Once a trial has been conducted, there can never be another trial with the same parties disputing the same facts and issues. The only exception is a court order vacating the judgment AND ordering further proceedings to determine all or some of the facts.
The bottom line is that the rules permitting the filing of a motion for rehearing or motion for reconsideration — or even a motion to vacate — are not intended to allow a party to redo their closing argument. The fact that you disagree with the ruling is irrelevant. Case law strongly suggests a standard that is close to the rules used on appeal — clear error.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM. A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
===========================
see Hinrichsen wins on FDCPA Claim
The above link will take you to a Southern California case in Federal District Court. The issue was whether a party was a debt collector and thus subject to regulation or private suits as debt collector. In this case the trial court used the wrong standard thus entering summary judgment for the debt collector. On motion for reconsideration the same judge found he had made an error, probably created by poor presentation by the borrower. The Judge reversed himself and ordered the case to trial.
The fact that the borrower had not presented the issue well enough in the trial court at the hearing on Defendant ‘s Motion for Summary Judgment was insufficient for “finality” to bar further argument about it. Note that courts are much more likely to reverse themselves on motions for summary judgment than they are to reverse a final judgment after a trial on the merits.
Filed under: appeals, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, Mortgage | Tagged: DEBT COLLECTOR, Federal court, motion for summary judgment, motion to vacate, reconsideration, rehearing |
Please publish Nathan E. Hardwick, Atlanta Foreclosure Attorney, Guilty of Major Fraud and Conspiracy. Prison folks. Prison.
Story published by DinsFla Foreclosure.
Researched this case. It was a refinance!!! Rescinded in 2012 — doesn’t say date loan was executed but implies several years prior to 2012. Freddie involved. MLD Corporation? They did not sell loans direct to Freddie. So how was Freddie involved in this refinance? Very unlikely Freddie still has it eight years later- at least!!
A trust somewhere — and no where on the docket can I find it.
But, if this was a trust that Freddie invested in — the “debt” was acquired in default at the time of the refinance!!!!. So, of course the servicer is debt collector!!!
Good for them!!!! Nice.
More errors by judges? Really?