Foreclosure Attorney Arrested for Contempt

By Ansley Owens, Contributing Writer and Intern for the NACTT Academy (Nashville, TN)

A heated dispute between a judge and foreclosure attorney ended with the 70-year-old attorney handcuffed, charged with two felonies, and incarcerated overnight.

On November 14, 2014, Palm Beach Circuit Senior Judge Howard Harrison found attorney Stuart Golant in contempt and issued a $500 fine. The transcript from the hearing in GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Philip Joseph Maszak, et. al., reveals Golant and other attorneys accusing Judge Harrison of denying a motion “as a sanction” against their firm.

When Golant refused to stop yelling in opposition, Judge Harrison ordered bailiffs to remove Golant from the courtroom and a tussle ensued.

The arrest affidavit alleged that Golant violated the law “by grabbing [the officer’s] collar and throat . . . causing [him] to defend [himself].” Golant was charged with resisting arrest with violence and battery on a law enforcement officer.

A video of this altercation shows the events alleged in the affidavit. Golant’s wife and law partner, Margery, is heard in the background pleading with the officers to stop as Golant had a heart condition.

Judge Harrison entered an Order and Judgment finding Golant guilty of Contempt of Court and assessing him a $500 fine on January 7, 2015. Golant filed a Notice of Appeal on January 31, 2015 with Judge Harrison’s order attached.

According to the Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, the state attorney’s office dropped the charges against Golant on January 8, 2015.

Despite the charges being dropped, the incident had after shock effects. In an unrelated case, married clients of Golant & Golant, P.A., filed a writ of prohibition to disqualify Judge Harrison from their foreclosure case. Clients Richard and Meryl Cannon cited their fear of bias was due to Golant’s previous confrontation with Judge Harrison.

The petition was denied June 10, 2015 in an unsigned opinion. Judge Martha Warner dissented concluding that the “motion was technically sufficient,” and “the facts alleged were sufficient to require disqualification.”

____________________

Ansley F. Owens is a contributing writer and intern with the National Association of Chapter Thirteen Trustees Academy in Nashville, Tennessee. Ms. Owens graduated from Middle Tennessee State University with a Bachelor of Science in Public Relations, and expects her Juris Doctor from Belmont University College of Law in May 2016.

While at Belmont University College of Law she serves as a Student Bar Association Senator and the Vice President of the Family Law Society. She is trained in the Harvard Negotiation Model and participates as a member of other law-related student associations. Outside the classroom she interned with MTR Family Law in Nashville, Tennessee, and was a judicial clerk for Judge Lynda Jones in General Sessions Court, Division IX in Nashville, Tennessee.

No Author Biography has been linked to this Article.

Postpetition Borrowing by a Consumer Debtor in Chapter 13 – Part 1 of 2

May 5, 2019

By Judge Michael A. Fagone & Career Law Clerk Ciera S. Dye Although our Nation’s bankruptcy laws are uniform, chapter 13 practice in our Nation’s bankruptcy courts varies to a significant extent in the different judicial districts. One example of this variation is the treatment of postpetition borrowing by a consumer debtor in chapter 13.i Neither the Bankruptcy Code nor...

Members

Objections to Claims: Two of These Creditors Are Not Like the Others [1]

June 13, 2021

By Daniel M. Tavera, Law Clerk to the Honorable John P. Gustafson, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Toledo) Objections to claims may generally be served on the claimant by first-class mail to the person designated to receive notices on the most recent proof of claim for the creditor. This simplifies the service for claim objections for...

Members

Ask Ms. Ps and Qs

March 15, 2020

By Professor Nancy Rapoport, University of Nevada Dear Readers: The marvelous, indefatigable Regina Logsdon just forwarded me this hypothetical: Post-confirmation, debtor/client gets upset with attorney. Let’s assume for this scenario that the attorney hasn’t done anything wrong – perhaps just a difference of opinion on a plan modification (or not). Debtor/client says ugly things to attorney – name-calling, etc. THEN...

Members

Ask Ms. Ps & Qs

Nancy B. Rapoport

October 9, 2022

Dear Readers: We are all working at what feels like the speed of light these days. (And if we’re not, then we’re upset that work is too slow. Yes, we feel like Goldilocks—work’s either too busy or not busy enough.) But the wonderful Regina has asked me a question that often relates to someone hitting “send” too soon: “When opposing...

Members

From the Editor

September 27, 2020

By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Debtors’ attorney fees not authorized under Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). Although the Chapter 13 debtors had prevailed before the Ninth Circuit, In re Sisk, 962 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2020), their application for attorney fees as prevailing parties under EAJA was denied. That Act did not authorize awards of attorney fees...

Members

Conflicting Interpretations: A Chapter 13 Trustee’s Compensation After Pre-Confirmation Dismissal or Conversion*Part 1 of 3

Brittani Bushman

January 30, 2022

(Used with expressed permission from the MI Bankruptcy Journal and the Steven W. Rhodes Consumer Bankruptcy Conference) I. Introduction Although the Bankruptcy Code has been around for decades, bankruptcy courts continue to be faced with significant disputes regarding the interpretation of its provisions. An emerging issue that has gained traction in recent years involves the compensation of a chapter 13...

Members

New Fellows of American College of Bankruptcy

December 15, 2019

By William H. Brown, Editor and Advisor, Academy for Consumer Bankruptcy Education, Inc. (d/b/a ConsiderChapter13.org) Members of the Academy and regular speakers at NACTT’s annual seminars were recently elected as Fellows of the American College of Bankruptcy, representing recognition by the College of the important contributions by those in the consumer bankruptcy system. Newly elected Fellows, who are to be...

Do I Really Have to Tell the Trustee About Newly Acquired Assets?

Herbert L. Beskin

January 9, 2022

It has long been a vexing question for Trustees and attorneys alike: do Debtors have to disclose assets acquired post-petition? In a lengthy and well-documented opinion, Chief Bankruptcy Court Judge John Waites of South Carolina has presented his take on this issue and concluded, with some important exceptions, that they do not. The case is In re Thomas L. Boyd,...

Members

From the Editor – Avoidance

September 22, 2019

By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Tax foreclosure sale avoided as preference. Affirming the District and Bankruptcy Courts, at 571 B.R. 662 and 588 B.R. 394, the Third Circuit held that the Chapter 13 debtors could avoid a pre-petition tax foreclosure sale as a preferential transfer. The township held a properly noticed tax sale at public auction, which resulted...

Members

Can Good Facts Also Make Bad Law? Finality of Orders in Bankruptcy Revisited after Ritzen Group

Lawrence R. Ahern, III

March 20, 2022

"Finality" in Bankruptcy When is an order within a bankruptcy case "final"? When must a party to the proceeding appeal within 14 days? When may a party either seek interlocutory review or sit back and wait until something more occurs to make the order final? Final orders are appealable. In civil actions, this is a relatively easy proposition to apply...

Members