BlogTalkRadio uses cookies. By using our services, you're agreeing to our Cookies Policy. Got it

Our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy have changed. We think you'll like them better this way.

Motions to Vacate, Motions for Rehearing, Motions for Reconsideration and Appeal

  • Broadcast in Finance
THE NEIL GARFIELD SHOW

THE NEIL GARFIELD SHOW

×  

Follow This Show

If you liked this show, you should follow THE NEIL GARFIELD SHOW.
h:540179
s:11838243
archived

Most motions to vacate are actually motions for rehearing. Failure to understand the differences results in thousands of hours of legal work that are completely useless except perhaps as a delay tactic. In order to score points in this arena you must (1) disabuse yourself of the notion that you're dealing with a "standard mortgage loan" and a "standard mortgage foreclosure" and (2) know how to use that knowledge to make legal points that cannot be ignored by the trial court or an appellate court.  

Just because you labeled a pleading as a motion to vacate does not mean that it will be treated as such. Nor should it. Just like an assignment of mortgage or beneficial interest in a deed of trust is not an assignment of mortgage if it does not include transfer of the underlying the debt after payment of value --- either on the face of the instrument (making it facially invalid if there is no recitation of transfer of the debt for value paid) or concurrent with the assignment is a separate transaction --- requiring actual proof of payment and transfer from someone who owns the underlying obligation. 

Tonight we talk about an area of law that is confusing for lawyers, lay persons and even judges. There is a difference between a motion to vacate, a motion for rehearing and a motion for reconsideration. And generally the decision comes down to manifest injustice. Trial court decisions are not corrected on appeal unless there was a clear mistake by  the trial judge that would have resulted or probably would have resulted in a different decision. 

Appeals are not about whether the judges on the appellate panel would have decided the case differently. 

Comments