Eddie Craig has done no better in his civil cases. He has been sued for failing or refusing to pay his debts on FOUR separate occasions. HE LOST ALL FOUR TIMES. Some “expert”.
Taylor v. Hale, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9860090939829240302&q=%22taylor+v.+hale%22+%22appears+to+contend%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 In this case, an amateur legal theorist appealed the dismissal of his lawsuit against the judge who presided over his conviction for driving without a driver’s license. The court wrote, “Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] appears to contend that HE CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A DRIVER’S LICENSE BECAUSE HE WAS NOT OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE FOR A COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY [a false claim identical to what EDDIE CRAIG also falsely claims]. [The Plaintiff claimed]… he was MERELY ‘TRAVELING’… . [He claimed that] THE STATE… CAN [ONLY] REGULATE ‘COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY’ through the requirement of a [driver’s] license BUT NOT ‘TRAVELING’ [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]. He contends that the term ‘OPERATE’ MEANS AND REFERS TO SOMEONE ENGAGING IN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY in the State [a false claim identical to what EDDIE CRAIG also falsely claims]. The gravamen [core of] of Plaintiff’s argument is that BECAUSE HE WAS ‘TRAVELING’ AND NOT ENGAGED IN A COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY, HE DID NOT ‘OPERATE’ A MOTOR VEHICLE and was therefore NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER’S LICENSE [a false claim identical to what EDDIE CRAIG also falsely claims]…. . THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT PLAINTIFF’S ARGUMENT IS WITHOUT MERIT [read that phrase again]… . That [the] Plaintiff can argue that he was NOT ‘OPERATING’ a motor vehicle BUT MERELY ‘TRAVELING’ strains credulity. Plaintiff was traveling, BUT HE WAS ALSO ‘OPERATING’ A VEHICLE; OTHERWISE, THIS WOULD MEAN THAT THE VEHICLE ‘OPERATED’ ITSELF AND TOOK A ROUNDTRIP FROM DALLAS TO LAKE JACKSON WITHOUT ANY ACT PERFORMED BY PLAINTIFF. ‘OPERATING,’ as the word is used in [the STATE driver’s license law]… DOES NOT REFER TO COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY [read this phrase again]. To the extent that Plaintiff asserts that the license requirement interferes with his RIGHT TO TRAVEL, such argument is WITHOUT MERIT [read this phrase again]. Requiring one to obtain a license to operate a motor vehicle on a state’s public highway IS NOT an impermissible or undue burden on INTERSTATE TRAVEL… . Ensuring that one can safely operate a motor vehicle and is familiar with the traffic laws IS A LEGITIMATE EXERCISE OF A STATE’S POLICE POWERS and presents NO constitutional impediment to the RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL [read this phrase again]. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver’s licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN “COMMERCE”. It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver’s license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in “INTERSTATE commerce”. But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.
Myles v. State, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17234956748209348154&q=%22Myles+v.+State%22+%22was+not+a+hired+driver%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 In this case, Myles appealed his conviction for DRIVING WITHOUT A VALID LICENSE. On appeal he argued, “THE STATE OF TEXAS CAN ONLY REQUIRE PEOPLE WHO ARE ENGAGED IN ‘COMMERCE’ WHILE DRIVING ON ITS ROADWAYS TO HAVE A DRIVER’S LICENSE [a false claim identical to what EDDIE CRAIG falsely claims], AND … I WAS NOT A HIRED DRIVER ENGAGED IN COMMERCE [as if that would make any difference]. As Myles explained, ‘I don’t DRIVE. I just TRAVEL from Point A to Point B [an amateur comment of a type Eddie Craig would make].’ Myles never disputed that he was [ALSO] OPERATING A VEHICLE AS HE TRAVELED.” Regardless, the appellate court disagreed with Myles’ theories and affirmed his conviction. Translation: Contrary to the claims of EDDIE CRAIG, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver’s licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN “COMMERCE”. It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver’s license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in “INTERSTATE commerce”. But, EDDIE CRAIG does not know enough to even realize this.
EVERYONE WHO HAS EVER ARGUED FRAUDSTER CRAIG”S ARGUMENTS ARE ALL LOSSES!
Neil Garfield has repeatedly asserted on his blog that all a borrower needs to do is send a rescission notice to the creditor in order to effectuate a rescission, whether or not a TILA violation occurred. And he has tried to con ignorant borrowers into paying $3000 for his useless “TILA RESCISSION PACKAGE” of related legalistic puffery.
Here’s proof that Garfield’s theory of TILA rescission, and of the SCOTUS Jesinoski opinion, is plain wrong.
In 2018 the Jesinoskis appealed the District Court ruling against them, and the 8th Circuirt Court of Appeals held this:
On remand, the district court granted summary judgment, concluding the signed acknowledgment created a rebuttable presumption that the Jesinoskis had received the required number of copies. The court also concluded the Jesinoskis failed to generate a triable question of fact rebutting the presumption. We affirm.
Look at this mess. Florida Foreclosure Pretense Defense Attorney Mark Stopa loses his bar license, and a well-intentioned attorney takes over his business. The below email had an attached letter that includes the Florida Supremes’ order suspending Stopa from the practice of law and says his law firm has been dissolved.
It happened because Stopa cheated Foreclosure Defense clients.
Here’s the Bar record showing Stopa will lose the right to practice law after exhausting his appeals.
Here is the email message that attorney Richard Mockler has sent to Stopa’s actual and intended victims in an effort to recruit them as clients.
That attorney called me on 21 September 2018 to tell me that he found the Stopa law practice in such a mess that he decided to shut it down for good, and that he hoped Stopa’s foreclosure victim client base would reach out to me for help.
———- Forwarded message ———
Date: Fri, Aug 17, 2018, 12:55 PM
Subject: Important Time Sensitive Message
Dear Client, Attached is an important letter concerning your case with Stopa Law Firm, P.A. Please review attached letter and stipulation. It is important that you respond. We thank you for your attention to this matter.
———- END of Forwarded message ———
Why Foreclosure Defense Attorneys Deserve Censure
Now it’s time for a little honesty. Mark Stopa and thousands of attorneys like him deserve censure and public humiliation because of their horrific record of cheating their desperate foreclosure victim clients out of money and an honest advocacy. Such attorneys have built their practice on pretending to defend clients against foreclosure, but without doing any research to discover precisely who injured the clients in the loan transaction and how the injuries happened.
If they had done honest research, they would have discovered that upwards of 90% of home loan borrowers have suffered appraisal fraud, mortgage fraud, contract breaches, regulatory violations, legal errors in their documents, servicing abuse, and/or legal malpractice by the attorneys they hired to help save their home.
Why Typical Foreclosure Defense Attorneys Cannot Help Mortgage Borrowers in Trouble
Even the attorney taking over Stopa’s failed practice thought he could help keep foreclosure victims IN their homes.
But, he concluded that he can’t keep the clients in their homes. He could only do what Stopa did – delay the client’s loss of the home while charging absurd annual and/or monthly fees for the hand-holding until the inevitable foreclosure final judgment and sale of the home occurs.
Why? Because Stopa and other Foreclosure Pretense Defense attorneys NEVER do the full investigation required to prove that someone injured the borrower in the loan transaction. And so, they DO NOT KNOW whether and how the borrower got injured. Therefore, they cannot take legal action against the perps to win compensation for their mortgage victim clients.
SO, they can only DEFEND by seeking a dismissal without prejudice for failure to fulfill conditions precedent to foreclosing, or for lack of standing, or tolling of the statute of limitations. That means the right creditor will correct his errors and foreclose again, this time winning a final judgment.
What It Takes to Win Compensation
Unless the practitioner PROVES someone involved in the loan transaction or associated activities INJURED the borrower who faces foreclosure for breaching the note, then the vast majority of such borrowers will lose their homes to foreclosure, and the pretender defender attorney will merely delay the process while bilking the foreclosure victim out of monthly payments for the privilege.
In order to discover such injuries, a professional team must analyze the background story of the loan and examine every document in the loan transaction from day one to present time, including litigation documents, servicer correspondence, closing papers, appraisal, loan application, forbearance agreements, loan modification efforts, etc. Few if any (NONE that I know of) foreclosure pretense defense attorneys have such skill. Even if some had the skill, they would charge upwards of $15,000 to $20,000 at their hourly rates to do the examination, analysis, and reporting, which take 40 to 60 hours. What foreclosure victims can afford that?
The foregoing explains why foreclosure defense attorneys only pretend to defend against foreclosure, and never win actual compensation for their client’s injuries. And yet, those attorneys hold themselves out as experts in the law.
Think about this. The creditor accused the borrower of breach of contract by failing to make timely payments. Doesn’t it make sense that the defending attorney should investigate the circumstances and documents related to the contract in order to find out whether the contract is valid and whether the client suffered injuries in it?
An attorney commits legal malpractice who takes on such a client and fails to perform a comprehensive investigation and go on the attack for the injuries discovered. And that can justify a legal malpractice action against attorneys like Mark Stopa. But again, what foreclosure victim can afford such an action?
The Ultimate Solution for Mortgage Victims
The only solution to the above dilemma lies in finding an affordable mortgage examination service. The borrower should buy that service, and use the information in the examination report as the basis for demanding settlements from the injurious parties, or for filing actions for fraud, breach of contract, and breach of regulatory laws. In the vast majority of situations, the injurious parties far prefer settling with the borrower than fighting the borrower in a court case that the borrower will surely win.
For more information on the right way to attack the validity of the loan, see http://mortgageattack.com, and fill in the contact form.
Consumer Advocate and Mortgage Attack Maven
727 669 5511