Ohio 9th Appellate shoot-down of BONY & DRONE FIRM

FAIL - FAIL    Bank of New York Trust    FAIL - FAIL

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 9^th 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 3^rd 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 by LPS and MERS. The companies use computer driven spread-sheet software to execute millions of foreclosure filings. This FRAUDulent business model - is only as effective as the brain-dead hourly employees {low paid data-entry personal} hired to use it. Worse - the LPS Document Solution Software triggers a predator drone foreclosure mill firm {bench warmer paper filing attorney} into action.
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 {created, fabricated and obviously fraudulent} allonge.  Therefore, Bank of New York would have been required to possess the original note {and not some LPS created copy} in order to establish itself as the real party in interest by way of holder status.

{¶33} {Five months later}...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

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 9^th 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 [9^th 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”

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, 2011
Plaintiff: CitiMortgage
Predator Drone Foreclosure Mill:  ERIN M. LAURITO,  Attorney for plaintiff  {CitiMortgage}

Ohio Supreme Court's Shocking Decision in Landmark Case

               U.S. Bank National Assoc. v. Antoine Duvall et al.
                                                        CASE Number 2011-0218     

                    CASE DISMISSED as MOOT
   
A Simple question was before the OHIO SUPREME COURT JUSTICES:

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?

OHIO's highest court  - took the easy way out  - with a simple one page ruling  (HERE) which completely avoids succinctly resolving this issue and now leaves a number of identical cases and litigation - still before them. We had heard from a multiple of sources, attorneys, and "insiders".... that this was the best and easiest "way-out" and a "back- door" solution for Ohio's Highest Court and Judges. The court - once again "buried" the no decision on the LAST PAGE (15th) of Case Announcements(HERE - on the fifteenth and last page under MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS)

The MOOTNESS decision was a predicated result, after a well planned out and orchestrated effort to get this case "Kicked." You see US Bank NA had failed in their three (3) previous attempts to FRAUDulently foreclose  - on the DUVALLS (with a phony undelivered and improperly indorsed note along with a post filing FRAUDulent robo-signed mortgage assignment)

*Attorney Gary Cook and Antoine Duvall
So after initially "Certifying a Conflict" as a way to get this case heard by the court ....the ending (DISMISSAL) from Ohio's Supreme Court... was short and simple:

...........Upon consideration of appellees' Notice of Suggestion of Mootness, IT IS ORDERED by the Court, that this case is DISMISSED as MOOT........(Right Click HERE & open in a new tab )

HOW had DUVALL's three year legal battle......suddenly become MOOT ???
How was the "CASE of the CENTURY" .....suddenly and quietly dissmissed ???
Well it appears that Wells Fargo and US Bank decided to satisfy (pay in FULL) the Duvall mortgage once they realised that this case would be scrutinized at the highest Level (and all the Fraud Exposed) See (below) a copy of the suddenly satisfied mortgage - and a change from a predator drone foreclosure mill fraudsters to a financial "Santa Claus" 

......all of the above ...... triggered our previous below 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
Please read our other Commentary and Posts (Below) on this Landmark Ohio Case

OH Supreme Court to Decide What Documents Banks Need to Foreclose?

OHIO SUPREME COURT - to make landmark decision


"CASH REGISTER JUSTICE" by Outstanding Florida Attorney Matt Weidner

…..”The banks just cannot allow major decisions to be reported. The banks will not allow the probing light of justice and truth to shine on what they are doing….so anytime they get backed into a corner with a bad case, they simply pay the mortgage off and walk away….calculating, cold and swift….like a predator drone strike….at the heart of our Constitutional Rights. And just think about the profound impact of having major cases just disappear from high court dockets”………

(Matt coined the phrase - ROBO-SIGNING - and helped expose this fraudulent practice and raise awareness on this issue .....to a national level)

and HomeEquity Theft Reporter: (Click on Headline and detailed Commentary below)
F'closing Banksters Score Another Big 'Win' As Lender Dodges Bullet, 'Games' Judicial System, 'Buys Off' Homeowner; Ohio Supremes Declare Issue "Moot"
.
.......Foreclosing banksters throughout the U.S. are presumably in a celebratory mood as they have recently succeeded in buying off another homeowner in foreclosure who had the temerity to bring a dubiously-conducted foreclosure case to the attention of a state supreme court
......Interestingly, according to footnote 1 of U.S. Bank's Memorandum regarding notice of suggestion of mootness, counsel representing the bankster in this case notes that it also represents the banksters involved in the other two cases. It remains to be seen if the banksters in those cases are equally successful in 'buying off' the respective homeowners in foreclosures.....'

......MUCH MORE TO COME.....
*  Photo appears courtesy of Ohio Public Radio Station WCPN 90.3, Mhari Saito, NPR (ideastream)

U.S. Bank National Assoc. v. Antoine Duvall on NPR Radio

TO:                        SUPREME COURT JUSTICES of the STATE of OHIO
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 Duvall

 Photo appears courtesy of Ohio Public Radio Station WCPN 90.3, Mhari Saito, NPR (ideastream)

Brief 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.

Ohio FRAUDclosure blogger brief to Supreme Court of Ohio

OHIO FRAUDclosure, an Internet "Blog Site," has submitted an Amicus Curiae (Brief) on behalf of ALL OHIO Homeowners in a landmark case US BANK NA v. DUVALL

This case and decision currently in front of the Supreme Court of Ohio - turn on 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?

OHIO FRAUDclosure blog and Ohio's 88 Civil Courts have repeatedly addressed this issue (linked below) and have answered the above question "in the affirmative" (Yes !).  However, US Bank NA, seems intent on spending millions in an attempt to get a second chance to change standing law in 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" the underlying Mortgage (Duvall) in an attempt to force Defendant homeowner counsel, along with plaintiff (Predator Drone Law Firm) to both suggest:
The case, the decision, and underlying question.....are now.... MOOT!

There are many more shocking developments we've uncovered- still to come !!

We will be updating the blog on this case (HERE) and will share interviews with attorneys and past defendants (in conflict cases) along with opinions from other "legal minds" weighing in on this landmark issue!

Our Amicus Brief (Linked below) was filed with the court on Mon. 8-15-11.  The brief was brilliantly crafted by Mahoning County based Attorney: BRUCE BROYLES.
(Right CLICK on LINK below to Read Amicus Curiae brief)
 Brief of Amicus Curiae filed by Ohiofraudclosure.blogspt.com in support of Appellee

Definition of Amicus Curiae: 
Latin term meaning "friend of the court".  The name for a brief filed with the court by someone who is not a party to the case, and who has no relevance to any particular side in a case. Instead, they volunteer information regarding a point of law or something else relevant to the case that they feel may help the court in deciding a matter of great public importance.
"... a phrase that literally means "friend of the court" -- someone who is not a party to the litigation, but who believes that the court's decision may affect its interest."  William H. Rehnquist

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

The Wizard of OZ (Wall Street Trusts) - REVEALED !!

Who are the N.Y. Banks & Trusts Foreclosing on Ohio Homeowners ?

"I am the Foreclosure Wizard - I own your Mortgage and Note - I'm taking your HOME"
Shortly thereafter when the courtroom is cleared of the smoke & MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration System) the local OHIO civil court judge... shouts out in fear - YES - take the home - SUMMARY JUDGEMENT awarded to you oh great Wall Street Wizard

Anyone reading this blog knows this FORECLOSURE WIZARD of Wall Street.  This huge - scary - to big to fail entity - is best known as...."THE TRUSTEE"
   
The trustee is a legal administrator that is supposed to make sure the big bad Trust LEGALLY OWNS and HOLDS the homeowners NOTE and MORTGAGE ... BEFORE ... they come into a courtroom blowing smoke and making all kinds of scary threats to foreclose. The simple requirements (rules and guidelines) on how to transfer and hold the mortgages and notes - were actually set up by the Banks themselves. The Banks first made up the Mortgage Rule handbooks and then they filed them with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). This legal handbook is known as a Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA). The self created document spelled out in very specific detail how each homeowner Mortgage was to be pooled (bundled together) and assigned. Thus, by following their own rules (in the PSA) the "Wall Street Wizards" could now sell ALL these bundled mortgages as investments. Rules were to be followed for the assignment and delivery of each and every mortgage purportedly being sold and transferred to the TRUST. The Trustees for the so called Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) claimed they held thousands of mortgages that were worth BILLIONS of dollars (creating millions in commissions and corporate profits)

But then - something happened! While the Trusts were FRAUDulently scaring all the judges into awarding foreclosures - a couple "TOTO" attorneys  - decided to pull back the curtain on these great big scary fire-breathing "Wizards of Wall Street" and Guess what they found?

   The Wall Street Trusts - Have NO MORTGAGES - They CANNOT FORECLOSE !

The FRAUD has been exposed. The fire, smoke and loud noises are FAKE - The computer generated and Robo-Signed documents are outright FRAUD. The mortgages are NOT in the Trusts - They never were. The man behind the curtain is "Linda Green" - operating a giant LPS computer and trying to transfer all the mortgages and notes FRAUDulently.

Linda Green Robo-signing

"We have 60 million mortgages - we are too big to fail! I have to keep scaring people and illegally taking homes. I AM LINDA GREEN - I CANNOT BE STOPPED - I MUST FORECLOSE - I AM THE GREAT AND WONDERFUL...WIZARD of WALL STREET"

See below - N.Y. and Wall Street Trusts - GAME OVER !!
If you've been served a notice of default from one of these "Empty Trusts" or "Bogus Lenders" or Pretend Banks - Get a Lawyer!! and fight back!!
Below are some of the phony or false plaintiff suing parties being exposed:
Bank of America, Bank of New York, Deutsche Bank, U.S. Bank N.A.

 Article by Gretchen Morgenstern (Right click and open in new tab)
2 State Attorney Generals, from New York and Deleware, are investigating Wall Street’s bundling of loans into securities to determine whether they were properly documented and valid. The attorney general of New York (Eric Schneiderman) has teamed with his counterpart from Delaware ( Joseph R. Biden III) Their joint effort centers on the back end of the mortgage assembly lines - where big banks served as trustees overseeing the securities for investors....A complex process that produced hundreds of billions of dollars in securities during the lending boom, the issuance of mortgage securities began with home loans, which were then bundled into investments and sold to pension funds. mutual funds, big banks and other investors. The bundles were created as trusts overseen by institutions such as Bank of New York and Deutsche Bank; they were supposed to make sure (they didn't) the complete mortgage files for each loan were delivered within a specified time and with the proper documentation. (they failed)

HUFFINGTON POST: Article by Shahien Nasirpour (Right click and open in new tab)
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has targeted Bank of America, the biggest U.S. bank by assets, in a new probe that questions the validity of potentially thousands of mortgage securities and their associated foreclosures. In some cases where trusts moved to seize borrowers' homes, judges have determined the trusts lacked legal standing due to faulty documentation. The inquiry could prove explosive: Wall Street's great mortgage securitization machine took millions of home loans and bundled them into securities for sale to investors. If the legal steps that guide securitization -- like taking mortgage documents from one party to another, a critical step under New York law -- were not undertaken, then the investors who bought the bundled loans could force the companies to buy them back, compelling them to eat enormous losses. While several investigations remain ongoing at the state and federal level, no agency has systematically examined loan-level documents to ensure the creation of mortgage securities complied with state laws or to examine the scope of sloppy paperwork in foreclosure proceedings, like the so-called "robo-signing" fiasco. In its November report, the bailout watchdog said that the "robo-signing of affidavits served to cover up the fact that loan servicers cannot demonstrate the facts required to conduct a lawful foreclosure." "In essence, banks may be unable to prove that they own the mortgage loans they claim to own," the panel said.

Wall Street Journal: Article by Nick Timiraos (Right click and open in new tab)
On Monday, a Michigan judge overturned a foreclosure after concluding that the foreclosing entity couldn’t have owned the mortgage after it failed to comply with certain mortgage securitization rules. Jeff Barnes, the lawyer for Hendricks, successfully argued that  U.S. Bank N.A. as trustee didn’t have the right to foreclose, in part because it hadn’t been assigned ownership of the loan in accordance with strict rules required to ensure the tax-exempt status of mortgage-bond investments. (Hendricks still lives in the house. Michigan gives borrowers a six-month “redemption period” and Barnes says the foreclosure challenge was filed during that time.) The decision is a possible setback for the securitization industry, which has argued that its transfers of mortgage loans are valid under the Uniform Commercial Code, which governs commerce across the nation. The Michigan court ruled that the specific securitization agreements didn’t comply with New York trust law, which superseded the UCC because it governs most so-called pooling and servicing agreements(PSA).

Yet in OHIO our Local courts are still systematically awarding Summary Judgements to Robo-Signed and "Empty Trusts" which hold No Note and No Mortgage. Do we really have to wait for Michigan, New York and Delaware to "figure it out" for us? Come on OHIO COURTS! Below are some guidelines for any OHIO Civil Judges:
You can't take-back ... something you've never owned !
You can't get a divorce settlement .... if you've never married !
You can't foreclose.... on a mortgage and note... you don't own !!

OHIO SUPREME COURT - to make landmark decision

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 6^th, 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).

(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

UPDATE: 9/22/11
Ohio Supreme Court's Shocking Decision in Landmark Case