4/13/11

Foreclosure-Gate 4.0 Ohio

Justices uphold foreclosure rule

It's fine for judges to require lawyers to verify details, court ruling says...
Thursday, April 7, 2011  03:09 AM
cross-posted via: The  Columbus Dispatch

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

The Ohio Supreme Court has dismissed a complaint against three Franklin County judges who are requiring lawyers to verify the authenticity of the documents they file in home foreclosures.
Six lawyers challenged the action in December, asking the Supreme Court to prohibit the judges from ordering them to sign "certifications" on behalf of their clients.
The Franklin County prosecutor's office filed a motion in January to have the complaint dismissed, which the Supreme Court granted yesterday without comment.
John C. Greiner, a Cincinnati attorney for the lawyers, said the lack of comment made it difficult to react to the ruling.
"We're disappointed in the decision, and we're disappointed that there's no guidance with it," he said.
Prosecutor Ron O'Brien said the decision means the lawyers "have to follow the requirements imposed by the judges."
Common Pleas Judges John F. Bender, Kimberly Cocroft and Guy Reece took the action in response to a national outcry over fraudulent foreclosure filings.
State attorneys general across the nation, including then-Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, announced in October that they were investigating fraudulent foreclosure filings. Some law firms and major lenders were using so-called "robo-signers" to complete affidavits on foreclosures without reading the documents or verifying ownership of the mortgage notes.
In late November, the three Franklin County judges began telling all lawyers who file residential foreclosure cases in their courtrooms that they must "personally certify the authenticity and accuracy of all documents" in support of the filings. If a lawyer doesn't, the judge will not grant a motion for default or summary judgment, but will instead schedule the case for trial.
Setting a foreclosure for trial can delay the case for a year or more. However, in its motion to dismiss the lawyers' complaint, the prosecutor's office argued that a trial date provides a "remedy" for those who object to verifying their clients' documents.
"The fact that the trial will delay matters does not change the fact that it is an adequate remedy," wrote Assistant Prosecutor Patrick Piccininni. "Any issues of authentication of documents and proof can be settled at that stage."
jfutty@dispatch.com

No comments:

Post a Comment