Not after the time for rehearing has expired.  This was discussed in the 1st DCA case of HSBC vs. Reed issued on November 16, 2011.  In this case, the Reeds motioned the court for mediation on June 7, 2010.  Unfortunately for the Reeds, at the time they motioned the court, there was pending a motion for summary judgment.  More unfortunate, a hearing on HSBC's motion for summary judgment was set to occur 2 days later. 

The trial court clearly found itself conflicted.  The court system is overworked and underfunded. And, there is clear policy established to reduce this burden by utilizing mediation as an alternative dispute resolution forum.  Further, in large part a negotiated settlement is often better for all parties than is foreclosure final judgment.  

Here, unfortunately, the court made an error says the 1st DCA.  Twenty days after issuing a final judgment in favor of HSBC, the court issued enforcing the parties mediated settlement agreement. HSBC appeals, asserting the court erred in finding the settlement agreement enforceable.

An important thing to remember if you are tempted to not be fully forthcoming regarding your assets or other relevant information in a divorce proceeding, it is very likely that someone else has already unsuccessfully tried the same tactic. Part of a family judge's job is to assess the credibility of the parties.  Lying about facts of your case is generally a shortsighted and bad idea.  If something seems off, the judge will likely pick up on it.  Do yourself a favor and be honest!  Not convinced?  Read on about how being dishonest about assets worked in Jones v. Jones.

Interested in knowing your rights and obligations in a divorce proceeding?  Schedule a consultation and you'll be able to meet with a Palm Beach Gardens Divorce Lawyer.  To do so, just call our office at (561)472-0919 or click on  "Divorce Consultation" and complete a contact form.

In Jones v. Jones, a recent case out of the 5th DCA, a former husband challenged a trial court voiding a mediated divorce settlement agreement. 

Countrywide and Goldman Sachs have both agreed to record settlements this week for their involvement in the mortgage crisis. The settlements, both of which are over $500 million, are just the tip of the iceberg as far as legal woes for both companies.

Countrywide Financial Corp., the former mortgage giant, was purchased two years ago by Bank of America.  In what is being described as the largest payout so far from the mortgage meltdown, Countrywide has settled several class-action shareholder lawsuits for the sum of 600 million. The suits were initiated against Countrywide Financial Corp. claiming that the mortgage lender concealed mounting risks from shareholders as it loosened its standards for loans during the housing boom. By law corporations owe a fiduciary duty to shareholders and are bound by numerous disclosure requirements. Failure to make adequate, timely disclosures can expose corporations and executives to the risk of litigation. In addition to Countrywide, former CEO Angele Mozilo, former President David Sambol, for CFO Eric Sieracki and former board members were named in the litigation. As part of the settlement defendants admitted no wrongdoing. According to the LA Times however, the company is being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which filed a lawsuit accusing Mozilo, Sambol and Sieracki of misleading investors. The company and Mozilo are also under criminal investigation by the Justice Department and the attorneys general of California. Other states have also sued on behalf of borrowers.

Goldman Sachs is also settling charges of misleading investors. In addition to the $550 million settlement agreed to with the SEC, Goldman Sachs must reform its business practices. Unlike Countrywide however, Goldman Sachs acknowledged that its marketing materials contained incomplete information.