How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Dwayne B. Your Own Question
Dwayne B.
Dwayne B., Attorney
Category: Legal
Satisfied Customers: 33753
Experience:  Began practicing law in 1992
Type Your Legal Question Here...
Dwayne B. is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

Is it mandatory lawyer to present certification that

Customer Question

Is it mandatory for a lawyer to present certification that he is the attorney in fact for plaintiff bank AT the day of
court to the opposing party?
Submitted: 2 years ago.
Category: Legal
Expert:  Dwayne B. replied 2 years ago.
Hello and thank you for contacting us. This is Dwayne B. and I’m an expert here and looking forward to assisting you today. If at any point any of my answers aren’t clear please don’t hesitate to ask for clarification. Also, I can only answer the questions you specifically ask and based on the facts that you give so please be sure that you ask the questions you want to ask and provide all necessary facts.
No, it's actually unusual for an attorney to ever present any type of certification, other than a signature on paperwork, that they are the attorney for a party.
If there is some question as to whether an attorney is the attorney for a party then the issue could be raised at court but normally the court wouldn't require anything more than the attorney's testimony that they are representing a party since the contract of employment and any paperwork between them could/would be protected by attorney work product or attorney/client privilege.
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
Ok thanks. I asked because lawyer representing bank is a ghost. No info on line no photos no community links but has same name and photo by of a lawyer in florida. Questioning STANDING AND JURISDICTION. ANY THOUGHTS ? THANKS THATS IT
Expert:  Dwayne B. replied 2 years ago.
You can check on whether a lawyer is licensed in FL at
I'm not sure what you mean by " Questioning STANDING AND JURISDICTION. ANY THOUGHTS ?", can you reprhase or explain?
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
Im questioning the capacity of the lawyer and bank to bring suit against me as they lack proof of loan ownership. The loan chain of title was broken thus making loan a nullity and makes this suit collection of an unsecured debt. Thats why I am questioning standing
Expert:  Dwayne B. replied 2 years ago.
It's not a question as to the lawyer then, it's a question of the party.
Plus, a lack of proof is no the same as not having standing. They may not be able to prove that they own the loan but that is a question of the burden of proof as to the elements of their case, not really a question as to whether they have standing to bring the case. They can testify that they own the loan and thus provide enough proof to satisfy the standing requirement.
Also, a failure to have the documents doesn't mean the loan is a nullity, it would just mean that they may not be able to prove that 1) they own the right to collect the loan or 2) that you owe the loan. The loan could still exist even if they can't prove you owe it to them.
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
What if I have a securitization audit done showing a broken chain of title. It is assumed that the lawyer representing bank has standing but My motion is to dismiss for lack of standing and rebutt their premise that the property is secured. The lawyer for the bank has signed documents diffently on many occasions. Does not an attorney have to sign the same way as his oath of office signature?
Expert:  Dwayne B. replied 2 years ago.
Can you rephrase that last question? I'm not sure what you mean by that.
A broken chain of title doesn't mean there is no standing and an audit would just be some evidence that the property isn't secured. It isn't an automatic win on that premise. In addition, a motion to dismiss wouldn't be the proper vehicle normally to address this, it would be a summary judgment.
I'm going to be offline for a little while but will pick up when I return.
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
See above
Expert:  Dwayne B. replied 2 years ago.
I'm not sure what you mean by your last question.
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
Many cases I have read have survived the motion to dismiss based on standing due to automatic assumption by the court that the banks ;,who use fake assignments,fake affidavits,fake signatures APPEAR to have all records. BUT In many cases the appellate courts are reversing trial courts decisions because of of attorney lack of authentication of the very documents the are purporting to be true. I am only first yr yr law student and trying to understand procedure now any papers on standing I can look up. I have access to legal library
Expert:  Dwayne B. replied 2 years ago.
Motions to dismiss are usually used just to challenge jurisdictional issues where there are very few to no questions of fact where the Plaintiff loses because even if all of their allegations are taken as true, they still lose, ex. statute of limitations. You would use a Motion for Summary Judgment following discovery to resolve most of the issues we are discussing here.