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
Jay_Son
Of course, a well-educated or highly intelligent pro se litigant might be able to overcome some of the obstacles, but realistically, you're better off getting an attorney. 
And yes, I realize many attorneys are terrible, but you're better off spending your time finding a good lawyer than trying to learn in a few weeks what a lawyer spent years in lawschool and on the job learning.
If you insist on going pro se, you may be able to get help from local law schools: generally, the law library is free for all to use to research statutes and caselaw, and most have free clinics to help the indigent.

The following is a sad example of a missed opportunity.  Pay attention to all the deficiencies the appellate court finds in her appeal.  The legal basis for the court's ruling is sound - if you're pro se, and don't understand why this court ruled as it did, then you need to consider the cost of an attorney vs. how much longer you're likely to keep your home without one.

Reeves v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13145, 1-5 (5th Cir. 2011).

OPINION:

Carol L. Reeves appeals the denial of a temporary restraining order seeking to stop Wells Fargo  Home Mortgage and Wells Fargo Bank National Association  (hereinafter collectively referred to as Wells Fargo) from foreclosing on her home. Wells Fargo  contends that we lack jurisdiction to review the district court's interlocutory order denying the motion for a temporary restraining order. In response, Reeves contends that the pro se motion should have been liberally construed as a motion for preliminary  [*2] injunctive relief.

The district court's order denying Reeves's motion for a temporary restraining order is not a final order, nor does it come within any of the other categories that would make it immediately appealable. See In re Lieb, 915 F.2d 180, 183 (5th Cir. 1990). Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to review the district court's denial of the motion for a temporary restraining order, and Reeves's appeal of that ruling is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Faulder v. Johnson, 178 F.3d 741, 742 (5th Cir. 1999).

The denial of a preliminary injunction, however, is immediately appealable if it is related to the substantive issues of the litigation. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1); Lakedreams v. Taylor, 932 F.2d 1103, 1107 (5th Cir. 1991). Although the district court construed the pro se motion as seeking only a temporary restraining order, Reeves sought relief that, if granted, would have extended beyond the 14-day limit of a temporary restraining order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Thus, the pro se motion, liberally construed, was also a request for a preliminary injunction, the denial of which is immediately appealable because it is related to the substantive issues in the case.

A movant for  [*3] a preliminary injunction must demonstrate "(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a substantial threat that failure to grant the injunction will result in irreparable injury, (3) the threatened injury outweighs any damage that the injunction may cause the opposing party, and (4) the injunction will not disserve the public interest." Lakedreams, 932 F.2d at 1107. The decision to deny a preliminary injunction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion and will be reversed "only under extraordinary circumstances." White v. Carlucci, 862 F.2d 1209, 1211 (5th Cir. 1989).

Reeves alleged that absent any proof that Wells Fargo  was a holder in due course of the promissory note and deed of trust, it had no legal standing to foreclose on the property in question. She also alleged that foreclosure was improper because the note had been rescinded and rendered void by its separation from the deed of trust. In denying the motion, the district court concluded that Reeves had failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.

To the extent that the district court denied Reeves preliminary injunctive relief, she has failed to show that it was an abuse of discretion. See  [*4] id. Reeves does not reassert her claim that the note had been rescinded, nor does she dispute the district court's finding that she had not made a payment on the note since November 2009. The district court reasoned that Reeves's suspicion that Wells Fargo  was not the true holder in due course of the note, in light of documentary evidence to the contrary, was insufficient to relieve her of her obligation to pay that note. Reeves has failed to provide any law to the contrary. Further, Reeves acknowledges that she did not cogently articulate her claims before the district court but argues that "based on the facts as now more clearly understood and articulated," she has established a high likelihood of success on the merits. However, because her contentions that the foreclosure notice was flawed, that the assignment and transfer of the note and deed of trust to Wells Fargo  was defective, that the undated endorsements were ineffective, and that there is no proof of a nominee agreement between the original lender and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) were not presented to the district court, we may not consider them on appeal. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999)  [*5] (noting that a party may not raise a new theory of relief for the first time on appeal). Likewise, to the extent Reeves relies on documentary evidence that was not before the district court, such evidence may not be considered on appeal. See Theriot v. Parish of Jefferson, 185 F.3d 477, 491 n.26 (5th Cir. 1999) ("An appellate court may not consider new evidence furnished for the first time on appeal and may not consider facts which were not before the district court at the time of the challenged ruling.").

APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION; AFFIRMED IN PART.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...