With more than 100 years of combined litigation experience, the attorneys at Ice Legal have played a pivotal role in legal development. Our groundbreaking cases have been featured in news stories across the county and have set new legal precedents that continue to help clients and Florida residents.
Our case studies act as an example of what the professional litigation team at Ice Legal is capable of. We are proud of our substantial litigation experience and the innovative results we achieve are evidence of that.
Glarum v. LaSalle Bank National Association
Tom Ice, founder and principal legal strategist of the firm, represented homeowners Gary and Anita Glarum. The decision received significant news coverage at both the state and national level because servicing employees have routinely signed affidavits of indebtedness that mortgage servicers use to prove the amount of money owed.The groundbreaking decision had broad implications in foreclosures cases throughout the state.
The Impact of the Case
- In an article for their banking industry clients, attorneys at Greenberg Traurig, LLP said, "This decision could have broad sweeping application in the lending and loan servicing industries and affect thousands of foreclosure cases, among other types of cases, currently pending in Florida courts." Greenberg Traurig, LLP was not involved in the case.
- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP called the case “a decision that could affect foreclosure proceedings throughout Florida.” A report by the Palm Beach Post agreed, stating that the ruling would greatly complicate Florida foreclosures.
- The American Banker reported that the "ruling could make it harder for mortgage servicers to use computer records as evidence for foreclosure without verifying the underlying information. The Florida ruling strikes at the heart of what is known in legal terms as the business records exception to the hearsay rule.”
- The Legal & Regulatory Update of Electronic Signature & Records Association, whose authors include Senior Company Counsel of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., mentioned the decision in their legal and regulatory update presentation.
In the trial courts, the Glarum case is often mentioned by one or both sides at a foreclosure summary judgment hearing and is familiar to most attorneys in the foreclosure practice area.
- Florida Appellate Court Restricts Foreclosure Summary Judgment Affidavit from Bank That Relies on Data from a Computer System as Inadmissible Hearsay
- Commercial borrowers have few options to correct failing loans
- The Florida Senate Interim Report 2012-130, November 2011, p. 8
- Rules for Avoiding the Pitfalls of Filing Inadequate Affidavits by Custodians of Business Records
Israel Machado, Florida homeowner, came to Ice Legal with what looked like a typical foreclosure case. Ice Legal proved that the affidavit used by the bank to support its motion for summary judgment was signed by a robo-signer.
Ice Legal represented realtors whose commissions for selling luxury condos had never been paid. After the realtors wrested control of the property from the condo builder as payment for the commissions, a company purporting to be a mortgagee of the property sought foreclosure, which would have extinguished the realtors’ claims without them ever collecting the commissions. Ice Legal proved a series of connections between the builder and the purported mortgagee that supported the argument that the foreclosure was a ruse for the builder to regain control of the property. The case was settled at mediation.
- Jose E. Vidal v. SunTrust Bank
- Updates and News of Interest, by Avalon Legal Information Services,Inc.
Roman Pino v. The Bank of New York
Roman Pino v. The Bank of New Yorkwas the first case arising from the foreclosure crisis to reach the Florida Supreme Court. In the trial court, Ice Legal brought evidence that the assignment had been backdated and asked the court to punish the bank with a dismissal.
To avoid permanent dismissal, the bank chose to voluntarily dismiss the case so that it could be filed again later. Ice Legal challenged whether the bank could escape punishment for falsifying evidence before the court. As a result, the case was settled and the Florida Supreme Court called for a rule change to permit courts to punish litigants who intentionally mislead the court.