Trees v. Flagstar Bank, Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC

Trees v. Flagstar Bank, Lakeview Loan <a href=""></a> Servicing, LLC

While doing so, the new undersigned unearthed that Plaintiff’s allegation regarding your tape of a few lien launches don’t bring about people probable claim because the launches, although related to the house at issue, concerned another type of mortgage not related compared to that fit

So it Report and you will Recommendation concerns next about three moves: (1) Plaintiff’s Affidavit out-of Issues meant for Defendant’s Ginnie Mae Standard View [#17], that Legal construes since the Plaintiff’s Action to possess Default Wisdom up against Offender Ginnie Mae; (2) Plaintiff’s Affidavit away from Products meant for Defendant’s Hughes, Watters & Amplifier Askanase Lawyer Standard View [#18], which the Judge construes since the Plaintiff’s Action for Default View facing Offender Hughes, Watters & Askanase; and you will (3) Offender Hughes Watters & Askanase, LLP’s Signal a dozen(b)(6) Activity in order to Dismiss which have Bias [#21]. Pursuing the Area Court adopted the new undersigned’s prior report and you may recommendation, the latest Legal re also-referred this case on the undersigned getting aura of all left pretrial things [#28]. The newest undersigned possess authority to go into it recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On the causes established lower than, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion to own Standard Wisdom facing Offender Ginnie Mae [#17] end up being Declined; Plaintiff’s Activity to have Standard View up against Defendant Hughes, Watters & Askanase [#18] be Ignored Due to the fact MOOT; and you can Offender Hughes Watters Askanase, LLP’s Signal 12(b)(6) Action so you can Disregard having Prejudice [#21] be Provided. The latest undersigned then advises the District Judge discount versus prejudice Plaintiff’s left claims up against Ginnie Mae sua sponte.

Plaintiff Sammy Lee Woods, Jr., continuing pro se, submitted his Criticism with the [#3] against Defendants Flagstar Bank, Lakeview Loan Upkeep, LLC, Loancare, LLC, Ginnie Mae, and you will Hughes, Watters & Askanase. Plaintiff’s states matter assets found at 7727 Windview Ways, San Antonio, Texas 78244 and a purportedly unlawful take to at the property foreclosure. (Compl. [#3] at the dos, 33.) Plaintiff’s Criticism, in the event a long time, contains hardly any informative allegations plus does not have a description regarding new people in order to separate the fresh so-called misconduct of the individuals Defendants. (Id. at 2.) What causes step asserted inside the Plaintiff’s Complaint also are unsure, but Plaintiff appears to be saying states of wrongful foreclosures, breach regarding price, swindle, and you will denial out of due processes, in addition to violations of Colorado Organization and Business Code §step three.603, happening Inside Credit Work (“TILA”), the real House Settlement Tips Act (“RESPA”), this new Racketeer Swayed and you can Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), and Consistent Commercial Code (“UCC”). (Id. during the step 3-twenty eight.) Linked to Plaintiff’s Criticism are specific data that allegedly support his claims. (Id. within 33-sixty.)

However, construing Plaintiff’s Issue or any other pleadings liberally, it appears that they are alleging he renegotiated his loan with a new promissory mention for the , which notice effortlessly paid off the borrowed funds in a manner that one take to in the property foreclosure are unlawful

Defendants Flagstar Lender, Lakeview Financing Servicing, and you can Loancare gone to live in dismiss Plaintiff’s says pursuant to Federal Laws of Civil Techniques twelve(b)(6), therefore the undersigned issued a research and you can testimonial indicating the brand new activity be supplied into the [#19]. Throughout the report, new undersigned concluded that Plaintiff’s allegation which he satisfied the amount due on the his loan by the entry a different mention so you can Flagstar Lender don’t produce people facially probable claim, once the mention attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint appeared to be unilaterally drawn up and you can performed of the Plaintiff in attempt to customize the loan’s conditions. Eventually, the fresh new undersigned found that Plaintiff’s says under RILA, Regulation Z, and you may RESPA was prohibited from the governing statute from limitations and you may Plaintiff’s UCC and you will Tx Team and you may Commerce Password claims were unsuccessful given that an issue of rules since these statutes do not govern liens into the houses.

Post your comment