Expert fraud witness for foreclosure defense cases

Something new is coming into our company that is similar to the case we have been through. Borrowers were accused of fraud on the basis of “new evidence” after an expert reviewed the loan documents. In this case, MERS’s eight-year period was considered fraud despite his conviction three years ago. They try to release the verdict and punish all parties supported by the lawyer’s expert (s). In other cases, borrowers filed a separate fraud lawsuit based on alleged false credit documents (letters, loans, etc.) after an expert investigation. This review was conducted four years after the judgment, and their appeal was lost. We assume that borrowers only apply for this protection if they do not sign the loan documents. Our company has successfully received the cancellation of the delayed claim as well as sanctions against the borrowers under the 57,105 measures under the Florida Statute. The two cases seem to include a new trend because the case and the lawyer are not related, but the logic is unique. We know that other law firms have recently seen similar types of tactics with the help of expert judges after being tried in cases that have been assessed.

Any jurisdiction with sufficient scope to resolve the dispute. In the case of law enforcement, there are trends related to previous conditions and circumstances, among other rules and requirements. While the defense tries to take a different position in law enforcement cases, precedents develop when the trial court goes through the appeals process. This new trend is an attempt to use experts to address the doctrine of res judicata and estoppel courts. The procedure is as follows:

• Critics filed an appeal to force the note and exclude the mortgage
• The borrower may or may not defend the claim, but in any case, do not seek to use expert opinion to argue that the note is inadmissible due to fraud.
• Plaintiff proceeded with the decision in accordance with the decision
• The borrower may file a lawsuit or file an independent claim for damages, based on the expert’s opinion that the record is incorrect.

The actions established by the borrower may be prohibited by estoppel or res judicata, depending on the decision. Deeds are forbidden by res judicata doctrine:

• The identity of the defendant
• The identity of the cause of action
• Run with the identities of the parties
• The identity of the quality or capacity of the person claimed or claimed. Pair of lines. Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Auth., 402 So, 2d 54, 5 (Fla. 3DDCA1981).

In the following situations, estoppel prohibits the action. If the allegations are different, the estoppel doctrine in question will be initiated, and the parties will not be able to avoid the issues actually disputed and decided, only those issues, not those that are in fact non-contentious. You can avoid it. Action, even if those things are decided there. Therefore, before the parties to the proceedings are prohibited in accordance with the assessment, it must show that the points or questions relating to the next action were determined in the previous action. Green v. State, 412. 2d 413, 414 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The court applies these controversial lawyers because there is interest as the end and definite end of the dispute. In other words, reducing the certainty of decisions is harmful to the law.

Borrowers who try to use expert testimony to resurrect a case for which a final conclusion has been reached may be ruled against the law of prejudgment and vice versa. In addition, according to the provisions of Article 57.105 of the Florida Code, the conduct of expert appraisal may be punished. Taking a proactive approach to ending this litigation can reduce the tendency of debtor lawyers to hire these experts when closing the case. The court is in the process of determining whether the bank that used the forged documents to file a foreclosure suit can withdraw the cash and hand it back with other documents in the future.The verdict could take up to eight months and affect thousands of Florida homeowners, as well as judges in 26 other counties. Sixty-three percent (138,288 total) of all seizure documents in the state are concentrated in five states, according to RealtyTrac, an online foreclosure marketplace. About half of them are in Florida. In a statement to Congress last year, Bank of America (BAC.N), the United States’ largest mortgage service provider, said 70 percent of foreclosure lawsuits occurred in Florida. The lawsuit is called “RomainPinault / Bank of New York Mellon.” The lawsuit stems from the 2010 Robot Signature Scandal. At that time, it was reported that banks and law firms hired him. Low-paid workers to sign. These documents have not been checked for accuracy as required by law.

“This is a fraudulent document designed to be used in litigation,” said former U.S. Attorney Kendall Coffey, author of the book Florida Foreclosures. If the Supreme Court bans banks, “extensive mortgages could become unusable,” Coffey said. “The costs to the financial sector are difficult to estimate, but they can be huge.” By comparison, some legal experts pointed to a January 2011 Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling declaring the foreclosure invalid because the bank could not prove at the time of the foreclosure that it had a valid mortgage – a similar problem as in the Pino case. Hundreds of property rights were destroyed in Massachusetts after the decision, says Tom Cox, the expulsion lawyer accused of one of the first foreclosure frauds in the country. “If the Florida courts take a strong stand, it will give a strong signal to the rest of the country’s mortgage services industry,” Cox said. Judges in other states may begin punishing banks with sanctions and suspend closure proceedings, he says. Florida events are a striking example of the alleged setbacks in the pre-closure process and a strategy lenders use to overcome them. The 35-year-old shy plaster hanger, Roman Pino, bought his home in 2006 due to a housing boom. He cut half of the two-bedroom duplex near Palm Beach, Florida, by 20%, and the rest was funded by a $ 162,400 loan from Country Wide Financial, now owned by Bank of America.