Lack.of.Standing.case.Dismissals

7/27/2019 Lack.of.Standing.case.Dismissals

1/18

missals Due to Lack of Standing Source: http://MSfraud.org/law/lounge/Stand

www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing.html[10/22/2013 07:52:11]

Case dismissals for lack of standing to Foreclose

Updated 9/25/13

MSFraud Forum Crosslinks, Findings and Case citations add to Ohio Federal Court Case Discussions by William A. Roper

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys

3.1 STANDING

The Supreme Court has made it clear that the burden of establishing standing rests on the plaintiff. At each sof the litigationfrom the initial pleading stage, through summary judgment, and trialthe plaintiff must carthat burden. Standing must exist on the date the complaint is filed and throughout the litigation. Moreovestanding cannot be conferred by agreement and can be challenged at any time in the litigation, including on

appeal, by the defendants or, in some circumstances, by the court sua sponte. Finally, plaintiffs mustdemonstrate standing for each claim and each request for relief. There is no supplemental standing: standin

assert one claim does not create standing to assert claims arising from the same nucleus of operative facts

FORECLOSURE DEFENSEWHERE DO WE STAND ON STANDING?Winter 2011

Standing versus Justiciability

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

subsequently obtaining standing.

Venture Holdings & Acquisitions Grp.,LLC v. A.I.M. Funding Grp., LLC, 75 So. 3d 773, 776 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) .

_______________________________

Merit Decision : Court Smacks Freddie Mac in Home Foreclosure Case. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Schwartzwald.

For Andy Engel(Schwartzwald's attorney): As a practitioner focusing on foreclosure defense what is your thoughts (to be pro-active) f

those who lost their home under the cure, to file a 60(B)(5) motion and place the new owner, title company and mortgage company

notice?

Andy Engel says:

November 2, 2012 at 9:53 am

If the foreclosing bank relied on an after-acquired interest in the note and mortgage to establish its right to enforce the agreements,

then I would certainly seek to vacate the judgment. But you need not proceed under Civ.R. 60(B) because the judgment is void. The

Schwartzwald decision states that standing has to exist at the time the case is filed, and if it doesnt exist, the jurisdiction of the

common pleas court was not invoked. A court without jurisdiction cannot enter any judgment (except one dismissing the case for lack

jurisdiction). A motion to vacate a void (as opposed to a voidable) judgment is not based on Civ. R. 60(B), it invokes the courts inhe

power. Patton v. Diemer, 35 Ohio St. 3d 68 (1988).

Do NOT let this be a deterrent. Stand up for your r ights.

More Courts Reject Eleventh-Hour Attempts To Avoid Foreclosure Based On AAlleged Lack Of Standing

Two more Appellate Division panels have refused to allow defendant's in foreclosure lawsuits to raise standing as an eleventh-ho

defense. As we previously reported -- Changing Tide in Forclosure Litigation? Courts Taking Closer Look When Defendants Asser

Lack Of Standing At Last Minute -- there is now a clear trend against allowing defendants to stay silent in the face of a foreclosu

lawsuit only to appear at the last minute, usually on the eve of a sheriff's sale, and seek to vacate final judgment based on an

alleged lack of standing to foreclose. Two recent Appellate Division cases continue to bring this point home.

In IndyMac Bank FSB v. DeCastro, [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers], a residential borrower moved to vacate

final judgment and dismiss the complaint 15 months after it was entered, arguing that he was not served with the complaint. Th
http://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing.htmlhttp://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.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://www.legallyspeakingohio.com/2012/10/merit-decision-court-smacks-freddie-mac-in-home-foreclosure-case-federal-home-loan-mortgage-corp-v-schwartzwald/http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/realestatelaw/blogs/troubledloans/archive/2013/04/30/more-courts-reject-eleventh-hour-attempts-to-avoid-foreclosure-based-on-an-alleged-lack-of-standing.aspxhttp://www.lexisnexis.com/community/realestatelaw/blogs/troubledloans/archive/2013/04/30/more-courts-reject-eleventh-hour-attempts-to-avoid-foreclosure-based-on-an-alleged-lack-of-standing.aspxhttp://porzioproperty.pbnlaw.com/2013/02/changing-tide-in-foreclosure-litigation-courts-taking-closer-look-when-defendants-assert-lack-of-sta.htmlhttp://porzioproperty.pbnlaw.com/2013/02/changing-tide-in-foreclosure-litigation-courts-taking-closer-look-when-defendants-assert-lack-of-sta.htmlhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3801627127734053984&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarrhttp://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?app=00075&view=full&searchtype=get&search=2013+N.J.+Super.+Unpub.+LEXIS+585&ORIGINATION_CODE=00207http://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing.htmlhttp://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?app=00075&view=full&searchtype=get&search=2013+N.J.+Super.+Unpub.+LEXIS+585&ORIGINATION_CODE=00207http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3801627127734053984&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarrhttp://porzioproperty.pbnlaw.com/2013/02/changing-tide-in-foreclosure-litigation-courts-taking-closer-look-when-defendants-assert-lack-of-sta.htmlhttp://porzioproperty.pbnlaw.com/2013/02/changing-tide-in-foreclosure-litigation-courts-taking-closer-look-when-defendants-assert-lack-of-sta.htmlhttp://porzioproperty.pbnlaw.com/2013/02/changing-tide-in-foreclosure-litigation-courts-taking-closer-look-when-defendants-assert-lack-of-sta.htmlhttp://www.lexisnexis.com/community/realestatelaw/blogs/troubledloans/archive/2013/04/30/more-courts-reject-eleventh-hour-attempts-to-avoid-foreclosure-based-on-an-alleged-lack-of-standing.aspxhttp://www.lexisnexis.com/community/realestatelaw/blogs/troubledloans/archive/2013/04/30/more-courts-reject-eleventh-hour-attempts-to-avoid-foreclosure-based-on-an-alleged-lack-of-standing.aspxhttp://www.legallyspeakingohio.com/2012/10/merit-decision-court-smacks-freddie-mac-in-home-foreclosure-case-federal-home-loan-mortgage-corp-v-schwartzwald/http://www.law2.byu.edu/lawreview4/archives/1982/2/man.pdfhttp://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://federalpracticemanual.org/node/19http://www.msfraud.org/Law/Lounge/MSFraud-ForumCrosslinksandFindingsAddToOhioFederalCourtCaseDiscussions.dochttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Lounge.html


2/18

ssals Due to Lack of Standing


motion was denied. Defendant filed a second motion to vacate, arguing, for the first time, that the bank lacked standing to

foreclose because it was not assigned the mortgage until after the complaint was filed. This motion was denied as untimely and

defendant appealed. In an opinion, dated March 13, 2013, the Appellate Division affirmed. In its decision, among other things, th

Appellate Division rejected defendant's standing argument, noting: "[W]e have now made clear that lack of standing is not a

meritorious defense to a foreclosure complaint." Moreover, the Appellate Division held that defendant's standing argument was

meritless "particularly given defendant's unexcused, years-long delay in asserting that defense or any other claim." In arriving a

this decision, the Appellate Division relied on many of the cases discussed in our prior post.

Similarly, in Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Lopez, [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers], a different Appellate Divisio

panel rejected another residential home owner's last-minute attempt to raise standing as a defense to the foreclosure complaint

The facts in that case were a bit more egregious because the borrower contributed to the four-year delay between the entry o

default and the filing of his motion to vacate by filing numerous bankruptcy petitions and seeking a stay to attempt to short se

the property. Nonetheless, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to vacate holding, among othe

things, that the lack of standing, even if true, was not a meritorious defense to a foreclosure complaint, particularly in the post

judgment context. Again, the Appellate Division relied primarily on the cases included in our prior post.

View more from the Porzio Real Property Blog.

New casesFocht v. Wells Fargo (Pro se reversed on standing) (Florida 9/13) I concur in this decision because existing precedent requires me to do s

Presumably, our mandate requires the dismissal of this foreclosure action, which in turn will undo the foreclosure sale. Ms. Focht

egain possession of her property and apparently continue her free use of the duplex while the lender continues to make advanccover the expenses typically paid from escrow. Our certified question of great public importance is dispositive of this appeal andworthy of consideration by the supreme court.

Wright-Patt Credit Union v. Byington (Ohio 9/13) Accordingly, because appellee failed to present the court withevidentiary quality material in support of its assertion that it was the current holder of the note and mortgage ssue, a genuine issue of material fact remains regarding whether appellee has standing in this foreclosure actiand the lower court erred in granting appellee summary judgment. Given this conclusion, we need not addressappellants argument that appellee failed to meet the conditions precedent before filing suit. The sole assignmeof error is well-taken.On consideration whereof, the court finds that substantial justice has not been done the parties complaining anthe judgment of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas is reversed.

Bank of New York Mellon v. Shaffer (Ohio 7/13) Opinion and dissent address late filing, void vs. void, standing anurisdiction.

Since the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and itsdefault judgment was therefore void, Shaffer was not required to comply with the time requirements of Civ.R.60(B) in order to be entitled to an order vacating the judgment.

BAC Home Loan Servicing v. Mapp (Ohio 7/13) We therefore reverse the trial court's finding that "BAC's allegeack of standing does not constitute a meritorious defense" and remand the case to the trial court for a hearingdetermine BAC's standing to sue, and correspondingly whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the foreclosuproceedings. On remand, the trial court must determine whether MERS had the authority to assign the mortgaand/or the note as the nominee for Countrywide in light of the claim that Countrywidewas no longer inexistence when the mortgage was assigned to BAC.

"a common pleas court cannot substitute a real party in interest foranother party if no party with standing has invoked its jurisdiction in the first instance."

California CasesCaporale v. Saxon, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley - Judge Weissbrodt

- Order Preliminary Injunction- Daughter-in-law letter to judge- Claims of Saxon- Saxon Motion to Lift Stay- Caporale Memo in Opposition to Motion to Lift Stay- Docket

In Re: Vargas - MERS(relief from stay Denied) Judge Bufford (explains authenticity of documents)

Dimrock v. Emerald Properties(Opinion: unlawful detainer/quiet title)

SAXON MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC., et al., v. HILLERY(Order Granting Homeowner's Motion to Dismiss) Judge Chen)

Rickie Walker v. BAC, EMC Mortgage, Bear Stearns, Citibank, MERS (Full bankruptcy docs) (2010) Lack of Standing.
http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/courts/appellate/a2399-11.opn.htmlhttp://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?app=00075&view=full&searchtype=get&search=2013+N.J.+Super.+Unpub.+LEXIS+704&ORIGINATION_CODE=00207http://porzioproperty.pbnlaw.com/http://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Focht-v-Wells-Fargo_Reversed_Public-importance_9-13.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Focht-v-Wells-Fargo_Reversed_Public-importance_9-13.pdfhttp://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/6/2013/2013-ohio-3963.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/BAC-v-Mapp_Reversed_7-13.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/CaporaleSaxonDeutsche/OrderInjunction14July2009.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/CaporaleSaxonDeutsche/LtrDebCaporaletoJudgeNoticehankypankyDkt53.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/CaporaleSaxonDeutsche/MottoLiftStaySaxonMortgageDkt461.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/CaporaleSaxonDeutsche/MottoLiftStaySaxonMortgageDkt461.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/CaporaleSaxonDeutsche/CaporaleMemoinOppositionMotLiftStayDkt48.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/CaporaleSaxonDeutsche/Caporale,Richard&IsabelBkDocRptMainCase&AdvProc.28July09.dochttp://c/Program%20Files/Yahoo%20SiteBuilder/lib/sites/default/MSFraud/Mortgage%20Fraud/LAW/Lounge/MERSreliefDenied.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/MERSreliefDenied.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Dimock_detainer_quiet.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/OrderGrantingHomeownersMotionToDismiss-Saxon.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/OrderGrantingHomeownersMotionToDismiss-Saxon.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/OrderGrantingHomeownersMotionToDismiss-Saxon.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/OrderGrantingHomeownersMotionToDismiss-Saxon.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Rickie-Walker-v-BAC-EMC-Citi-MERS-Case-California-Mers-Bk-full.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Rickie-Walker-v-BAC-EMC-Citi-MERS-Case-California-Mers-Bk-full.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Rickie-Walker-v-BAC-EMC-Citi-MERS-Case-California-Mers-Bk-full.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/OrderGrantingHomeownersMotionToDismiss-Saxon.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/OrderGrantingHomeownersMotionToDismiss-Saxon.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/OrderGrantingHomeownersMotionToDismiss-Saxon.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/OrderGrantingHomeownersMotionToDismiss-Saxon.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Dimock_detainer_quiet.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/MERSreliefDenied.pdfhttp://c/Program%20Files/Yahoo%20SiteBuilder/lib/sites/default/MSFraud/Mortgage%20Fraud/LAW/Lounge/MERSreliefDenied.pdfhttp://c/Program%20Files/Yahoo%20SiteBuilder/lib/sites/default/MSFraud/Mortgage%20Fraud/LAW/Lounge/MERSreliefDenied.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/CaporaleSaxonDeutsche/Caporale,Richard&IsabelBkDocRptMainCase&AdvProc.28July09.dochttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/CaporaleSaxonDeutsche/CaporaleMemoinOppositionMotLiftStayDkt48.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/CaporaleSaxonDeutsche/MottoLiftStaySaxonMortgageDkt461.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/CaporaleSaxonDeutsche/ClaimofSaxonMortgageDkt23.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/CaporaleSaxonDeutsche/LtrDebCaporaletoJudgeNoticehankypankyDkt53.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/CaporaleSaxonDeutsche/OrderInjunction14July2009.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/BAC-v-Mapp_Reversed_7-13.pdfhttp://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/6/2013/2013-ohio-3963.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Focht-v-Wells-Fargo_Reversed_Public-importance_9-13.pdfhttp://porzioproperty.pbnlaw.com/http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?app=00075&view=full&searchtype=get&search=2013+N.J.+Super.+Unpub.+LEXIS+704&ORIGINATION_CODE=00207http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/courts/appellate/a2399-11.opn.html


3/18



Florida CasesBrevard County Mortgage Foreclosure Procedures

Focht v. Wells Fargo (Pro se reversed on standing) (Florida 9/13) I concur in this decision because existing precedent requires me to do s

Presumably, our mandate requires the dismissal of this foreclosure action, which in turn will undo the foreclosure sale. Ms. Fochtegain possession of her property and apparently continue her free use of the duplex while the lender continues to make advanc

cover the expenses typically paid from escrow. Our certified question of great public importance is dispositive of this appeal andworthy of consideration by the supreme court.

SAVER (pro se) v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS ACQUIRER OF CERTAIN ASSETS ANLIABILITIES OF WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK FROM THE FEDERAL RECEIVER - Florida COA Reversed (5/15/1

Here, J P Morgans affidavits were executed after it filed suit. Additionally, they did not state when JP Morganbecame the owner of the note nor did they indicate that JP Morgan was the owner of the note before it filed suThus, JP Morgan failed to submit evidence that it held the mortgage at the time it filed suit, and the trial courterred in granting summary judgment in its favor.

CROMARTY v. WELLS FARGO(REVERSED)(Fla. 4-13) The borrowers argue that the notes blank endorsement was undated anbanks evidence was insufficient to establish that it held the note and was entitled to enforce the note at the time it filed suit.

We agree with the borrowers argument as to standing and reverse.

RIGBY v. WELLS FARGO BANK(4/12) Original complaint only had a mortgage in favor ofOption One attached. Later, Wells Fpresented an assignment of mortgage and an undated original note with special endorsement to Wells Fargo and the trial court entered

summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo. Fourth DCA opined that Wells Fargo has to have standing at the inception of the lawsuit.

Reversed and remanded.

Duke V. HSBC(11/11)"The Dukes argued that at the time the foreclosure complaint was filed, the mortgage was held by First NLC, no

appellee, HSBC. In its complaint, HSBC alleged it owned and held the note and mortgage at the time the complaint was filed. W h e n

exhibits are attached to a complaint, the contents of the exhibits control over the allegations of the

complaint. BAC Funding Consortium Inc. v. Jean-Jacques, 28 So. 3d 936, 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). Here, HSBC alleged in its complaint

t now owns and holds the Note and Mortgage, but an assignment was

not attached to the complaint, supporting HSBCs position. Instead, the mortgage attached to the complaint showed First NLC as the le

creating discrepancies between the complaint and the attached exhibit.

Thus, at the time of the argument on the summary judgment motion, genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether HSBC was t

proper owner and holder of the note and mortgage where First NLC was

named on the mortgage and evidence of an assignment was not included.

We therefore reverse the trial courts order granting summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact remain in dispute regar

he owner and holder of the note and mortgage at the time the

complaint was filed. Reversed."Feltus v. U.S. Bank (10/11) (Lost Note) We reverse because material issues of fact as to which entity holdinthe promissory note executed by Feltus existed at the time the trial court entered summary judgment.- U.S. Bank's reply to Feltus's affirmative defenses asserting that it was now in possession of the original note,which it attached to the reply. But the note attached to the complaint showed the lender to be Countrywide BaN.A.Khan v. Bank of America:(4/11)Because the exhibit to Bank of Americas amended complaint conflicts with allegations concerning standing, Bank of America did not establish that it had standing to foreclose the mortgaas a matter of law. As a result, the trial court acted prematurely in entering the final summary judgment offoreclosure in favor of Bank of America. We, therefore, reverse the final summary judgment of foreclosure andremand for further proceedings.Bank of America v. Nebraska Investments (1/28/11) This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. No otherpleadings by the plaintiff will be permitted in this case, other than a request for rehearing if appropriate. It isconfiscatory of the Court's time to have to address this matter.

BAC Funding v. Jacques, U.S. Bank(2/12) U.S. Bank filed a written response to BAC's motion to dismiss.Attached as Exhibit A to this response was an "Assignment of Mortgage." However, the space for the name of t

assignee on this "assignment" was blank, and the "assignment" was neither signed nor notarized. Further, U.S.Bank did not attach or file any document that would authenticate this "assignment" or otherwise render itadmissible intoevidence. Accordingly, because U.S. Bank failed to establish its status as legalowner and holder of the note and mortgage, the trial court acted prematurely in enteringfinal summary judgment of foreclosure in favor of U.S. Bank. We therefore reverse thefinal summary judgment of foreclosure and remand for further proceedings.

Deutsche Bank v. Lippi (2/2010) (Defendant's Amended Motion to Dismiss the Pleadings of Plaintiff is GRANTwith prejudice because over a two year period Plaintiff failed to allege or provide documents demonstrating itsright to bring this action. Independently, Defendant's Amended Motion to Dismiss the Pleadings of Plaintiff isGRANTED as a sanction under the dictates of the Ham decision and its progeny.

DLJ MORTGAGE CAPITAL, INC., NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE CORPORATION, SELECT PORTFOLIOSERVICING, INC. and FLORIDA DEFAULT LAW GROUP v. Thornberry
http://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Brevard-Mortgage-Foreclosure-Procedures.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Focht-v-Wells-Fargo_Reversed_Public-importance_9-13.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/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://www.4dca.org/opinions/Nov%202011/11-23-11/4D09-5183.op.pdfhttp://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/FELTUSvUSBANK.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Khan-v-Bank-of-America.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Bank-of-america-v-nebraska-investments.pdfhttp://www.2dca.org/opinions/Opinion_Pages/Opinion_Page_2010/February/February%2012,%202010/2D08-3553.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://api.ning.com/files/aSKfMvhMUT2K9iLRYb560Vpd5unne6hX7XFPGGtYCObnsCoQI-p3QrMWc2iVsPByewXBfZornTI76KMJMxCcCY6L-8PDHOXO/Ordergrantingdismissalwithprej.2.11.102.pdfhttp://www.2dca.org/opinions/Opinion_Pages/Opinion_Page_2010/February/February%2012,%202010/2D08-3553.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Bank-of-america-v-nebraska-investments.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Khan-v-Bank-of-America.pdfhttp://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/FELTUSvUSBANK.pdfhttp://www.4dca.org/opinions/Nov%202011/11-23-11/4D09-5183.op.pdfhttp://www.4dca.org/opinions/April%202012/04-04-12/4D10-3587.op.pdfhttp://www.4dca.org/opinions/April%202013/04-17-13/4D11-4435.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/May%202013/05-15-13/4D12-2069.op.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Focht-v-Wells-Fargo_Reversed_Public-importance_9-13.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Brevard-Mortgage-Foreclosure-Procedures.pdf


4/18



- ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO RE-ESTABLISH NOTE- DLJ Mortgage's mortgage foreclosure Complaint- DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE

(Update from Thornberry: 10/17/10 -The bank continued to come back and the 5th judge in the matter REVERSED the Dismissewith Prejudice that I won. I am still fighting this injustice!!!! The first judge DWP without a hearing for lack of standing - no note due

STAT 71.011. but bank got latest judge to overturn BECAUSE the DWP was done sua sponte, w/o a hearing but quotes no FL STAT or c

hat states a hearing is mandatory when dealing with dismissal due to lack of SMJ.)

Deutsche Bank's Summary Judgment Denied

IndyMac v. Rogers(Rogers Motion to Dismiss GRANTED), March 2010, PINELLAS COUNTY

Bac Funding Consortium v. Jacques, U.S. Bank, C-Bass (U.S. Bank failed to establish its status as legal ownerand holder of the note and mortgage. App. Court reversed SJ)Bac Initial Brief in Jacques

VERIZZO v. Bank of New YorkMERS (Summary Judgment REVERSED & REMANDED, late notice, flawed chain of assignme

Verizzo v. Bank of New York (Order of Dismissal against BONY) ("based on the late service and filing of the summary judgmeevidence and the existence of a genuine issue of material fact, we reverse the final summary judgment and remand for furtherproceedings.")

Wells Fargo v. Chesney [While "non-negotiable" instruments may also be assigned, there is no assignment attached to theComplaint. The Note and Mortgage attached to the Compliant are made in favor of Washington Mutual, not the current Plaintiff,Wells Fargo.]

Wells Fargo v. Cirig liano(3/10) (No evidence to show a chain of title of how the note got transferred to Wells Fargo.)

U.S. Bank v. Harpster(3/10) (Notary fraud, assignment fraud, fraud upon the court, dismissed with prejudice) Judge Tepper

GMAC v. Visicaro(4/10) (Hearing, judge sets aside his previous grant of summary judgment) Judge Rondolino

Riggs v. Aurora Loan Servicing (4/21/2010) (Court of Appeals the endorsement in blank is unsigned and unauthenticcreating a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Aurora is the lawful owner and holder of the note and/ormortgage. As in BAC Funding Consortium, Inc. ISAOA/ATIMA v. Jean-Jacques, 28 So. 3d 936 (Fla. 2dDCA 2010),there are n o supporting affidavits or deposition testimony in the record to establish that Aurora validly owns and hthe note and mortgage, no evidence of an assignment to Aurora, no proof of purchase of the debt nor any otherevidence of an effective transfer. Thus, we reverse the summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.

U.S. Bank v. McLeod(May 7, 2010 - Judge Traynor) (Order Vacated - Dismissed w/prejudice, possible sanctions)

HSBC Bank v. Eslava - (Transcript on Hearing To Show Cause on May 7, 2010 - Judge Jennifer Bailey) (The

note, which was canceled by this court pursuant to a final judgment is null and void. Mr. Eslava is relieved othe debt. The title shall be conveyed back to Mr. Eslava by the bank -- by the trust, as the legal liability for note no longer exists.

BAC v. Box (6/3/2010) (Arthur B. Federman - Bankruptcy Judge) (Trustee opposed BAC's request for relief frautomatic stay. BAC's motion is DENIED.)

U.S. Bank v. Troche (May/2010) (Order setting aside judgment and sale.)

HSBC v Ruscalleda(June 9 2010) (Based on the unique circumstances of this case, we conclude that the triacourt abused its discretion by denying the motion to continue the final summary judgment hearing and by failito grant the motion to transfer the foreclosure action to the division where a separate foreclosure action wapending in which another bank was simultaneously seeking to foreclose the same mortgage.

Aurora, MERS v. Da Costa (4/2010)("[T]he plaintiffs lack of standing at the inception of the case is nota defect that may be curehe acquisition of standing after the case is filed."

There is no evidence of record that establishes that MERS was authorized to assign anything to Plaintiff, and therefore, the assignment wasnvalid. Even if the assignment were valid, it was not executed until after the complaint was filed. Therefore, Plaintiff s standing at the incept

of the case was based entirely on the complaint and the exhibits attached thereto. It appears on the face of those exhibits that an entity other tPlaintiff has standing, and those exhibits control over contrary allegations contained in either version of the complaint. Plaintiff lacks standinnow based on the substantive deficiencies with an assignment from MERS. Plaintiff lacked standing at the inception of the case based on thoubstantive deficiencies and the timing of the execution of the assignment. Absent standing, there is no justiciable controversy between the

parties, and this case must be dismissed.)

IndyMac v. Keyser(June 2010) (Judgment and sale set aside.)

M&T BANK v. Smith - A CASE OF SPECIAL INTEREST TO FLORIDA FORECLOSURE DEFENSE LAWYERS.LYNN E. SZYMONIAK

June 2010) [t]he Court finds the plaintiff lacks standing and is not a proper party to the suit. The Court has been misled by the Plainti

rom the beginning. In its initial Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged it owned the note that was lost. Then Plaintiff alleged that not only was

ost Note found, but the Plaintiff actually owned the Note by Assignment. After both of these Complaints were dismissed, Plaintiff then
http://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/ORDERREGARDINGPLAINTIFFMOTIONTORE-ESTABLISHNOTE.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/DismissedWithPrejudice.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/DLJ_foreclosureComplaint.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/DismissedWithPrejudice.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/DismissedWithPrejudice.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/DismissedWithPrejudice.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Deutsche_SummaryJudgment_Denied.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/IndyMac-Rogers-Pinellas.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/BACFundingvUSBank-C-Bass.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/bacinitialbrief-Jacques.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/VerizzovBankofNewYork.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/VerizzovBankofNewYork.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/orderdismissalsarasotaBONY.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/orderdismissalsarasotaBONY.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/WellsDismissalNegotiable.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/WellsFargovCirigliano.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/U.S.BankvHarpster.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/GMACDismissal-Visicaro.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/GMACDismissal-Visicaro.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Riggsv.AuroraLoanServicing.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Riggsv.AuroraLoanServicing.pdfhttp://c/Program%20Files/Yahoo%20SiteBuilder/lib/sites/default/MSFraud/Mortgage%20Fraud/LAW/Lounge/USBankvMcCleod-vacatewprejudice.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/HSBCBank-Eslava-debtforgiven.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/BACreliefdenied.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/USBank-Order-Granting-Motion-to-Set-Aside-Sale-and-Judgment-of-Foreclosure.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Hsbc-Ruscalleda-two-foreclosures-same-mortgage.dochttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Hsbc-Ruscalleda-two-foreclosures-same-mortgage.dochttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/mers-auroraslammed.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/IndyKeyser-setasidejudgmentsale.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/M&TBank-A-case-of-special-interest.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/M&TBank-A-case-of-special-interest.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/IndyKeyser-setasidejudgmentsale.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/mers-auroraslammed.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Hsbc-Ruscalleda-two-foreclosures-same-mortgage.dochttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Hsbc-Ruscalleda-two-foreclosures-same-mortgage.dochttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/USBank-Order-Granting-Motion-to-Set-Aside-Sale-and-Judgment-of-Foreclosure.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/BACreliefdenied.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/HSBCBank-Eslava-debtforgiven.pdfhttp://c/Program%20Files/Yahoo%20SiteBuilder/lib/sites/default/MSFraud/Mortgage%20Fraud/LAW/Lounge/USBankvMcCleod-vacatewprejudice.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Riggsv.AuroraLoanServicing.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/GMACDismissal-Visicaro.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/U.S.BankvHarpster.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/WellsFargovCirigliano.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/WellsDismissalNegotiable.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/orderdismissalsarasotaBONY.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/VerizzovBankofNewYork.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/bacinitialbrief-Jacques.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/BACFundingvUSBank-C-Bass.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/IndyMac-Rogers-Pinellas.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Deutsche_SummaryJudgment_Denied.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/DismissedWithPrejudice.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/DismissedWithPrejudice.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/DismissedWithPrejudice.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/DLJ_foreclosureComplaint.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/ORDERREGARDINGPLAINTIFFMOTIONTORE-ESTABLISHNOTE.pdf


5/18



alleged that Wells Fargo owned the Note, while the Plaintiff was merely a servicer of the loan. Moreover, the Assignment on which Plain

elied in its First Amended Complaint postdates the filing of this foreclosure action and is inconsistent with the Mortgage, Note, stamps

allegedly affixed to the Note, and the Allonge.

BAC/Countrywide v. Stentz - (12/10) (6th Circuit, Pasco County, Florida) Motion to Dismiss Granted with a redo option. "Awho steals a check payable to bearer becomes the holder of the check but does not become the owner of it. - Judge Tepper

Lindsey v. Wells Fargo(Wetherell J.2009)The Assignment of Mortgage did not purport to transfer the note, and the original note filedwith the court did not include a special endorsement to Wells Fargo or a blank endorsement.

New York / New Jersey CasesCapacity and/or Standing to Sue; and REMICS require ORIGINALSWells Fargo v. Erobobo**(NY 4/13) (Instructional) There is a difference between the capacity to suewhich gives the right to come into court, and possession of a cause of action which gives the right to

relief. Incapacity to sue is not the same as insufficiency of facts to sue upon.

In Article II, section 2.01 Conveyance of Mortgage Loans, the PSA requires that the Depositor deliver and

deposit with the Trustee the original note, the original mortgage and an original assignment.

U.S. Natl. Assn. v Said(Supreme Court, Queens County)(1-13)Case Dismissed over Broken Chain of AssignmentsIn opposition, Said contends that plaintiff lacks standing and has no legal capacity to suebecause the assignment in which plaintiff was assigned the first mortgage was invalid sincethere was an improper chain of assignments prior to the assignment involving plaintiff. Forthe reasons set forth below, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR3212 is denied in its entirety; and Said's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissingplaintiff's complaint pursuant to CPLR 3212 is granted in its entirety.

New York Mtge. Trust v Dasdemir (11/12) (New York/Schack)(Nathan Reese's assignmentof the subject mortgage and note to NYMT, for MERS, as nominee for NYMC, in the instantforeclosure action is without legal authority.Therefore, plaintiff NYMT could not be the holderof the subject mortgage and note when the action commenced. Thus, plaintiff NYMT lackedstanding to commence the instant foreclosure action.

HSBC v. PUCCINI 6/12 (New York)ORDERED that this motion by defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trusteefor Fremont Home Loan Series 2006-3 (Deutsche Bank) for summaryjudgment on its firstcounterclaim against plaintiff, declaring that Deutsche Bank is the lawful owner and holder ofa valid first mortgage against the subject premises, declaring that the credit line mortgagewas paid in full and is discharged and satisfied of record, and declaring that plaintiff and allpersons claiming by, through and under it be forever barred from all claims to an estate ornterest in the subject premises, and granting defendant Deutsche Bank summary judgment

dismissing the complaint as against it and cancelling the notice of pendency filed by plaintiff isdenied.

Deutsche Bank v. Cuesta (6/12)(New York)ORDERED that this motion by defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trusteefor Fremont Home Loan Series 2006-3 (Deutsche Bank) for summary judgment on its firstcounterclaim against plaintiff, declaring that Deutsche Bank is the lawful owner and holder ofa valid first mortgage against the subject premises, declaring that the credit line mortgagewas paid in full and is discharged and satisfied of record, and declaring that plaintiff and allpersons claiming by, through and under it be forever barred from all claims to an estate ornterest in the subject premises, and granting defendant Deutsche Bank summary judgmentdismissing the complaint as against it and cancelling the notice of pendency filed by plaintiff isdenied.

U.S. Bank v. Dellarmo(Standing-NY Sup.Ct.)(4/12)In a mortgage foreclosure action, a plaintiff has standing where it is both the holder or assignee of the

subject mortgage and the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced"Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 279; see Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v Gress, 68 AD3d 709).

Where a defendant raises the issue of standing, the plaintiff must prove its standing to be entitled to reliefsee CitiMortgage, Inc. v Rosenthal, 88 AD3d 759; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 753).

Moreover, while assignment of a promissory note also effectuates assignment of the mortgage ( see Bank ofN.Y. Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 280; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d at 753-754; Mortgage Elec.Registration Sys., Inc. v Coakley, ), the converse is not true: since a mortgage is merely security for a debt, itcannot exist independently of the debt, and thus, a transfer or assignment of only the mortgage without thedebt is a nullity and no interest is acquired by it (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Barnett, 88 AD3d636; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 280). The failure to record an assignment prior to thecommencement of the action is not necessarily fatal since "an assignment of a note and mortgage need notbe in writing and can be effectuated by physical delivery" (Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at280; see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Barnett, 88 AD3d 636; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d at754; LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn. v Ahearn, 59 AD3d 911, 912).
http://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/BAC-CW-Stentz-order.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Lindsey-v-%20Wells-Fargo-Bank_no-standing_Fla-2009.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Wells-Fargo-v-Erobobo_Assignment-is-VOID_4-13.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Wells-Fargo-v-Erobobo_Assignment-is-VOID_4-13.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Wells-Fargo-v-Erobobo_Assignment-is-VOID_4-13.pdfhttp://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_50101.htmhttp://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://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/US-BANK-v-DELLARMO_NY-Sup-Ct-lack-of-standing-2012.pdfhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5205332699573358913&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5205332699573358913&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6010703041154120283&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6010703041154120283&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15158235271602093200&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15158235271602093200&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12986848906558373013&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12986848906558373013&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1876008978052926018&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1876008978052926018&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1876008978052926018&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1876008978052926018&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1876008978052926018&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1876008978052926018&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1876008978052926018&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1876008978052926018&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1876008978052926018&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1876008978052926018&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1876008978052926018&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1876008978052926018&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1876008978052926018&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4337904327775059567&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4337904327775059567&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4337904327775059567&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5205332699573358913&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5205332699573358913&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5205332699573358913&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5205332699573358913&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5205332699573358913&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5205332699573358913&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4337904327775059567&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4337904327775059567&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12986848906558373013&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12986848906558373013&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12986848906558373013&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6698946471877921192&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6698946471877921192&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6698946471877921192&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6698946471877921192&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6698946471877921192&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12986848906558373013&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12986848906558373013&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12986848906558373013&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12986848906558373013&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4337904327775059567&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4337904327775059567&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4337904327775059567&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5205332699573358913&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5205332699573358913&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5205332699573358913&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5205332699573358913&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5205332699573358913&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5205332699573358913&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5205332699573358913&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4337904327775059567&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4337904327775059567&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4337904327775059567&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4337904327775059567&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1876008978052926018&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1876008978052926018&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1876008978052926018&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1876008978052926018&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1876008978052926018&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1876008978052926018&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1876008978052926018&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1876008978052926018&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12986848906558373013&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12986848906558373013&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12986848906558373013&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5205332699573358913&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5205332699573358913&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5205332699573358913&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12986848906558373013&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12986848906558373013&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12986848906558373013&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15158235271602093200&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15158235271602093200&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15158235271602093200&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6010703041154120283&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6010703041154120283&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6010703041154120283&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5205332699573358913&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5205332699573358913&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5205332699573358913&q=%222012+NY+Slip+Op+02481%22%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&scilh=0http://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/US-BANK-v-DELLARMO_NY-Sup-Ct-lack-of-standing-2012.pdfhttp://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/pdfs/2012/2012_32590.pdfhttp://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/pdfs/2012/2012_32592.pdfhttp://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_52186.htmhttp://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_50101.htmhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Wells-Fargo-v-Erobobo_Assignment-is-VOID_4-13.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Lindsey-v-%20Wells-Fargo-Bank_no-standing_Fla-2009.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/BAC-CW-Stentz-order.pdf


6/18



Citimortgage v. Stosel (Standing - NY)(11/11) A plaintiff establishes its standing in a mortgage foreclosure action bydemonstrating that it is both the holder or assignee of the subject mortgage and the holder or assignee of the underlying note,

either by physical delivery or execution of a written assignment prior to the commencement of the action (Aurora Loan Servs.,

LLC v. Weisblum, 85 AD3d 95, 108). Moreover, an assignment of the mortgage without assignment of the underlying note

or bond is a nullity (U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Collymore, 68 AD3d at 754; see Bank of N.Y. v. Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 280).

Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it had standing to commence this

foreclosure action, since it failed to establish how or when it became the lawful holder of the note either by delivery or valid

assignment of the note to it.

Wells Fargo v McNee(11/11) As the First Department held in Katz v. East-Ville Realty Co.,(249 AD2d 243, 243), a [p]laintiffs attempt to foreclose upon a mortgage in which he had

no legal or equitable interest [is] without foundation in law or fact (see Kluge v. Fugazy, 145AD2d 537). Hence, Wells Fargos attempt to foreclose upon the subject mortgage must bedenied, the complaint dismissed, and McNees cross-motion(s) to dismiss for lack of standingpursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) granted.

Downey v. Trujillo (8/11)(Schack) Dismissed with prejudice. Schack was angered after lawyerMargaret Carucci said in a sworn affidavit that a Downey Savings & Loan officer on Dec. 24, 2010 claimed to have

personally reviewed and could vouch for the accuracy of the paperwork underlying Trujillo's foreclosure --

although Downey had long ceased to exist.

Deutsche Bank v. Mitchell(8/11) Summary judgment reversed - sale vacated. The assignment wasnot perfected until after the filing of the complaint, and plaintiff presented no evidence of having possessed the

underlying note prior to filing the complaint. If plaintiff did not have the note when it filed the original complaint,

it lacked standing to do so, and it could not obtain standing by filing an amended complaint.

We vacate the sheriff's sale, the final judgment and the order granting summary judgment and remand to the

trial court.

Bank of New York v. Silverberg*(6/11) This matter involves the enforcement of the rulesthat govern real property and whether such rules should be bent to accommodate a systemthat has taken on a life of its own. The issue presented on this appeal is whether a party hasstanding to commence a foreclosure action when that party's assignorin this case,Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (hereinafter MERS)was listed in theunderlying mortgage instruments as a nominee and mortgagee for the purpose of recording,but wasnever the actual holder or assignee of the underlying notes. We answer this question in thenegative.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants' motionpursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them forlack of standing. Thus, the order is reversed, on the law, and the motion of the defendantsStephen Silverberg and Fredrica Silverberg pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) to dismiss thecomplaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of standing is granted.

Deutsche Bank v. Francis(Dismissed With Prejudice-Schack)(3/11): I discovered that there is norecord of plaintiff DEUTSCHE BANK ever owning the subject mortgage and note.

Therefore, with plaintiff DEUTSCHE BANK lacking standing, the instant action is dismissed with prejudice and the

notice of pendency cancelled.

A want of "standing to sue," in other words, is just another way of saying that this particular plaintiff is not

involved in a genuine controversy, and a simple syllogism takes us from there to a "jurisdictional" dismissal: (1)

the courts have jurisdiction only over controversies; (2) a

plaintiff found to lack "standing" is not involved in a controversy; and (3) the courts therefore have no jurisdiction

of the case when such a plaintiff purports to bring it.

Johnston v. HSBC**((complaint), (extrinsic fraud, real party) (3/11)Extrinsic Fraud: Because the fraud is extrinsic in nature, HSBC is precluded from raising the doctrine of-- res judicata --as a

defense against this Courts obligation to verify first and foremost that the claimant has federal jurisdiction real party in interest

status.

Real Party in interest: HSBC MORTGAGE CORP (USA) (hereinafter, HSBC) does not qualify as a

real party of interest" pursuant to Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides: "An action must be prosecuted

in the name of the real party in interest." The purpose of this rule is to require that an action be brought "in the name of the party

who possesses the substantive right being asserted under the applicable law...." 6A WRIGHT,MILLER & KANE, FEDERAL

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: CIVIL 2d 1541 (1990) ("WRIGHT").

ALE v. U.S. Bank (Expunge Mortgage and Assignment*)(1/11)

American Brokers Conduit v. ZAMALLOA - Judge SCHACK 11Sep2007

EMC Mortgage v. Wink - (1/07)MERS, which is not itself the owner and holder of the note andmortgage, does not have the authority to assign the ownership of the note and mortgage to plaintiff.

Judgment of foreclosure and sale is denied

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v Taylor- Mayer, J., Supreme Court, Suffolk County /Sept. 2007
http://c/Program%20Files/Yahoo%20SiteBuilder/lib/sites/default/MSFraud/Mortgage%20Fraud/LAW/Lounge/Citimortgage-v-Stosel_standing_NY-11-11.pdfhttp://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/pdfs/2011/2011_33325.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Downey-v-trujillo-dismiss-w-prejudice-schack.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Deutsche-v-Mitchell-reversed-sale-vacated.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Deutsche-v-Mitchell-reversed-sale-vacated.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/BONY-v-silverberg-MERS-no-standing.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Deutsche-v-Francis-dismissed-with-prejudice.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/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://c/Program%20Files/Yahoo%20SiteBuilder/lib/sites/default/MSFraud/Mortgage%20Fraud/LAW/Lounge/extrinsic-fraud-Johnston-v-HSBC.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/ALE-v-US-BANK.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/AmericanBrokersConduitvZAMALLOAJudgeSCHACK11Sep2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/AmericanBrokersConduitvZAMALLOAJudgeSCHACK11Sep2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/EMC-v-WINK-2007-no-standing.pdfhttp://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2007/2007_27383.htmhttp://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2007/2007_27383.htmhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/EMC-v-WINK-2007-no-standing.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/AmericanBrokersConduitvZAMALLOAJudgeSCHACK11Sep2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/AmericanBrokersConduitvZAMALLOAJudgeSCHACK11Sep2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/ALE-v-US-BANK.pdfhttp://c/Program%20Files/Yahoo%20SiteBuilder/lib/sites/default/MSFraud/Mortgage%20Fraud/LAW/Lounge/extrinsic-fraud-Johnston-v-HSBC.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/extrinsic-fraud-Johnston-v-HSBC.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Deutsche-v-Francis-dismissed-with-prejudice.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/BONY-v-silverberg-MERS-no-standing.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Deutsche-v-Mitchell-reversed-sale-vacated.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Downey-v-trujillo-dismiss-w-prejudice-schack.pdfhttp://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/pdfs/2011/2011_33325.pdfhttp://c/Program%20Files/Yahoo%20SiteBuilder/lib/sites/default/MSFraud/Mortgage%20Fraud/LAW/Lounge/Citimortgage-v-Stosel_standing_NY-11-11.pdf


7/18



American Brokers Conduit v. ZAMALLOA - Judge SCHACK 28Jan2008

Aurora Loan Services v. MACPHERSON - Judge FARNETI 11Mar2008

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

Bank of New York v. TORRES - Judge COSTELLO 11Mar2008

Bank of New York v. OROSCO - Judge SCHACK 19Nov2007

CitiMortgage Inc. v. BROWN - Judge FARNETI 13Mar2008

Countrywide Mortgage v. BERLIUK - Judge COSTELLO 13Mar2008

Deutsche Bank v. Barnes-Judgment Entry

Deutsche Bank v. Barnes-Withdrawal of Objections and Motion to Dismiss

Deutsche Bank v. ALEMANY Judge COSTELLO 07Jan2008

Deutsche Bank v. Benjamin CRUZ - JudgeKURTZ 21May2008

Deutsche Bank v. Yobanna CRUZ - Judge KURTZ 21May2008

Deutsche Bank v. CABAROY - Judge COSTELLO 02Apr2008

he Bank v. CASTELLANOS/ 2007NYSlipOp50978U/- Judge SCHACK 11May2007

HE Bank v. CASTELLANOS/ 2008NYSlipOp50033U/ - Judge SCHACK 14Jan2008

HSBC v. Valentin - Judge SCHACK calls them liars and dismisses WITH prejudice **

Deutsche Bank v. CLOUDEN/ 2007NYSlipOp51767U/ Judge SCHACK 18Sep2007

Deutsche Bank v. EZAGUI - Judge SCHACK 21Dec2007

Deutsche Bank v. GRANT - Judge SCHACK 25Apr2008

Deutsche Bank v. HARRIS - Judge SCHACK 05Feb2008

Deutsche Bank v. LaCrosse,Cede,DTC Complaint

Deutsche Bank v. NICHOLLS - Judge KURTZ 21May2008

Deutsche Bank v. RYAN - Judge KURTZ 29Jan2008

Deutsche Bank v. SAMPSON - Judge KURTZ 16Jan2008

Deutsche v. Marche - Order to Show Cause to VACATE Judgment of Foreclosure -11June2009

GMAC Mortgage LLC v. MATTHEWS - Judge KURTZ 10Jan2008

GMAC Mortgage LLC v. SERAFINE - Judge COSTELLO 08Jan2008

HSBC Bank USA NA v. CIPRIANI Judge COSTELLO 08Jan2008

HSBC Bank USA NA v. JACK - Judge COSTELLO 02Apr2008

IndyMac Bank FSB v. RODNEY-ROSS - Judge KURTZ 15Jan2008

LaSalle Bank NA v. CHARLEUS - Judge KURTZ 03Jan2008

LaSalle Bank NA v. SMALLS - Judge KURTZ 03Jan2008

PHH Mortgage Corp v. BARBER- Judge KURTZ 15Jan2008

Property Asset Management v. HUAYTA 05Dec2007

Rivera, In Re

Services LLC v. SATTAR/ 2007NYSlipOp51895U/ - Judge SCHACK 09Oct2007

U.S. Bank NA v. AUGUSTE - Judge KURTZ 27Nov2007
http://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/AmericanBrokersConduitvZAMALLOAJudgeSCHACK28Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/AmericanBrokersConduitvZAMALLOAJudgeSCHACK28Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/AuroraLoanServicesvMACPHERSONJudgeFARNETI11Mar2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/AuroraLoanServicesvMACPHERSONJudgeFARNETI11Mar2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/BankofNYNAvSINGHJudgeKURTZ14Dec2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/BankofNYNAvSINGHJudgeKURTZ14Dec2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/BankofNYNAvTORRESJudgeCOSTELLO11Mar2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/BankofNYNAvTORRESJudgeCOSTELLO11Mar2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/BankofNYNAvOROSCOJudgeSCHACK19Nov2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/BankofNYNAvOROSCOJudgeSCHACK19Nov2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/CitiMortgageInc.vBROWNJudgeFARNETI13Mar2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/CitiMortgageInc.vBROWNJudgeFARNETI13Mar2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/CountrywideMortgagevBERLIUKJudgeCOSTELLO13Mar2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/CountrywideMortgagevBERLIUKJudgeCOSTELLO13Mar2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/DeutscheBankv.Barnes-JudgmentEntry.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/DeutscheBankv.Barnes-JudgmentEntry.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/DeutscheBankv.Barnes-WithdrawalofObjectionsandMTD.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/DeutscheBankv.Barnes-WithdrawalofObjectionsandMTD.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/DeutscheBankvALEMANYJudgeCOSTELLO07Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/DeutscheBankvALEMANYJudgeCOSTELLO07Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/DeutscheBankvBenjaminCRUZJudgeKURTZ21May2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/DeutscheBankvBenjaminCRUZJudgeKURTZ21May2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/DeutscheBankvYobannaCRUZJudgeKURTZ21May2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/DeutscheBankvYobannaCRUZJudgeKURTZ21May2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/DeutscheBankvCABAROYJudgeCOSTELLO02Apr2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/DeutscheBankvCABAROYJudgeCOSTELLO02Apr2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/heBankvCASTELLANOS2007NYSlipOp50978UJudgeSCHACK11May2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/heBankvCASTELLANOS2007NYSlipOp50978UJudgeSCHACK11May2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/heBankvCASTELLANOS2008NYSlipOp50033UJudgeSCHACK14Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/heBankvCASTELLANOS2008NYSlipOp50033UJudgeSCHACK14Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/HSBCvValentin.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/HSBCvValentin.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/utscheBankvCLOUDEN2007NYSlipOp51767UJudgeSCHACK18Sep2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/utscheBankvCLOUDEN2007NYSlipOp51767UJudgeSCHACK18Sep2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/DeutscheBankvEZAGUIJudgeSCHACK21Dec2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/DeutscheBankvEZAGUIJudgeSCHACK21Dec2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/DeutscheBankvGRANTJudgeSCHACK25Apr2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/DeutscheBankvGRANTJudgeSCHACK25Apr2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/DeutscheBankvHARRISJudgeSCHACK05Feb2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/DeutscheBankvHARRISJudgeSCHACK05Feb2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/DeutscheBankv.LaCrosse,Cede,DTCComplaint.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/DeutscheBankvNICHOLLSJudgeKURTZ21May2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/DeutscheBankvNICHOLLSJudgeKURTZ21May2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/DeutscheBankvRYANJudgeKURTZ29Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/DeutscheBankvRYANJudgeKURTZ29Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/DeutscheBankvSAMPSONJudgeKURTZ16Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/DeutscheBankvSAMPSONJudgeKURTZ16Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/DeutschevMARCHE.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/GMACMortgageLLCvMATTHEWSJudgeKURTZ10Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/GMACMortgageLLCvMATTHEWSJudgeKURTZ10Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/GMACMortgageLLCvSERAFINEJudgeCOSTELLO08Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/GMACMortgageLLCvSERAFINEJudgeCOSTELLO08Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/HSBCBankUSANAvCIPRIANIJudgeCOSTELLO08Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/HSBCBankUSANAvCIPRIANIJudgeCOSTELLO08Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/HSBCBankUSANAvJACKJudgeCOSTELLO02Apr2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/HSBCBankUSANAvJACKJudgeCOSTELLO02Apr2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/IndyMacBankFSBvRODNEY-ROSSJudgeKURTZ15Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/IndyMacBankFSBvRODNEY-ROSSJudgeKURTZ15Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/LaSalleBankNAvCHARLEUSJudgeKURTZ03Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/LaSalleBankNAvCHARLEUSJudgeKURTZ03Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/LaSalleBankNAvSMALLSJudgeKURTZ03Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/LaSalleBankNAvSMALLSJudgeKURTZ03Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/PHHMortgageCorpvBARBERJudgeKURTZ15Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/PHHMortgageCorpvBARBERJudgeKURTZ15Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/PropertyAssetManagementvHUAYTA05Dec2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/PropertyAssetManagementvHUAYTA05Dec2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/Jenny_Rivera.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/ServicesLLCvSATTAR2007NYSlipOp51895UJudgeSCHACK09Oct2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/ServicesLLCvSATTAR2007NYSlipOp51895UJudgeSCHACK09Oct2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/USBankNAvAUGUSTEJudgeKURTZ27Nov2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/USBankNAvAUGUSTEJudgeKURTZ27Nov2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/USBankNAvAUGUSTEJudgeKURTZ27Nov2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/USBankNAvAUGUSTEJudgeKURTZ27Nov2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/ServicesLLCvSATTAR2007NYSlipOp51895UJudgeSCHACK09Oct2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/ServicesLLCvSATTAR2007NYSlipOp51895UJudgeSCHACK09Oct2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/Jenny_Rivera.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/PropertyAssetManagementvHUAYTA05Dec2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/PropertyAssetManagementvHUAYTA05Dec2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/PHHMortgageCorpvBARBERJudgeKURTZ15Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/PHHMortgageCorpvBARBERJudgeKURTZ15Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/LaSalleBankNAvSMALLSJudgeKURTZ03Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/LaSalleBankNAvSMALLSJudgeKURTZ03Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/LaSalleBankNAvCHARLEUSJudgeKURTZ03Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/LaSalleBankNAvCHARLEUSJudgeKURTZ03Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/IndyMacBankFSBvRODNEY-ROSSJudgeKURTZ15Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/IndyMacBankFSBvRODNEY-ROSSJudgeKURTZ15Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/HSBCBankUSANAvJACKJudgeCOSTELLO02Apr2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/HSBCBankUSANAvJACKJudgeCOSTELLO02Apr2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/HSBCBankUSANAvCIPRIANIJudgeCOSTELLO08Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/HSBCBankUSANAvCIPRIANIJudgeCOSTELLO08Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/GMACMortgageLLCvSERAFINEJudgeCOSTELLO08Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/GMACMortgageLLCvSERAFINEJudgeCOSTELLO08Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/GMACMortgageLLCvMATTHEWSJudgeKURTZ10Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/GMACMortgageLLCvMATTHEWSJudgeKURTZ10Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/DeutschevMARCHE.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/DeutscheBankvSAMPSONJudgeKURTZ16Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/DeutscheBankvSAMPSONJudgeKURTZ16Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/DeutscheBankvRYANJudgeKURTZ29Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/DeutscheBankvRYANJudgeKURTZ29Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/DeutscheBankvNICHOLLSJudgeKURTZ21May2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/DeutscheBankvNICHOLLSJudgeKURTZ21May2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/DeutscheBankv.LaCrosse,Cede,DTCComplaint.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/DeutscheBankvHARRISJudgeSCHACK05Feb2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/DeutscheBankvHARRISJudgeSCHACK05Feb2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/DeutscheBankvGRANTJudgeSCHACK25Apr2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/DeutscheBankvGRANTJudgeSCHACK25Apr2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/DeutscheBankvEZAGUIJudgeSCHACK21Dec2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/DeutscheBankvEZAGUIJudgeSCHACK21Dec2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/utscheBankvCLOUDEN2007NYSlipOp51767UJudgeSCHACK18Sep2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/utscheBankvCLOUDEN2007NYSlipOp51767UJudgeSCHACK18Sep2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/HSBCvValentin.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/HSBCvValentin.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/heBankvCASTELLANOS2008NYSlipOp50033UJudgeSCHACK14Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/heBankvCASTELLANOS2008NYSlipOp50033UJudgeSCHACK14Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/heBankvCASTELLANOS2007NYSlipOp50978UJudgeSCHACK11May2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/heBankvCASTELLANOS2007NYSlipOp50978UJudgeSCHACK11May2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/DeutscheBankvCABAROYJudgeCOSTELLO02Apr2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/DeutscheBankvCABAROYJudgeCOSTELLO02Apr2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/DeutscheBankvYobannaCRUZJudgeKURTZ21May2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/DeutscheBankvYobannaCRUZJudgeKURTZ21May2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/DeutscheBankvBenjaminCRUZJudgeKURTZ21May2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/DeutscheBankvBenjaminCRUZJudgeKURTZ21May2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/DeutscheBankvALEMANYJudgeCOSTELLO07Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/DeutscheBankvALEMANYJudgeCOSTELLO07Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/DeutscheBankv.Barnes-WithdrawalofObjectionsandMTD.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/DeutscheBankv.Barnes-WithdrawalofObjectionsandMTD.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/DeutscheBankv.Barnes-JudgmentEntry.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/DeutscheBankv.Barnes-JudgmentEntry.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/CountrywideMortgagevBERLIUKJudgeCOSTELLO13Mar2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/CountrywideMortgagevBERLIUKJudgeCOSTELLO13Mar2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/CitiMortgageInc.vBROWNJudgeFARNETI13Mar2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/CitiMortgageInc.vBROWNJudgeFARNETI13Mar2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/BankofNYNAvOROSCOJudgeSCHACK19Nov2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/BankofNYNAvOROSCOJudgeSCHACK19Nov2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/BankofNYNAvTORRESJudgeCOSTELLO11Mar2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/BankofNYNAvTORRESJudgeCOSTELLO11Mar2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/BankofNYNAvSINGHJudgeKURTZ14Dec2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/BankofNYNAvSINGHJudgeKURTZ14Dec2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/AuroraLoanServicesvMACPHERSONJudgeFARNETI11Mar2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/AuroraLoanServicesvMACPHERSONJudgeFARNETI11Mar2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/AmericanBrokersConduitvZAMALLOAJudgeSCHACK28Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/AmericanBrokersConduitvZAMALLOAJudgeSCHACK28Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/AmericanBrokersConduitvZAMALLOAJudgeSCHACK28Jan2008.pdf


8/18



U.S. Bank v. Emmanuel - (Judge Schack May 2010) Dismissed with prejudice. foreclosureof a mortgage may not be brought by one who has no title to it and absent transfer of thedebt, the assignment of the mortgage is a nullity".

U.S. Bank NA v. GRANT - Judge KURTZ 14Dec2007

U.S. Bank NA v. ROUNDTREE - Judge BURKE 11Oct2007

U.S. Bank NA v. VILLARUEL - Judge KURTZ 01Feb2008

Wells Fargo Bank NA v. HAMPTON - Judge KURTZ 03Jan2008

Wells Fargo, Litton Loan v. Farmer WITH PREJUDICE Judge Schack June2008Plaintiff has renewed its application for an order of reference for the subject premises, but

the papers submitted fail to cure the defects enumerated in my prior decision and order. The

purported plaintiff, WELLS FARGO, does not own the instant mortgage loan. Therefore, the

instant matter is dismissed with prejudice.

- Two invalid assignments of the instant mortgage and note took place, with ARGENT assigning the note and

mortgage to AMERIQUEST, and then AMERIQUEST assigning the note and mortgage to plaintiff WELLS FARGO.

Both of these assignments were not recorded for more than fourteen months, until February 21, 2006, when they

were both recorded at that same time.

Wells Fargo v. Reyes WITH PREJUDICE, Fraud on Court & Sanctions Judge Schack June2008 Nodefendant answered in this foreclosure action.WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE AND CUSTODIAN FOR MORGAN STANLEY ABS

CAPITAL1 INC., MSAC 2007-HE4, lacks standing and has never been the mortgagee in this foreclosure action, the

instant complaint, Index No. 5516/08, is dismissed with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED, that the Notice of

Pendency filed with the Kings County Clerk on February 21, 2008, by purported plaintiff, WELLS FARGO BANK,NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE AND CUSTODIAN FOR MORGAN STANLEY ABS CAPITAL1 INC., MSAC 2007-

HE4, in an action to foreclose a mortgage for real property located at 379 Lincoln Avenue, Brooklyn New York

(Block 4173, Lot 6, County of Kings), is cancelled.

Deutsche Bank v. Peabody Judge Nolan (Regulation Z)

Indymac Bank,FSB v. Boyd - Schack J. January 2009

Indymac Bank, FSB v. Bethley- Schack, J. February 2009 (The tale of many hats)

Indymac Bank, v. Yano-Horoski -Judge Blasts Bank's Foreclosure Conduct and Cancels Mortgage.

LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn. v Ahearn - Appellate Division, Third Department (Pro Se)\

NEW JERSEY COURT DISMISSES FORECLOSURE FILED BY DEUTSCHE BANKFOR FAILURETO PROVIDE DISCOVERY AS TO OWNER AND HOLDER OF NOTE, SECURITIZED TRUSTDOCUMENTS, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS DEMANDED BY BORROWERS

HSBC Bank USA v Miller2009 NY Slip Op 29444 / Decided on October 29, 2009 / Meddaugh, J.

Lasalle Bank v. Smith, MERS (Judge Schack - March 22, 2010)

Wells Fargo Bank, Americas Servicing Company, MERS v Hunte (Judge Schack, Apr.14, 2010/ Dismissedwith prejudice, possible sanctions.) (The court "discovered that WELLS FARGO executed a satisfaction of the instantmortgage more than ten months ago." "The Court is gravely concerned that: it expended scarce resources on an

action that should have been discontinued." the Court, in its discretion may impose financial sanctions upon any

party or attorney in a civil action or proceeding who engages in frivolous conduct.")

Chase v. Johnson(Judge Schack May 4, 2010) (vacated judgment of foreclosure and sale with

prejudice as plaintiff lacked standing.)

OneWest Bank v. Cullen (Judge Zwack - March 3, 2010) (The Court finds that OneWest has failed to establish it hasstanding and dismis sed the complaint.)

ARGENT v. Mait land(Aug. 2010) (Judge Schack) Plaintiffs counsel never notified the Court that the mortgage had been satisfied

and failed to discontinue the instant action with prejudice. I discovered that the mortgage had been satisfied by personally

searching the Automated City Register Information System (ACRIS) website of the Office of the City Register, New York City

Department of Finance.AHMSIsPresident and Chief Executive Officer or its Executive Vice President, Chief Legal Officer

and Secretary Jordan D. Dorchuck, Esq., its counsel, Melissa A. Sposato, Esq. and her firm, Jordan S. Katz, P.C., will be

given an opportunity to be heard as to why this Court should not sanction them for making a fr ivolous motion,

MERS as Nominee for U.S. Bank v. Munoz - (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE)Mortgage Electronic Registration System as Nominee for US Bank, and any of its attorneys, agents,
http://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/U.S.Bank-v-Emmanuel-dismiss-w-prejudice.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/USBankNAvGRANTJudgeKURTZ14Dec2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/USBankNAvGRANTJudgeKURTZ14Dec2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/USBankNAvROUNDTREEJudgeBURKE11Oct2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/USBankNAvROUNDTREEJudgeBURKE11Oct2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/USBankNAvVILLARUELJudgeKURTZ01Feb2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/USBankNAvVILLARUELJudgeKURTZ01Feb2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/WellsFargoBankNAvHAMPTONJudgeKURTZ03Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/WellsFargoBankNAvHAMPTONJudgeKURTZ03Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/wellsfargo_litton-wprejudice.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/wellsfargo_litton-wprejudice.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/WellsFargo_REYES.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/WellsFargo_REYES.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Deutsche%20Bank%20v.%20Peabody.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Deutsche%20Bank%20v.%20Peabody.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/IndymacBankvBoyd.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/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://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/HSBC%20Bank%20USA%20v%20Miller.mhthttp://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_50470.htmhttp://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_50470.htmhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Wells-Hunte-DismissedWprejudice-sanctions.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Wells-Hunte-DismissedWprejudice-sanctions.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Chase-Johnson-Vacate-wprejudice.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Chase-Johnson-Vacate-wprejudice.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/onewest%20bank%20v%20cullen-standing.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Argent-v-Maitland-dismiss-satisfied-sanctions-8-2010.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Argent-v-Maitland-dismiss-satisfied-sanctions-8-2010.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/MERS-USBankvmunoz-ordertoshowcause2010.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/MERS-USBankvmunoz-ordertoshowcause2010.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Argent-v-Maitland-dismiss-satisfied-sanctions-8-2010.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/onewest%20bank%20v%20cullen-standing.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Chase-Johnson-Vacate-wprejudice.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Chase-Johnson-Vacate-wprejudice.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Wells-Hunte-DismissedWprejudice-sanctions.pdfhttp://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_50470.htmhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/HSBC%20Bank%20USA%20v%20Miller.mhthttp://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/?p=144http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/?p=144http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/?p=144http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/?p=144http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/?p=144http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/?p=144http://www.courts.state.ny.us/REPORTER/3dseries/2009/2009_01388.htmhttp://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_52333.htmhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/IndyMacBankvBethley.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/IndymacBankvBoyd.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Deutsche%20Bank%20v.%20Peabody.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Deutsche%20Bank%20v.%20Peabody.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/WellsFargo_REYES.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/WellsFargo_REYES.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/wellsfargo_litton-wprejudice.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/wellsfargo_litton-wprejudice.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/WellsFargoBankNAvHAMPTONJudgeKURTZ03Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/WellsFargoBankNAvHAMPTONJudgeKURTZ03Jan2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/USBankNAvVILLARUELJudgeKURTZ01Feb2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/USBankNAvVILLARUELJudgeKURTZ01Feb2008.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/USBankNAvROUNDTREEJudgeBURKE11Oct2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/USBankNAvROUNDTREEJudgeBURKE11Oct2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/USBankNAvGRANTJudgeKURTZ14Dec2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing/New%20York/USBankNAvGRANTJudgeKURTZ14Dec2007.pdfhttp://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/U.S.Bank-v-Emmanuel-dismiss-w-prejudice.pdf


9/18



successors and assignees, be and are hereby restrained from implementing the closing of title on any third party

sale of the premises and restrained from evicting the family from the premises.

LLP v. Sabine (8/2010) "the assignment produced by LPP is insufficient to demonstrate it has standing as (1)MERS has no ownership rights in the note and thus cannot assign it; (2) the language of the assignment of

the mortgage does not evidence an intent to assign the underlying note, (3) the assignment arises out of a

purchase agreement with an entity who is not a party to this action, and (4) the provision of mortgage document

relied on by LPP does not give MERS the authority to assign the mortgage or the note.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Hughes(1/10)The terms of the proposed modification agreement,particularly but not exclusively the inclusion of an adjustable rate component, are unacceptable to this court. "The

above matter is hereby dismissed without prejudice; and it is further ordered, that in the event Wells Fargo

commences a new action in foreclosure with respect to this borrower and the premises at issue herein, noadditional costs or attorney fees will be allowed, absent good cause shown.

BACKFIRE!Emigrant Mtge. Co. Inc. v Corcione : (7/10)"unconscionable, unreasonable [and] overreaching"mortgage agreement. For all of the foregoing reasons, it is, therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that plaintiff'sapplication for summary judgment and appointment of a referee is denied; and it is further ordered, adjudged anddecreed that plaintiff, its successors, assigns and others are forever barred, foreclosed and prohibited from demanding,collecting or attempting to collect, directly or indirectly, any and all of the sums in this proceeding delineated asnterest, default interest, attorney's fees, legal fees, costs, disbursements, advances or any sums other than the principal

balance, that may have accrued from May 1, 2008 up to the date of this order; and it is further ordered, adjudged anddecreed that defendants recover judgment against plaintiff Emigrant Mortgage Co. Inc., in the principal sum of$100.000.00 as damages for what he said was an "unconscionable, unreasonable [and] overreaching" mortgageagreement.

Beneficial v. Steele***(Judge Spinner)(Jan 7/11) An action claiming foreclosure of a mortgage is a suit inequity, Jamaica Savings Bank v. M.S. Investment Co. 274 NY 215 (1937), and the very commencement of theproceeding invokes the equity jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Thus, in order to obtain equitable relief, the

applicant must come before the Court with clean hands, else such relief will be denied. Thus, where a party comes

before the Court and is shown to have acted in a manner which is offens

Documents

Lack.of.Standing.case.Dismissals