P. 1
Letter to Judge Bergmann RE Motion to Quash Denied w/o Hearing

Letter to Judge Bergmann RE Motion to Quash Denied w/o Hearing

|Views: 554|Likes:
Published by Foreclosure Fraud
4closureFraud.org
4closureFraud.org

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Foreclosure Fraud on Sep 20, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/15/2012

pdf

text

original

Honorable Charles Ed Bergmann 800 E. Twiggs St.

Room 526 Tampa, FL 33602 Re:

STOPA LAW FIRM

September 19, 2011

Mark P. Stopa, Esq.

BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. DiGiovanni Hillsborough County Case No. 09-CA-32150

Your Honor: I am in receipt of your September 15, 2011 Order wherein, you denied Defendant’s Motion to Quash, without notice or hearing, based on your belief Defendant waived his jurisdictional challenge by filing of a motion for extension of time. Respectfully, this ruling is directly contrary to controlling case law, which is set forth in the attached motion. Respectfully, it is very disappointing to lose on an issue like this when I never had an opportunity to be heard, particularly when it’s clear to me that the Court’s ruling is erroneous. In other words, while I can understand the Court’s desire to move cases along and not have hundreds of hearings on the exact same issue (like is arguably the case with the Motion to Dismiss), I don’t think the recent Administrative Order was intended for the Court to adjudicate issues that are not boilerplate foreclosure issues or to deprive Defendants of the right to be heard on such matters. After all, whether a motion for extension waives the right to challenge service of process is not a matter you hear every day, as if it were, you would have been aware of the law cited in the attached motion. Hence, I must respectfully request, in the future, that my clients be afforded hearings on such matters, as otherwise it just creates more time and expense for everyone involved. Finally, as if this were not uncomfortable enough already, it is incumbent upon me to note that the attached motion does not toll the time for my client to appeal your Order. Hence, unless you reverse your ruling on the Motion to Quash before October 13, 2011, my client will have no choice but to seek review in the Second District. As the law on this issue is clear, I submit it would be appropriate for this Court to take appropriate action before that time, be it a rehearing or a stay pending appeal.

TAMPA 2202 N. Westshore Blvd. Suite 200 Tampa, FL 33607

ORLANDO 4700 Millenia Blvd. Suite 175 Orlando, FL 32839

(888) 450-1549 www.stayinmyhome.com

JACKSONVILLE 10151 Deerwood Park Blvd. Building 200, Suite 25 Jacksonville, FL 32256

FORT LAUDERDALE 1560 Sawgrass Corporate Pkwy 4th Floor Sawgrass, FL 33323

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely, STOPA LAW FIRM

Mark P. Stopa Enclosures cc: Brandon Mullis, Esq.

TAMPA 2202 N. Westshore Blvd. Suite 200 Tampa, FL 33607

ORLANDO 4700 Millenia Blvd. Suite 175 Orlando, FL 32839

(888) 450-1549 www.stayinmyhome.com

JACKSONVILLE 10151 Deerwood Park Blvd. Building 200, Suite 25 Jacksonville, FL 32256

FORT LAUDERDALE 1560 Sawgrass Corporate Pkwy 4th Floor Sawgrass, FL 33323

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->