Mortgage Servicing Fraud
occurs post loan origination when mortgage servicers use false statements and book-keeping entries, fabricated assignments, forged signatures and utter counterfeit intangible Notes to take a homeowner's property and equity.
Articles |The FORUM |Law Library |Videos | Fraudsters & Co. |File Complaints |How they STEAL |Search MSFraud |Contact Us
Interim Findings of Effects of Ohio Standing Rulings on Ohio Federal Foreclosure Caseload 
I have continued to study and assess EVERY Federal foreclosure case disposed of in Ohio since Judge Christopher A. BOYKO's ruling on October 31, 2007, to better understand and assess the full dimensions of that ruling.  I am a little more than HALF done with this task.  As frequent Forum visitors know, I have posted much detail information about various Ohio Federal Court foreclosure orders, both published and unpublished in several other message threads.

NEW CASES
There have been precisely ELEVEN (11) new Federal foreclosure cases filled in Ohio since December 1, 2007.  These are:
  • HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Young; Filed 12/10/2007; Case No. 3:2007cv00269
  • Huntington National Bank v. Tanglewood Associat; Filed 12/10/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03754
  • Washington Mutual Bank v. Spiller; Filed 12/13/2007; Case No. 3:2007cv00433
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., v. Shade; Filed 12/18/2007; Case No. 3:2007cv00353
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Brown; Filed 12/20/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02172
  • RocOne First Corp. v. Krantz; Filed 12/21/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03866
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Thompson; Filed 12/27/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00178
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Ford; Filed 12/28/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00468
  • Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas fka ...; Filed 12/28/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv01304
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Laws; Filed 1/3/2008; Case No. 3:2007cv01437
  • United States Of America v. King; Filed 1/3/2008; Case No. 2:2008cv00010
Total Cases Subject To a Major Dispositive Order Since December 1, 2007
By contrast, there have been a total of 145 cases subject to a major dispositive order since December 1, 2007. 

Thirty six (36) cases were dismissed without prejudice since December 1, 2007, due to failure of the plaintiff to show standing.  Of these, twenty-three had been subject to a prior show cause order. 

An additional forty-four (44) cases were dismissed based upon this plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal.  Of these, at least ten had been the subject of previous show cause orders directing the plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed based upon the plaintiff's failure to show requisite standing.  Two of these cases seemed to be dismissed due to the borrower's reinstatement and two due to some forebearance agreement.  Most of teh remainder were cases before Federal judges who had been aggressive in dismissing cases were the plaintiff had clearly FAILED to show the requisite standing.

Fifty six (56) cases involved some sort of major dispositive order in favor of the plaintiff.  This somewhat OVERSTATES the plaintiff's success for several reasons.  First, I am including "Default Judgments" (2), "Orders of Foreclsoure" (36), "Orders Appointing Master Commissioner" (11), and "Order of Confirmation of Sale" (7).  Those familiar with Ohio Federal foreclosures will see that these actually reflect various stages towards the ultimate sale of the property.  If one views the "Order of Confirmation of Sale" as a REAL conclusion, one has to compare SEVEN successful foreclosures with EIGHTY DISMISSALS.

Second, in spot checking the cases which seem to continue to advance towards foreclosure, it appears that many of these are cases before Federal Judges who are NOT PAYING ATTENTION YET.  That is the PLAINTIFF PLAINLY DOES NOT HAVE STANDING, BUT THE CASES ARE UNOPPOSED AND SEVERAL APPARENTLY LAZY FEDERAL JURISTS HAVEN'T BOTHERED TO NOTICE THE DEFECTS WHICH ARE READILY APPARENT WITHIN THE RECORD.

This seems to imply that some of these remaining cases may yet be DISMISSED.  In fact, amongst the dismissals to date are a number of cases where the plaintiff obtained a default judgment BEFORE the case was dismisseddue to lack of standing.

Third, in the cases where the Court's lack of standing is readily apparent from the record, any actual order of foreclosure is CRYING OUT for an appeal.  And standing can be raised for the first time on appeal dince it is jurisdictional in nature!

Dismissals without Prejudice Due To Plaintiff's Failure To Show Standing
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Nashe; Filed 10/1/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02994; Disposed 12/3/2007; Judge James S. GWIN
  • Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Ivy; Filed 8/10/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02453; Disposed 12/3/2007; Judge James S. GWIN
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Mays; Filed 11/6/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02334; Disposed 12/3/2007; Judge James S. GWIN
  • Ameriquest Funding II REO Subsidiary LLC v. Bat; Filed 9/10/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02726; Disposed 12/3/2007; Judge Patricia A. GAUGHAN
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Awad; Filed 9/6/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv01703; Disposed 12/4/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr.
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N A v. Ernest; Filed 11/2/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03419; Disposed 12/4/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr.
  • Washington Mutual Bank v. Clark; Filed 10/15/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv03177; Disposed 12/4/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr.
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Bradford; Filed 7/17/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02144; Disposed 12/5/2007; Judge Dan Aaron POLSTER
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. DeFrati; Filed 10/23/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03276; Disposed 12/10/2007; Judge Christopher A. BOYKO
  • LaSalle Bank National Association v. Lyons; Filed 9/10/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02733; Disposed 12/11/2007; Judge James S. GWIN
  • CitiMortgage, Inc. v. North; Filed 10/30/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv03376; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr.
  • MidFirst Bank v. Deem; Filed 10/22/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv03260; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr.
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Squires; Filed 10/8/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv03076; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr.
  • DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc. v. Harper; Filed 10/5/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03052; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr.
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Banfield; Filed 7/26/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv02272; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr.
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Black; Filed 10/8/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03074; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr.
  • CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Stout; Filed 10/23/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv03280; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr.
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Lewis; Filed 9/24/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02903; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge Lesley WELLS
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. McFarla; Filed 7/10/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02042; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge Lesley WELLS
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Jones; Filed 4/23/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv01186; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge Lesley WELLS
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Henders; Filed 10/8/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03069; Disposed 12/20/2007; Judge Sara LIOI
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Jackson; Filed 9/12/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02753; Disposed 12/20/2007; Judge Sara LIOI
  • HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Hilty; Filed 3/30/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00279; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH
  • EMC Mortgage Corporation v. Washington; Filed 3/16/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00226; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH
  • GreenPoint Mortgage Funding v. Cook; Filed 2/27/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00166; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH
  • Household Realty Corporation v. McCord; Filed 11/6/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv01150; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Raines; Filed 10/26/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv01119; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH
  • Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v. Glass; Filed 9/21/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00963; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH
  • Option One Mortgage Corporation v. Merrit; Filed 6/6/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00536; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Hall; Filed 7/30/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00731; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Muse; Filed 7/27/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00727; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH
  • LaSalle Bank National Association v. Claypoole; Filed 7/24/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00706; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH
  • Hudson City Savings Bank, FSB v. Castleberry; Filed 7/6/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00642; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Clossman; Filed 6/6/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00534; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH
  • NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. v. Nelson; Filed 5/11/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00423; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH
  • HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. v. King; Filed 10/11/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv01047; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH
[NOTE:  The PACER Case Name Index truncates the parties names after 50 characters.  If the Defendant's name looks peculiar or truncated, please see the case shown by Case Number and Filing Date.]

I have copies of ALL of these orders.  ALL of these cases are readily available through PACER. 
MOST OF THESE DISMISSALS WERE UNOPPOSED.

*

I will post the list of Voluntary Dismissals Since December 1, 2007, TOMORROW.

BEAR IN MIND THAT THIS IS ONLY A FRACTION OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DISMISSALS W/O PREJUDICE DUE TO FAILURE OF THE PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW STANDING.  THE BULK OF THE DISMISSALS WERE IN OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER.  I HAVE IDENTIFIED 117 OF THESE DISMISSALS SO FAR, BUT STILL HAVE ABOUT TWO HUNDRED MORE CASES TO REVIEW.  I BELIEVE THAT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DISMISSALS BASED UPON STANDING IN OHIO IS APPROACHING 200!

I hope to have finished tabulating ALL of the dispositions within two weeks.  As before, I will continue to post interesting opinions, orders, and pleadings.

ANYONE WHO THINKS THAT WHAT IS GOING ON IN OHIO FEDERAL COURTS IS MINOR ISN'T PAYING ATTENTION.  IT IS EPIC!  

Quote 0 0
Ed Cage

Well said William.
 
I was particularly inspired and in full agreement with this quote
from you:
"ANYONE WHO THINKS THAT WHAT IS GOING ON IN OHIO
FEDERAL COURTS IS MINOR ISN'T PAYING ATTENTION. 
IT IS EPIC!" - William A. Roper
 
Indeed 2008 will be the year that the mainstream public as well
as our Legislators finally begin to understand what has been
going on for so long.  I myself did not understand nor would I
have believed just how blatant these rampant mortgage fraud
schemes have become in a short period of time. Until now they
have gone virtually unchecked and unchallenged because these
tactics were nothing short of "unbelievable."

Bill once again your unselfish dedication to this cause needs to
be acknowledged.  I'm sure you will agree one of our biggest
enemies is *complacency* on our own part.

Ed Cage, Plano Texas   /  ecagetx@tx.rr.com  

Quote 0 0
O -
Instead, Rokakis is hoping to create a public land authority that would raise $25 million to $30 million and hold thousands of properties in northeast Ohio. He believes that within the next 18 months many of the properties will come from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development and the mortgage-servicing companies, who will attempt to give back many foreclosed properties.
Quote 0 0
Ohio Federal Court Voluntary Dismissals Since December 1, 2007

The following Ohio Federal Court cases were voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff pursuant to Rule Rule 41(a)(2) since December 1, 2007:

  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Bradley et al; Filed 4/17/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00339; Disposed 12/4/2007; Judge Algenon L. MARBLEY
  • NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. v. Taylor et al; Filed 9/28/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02974; Disposed 12/5/2007; Judge Kathleen M. O'MALLEY
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Bryant; Filed 9/5/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02687; Disposed 12/6/2007; Judge Donald C. NUGENT
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Long et al; Filed 6/19/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00589; Disposed 12/6/2007; Judge George C SMITH
  • NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. v. Mullens et al; Filed 7/12/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00670; Disposed 12/6/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH (Show Cause Order 11/27/2007)
  • LaSalle Bank National Association v. Knight et al; Filed 2/9/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00105; Disposed 12/11/2007; Judge Edmund A SARGUS
  • Wells Fargo Bank National Association v. Hayes; Filed 7/11/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00660; Disposed 12/11/2007; Judge Edmund A SARGUS
  • LaSalle Bank National Association v. Peoples et al; Filed 11/5/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv03441; Disposed 12/11/2007; Judge Sara LIOI
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N. A. v. Sandra L. Toler, et al; Filed 11/9/2007; Case No. 3:2007cv00433; Disposed 12/11/2007; Judge Thomas M. ROSE (Show Cause Order 11/15/2007)
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Marshal; Filed 8/23/2007; Case No. 4:2007cv02572; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr. (Show Cause Order 10/17/2007)
  • Washington Mutual Bank v. Spiller et al; Filed 12/13/2007; Case No. 3:2007cv00433; Disposed 12/13/2007; Judge James G. CARR
  • MidFirst Bank v. Thoms et al; Filed 10/19/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv01091; Disposed 12/13/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH (Show Cause Order 11/27/2007)
  • Household Realty Corporation v. Harris et al; Filed 4/1/2007; Case No. 3:2007cv00138; Disposed 12/13/2007; Judge Thomas M. ROSE
  • Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v. Hinrich; Filed 11/7/2007; Case No. 4:2007cv03477; Disposed 12/17/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr.
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., v. Shade et al; Filed 12/18/2007; Case No. 3:2007cv00353; Disposed 12/18/2007; Judge Thomas M. ROSE (Show Cause Order 11/15/2007)
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Desouza; Filed 10/5/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv01474; Disposed 12/20/2007; Judge Christopher A. BOYKO
  • The Bank of New York v. Francis et al; Filed 7/25/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00714; Disposed 12/20/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH (Show Cause Order 11/27/2007)
  • HSBC Mortgage Services Inc. v. Dearwester et al; Filed 7/18/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv00548; Disposed 12/20/2007; Judge S Arthur SPIEGEL
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N A v. Hover et al; Filed 10/19/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv00877; Disposed 12/20/2007; Judge S Arthur SPIEGEL
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Vandine et al; Filed 9/25/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv00793; Disposed 12/20/2007; Judge Sandra S BECKWITH
  • HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Azar et al; Filed 10/19/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv03231; Disposed 12/20/2007; Judge Sara LIOI
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Fletche; Filed 10/24/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03291; Disposed 12/21/2007; Judge Dan Aaron POLSTER
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Nezat et al; Filed 11/21/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02883; Disposed 12/21/2007; Judge Dan Aaron POLSTER
  • Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v. Hagen et al; Filed 7/23/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02217; Disposed 12/21/2007; Judge Dan Aaron POLSTER
  • Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Washington et al; Filed 8/2/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02360; Disposed 12/21/2007; Judge Dan Aaron POLSTER
  • Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Halagan et al; Filed 8/8/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02428; Disposed 12/21/2007; Judge Dan Aaron POLSTER
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Whinnie; Filed 10/1/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02991; Disposed 12/21/2007; Judge Dan Aaron POLSTER
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Flores; Filed 9/20/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02865; Disposed 12/26/2007; Judge Solomon OLIVER, Jr.
  • NationsCredit Financial Services Corporation v. ...; Filed 9/25/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02932; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge Christopher A. BOYKO
  • WellsFargo Bank, NA v. Mosby et al; Filed 4/6/2007; Case No. 3:2007cv01014; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge Jack ZOUHARY (Show Cause Order 12/7/2007)
  • GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Adkins et al; Filed 2/26/2007; Case No. 3:2007cv00562; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge Jack ZOUHARY (Show Cause Order 12/7/2007)
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Tiller; Filed 10/23/2007; Case No. 3:2007cv03279; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge Jack ZOUHARY
  • IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. v. Cox et al; Filed 2/20/2007; Case No. 3:2007cv00479; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge Jack ZOUHARY (Show Cause Order 12/7/2007)
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Toler el; Filed 10/1/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02998; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge James S. GWIN
  • MidFirst Bank v. Charney et al; Filed 10/19/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03234; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge Kathleen M. O'MALLEY
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Dibble; Filed 11/13/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03535; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge Kathleen M. O'MALLEY
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Thompson; Filed 12/27/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00178; Disposed 12/31/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH (Show Cause Order 12/27/2007)
  • LaSalle Bank, N.A. v. Young et al; Filed 9/11/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00914; Disposed 12/31/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Perry et al; Filed 8/14/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv02467; Disposed 1/2/2008; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr.
  • CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Lemaire et al; Filed 11/7/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03475; Disposed 1/2/2008; Judge James S. GWIN
  • Wells Fargo Bank National Association v. Taylor; Filed 11/7/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv00938; Disposed 1/2/2008; Judge S Arthur SPIEGEL
  • Citibank, N.A., as Trustee v. Coljohn et al; Filed 11/8/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03490; Disposed 1/3/2008; Judge Christopher A. BOYKO
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Beedle; Filed 11/8/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03492; Disposed 1/3/2008; Judge Christopher A. BOYKO
  • HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Bertolina et al; Filed 10/19/2007; Case No. 3:2007cv03222; Disposed 1/3/2008; Judge Jack ZOUHARY

The ten cases with a Show Cause Order date in parenthesis were voluntarily dismissed after the Court enterred a show cause order indicating that the plaintiff seemed to lack requisite standing to bring the foreclosure action. 

Two of these voluntary dismissals -- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Long et al and Wells Fargo Bank, N. A. v. Sandra L. Toler, et al -- involved dismissals after an asserted forebearance agreement.  Two other cases -- Household Realty Corporation v. Harris et al and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., v. Shade et al -- involved reinstatements by the plaintiff.  But you will note that the Toler and the Shade cases were each subject to a show cause order by Judge Thomas ROSE and a pending dismissal when the plaintiff hastily made arrangements with the defendants.
Quote 0 0
MS Fraud Forum Crosslinks and Finding Aids To Ohio Federal Court Case Discussions

I am attempting within this discussion thread to show the full implications of the recent Ohio Federal Court foreclosure dismissals on the Federal foreclosure dockets.  I am still systematically working through the cases disposed of by order in October and November 2007. 

I have already previously identified the BOYKO, ROSE and O'MALLEY cases disposed of by bulk order as well as a number of other dismissals within several other posts.  I will ultimately post a composite list of October and November 2007 dismissals, but for the convenience of those only recently joining this Forum, I am also posting below crosslinks and finding aids to each of the other discussion threads within this Forum relating to the Ohio Federal Court dismissals.  Of course, everyone is reminded of the convenient MS Fraud Forum keyword Search feature which also makes finding other message threads convenient.

Here are the other PREVIOUS discussion threads I have initiated on the Ohio Federal Court foreclosure dismissals:

"Federal Judge John D. HOLSCHUH Dismisses an Additional Fourteen Ohio Mortgage Foreclosures" (William A. Roper, Jr.) [12/29/07 at 05:55 PM]
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/ssgoldstar/vpost?id=2387806

 

"Federal Judge James S. GWIN Dismisses an Additional Eight Ohio Mortgage Foreclosures" (William A. Roper, Jr.) [12/30/07 at 03:40 PM]
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/ssgoldstar/vpost?id=2389132

 

"Federal Judge Dan Aaron POLSTER Dismissed Nine Ohio Judicial Foreclosures Based Upon Standing 14 Nov 2007" (William A. Roper, Jr.) [12/31/07 at 12:16 AM]
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/ssgoldstar/vpost?id=2389899

 

"The EARLIER Ohio Dismissals By Judge Christopher A. BOYKO" (William A. Roper, Jr.) [12/31/07 at 02:39 AM]
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/ssgoldstar/vpost?id=2390021

 

"Ohio Federal Foreclosure Filings DRY UP" (William A. Roper, Jr.) [12/31/07 at 05:36 AM]
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/ssgoldstar/vpost?id=2390115

 

"Federal Judge David D. DOWD, Jr.'s 31 Oct 2007 Ohio Foreclosure Dismissals" (William A. Roper, Jr.) [12/31/07 at 04:42 PM]
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/ssgoldstar/vpost?id=2391245

 

"Federal Judge Sara LIOI Dismissed Two Ohio Foreclosures Based Upon Lack of Standing on 20 Dec 2007" (William A. Roper, Jr.) [12/31/07 at 09:00 PM]
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/ssgoldstar/vpost?id=2391659


Also, bear in mind these additional significant message threads relating to the Ohio Federal Court rullings initiated by others:

"Major win in Ohio proves Nye's arguments and contentions were right on target" (Nye's FLA Neighbor) [11/12/07 at 07:11 PM]
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/ssgoldstar/vpost?id=2288900

 

"Another 27 foreclosures tossed-Boyko ruling cited" (arkygirl) [11/16/07 at 11:41 PM]
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/ssgoldstar/vpost?id=2299367

 

"The mess that Boyko made-a not so complimentary analysis" (arkygirl) [11/27/07 at 08:38 AM ]
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/ssgoldstar/vpost?id=2321439

 

"Ohio case might add to lender problems, Foreclosures blocked; ownership documents not produced in court" (O-) [11/16/07 at 09:27 AM]
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/ssgoldstar/vpost?id=2297748

 

"Foreclosure delay rulings" (Moose) [12/31/07 at 11:34 PM]
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/ssgoldstar/vpost?id=2391869


Finally, I would call to everyone's attention these closely related message threads:

"Judge halts foreclosures" (Ann Holden) [12/09/07 at 12:16 PM]
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/ssgoldstar/vpost?id=2348972

 

"County may ask mortgage proof" (Ann Holden) [12/20/07 at 11:31 AM]
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/ssgoldstar/vpost?id=2372484

 

"OH homeowner fights foreclosure lives payment free for 11 years" (arkygirl) [12/28/07 at 03:55 PM]
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/ssgoldstar/vpost?id=2386055

 

"Some Interesting Recent Ohio Cases on Standing" (William A. Roper, Jr.) [01/02/08 at 05:12 AM]
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/ssgoldstar/vpost?id=2393763


These noted threads only just scratch the surface of the discussion and references to the BOYKO, O'MALLEY and ROSEs decisions and related Ohio Federal Court foreclosure orders appearing at the MS Fraud Forum.  Topical keyword searchs will identify additional discussions.  If I have left out any particularly important commentary, please weigh in with references and links! 
Quote 0 0

Total Cases Subject To a Major Dispositive Order During Novemeber 2007

There were a total of 151 Ohio Federal foreclosure cases subject to a major dispositive order during the month of November 2007.

Seventy (70) Ohio Federal foreclosure cases were dismissed without prejudice during November 2007, due to failure of the plaintiff to show standing

An additional twenty-one (21) Ohio Federal foreclosure cases were dismissed based upon this plaintiff's notice or motion of voluntary dismissal.  At least three (3) of these voluntary dismissals seem to have been due to some sort of settlement and/or forbearance agreement with the defendant.  One (1) additional case was subject to a notice of voluntary dismssal, but no dismissal order seems to have ever been issued.

Five (5) Ohio Federal foreclosure cases were subject to some sort of administrative suspension, stay or dismissal during Novemebr 2007 as a consequence of a Federal Bankruptcy filing.  One (1) Ohio Federal foreclosure case included a suggestion of death (the defendant seems to have died).  One (1) Ohio Federal foreclosure case was dismissed due to failure to prosecute.

Fifty one (51) cases involved some sort of major dispositive order in favor of the plaintiff.  This somewhat OVERSTATES the plaintiff's success for several reasons.  First, I am including "Default Judgments" (1), "Decrees of Foreclosure" (9), "Orders Appointing Master Commissioner" (32), and "Order of Confirmation of Sale" (9).  But two of the "Decrees in Foreclosure" were subsequently vacated by the Plaintiff's motion upon some agreement with the defendant. 

Those familiar with Ohio Federal foreclosures will see that these counts of dispositions in favor of a plaintiff actually reflect various stages towards the ultimate foreclosure sale of the property.  If one views the "Order of Confirmation of Sale" as a REAL conclusion, one has to compare NINE successful foreclosures with NINETY-ONE (91) DISMISSALS.*

* 93 dismissals if one includes the dismissal following vacation of two of the Decrees of Foreclsoure.

It is also noteworthy that even amongst some of the Ohio cases which still seem to be proceeding towards foreclosure, the plaintiff discernibly lacks standing.  ACCORDINGLY, THERE MAY BE A NUMBER OF FORECLOSURE SALES UNDER FEDERAL COURT ORDERS WHICH MAY BE COLLATERALLY ATTACKED AT ANY TIME, AS THE FORECLOSURE ORDER IS LIKELY TO BE VOID AB INITIO WHERE THE RECORD CLEARLY SHOWS THAT A PLAINTIFF LACKED THE REQUISITE STANDING.

November 2007 Dismissals without Prejudice Due To Plaintiff's Failure To Show Standing
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Warrick; Filed 10/17/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv03202; Disposed 11/7/2007; Judge Sara LIOI
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Cook et; Filed 7/30/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02311; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Dan Aaron POLSTER
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Davis; Filed 8/21/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02531; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Dan Aaron POLSTER
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Wilson; Filed 10/17/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03203; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Dan Aaron POLSTER
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Burks; Filed 10/22/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv00726; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Dan Aaron POLSTER
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Edmonds; Filed 8/1/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02348; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Dan Aaron POLSTER
  • Option One Mortgage Corporation v. Kalista; Filed 10/24/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03303; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Dan Aaron POLSTER
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Ford; Filed 10/25/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03325; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Dan Aaron POLSTER
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Caldwel; Filed 11/13/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03544; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Dan Aaron POLSTER
  • LaSalle Bank National Association v. Sprouse; Filed 11/9/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03511; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Dan Aaron POLSTER
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Bosco; Filed 6/28/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv01936; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Kathleen M. O'MALLEY
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Hurd; Filed 9/14/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02789; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Kathleen M. O'MALLEY
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Peterson; Filed 9/13/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02776; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Kathleen M. O'MALLEY
  • Liquidation Properties, Inc. v. Grair; Filed 9/4/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02677; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Kathleen M. O'MALLEY
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Ottalla; Filed 8/31/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02660; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Kathleen M. O'MALLEY
  • Liquidation Properties, Inc., Without Recourse; Filed 8/30/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02636; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Kathleen M. O'MALLEY
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Johnson; Filed 8/30/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02643; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Kathleen M. O'MALLEY
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Calhoun; Filed 7/26/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02257; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Kathleen M. O'MALLEY
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Harris; Filed 6/22/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv01872; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Kathleen M. O'MALLEY
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. William; Filed 7/2/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv01981; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Kathleen M. O'MALLEY
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Woodson; Filed 9/17/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02797; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Kathleen M. O'MALLEY
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Trina; Filed 7/3/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv01992; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Kathleen M. O'MALLEY
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Harrison; Filed 9/27/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02961; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Kathleen M. O'MALLEY
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Moore; Filed 7/3/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv01985; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Kathleen M. O'MALLEY
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Smith; Filed 7/5/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02010; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Kathleen M. O'MALLEY
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Hughes; Filed 6/20/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv01827; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Kathleen M. O'MALLEY
  • WM Specialty Mortgage, LLC v. Unknown Heirs of; Filed 5/11/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv01367; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Kathleen M. O'MALLEY
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Willis; Filed 4/17/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv01122; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Kathleen M. O'MALLEY
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Busse; Filed 10/24/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03306; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Kathleen M. O'MALLEY
  • Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v. Jenning; Filed 9/18/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02826; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Kathleen M. O'MALLEY
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Brown; Filed 4/27/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv01252; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Kathleen M. O'MALLEY
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Jackson; Filed 4/11/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv01060; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Kathleen M. O'MALLEY
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v.  Jones; Filed 4/6/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv01007; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Kathleen M. O'MALLEY
  • HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Batanian; Filed 10/22/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03259; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Kathleen M. O'MALLEY
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust v. Wilson; Filed 10/12/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03143; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Kathleen M. O'MALLEY
  • LaSalle Bank National Association v. Singer; Filed 10/4/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03039; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Kathleen M. O'MALLEY
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Crosby; Filed 10/3/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03022; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Kathleen M. O'MALLEY
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Rodgers; Filed 10/1/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02993; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Kathleen M. O'MALLEY
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Berg; Filed 9/27/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02951; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Kathleen M. O'MALLEY
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust v. Murphy; Filed 5/23/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv01515; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Kathleen M. O'MALLEY
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Betanco; Filed 9/27/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02963; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Kathleen M. O'MALLEY
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Gamble; Filed 4/11/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv01059; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Kathleen M. O'MALLEY
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. McGrady; Filed 6/4/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv01642; Disposed 11/14/2007; Judge Lesley WELLS
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Hanna; Filed 8/20/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02513; Disposed 11/28/2007; Judge James S. GWIN
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Mitchel; Filed 8/2/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02374; Disposed 11/29/2007; Judge James S. GWIN
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Flachba; Filed 8/23/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02559; Disposed 11/29/2007; Judge James S. GWIN
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Bizzell; Filed 10/23/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv01862; Disposed 11/30/2007; Judge Christopher A. BOYKO
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Ohkitti; Filed 6/25/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv01901; Disposed 11/30/2007; Judge Kathleen M. O'MALLEY
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Poindex; Filed 10/29/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03356; Disposed 11/30/2007; Judge Kathleen M. O'MALLEY

[NOTE:  The PACER Case Name Index truncates the parties names after 50 characters.  If the Defendant's name looks peculiar or truncated, please see the case shown by Case Number and Filing Date.]

I have copies of ALL of these orders.  ALL of these cases are readily available through PACER.  MOST OF THESE DISMISSALS WERE UNOPPOSED.

Quote 0 0

Ohio Federal Court Voluntary Dismissals During November 2007

The following twenty one (21) Ohio Federal Court cases were voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) or Rule 41(a)(2) during November 2007:

  • Household Realty Corporation v. Davis et al; Filed 9/10/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00903; Disposed 11/1/2007; Judge Gregory L. FROST
  • NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. v. Bonner et al; Filed 10/23/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03262; Disposed 11/2/2007; Judge Patricia A. GAUGHAN
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Greisin; Filed 10/24/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv03305; Disposed 11/5/2007; Judge Sara LIOI
  • NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. v. Payton et al; Filed 9/24/2007; Case No. 3:2007cv00355; Disposed 11/5/2007; Judge Walter H. RICE
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., v. Adams et al; Filed 10/3/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv01006; Disposed 11/6/2007; Judge Edmund A SARGUS
  • LaSalle Bank National Association v. Green, et; Filed 9/21/2007; Case No. 3:2007cv02887; Disposed 11/6/2007; Judge James G. CARR
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Atkins et al; Filed 11/9/2007; Case No. 3:2007cv00720; Disposed 11/9/2007; Judge Jack ZOUHARY
  • Wells Fargo Bank National Association v. Gabbar; Filed 8/2/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv00623; Disposed 11/13/2007; Judge Herman J. WEBER
  • HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Pierce et al; Filed 10/8/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv00838; Disposed 11/13/2007; Judge Herman J. WEBER
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Foney e; Filed 8/1/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv00620; Disposed 11/13/2007; Judge Herman J. WEBER
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Bill et; Filed 5/30/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv01592; Disposed 11/15/2007; Judge Dan Aaron POLSTER
  • Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v. Kopina; Filed 8/17/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv02496; Disposed 11/19/2007; Judge Peter C. ECONOMUS
  • Washington Mutual Bank v. Banks et al; Filed 9/19/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv00770; Disposed 11/20/2007; Judge Herman J. WEBER
  • Washington Mutual Bank v. Quella et al; Filed 10/12/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03137; Disposed 11/20/2007; Judge Patricia A. GAUGHAN
  • LaSalle Bank National Association v. Pasek et a; Filed 5/21/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv01475; Disposed 11/21/2007; Judge Peter C. ECONOMUS
  • HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Derleth et al; Filed 9/13/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv00756; Disposed 11/23/2007; Judge Michael R. BARRETT
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Tilghman; Filed 9/5/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02685; Disposed 11/28/2007; Judge Dan Aaron POLSTER
  • HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Sturm et al; Filed 5/29/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv00415; Disposed 11/28/2007; Judge Susan J. DLOTT
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Clark et al; Filed 10/11/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv03123; Disposed 11/29/2007; Judge Peter C. ECONOMUS
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust v. Deal et al; Filed 11/8/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03482; Disposed 11/30/2007; Judge Christopher A. BOYKO
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Gilchri; Filed 10/4/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv03041; Disposed 11/30/2007; Judge John R. ADAMS
Quote 0 0
Summary Counts of Ohio Federal Court Dismissals Based Upon Standing BY JUDGE

I have now COMPLETED my survey of November and December 2007 Ohio Federal Court foreclosure case orders with a focus on dismissals due to standing.  I have also examined a number of Ohio foreclosure cases from October 2007 and January 2008.  There are still MANY cases to ecrutinize from October.

To date I have found the following number of DISMISSALS based upon lack of standing BY JUDGE:
  • Judge Christopher A. BOYKO - 31
  • Judge David D. DOWD, Jr. - 16
  • Judge Patricia A. GAUGHAN - 2
  • Judge James S. GWIN - 10
  • Judge John D. HOLSCHUH - 14
  • Judge Sara LIOI - 16
  • Judge Kathleen M. O'MALLEY - 35
  • Judge Dan Aaron POLSTER - 11
  • Judge Lesley WELLS - 5
I have summarized and identified many of these dismissed cases by Judge within topical discussion threads pertaining to that Judge's dismissals.  Those discussion threads are in need of update. 

I will be completing my survey of the October cases and updating the January cases to date within the next few days.  I will also identify several other interesting orders or opinions.
Quote 0 0
O -

 Too Cool! Mr. Roper

So what happens after the Judge says let's see whats really going on?

What is the  servicers next move?

 What does the borrower do if the servicer freezes up? Can the borrower ask the court to make a decision as to what happens next? The servicer might not return if they know they did fraudulent things to the borrower. Like Predatory lending or Mortgage servicing fraud. Fee's Fee's Fee's holding the borrower HOSTAGE during all this.

The borrower would be or IS traped if the lender freezes up. A trap with no way OUT! Like Mike...and a lot of OTHERS HERE...

Can someone talk to this Judge Boyko about this and ask him a few questions?

We here know that the bad servicers are going to try to hide now that they have been found out.....LOL They can run,, But they can't hide from the TRUTH!

There are a lot of things that the courts are overlooking. I hope this wakes them up...

Thanks!
Quote 0 0
Moose
A little rewind is in order - this was discussed but as time goes on, things roll off the forum.

First, some state courts are so backlogged that counsel for some trustees/servicers have turned to Federal court to process foreclosures.

Second, the cases were dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE on procedural  grounds specifically relating to standing to file.  No rulings on the merits of the cases were made. In other words, counsel for the trustee/servicer is not barred from filing the same cases again.

All they have to do is go back to the court with properly executed documentation, and they'd better not try the same trick another time; I would expect a Federal Judge to sanction counsel for a second offense.

This will definitely wake up other courts - but the Ohio Federal Courts had already woken up - remember that the rule the attorneys played fast-and-loose with was only recently imposed.

Will it change the fate of most of the borrowers involved?  I doubt it.  As I understand it, none of the borrowers in these cases were represented or made an appearance.

The law firms will huddle and the game will resume. The ref's will be watching a little more closely.

Moose

Quote 0 0
Quote:
Originally Posted By Moose
First, some state courts are so backlogged that counsel for some trustees/servicers have turned to Federal court to process foreclosures.


AGREED!

Quote:
Originally Posted By Moose
Second, the cases were dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE on procedural  grounds specifically relating to standing to file.  No rulings on the merits of the cases were made. In other words, counsel for the trustee/servicer is not barred from filing the same cases again.


AGREED that all of these cases to date have been dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  AGREED that there have been no rulings on the merits.  AGREED that plaintiffs are NOT barred from refiling.

Quote:
Originally Posted By Moose
All they have to do is go back to the court with properly executed documentation, and they'd better not try the same trick another time; I would expect a Federal Judge to sanction counsel for a second offense.


Here, I DIFFER with you, Moose!  At least with respect that "all they have to do...".  You make it sound as though this is a EASY threashold!  It would seem like it would be.

But the facts and evidence show OTHERWISE.

You seem to be ASSUMING that the plaintiffs actually HAVE the requisite documentation.  Although it is COUNTERINTUITIVE, I believe that this is actually a FALSE PREMISE.

Moreover, even if the plaintiff's DO have the requisite PROOF, they now face yet another problem.  That is that they originally went into Federal Court not only with INADEQUATE evidence, but some of the evidence furnished to the Court was FABRICATED.  And in support of this fabricated evidence are affidavits containing FALSE STATEMENTS UNDER OATH.

This makes refiling in Federal Court problematic.  Plaintiffs actually DID TRY refiling a few cases in Federal Court following dismissal.  These were at first RANDOMLY ASSIGNED.  But since the cases were generally MARKED to be REASSIGNED to the DISMISSING JUDGE, the case cases were ultimately REASSIGNED to that dismissing Judge.  THE PLAINTIFF IMMEDIATELY FILED A NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL.

WHY??  Because the dismissing Judge was WELL AWARE of the CONTRADICTORY FABRICATED EVIDENCE and FALSE AFFIDAVITS within the case files from the PRIOR CASE.

So I AGREE with you that the Federal Judge would SANCTION the Plaintiff the second time around.

These cases are presumably being REFILED in State Court, where the Judge in an UNOPPOSED CASE will be UNAWARE of the contradictory sworn evidence and the FABRICATED evidence.

A WELL INFORMED AND ASTUTE DEFENDANT IN STATE COURT REPRESENTED BY COMPETENT COUNSEL SHOULD ARGUE JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL AND THE CLEAN HANDS DOCTRINE.  THIS SHOULD RESULT IN A DISMISSAL AND SANCTIONS AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL.

Quote:
Originally Posted By Moose
This will definitely wake up other courts - but the Ohio Federal Courts had already woken up - remember that the rule the attorneys played fast-and-loose with was only recently imposed.


I AGREE that this will tend to wake up other courts, particularly state courts in Ohio and Federal Courts elsewhere.  This is certainly an incremental process.

But I would distinguish your point regarding the "recently imposed rule".  Clearly you are referring to the local Federal Court Rule requiring plaintiffs to file documentation of ownership.  YES, this was recently imposed.

But the CONSTITUTIONAL imperative under Article III that Federal Courts have jurisdiction ONLY for actual controvesrsies by injured parties and the NECESSITY that standing be shown from commencement of the suit has existed for almost 200 years.
"the jurisdiction of the Court depends upon the state of things at the time of the action brought, and that after vesting, it cannot be ousted by subsequent events."  Mollan v. Torrance, 22 U.S. 537; 6 L. Ed. 154; 1824 U.S. LEXIS 390; 9 Wheat. 537 (U.S. 1824).
Perhaps it is noteworthy that this Supreme Court opinion was written by Chief Justice Marshall in an interstate suit on a promissory note.

Justice Marshall's enunciation of this principle has been embraced in subsequent U.S. Supreme Court opinions:
"Had the suit been originally commenced by the decedent's representative, it would have been the citizenship of the representative which would have been determinative of jurisdiction in this diversity case.  See Chappedelaine v. Dechenaux, 4 Cranch 306; Childress v. Emory, 8 Wheat. 642, 669; Mexican Central R. Co. v. Eckman, 187 U.S. 429, 434; Mecom v. Fitzsimmons Drilling Co., 284 U.S. 183, 186.  But jurisdiction, once attached, is not impaired by a party's later change of domicile.  Mollan v. Torrance, 9 Wheat. 537.  As Chief Justice Marshall said in that case: "It is quite clear, that the jurisdiction of the Court depends upon the state of things at the time of the action brought, and that after vesting, it cannot be ousted by subsequent events." Id., p. 539.  The rationale, that jurisdiction is tested by the facts as they existed when the action is brought, is applied to a situation where a party dies and a nondiverse representative is substituted.  Dunn v. Clarke, 8 Pet. 1 (1834)."  Smith v. Sperling, 354 U.S. 91; 77 S. Ct. 1112; 1 L. Ed. 2d 1205; 1957 U.S. LEXIS 730; 68 A.L.R.2d 805 (U.S. 1957).

Subject-matter jurisdiction ‘depends on the state of things at the time of the action brought’ [quoting Chief Justice John Marshall]… Mollan v. Torrance, 9 Wheat. 537, 539 (1824); see, e.g., Smith v. Sperling, 354 U.S. 91, 93, n. 1 (1957); St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289-290 (1938).”  From Justice Scalia’s concurring opinion in Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., 484 U.S. 49;108 S. Ct. 376;98 L. Ed. 2d 306;1987 U.S. LEXIS 5030.
Here is some more recent clarifying language from the United States Supreme Court concerning Article III standing:
"In its constitutional dimension, standing imports justiciability: whether the plaintiff has made out a "case or controversy" between himself and the defendant within the meaning of Art. III.  This is the threshold question in every federal case, determining the power of the court to entertain the suit.  As an aspect of justiciability, the standing question is whether the plaintiff has "alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy" as to warrant his invocation of federal-court jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court's remedial powers on his behalf.  Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962). n9   The Art. III judicial power exists only to redress or otherwise to protect against injury to the complaining party, even though the court's judgment may benefit others collaterally.  A federal court's jurisdiction therefore can be invoked only when the plaintiff himself has suffered "some threatened or actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal action…."  Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 617 (1973).  See Data Processing Service v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 151-154 (1970). n10

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FOOTNOTE 9
See P. Bator, P. Mishkin, D. Shapiro, H. Wechsler, Hart & Wechsler's The Federal Courts and the Federal System 156 (2d ed. 1973).

FOOTNOTE 10
The standing question thus bears close affinity to questions of ripeness -- whether the harm asserted has matured sufficiently to warrant judicial intervention -- and of mootness -- whether the occasion for judicial intervention persists. E.g., Lake Carriers' Assn. v. MacMullan, 406 U.S. 498 (1972); Hall v. Beals, 396 U.S. 45 (1969).  See Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 154-156 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring)."

Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490; 95 S. Ct. 2197; 45 L. Ed. 2d 343; 1975 U.S. LEXIS 76 (U.S. 1975).
* * *

I do NOT want to beat this point to death within this message thread.  The POINT is that the plaintiff needs to have Constitutional standing at the date of Commencement of the suit.  The requisite standing depends upon whether Federal or state court jurisdiction is sought.

*

There is also a SEPARATE ISSUE that bears mention.  This pertains to the right of a plaintiff to sue under the UCC.  In order to institute suit on a negotiable instrument under the UCC, the plaintiff must be the owner or the holder.  This is statutory.  Examination of the complaint usually reveals that the plaintiff has either FAILED to plead the promissory note OR that the plaintiff has pleaded a promissory note which PROVES that the plaintiff LACKS STANDING and CANNOT BE THE OWNER OR HOLDER.

Reference to recorded documents often reveals that the plaintiff was not the MORTGAGEE with a right to enforce the mortgage or deed of trust either.

* * *

IN MY VIEW, the lesson to be learned from the Ohio Federal cases is that defendants should ALWAYS plead the Court's lack of jurisdiction when the complaint and associated exhibits and supporting evidence reveals that the plaintiff LACKS requisite subject matter jurisdiction due to lack of standing.  How to make this plea VARIES.  Competent counsel should be able to assist the defendant in making such a plea.  But the plea should also be accompanied by appropriate DISCOVERY to obtain the TRUE FACTS of the case.

Separately, it should be noted that where the record discloses that the Court was WHOLLY WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO ENTER AN ORDER, any decree of foreclosure or order of sale would appear to be subject to COLLATERAL ATTACK.  This means that FORECLOSURES might be REOPENED and properties restored to their owners.  Where a property's value is less than the outstanding alleged mortgage indebtedness, this may NOT be particularly useful.  Where a mortgager investor and/or mortgage servicer has improperly invoked a court's jurisdiction and obtained an order which is void ab initio, it seems likely that no valid title was ever conveyed!  TITLE COMPANIES BEWARE!

* * *

In the end, the Ohio Federal Court's new local Rule pertains to evidentiary threasholds.  The Court has enunciated that the bare allegation within an affidavit that the plaintiff is the owner is insufficient PROOF to invoke the Court's jurisdiction.  Something MORE is required.  That might be documents memorializing the alleged acquisition of the promissory note and/or assignment of the alleged mortgage.

IN ADDITION, THE PROMISSORY NOTE MUST ALWAYS BE ENDORSED!

* * *

In closing, I will AGAIN endorse Moose's ongoing admonission that LITIGATION IS TO BE AVOIDED.  If your problem is that you cannot AFFORD your mortgage payment, you probably need to be finding a solution OTHER THAN LITIGATING.  Litigating pro se is perilous.  Finding a settlement is DESIRABLE.  Getting a competent attorney with knowledge and experience in debt collection / mortgage foreclosure / bankruptcy law is a GOOD IDEA.  This is mentioned despite the fact that it seems to be easier SAID than DONE.

ALL THE USUAL DISCLAIMERS APPLY!  THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE, BUT RATHER ONE MAN'S LAY UNDERSTANDING AND INTERPRETATION OF WHAT IS HAPPENING IN OHIO FEDERAL COURT.
Quote 0 0
Another Very Nice U.S. Supreme Court Case on Standing 

"It is plaintiff's burden both to allege with sufficient particularity the facts creating jurisdiction, in view of the nature of the right asserted, and, if appropriately challenged, or if inquiry be made by the court of its own motion, to support the allegation.  McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., supra, pp. 182-189; KVOS v. Associated Press, 299 U.S. 269." Saint Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Company, 303 U.S. 283; 58 S. Ct. 586; 82 L. Ed. 845; 1938 U.S. LEXIS 295 (U.S. 1938).

The FULL TEXT of this case, like ALL U.S. Supreme Court cases is accessible for FREE at the LexisOne website:

http://www.lexisone.com/index.html

Quote 0 0
arkygirl
Quote:
Here, I DIFFER with you, Moose!  At least with respect that "all they have to do...".  You make it sound as though this is a EASY threashold!  It would seem like it would be.

But the facts and evidence show OTHERWISE.

You seem to be ASSUMING that the plaintiffs actually HAVE the requisite documentation.  Although it is COUNTERINTUITIVE, I believe that this is actually a FALSE PREMISE.


It IS relatively easy. I think Moose is saying that just as the Fed prints funny money day and night, the plaintiffs will produce the documentation that they need for these court cases. They'll be back with all their ducks in a row next time whether any of it is factual or not. It is fairly easy to fake documents in today's electronic environments.

While it does create a warm and fuzzy feeling to see judges actually doing what judges are supposed to do (finally), I predict that they will all be back for another round. I hope the judges are resting during this lull before the storm. This is NOT over by a long shot. Wait four or five months and see what happens.

Let the printing presses run!


Quote 0 0
Ohio Federal Court Case Dispositions 01-15 Jan 2008
Fifty-four (54) cases before the Ohio Federal Courts were subject to a major dispositive order during the first fifteen days of January 2008.  MOST OF THESE CASES WERE DISMISSED.

Here is a breakdown of the dispositions:  Voluntary Dismissal w/o Prejudice Pursuant to Rule 41 (32), Dismissed w/o Prejudice - Standing (1), Decree of Foreclosure (7), Order Appointing Master Commissioner (4), Order of Confirmation of Sale and Distribution of Proceeds (1), and Administratively Dismissed Pursuant to Civil Stay in Bankruptcy (1).  In addition, there were an additional eight (8) cases for which a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 41 was filed, but for which no corresponding order of dismissal appears to have been signed.

Of the 32 voluntary dismissals, four (4) were subject to prior orders to show cause due to the plaintiff's failure to show standing.

IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE PLAINTIFFS ARE VOLUNTARILY DISMISSING THEIR CASES FROM THE OHIO FEDERAL COURTS DUE TO THEIR INABILITY TO SATISFY THE FEDERAL COURT'S EVIDENTIARY STANDARDS RELATING TO STANDING.

The one actual dismissal based upon standing was:
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Isaiah; Filed 7/11/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02073; Judge Lesley WELLS  
Here are the 32 cases which were subject to voluntary orders of dismissal pursuant to Rule 41:
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Wilson; Filed 9/19/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02836; Judge Christopher A. BOYKO
  • Wells Fargo Bank National Association v. Rigdon; Filed 9/25/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv00796; Judge S. Arthur SPIEGEL
  • D. A. International Casting Company, Inc. v. Wh; Filed 11/22/2006; Case No. 1:2006cv02830; Judge Ann ALDRICH
  • NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. v. Gaston; Filed 8/15/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02480; Judge James S. GWIN
  • HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Sturgill; Filed 10/12/2007; Case No. 3:2007cv00390; Judge Thomas M. ROSE
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Coyle; Filed 8/16/2007; Case No. 3:2007cv00304; Judge Thomas M. ROSE
  • IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. v. Steggles; Filed 10/22/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03257; Judge Christopher A. BOYKO
  • Wells Fargo Bank National Association v. Taylor; Filed 11/7/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv00938; Judge S Arthur SPIEGEL
  • CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Lemaire; Filed 11/7/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03475; Judge James S. GWIN
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Perry; Filed 8/14/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv02467; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr.
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Thompson; Filed 12/27/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00178; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH
  • Citibank, N.A., as Trustee v. Coljohn; Filed 11/8/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03490; Judge Christopher A. BOYKO
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Beedle; Filed 11/8/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03492; Judge Christopher A. BOYKO
  • HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Bertolina; Filed 10/19/2007; Case No. 3:2007cv03222; Judge Jack ZOUHARY
  • HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Koroma; Filed 8/22/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00837; Judge Algenon L. MARBLEY
  • Washington Mutual Bank v. Rajagopalan; Filed 11/9/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03509; Judge Christopher A. BOYKO
  • NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. v. Johann; Filed 8/14/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00808; Judge Algenon L. MARBLEY
  • LaSalle Bank National Association v. Fahlbush; Filed 10/1/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv00818; Judge Susan J. DLOTT
  • Citimortgage, Inc. v. Kelly; Filed 11/29/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv00434; Judge Susan J. DLOTT
  • LaSalle Bank National Association v. Shotwell; Filed 11/12/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv00949; Judge Susan J. DLOTT
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Lohmill; Filed 10/31/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv00628; Judge Susan J. DLOTT
  • HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Carter; Filed 10/18/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv00876; Judge Susan J. DLOTT
  • The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A. v. Sou; Filed 9/24/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv00783; Judge Susan J. DLOTT
  • HSBC Bank USA, National Association v. Ford; Filed 8/24/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv00708; Judge Susan J. DLOTT
  • HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Service; Filed 4/19/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv00313; Judge Susan J. DLOTT
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Roll; Filed 10/26/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv00901; Judge Susan J. DLOTT
  • HSBC Mortgage Services Inc. v. Potter; Filed 9/6/2007; Case No. 3:2007cv00328; Judge Walter H. RICE
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Gray; Filed 2/14/2007; Case No. 3:2007cv00046; Judge Walter H. RICE
  • LaSalle Bank National Association v. Scully; Filed 11/6/2007; Case No. 3:2007cv00424; Judge Walter H. RICE
  • LaSalle Bank National Association v. Groff; Filed 11/12/2007; Case No. 3:2007cv00435; Judge Walter H. RICE
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Schaefer; Filed 6/25/2007; Case No. 3:2007cv00227; Judge Walter H. RICE
  • M and T Bank v. Knisley; Filed 6/12/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00561; Judge Gregory L FROST
These four (4) voluntary dismissals were subject to a prior show cause order:
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Wilson; Filed 9/19/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02836; Judge Christopher A. BOYKO
  • HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Sturgill; Filed 10/12/2007; Case No. 3:2007cv00390; Judge Thomas M. ROSE
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Coyle; Filed 8/16/2007; Case No. 3:2007cv00304; Judge Thomas M. ROSE
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Thompson; Filed 12/27/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00178; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH
These additional eight (8) cases were subject to a notice of voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff pursuant to Rule 41, but there does NOT yet appears to be an order of dismissal.  These cases were ALL before Judge S. Arthur SPIEGEL:
  • Wells Fargo Bank National Association v. Hopkins; Filed 11/7/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv00940; Judge S. Arthur SPIEGEL
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Harris; Filed 11/7/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv00488; Judge S. Arthur SPIEGEL
  • HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Howard; Filed 11/2/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv00925; Judge S. Arthur SPIEGEL
  • HSBC Bank USA, National Association v. Bronnert; Filed 10/29/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv00912; Judge S. Arthur SPIEGEL
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Piechoc; Filed 10/29/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv00907; Judge S. Arthur SPIEGEL
  • Washington Mutual Bank v. Flicke; Filed 10/15/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv00864; Judge S. Arthur SPIEGEL
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Cottingham; Filed 9/6/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv00735; Judge S. Arthur SPIEGEL
  • Citimortgage, Inc. v. Etter; Filed 3/9/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv00191; Judge S. Arthur SPIEGEL 
It is unclear whether the failure to sign the dismissal orders is an oversight or whether perhaps such orders HAVE been signed but the orders are just not noted on PACER.  In any case, it would seem clear that these cases are now OVER.

ONE (1) NEW CASE HAS BEEN FILED IN JANUARY.
Quote 0 0
noodles
This is phenomonal! What we've all wanted to hear for a very very long time.
Sadly however, this has not spread like wildfire across the nation as it should have.
Bankruptcy Courts all over America should have been notified, and ordered to follow SAME SUIT OF THE LAW.

What a shame, there aren't more Federal Judges following Laws as they were sworn to do.
Quote 0 0
noodles: 

I have said this before, but it bears repeating.  What primarily distinguishes the Ohio Federal cases is that based upon the imposition of a local evidentiary rule, the Courts are dismissing foreclosure complaints sua sponte, even where the defendant FAILS TO ANSWER and FAILS TO APPEAR.

In Ohio, the issue of standing is NOT being raised by defendants at all!

Of 140 dismissals due to lack of standing and 77 voluntary dismissals pursuant to Rule 41(a) only about a half dozen were represented by an attorney.  Only ONE actually filed a motion to dismiss based upon lack of standing.  In most of the other cases, the attorney filed a bankruptcy petition in several instances resulting in a civil stay were PREVENTED the case from being dismissed based upon lack of standing.

MY POINT HERE IS THAT BLAMING THE JUDGES IS DISINGENUOUS.  DEFENDANTS NEED TO BEGIN ANSWERING, CONTESTING JURISDICTION AND SHOWING UP FOR HERINGS IF THEY WANT TO BENEFIT FROM THE STANDING ISSUE!
Quote 0 0
noodles

William A. Roper, Jr. wrote:
noodles:  

even where the defendant FAILS TO ANSWER and FAILS TO APPEAR.
In Ohio, the issue of standing is NOT being raised by defendants at all!

Personally, I cannot fathom, why these people are not answering the motion of Foreclosure.
They couldn't or wouldn't take me down so easily.
Luckily for them however, there are Judges upholding the LAW.
However, I happen to agree with you here, but I also, still stand by my previous post here.

The Judges know the law, they know the title requirements, of who can file Foreclosure action and who cannot, legitamently.
The records are infront of them, and prrof of Title of Ownership should be requested by all Judges. Doesn't matter, if the Judge thinks it a waste of Courts time to reschedule a motion, until the necessary documents have been provided.

If the entity that has filied the motion for FORECLOSURE cannot provide on that court date, the PROOF of TITLE, and that it is "Owned" by them, then NO SUCH FORECLOSURE SHOULD BE ALLOWED. PERIOD!

Essentially, it is the "RESPONSIBILITY" of the JUDGE to "UPHOLD" the law.
Even when the confused, dazed, turmoiled home owner has failed to respond, file counter claim, or even appear.

THE JUDGES WORK FOR THE PEOPLE, NOT THE CORPORATIONS.


Let's not forgot that.



Quote 0 0
Bishop
Federal Courts must follow the law established by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure together with the Supreme Court Rules as well as controlling cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on a given issue. These provisions of judicial proceedings are mandatory and are not discretionary. If a court ignores these principles, the court is acting beyond its legitimate authority to act. In short, the court is aiding and abetting in the commission of a fraud upon the court as well as a fraud upon the defendant if the plaintiff has no Article III standing to commence and maintain an action to collect on a mortgage note that the plaintiff does not own or has not obtained actual authority from the legitimate legal owner (also referred to as the "holder") to have commenced and maintained the action. Otherwise, without the legitimate party in interest duly represented by an authorized complaining party and authorized attorneys, the defendant is stymied in obtaining impeaching discovery documentation from the holder of the note in order to prevail on a counter-claim or setoff against the servicer for fabricating a default.

Recent case law on the issue of Article III jurisdiction was settled by the U.S. Supreme Court in the recent (1999) case of Steel Co., v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 118 S. Ct. 1003 in which the Court required that the rule that a court may not "proceed" to the merits absent the Court's determination of "Article III" jurisdiction. The requirement is that the Court must examine and answer in the affirmative that the plaintiff is the real party in interest or that the plaintiff proves that he/she/it has actual authority from the owner of the note to collect on the note on behalf of the owner/holder of the note.

In other words, if a he/she/it (as plaintiff) cannot prove legitimate authority to collect on a mortgage note that was given to the he/she/it by the actual holder/owner of the note, or the he/she/it cannot prove that he/she/it is the actual holder/owner of the note, the plaintiff has no STANDING to "stand" before the court and seek the Court's decision making process and judgment without being able to show "an injury in fact" OR authorization by the he/she/it that he/she/it has sustained "an injury in fact." It's that simple. Without being able to show an injury in fact, the he/she/it has no standing.

The duty of the Court is to protect the constitutional rights of the defendant from being harmed by having to defend an illegitimate claim without "due process of law." Part and parcel of due process is that the Court must address Article III jurisdiction. That means the he/she/it plaintiff must be able demonstrate and prove an 'injury in fact." The Court must exercise its inherent power to examine its jursidiction BEFORE PROCEEDING TO THE MERITS. TO DO OTHERWISE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Federal Courts refusing to examine their jurisdiction is IMPROPER (if not unconstitutional) as the U.S. Supreme Court has determined in the Steel Company case mentioned above.

The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals exercised that duty even though the U.S. District Court and the attendant attorneys failed to examine the jursdiciton of the court based on the lack of an injury in fact in the case of MERS v. Estrella (2005) which is posted on the legal forum on this website.

The well reasoned holdings of the OHIO District Courts together with the holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court do not excuse any of the other U.S. District Courts from examining their constitutional jurisdiction BEFORE PROCEEDING TO THE MERITS OF A CASE.
Quote 0 0
Digger

YOU HAVE EXPLAINED IT WITH PRECISION!  I hope the courts come here and read what you wrote.

Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
The Washington Post reported today on the front page:

"Foreclosure alarms rang months ago" (Sunday, October 10, 2010 )

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/09/AR2010100904237.html


This link shows the WP front page image, but is changed out daily and will show only the page of the date of the visit:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/print/asectionfrontimage.html

*

It seems as though we have been talking about this here a little longer than a few months!

Quote 0 0
Mr. Roper,

This is the quote from the Washington Post article that truly riles my feathers:

"There is no evidence so far that the specific abuses made public in the past few weeks were known to government officials. Nor is it clear whether they were aware that the process of the selling and reselling of mortgages among financial firms - which became extremely common and highly profitable during the housing boom - was raising legal questions about who actually owned the loans and had the right to foreclose if they want bad. "

I guess no one in the government was paying attentions to all those homeowner complaints dating back several years, not to mention several Law Review publications, Mr. Lavalle's reports, the FBI's 2004 report, etc.  IMHO, I would say that the government just turned a blind eye until the proverbial s**t hit the fan.  Now they are just denying they ever knew anything was wrong until recently.

Oh, I forgot to mention, the testimony before Congress by some WaMu employees who described how they used white out to change borrower's incomes in order to qualify the borrower.  Yeah, right, they did not know.  Hey, I have some great land down in the Everglades I would like to sell t you.

They can't ignore us anymore.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...