3d DCA Watch -- And Hijinks Ensued!

The sun is shining, the coffee is swilling, the robes are a-wearing, and the opinions are as fresh as a nice sliced tongue on rye, so let's dig right in to this week's 3d DCA Watch:

Ruscalleda v. HSBC Bank:

How cute -- two banks foreclosing on the very same mortgage!

This is like that episode from Three's Company where Jack has to entertain two dates at the very same time, all at the Regal Beagle:

After filing their pro se answer and affirmative defenses, the defendants retained counsel. Continuing in their mistaken belief, they did not inform their attorney of the action filed by HSBC. On November 13, 2008, counsel filed an amended answer and affirmative defenses on behalf of the defendants in the American Home Mortgage action, but took no action on the HSBC complaint.

Although the defendants did not file an answer in response to HSBC’s complaint, HSBC never moved for a default judgment.3 Instead, on January 22, 2009, HSBC moved for summary judgment, scheduling the hearing for March 24, 2009. When the defendants received the motion for summary judgment in the HSBC action, it sent the motion to their counsel. It was at that point, that the defendants and their counsel realized that two separate banks were attempting to simultaneously foreclose on the same mortgage, but that they only had been defending the initial action filed by American Home Mortgage.

Ok, it's like that episode except John Ruiz had no idea he was on another date.

Sunshine Guardrail v. FL Unemployment Commission:

Shorter Judge Schwartz -- "Several zeros are still zero."

How funny -- I got that exact fortune at New Chinatown the other night.

Commercial Jet v. U.S. Bank:

Speaking of Judge Schwartz, here's a carefully measured dissent from him on statutory construction:

The majority holding that following that provision did not have the effect specifically provided by the legislature is in conflict with just about every canon of legislative interpretation there is, including: that statutory words must be accorded their plain meaning; that every statute must be deemed to have some meaning and accomplish something (here, the court’s ruling renders the filing of the lien of no effect whatever); that a statute dealing with a specific subject, such as aircraft, must be deemed to control over a general one such as section 713.58, which applies to all personal property, and no doubt other general rules which no one has thought it necessary to devise—until now.

Wow -- that's a 114-word sentence!

I don't know about you, but he had me at word 52.