(Or: Are you fucking kidding me? This has to be decided? It's PERJURY, isn't it? Perjury AND forgery in a COURT OF LAW! i am blown away. If a citizen lies on the street to a police officer, prison is a possible outcome, and banks are allowed to file fraudulent paperwork for years, then we debate if it's...what? Really that bad?)
In the United States, under Federal law, the generalperjury statute provides for a sentence of up to 5 years in prison, 18 USC 1621. The sentence is up to three ...
Florida Supreme Court will consider whether banks should be punished when they file fraudulent documents in foreclosure cases
Punishments for Forgery
Forgery is the act of criminally making or altering a written instrument for the purpose of fraud or deceit. In the U.S., depending on the type of documents forged, forgeries are primarily classified in three degrees: first degree, second degree, and third degree. The first two degrees are felonies and the third degree amounts to a misdemeanor. The first degree forgery involves the actual presentation or use of any falsely made, altered or possessed document with the intent to deceive or defraud. The second degree forgery does not require use or presentation of the documents. No act is a crime if it has not been previously established as such either by statute or common law. Every state in the U.S.has established laws regarding forgery offenses. The punishment for forgery varies from place to place.
In most states, a person convicted of misdemeanor must face a jail sentence of at least one year. However, a conviction for felony must face an imprisonment more than one year. In addition to jail sentence, a convict can be required to pay a fine or make restitution to victim.
Common law forgery means that there is no statute or law in the state that deals with forgery. A person convicted of forgery can face heavy penalties including imprisonment in prison, heavy fines, probation, community service, and the loss of some civil privileges.
The crime of uttering a forged instrument consists of offering a forged document as true and genuine, knowing it to be a forgery. Uttering a forged document must be done with the intention to defraud. A person who did not actually commit the forgery can be guilty of uttering. The crimes of forgery and uttering a forged instrument are separate and distinct crimes. Even when committed with regard to the same instrument, crimes of forgery and uttering lead to separate convictions and separate sentences[i]. However, a single aggravating circumstance is sufficient to enhance a sentence[ii].
[i]Norwood v. Mayo, 74 So. 2d 370, 371 (Fla. 1954).
Florida justices to decide whether to punish 'robo-signing'
By Kathleen Haughney, Tallahassee Bureau
11:23 p.m. EDT, May 8, 2012
TALLAHASSEE – A Greenacres homeowner has Florida bankers warning that "lending practices in Florida could come to a grinding halt" in a court case that could let homeowners turn the tables on lenders seeking to foreclose on their homes.
On Thursday, the Florida Supreme Court will consider whether banks should be punished when they file fraudulent documents in foreclosure cases, a matter that has plagued Florida's courts as the foreclosure crisis spiraled following the 2008 collapse of the financial markets.
At center stage will be "robo-signing," where banks and law firms recreated loan documents — and hired someone to sign them — because the originals could not be found.
Roman Pino's fight for his $203,000 Greenacres home will be the test case that could reshape state law and affect thousands of foreclosure cases moving forward.
The issue is whether Florida banks should be able to escape punishment if they drop a foreclosure case because they realize they have fraudulent documents. They are currently allowed to do so and then refile the case with proper documentation.
That's what Royal Palm Beach attorney Thomas Ice said happened to Pino, who took out a $162,400 mortgage on his Greenacres home in 2006. By 2008, he'd fallen behind on his payments. But when the lender filed foreclosure papers, Ice and Pino discovered that documents being used by the now-defunct Broward law firm of David Stern, the face of the robo-signing scandal, did not appear legitimate.
The bank dropped the suit when Ice started asking questions, and refiled later with the proper paperwork. That's how the system should work, the Florida Bankers Association and the Mortgage Bankers Association said in briefs filed before the Supreme Court. If not, they wrote, the "economic impact could be devastating to the State of Florida."
Ice is asking the justices to allow trial judges to reject such motions to dismiss when fraudulent documents are involved. Instead, he said, judges should order sanctions against the banks and lawyers, possibly including a ban on the bank re-filing against a homeowner who proved fraudulent documents are involved.
"The general public has to believe in the courts and the product that the court delivers, which is justice," Ice said.
But the banks say that could be a major problem, arguing that sanctions would discourage banks from pursuing legitimate foreclosure cases or issuing new home loans.
The bankers' groups argued that with the large volume of foreclosure cases in Florida, banks or their lawyers "no doubt occasionally will make clerical errors, lose promissory notes, or discover other deficiencies in their foreclosure complaints that mandate correction in the interests of fairness.
"The Court should not strip lenders and other litigants of the right to dismiss the case voluntarily, especially where it is sometimes necessary to cure alleged defects in documentation in order to avoid improprieties in the judicial process," the groups' lawyers wrote.
Oddly, Pino's case is actually moot.
He agreed to a confidential settlement with The Bank of New York Mellon so that he could keep his home. And the 4th District Court of Appeal denied attempts by Ice to re-open the case so that he could press for sanctions.
But after their original decision, the appeals judges asked the Supreme Court to hear the case because it was a matter of matter of "great public importance."
As both the bankers and Ice note, a ruling in Ice's favor would allow attorneys to re-open cases in perhaps thousands of case where fraudulent documents have been used.
"On a much broader level," Ice added, "this is the court's opportunity to come out and say that this kind of behavior is not going to be tolerated in this court system."
Steelhead23 Posts: 1616
Incept: 2008-09-09
Portland OR
Let us pray. If banks are allowed to refile following submission of fraudulent paperwork without sanction there would be no incentive for them to follow the letter of the law in the first place. I might be OK with such refiling if the bank was forced to perform some form of mea culpa, such as pay a $10,000 fine for each action put forward with fraudulent paper. But in truth, I side with the homeowner here. No, he does not deserve a "free house", but that's not the point. If we wish the banks to stop doing this (frauds on the courts) we will have to force them to stop. We seem unwilling to put attorneys who purger themselves out of business - the only remaining solution is to remove the banks' incentive for doing so. They'll stop when it is no longer profitable.
----------
"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" —Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild Benjamin Bernanke
For-profit commercial banks are a menace and should be eradicated
Level9 Posts: 2768
Incept: 2007-10-28
Circling the Drain
Quote:
That's how the system should work, the Florida Bankers Association and the Mortgage Bankers Association said in briefs filed before the Supreme Court. If not, they wrote, the "economic impact could be devastating to the State of Florida."
Well at least the banks are telling the truth. Since our economy is based solely upon the ability of banking institutions to engage in wide scale fraud and praying upon the weak and helpless, then yes, the economy will probably collapse.
Looks like the judges are going to bail behind the mootness issue. Oh well ...
Quote:
In foreclosure case arguments, justices wary of overturning dismissal
Gray Rohrer, 05/10/2012 - 01:44 PM
The Florida Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a potential watershed case Thursday that could chasten the actions of banks and lenders seeking foreclosures.
The case centers on whether a bank can voluntarily dismiss a foreclosure case after filing fraudulent documents, and then refile the case. Lawyers for Roman Pino challenged a document filed by the David J. Stern law firm on behalf of the Bank of New York when it tried to foreclose on his home in Greenacres.
The Stern law firm was discovered to use clerks known as “robo-signers”, who signed thousands of foreclosure documents each day with scant review, many of which were fraudulent or false. The firm is now under investigation by Attorney General Pam Bondi’s office.
Pino’s case was headed to the Supreme Court last year when he and the bank reached a settlement, but the court decided to rule on the case anyway to settle the issue of the voluntary dismissal and refiling of the case.
Many justices, however, questioned whether they could overturn the Bank of New York’s voluntary dismissal. Since Pino already reached a settlement with the bank, there was no harm to remedy since he still owns the house.
“Most of the time when a defendant has a plaintiff that says, ‘I’m dismissing this case,’ they’re happy with that,” said Justice Barbara Pariente.
“What you’re really asking us to do -- and this is where my concern is -- you’re asking us to change the way the rule on voluntary dismissal operates,” she added.
Attorney Amanda Lundergan of the Ice Legal law firm, representing Pino, argued that if the court did not act, banks and lenders would continue to get away with fraud if they can refile a case after initially submitting false documents.
Without a favorable ruling, she argued, “it sets up a system whereby every litigant who comes before our courts is not only condoned, but encouraged to lie, to cheat, to steal, knowing that if they are caught -- if they are caught -- they can simply voluntary dismiss and absolve themselves of that fraud.”
Bruce Rogow, attorney for the bank, countered that there were other remedies the court could seek other than imposing new rules on re-filing cases after a voluntary dismissal.
“I think we have to look at this in terms of general civil litigation, and this has not been a problem in general civil litigation,” Rogow said.
If the court sides with Pino, banks argue it would hamper their willingness to lend, harming a weak economy and fragile recovery of the housing market in Florida. But the justices don’t appear inclined to take Pino's side in the case.
Chief Justice Charles Canady noted that they were “dealing with a purely hypothetical situation here today.”
“I’m having trouble understanding the concrete material harm to Mr. Pino,” he added.
Learn How The Corrupt Political System Killed Our Economy
Steelhead23 Posts: 1616
Incept: 2008-09-09
Portland OR
Thanks Docrickets. Let's follow-up on Judge Canady's theory - if there is no material injury to the defendant, why should he care if the case is dismissed? Fine, dismiss the case with prejudice, meaning BAC would be barred from refiling the case. That would get BAC's attention (and Pino a free house). If indeed, the court dismisses the case without prejudice, then Pino should sue BAC AND ITS LAWYERS for the cost of defending himself, his lost time, and mental anguish. My guess is they would settle - and he still might get a free house.
----------
"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" —Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild Benjamin Bernanke
For-profit commercial banks are a menace and should be eradicated
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment