Arguing FHA in the Appellate Courts

I have two Oral Arguments this week, one in Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal and one in the Fifth District.  The issue in both appeals is whether the face-to-face counseling requirement of 24 C.F.R. 203.604 is a condition precedent to foreclosure of an FHA Mortgage (such that the burden of proving such counseling is on the lender) or an affirmative defense (such that the burden of proving the lack of such counseling is on the borrower).

I think the counseling is a condition precedent, but there’s no case law in Florida on point.  So … let’s go make some law.  🙂

Here are the briefs for these two appeals:

 

Corrigan:  Tues., Nov. 17, 2015 at 9:30 before the Second District, though I’m last on the docket

Inital Brief (by me)

Answer Brief (by the Bank)

Reply Brief (by me)

Here’s a link to the live Oral Argument

 

Vallandingham:  Thurs., Nov. 19, 2015 at 10:00 before the Fifth District, though I’m last on the docket

Initial Brief (by me)

Answer Brief (by the Bank)

Reply Brief (by me)

Here’s a link to that live Oral Argument

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *