Fla Court Destroys Garfield Arguments in Maslanka

Maslanka could owe over $100K in his adversaries’ legal fees because his lawyer (Neil Garfield) propounded lunatic arguments in a lawsuit against a mortgage lender and creditor. If Maslanka gets a mortgage examination, he might have the evidence to prove that Garfield committed legal malpractice. Garfield is a total embarrassment to the legal profession; and obviously anyone associated with his madness, or uses any of it, is a big a clown as he is. See this article and comments at https://livingliesthetruth.com/2016/05/16/fla-court-destroys-garfield-arguments-in-maslanka/

Fla Court Destroys Garfield Arguments in Maslanka

Zdzislaw Maslanka wrote paid in full on a mortgage payment check, and then sued for quiet title in 2011. He kept his loan payments current, though. He named as defendants his home loan creditor, Wells Fargo, and the loan originator Embrace, who had sold WF the loan soon after closing.  Maslanka didn’t fare well in the litigation, so he hired Neil Garfield to soup up and manage the case, and to show those bumpkins how a real pro handles things.

Garfield half photo
NG

Garfield hosed his client as you will read in the case documents, specifically, the court’s dismissal order to the 3rd amended complaint, the 5th amended complaint, the motions to dismiss it, the order to dismiss it, and the appellate docket. The complaints read like jibberish-filled lunacy.

In short, the creditors’ attorneys rightly called the effort an abuse of the judicial process.  The trial judge dismissed the complaints for failure to state a claim for which the court could grant relief.  In a 12 May 2016 decision, the appellate panel affirmed without comment, and it awarded unconditional attorney fees to the creditors.  Maslanka worries that he will have to pay it.  Maybe he should sue Garfield for it.

See the main case documents zipped here for easy download.  If you prefer more torture, access the rest of the trial docs here.

BozoIn fairness, maybe I’m too harsh on Neil Garfield.  Maybe he did his best for Maslanka, or maybe Maslanka forced him to lodge those inane arguments that I have complained against for years. And maybe Garfield has reformed since he wrote that 5th amended complaint.

But if Garfield did that on his own, he deserves severe discipline by the Florida Bar, in my humble opinion, for he just made Maslanka look like a fool. And that makes Garfield a Bozo in my book.

Mort Gezzam photo
Mort Gezzam

Why Did the Bank Return My Mortgage Payment?

UCC 3-603 provides this (take note of (b)):

§ 3-603. TENDER OF PAYMENT.

(a) If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument, the effect of tender is governed by principles of law applicable to tender of payment under a simple contract.

(b) If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument and the tender is refused, there is discharge, to the extent of the amount of the tender, of the obligation of an indorser or accommodation party having a right of recourse with respect to the obligation to which the tender relates.

(c) If tender of payment of an amount due on an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument, the obligation of the obligor to pay interest after the due date on the amount tendered is discharged. If presentment is required with respect to an instrument and the obligor is able and ready to pay on the due date at every place of payment stated in the instrument, the obligor is deemed to have made tender of payment on the due date to the person entitled to enforce the instrument.

So naturally, you want to know why the creditor would be so stupid as to return your overdue payment.  for the answer see (a) above, and paragraph two of section 1 of the uniform covenants of your mortgage or deed of trust:

Payments are deemed received by Lender when received at the location designated in the Note or at such other location as may be designated by Lender in accordance with the notice provisions in Section 15.  Lender may return any payment or partial payment if the payment or partial payments are insufficient to bring the Loan current.  Lender may accept any payment or partial payment insufficient to bring the Loan current, without waiver of any rights hereunder or prejudice to its rights to refuse such payment or partial payments in the future, but Lender is not obligated to apply such payments at the time such payments are accepted.  If each Periodic Payment is applied as      of its scheduled due date, then Lender need not pay interest on unapplied funds.  Lender may hold such unapplied funds until Borrower makes payment to bring the Loan current.  If Borrower does not do so within a reasonable period of time, Lender shall either apply such funds or return them to Borrower.  If not applied earlier, such funds will be applied to the outstanding principal balance under the Note immediately prior to foreclosure.  No offset or claim which Borrower might have now or in the future against Lender shall relieve Borrower from making payments due under the Note and this Security Instrument or performing the covenants and agreements secured by this Security Instrument.

Mort Gezzam photo
Mort Gezzam