Chuck Lindholm Clarifies Foreclosure Lawsuit
Chuck Lindholm is running for Orange Park Town Council, and says supporters of his opponent are spinning the circumstances of a lawsuit to smear him.
Clay News & Views previously reported that Lindholm is being sued over a foreclosure on a rental property in Jacksonville. Lindholm believes we got the details wrong and reached out to clarify.
First, Lindholm advised that the current lawsuit is not a single lawsuit spread out over many years, but rather the latest in a series of lawsuits involving the same property and mortgage.
The previous lawsuits have all been dismissed without prejudice in Lindholm’s favor. In one case, the plaintiff was ordered to reimburse Lindholm for his legal fees in the amount of $37,500.
Lindholm pointed out that the loan has changed hands between different loan processors over the years, and each new loan processor has taken advantage of Florida law allowing the statute of limitations to be reset in a foreclosure lawsuit.
Here is Lindholm’s letter to Clay News & Views, which is presented without edit:
I was both amused and disappointed to see Clay News publish an article related to an investment property that I’ve owned almost 20 years.
Amused because these types of smears inevitably appear during election season.
Disappointed because Clay News seemingly made so little effort to verify verifiable facts, made no effort to reach me beforehand so I could offer comment; but chose, instead, to write a story that deliberately seemed to omit facts — facts that have been part of the public record for over 15 years.
I’ve been both forthright and transparent in my ownership of this investment. In fact, I freely disclosed ownership in the financial filings that I made with Clay County’s Supervisor of Election months ago when I filed to run for Town Council, Seat 1 in Orange Park.
I’ve nothing to hide.
To the contrary, I’ve fought for more than 15 years in Florida’s Court system -- the saddest fact of all, frankly, if there is any story worth writing truth be told -- to keep ownership of it.
I’ve done nothing wrong.
Verifiable facts:
1. The article states a Jury Trial is scheduled for April 13. No jury trial has been scheduled. Ever. A simple reading and understanding of the Court record confirms this truth.
A more accurate statement would have been to make note of the endless number of extensions, requests for delay and outright cancellations filed by Plaintiffs over the many years of litigation. It begs the question, really, why would Plaintiffs do this? Presumably as the originator of a lawsuit seeking redress for an alleged injury; surely, wouldn’t they want speedy justice?
2. The more troubling aspect of the article, though, stemmed from the statement that read “the foreclosure process was halted and restarted several times over the last 12 years”
I have been subject now to 5 legal actions related to this investment. I have prevailed legally in all of them, the current pending case notwithstanding. That’s a win record of 1000% -- 4 for 4.
All these facts are public records.
4 verifiable facts omitted, not referenced, sourced, or published.
Why?
When the word “halted” was used in the statement, was it because of my opponent’s repeated pressure of Clay News to publish anything related to their hyperventilated “oppo research”? All the while not wanting it known that Plaintiff (the party suing me) asked the very Court with whom they filed suit originally, to Dismiss their own case against me?
A Voluntary Dismissal which they asked for, because of their Fraud on the Court?
And not just once. But, a second Voluntary Dismissal again three years later.
Dismissed, not “Halted”
Dismissed twice ... without prejudice.
Without Prejudice -- a legal term for, “Sorry, our bad. Move along”
Dismissed, with Plaintiff being forced to pay my legal fees.
All these facts – in the public record.
All these inconvenient, but verifiable facts omitted, not referenced, sourced or published.
I’ve included them herein for your Clay News readers to read.
I included them too, for my Opponent and his supporters, should they care to know the truth about the litigation, or even more daringly, glimpse briefly at the odious nature and character of their Candidate.
As my Opponent has been apt of late to state, “Lets set the Record Straight.”
Well … there you have it. And no, I’m not suicidal. Wink.
Sad.
