Tonight! I’m Back! Talking about Motions to Vacate, Motions for Rehearing, Motions for Reconsideration and Appeals 6PM EDT 3PM PDT


Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the Neil Garfield Show

Tonight’s Show Hosted by Neil Garfield, Esq.

Call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

In my experience most motions to vacate are actually motions for rehearing. There is a huge difference. Failure to understand these differences results in thousands of hours of legal work that are completely useless except perhaps as a delay tactic. In order to score points in this arena you must (1) disabuse yourself of the notion that you’re dealing with a “standard mortgage loan” and a “standard mortgage foreclosure” and (2) know how to use that knowledge to make legal points that cannot be ignored by the trial court or an appellate court.


Just because you labeled a pleading as a motion to vacate does not mean that it will be treated as such. Nor should it. Just like an assignment of mortgage or beneficial interest in a deed of trust is not an assignment of mortgage if it does not include transfer of the underlying the debt after payment of value — either on the face of the instrument (making it facially invalid if there is no recitation of transfer of the debt for value paid) or concurrent with the assignment is a separate transaction — requiring actual proof of payment and transfer from someone who owns the underlying obligation.


Tonight we talk about an area of law that is confusing for lawyers, lay persons and even judges. There is a difference between a motion to vacate, a motion for rehearing and a motion for reconsideration. And generally the decision comes down to manifest injustice. Trial court decisions are not corrected on appeal unless there was a clear mistake by  the trial judge that would have resulted or probably would have resulted in a different decision. 
Appeals are not about whether the judges on the appellate panel would have decided the case differently. And an appeal is not a forum for rearguing a case. The case has been heard and its final unless there was error and it resulted in a violation of due process where that violation resulted in a decision that would have been different if the violation had not occurred. But even if all that is true, the court will not and may not even consider the issue unless it was timely and properly raised and preserved, without intentional or unintentional waiver, in the trial court.

2 Responses

  1. Oh yes Summer. Any attorney that clerked knows — judge hands case to clerk and tells them what to do with it. You can tell many decisions are written by some 25 year old clerk who has no clue. They would rather be partying. Can’t blame them for that. Young should party. But the judges control the direction of the decisions. Some are women, but for most part — “The Old Boy Network.”

    And, yes, your filings are ignored once direction is ordered.

    What happened to America? Vote? More of the same no matter what you decide. And, hate to be political — but those 25 year olds that vote have no clue about economics or fraud. They don’t care. Best restaurant is first on agenda. Pandemic curbed the appetite – maybe. . And, I have 25 year olds dealing with. No offense — love them. They are just clueless. Their agendas distort real fundamental issues.

    No offense here to 25 years olds. Which extends to age 40 . And, for many – indefinitely. Hey – we were all there once. Know the score.

  2. How about when a Circus Court Judge criminally concealed so-called “original documents” from case records and the Appeal Court never saw them, despite demands to produce, and ruled in favor of a non-existing “Trustee” Deutsche Bank based on some others person’s Note assigned into a non-existing “Fremont Home Loan Trust 2006-1” while the case was filed by non-existing Goldman Sachs’ Trust GSAMP 2006-FM1?

    Is this a valid decision when lower Court intentionally conceal documents based on which the Judge rules for his cronies, Higher Court never saw them and ruled for a non-existing party based on someone’s forged Note assigned into another non-existing Trust?

    Illinois Judges think it is perfectly fine, even though all parties lie relentlessly, including Judges and their clowns – impersonators who pose as Attorney Generals to threaten litigants during a hearing.

    The truth is – most Appeal cases are decided by Clerks who bring Judges their decisions to sign. The best case scenario – Appeal Judges MAYBE real this decision before they approve it.

    I suspect don’t even read these “decisions” and don’t care.

    I had this situation where TWO freshly appointed judicial cronies in Appeal Court who did not have any experience in foreclosures or securities (one was from traffic Court, another interpreted Constitution for Madigan and never worked as a lower Court judge) , instantly denied my Motions and Petitions -all within less than three weeks of their appointments.

    Worth to mention, ANY work place, specially such as Courts, require at least two-three weeks orientation, I doubt if these judicial cronies even looked at my filings , they simply had no time for it.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: