Palm Beach County Judge Sasser Overworked? Over 50,000 Pending Cases

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, AS GENERAL JURISDICTION

SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE UNDER DIVISION
NOVASTAR MORTGAGE FUNDING
TRUST 2005-1, CASE NO.
50 2008 CA 026484XXXX MB
Plaintiff,
Division: AW
vs.
PATRICIA TROTMAN; IAN TROTMAN;
_____,UNKNOWN SPOUSE OF IAN
TROTMAN, IF ANY; _____,UNKNOWN
SPOUSE OF PATRICIA TROTMAN, IF DEFENDANTS, PATRICIA
ANY; JOHN DOE OR ANY OTHER PARTY TROTMAN AND IAN
IN POSSESSION; PATRICIA P. TROTMAN, TROTMAN’S, MOTION TO
AS TRUSTEE OF THE PATRICIA P. THE COURT TO PROVIDE
TROTMAN REVOCABLE TRUST UNDER HEARING DATES AND
AGREEMENT DATED JANUARY 16, 2006; TIMES DURING NORMAL
ISOLA BELLA HOMEOWNERS COURT HOURS
ASSOCIATION, INC., A FLORIDA NON-
PROFIT CORPORATION; VILLAGES OF
WINDSOR (MASTER) HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC.; A FLORIDA NON-
PROFIT CORPORATION; All Unknown
Parties Claiming By, Through, Under Or
Against The Named Defendants, Whether
Living Or Not, And Whether Said Unknown
Parties Claims As Heirs, Devisees, Grantees,
Assignees, Lienors, Creditors, Trustees, Or In
Any Other Capacity, Claiming By, Through
Under Or Against The Named Defendants,,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
Defendants, PATRICIA TROTMAN and IAN TROTMAN (the “TROTMANS”), move
this Court to provide dates and times for an upcoming hearing which coincide with the Court’s
normal business hours. In support of this motion, the TROTMANS state as follows:
ICE LEGAL, P.A.

1975 SANSBURYS WAY, SUITE 104, WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33411 • TELEPHONE (561) 729-0530 • FACSIMILE (866) 507-9888
CASE NO. 50 2008 CA 026484XXXX MB
I. Introduction
This is a foreclosure action in which Plaintiff, THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,
AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE UNDER NOVASTAR MORTGAGE FUNDING TRUST 2005-1
(the “BANK”), seeks to take the home of Defendants, the TROTMANS.
The BANK filed an assignment of mortgage executed January 19, 2009. However, this
case was filed months earlier, on November 4, 2008. Plaintiff put an “effective date” on the
assignment which alleged that the mortgage was actually transferred two years earlier, in
November of 2007. The TROTMANS requested discovery from the BANK, seeking any
evidence the BANK would rely on at an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether the BANK
obtained an interest in the subject note or mortgage at the time this case was filed.
At the hearing on the BANK’s objections to the TROTMANS’ discovery, the Court ruled
that, pursuant to WM Specialty Mortgage, LLC v. Salomon, 874 So.2d 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004),
the TROTMANS were entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether a transfer
occurred prior to the filing of the complaint. 1 The Court asked the TROTMANS’ counsel to
coordinate a hearing date with the BANK. 2
When the TROTMANS’ counsel was provided with prospective dates and times for the
evidentiary hearing, all would have the hearing begin 5:00 p.m. The Court’s Judicial Assistant
refused to provide dates for which the hearing could be held during the Court’s normal business
hours.
1
See Transcr. Of Hrg. On Pl.’s Obj. to Defs.’ Discovery, January 28, 2010, Exhibit A, p. 54.
2
Id.
2
ICE LEGAL, P.A.
The Court hours, as posted on the 15th Judicial Circuit’s website are 8:00 a.m. through
5:00 p.m. 3 See also, Administrative Order No. 11.108-09/08 (In Re: Duty Judge/Emergencies)
(referring to evenings after 5:00 p.m. and weekends as “after hours”).
The scheduling of the hearing after hours in this case is not an isolated event. The Court
also scheduled hearings at 5:00 p.m. or later in the following cases:
• LaSalle Bank N.A. v. Glarum, Case No. 50 2008 CA 028930XXXX MB (Palm
Beach County), January 21, 2010 (judge scheduled evidentiary hearing at 5:30
p.m. that same day, then rescheduled the evidentiary matter, along with all
pending matters, to be heard at 5:00 p.m. on February 9, 2010; judge rescheduled
the hearings again to begin at 4:30 p.m. upon being advised that argument would
take 90 minutes);
• Taylor, Bean and Whitaker Mort. Corp. v. Hess, Case No. 50 2008 CA
012620XXXX MB (Palm Beach County), October 29, 2009 (judge scheduled
hearing at 5:00 p.m.); and
• Flagstar Bank v. Boss, Case No. 50 2009 CA 006090XXXX MB (Palm Beach
County) (judge scheduled hearing at 5:00 p.m.).
• U.S. Bank Nat’l Assoc. v. Wodehouse, Case No. 50 2008 CA 026320 (Palm Beach
County) (judge scheduled hearing at 5:00 p.m.).
In the latter case, Counsel for Defendant Wodehouse objected to having a hearing after
normal business hours, to which the Court responded that the time period between 5:00 to 5:30
p.m. was not after hours:
THE COURT: Let's do that. Tuesday the 2nd, Michele, 5:00 to 5:30?
3
Exhibit B.
3
ICE LEGAL, P.A.
THE CLERK: Yes.
* * *
MR. ZACKS: … I'd rather not do it after office hours, to be honest.
THE COURT: It's not after office hours, 5:00 to 5:30. I work every night till
midnight at home. I'm here till 6:00, 7:00 at night. 5:00 to 5:30 is not after office
hours. 4
The Judge’s comment that the Foreclosure Division requires the judge to work until 7:00
p.m. and until midnight every night is a reflection of an extraordinary large case load that –
despite a prediction to the contrary in an October 14th letter from the Foreclosure Division
judges to the Florida Supreme Court – has continued to grow from 47,000 5 to 55,000 cases. That
the Court is overworked has been a theme during many of the hearings attended by undersigned
counsel:
DATE CASE COMMENT

10/22/09 Washington Mutual Bank v. Sandomingo, THE COURT: … I shouldn't have to read
Case No. 50 2008 CA 028138XXXX MB memos of law at 7:30 in the morning for
(Palm Beach County)
hearings today. I have 20 hearings today. It's
very stressful for me to have – (p. 15)
11/10/09 Deutsche Bank National Trust Company THE COURT: … As you gentlemen know, I
v. OBrien, Case No. 50 2008 CA start at quarter to 8:00 o'clock in the morning.
018964XXXX MB (Palm Beach County)
Last Friday I was here until 7:00 o'clock at
night. I'm the only judge who was running
court until 7:00 o'clock at night. So I'm hearing
these cases. I am working night and day. I am
working seven days a week. I am getting these
cases heard. (p. 7)
11/25/09 The Bank of New York Mellon v. Chang, THE COURT: … I apologize for reading this
Case No. 50 2009 CA 000354XXXX MB late. I have 50,000 cases and I try to read
(Palm Beach County)
everything I can. (p. 8)
4
Transcript of Hearing Before the Honorable Meenu Sasser, February 17, 2010, pp. 9-10.
5
Letter dated October 14, 2009, re: Response to the Report of the Supreme Court Task Force on
Residential Foreclosures, p. 3.
4
ICE LEGAL, P.A.
DATE CASE COMMENT

1/14/10 The Bank of New York Mellon v. Pino, THE COURT: … I have all 54,000 foreclosure
Case No. 50 2008 CA 031691XXXX MB cases. (p. 18)
(Palm Beach County)
1/20/10 Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Brown, Case No. THE COURT: … I was up until midnight, Mr.
50 2009 CA 003005XXXX MB (Palm Immel, midnight, after being on the bench all
Beach County)
day. I read everything. (p. 15)
THE COURT: And I was up until midnight,

everyone. (p. 15)
1/21/10 LaSalle Bank N.A. v. Glarum, Case No. THE COURT: I have 54,000 cases. (p. 4)
50 2008 CA 028930XXXX MB (Palm
Beach County)
1/25/10 Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Brown, Case No. THE COURT: And I'm setting hearings, as a
50 2009 CA 003005XXXX MB (Palm courtesy, at 5:00 o'clock, because I do have
Beach County)
54,000 cases and I don't want you guys to have
to wait till May for hearings. (p. 40)
1/25/10 Bank of New York v. Ali, Case No. 50 THE COURT: I read all my motions. I stay
2008 CA 024177XXXX MB (Palm up to midnight every single night reading
Beach County)
everything. (p. 11)
1/28/10 The Bank of New York Mellon v. THE COURT: …I'm here until 6:00 every
Trotman, Case No. 50 2008 CA single night, Mr. Immel. I start court at 8:00 in
the morning. I work very hard. (p. 54)
2/2/10 U.S. Bank N.A. v. Vidal, Case No. 50 THE COURT: …So that opens up some time in
2008 CA 014117XXXX MB (Palm my calendar, even though I have 54,000
Beach County)
cases…. (p. 22)
THE COURT: …So I have 54,000 cases, I have

to manage my docket as efficiently as possible.
(p. 25)
THE COURT: … Even though I have 54,000

cases, I treat every single one of these cases just
like a circuit civil case. … (p. 41)
5
ICE LEGAL, P.A.
DATE CASE COMMENT

2/4/10 U.S. Bank N.A. v. Vidal, Case No. 50 THE COURT: I have 54,000 cases. Whatever
2008 CA 014117XXXX MB (Palm you can do to make my job easier, Mr. Nieves,
Beach County)
is greatly appreciated. (p. 11)
THE COURT: I'm up till midnight every

night. I work really, really hard, and I'm going
to work really, really hard up to midnight every
single night while I'm in this division. (p. 13)
2/8/10 U.S. Bank N.A. v. Vidal, Case No. 50 THE COURT: … I stayed up late last night,
2008 CA 014117XXXX MB (Palm read all my 23 e-mails. … (p. 3)
Beach County)
2/11/10 US Bank National Association v. THE COURT: These Motions to Quash

Williams, Case No. 50 2009 CA can be done at Uniform Motion
Calendar. We don't need to have special
set matters. I want you to understand,
Mr. Immel -- … I have 55,000 cases.
(p. 4)
THE COURT: ... You need to have

your discovery done at the time, because
I have my cases, I'm up till midnight, as
I indicated, every night. … (p. 8)
2/17/10 U.S. Bank N.A. v. Wodehouse, Case No. THE COURT: … I work every night till
50 2008 CA 026320XXXX MB (Palm midnight at home. I'm here till 6:00,
Beach County)
7:00 at night. … (p. 9)
While the TROTMANS sympathize with the Court’s predicament in attempting to single-
handedly manage a case load of 55,000 foreclosure actions, that predicament is caused by the
Fifteenth Circuit’s decision to funnel all foreclosure cases to a single division supervised by a
single judge. That the judge is excessively burdened and must work after hours is not the fault of
the homeowners being sued or the attorneys defending them. While it may be reason for the
Fifteenth Circuit to revisit its Local Rule creating the Foreclosure Division (Local Rule No. 1
and related administrative order), it is not the sort of exigent circumstance that would call for
making unusual, problematical demands on counsel’s schedule.
6
ICE LEGAL, P.A.
In In re: Amendment to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.130, 11 So.3d 341 (Fla.
2009), the Florida Supreme Court considered whether to adopt a change to the first appearances
rule proposed by the Florida Public Defenders Association, Inc. (the “FPDA”) which would
require such hearings be held during normal business hours. The Criminal Procedures Rules
Committee opposed the rule change because the Committee thought it should already be
“obvious to all concerned – that in the absence of exigent or special circumstances, courts should
conduct court business during regular business hours.” 6 The Committee suggested that if the
Court was inclined to put such a rule in place, it would be more appropriate in the Rules of
Judicial Administration because “such a rule it [sic] should apply to all court proceedings…” 7
The Supreme Court agreed with both the FPDA and the Committee that first appearances
“should be held during normal business hours absent exigent circumstances and certainly not
solely at the convenience of the judge,” but declined to engraft the requirement onto Rule 3.130.
Fla. R. Crim. P. Rather, the Court declared, “[i]f necessary, we will consider in the future an
amendment to the applicable rules, which might include an amendment to the rules of judicial
administration.” 8
Civil cases present even less of reason for the unusual measure of holding hearings
during non-Court hours as they present no right to “speedy trial” considerations. In routine civil
matters such as this, it should be even more “obvious to all concerned” that Court business
should be conducted during Court hours and not solely at the convenience of the judge.
6
Criminal Procedures Rules Committee’s Response to Comments on Proposed Amendment to
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.130 (First Appearance) By The Florida Public Defender
Association, p. 3; available at: http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/sc08-1934/08-
1934Response.pdf.
7
Id.
8
In In re: Amendment to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.130, 11 So.3d 341 at 342.
7
ICE LEGAL, P.A.
WHEREFORE, Defendants, the TROTMANS, ask that the Court provide dates and times
for a hearing during normal court hours.
Dated: February 24, 2010.
ICE LEGAL, P.A.

Counsel for Defendants
1975 Sansburys Way, Suite 104
West Palm Beach, FL 33411
Telephone: (561) 793-5658
Facsimile: (866) 507-9888
By: _______________________
DUSTIN A. ZACKS
Florida Bar No. 48604
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by mail
this February 24, 2010 to all parties on the attached service list.
ICE LEGAL, P.A.

Counsel for Defendants
1975 Sansburys Way, Suite 104
West Palm Beach, FL 33411
Telephone: (561) 793-5658
Facsimile: (866) 507-9888
By: _______________________
DUSTIN A. ZACKS
Florida Bar No. 48604
8
ICE LEGAL, P.A.
SERVICE LIST
Scott E. Simowitz, Esq.

MOSKOWITZ, MANDELL,
SALIM & SIMOWITZ, P.A.
800 Corporate Drive, Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334
(954) 491-2000
Plaintiff’s counsel
9
ICE LEGAL, P.A.

Palm Beach County Judge Sasser Overworked? Over 50,000 Pending Cases

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Palm Beach County Judge Sasser Overworked? Over 50,000 Pending Cases

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,

IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, AS GENERAL JURISDICTION

Defendants, PATRICIA TROTMAN and IAN TROTMAN (the “TROTMANS”), move

ICE LEGAL, P.A.

AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE UNDER NOVASTAR MORTGAGE FUNDING TRUST 2005-1

(the “BANK”), seeks to take the home of Defendants, the TROTMANS.

coordinate a hearing date with the BANK. 2

(referring to evenings after 5:00 p.m. and weekends as “after hours”).

also scheduled hearings at 5:00 p.m. or later in the following cases:

• LaSalle Bank N.A. v. Glarum, Case No. 50 2008 CA 028930XXXX MB (Palm

pending matters, to be heard at 5:00 p.m. on February 9, 2010; judge rescheduled

012620XXXX MB (Palm Beach County), October 29, 2009 (judge scheduled

hearing at 5:00 p.m.); and

• Flagstar Bank v. Boss, Case No. 50 2009 CA 006090XXXX MB (Palm Beach

County) (judge scheduled hearing at 5:00 p.m.).

County) (judge scheduled hearing at 5:00 p.m.).

p.m. was not after hours:

THE CLERK: Yes.

MR. ZACKS: … I'd rather not do it after office hours, to be honest.

DATE CASE COMMENT

DATE CASE COMMENT

THE COURT: And I was up until midnight,

THE COURT: …So I have 54,000 cases, I have

THE COURT: … Even though I have 54,000

DATE CASE COMMENT

THE COURT: I'm up till midnight every

2/11/10 US Bank National Association v. THE COURT: These Motions to Quash

THE COURT: ... You need to have

making unusual, problematical demands on counsel’s schedule.

for a hearing during normal court hours.

Dated: February 24, 2010.

ICE LEGAL, P.A.

ICE LEGAL, P.A.

Scott E. Simowitz, Esq.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai