The Clearwater Personal Injury Law Firm: Tailgating Can Lead To Serious Accidents

The Clearwater Personal Injury Law Firm: Tailgating Can Lead To Serious Accidents: Aggressive drivers are some of the most dangerous drivers on the road. When these individuals let their impatience behind the wheel manif...

The Clearwater Personal Injury Law Firm: Failure To Diagnose Can Lead To Serious Complicati...

The Clearwater Personal Injury Law Firm: Failure To Diagnose Can Lead To Serious Complicati...: If you have certain symptoms, medical professionals should perform the proper tests to accurately diagnose a serious condition. Unfortun...

Affordable Bankruptcy

We offer Low Cost Bankruptcy Lawyer Fees. Chapter 7 Starting from $795 and Chapter 13 from $1500 ( includes credit report and personal property appraisal). Legal Fees exclude  court costs. We offer a free Bankruptcy Consultation for Florida residents and provide bankruptcy services throughout many counties in the state of Florida, including Pinellas, Pasco & Hillsborough .

www.carollawsonpa.com 

Foreclosure Case Law July 2015

 Some very interesting cases came out in Florida in July regarding standing.   For more information see   http://carollawsonpa.com/note-worthy-foreclosure-cases-in-florida-july-2015/

Chapter 7 $795

Personal Chapter 7 is now $795 this includes your credit report and personal property appraisal. (It does not include Motions to Value, Avoid Liens, Credit Counseling Class or Court Filing Fee) Call Now for more information- (727) 410-2705 day, evening and weekend appointments available!

Late Tax Returns Non- Dischargeable

The rule has always been they must have  filed on time when due and be over 3 yrs old. There was some mixed singles if they were older and had extensions.

http://www.creditslips.org/creditslips/2015/02/all-late-filed-taxes-now-nondischargeable.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+creditslips%2Ffeed+%28Credit+Slips%29

Stay tune to see if the 11th Circuit follows suit. 

U.S. v. Bartram: Appellate court guts five-year limitations law

http://www.5dca.org/Opinions/Opin2014/042114/5D12-3823%20op.pdf


This effectively removes all limits on the filing of a new foreclosure action, no matter how many times the case has been previously dismissed


This decision has a critical impact for homeowners who have had prior foreclosures dismissed, and though they were safely beyond the five-year mark. This new decision means the bank does get to refile, and homeowner who previously though they were safe may not be. However, initial analysis shows the opinion is limited to the application of one particular subsection of the statutes, and others exist that may offer relief


http://floridaforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/004-Reply-brief-123823_131_07252013_03165966_e.pdf

11th Cir Rules TCPA Allows Prior Express Consent Through Intermediaries, Hobbs Act Precludes District Court Challenge to FCC Rulings

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held that the TCPA allows callers to obtain consent through intermediaries.

 

The Court also held that a 2008 FCC Ruling interpreting the “prior express consent” defense applies to all creditors and debt collectors, including medical debt collectors, when calling wireless telephone numbers. 

 

In addition, the Eleventh Circuit held that, pursuant to the Hobbs Act, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the validity of the 2008 FCC Ruling.

 

A copy of the opinion is available at:  http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201314008.pdf

Fla 1st Dist App Ct Rules Prior Servicer's Records Not Properly Admitted Into Evidence

The Florida District Court of Appeal, First District,reversed a trial court’s final judgment of foreclosure, and remanded for dismissal of the action for lack of prosecution.

 

In so ruling, the Court held that the successor servicer’s witness offered only general knowledge of ordinary mortgage practices to support the prior servicer’s payment history records, which was insufficient to support the admissibility of those records. 

 

The Court also held, given a lack of record activity at all times material, combined with the mortgagee’s predecessor in interest’s failure to file a statement of good cause prior to the hearing on the borrower’s motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution, that the relevant Florida Rules of Civil Procedure mandated dismissal of the action upon remand.

 https://edca.1dca.org/DCADocs/2013/2703/132703_DC13_10132014_093921_i.pdf

Florida App Ct (3rd DCA) Holds New Foreclosure Action Time-Barred, But Mortgage Lien Not Extinguished

The Third District Court of Appeal, State of Florida, affirmed a trial court’s ruling that a foreclosure complaint was time barred because the statute of limitations started to run when the loan was accelerated in connection with a prior foreclosure that was involuntarily dismissed without prejudice. 

 

However, the Court reversed the trial court’s determination that a mortgage lien becomes null and void once the statute of limitations expires.

 http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D14-0575.pdf

US Sup Ct Rules TILA Only Requires Written Notice of Rescission w/in 3 Yrs of Consummation, No Lawsuit Required to Exercise Right of Rescission

The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that a borrower exercising his right to rescind under the federal Truth in Lending Act only needs to provide written notice to the lender within the 3-year period under 15 U.S.C. 1635(f), and does not need to file a lawsuit within that period in order to exercise the right to rescind.

 

 http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-684_ba7d.pdf

 

On February 23, 2007, the borrowers refinanced the mortgage on their home.  Exactly 3 years later, on February 23, 2010, the borrowers mailed a letter attempting to rescind the loan.

 

The lender responded to the rescission letter on March 12, 2010, refusing to accept the rescission as valid. The borrowers filed suit in U.S. District Court on February 24, 2011, four years and one day after the loan closed, seeking a declaratory judgment of rescission and damages under the federal Truth in Lending Act.

 

The District Court entered judgment on the pleadings for the lender, ruling that a borrower must file suit within 3 years of the date the loan was consummated in order to exercise his right to rescind the loan under TILA, 15 U.S.C. 1635(a) and (f).  The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, and the borrowers appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Eighth Circuit’s reliance on Kieran v. Home Capital, 720 F. 3d 721, 727-728 (2013), which held that unless a borrower has filed suit for rescission within 3 years of the transaction’s consummation, section 1635 (f) extinguishes the right to rescind and bars relief, was error.

 

The Court then turned to 15 U.S.C. 1635(a), which explains how the right to rescind needs to be exercised.  Relying on the statutory text that a borrower has the right to rescind “by notifying the creditor, in accordance with regulations of the Board, of his intention to do so”, the Court held that as long as the borrower gives written notice within 3 years after the transaction was consummated, rescission under TILA is timely and the statute does not also require the borrower to sue within 3 years.

 

Turning to TILA section 1635(f), the Court clarified that it governs when the right to rescind must be exercised, but says nothing about how the right is exercised.

 

Reversing the Eighth Circuit’s judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that because the borrowers mailed their written notice of intent to rescind within 3 years after their loan was consummated, that is all they needed to do to exercise the right under TILA and the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint.