MAGA man charged w/wire fraud after setting his own camper on fire, blaming Biden supporters and BLM

Good movie but mostly full of BS.

Being a fire investigator made me dissect it as I watched it. I hope Hollywood doesn’t think that movie is legit. Lol

 

I thought all firemen got laid on top of the fire trucks. You mean that's not true too? So disillusioned.

 

No comment

 

Yep. Here is the Florida statute - 45.031-032

(7) DISBURSEMENTS OF PROCEEDS.—
(a) On filing a certificate of title, the clerk shall disburse the proceeds of the sale in accordance with the order or final judgment

(d) If there are funds remaining after payment of all disbursements required by the final judgment of foreclosure and shown on the certificate of disbursements, the surplus shall be distributed as provided in this section and ss. 45.0315-45.035.

45.032 Disbursement of surplus funds after judicial sale.—
(1) For purposes of ss. 45.031-45.035, the term:
(a) “Owner of record” means the person or persons who appear to be owners of the property that is the subject of the foreclosure proceeding on the date of the filing of the lis pendens. In determining an owner of record, a person need not perform a title search and examination but may rely on the plaintiff’s allegation of ownership in the complaint when determining the owner of record.
(b) “Subordinate lienholder” means the holder of a subordinate lien shown on the face of the pleadings as an encumbrance on the property. The lien held by the party filing the foreclosure lawsuit is not a subordinate lien. A subordinate lienholder includes, but is not limited to, a subordinate mortgage, judgment, tax warrant, assessment lien, or construction lien. However, the holder of a subordinate lien shall not be deemed a subordinate lienholder if the holder was paid in full from the proceeds of the sale.
(c) “Surplus funds” or “surplus” means the funds remaining after payment of all disbursements required by the final judgment of foreclosure and shown on the certificate of disbursements.
(d) “Surplus trustee” means a person qualifying as a surplus trustee pursuant to s. 45.034.
(2) There is established a rebuttable legal presumption that the owner of record on the date of the filing of a lis pendens is the person entitled to surplus funds after payment of subordinate lienholders who have timely filed a claim. A person claiming a legal right to the surplus as an assignee of the rights of the owner of record must prove to the court that such person is entitled to the funds. At any hearing regarding such entitlement, the court shall consider the factors set forth in s. 45.033 in determining whether an assignment is sufficient to overcome the presumption. It is the intent of the Legislature to abrogate the common law rule that surplus proceeds in a foreclosure case are the property of the owner of the property on the date of the foreclosure sale.
(3) During the 60 days after the clerk issues a certificate of disbursements, the clerk shall hold the surplus pending a court order.
(a) If the owner of record claims the surplus during the 60-day period and there is no subordinate lienholder, the court shall order the clerk to deduct any applicable service charges from the surplus and pay the remainder to the owner of record. The clerk may establish a reasonable requirement that the owner of record prove his or her identity before receiving the disbursement. The clerk may assist an owner of record in making a claim. An owner of record may use the following form in making a claim:

There's all kinds of subissues that might get litigated, like disputes over subordinate liens and whether they take priority, and there is often a dispute over who gets the owners cut, especially if there's a divorce in progress, other judgments against the record owner, the amount of fees independent of the amount owed claim by the mortgagee, etc.

But you always have the right to surplus proceeds or even to buy your house back after the foreclosure sale and before the certificate of title is issued you can pay off the loan.

In terms of public policy, I've always raised the issue when conservative justices claim that they don't have power to do justice that's not strictly permitted by law. They do. The Constitution explicitly vests US courts with equitable power, and equitable power flows out of the Chancellor at English common law, the so-called "Conscience of the King", that would set aside results that were legally required but grossly unjust, subject obviously to all types of limitations that have developed over the years.

The equity of redemption arose because lenders would often hide out and not let you make the final payment or close to the final payment to them on time and then jump in and grab your property claiming that you had violated the strict terms of the contract.

But the general issue, the concept that courts were powerless to act equitably, has never been the case. When we set up our court system we explicitly gave courts both legal and equitable power. That doesn't give them free reign, I'm just pushing back on the argument that it's some kind of slippery new liberal development to have courts act equitably.

The pardon power is a species of the same area of law, basically pardoning a criminal that was convicted according to law.