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
William A. Roper, Jr. Show full post »
Max
Quote:
Do you also disregard anything Engel did in Schwarzwald since he was also suspended from law a few years back?


Albert makes an interesting point and certainly seems to be well informed about the identity and discipline of dishonest and unethical lawyers!

Albert correctly points out that the appellant's attorney in the Schwartzwald case was Andrew Mahlon Engel:

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/AttySvcs/AttyReg/Public_AttorneyDetails.asp?ID=47371

(That doesn't seem like something folks would commonly know now does it?))

Engel was publicly reprimanded in 2001 and was suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for a two year period in 2004:

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/AttySvcs/AttyReg/Public_AttorneyDiscTrans.asp

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2004/2004-ohio-6900.pdf

I am unsure quite how to compare the relative merits of two attorneys, one of who has been disciplined twice, including a reprimand and a two year suspension, and the other who has been disciplined twice, including a six month suspension, but who also plead guilty to serious criminal charges. Tough choice. Which to employ! Here is an idea, though. How about simply refraining from the employ of dishonest and disreputable lawyers all together. No. I guess that would be too easy. Instead, we should just overlook their transgressions and expect that they will turn over a new leaf (even though both failed to actually adopt proper ethical behavior after their first discipline). Right!

It is kind of interesting that the underlying ethical issue which brought about Engel's suspension was taking money from a distressed borrower with a legal issue against a bank and then apparently doing nothing other than pocketing the money.

Perhaps this matter is particularly familiar to "Joan", "Albert" or their crooked attorney employer! SInce so many crooked lawyers are in this business, is this the sort of discipline that causes their employer to lay awake at night? If I can find out the law firm that these liars are shilling for, I will file an Ohio bar complaint against their employer.

See also:

[i]Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Duane Schwartzwald et al[/b]
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Clerk/ecms/resultsbycasenumber.asp?type=3&year=2011&number=1201&myPage=searchbypartyname.asp
Quote 0 0
Davet receives STUNNING victory in the 8th District Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County based on Schwartzwald:

Davet v. Parks   98351   "The trial court improperly granted summary judgment in appellees’ favor because it failed to consider the initial determination of whether the county treasurer had standing to foreclose on appellant’s property. Where a foreclosure sale is invalid and no title at all passes to the purchaser, such constitutes more than an irregularity or omission and renders the entire proceeding void. Symons v. Miller, 5th Dist. No. 05-CA-7, 2006-Ohio-137, ¶ 31. Lack of standing at the outset of litigation cannot be cured by receipt of an assignment of the claim or by substitution of the real party in interest. Fed. Home Loan Mtge. Corp. v. Schwartzwald, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5017.   Cuyahoga 1/10/2013 / 2013-Ohio-31

http://msfraud.org/LAW/Lounge/Davet-v-Parks-Treasurer_Reversed_1-13.pdf 
Quote 0 0
Rick
Quote:
Davet receives STUNNING victory in the 8th District Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County based on Schwartzwald:


I find nothing particularly stunning or novel about this Davet appellate decision. It seems fairly routine.

This is NOT an appeal of the cases Davet has brought concerning the bank's foreclosure of his residential property, which is another matter. This is another different foreclosure matter pertaining to a tax foreclosure of another different property.

Unlike the cases which Davet failed to timely appeal and has uniformly lost, Davet seems to have made a timely motion to vacate and filed timely appeals in this different case.

The appellate court's decision does NOT restore the subject property to Davet. Rather, it seems only to vacate the premature dismissal of his suit.

On the facts recited, it was clearly error for the trial court to dismiss Davet's case on the defendant's motion for summary judgemnt in respect of disputed fact issues, which expressly precludes summary judgment. The appellate court has simply noted that there was disputed record evidence showing possible completing claims to entitlement to bring about a tax foreclosure sale. Either the purchaser of the tax certificates had the right to foreclose or the county had the right to foreclose, but NOT both.

Lets not get all breathless about the implications of this most recent Davet decision. The court did NOT find that a distressed borrower can make an untimely collateral attack on a final judgment and did NOT even find that the judgment was void in this case. They simply found that there were disputed fact issues that needed to be properly resolved by the trial court.

Read the decision, but hold the champagne:

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/8/2013/2013-ohio-31.pdf
Quote 0 0
$&?!
Quote:
I find nothing particularly stunning or novel about this Davet appellate decision. It seems fairly routine.

This is NOT an appeal of the cases Davet has brought concerning the bank's foreclosure of his residential property, which is another matter. This is another different foreclosure matter pertaining to a tax foreclosure of another different property.

Unlike the cases which Davet failed to timely appeal and has uniformly lost, Davet seems to have made a timely motion to vacate and filed timely appeals in this different case.

The appellate court's decision does NOT restore the subject property to Davet. Rather, it seems only to vacate the premature dismissal of his suit.

On the facts recited, it was clearly error for the trial court to dismiss Davet's case on the defendant's motion for summary judgemnt in respect of disputed fact issues, which expressly precludes summary judgment. The appellate court has simply noted that there was disputed record evidence showing possible completing claims to entitlement to bring about a tax foreclosure sale. Either the purchaser of the tax certificates had the right to foreclose or the county had the right to foreclose, but NOT both.

Lets not get all breathless about the implications of this most recent Davet decision. The court did NOT find that a distressed borrower can make an untimely collateral attack on a final judgment and did NOT even find that the judgment was void in this case. They simply found that there were disputed fact issues that needed to be properly resolved by the trial court.

Read the decision, but hold the champagne:

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/8/2013/2013-ohio-31.pdf


I want to complement Rick on his insightful analysis.  Rick is correct that this case is a rather ordinary ruling showing that the trial court erroneously granted summary judgment when there was a dispute of fact.  Nothing more can be taken from this ruling.

Dick Davet doesn't get his house back.  This case has no impact whatsoever on Davet's cases relating to the bank's judicial foreclosure of his personal residence.  Dick lost his house and has already lost multiple appeals.

In this case, Dick's suit regarding a tax foreclosure of another different property is simply reinstated and may go to trial.

Best of success to Dick in his trial on this issue, but anyone that thinks that this changes the landscape for foreclosure in Ohio is simply ignorant and/or delusional.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...