We reserve the right to edit, classify or refuse to publish any material submitted by a comment and/or information provider. While we take every precautionary measure to prevent inappropriate, inflammatory material we cannot rule-out such stray incidents. We request all the users to maintain proper decorum and let us continue and excel in providing this interaction service to our community.
We are a consortium of legal professionals, paralegals and journalists. We are not all attorneys. We do not play one on TV. Nothing in this entire blog should be construed as legal advice. If you need legal advice you should consult an attorney.
PAID ENDORSEMENT DISCLOSURE: In order for us to support the blogging activities, we may receive monetary compensation or other types of remuneration for endorsement, recommendation, testimonial and/or link to any products or services from this blog.
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.
DeadlyClear advocates for transparency and accountability in an effort to preserve the rights guaranteed to the press under the First Amendment and strengthen the public’s right to know.
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate and HarvestRight™ Affiliate we earn from qualifying purchases. If you purchase a product or service with the links we provide, we may receive a small commission. There is no additional charge to you for those associate links and your support helps us to provide free content on our websites.
DeadlyClear® is a product of Project Maui, Inc., a Hawaii corporation. Copyright 2012-2026. All rights reserved.
Deadly Clear 
The opinion of Judge Grossman in Agard was issued 6 1/2 years ago. Some of the language Grossman selected is pleasing to the ears of foreclosure fighters, but it is important to recognize it was intended so prospectively it didn’t even apply to the case in which it was uttered. The motion for relief from automatic stay was ultimately granted.
Google scholar shows In re Agard has been cited to in more than 100 cases. A litigant citing to the opinion without also doing current research does so at his/her own peril.
It’s the fact that the Judge expressed his legal opinion and stated up front that due to RookerFeldman his opinion was not applicable to the Agard case. It was a warning shot. It is also sharing expertise for other judges to consider and encourage the use of the logical and honorable side of their brain when ruling in foreclosure cases.
Right. Rooker-Feldman. I read Agard when current but had forgotten about the application of Rooker-Feldman (or res judicata).
I’m not citing to Agard, and therefore don’t need to do, and haven’t done, the follow up research. What has been the impact since the opinion issued?