Info

Crushing Debt Podcast

The Crushing Debt Podcast is for people who want to eliminate the financial bullies in their lives. It is for listeners who want more money at the end of the month, rather than more month at the end of the money. The podcast provides answers around such topics as real estate litigation, partition, quiet title, chapter 7 liquidation, chapter 13 reorganization, and Chapter 11 business bankruptcies, short sales, loan modifications, creditor harassment and other related topics.
RSS Feed Subscribe in Apple Podcasts
2021
February
January


2020
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January


2019
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January


2018
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January


2017
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January


2016
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January


2015
December
November


All Episodes
Archives
Now displaying: Page 1
Apr 20, 2017

In Episode 58 of The Crushing Debt podcast, we discuss a case called In Re: Failla. This case impacts both bankruptcy and foreclosure cases in Florida, and was a win for lenders, against homeowners and borrowers.

Mr. and Mrs. Failla bought a house in Boca Raton, Florida.  Eventually circumstances caused them to fall behind on their mortgage and the bank filed a foreclosure.  The Faillas then decided to eliminate their debts in bankruptcy, including stating their intent to "surrender" their house to the mortgage company.

However, when the bank proceeded to foreclose, based on the Failla's intent to surrender the house, the Faillas fought the foreclosure case.  The bank objected to the Failla's actions.  The case found its way to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, GA (which governs bankruptcy and Federal Court cases in Florida, Georgia and Alabama).  The decision is from October 2016 and now, unfortunately, means that when someone in bankruptcy indicates an intent to "surrender" the house, they're no longer allowed to later defend the foreclosure case.

Do you agree with the Court's decision?

Please let us know at Shawn@Yesnerlaw.com or www.yesnerlaw.com.

1 Comments
  • almost four years ago
    Coach Myers
    Very interesting case. I have to say that had I been the judge I would have handled this a little bit differently. The law is established to provide Justice equality and fairness hopefully we can all agree upon that. A judge is established to interpret the facts of the case and comparative analysis to the law. The judge does not work for any better or creditor the judge works for the law.

    Having said that had I been the judge in this case I would have wanted to hear from the debtors why they originally chose to surrender the property if it was on their own accord and not from legal advice from an attorney, I would require them to produce a video stating what complete imbeciles they were for listening to friends and family rather than seeking legal advice. I would have them run social networking commercials telling their Network what complete idiots a word for not seeking legal advice. I would then rule on behalf of the debtors because any normal person that's able to read cannot possibly understand the interpretation of State statutes especially when it comes to financial issues.

    I would also in my ruling require the financial institution to run commercials as well and actual video commercial prior to any Future Mortgage signing that the client or the debtor understands how an actual foreclosure process would take place period we are in a new economy which includes technology that allows for people to better understand the legal system if we portray it through new technical means rather than just ink printed on paper.
Adding comments is not available at this time.