The Supreme Court of Florida recently denied a pro se borrower's petition to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court, and imposed sanctions against him for filing numerous meritless and inappropriate petitions for relief pertaining to trial court foreclosure proceedings to which he is a defendant.
In so doing, the Supreme Court barred the borrower from filing any future pleadings, motions or requests for relief in the Supreme Court related to his foreclosure proceedings, unless filed in good faith by an attorney in good standing.
A copy of the opinion is available at: Link to Opinion
A pro se borrower ("Borrower") who is the named defendant in foreclosure proceedings before the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida (the "Foreclosure Action"), filed a petition to the Supreme Court of Florida (the "Supreme Court") seeking to invoke its jurisdiction based upon express and direct conflict.
As you may recall, Article V, Section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution provides that the Florida Supreme Court "[m]ay review any decision of a district court of appeal that expressly declares valid a state statute, or that expressly construes a provision of the state or federal constitution, or that expressly affects a class of constitutional or state officers, or that expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of another district court of appeal or of the supreme court on the same question of law."
As the Supreme Court's opinion noted, the Borrower had filed five pro se actions in the Florida Supreme Court against the plaintiff lender in the Foreclosure Action in 2017— four in November 2017 alone — and two additional actions in 2018. All of the prior actions had been denied review or dismissed, but for one petition that was transferred to the appellate court.
During the pendency of the instant petition, the Florida Supreme Court directed the Borrower to show cause as to why he should not be barred from filing any future pro se pleadings, motions, or other requests for relief in the Supreme Court pertaining to the Foreclosure Action.
After considering the Borrower's response, the Florida Supreme Court concluded that he failed to show cause why he should not be sanctioned as a result of his history of pro se filings before the Supreme Court that were devoid of merit or inappropriate for review.
Accordingly, the Clerk of the Supreme Court was instructed to reject any future pleadings, petitions, motions, documents or other filings submitted by the Borrower pertaining to his foreclosure proceedings, unless filed on behalf of a member in good standing of the Florida Bar who determines any such proceeding has merit and can be brought in good faith, and denied the Borrower's petition.
Ralph T. Wutscher
Maurice Wutscher LLP
The Loop Center Building
105 W. Madison Street, 18th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Direct: (312) 551-9320
Fax: (312) 284-4751
Mobile: (312) 493-0874
Email: rwutscher@MauriceWutscher.com
Admitted to practice law in Illinois
Alabama | California | Florida | Georgia | Illinois | Indiana | Massachusetts | New Jersey | New York | Ohio | Pennsylvania | Texas | Washington, DC | Wisconsin
NOTICE: We do not send unsolicited emails. If you received this email in error, or if you wish to be removed from our update distribution list, please simply reply to this email and state your intention. Thank you.
Our updates and webinar presentations are available on the internet, in searchable format, at:
Financial Services Law Updates
and
The Consumer Financial Services Blog™
and
and
California Finance Law Developments
