U.S. Bank Reconsideration & Oral argument: DENIED
Court renders decision WITHOUT written opinion & leaves question(s) unanswered
SEPTEMBER 27nd, 2011:
U.S. BANK feigns interest with Motion to Reconsider
and creates additional "legal noise" & delays with a Request for Oral argument
SEPTEMBER 22nd, 2011:
Confusion Reigns: 12th District Court Certifies Conflict
After the Supreme Court declared Duvall "Moot," the three justices of the 12th appellate court were forced to recognize
Washington Mutual Bank F.A. v. Wallace, 12th Dist Appl Case CA2010-10-103, 2011-Ohio-4174,
was in conflict with existing Ohio case law. They asked Ohio's highest Court to certify the conflict and rephrased the question:
Can a bank that was NOT the mortgagee, when it filed a foreclosure suit, cure its LACK of STANDING, to bring the suit by subsequently obtaining an interest in the note and mortgage?
NEW: Update 10-6-11:
Attorney Andrew Engel files a “Notice of Conflict” with Supreme Court on behalf of Wallace NEW: UPDATE 12-21-11:
Supreme Court determines Conflict exsists in above cases and Certifies Conflictcause will be held for decision in Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v Schwartzwald 2011-Ohio-1201
SEPTEMBER 21st, 2011:
BREAKING NEWS: CASE DISMISSED as MOOT
AUGUST 15th, 2011:
Ohio FRAUDclosure (Blog): Submits Amicus Curiae Brief
MAY 1st, 2011
OHIO SUPREME COURT
Justices to soon make landmark decision
Affecting ALL Ohio Homeowners in foreclosure
The Ohio Supreme Court recently agreed to review a request (from US BANK NA) to resolve what "appears" to be conflicting appellate court decisions in OHIO foreclosure case law. At the heart of this so called conflict is an issue that Plaintiff banks, pretend lenders, and phony Trustees have continuously slipped past our "asleep-at-the-wheel" judges. A similar and deep sleep was exhibited by our U.S. Government (SEC, OCC, OTS) and the rating agencies (Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, Fitch), for years while the Banks went wild! Now, the Ohio Supreme Court is going to attempt a judicial "closing of the barn door"…years after the "criminals"…got away.
Here in Ohio, the plaintiff’s Foreclosure Mill Attorneys and Law Firms try to fast track the process and get a quick default judgment by using or submitting phony, fraudulent, or robo-signed mortgage assignments (executed by MERS & LPS employees) The documents, 90% of the time, result in a plaintiff victory. The rare knowledgeable and awake foreclosure judge or an even rarer appearance by legal counsel on behalf of defendant homeowner (only in 8% of cases) requires Plaintiff - to have STANDING - in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the court. Inevitably the question and legal hurdle for the plaintiff, in almost every defended OHIO FRAUDclosure and foreclosure case becomes:
To have standing, as a plaintiff, in a mortgage foreclosure action, must a party show that it owned the NOTE and the MORTGAGE when the complaint was filed?
The decision by the Ohio Supreme Court to Certify A Conflict is very troubling, and was hidden in a April 6th, 2011 15-page Ohio Supreme Court Case Announcement (pg 5 case: US BANK v Duvall) This is a travesty and should not have been allowed to get this far. STANDING through ownership (of NOTE & MORTGAGE) has been repeatedly determined in Ohio case law.
Unfortunately, two (2) bad and even slightly off-topic appellate court cases were used
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Marcino, 181 Ohio App.3d 328, 2009-Ohio-1178 (7th Dist.),U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Bayless, Del. App. No. 09 CAE 01 004, 2009-Ohio-6115 (5th Dist.),
to certify the conflict. These poorly decided cases are being incorrectly used as a side-door entrance and distraction to get in front of the great SUPREME COURT of OHIO …and possibly …change or re-determine… existing foreclosure law
So where is all the scrutiny? Where is the publicity? Where are the consumer activists? What is going on here? Where is the outrage? Why did the Supreme Court allow the Bank’s weak claim for a new chance to change existing OHIO law? The simultaneous ownership of the Note and Mortgage, at the time of filing, has repeatedly been asked, answered, and decided in previous OHIO cases.
YES - Plaintiff must OWN BOTH the NOTE and the MORTGAGE, at the TIME OF FILING - PERIOD
OHIO SUPREME COURT JUSTICES - Please get it right – Don’t sell out to the big banks. JP Morgan Chase has Ohio Headquarters inconspicuously in your “back yard”. Hopefully their money can’t buy a decision to create- STANDING – and allow for legal FRAUDclosures or worse… a change to existing law.
NO successor-in-interest, NO back-dating of mortgage assignments, NO endorsement-in- blank, NO successor trustee to empty MBS, NO "Robo-Signed" by LPS or MERS employees (signing as Vice President of the Bank) NO "created" owner status by allowing back-dating of documents showing an "effective date" even further back (Mortgage Assignment - "Time Travel") Coined by Lisa Epstein of Foreclosure Hamlet - Link HERE to her post, and HERE (Ocwen time travel)
All you good Ohio Foreclosure Defense attorneys – now is your chance to step up and shine, Lets have a few Amicus Briefs (send us a copy) You have a right to submit one to the OHIO SUPREME COURT (on behalf of the OHIO homeowner). Lets Go - Legal Aid Offices - Lets hear something from all your fine attorneys and staff. This case needs legal attention - the big banks will throw tons of money and a lot of attorneys at this rare - second bite - on this mortgage apple.
OHIO Supreme Court Prac.-R. 6.6. Brief of Amicus Curiae:
(A) An amicus curiae may file a brief urging affirmance or reversal, and leave to file an amicus brief is not required. The brief shall conform to the requirements of this rule, except that an amicus filing a brief in support of an appellant need not include the appendix required by S.Ct. Prac. R. 6.2(B)(5).
(A) An amicus curiae may file a brief urging affirmance or reversal, and leave to file an amicus brief is not required. The brief shall conform to the requirements of this rule, except that an amicus filing a brief in support of an appellant need not include the appendix required by S.Ct. Prac. R. 6.2(B)(5).
(B) The cover of an amicus brief shall identify the party on whose behalf the brief is being submitted or indicate that the brief does not expressly support the position of any parties to the appeal. If the amicus brief is in support of an appellant, the brief shall be filed within the time for filing allowed to the appellant to file a merit brief, and the amicus curiae may file a reply brief within the time allowed to the appellant to file a reply brief. If the amicus brief is in support of an appellee or does not expressly support the position of any party, the brief shall be filed within the time for filing allowed to the appellee to file a merit brief. The Clerk shall refuse to file an amicus brief that is not submitted timely.
Hundreds of thousands of lives and foreclosure cases will turn on this decision.
Stand up-be heard & Help the OHIO Supreme Court - Get it Right
I am the Daughter of Betty Wallace. I stopped the first sale on mom's house with the Attorney General's staff on the phone with me. It was posted at 9 am, cancelled at 9:11 2009.
ReplyDeleteBehind this Case is a major overlooked fact,
This was Wells Fargo.
And my mother with receipts as evidence made her payments, she stopped after months when Wells Fargo sent her a letter accelerating her payment.
She showed me another letter from Washington Mutual and I thought it was some kind of mistake.
Standing?? No one had standing, she was not 90 days in default when they filed.