Evidentiary Objections – Keys to Defending Foreclosure Cases

Attorney Matthew D. Weidner penned a blog post today titled Evidentiary Objections – Keys to Defending Foreclosure Cases.  It states why so many foreclosures today are not properly defended.  Here is a copy of his post:

The vast majority of properly-defended foreclosure cases get bogged down somewhere right around the Motion to Dismiss stage. The quality of records and information maintained by the servicers or nominal plaintiffs is frequently so poor that they cannot move beyond this preliminary stage. In cases where the servicer or fake plaintiff moves past this stage, it will be important to challenge all the evidence tendered….and in the vast majority of cases, the lenders cannot meet these basic evidentiary challenges.

Posted here is an excellent paper on evidentiary objections by Consumer Super Lawyer and powerful consumer advocate, Max Gardner. Take a look at Gardner’s website and consider signing up for one of his bankruptcy bootcamps if you’re interested in being properly armed to battle in your foreclosure case.

Having said that, there are still far too many people out there that do not defend their foreclosure case at all or who do not hire a competent attorney to defend the case for them. No matter what your financial situation, you must defend your case and you must help your neighbor to defend his. You should especially consider hiring a competent foreclosure defense attorney if you want the best chance at real success.

Cases are going to move much more quickly now that circuits are using senior judges and while some have been critical of the senior judges, those senior judges that I’ve seen have been very thoughtful and considerate of all the issues and of consumers in particular. That being said, we must all always remember that judges are neutral arbiters of fact and law. It is each party’s job to know the facts and argue the law…properly researched and briefed and supported by case law. With this in mind, it’s not fair to be critical of any judge for making what you believe to be an incorrect decision if your position was not properly researched, briefed and supported by motions and orders.