Bartram Supreme Court Oral Argument: Don't Drink Your Own “Kool-Aid”

Tue Nov 10, 2015 by on Florida Law News

I always tell my clients not to be oversold on a particular legal argument, in other words not to drink their own “Kool-Aid.”  The Bartram oral arguments have shown me very clearly that the banks are drinking their own “Kool-Aid.” They are trying to convince the Florida Supreme Court that there should be an unlimited amount of time (statute of limitation) for them to continue coming after a borrower for money that has not been paid on an installment contract or promissory note. The bank’s argument flies in the face of the Florida legislature which has clearly spoken and said, five years is enough. Previously the statute of limitations used to be twenty years and in the 1970s the legislature purposefully rolled it back to five years, showing a clear intent to further limit the amount of time banks have to pursue a borrower.

During oral arguments, the banks had to admit that what they were arguing is a minority position in terms of the law of the land. They were grasping and trying to find appropriate jurisprudence that would allow them to basically disregard the most important purpose behind the statute of limitations, and that is to give finality to the homeowner. In fact a client of mine said it best, “it is basically Un-American to allow someone to keep coming at you time and time and time again.” At the end of the day it appears that the banks are asking the Florida Supreme Court to take a sip of their “Kool-Aid.”

Let’s hope the Florida Supreme Court does what’s right for the judicial system in the state of Florida and for the average person. I look forward to further communicating with you as we await and see how the Florida Supreme Court ultimately rules.


From the trenches,

Roy Oppenheim

Tags: Five, Florida Supreme Court, foreclosures, Home Mortgages, real estate defense attorney, US Banks

One response to “Bartram Supreme Court Oral Argument: Don't Drink Your Own “Kool-Aid””

  1. Cruzzin66 says:

    After listing to the arguments at the Supreme Court on Nov 4th, When Does an acceleration occur??
    Fine is basically saying never unless the bank wins and unfortunately the Justices seem to agree.. Every Criminal and civil case in the United States has a statute of limitations. Even Murder has No statute of limitations, but it doesn’t say 5 years and then means Never.. 
    Fine states its like having to go through the tape at the end of a race, which is ridiculous.  So anytime a racer goes out of bounds, gets penalized,  gets injured, quits, collapses or lays on the couch for 5 years and doesn’t feel like racing, or loses the directions to the race,  the race should just start over for him when ever he feels like it?  Its a non sense argument…
    Only Justice Lewis made the honest and appropriate point that the Acceleration has to occur first..  There is no provisions in any note I have seen that assumes deceleration accept of the borrower initiates it. No where does it say the Banks can initiate it, but they are more than welcome to put one in there where they failed to do so in the future..  No legal attempt was made to decelerate, but Fine would like it to be just assumed its automatic..  I would like to assume that the banks owe me free roofing, plumbing and a/c for life too since its not written into the note.  Then will will assume free lawn care, free paint, free cleaning services etc etc etc..   
     The whole concept is ridiculous…  Even the Justices had to admit that Fine was in the minority, but we will see who butters the Justices bread soon enough!
        It seems that the billions of dollars of lobbying that goes into persuading most of the these judges works well!   If the Supreme court recognizes there is no 5 year statute of limitations, and any failed attempt by the plaintiffs automatically assumes deceleration back to a status quo,  then 3 things should occur:  1) The first would be to erect a big plaque above the Florida Supreme Court that states ” In Banksters We Trust!”. 2) The second should be a written book of rules, procedures and laws that supersedes Florida laws and the Supreme Court, written by, of and for the Banksters, so we know what the Banksters laws are, and if The law or answers are not in the SUPERIOR  BANKSTER LAW BOOK,  we can call their 1-800 hotline and they can tell us what the law is..  3)  The legislators should be banned from making any law that pertains to bankster and they should all visit the Florida Supreme court to look at the Plaque ” In  Banksters We Trust”  
    The whole thing is absurd, and like it or not, Kendall Coffey was right on the money!  We will soon see how corrupt the supreme court is when we get the answer..