FROM: ALL OHIO HOMEOWNERS
RE: U.S. Bank National Assoc. v. Antoine Duvall et al.
CASE Number 2011-0218
THE QUESTION:
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?
PREVIOUS ANSWER: YES - Plaintiff must own the NOTE and MORTGAGE
WHY for the 4th time - in this case - is the same question before the court ?
Although this question has been repeatedly asked and answered - somehow - you have allowed the big banks to reintroduce the question, and have yet another opportunity to twist the law - in your court (surely you can't be bought......can you?).
Will you honor your oath of office and do the right thing? Will you uphold the LAW?
Will you allow a "Wall Street" destruction to Ohio Land, Title, & Property ownership?
Latest media coverage via NPR Award Winning Journalist & Reporter MHARI SAITO**
OH Supreme Court to Decide ‘What Documents Banks Need to Foreclose?
Attorney Gary Cook and Antoine DuvallBrief Case History of U.S. Bank v. Duvall:
Both a Cuyahogo County Civil Court (Cleveland) followed by an Ohio District Appellate court (8th) dismissed the case against Duvall because US Bank (as trustee) didn’t prove it owned the note and mortgage BEFORE it filed the foreclosure. A third attempt was made by asking the Supreme Court to reconsider the Appellate Courts decision. That too was declined. In a final desperate attempt to change existing law, the Predator Drone Foreclosure Mill law firm found some Pro-Se defended cases that had misinterpreted or misapplied Ohio Law. US Bank used these poorly decided cases to request the Supreme Court of Ohio to certify a conflict in Ohio Law.
But the FRAUD would be exposed in this case in seeing the transfer & assignment of mortgage ...or worse, to have the court see..... that the NOTE was never properly or legally transferred to the TRUST. So the easiest and best solution - pay it off and cover up the fraud. Then simply ask the court to dismiss this case .... See this ploy - below - from our previous post:
Ohio FRAUDclosure blogger brief to Supreme Court of Ohio
In an effort to "Blindfold Lady Justice" and twist the legal arm of the state's highest court US Bank NA "PAID IN FULL" (satisfied) the Duvall's underlying Mortgage balance in an attempt to force Defendant homeowner counsel, along with plaintiff (Predator Drone Law Firm) to both suggest: The case, decision, and underlying question....are now.... MOOT
Supreme Court of Ohio - If you need any help with American Property Law:
Read MASSACHUSETTS HIGH COURTS decision with the EXACT same parties:
US Bank National Assoc. v. Ibanez, 458 Mass. 637 - Mass: Supreme Judicial Court 2011
...... [I]n September and October of 2008, U.S. Bank and Wells Fargo EACH brought separate actions in the Land Court..EACH asserted in its complaint that it had become the holder of the respective mortgage through an assignment made after the foreclosure {action}.....[W]e agree with the judge that the plaintiffs, who were not the original mortgagees, failed to make the required showing that they were the holders of the mortgages at the time of foreclosure. As a result, they did not demonstrate that the foreclosure sales were valid to convey title to the subject properties... and their requests for a declaration of clear title were properly denied.The case decision ends with....Judgments affirmed, and Judge J Cordy further adds....
I concur fully in the opinion of the court, and write separately only to underscore that what is surprising about these cases is.... the utter carelessness with which the plaintiff banks documented the titles to their assets. There is no dispute that the mortgagors of the properties in question had defaulted on their obligations, and that the mortgaged properties were subject to foreclosure. Before commencing such an action, however, the holder of an assigned mortgage needs to take care to ensure that his legal paperwork is in order. Foreclosure is a powerful act with significant consequences, and Massachusetts law has always required that it proceed strictly in accord with the statutes that govern it.
The type of sophisticated transactions leading up to the accumulation of the notes and mortgages in question in these cases and their securitization, and, ultimately the sale of mortgaged-backed securities, are not barred nor even burdened by the requirements of Massachusetts law. The plaintiff banks, who brought these cases.. have simply failed to prove that the underlying assignments of the mortgages that they allege (and would have) entitled them to foreclose ever existed in any legally cognizable form.
ORIGINAL POST (April 2011):
OHIO SUPREME COURT - to make landmark decision
Additional Commentary posted at: Home Equity Theft Reporter linked below:
Ohio Supremes To Decide Whether Foreclosing Party Must Own Both Note, Mortgage At The Time Complaint Is Filed
** Mhari Saito is an Award winning journalist and reporter currently based at public radio station WCPN in Cleveland, Ohio. Mhari's awards include a NATIONAL HEADLINER AWARD for her “Toxic Loan” series. Additional she has received Ohio Associated Press Awards in 2010 and 2011 for investigative reporting and continuing coverage categories for her series of reports including “How Cleveland’s Most Toxic Loans Ended Up in the Goldman Sachs’ Controversy” and for “Toxic Assets.” She has covered everything from Ohio's foreclosure crisis to the kids' band, "The Wiggles." Mhari started her radio career as a stringer for NPR in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, in late 1997. Then in Philadelphia at WHYY, Mhari received the prestigious Edward R. Murrow regional award for a series she produced on urban blight. Her work is heard on the NPR network and through OHIO’s ideastream and WCPN 90.3 a Cleveland Public Radio station.
