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.

Lenders Can’t Hide from Consequences of Misapplication of Mortgage Payments

Cathy Moran

March 6, 2022

Who knew 20 years ago how apparently hard it is to account for money paid to you? Even if accounting for money was your business? Today’s raft of mortgage accounting issues were not ones I foresaw when I became a bankruptcy lawyer.Yet every day we encounter cases where the foreclosure notice follows the “all current” filing at the close of...

Members

Report of the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Commission on Consumer Bankruptcy

April 28, 2019

By William Houston Brown, Co-chair of the Commission and Adviser to the Academy for Consumer Bankruptcy Education The Report of the Commission on Consumer Bankruptcy for improvements to the consumer bankruptcy system was made public on April 11, 2019. The full report is available free by download from the American Bankruptcy Institute’s website, www.abi.org. The following Foreward to the Report...

Members

Critical Case Comment – Listing a Debt “Just in Case”

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

October 29, 2023

An interesting decision – one we would like for you to weigh in on. Did the Judge get it right? Is this a win for Creditors? Is this yet another case that requires more work from Debtors’ Counsel? Let us hear from you.

Members

Five Things Trustees Should Know About the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019

September 8, 2019

By Lawrence R. Ahern, III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Introduction Four bankruptcy-related bills were enacted during the 116th Congress and signed into law on August 23, 2019.1 The legislation affected both business and consumer cases. One bill, the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (SBRA),2 deals on its face with a non-consumer topic. However, it will be of great...

Members

Bankruptcy Threshold Adjustment and Technical Corrections Act

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

June 12, 2022

A new day is coming to high debt borrowers seeking to file Chapter 13 but confounded by the debt limits imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 109(e). Although debt limits have been increasing since the effective date of the Code in 1979, consumer debts have been increasing at a far more rapid rate. Starting in 2009, when the housing crisis first...

Members

Chapter 13 Trustee Duties, Powers, And Limitations – Part 2

October 11, 2020

By James J. Robinson, Chief United States Bankruptcy Judge, Northern District of Alabama What are the statutory duties of the standing chapter 13 trustee? Bankruptcy Code §§ 1302 and 704 provide the statutory framework for the trustee’s duties, and provide as follows: 11 U.S.C. § 1302. Trustee (a) If the United States trustee appoints an individual under section 586(b) of...

Members

Chapter 13 Trustee Duties, Powers, And Limitations – Part 4

October 25, 2020

By James J. Robinson, Chief United States Bankruptcy Judge, Northern District of Alabama Exactly whose interests does the trustee represent, and when should the trustee object or move to modify? Hope v. Acorn Financial, Inc., 731 F.3d 1189 (11th Cir. 2013). The Eleventh Circuit held that a chapter 13 trustee who was aware of defects with a secured claim before...

Members

Enforcing Chapter 13 Payroll Deductions

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

May 5, 2024

Failure of an employer to comply with the terms of a payroll deduction order justifies a finding of contempt and the award of costs, attorney’s fees, and potential referral for criminal action.

Members

Critical Case Comment – A Mixed Bag of Inheritance

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

June 18, 2023

When a debtor fails to disclose a post-petition asset as required by Local Rule and the terms of her plan, the trustee may seek a modification of the plan notwithstanding the expiration of the applicable commitment period; the best interest of creditors test applies only at commencement of the case and not to a plan modification; a trustee’s motion to...

Members

Critical Case Comment–84 Months: Lifesaver or Anchor?

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

February 12, 2023

Section 1329(c), as it currently exists, forecloses the ability of Chapter 13 debtor to modify a confirmed plan to alter the plan payment amount while maintaining an extended plan, previously approved under the CARES Act. (Hanan) In re Nelson, 2022 WL 6795096 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. October 11, 2022) Case Summary Immediately after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress sought...

Members