Strategic Default with a Venegeance! tonight 7pm


COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary CLICK HERE TO GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION REPORT


Editor’s Comment: 

Tonight’s Meeting: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 Phoenix Arizona

Due to many requests, I’ll be doing the “Strategic Default with a Vengeance” presentation again tonight.  Please get the word out.

This class can be an absolute paradigm for anybody struggling under the weight of a lost or reduced income, foreclosure, an “underwater” home, a bad credit report, personal debt or credit card debt.

My goal in offering this class is to help homeowners (and non-homeowners) put themselves in a better position in a year or two than the banks and administration are going to have them in 5, 8, 10 or even 15 years.

The rules are in place to protect you, so step up and use the rules to your advantage and improve you family’s economic outlook as well as your piece of mind!

We meet every week!

Every Tuesday: 7:00pm to 9:00pm. Come early for dinner and socialization. (Food service is also available during meeting.)
Macayo’s Restaurant, 602-264-6141, 4001 N Central Ave, Phoenix, AZ 85012. (east side of Central Ave just south of Indian School Rd.)
COST: $10… and whatever you want to spend on yourself for dinner, helpings are generous so bring an appetite.
Please Bring a Guest!
(NOTE: There is a $2.49 charge for the Happy Hour Buffet unless you at least order a soft drink.)


I have set up a MeetUp page. The page can be viewed at Please get the word out and send your friends and other homeowners the link.

May your opportunities be bountiful and your possibilities unlimited.

“Emissary of Observation”

Darrell Blomberg



7 Responses

  1. Kathy,

    I agree with you filing BK 7 and then taking them to court is best. My income corrected as I knew it would. They bet on the wrong one this time! I will continue this fight I have nothing to loose and my income is protected.

  2. Could someone that attended please post a few bullet points from the seminar…

  3. @ Carie

    Strategic Default is for those who can no longer afford their home and plan to give it up. It is NOT an Option for those who plan to keep their homes. Neil and other Attorneys need to make this CLEAR! Of course you are going to Loose your Home! Had I been in your shoes last fall Carie and I wanted to save my home (and I now could have afforded it).. I would have filed a CH 13 BK to save my home. and sued the Hell out of those involved in your forclosure. Thats Just me …..

  4. Neil ….
    “Strategic Default” ??? This only feeds the Banks Wealth and Harms Insurers, Investers & Taxpayers. If you can not afford to pay for your Home and your other debts, you need to file BK … Most Attorneys will not accept your case if you can not afford the mortgage.. (they presume you want a Free House). Good Luck at that!
    If you can afford to pay your debts and you want to keep your home, but the Banks, Lenders, “Mortgage Servicers” have corrupted your Title & a Fraud that has harmed you.,…. you need an Attorney, NOT strategic default! . Give me a Break! …. thinking like this will get you All in BK and/or loss of your Home! You have other options!

  5. I did a “strategic default” and they stole my home…eventually.


  6. The only comment I have is that, people in the southeast and north cannot attend these meetings and we are left to ponder our defenses solo! People in foreclosure cannot afford to fly to Arizona.

  7. Challenging Service of Process

    by Mark Stopa

    A basic element of any lawsuit, including a foreclosure lawsuit, is a plaintiff’s obligation to effectuate service of process on a defendant. Service of process is a fundamental tenant of a defendant’s right to due process, as it ensures a defendant knows about a lawsuit and is given an opportunity to defend.

    One of the things I enjoy most about foreclosure defense is challenging service of process when I believe it to be insufficient. When is that? Well, in my experience, bona-fide challenges to service of process invariably arise when the plaintiff tries to effectuate service by publication.

    To understand why this is so, take a close look at Miller v. Partin, 31 So. 3d 224 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). In that opinion, Florida’s Fifth District explains the limited circumstances in which service of process by publication is authorized and the many hurdles through which the plaintiff must jump to create valid service in this manner.

    First off, Fla. Stat. 49.011 restricts a plaintiff’s ability to effectuate service by publication to certain types of cases. If a plaintiff is seeking monetary relief, for instance, then service by publication is not allowed. This arises often in foreclosure cases because the plaintiff seeks not only a foreclosure, but a deficiency judgment. Quite simply, if the plaintiff seeks a deficiency judgment, it must procure personal service; service by publication is inadequate.

    I love arguing this because, in my experience, plaintiffs sometimes cave on their request for a deficiency so as to not have to obtain personal service. For instance, just yesterday I received this Order,
    where a Ft. Lauderdale judge denied a Motion to Quash Service (inappropriately, in my view, but more on that below). Even in denying the motion, however, the judge clarified that the Plaintiff was not able to get a deficiency. This had nothing to do with the merits of the case, mind you. Rather, merely by challenging service of process (and even when the judge ruled adversely on the Motion to Quash), we were able to get an Order clarifying the plaintiff could not get a deficiency.

    Another aspect of service by publication that makes it easy to challenge is that the Plaintiff needs to have a valid reason to have resorted to service by publication. Not wanting to effectuate personal service isn’t good enough. Basically, the Plaintiff has to show it tried to procure personal service but was unable to do so (e.g. because the defendant was evading service). However, just because a Plaintiff asserts it was unable to obtain personal service doesn’t make it so. A defendant in this situation can file affidavits showing he/she was not evading service and that the process server could have and should have served him/her via personal service. When a defendant makes such an argument, it is incumbent on the court to conduct a hearing, allow both sides to present evidence, and make fact-findings. In other words, as the Second District ruled in my recent appeal, a judge can’t simply rule against a homeowner in this situation without giving the parties a hearing.,%202012/2D11-5265.pdf

    There are a lot of other procedural requirements when effectuating service by publication. Some people might consider these “technicalities,” but the law is clear. Personal service is preferred, so if a plaintiff is going to resort to service by publication, it must strictly comply with all statutory requirements, and its failure to do so will cause service to be quashed.

    I strongly believe the judge who entered this Order
    overlooked one such requirement. In that case, one of the reasons I was challenging service by publication was because the Notice of Action did not specify the date in which the Defendant was to respond to the Complaint. Bear in mind, Fla. Stat. 49.09 provides:

    The Notice of Action … shall require the defendant to file written defenses with the clerk of the court and to serve a copy not later than the date fixed in said notice.

    For those unfamiliar with service by publication, the Notice of Action is the document that gets published in the newspaper (verbatim) that purports to inform the defendant of the existence of the lawsuit and his/her obligation to respond to the Complaint. For comparison’s sake, when a defendant is personally served, the obligation to respond, and the deadline to do so, are clear – it’s 20 days after the date the papers were personally served. However, when a defendant is served by publication, there is no personal service, so the only way a defendant knows the deadline to respond (or, for that matter, knows about the existence of the suit) is by looking at the Notice of Action. Per Fla. Stat. 49.09, the Notice of Action is supposed to set forth the deadline.

    With that in mind, take a look at this Notice of Action.
    Do you notice how it doesn’t specify a date by which the Defendant must respond to the Complaint? Instead, it says the Defendant must respond “within thirty days of the first publication of this Notice.” The problem with that, of course, is that there’s nothing in the Notice of Action that specifies when it was first published, so the Defendant has no way to know when this thirty-day period began, or, hence, when it ended. As a result, the Notice of Action does not specify a date by which the defendant must respond and does not comport with Fla. Stat. 49.09. As a result, in my view, service of process was defective and should have been set aside.

    That sounds technical, but I’ve won that argument with Florida judges on multiple occasions. So why didn’t I win this one? Well, this is surprising to me, given the number of times I’ve seen this issue arise, but there are no Florida cases (in the appellate context) which discuss this issue. None. That won’t be true for long, though – I’m appealing this issue, and I’d be surprised if Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal did not take the opportunity to issue a written opinion and explain that a Notice of Action must specify the date for a defendant to respond, failing which service of process by publication is ineffectual.

    All of this may sound technical, and I suppose it is. Hopefully, I’ve made all Florida homeowners realize that service of process is something that should be challenged (when possible, of course). With that in mind, please realize – service of process is waived if not challenged immediately (basically, with the first papers filed by a homeowner). This is an excellent reason for homeowners to procure competent counsel right off the bat, as it’s very easy for defendants to unknowingly waive bona-fide defenses such as this by filing papers on their own.
    Mark Stopa Esq.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: