John Sims

[weishaupt1776]

http://www.netside.net/~c3i/homestead.html

Good ole fellow Florida Boy, serious knowledge and experience.

For all of you in the debt game, learn how to protect your property, wages, etc . .
It's specific with Florida Law, but he teaches from an angle dealing with how to work in equity in addition to many other concepts. Overcome the Statutory sandbox.
Pretty prompt response time, too

Oh, yeah . . . very reasonable price for his first packet.

Tell 'em Weis sent you

An absolute must for anyone who lives in Florida

Let's rock the boat in the Dirty South 'Yall

Here's an article by him
http://forum.suijuris.net/showthread.php?p=20379

[weishaupt1776]

The section on the difference between law & equity w/ the case law study is worth more than the price of the book alone

[iamfreeru2]

Hey Bro'

Thanks for this info. I contacted John Sims and the info is on the way for me to get docs filed. THis look svery good for those of us in Florida especially.

I am offering my book free with my information package. Check it out. I have spent over 10 years of research and have not lost a case yet.

http://www.designationofhomestead.com


Regards,

John

[weishaupt1776]

Jon has beefed up his site. Much more organized and comprehensive

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

Jon has beefed up his site. Much more organized and comprehensive

Yet not comprehensive enough when he's posting what looks like the full text of a case:

He publishes a case here: http://www.netside.net/~c3i/fong.htm

yet, when you look up the case with the court of appeals: http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/3d02-3097.pdf

you'll notice that on John's web page, he omits the last paragraph of the opinion, but still manages to get the footnotes that appear below it. Here's what he didn't publish:

We find the other issues raised in Fong’s appeal, as well as
the issue raised in the Town’s cross-appeal, to be without merit.
Accordingly, the trial court’s order is reversed as to the
aforementioned errors and remanded for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion, and affirmed in all other respects.

I don't see any reason why you wouldn't publish that last paragraph. However, not publishing it, without even noting that part of the opinion was omitted, seems to be to be extremely dishonest.

Frankly, when I see stuff like that, I don't see any difference between this guy any every other state-controlled s***bag lawyer out there.

What is your point? the fact is, disregarding the part you state is omitted, the case was reversed. She kept her property. Here is the entire case as I downloaded it for all to see I have no reason to hide anything. If you have a better source, please advise me. I began research and have spent the last ten years of my life writing my book, researching, helping people in our circle to keep big brother from stealing their property, then you come along and accuse me of hiding something? Bottom line is, many judges and lawyers use my book as a cited research tool, as it is the most comprehensive manuscript on the subject in existince, and if you read my book, code enforcement is a complete waste of our taxpayer money. It holds no weight. Your "accusation" is frivilous and the part you cite means nothing in the context of the case and the prevailing opinion. Plus, how would you know what other issues were raised and not opined on? I do, as I went to the 3rd DCA and read the entire case file. The court is merely stating that they are no worthy of opinion since she prevailed on the main issue. I suggest you do your (thorough) research before making frivilous attempts to discredit anyone on this BBS. And...I hate people like you who call patriots s***bags and lawyers. You don't know me pal, and you owe me a public appology.

John




********

Fong v. Town of Bay Harbor Islands, 864 So.2d 76 (Fla.App. Dist.3 12/24/2003)

[1] IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D. 2003


[2] CASE No. 3D02-3097


[3] 864 So.2d 76, 2003.FL.0005571 <http://www.versuslaw.com>


[4] December 24, 2003


[5] WENDY FONG, APPELLANT,
v.
TOWN OF BAY HARBOR ISLANDS, APPELLEE.


[6] An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida, Eleanor Schockett, Judge. LOWER TRIBUNAL NO.01-788


[7] Scott Alan Orth, for appellant.


[8] Craig B. Sherman and Drew B. Sherman, for appellee.


[9] Before Schwartz, C.J., and Goderich, J., and Nesbitt, Senior Judge.


[10] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Nesbitt, Senior Judge


[11] We have for review a Summary Final Judgment in favor of the Town of Bay Harbor Islands and against Wendy Fong. For the following reasons, we reverse in part and affirm in part.


[12] Wendy Fong is a resident of the Town of Bay Harbor Islands ("the Town"). In early 2000, the Town instituted code enforcement activities with regard to the property on which Ms. Fong lives. On September 11, 2000, a hearing was held on the code violations, in which a special master ruled that continuing violations existed. The Town filed an amended complaint, pursuant to section 162.01, Florida Statutes (2000), seeking to foreclose a lien on real and personal property owned by Fong. Fong filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in which she argued that the foreclosure action could not proceed against her homestead. The Town filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. The trial court granted the Town's Cross-Motion, finding:


[13] At the present time, the lien amounts remain unpaid by [Fong] and [the Town] is entitled to execute and levy against any and all property of [Fong], excluding only that property which constitutes [Fong's] "Homestead" in Florida. . . . Although the Court finds that the particular parcel of real property described in Paragraph 3 herein is [Fong's] "Homestead" for purposes of preventing [the Town] from foreclosing on same at the present time, the Court also specifically finds that [the Town's] lien shall remain upon said real property, to be satisfied from the proceeds of sale in the event that said property is no longer [Fong's] "Homestead", or should the property ever lose its "Homestead" status for any reason whatsoever.


[14] Fong filed this appeal, claiming that the imposition of a lien on the homestead property impairs her rights under Article X, Section 4, of the Florida Constitution. We agree.


[15] "As Article X, Section 4, specifically provides, it applies alike to invalidate both a `forced sale,' or, as here, the simple imposition of a `lien' on homestead property." Robles v. Robles, No. 3D03-848 n.3 (Fla. 3d DCA December 3, 2003) (citing Demura v. County of Volusia, 618 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Cannon v. Cannon, 254 B.R. 773 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2000); Prieto v. Eastern Nat. Bank, 719 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Miskin v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 661 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)). If Fong were to sell the property, there would be no lien on the property then in the hands of the purchasers; rather, the proceeds from that sale could be reached by creditors such as the Town if Fong failed to invest these proceeds into another homestead within a reasonable period of time. Demura v. County of Volusia, 618 So. 2d 754, 756 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). However, should the property lose its homestead status while still owned by Fong, then the Town's order against her could be enforced as a lien against the property. Id. at 756-57.


[16] The trial court's order also found that "three (3) of the four (4) original code violations remain uncorrected on [Fong's] property and, therefore, said civil penalties shall continue to accrue on a daily basis until the violations have been corrected by [Fong]." This was error under section 162.09 (3), Florida Statutes (2000), which provides that "[a] fine imposed pursuant to this part shall continue to accrue until the violator comes into compliance or until judgment is rendered in a suit filed pursuant to this section, whichever occurs first." (emphasis added). The order should reflect that the fines ceased on August 27, 2002, the date the Summary Final Judgment was entered.


[17] We also agree with Fong's contention that the trial court erred in entering a Supplemental Judgment Awarding Attorneys' Fees *fn1 to the Town because, despite the fact that the court granted the Town's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, it was Fong who prevailed on the significant issue; namely, whether the subject parcel of real property was homestead for purposes of exemption from forced sale under the Florida Constitution.


[18] We find the other issues raised in Fong's appeal, as well as the issue raised in the Town's cross-appeal, to be without merit. Accordingly, the trial court's order is reversed as to the aforementioned errors and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, and affirmed in all other respects.



Opinion Footnotes



[19] *fn1 Town of Bay Harbor Islands, Fla., Code Enforcement section 5-3/4 (12)(c), provides that "[i]n an action to foreclose on a lien the prevailing party is entitled to recover all costs, including a reasonable attorney's fee that it incurs in the foreclosure."

Originally Posted by Dragon

What is your point? the fact is, disregarding the part you state is omitted, the case was reversed. She kept her property. Here is the entire case as I downloaded it for all to see I have no reason to hide anything.

Then why on your web page did you omit it without stating that you did?

Please fix your web page to either: 1. note that parts of the case are omitted (for whatever reason) or 2. print the whole case. As it stands, you make it look like you printed the whole case, which you did not do.

I think the reason you left it out is because your site is set up to sell your materials. Even if those other things that were upheld have nothing to do with the issue at hand, to your potential customers, they might read that and it might dissuade them from buying things from you.

It's really no different that anyone else who is marketing a product - presenting only the information that sells your product. And your response is just like any other salesman caught with their pants down.

It's really quite funny.

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by buck09

Then why on your web page did you omit it without stating that you did?

Please fix your web page to either: 1. note that parts of the case are omitted (for whatever reason) or 2. print the whole case. As it stands, you make it look like you printed the whole case, which you did not do.

I think the reason you left it out is because your site is set up to sell your materials. Even if those other things that were upheld have nothing to do with the issue at hand, to your potential customers, they might read that and it might dissuade them from buying things from you.

It's really no different that anyone else who is marketing a product - presenting only the information that sells your product. And your response is just like any other salesman caught with their pants down.

It's really quite funny.

I will tell you that my wife and I live in Florida and we have filed a Designation of Homestead on our property and John has been most helpfull. I have even helped a friend file his to have a Notice of Federal Tax Lien removed from his property. If I had seen that post you are referring to on his site it would not have stopped me from going to him.

Originally Posted by buck09

Frankly, when I see stuff like that, I don't see any difference between this guy any every other state-controlled s***bag lawyer out there.

I would not categorize John as a "state-controlled s***bag lawyer." John is helping people do what lawyers are not telling them, thus saving their property.

Mr. Buck09,

I have spent over ten years writing my latest published book, and have been helping people for FREE...ABSOLUTELY FREE NO CHARGE WHATSOEVER for almost eleven years, sometimes spending 20 percent of my hard earned pay, spending countless hours of research and writing manuscripts. It had to stop. I need to cover my costs. I am not a salesman, I just want to break even. I guess I am a s***bag for wanting to break even and leaving out text that is irrelevant. Thanks for trying to ruin my day pal...without success. Tell ya what, I will gladly remove that case from my site, so that everyone else can either find it for themself or pay me for my time. I guess I am a s***bag lawyer for that too... Go somewhere else and waste other peoples precious time.