Repeated failures by Summit County (Ohio) “foreclosure court” judges are being embarrassingly revealed with another published opinion and smack-down coming out of Ohio’s 9th district appellate court. The sad truth; the latest appellate ruling unveils the many inadequacies, failures and improper decisions being reached in this bank-friendly (mentally-challenged?) lower civil court.
The most disturbing aspect of Summit County's repeated poor rulings: judges continue to fumble with the most basic principles of a foreclosure complaint (real party-in-interest, owner of note & mortgage and standing). This despite the fact they have a strict pre-filing requirement - which was instituted to make their decisions simple. Summit County {Akron/Canton} is one of only three Ohio counties (of 88) that REQUIRE what I call a “Truth Averment.” The county has in place the rare “Certificate of Readiness” requirement. This 4 year old policy (May 2008) was implemented for the express purpose of stopping 3rd party document creation {Fraud} companies from manufacturing evidence .Unfortunately the phony paper plaintiffs (alphabet soup-Trust, Trustees or Servicers) are created out of thin air
Fortunately, these DRONE attorneys ARE REQUIRED (by Certificate of Readiness) to state...
plaintiff has “in its custody and control the original note and mortgage, and said documents [a]re available for inspection upon order of the Court.”
Excerpts from the Appellate court show (embarrassingly) the inadequacies of our lower courts (and judges). It is also further proof of a legal environment where bad attorneys are openly practicing and arguing…..Out-right FRAUD…. and feel comfortable ….doing it!
{¶13} Here, Bank of New York alleged that it was the “holder” of the note. The purported photocopy attached to its complaint shows the note payable to Bank of New York through the last {
{¶33} {Five months later}...the Bank’s {
NEW published decision out of OHIO 9th District Court of Appeals
Case: Bank Of New York (Bony) Trust v. Mihalca, 2012-Ohio-567 (right click & open New Tab)
Date: FEBRUARY 15th, 2012
Plaintiff: Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company National
Predator Drone Foreclosure Mill: Reisenfeld & Associates, LPA, LLC
Matthew Charles Gladwell, {pictured above} apparently felt he needn't prove that the phony document(s) submitted either existed or were ever held by the Bank of New York Trust.
OHIO's totally dysfunctional system is on full display here….the only positive…..our 9th appellate court judges continues to overturn the poorly decided lower courts (especially Summit County).
{¶3} On June 11, 2010, the Mihalcas filed an answer ....{and} demanded to inspect the original note
{¶7} In their first assignment of error, the Mihalcas argue that the Bank [of New York] failed to prove its present possession of the note, which precluded summary judgment in favor of the Bank. We [9th appellate court] agree.
{¶3} On June 11, 2010, the Mihalcas filed an answer ....{and} demanded to inspect the original note
{¶7} In their first assignment of error, the Mihalcas argue that the Bank [of New York] failed to prove its present possession of the note, which precluded summary judgment in favor of the Bank. We [9th appellate court] agree.
{¶14} .... [T]he Mihalcas questioned the Bank’s possession of the note beginning with their answer, wherein they made a timely request to inspect the original note..... The Bank had {not} produced the note as of the date on which the trial court ordered summary judgment, which was over five months after the Mihalcas’ initial request....
{¶33} November 9, 2010, in responding to the Mihalcas’ counsel for production of the note....the letter {from Bank of New York} only allows one to conclude that counsel for the Bank is going to ask {another} Bank for the {original} note and that counsel believes that {another} Bank has possession of the original note. The letter does not affirmatively state that the Bank has possession of it. The affidavit of the Mihalcas’ counsel avers that the parties again discussed production of the original note on September 27, 2010. At that time, the Bank’s {predator drone mill} counsel stated that “they were still ‘looking for’ the original note.” By November 9, 2010, the Bank {of New York Mellon} presented no evidence that it possessed or had ever possessed the original note. In addition, the Mihalcas noted that the Bank’s affidavit in support of its own summary judgment motion was improper evidence and as such, there was no proper summary judgment evidence {other than the fraudulent affidavit..and allonge..coming} from the Bank before the trial court ...
{¶35} I {judge P.J. Belfance} can only conclude that the Bank has failed to meet its burden, as there was no evidence before the trial court that the Bank at any point in time possessed the original note. The Mihalcas were {also by law} entitled to have summary judgment granted in their favor.
Hello DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL (all 28-members)…..PLEASE WAKE-UP !! Do not allow these “Bench Warmer” lawyers {Matthew C. Gladwell} and PREDATOR DRONE foreclosure mill firms {Reisenfeld & Associates, LPA, LLC } to operate openly in our courts and further demean the legal profession.
Let’s see some sanctions. Let’s see some Disbarments
Hello OHIO SUPREME COURT …the black robes are supposed to show your higher legal status and authority ….not show{and prove} your simply wearing ...“sleeping attire”
Hello OHIO SUPREME COURT …the black robes are supposed to show your higher legal status and authority ….not show{and prove} your simply wearing ...“sleeping attire”
We've seen identical bad decisions (from Summit county) before:
Our previous post: OHIO judges SHOOT down predator drone
Below findings: from Court of Appeals OHIO 9th District
Case: CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Elia, 2011-Ohio-2499 (right click & open in New Tab)
Date: May 25th, 2011Case: CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Elia, 2011-Ohio-2499 (right click & open in New Tab)
Plaintiff: CitiMortgage
Predator Drone Foreclosure Mill: ERIN M. LAURITO, Attorney for plaintiff {CitiMortgage}
No comments:
Post a Comment