Case Dismissals for Lack of Standing to Foreclose by Msfraud.org

7/22/2019 Case Dismissals for Lack of Standing to Foreclose by Msfraud.org

1/28

2014 0226http://msfraud.org/LAW/Lounge/Standing.html

Case dismissals for lack of standing to Foreclose

Updated 2/13/14

MSFraud Forum Crosslinks, Findings and Case citations add to Ohio Federal

Court Case iscussionsby William A. Roper Jr.

Federal !ractice Manual for "egal #id #ttorne$s

3%1 S'(')

The Supreme Court has made it lear that the !urden of esta!lishingstanding rests on the plaintiff. At eah stage of the litigation"from the

initial pleading stage# through summar$ %udgment# and trial"the plaintiffmust arr$ that !urden. Standing must e&ist on the date the omplaint is filed

and throughout the litigation. 'oreo(er# standing annot !e onferred !$agreement and an !e hallenged at an$ time in the litigation# inluding on

appeal# !$ the defendants or# in some irumstanes# !$ the ourt sua sponte.)inall$# plaintiffs must demonstrate standing for eah laim and eah re*uestfor relief. There is no +supplemental, standing: standing to assert one laim

does not reate standing to assert laims arising from the same nuleus ofoperati(e fats.

FO*+C"OSU*+ +F+'S+

-+*+ O + S' O' S'(').

Winter 2011

Standing ersus 0usticiailit$

A party must have standing to file suit at its inception and may not remedy this defect by

subsequently obtaining standing.

Venture oldings ! Acquisitions "rp.#$$% v. A.&.'. (unding "rp.# $$%# )* +o. ,d )),#

))- (la. /th %A 2011.

-------------------------------

'erit eision: Court Smas )reddie 'a in ome )orelosure Case. )ederal omeLoan 'ortgage Corp. (. Shartald.
http://msfraud.org/LAW/Lounge/Standing.htmlhttp://www.msfraud.org/Law/Lounge/MSFraud-ForumCrosslinksandFindingsAddToOhioFederalCourtCaseDiscussions.dochttp://www.msfraud.org/Law/Lounge/MSFraud-ForumCrosslinksandFindingsAddToOhioFederalCourtCaseDiscussions.dochttp://www.msfraud.org/Law/Lounge/MSFraud-ForumCrosslinksandFindingsAddToOhioFederalCourtCaseDiscussions.dochttp://federalpracticemanual.org/node/19http://www.cbalaw.org/_files/publications/lawyers-quarterly/Foreclosure%20Defense%20-%20Where%20Do%20We%20Stand%20on%20Standing.pdfhttp://www.cbalaw.org/_files/publications/lawyers-quarterly/Foreclosure%20Defense%20-%20Where%20Do%20We%20Stand%20on%20Standing.pdfhttp://www.law2.byu.edu/lawreview4/archives/1982/2/man.pdfhttp://www.legallyspeakingohio.com/2012/10/merit-decision-court-smacks-freddie-mac-in-home-foreclosure-case-federal-home-loan-mortgage-corp-v-schwartzwald/http://msfraud.org/LAW/Lounge/Standing.htmlhttp://www.msfraud.org/Law/Lounge/MSFraud-ForumCrosslinksandFindingsAddToOhioFederalCourtCaseDiscussions.dochttp://www.msfraud.org/Law/Lounge/MSFraud-ForumCrosslinksandFindingsAddToOhioFederalCourtCaseDiscussions.dochttp://federalpracticemanual.org/node/19http://www.cbalaw.org/_files/publications/lawyers-quarterly/Foreclosure%20Defense%20-%20Where%20Do%20We%20Stand%20on%20Standing.pdfhttp://www.cbalaw.org/_files/publications/lawyers-quarterly/Foreclosure%20Defense%20-%20Where%20Do%20We%20Stand%20on%20Standing.pdfhttp://www.law2.byu.edu/lawreview4/archives/1982/2/man.pdfhttp://www.legallyspeakingohio.com/2012/10/merit-decision-court-smacks-freddie-mac-in-home-foreclosure-case-federal-home-loan-mortgage-corp-v-schwartzwald/


2/28

(or Andy ngel3Shartalds attorne$5: As a pratitioner fousing on forelosuredefense hat is $our thoughts 3to !e proati(e5 for those ho lost their home under the+ure#, to file a 60375385 motion and plae the ne oner# title ompan$ and mortgageompan$ on notie9

Andy ngel says:o(em!er 2# 2012 at ;:8< am=f the forelosing !an relied on an aftera*uired interest in the note and mortgage toesta!lish its right to enfore the agreements# then = ould ertainl$ see to (aate the%udgment. 7ut $ou need not proeed under Ci(.>. 60375 !eause the %udgment is (oid.The Shartald deision states that standing has to e&ist at the time the ase is filed#and if it doesn?t e&ist# the %urisdition of the ommon pleas ourt as not in(oed. Aourt ithout %urisdition annot enter an$ %udgment 3e&ept one dismissing the ase forla of %urisdition5. A motion to (aate a (oid 3as opposed to a (oida!le5 %udgment is not!ased on Ci(. >. 60375# it in(oes the ourt?s inherent poer.3atton v. iemer#


3/28

this deision# the Appellate i(ision relied on man$ of the ases disussed in our priorpost.

Similarl$# in Wells )argo 7an# .A. (. Lope# Benhaned (ersion a(aila!le to le&is.omsu!sri!ers# a different Appellate i(ision panel reectedanother residential homeoners lastminute attempt to raise standingas a defense to the forelosure omplaint.

The fats in that ase ere a !it more egregious !eause the !orroer ontri!uted to thefour$ear dela$ !eteen the entr$ of default and the filing of his motion to (aate !$filing numerous ankruptc$ petitionsand seeing a sta$ to attempt to short sell thepropert$. onetheless# the Appellate i(ision affirmedthe trial ourts denial of themotion to (aate holding# among other things# that the lack of standing# e(en if true# asnota meritorious defense to a forelosure omplaint# partiularl$ in the post%udgmentonte&t. Again# the Appellate i(ision relied primaril$ on the ases inluded in our priorpost.

Eie more from the Forio >eal Fropert$ 7log.

'e6 casese 'e&io Supreme Court Gnds 7@Hs 8$ear Winning Strea32/1ISTGG @ 7GAL) @) 7GA> STGA>S ALTA T>IST

FASS T>@IJ 200K< 3on. Li!eth Jonle# MSC Supreme Court# 7ron& Count$#H5311/1


4/28

WrightFatt Credit Inion (. 7$ington3@hio ;/1


5/28

*ickie alker % #C# G'C 'ortgage# 7ear Stearns# Citi!an# 'G>S 3)ull!anrupt$ dos5 320105 "ack of Standing%

Florida Casesreard Count$ Mortgage Foreclosure !rocedures

Focht % ells Fargo3Fro se re(ersed on standing5 3)lorida ;/1JA CASG 7AN# AT=@AL ASS@C=AT=@ ASACOI=>G> @) CG>TA= ASSGTS A L=A7=L=T=GS @) WAS=JT@'ITIAL 7AN )>@' TG F++*#" *+C+(9+* )lorida C@A >e(ersed

38/18/1GEG>SG53)la. 41e(ersed.D
http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Rickie-Walker-v-BAC-EMC-Citi-MERS-Case-California-Mers-Bk-full.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Brevard-Mortgage-Foreclosure-Procedures.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Focht-v-Wells-Fargo_Reversed_Public-importance_9-13.pdfhttp://www.4dca.org/opinions/May%202013/05-15-13/4D12-2069.op.pdfhttp://www.4dca.org/opinions/May%202013/05-15-13/4D12-2069.op.pdfhttp://www.4dca.org/opinions/May%202013/05-15-13/4D12-2069.op.pdfhttp://www.4dca.org/opinions/April%202013/04-17-13/4D11-4435.op.pdfhttp://www.4dca.org/opinions/April%202012/04-04-12/4D10-3587.op.pdfhttp://www.4dca.org/opinions/Nov%202011/11-23-11/4D09-5183.op.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Rickie-Walker-v-BAC-EMC-Citi-MERS-Case-California-Mers-Bk-full.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Brevard-Mortgage-Foreclosure-Procedures.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Focht-v-Wells-Fargo_Reversed_Public-importance_9-13.pdfhttp://www.4dca.org/opinions/May%202013/05-15-13/4D12-2069.op.pdfhttp://www.4dca.org/opinions/April%202013/04-17-13/4D11-4435.op.pdfhttp://www.4dca.org/opinions/April%202012/04-04-12/4D10-3587.op.pdfhttp://www.4dca.org/opinions/Nov%202011/11-23-11/4D09-5183.op.pdf


6/28

Feltus % U%S% ank310/115 3"ost 'ote5 We re(erse !eause material issues of fat as tohih entit$ holding the promissor$ note e&euted !$ )eltus e&isted at the time the trialourt entered summar$ %udgment.

I.S. 7ans repl$ to )eltuss affirmati(e defenses asserting that it as no in possessionof the original note# hih it attahed to the repl$. 7ut the note attahed to the omplaint

shoed the lender to !e Countr$ide 7an# .A.

ATG ith pre%udie !eause o(er a to $ear periodFlaintiff failed to allege or pro(ide douments demonstrating its right to !ring this ation.=ndependentl$# efendants Amended 'otion to ismiss the Fleadings of Flaintiff isJ>ATG as a santion under the ditates of theam deision and its progen$.

"0 MO*&)#)+ C#!(", ('C%, '+ C+'&U*; MO*&)#)+

CO*!O*#&(O', S+"+C& !O*&FO"(O S+*9(C('), ('C% and F"O*(#

+F#U"& "# )*OU! % &hornerr$

@>G> >GJA>=J FLA=T=))S '@T=@ T@ >GGSTA7L=S @TG

LM 'ortgages mortgage forelosure Complaint

=S'=SSG (&- F>GMI=CG

3Ipdate from Thorn!err$: 10/1K/10 The !an ontinued to ome !a and the 8th %udge in thematter >GEG>SG the ismissed ith Fre%udie that = on. = am still fighting this in%ustiePPPP The first%udge WF ithout a hearing for la of standing no note due to )L STAT K1.011. !ut !an got latest%udge to o(erturn 7GCAISG the WF as done sua sponte# /o a hearing !ut *uotes no )L STAT or odethat states a hearing is mandator$ hen dealing ith dismissal due to la of S'M.5

eutsche ank>s Summar$ 0udgment enied
http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/FELTUSvUSBANK.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Khan-v-Bank-of-America.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Bank-of-america-v-nebraska-investments.pdfhttp://www.2dca.org/opinions/Opinion_Pages/Opinion_Page_2010/February/February%2012,%202010/2D08-3553.pdfhttp://api.ning.com/files/aSKfMvhMUT2K9iLRYb560Vpd5unne6hX7XFPGGtYCObnsCoQI-p3QrMWc2iVsPByewXBfZornTI76KMJMxCcCY6L-8PDHOXO/Ordergrantingdismissalwithprej.2.11.102.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/ORDERREGARDINGPLAINTIFFMOTIONTORE-ESTABLISHNOTE.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/DLJ_foreclosureComplaint.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/DismissedWithPrejudice.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/DismissedWithPrejudice.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/DismissedWithPrejudice.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Deutsche_SummaryJudgment_Denied.pdfhttp://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/FELTUSvUSBANK.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Khan-v-Bank-of-America.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Bank-of-america-v-nebraska-investments.pdfhttp://www.2dca.org/opinions/Opinion_Pages/Opinion_Page_2010/February/February%2012,%202010/2D08-3553.pdfhttp://api.ning.com/files/aSKfMvhMUT2K9iLRYb560Vpd5unne6hX7XFPGGtYCObnsCoQI-p3QrMWc2iVsPByewXBfZornTI76KMJMxCcCY6L-8PDHOXO/Ordergrantingdismissalwithprej.2.11.102.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/ORDERREGARDINGPLAINTIFFMOTIONTORE-ESTABLISHNOTE.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/DLJ_foreclosureComplaint.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/DismissedWithPrejudice.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Deutsche_SummaryJudgment_Denied.pdf


7/28

(nd$Mac % *ogers3>ogers 'otion to ismiss J>ATG5# 'arh 2010# F=GLLASC@ITH

ac Funding Consortium % 0ac=ues, U%S% ank, Cass 3U.S. Bank failed toestablish its status as legal owner and holder of the note and mortgage. App.Court reversed SJ)

- ac (nitial rief in 0ac=ues

VERIZZO v. Bank of New YorkMERS (Summar Judgment !"#"!S"$ %!"&A'$"$ late notie flawed hain of assignments)

Verizzo v. Bank of New York(*rder of $ismissal against B*'+) (,based on thelate servie and filing of the summar udgment evidene and the eistene of agenuine issue of material fat we reverse the final summar udgment andremand for further proeedings.,)

Wells Fargo v. Chesne /0hile ,non-negotiable, instruments ma also beassigned there is no assignment attahed to the Complaint. 1he 'ote and&ortgage attahed to the Compliant are made in favor of 0ashington &utual notthe urrent 2laintiff 0ells 3argo.4

Wells Fargo v. Cirigliano(5678)('o evidene to show a hain of title of how thenote got transferred to 0ells 3argo.)

!.S. Bank v. "ar#s$er(5678) ('otar fraud assignment fraud fraud upon theourt dismissed with preudie) Judge 1epper

%M&C v. Visi'aro(9678) (:earing udge sets aside his previous grant ofsummar udgment) Judge !ondolino

Riggs v. &(rora )oan Servi'ing(96;76;878) (Court of Appeals the endorsementin !lan is unsigned and unauthentiated# reating a genuine issue of material fat as to

hether Aurora is the laful oner and holder of the note and/or mortgage. As inBACFunding Consortium#&nc. &+A4A5A6&'A v. 7ean87acques# 2 So.


8/28

final summar$ %udgment hearing and !$ failing to grant the motion to transfer theforelosure ation to the di(ision here a separate foreclosure action 6as pending in6hich another ank 6as simultaneousl$ seeking to foreclose the same mortgage%

#urora, M+*S % a Costa34/201053DBThe plaintiffs la of standing at the ineption ofthe ase is not a defet that ma$ !e ured !$ the a*uisition of standing after the ase is

filed.D

There is no e(idene of reord that esta!lishes that 'G>S as authoried to assignan$thing to Flaintiff# and therefore# the assignment as in(alid. G(en if the assignmentere (alid# it as not e&euted until after the omplaint as filed. Therefore# Flaintiff sstanding at the ineption of the ase as !ased entirel$ on the omplaint and the e&hi!itsattahed thereto. =t appears on the fae of those e&hi!its that an entit$ other than Flaintiffhas standing# and those e&hi!its ontrol o(er ontrar$ allegations ontained in either(ersion of the omplaint. Flaintiff las standing no !ased on the su!stanti(edefiienies ith an assignment from 'G>S. Flaintiff laed standing at the ineption ofthe ase !ased on those su!stanti(e defiienies and the timing of the e&eution of theassignment. A!sent standing# there is no %ustiia!le ontro(ers$ !eteen the parties# and

this ase must !e dismissed.5

(nd$Mac %


9/28

that the plaintiff las standing to forelose. The underl$ing ation is dismissed. Thedefendant shall ser(e a op$ of this @rder ith otie of Gntr$ upon the plaintiff ithineesesassignment of the su!%et mortgage and note to H'T# for M+*S# as nominee forH'C# in the instant forelosure ation is ithout legal authorit$.Therefore# plaintiffH'T ould not !e the holder of the su!%et mortgage and note hen the ationommened. Thus# plaintiff H'T laed standing to ommene the instant forelosureation.

-SC % !UCC('(6/12 3e Hor5@>G>G that this motion !$ defendant eutshe 7an ational Trust Compan$# as

Trustee for )remont ome Loan Series 2006< 3eutshe 7an5 for summar$%udgmenton its first ounterlaim against plaintiff# delaring that eutshe 7an is the lafuloner and holder of a (alid first mortgage against the su!%et premises# delaring that theredit line mortgage as paid in full and is disharged and satisfied of reord# anddelaring that plaintiff and all persons laiming !$# through and under it !e fore(er !arredfrom all laims to an estate or interest in the su!%et premises# and granting defendanteutshe 7an summar$ %udgment dismissing the omplaint as against it and anellingthe notie of penden$ filed !$ plaintiff is denied.

eutsche ank % Cuesta36/1253e Hor5

@>G>G that this motion !$ defendant eutshe 7an ational Trust Compan$# as

Trustee for )remont ome Loan Series 2006< 3eutshe 7an5 for summar$ %udgmenton its first ounterlaim against plaintiff# delaring that eutshe 7an is the lafuloner and holder of a (alid first mortgage against the su!%et premises# delaring that theredit line mortgage as paid in full and is disharged and satisfied of reord# anddelaring that plaintiff and all persons laiming !$# through and under it !e fore(er !arredfrom all laims to an estate or interest in the su!%et premises# and granting defendanteutshe 7an summar$ %udgment dismissing the omplaint as against it and anellingthe notie of penden$ filed !$ plaintiff is denied.
http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Wells-Fargo-v-Erobobo_Assignment-is-VOID_4-13.pdfhttp://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_50101.htmhttp://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_52186.htmhttp://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/pdfs/2012/2012_32592.pdfhttp://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/pdfs/2012/2012_32590.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Wells-Fargo-v-Erobobo_Assignment-is-VOID_4-13.pdfhttp://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_50101.htmhttp://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_52186.htmhttp://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/pdfs/2012/2012_32592.pdfhttp://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/pdfs/2012/2012_32590.pdf


10/28

U%S% ank % ellarmo3StandingH Sup.Ct.534/125

D=n a mortgage forelosure ation# a plaintiff has standing here it is !oth the holder orassignee of the su!%et mortgage and the holder or assignee of the underl$ing note at thetime the ation is ommenedD 39an> of ;.:. v +ilverberg# 6 A


11/28

ank of 'e6 ;ork % SilerergD36/115 This matter in(ol(es the enforement of therules that go(ern real propert$ and hether suh rules should !e !ent to aommodate as$stem that has taen on a life of its on. The issue presented on this appeal is hether apart$ has standing to ommene a forelosure ation hen that part$s assignor"in thisase# Mortgage +lectronic *egistration S$stems# =n. 3hereinafter M+*S5"as listed

in the underl$ing mortgage instruments as a nominee and mortgagee for the purpose ofreording# !ut asne(er the atual holder or assignee of the underl$ing notes. We anser this *uestion inthe negati(e.

Aordingl$# the Supreme Court should ha(e granted the defendants motionpursuant to CFL> U NAG# )GG>AL F>ACT=CG A F>@CGI>G:C=E=L 2d 1841 31;;05 3DW>=JTD5.

#"+ % U%S% ankE+7punge Mortgage and #ssignmentD31/115

#merican rokers Conduit % G#M#""O# Mudge SCACN 11Sep200K

+MC Mortgage % ink 31/0K5M+*S, 6hich is not itself the o6ner and holder of the note andmortgage, does not hae the authorit$ to assign the o6nership of the note and mortgage to plaintiff%

0udgment of foreclosure and sale is denied

Countr$6ide -ome "oans, (nc% &a$lor 'a$er# M.# Supreme Court# Suffol Count$ /Sept. 200K

# merican rokers Conduit % G#M#""O# Mudge SCACN 2Man200

Aurora Loan Services v. MACPHERSON - Judge FARNETI

11Mar2008

Bank of New York v. SINGH - Judge KURTZ 14Dec2007

ank of 'e6 ;ork % &O**+S Mudge C@STGLL@ 11'ar200
http://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/BONY-v-silverberg-MERS-no-standing.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Deutsche-v-Francis-dismissed-with-prejudice.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/extrinsic-fraud-Johnston-v-HSBC.pdfhttp://c/Program%20Files/Yahoo%20SiteBuilder/lib/sites/default/MSFraud/Mortgage%20Fraud/LAW/Lounge/extrinsic-fraud-Johnston-v-HSBC.pdfhttp://c/Program%20Files/Yahoo%20SiteBuilder/lib/sites/default/MSFraud/Mortgage%20Fraud/LAW/Lounge/extrinsic-fraud-Johnston-v-HSBC.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/ALE-v-US-BANK.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Standing/New%20York/AmericanBrokersConduitvZAMALLOAJudgeSCHACK11Sep2007.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Standing/New%20York/AmericanBrokersConduitvZAMALLOAJudgeSCHACK11Sep2007.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Standing/New%20York/AmericanBrokersConduitvZAMALLOAJudgeSCHACK11Sep2007.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/EMC-v-WINK-2007-no-standing.pdfhttp://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2007/2007_27383.htmhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Standing/AmericanBrokersConduitvZAMALLOAJudgeSCHACK28Jan2008.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Standing/AmericanBrokersConduitvZAMALLOAJudgeSCHACK28Jan2008.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Standing/AmericanBrokersConduitvZAMALLOAJudgeSCHACK28Jan2008.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Standing/New%20York/AuroraLoanServicesvMACPHERSONJudgeFARNETI11Mar2008.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Standing/New%20York/AuroraLoanServicesvMACPHERSONJudgeFARNETI11Mar2008.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Standing/New%20York/AuroraLoanServicesvMACPHERSONJudgeFARNETI11Mar2008.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Standing/New%20York/BankofNYNAvSINGHJudgeKURTZ14Dec2007.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Standing/New%20York/BankofNYNAvSINGHJudgeKURTZ14Dec2007.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Standing/New%20York/BankofNYNAvSINGHJudgeKURTZ14Dec2007.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Standing/New%20York/BankofNYNAvTORRESJudgeCOSTELLO11Mar2008.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Standing/New%20York/BankofNYNAvTORRESJudgeCOSTELLO11Mar2008.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Standing/New%20York/BankofNYNAvTORRESJudgeCOSTELLO11Mar2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/BONY-v-silverberg-MERS-no-standing.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Deutsche-v-Francis-dismissed-with-prejudice.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/extrinsic-fraud-Johnston-v-HSBC.pdfhttp://c/Program%20Files/Yahoo%20SiteBuilder/lib/sites/default/MSFraud/Mortgage%20Fraud/LAW/Lounge/extrinsic-fraud-Johnston-v-HSBC.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/ALE-v-US-BANK.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Standing/New%20York/AmericanBrokersConduitvZAMALLOAJudgeSCHACK11Sep2007.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/EMC-v-WINK-2007-no-standing.pdfhttp://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2007/2007_27383.htmhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Standing/AmericanBrokersConduitvZAMALLOAJudgeSCHACK28Jan2008.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Standing/AmericanBrokersConduitvZAMALLOAJudgeSCHACK28Jan2008.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Standing/New%20York/AuroraLoanServicesvMACPHERSONJudgeFARNETI11Mar2008.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Standing/New%20York/AuroraLoanServicesvMACPHERSONJudgeFARNETI11Mar2008.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Standing/New%20York/BankofNYNAvSINGHJudgeKURTZ14Dec2007.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Standing/New%20York/BankofNYNAvTORRESJudgeCOSTELLO11Mar2008.pdf


12/28

ank of 'e6 ;ork % O*OSCO Mudge SCACN 1;o(200K

CitiMortgage (nc% % *O' Mudge )A>GT= 1TV 21'a$200

eutsche ank % ;oanna C*UG Mudge NI>TV 21'a$200

eutsche ank % C##*O; Mudge C@STGLL@ 02Apr200

he ank % C#S&+""#'OS / 200KHSlip@p80;KI/ Mudge SCACN 11'a$200K

-+ ank % C#S&+""#'OS/ 200HSlip@p800TV 16Man200

eutsche % Marche @rder to Sho Cause to EACATG Mudgment of )orelosure 11Mune200;

)M#C Mortgage ""C % M#&&-+S Mudge NI>TV 10Man200

)M#C Mortgage ""C % S+*#F('+ Mudge C@STGLL@ 0Man200

-SC ank US# '# % C(!*(#'( Mudge C@STGLL@ 0Man200

-SC ank US# '# % 0#C< Mudge C@STGLL@ 02Apr200

(nd$Mac ank FS % *O'+;*OSS Mudge NI>TV 18Man200

"aSalle ank '# % C-#*"+US Mudge NI>TV 0


13/28

U%S% ank % +mmanuel 3Mudge Sha 'a$ 20105 ismissed ith pre%udie.+forelosure of a mortgage ma$ not !e !rought !$ one ho has no title to it and a!senttransfer of the de!t# the assignment of the mortgage is a nullit$D.

U%S% ank '# % )*#'& Mudge NI>TV 14e200K

U%S% ank '# % *OU'&*++ Mudge 7I>NG 11@t200K

U%S% ank '# % 9(""#*U+" Mudge NI>TV 01)e!200

ells Fargo ank '# % -#M!&O' 0udge NI>TV 0GMI=CG Mudge Sha Mune200

Flaintiff has reneed its appliation for an order of referene for the su!%et premises# !utthe papers su!mitted fail to ure the defets enumerated in m$ prior deision and order. Thepurported plaintiff# WGLLS )A>J@# does not on the instant mortgage loan. Therefore# theinstant matter is dismissed ith pre%udie.

&6o inalid assignmentsof the instant mortgage and note too plae# ith A>JGT assigning the noteand mortgage to A'G>=OIGST# and then A'G>=OIGST assigning the note and mortgage to plaintiffWGLLS )A>J@. 7oth of these assignments ere not reorded for more than fourteen months# until

)e!ruar$ 21# 2006# hen the$ ere !oth reorded at that same time.ells Fargo % *e$es W=T F>GMI=CG# )raud on Court U Santions Mudge Sha Mune200 'o

defendant ans6ered in this foreclosure action%

WGLLS )A>J@ 7AN# AT=@AL ASS@C=AT=@ AS T>ISTGG A CIST@=A )@>'@>JA STALGH A7S CAF=TAL1 =C.# 'SAC 200KG4# las standing and has ne(er !een themortgagee in this forelosure ation# the instant omplaint# =nde& o. 8816/0# is dismissed ith pre%udieand it is further @>G>G# that the otie of Fenden$ filed ith the Nings Count$ Cler on )e!ruar$21# 200# !$ purported plaintiff# WGLLS )A>J@ 7AN# AT=@AL ASS@C=AT=@ AS T>ISTGGA CIST@=A )@> '@>JA STALGH A7S CAF=TAL1 =C.# 'SAC 200KG4# in an ationto forelose a mortgage for real propert$ loated at GCL@SI>G )=LG 7H +U&SC-+#' )A=LI>G T@ F>@E=G =SC@EG>H AS T@ @WG> A @LG>@) @TG# SGCI>=T=VG T>IST @CI'GTS# A @TG> @CI'GTSG'AG 7H 7@>>@WG>S

S7C 7an ISA ( 'iller.mhtS7C 7an ISA ( 'iller 200; H Slip @p 2;444 / eidedon @to!er 2;# 200; / 'eddaugh# M.

"asalle ank % Smith, M+*SE0udge Schack March 22, 2H1H

ells Fargo ank, #mericas Sericing Compan$, M+*S -unteE0udgeSchack, #pr%14, 2H1H/ ismissed 6ith preudice, possile sanctions% 3The ourtDdiso(ered that WGLLS )A>J@ e&euted a satisfation of the instant mortgage more than ten monthsago.D DThe Court is gra(el$ onerned that: it e&pended sare resoures on an ation that should ha(e !een
http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/U.S.Bank-v-Emmanuel-dismiss-w-prejudice.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Standing/New%20York/USBankNAvGRANTJudgeKURTZ14Dec2007.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Standing/New%20York/USBankNAvGRANTJudgeKURTZ14Dec2007.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Standing/New%20York/USBankNAvGRANTJudgeKURTZ14Dec2007.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Standing/New%20York/USBankNAvROUNDTREEJudgeBURKE11Oct2007.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Standing/New%20York/USBankNAvROUNDTREEJudgeBURKE11Oct2007.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Standing/New%20York/USBankNAvROUNDTREEJudgeBURKE11Oct2007.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Standing/New%20York/USBankNAvVILLARUELJudgeKURTZ01Feb2008.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Standing/New%20York/USBankNAvVILLARUELJudgeKURTZ01Feb2008.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Standing/New%20York/USBankNAvVILLARUELJudgeKURTZ01Feb2008.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Standing/New%20York/WellsFargoBankNAvHAMPTONJudgeKURTZ03Jan2008.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Standing/New%20York/WellsFargoBankNAvHAMPTONJudgeKURTZ03Jan2008.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Standing/New%20York/WellsFargoBankNAvHAMPTONJudgeKURTZ03Jan2008.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/wellsfargo_litton-wprejudice.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/wellsfargo_litton-wprejudice.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/wellsfargo_litton-wprejudice.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/WellsFargo_REYES.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/WellsFargo_REYES.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/WellsFargo_REYES.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Deutsche%20Bank%20v.%20Peabody.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Deutsche%20Bank%20v.%20Peabody.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Deutsche%20Bank%20v.%20Peabody.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/IndymacBankvBoyd.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/IndyMacBankvBethley.pdfhttp://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_52333.htmhttp://www.courts.state.ny.us/REPORTER/3dseries/2009/2009_01388.htmhttp://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/?p=144http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/?p=144http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/?p=144http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/?p=144http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/?p=144http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/?p=144http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/?p=144http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/HSBC%20Bank%20USA%20v%20Miller.mhthttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/HSBC%20Bank%20USA%20v%20Miller.mhthttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/HSBC%20Bank%20USA%20v%20Miller.mhthttp://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_50470.htmhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Wells-Hunte-DismissedWprejudice-sanctions.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/U.S.Bank-v-Emmanuel-dismiss-w-prejudice.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Standing/New%20York/USBankNAvGRANTJudgeKURTZ14Dec2007.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Standing/New%20York/USBankNAvROUNDTREEJudgeBURKE11Oct2007.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Standing/New%20York/USBankNAvVILLARUELJudgeKURTZ01Feb2008.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Standing/New%20York/WellsFargoBankNAvHAMPTONJudgeKURTZ03Jan2008.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/wellsfargo_litton-wprejudice.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/WellsFargo_REYES.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Deutsche%20Bank%20v.%20Peabody.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/IndymacBankvBoyd.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/IndyMacBankvBethley.pdfhttp://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_52333.htmhttp://www.courts.state.ny.us/REPORTER/3dseries/2009/2009_01388.htmhttp://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/?p=144http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/?p=144http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/?p=144http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/?p=144http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/?p=144http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/HSBC%20Bank%20USA%20v%20Miller.mhthttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/HSBC%20Bank%20USA%20v%20Miller.mhthttp://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_50470.htmhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Wells-Hunte-DismissedWprejudice-sanctions.pdf


14/28

disontinued.D +the Court# in its disretion ma$ impose finanial santions upon an$ part$ or attorne$ in ai(il ation or proeeding ho engages in fri(olous ondut.D5

Chase % 0ohnson3Mudge Sha 'a$ 4# 20105 3acated udgment of foreclosure and sale 6ithpreudice as plaintiff lacked standing%

Oneest ank % Cullen 3Mudge Va 'arh 0udge Schack !laintiffLs counsel neer notified the Court that the mortgage had een satisfied

and failed to discontinue the instant action 6ith preudice% ( discoered that the mortgage had een

satisfied $ personall$ searching the #utomated Cit$ *egister (nformation S$stem E#C*(S 6esite

of the Office of the Cit$ *egister, 'e6 ;ork Cit$ epartment of Finance% I/classJKapplest$lespanK

#-MS(Ls!resident and Chief +7ecutie Officer or its +7ecutie 9ice !resident, Chief "egal Officer

and Secretar$ 0ordan % orchuck, +s=%, its counsel, Melissa #% Sposato, +s=% and her firm, 0ordan

S% S the authorit$ to assign the mortgage or the note.

ells Fargo ank, '%#% -ughes31/105The terms of the proposed modification agreement#partiularl$ !ut not e&lusi(el$ the inlusion of an ad%usta!le rate omponent# are unaepta!le to thisourt. DThe a!o(e matter is here!$ dismissed 6ithout preudice and it is further ordered# that in the e(entWells )argo ommenes a ne ation in forelosure ith respet to this !orroer and the premises at issueherein# no additional osts or attorne$ fees ill !e alloed# a!sent good ause shon.

BACKFIRE! +migrant Mtge% Co% (nc% Corcione8 3K/105Dunconscionale, unreasonale andNoerreachingK mortgage agreement% )or all of the foregoing reasons# it is# thereforeordered# ad%udged and dereed that plaintiffs appliation for summar$ %udgment andappointment of a referee is denied and it is further ordered# ad%udged and dereed thatplaintiff# its suessors# assigns and others areXlassYDapplest$lespanD st$leYolor:rg!30# 0# 05 te&ttransform: none lineheight: normal te&tindent: 0p& letterspaing:normal fontfamil$: DTimes e >omanD# Times# serif fontst$le: normal font(ariant:

normal ordspaing: 0p& hitespae: normal !orderollapse: separate orphans: 2idos: 2 e!it!orderhoriontalspaing: 2p& e!it!order(ertialspaing:2p& e!itte&tdeorationsineffet: none e!itte&tsiead%ust: auto e!itte&tstroeidth: 0p& fore(er !arred# forelosed and prohi!ited from demanding#olleting or attempting to ollet# diretl$ or indiretl$# an$ and all of the sums in thisproeeding delineated as interest# default interest# attorne$s fees# legal fees# osts#dis!ursements# ad(anes or an$ sums other than the prinipal !alane# that ma$ ha(earued from 'a$ 1# 200 up to the date of this order and it is further ordered# ad%udged
http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Chase-Johnson-Vacate-wprejudice.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/onewest%20bank%20v%20cullen-standing.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Argent-v-Maitland-dismiss-satisfied-sanctions-8-2010.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/MERS-USBankvmunoz-ordertoshowcause2010.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/LPP-v.Sabine.pdfhttp://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_20081.htmhttp://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_20081.htmhttp://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_20133.htmhttp://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_20133.htmhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Chase-Johnson-Vacate-wprejudice.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/onewest%20bank%20v%20cullen-standing.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Argent-v-Maitland-dismiss-satisfied-sanctions-8-2010.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/MERS-USBankvmunoz-ordertoshowcause2010.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/LPP-v.Sabine.pdfhttp://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_20081.htmhttp://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_20081.htmhttp://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_20133.htm


15/28

and dereed that defendants reo(er %udgment against plaintiff Gmigrant 'ortgage Co.=n.# in the prinipal sum of Z100.000.00 as damages for hat he said as anDunconscionale, unreasonale andN oerreachingK mortgage agreement.X/lassYDapplest$lespanD

eneficial % SteeleRRR 3Mudge Spinner53Man K/115 An ation laiming forelosure of a mortgage is a

suit in e*uit$# Mamaia Sa(ings 7an (. '.S. =n(estment Co. 2K4 H 218 31;


16/28

)or a!out to deades# the mortgage industr$?s forelosure sams ha(e destro$ed li(es#stripped ealth turned ount$ land and ourt reords into rime senes# and deimated parts of@hio. @hio ourts ha(e sur(e$ed the damage# and appear to !e leaning up the massi(e fraudsupon its onora!le Courts. 'an$ homeoners and la$ers are going !a in to ourt andfiling 'otions To Eaate to ha(e their former forelosure ase dismissed. ere are the results

of some of those ases:

eutsche ank Sla$ton8 Sla$ton>s Motion to 9acatethat 6as filed on the same da$ the

Ohio Supreme Court released its Sch6art@6ald decision%

Wells Fargo v. Borros

+@ne a ourt has determined that a default on an o!ligation seured !$ a mortgage hasourred# it 'IST then onsider the e*uities of the situation in order to deide if forelosure isappropriate., Wells )argo as re*uired to demonstrate that it had standing to in(oe the%urisdition at the time the omplaint as filed# and it failed to do so in the omplaint and thedouments attahed thereto.

Freddie a" v. Ru#oTo the e&tent this ourt?s prior holdings in Cart# supra Heager# supra7ehrens# supra and Shaffer# supra# are inonsistent ith the Supreme Court?s holding inShartald that standing is %urisditional# e o(errule our holdings.@pinion also ites Fratts: DWhen the trial ourt las su!%et matter %urisdition# its final%udgment is E@=.D

$ationstar v. %an CottAlthough not a part$ to the contract# ationstar filed a forelosureomplaint against Appellants.

Ban& o# Ameri"a v. Kut"'ta=T WAS A A7ISG @) =SC>GT=@ )@> TG T>=ALC@I>T T@ GH AFFGLLATS? 60375 '@T=@ T@ EACATG W=T@IT @L=J AGA>=J.We re(erse and remand the ase so that the trial ourt ma$ appl$ )ed. ome Loan 'tge. Corp.

(. Shartald

(S Ban& v. ")inn 3>e(ersed@hio531/1


17/28

filing suit. The sole assignment of error is elltaen.@n onsideration hereof# the ourt finds that su!stantial %ustie has not !een done theparties omplaining and the %udgment of the Grie Count$ Court of Common Fleas is

re(ersed.

7an of e Hor 'ellon (. Shaffer3@hio K/1. 60375 in order to !e entitled to an order (aating the %udgment.

7AC ome Loan Ser(iing (. 'app3@hio K/1


18/28

an ation in forelosure at the time it filed its omplaint. Thus# this Court issued an orderre*uiring G'C to respond and demonstrate its standing. +MC failed to do so%

As G'C has not esta!lished it had standing to !ring this ation at the time it filed itsomplaint in forelosure# the %udgment against 'r. Atinson annot stand. =n light of theforegoing# e an onl$ onlude that 'r. Atinson is entitled to ha(e the agreed

%udgment entr$ of forelosure (aated.

Self -elp 9entures Fund % 0ones3>GEG>SG53@hio# . 1K3angel5 to ure its la of standing !$ o!taining an interest in thesu!%et of the litigation after the ation is filed and su!stituting itself as the real part$ ofinterest.

eutshe (. 7arnes3@hio AJ 'otion to ismiss and 'emorandum5 3200K5

ank of #merica % Murra$3e(ersed and this ause is >emanded forfurther proeedings.

eutsche ank % -oldeneutshe(olden.pdfMotion to ismissRRRAs thetruths !ehind these forelosure rimes !eomes non# la$ers an !etter argue theserongful forelosure ases. This is one of the !est 'otion to ismiss !riefs e ha(eread.=n 2HHH# the oldens lost their home to 7aners Trust despite maing all pa$ments. 7athen# the oldens did not no hat as going on. A fe $ears later# the oldens!ought another home and no eutshe 7an 3formerl$ 7aners Trust5 is oming !ato steal this one too. 7 doesnt on this home# %ust lie 7aners didnt on the oldensfirst home.

C+'&*#" MO*&)#)+ COM!#'; % +"(#3Mune 201153*+9+*S+%The Courtfound that the onlusor$ a(erment ithin the plaintiffs affida(it that all onditionspreedent had !een satisfied as insuffiient to pro(e ompliane ith Setion 22 of themortgage. oes that sound familiar9 See ne&t ase...

C(&(MO*&)#)+ % +"(#3'a$ 201153*+9+*S+5efendantAppellants# Viad ).Glia and olle$ G. Glia 3+the Glias,5# appeal from the %udgment of the Summit Count$

Court of Common Fleas# granting summar$ %udgment in fa(or of FlaintiffAppellee#Citi'ortgage# =n. 3+Citi'ortgage,5. This Court re(erses.

ank of #merica % Miller3>GEG>SG# la of standing53


19/28

proper affida(it to support its laims. Aordingl$# the %udgment of the trial ourt is >e(ersed and thisause is >emanded for further proeedings.

eutsche ank % &ripplet32/1153Fro Se5 eutshe 7an?s affida(it of onership#sorn out more than a $ear after the forelosure omplaint as filed# is insuffiient to(est the !an ith standing to file and maintain the ation.

C(&(MO*&)#)+ % SlackE2/11 &he trial court found that C(&( had failed tosho6 that the urisdiction of the court had een properl$ inoked and that an$

udgment, including udgment on counterclaim, 6ould e a nullit$% CO# reersed,

holding lo6er court had urisdiction oer homeo6ner>s counterclaim%

U%S% ank % et6eilerEreersed ? remandedE12/1H

U%S% ank % uallEdismissal affirmedE12/1HAccor"in#%'( we conc%u"e t$at)%aintiff $a" no stan"in# to fi%e a forec%osure action a#ainst "efen"ants onOcto*er +,( -/( *ecause( at t$at tie( 0e%%s !ar#o owne" t$e ort#a#e.

P%aintiff fai%e" in its *ur"en of "eonstratin# t$at it was t$e rea% )art' ininterest at t$e tie t$e co)%aint was fi%e".


20/28

0$ittiker(P"AINTIFF! O#JE$TION TO REPORT AND RE$OMMENDATION%

0$ittiker3DEFENDANT &E"TMAN' &EIN#ER ) REI $O*' "PA! REPONE TO

P"AINTIFF! O#JE$TION TO REPORT AND RE$OMMENDATION%

0$ittiker(REPONE TO P"AINTIFF! O#JE$TION TO MAITRATE JUDE

PEARON! REPORT AND RE$OMMENDATIONTO RANT IT MOTION

TO DIMI%

Novastar v. Sn'"er&(lack of standing)

Sn'"er(motion to amend w/prejudice)

Sn'"er (response to amend)

0e%%s !ar#o v. B'r"D3DFutting the Cart !efore the ouseD5@hio 2003>e(ersed5#Mudge

0as$in#ton Mutua% v. Cit' of C%eve%an"(WAMU's motion to

dismiss)

-23O$io3++//4 1L5 Mt#e. Ca)ita%( Inc. v. Parsons(SJReersed

for lack of standing%

Mainsource Bank v. 0inafe%"(Oc+* 2,'2007%

Mainsource Bank v. 0inafe%"(e+* 2' 2008%The reord in this matter esta!lishesthe assignment of the underl$ing mortgage in this ase as not filed until after this forelosure ation asfiled. 3T. at 2


21/28

3 Man%e' Answer 0$ittiker

1eutsc$e Bank Ju6+ce Ar+=ur M* c=ac

5u"#e Ho%sc$u$3 S$ow cause

5u"#e Ho%sc$u$3 1isissa% of +, cases (Flaintiffs and Counsel are here!$

ad(ised that# if these ases are refiled# Flaintiffs must esta!lish their standing# andCounsel must ompl$ ith the @rder?s re*uirements. )ailure to do so a seond time ma$result in a dismissal ith pre%udie.5

5u"#e Bo'ko9s 1eutsc$e Bank !orec%osures

1ISMISSE1

Motion to 1isiss

!ina% Or"er to 1isiss

Rose Co)%aint for !orec%osure

Rose 1isissa%s

O9Ma%%e' 1isissa%s

Cit' Of C%eve%an" v. Banks

1ow" 1isissa%

Bank9s Res)onse to Or"er

Gau#$an 3 Aeri:uest

EMC can9t fin" t$e note

Ocwen can9t fin" t$e note

;S Bank can9t fin" t$e Note;S Bank 3 No Note


22/28

Chase % anker 3Chase


23/28

!atterson % )M#C31/125J'AC 'ortgage laed authorit$ to forelose the mortgagehen it initiated the forelosure proeedings# and# therefore# the forelosure and theforelosure deed upon hih J'AC !ased it e%etment laim are in(alid. 'oreo(er#under our holding in Sturdi(ant# !eause J'AC 'ortgage did not on an$ interest inthe house# it laed standing to !ring its e%etment ation against the Fattersons. 7eause

J'AC 'ortgage laed standing to !ring the e%etment ation# the trial ourt ne(era*uired su!%etmatter %urisdition o(er the e%etment ation. Aordingl$# the %udgmentof the trial ourt is (oid and is here!$ (aated. 'oreo(er# !eause a (oid %udgment illnot support an appeal# e dismiss this appeal.

#ri@ona8 )M#C % eisand3


24/28

Mcodrigue. What 'r. 7e(ila*ua has is a *uitlaim deed from IS 7an# .A.#hih onduted an in(alid forelosure sale on the propert$ 3it as not the holder of the mortgage at the
http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/McKinney-v-Taylor-Bean.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/KansasSupremeCourtKnocksOutMERS.htmlhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/deutsche-bank-v-Augustine-sj-reversed.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/mers-loses-in-maine-sup-ct.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Thomas-v-Citimortgage-Allied-Flagstar-MERS.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Standing/Robin_Hayes_v._Deutsche_Bank.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/IBANEZ-Decision-Case-File-Compendium.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/LAW/Lounge/MotiontoVacateDenied_Ibanez_Larace_MassOct2009.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Ibanez-oppositiontovacate.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Ibanez-oppositiontovacate.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Wells_Fargo_Reply_Brief_LaRace.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Wells_Fargo_Reply_Brief_LaRace.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/U_S__Bank_Reply_Brief_Ibanez.pdfhttp://masscases.com/cases/land/2010/2010-10-427157-MEMO.htmlhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/McKinney-v-Taylor-Bean.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/KansasSupremeCourtKnocksOutMERS.htmlhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/deutsche-bank-v-Augustine-sj-reversed.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/mers-loses-in-maine-sup-ct.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Thomas-v-Citimortgage-Allied-Flagstar-MERS.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Standing/Robin_Hayes_v._Deutsche_Bank.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/IBANEZ-Decision-Case-File-Compendium.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/LAW/Lounge/MotiontoVacateDenied_Ibanez_Larace_MassOct2009.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Ibanez-oppositiontovacate.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Ibanez-oppositiontovacate.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Wells_Fargo_Reply_Brief_LaRace.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/U_S__Bank_Reply_Brief_Ibanez.pdfhttp://masscases.com/cases/land/2010/2010-10-427157-MEMO.html


25/28

time the sale as notied and onduted as re*uired !$ J.L. . 244# 145Bote 1and thus a*uirednothing from that sale. See IS 7an (. =!ane# 1K LC> 202 3'ar. 26# 200;5 U 1K LC> 6K; 3@t. 14# 200;5and ases ited therein. IS 7an therefore had nothing to on(e$# and its purported on(e$ane to 'r.7e(ila*ua as a nullit$. See 7ongaards (. 'illen# 440 'ass. 10# 18 3200


26/28

to a(oid the legal responsi!ilities of a lender# 'G>S ne(ertheless laims in the instant ase that it anemplo$ the rights of a lender !$ forelosing in a manner that the statute affords onl$ to those mortgageesho also on an interest in the loan. 7ut as the e!rasa ourt stated in adopting 'G>S argument#D'G>S has no independent right to ollet on an$ de!t !eause 'G>S itself has not e&tended an$ redit#and none of the mortgage de!tors oe 'G>S an$ mone$.D

'G>S did not on the inde!tedness# on an interest in the inde!tedness seured !$ the mortgage# or

ser(ie the mortgage. 'G>S ina!ilit$ to ompl$ ith the statutor$ re*uirements rendered the forelosureproeedings in !oth ases oid a initio. Thus# the iruit ourts improperl$ affirmed the distrit ourtsdeisions to proeed ith e(ition !ased upon the forelosures of defendants properties.

endris(IS7anforelosuresale(oid.pdf+endri"&s v. (.S. Ban& ,FC sale %-I/ ,0122/3'e Court de"lares t'at t'e #ore"losure sale t'at o""urred on February 224 5626 "on"erning 7lainti##s8

real property is void ab initio pursuant to CR 5.220 ,C/,9/4 as e#endant4 (.S. Ban&4 $.A. as not

entitled to #ore"lose on 7lainti##s8 property.

avenport v. +SBC200) &n this case# defendant did not o?n the mortgage or an interest in the

mortgage on 4ctober 2)# 200*. ;onetheless# defendant proceeded to commence foreclosure proceedings at

that time. Buite simply# defendant did not yet o?n the indebtedness that it sought to foreclose. 6he circuit

court erred by determining that defendantCs noncompliance ?ith the statutory requirements did not nullify

the foreclosure proceedings. 9ecause defendant lac>ed the statutory authority to foreclose# the foreclosure

proceedings ?ere void ab initio.

Missouri8+""(S&*( % OC+'E2HH 3@en laed a legall$ ognia!le interest in thepropert$# and therefore# it has no standing to see relief.5

+""(S&*( % OC+'Appeal E4/2H1H Appeal 34/20105 3Separation of ote U'ortgage53'issouri Court of Appeals5

K(n the eent that the note and the deed of trust are split, the note, as a practical

matter ecomes unsecured% &he practical effect of splitting the deed of trust from

the promissor$ note is to make it impossile for the holder of the note to foreclose,

unless the holder of the deed of trust is the agent of the holder of the note% (d%

ithout the agenc$ relationship, the person holding onl$ the note lacks the po6er to

foreclose in the eent of default% &he person holding onl$ the deed of trust 6ill neere7perience default ecause onl$ the holder of the note is entitled to pa$ment of the

underl$ing oligation% (d% &he mortgage loan ecame ineffectual 6hen the note

holder did not also hold the deed of trust%KId. Bellistri

Second Motion to ismiss and 0udgment (n the +state of -astings310/115Mudge 'ar Stephens:The ourt finds that S7C 7an ISA# ational Assoiation# as Trustee for omura ome G*uit$ Loan#me Asset7aed Certifiates# Series 2008G1 is not a DpersonD under the auspies of either setion.The$ are ertifiates# hih ha(e !u$ers and sellers# and ha(e no legal standing to sue.

= >G: M#*&; +U)+'+ O:320105 3Mudge )ederman5The e!tors do not oppose the motion# !ut theChapter K Trustee has hallenged 7AC?s standing to see relief from the sta$. )or the reasons that follo#the Court finds that 7AC has not pro(en that it is the holder of the ote. Therefore# it las standing# so itsmotion for relief from sta$ ill !e denied.

'eada8 M+*S crushed8 =n re 'ithell

M+*S Smackdo6n in 'eada: =n re ains

XalignYDleftD'e6 0erse$8O'; % +lghossain34/115 oes a mortgage lenders otie of =ntentto )orelose satisf$ the statutor$ mandates that notie !e pro(ided !$ the lender and that the lender as ellas the lenders representati(e !e identified in that notie. The lender and the lender?s representation must !eidentified in the notie. a(ing not done so here# the motion is defiient. The forelosure omplaint isdismissed ithout pre%udie does a mortgage lenders Dser(iersD otie of =ntent to )orelose satisf$ thestatutor$ mandates that notie !e pro(ided !$ the lender and that the lender as ell as the lenders
http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Hendricks-v-U-S-Bank-foreclosure-sale-void.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Hendricks-v-U-S-Bank-foreclosure-sale-void.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Hendricks-v-U-S-Bank-foreclosure-sale-void.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Hendricks-v-U-S-Bank-foreclosure-sale-void.pdfhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14387395668161221683&q=Mitan+federal+home+loan+mortgage&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://c/Program%20Files/Yahoo%20SiteBuilder/lib/sites/default/MSFraud/Mortgage%20Fraud/LAW/Lounge/bellistrivocwen.pdfhttp://c/Program%20Files/Yahoo%20SiteBuilder/lib/sites/default/MSFraud/Mortgage%20Fraud/LAW/Lounge/bellistrivocwen.pdfhttp://c/Program%20Files/Yahoo%20SiteBuilder/lib/sites/default/MSFraud/Mortgage%20Fraud/LAW/Lounge/bellistivOcwen-Bifurcation-unsecuredcomments.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/roberson-second-motion-to-dismiss-dismissal.pdfhttp://www.mow.uscourts.gov/bankruptcy/opinions/federman/box_order.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/MERSDestroyed.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/MERSDestroyed.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/MERSDestroyed.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/LAW/Lounge/MERS_Hawkins-DistCtAffirmsBK.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/BONY-v-Elghossain-must-name-lender.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/BONY-v-Elghossain-must-name-lender.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Hendricks-v-U-S-Bank-foreclosure-sale-void.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/Hendricks-v-U-S-Bank-foreclosure-sale-void.pdfhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14387395668161221683&q=Mitan+federal+home+loan+mortgage&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://c/Program%20Files/Yahoo%20SiteBuilder/lib/sites/default/MSFraud/Mortgage%20Fraud/LAW/Lounge/bellistrivocwen.pdfhttp://c/Program%20Files/Yahoo%20SiteBuilder/lib/sites/default/MSFraud/Mortgage%20Fraud/LAW/Lounge/bellistivOcwen-Bifurcation-unsecuredcomments.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/roberson-second-motion-to-dismiss-dismissal.pdfhttp://www.mow.uscourts.gov/bankruptcy/opinions/federman/box_order.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/MERSDestroyed.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/MERSDestroyed.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/LAW/Lounge/MERS_Hawkins-DistCtAffirmsBK.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/BONY-v-Elghossain-must-name-lender.pdf


27/28

representati(e !e identified in that notie. The lender and the lender?s representation must !e identified inthe notie. a(ing not done so here# the motion is defiient. The forelosure omplaint is dismissed ithout

pre%udie. XalignYDleftD X/alignYDleftDX/alignYDleftD

ank of 'e6 ;ork % *aftogianisE2H1H (n this case, there are no compelling

reasons to permit plaintiff to proceed in this action% #ccordingl$, the complaint has

een dismissed%ells Fargo % FordEreersedlack of standingE1/11 ellreasoned opinion detailing 6h$ Fdid not hae standing% K&he documents that ells Fargo relied upon in support of its motion for

summar$ udgment to estalish its status as a holder 6ere not properl$ authenticatedK%

'orth Carolina8(' &-+ M#&&+* OF &-+ FO*+C"OSU*+ in #dam3


28/28

person is tr$ing to esta!lish it is a nonholder in possession ho has the rights of a holderit must !ear the !urden of esta!lishing its status as a nonholder in possession ith therights of a holder. Appellee must esta!lish deli(er$ of the note as ell as the purpose ofthat deli(er$.

!enns$lania8 eneficial Mortgage % 9ukmam31/125-omeo6ner>s +mergenc$

Mortgage #ct. DWhen a mortgagee pro(ides to a mortgagor a defiient At ;1 notie andthen files a mortgage forelosure ation# the ourt las su!%et matter %urisdition toentertain the ation.D

Dthe ourt properl$ set aside the sheriffs sale# (aated the %udgment# and dismissedAppellants omplaint ithout pre%udie. Aordingl$# e affirm the ourts order.D

&e7as8 M+*S % ;oung/ 2nd Circuit Court of #ppeals

'or6ood % Chase ank, Chase -ome FinanceDD31/1153A>GW W. AIST=# I=TGSTATGS 'AJ=ST>ATG MIJG5 3*eport and *ecommendation of the United States Magistrate0udge to the United States Senior 0udge5 This De&ellent anal$sisD details the re*uirements of aforelosing part$ to pro(e standing to forelose in Te&as.

Jreen Tree (. Woods3/125 We hold that the Woods? laim of Jreen Tree?s la ofstanding ould not ha(e !een a !asis to support the trial ourt?s grant of noe(idenesummar$ %udgment. We sustain Jreen Tree?s first issue.

U-8 0U)+ O*+*S ('0U'C&(O' S&O!!(') #"" FO*+C"OSU*+ !*OC++(')S; #'< OF #M+*(C#A *+CO'&*US&A -OM+ "O#' S+*9(C(')A M+*S +& #"

9ermont8 M+*S % 0ohnson (SM(SS+ for lack of standing% &he CourtLs Order,

issued #ugust 2T, 2HH, granting plaintiffLs Motion for efault 0udgment against the

defendants Frank and +llen 0ohnston is 9#C#&+%

U%S% ank %

Documents

Case Dismissals for Lack of Standing to Foreclose by Msfraud.org