Patrick Giunta Esq. Scores Another Homeowner Win in South Florida v US Bank Trustee LSF9 Master Participation Trust: William Paatalo, Expert Testifies

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not legal advice. Always consult with a licensed attorney regarding your specific case.

Foreclosure Fraud Still Exists — Even as Volume Declines

Although overall foreclosure volume has declined, the number of deficient and even fraudulent cases remains significant. As foreclosure cases continue to move through the courts, more experienced judges are carefully reviewing the evidence — and they are increasingly skeptical of foreclosure mills that rely on legal presumptions rather than proof of real facts.

Case Highlight: Victory in West Palm Beach, Florida

Kudos to trial lawyer Patrick Giunta, Esq., based in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. On October 7, 2019, Giunta secured another win for a homeowner in the Circuit Court of West Palm Beach.

Case #50-2017-CA-012236
Final Judgment Entered: October 8, 2019

Judge’s Findings:

• Plaintiff failed to prove standing to enforce the note.

• On both Count I (Mortgage Foreclosure) and Count II (Re-establishment of Lost Note), the Plaintiff — U.S. Bank as Trustee for the LSF9 Master Participation Trust — took nothing by the action.

• Defendants were released from the claim, and the court entered a Final Judgment for the Defendant.

The Judge’s ruling effectively barred U.S. Bank and the LSF9 Master Participation Trust from bringing another foreclosure action on this matter.

Why This Ruling Matters

Some judges dismiss foreclosure cases “without prejudice,” which allows foreclosure mills to refile and try again. But in this case, the court issued a Final Judgment — a decisive ruling on the merits.

This means any future attempt by U.S. Bank or LSF9 Master Participation Trust is barred by:

• Res Judicata (the matter has already been decided)

• Collateral Estoppel (issues already litigated cannot be relitigated)

• Rooker-Feldman Doctrine (prevents lower courts from reviewing or overruling final state court judgments)

If another entity, trust, or LLC attempted to bring a new foreclosure action, they would have to plead and prove actual ownership of the debt, payment of value, and proper transfers. That’s highly unlikely to succeed given the record.

The Winning Formula

Attorney Patrick Giunta doesn’t take many foreclosure defense cases — but when he does, he often wins. His success stems from:

• Understanding securitization and how it relates to the failure of foreclosure mills to prove their case.

• Focusing on the Plaintiff’s burden — forcing them to prove a prima facie case rather than trying to prove who actually owns the debt.

• Leveraging expert testimony — in this case, Giunta employed Bill Paatalo, whose expert fact testimony underscored the deficiencies in the Plaintiff’s allegations, documents, and evidence.

Conclusion

This case is a reminder that lack of standing remains a powerful foreclosure defense. Judges who carefully examine the evidence often find that foreclosure mills cannot prove ownership of the debt or authority to enforce the note.

Homeowners facing foreclosure should seek experienced legal counsel and consider the role of expert witnesses in challenging fraudulent or deficient claims.

Need Help With Your Case?

Call us today at 844.583.5339
Submit your case statement online for a complimentary recommendation.
Visit LivingLies.me for resources and case insights.

Tags: investigator bill paatalo, Patrick Giunta
Posted in foreclosure defenses, legal standing, Pleading |