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
Dennis

Within several other past threads, the ongoing litigation involving the foreclosure of Richard Davet's home in Ohio has been discussed.

 

Dick Davet is the energizer bunny of foreclosure defense: His cases keep going and going.  I have lost counts of the number of trial court and appellate decisions that Dick has now lost.

 

The original foreclosure by NationsBanc Mortgage was filed in 1996.  Davet lost his home to foreclosure in 2005, nine years later, but is still litigating now some seven years after the house was sold at auction. 

 

The latest decision is in the case:

 

Davet v. Mikhli, 2012-Ohio-1200 (Ohio App. 8th Dist. 2012)

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/8/2012/2012-ohio-1200.pdf

 

Depending upon whom you ask, Dick Davet is either an inspiration for his dogged persistence or simply a person in denial who cannot let go even after several losses in the Ohio Court of Appeals, denial of review in the Ohio Supreme Court, and losses in Federal District Court and the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.  The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the Sixth Circuit decision.

 

Of course, we all wish Dick the best in his next attack on the foreclosure!

Quote 0 0
Ed

Mr. Roper posted about Dick Davet's last appellate loss in this thread:

 

Tenacious Ohio Pro Se Litigant Dick DAVET Loses Another Case in the Ohio Court of Appeals

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/Tenacious-Ohio-Pro-Se-Litigant-Dick-DAVET-Loses-Another-Case-in-the-Ohio-Court-of-5345192 

 

 

Quote 0 0
t

Dick Davet has never understood the importance of the legal principle as to the finality of judgmentsWithout finality, no person could be secure in his title. 

 

He is also very confused and misguided about the application of jurisdictional issues.  He confuses those jurisdictional problems which render a judgment void with those problems which merely render a judgment voidable.

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...