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.”

____________________

HeadshotAnsley 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.

Related Articles

March 20, 2022
“The trouble with retirement is that you never get a day off!” [Abe Lemons] There is no better way to describe Robert Wilson in his career as an attorney, as a trustee, in his life thus far, and surely in his retirement! He has filled and will continue to fill every second of every day with meaning and purpose and...
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
October 15, 2023
A little bit for everyone in this case . . .In calculating above-median income debtor’s projected disposable income, Chapter 13 debtor may not deduct the “ownership allowance” for transportation expenses if the secured debt in question is secured by a nonpurchase money security interest in a motor vehicle.
Members
ahern_larry_regular
February 27, 2022
Background A recent Chapter 7 case out of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California, In re Rhodes,1 addressed reaffirmation in a context that should be of interest to debtor's attorneys. As explained in Part 1, Rhodes points out that the "ride-through" of a debtor's secured debt after a Chapter 7 — which Congress . . . It...
Members
ahern_larry_regular
September 18, 2022
Introduction In In re Village Apothecary, Inc.,1 the Sixth Circuit last month reduced an attorney's fees by half, where the professional's services were not "successful." The results obtained (or, actually, the lack of results) justified cutting the fees of attorneys for a Chapter 7 trustee by 50%. Why It Matters to Chapter 13 People This analysis of the implications of...
Members
May 31, 2020
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Only bankruptcy court issuing discharge order can enforce injunction. The Fifth Circuit held that only the bankruptcy court issuing a discharge order has authority to enforce the discharge injunction. The opinion reviews pre-2005 Code provisions and current 28 U.S.C. § 1963, citing other Circuits that “have insisted on a return to the bankruptcy...
Members
morgenstern-clarren
November 26, 2023
Although this article was originally published in 2009, Judge Morgenstern-Clarren took a fresh look just this week. It is just as relevant today as the day she first wrote it
Members
January 13, 2019
By John P. Gustafson, United States Bankruptcy Judge, Northern District of Ohio, Western Division (Toledo, OH) Click here for Part 1 of 6 Click here for Part 2 of 6 Click here for Part 4 of 6 Click here for Part 5 of 6
Members
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
January 29, 2023
Percentage fees collected by a Chapter 13 trustee prior to confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan must be returned to the debtor by the trustee if Chapter 13 plan is not confirmed. (Ebel) Goodman v. Doll, 2023 WL 216778 (10th Cir. January 18, 2023) Case Summary Daniel Doll filed Chapter 13 in November of 2017. The debtor complied with 11...
Members
January 12, 2020
By Herbert L. Beskin, Chapter 13 Trustee for the Western District of Virginia (Charlottesville) The Seventh Circuit thought that it had finished dealing with the intersection of cars, fines, Chapter 13, and the City of Chicago when it rendered its decision earlier in 2019 in “Steenes I.” In re Steenes, 918 F.3d 554 . Alas, it was not to be,...
Members
moran_cathy
April 14, 2024
Many really good questions were generated by our recent Means Test webinars. Attached is a Q & A exchange on one such question regarding the 6-month commitment period.
Members

Looking to Become a Member?

ConsiderChapter13.org offers a forum to advance continuing education of consumer bankruptcy via access to insightful articles, informative webinars, and the latest industry news. Join now to benefit from expert resources and stay informed.

Webinars

These informative sessions are led by industry experts and cover a range of consumer bankruptcy topics.

Member Articles

Written by industry experts, these articles provide in-depth analysis and practical guidance on consumer bankruptcy topics.

Industry News

The Academy is the go-to source for the latest news and analysis in the Chapter 13 bankruptcy industry.

To get started, please let us know which of these best fits your current position: