The Art of Objections at Trial: A Success Story

For more information on foreclosure offense, expert witness consultations and foreclosure defense please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688. We offer litigation support in all 50 states to attorneys. We refer new clients without a referral fee or co-counsel fee unless we are retained for litigation support. Bankruptcy lawyers take note: Don’t be too quick admit the loan exists nor that a default occurred and especially don’t admit the loan is secured. FREE INFORMATION, ARTICLES AND FORMS CAN BE FOUND ON LEFT SIDE OF THE BLOG. Consultations available by appointment in person, by Skype and by phone.


This story is good. It corroborates my articles on the needed skills to go to trial. Evan Rosen describes in brief what he did. It would be nice if he would expand on why these objections were right and how much more he could have said if he was challenged by opposing counsel. But it also shows another important thing.

While the Courts have yet to rule or express opinions on their doubts about the bogus loans, notes and mortgages, bogus bonds and bogus foreclosures, we are seeing a radical shift in their rulings at trial and an increasing shift in Discovery. Rulings against the Plaintiff foreclosing party are becoming increasingly common. Discovery is being allowed and many cases are thrown off the rocket docket and into general civil litigation. And a properly framed objection to evidence is taken seriously and frequently sustained leaving the foreclosing party with nothing.

These developments are especially important because many suits are being filed for deficiency judgments on foreclosures that were wrongful in the first place. 110 such actions were filed in Palm Beach County in the last month. Interestingly, the foreclosing party is NOT going back to the same Court in the same suit that was the foreclosure. They are filing separate actions. The Banks are afraid of providing a forum for the homeowner to challenge the assumptions that resulted in the foreclosure. Their fear is based in reality. The same Judges that were rubber stamping foreclosures are slowly changing their rulings as described by Rosen.

Trial practice is an art. There is no such thing as perfection. The trial lawyer must constantly make calculations as to what objections to raise and how to stick to his or her narrative of the case. Rosen here took control of the narrative by laying the foundation that the witness was legally incompetent to testify on the most important elements of the case filed for foreclosure. His objections flowed from that foundation. He threaded his case based upon feedback from the Judge. And he took a calculated risk when it came time for cross examination.

The lesson here is that there is a time to object and a time not to object regardless of whether you have grounds. There is a time to cross examine and there is a time to take the risk and close the case based upon the insufficiency of the Plaintiff’s case. The objective is to win. And this case described by Evan Rosen describes procedures that are far outside the knowledge of any pro se litigant. Trial practice is like surgery. Nobody should do it without specialized training, license and experience.

18 Responses

  1. And what, Bob, would you say Rosen could have done to have gotten a dismissal with prejudice? The facts (and lack of evidence) were before the court at the trial and the bankster had basically rested, at least no more witnesses.( I haven’t read the transcipt nor contemplated any potential pitfalls of him moving for dismissal or verdict by the court (as opposed to vol dismissal). Or how about a motion for judgment on the evidence / merits or like that?
    ” A motion for a directed verdict in a bench trial (no jury – sic) is treated as a motion for judgment on partial findings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c). See Ne. Drilling, Inc. v. Inner Space Servs., Inc. , 243 F.3d 25, 37 (1st Cir. 2001)”

    Why “partial” findings got me. A granted mtn for judgment is res
    judicata, far as I know.
    Lay stuff as always

  2. Amen Bob!

  3. DwightNJ- well said. Send copies to your AG and county judiciary.
    Add one more sentence at the end,
    “Only an a–hole would disagree with the above”.
    This would stick in the judges’ mind for their lifetimes.

  4. California is a funny state FDCPA might be the way around non judicial I am not an attorney and I just had two shots of bourbon


  5. The 16 billion dollar settlement with Bank of America says that only 60 million goes towards homeowners relief, principal reduction, etc. .. which is just a small fraction of the settlement money and is also a slap in the face for the victims of this crime .. to be told that they should now allow the criminal thugs to modify their loan and throw them a bone with a small principal reduction .. since when does a criminal get to continue his Ponzi Scheme after entering a settlement to avoid prosecution of those crimes? This is unheard of in the history of the Justice system and does not go to addressing the root of the problem and the rights of the victims. Never should victims of a financial Ponzi Scheme be told by the courts and politicians that they have to now continue being the victim of the crime but will receive a small compensation for continuing the Ponzi Scheme . The correct way to address these crimes in any settlement should be by the black letter of the law which governs each transaction. Allow each case to stand or fall on its own merits and rule on each foreclosure case correctly after evaluating that cases facts. The settlement is indicative of the fact that they all know exactly what took place and what needs to be looked at in each foreclosure case. The judges need to be educated as part of the settlement and instructed on what factors need to be identified in order to make rulings in the interest of justice. These settlements are useless and worthless to the victims as long as they allow the judges to continue playing their un-just part in the scheme where the victims find no relief and no justice according to the laws that were broken.

  6. Bob G- great comments, keep ’em comin

  7. The Art of corruption by the you know who.

  8. Thank you Neil for sticking your neck out and giving others the courage and wisdom to move forward. We have a good attorney here in Baltimore with 30 years experience who had been doing foreclosure defense for about a year when we retained him. When the horror began for us back in 2009 foreclosure defense was unheard of. Predictably our case is a mess – we’ve gone through countless sums first on mod scammer (who was a neighbor) and 2 other attorneys before landing the one we have now. I believe that much like the attorneys who focus on back taxes and dealing with the IRS (remember when they didn’t shoot straight either?) there is going to be a new crop of foreclosure defense attorneys who actually know what they are talking about and maybe foreclosure mill attorneys will find a more dignified line of work.

  9. Italian Strike: When the employees show up for work and do nothing or 25% of what they are supposed to do.


  10. Right instrument at the right time in the right place taking into account the patients overall status.

  11. And I agree it’s like surgery – an art form and your choice if instruments make or break

  12. Sorry I posted by mistake
    No criticism here I’m not qualified to do that.

  13. Better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick

  14. So without prejudice – now they get to start all over again.

  15. Agree BOb
    Be prepared and never underestimate the opposition. Their game is ” win” they don’t give a rats ass how or the fact that they do the devils work.

  16. The judge was cornered and found a way out for the Banksters More taxpayers money wasted and the Judge continues to gets paid.taxpayers money

    Let the people come to there own conclusion.


  17. Couple of comments.

    First, Rosen did an excellent job. The banks are superb at getting default judgments and summary judgments. On a motion for summary judgment, affidavits such as the one the bank witness here would have provided, are sufficient to carry the day. Not so at trial. The affiant’s affidavit goes out the window and can’t be used unless the affiant is in the courtroom and can be cross examined. At trial, a good trial lawyer who knows the rules of evidence can usually demolish the bank’s atty, as in the cited case. That’s because the bank’s atty really doesn’t know the rules of evidence sufficient to win at trial. They’re used to getting default judgments and summary judgments. Lesson to be learned: get their witness list and depose them and get them to trial where they can be dismantled piece by piece. If you’re not aggressive in discovery with backup motions to compel or preclude, you’re most likely going to lose.

    Second is a criticism of Rosen. He presumes that the purported original wet ink note is genuine, and lets it into evidence. Big mistake in my judgment.

    Finally, he doesn’t get a dismissal with prejudice. The judge (who was fantastic in this case) jokes that they will humor the plaintiff by giving it a dismissal without prejudice. Chuckle, chuckle. So everybody is thinking that there is no way the bank will be back in that courtroom with proper witnesses. Don’t underestimate these people. See what Neil just said above? They can refile their case, but they can do it in the expectation that they might get a different judge.

    You have to design your litigation strategy with the goal of driving a stake through the bank’s heart the first time around. No concessions, and no prisoners taken.

    Thus endeth the lesson.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: