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
Jim
I noticed a new Kentucky appellate decision announced last Friday that struck me as particularly exemplary of the importance of reading, understanding and complying with the appellate court rules on appeal. This is a theme that Mr. Roper hammered into me over and over again every time I reached out for assistance (and something that I have come to appreciate and respect greatly).

Though not a mortgage foreclosure case, the decision was a pro se appeal of a judgment in a credit card case versus Chase Bank USA, N.A.

The case is:

[i]Dennis L. Meredith v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., No. 2010-CA-000545-MR (Ky. App. Jan. 11, 2013) [unpublished] [/b]
http://162.114.92.72/COA/2010-CA-000545.pdf

I do not intend to celebrate or aggrandize this decision. There are no great rules of law of precedential importance enunciated there.

But implicit in this tragic loss by a distressed pro se litigant is a failure to follow Mr. Roper's oft repeated suggest: "Read the Rules, Read the Rules, READ THE RULES!" Mr. Roper often followed up this suggestion with the further recommendation: "Be sure to read the cases on the Rules and to consult the comparable Federal cases on the Federal Rule equivalents!". (I am quoting/paraphrasing from memory so if I am misquoting Mr. Roper, please accept my apologies.)

Mr. Roper also encouraged me to consult the Federal Rules treatise by Miller & Wright and the Federal Practice treatise by Moore, as well.

One other thing Mr. Roper pointed out was the importance of knowing and understanding the appellate rules even when litigating in the trial court. He told me that every document prepared and filed in the trial court needed to be prepared with an ultimate appeal in mind.

I have learned greatly by following this advice. I know of one successful pro se litigant in Kentucky who also succeeded following this formula. I do not know anyone who has succeeded either in the trial court or at the appellate level without either directly following this guidance or at least independently reaching the same conclusion.

Apologies to Mr. Meredith. I am not seeking to pick on you, but perhaps others can learn from and avoid your mistakes by reading the decision and following the wise counsel suggested by Mr. Roper.
Quote 0 0
Ben
Quote:
But implicit in this tragic loss by a distressed pro se litigant is a failure to follow Mr. Roper's oft repeated suggest: "Read the Rules, Read the Rules, READ THE RULES!" Mr. Roper often followed up this suggestion with the further recommendation: "Be sure to read the cases on the Rules and to consult the comparable Federal cases on the Federal Rule equivalents!". (I am quoting/paraphrasing from memory so if I am misquoting Mr. Roper, please accept my apologies.)


I think you captured the essence of it. This is also what Mr. Roper told me.

Quote:
Mr. Roper also encouraged me to consult the Federal Rules treatise by Miller & Wright and the Federal Practice treatise by Moore, as well.


These are really terrific resources although you will have to go to a law library to find them:

Charles Alan Wright and Arthur R. Miller, Federal practice and procedure (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing) LOC Call No. KF9619 .W7

James William Moore, Moore's Federal Practice (NY: Matthew Binder) LOC Call No. KF8820.A313


When I told an attorney that I had gotten some suggestions from another pro se litigant, he told me that this kind of advice is useless and that I needed an attorney. When I mentioned that the advice was to read the rules and cases and also the references to Wright and Miller and to Moore's Federal Practice, he said "That is really good advice!".
Quote 0 0

let jim roper read this:

http://www.law.du.edu/documents/denver-university-law-review/v87-2/Tidmarsh_PDF.pdf
Quote 0 0
??
Quote:
let jim roper read this:

http://www.law.du.edu/documents/denver-university-law-review/v87-2/Tidmarsh_PDF.pdf

Who is jim roper?? Are you making fun of Jim's post? I thought his post was helpful. Your link? Not so much.
Quote 0 0
TheEquitableOne
This was not an appeal brought by a pro se litigant.

Appellant's Brief was filed by Edward C. Airhart, as expressed on the last page of the opinion. 

The KY COA docket lists attorney for Appellant Dennis L. Meredith as Edward C. Airhart, of Airhart & Associates, 440 S. 7th Street, Ste 200, Louisville, KY 40203. 

The opinion, in being so derisive of Airhart's work, implies that Airhart is but an "airhead" and pettifog.


  
Quote 0 0
Art
Quote:
let jim roper read this:

http://www.law.du.edu/documents/denver-university-law-review/v87-2/Tidmarsh_PDF.pdf

Is jim roper related to Mr. William A. Roper, Jr., who used to post at the Forum?
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...