Arizona Magistrate Remands Foreclosure to State Court

aspey-az-order-to-remand-case-to-state-court1

In a well reasoned decision, a Federal Judge reversed his prior position and remanded the case back to State Court, depriving the pretender lenders of a number of presumptions that they were using when they removed the case from State Court to Federal.

The decision recites the fact that there are “novel” issues of law, a concession that had been anathema to the courts and usually rejected out of hand. The Federal Judge said that the case did not belong in Federal Court because the Court would have to guess at what a state court judge would do and what the Arizona Supreme Court would say about the state judge’s decision.  In the interest of judicial economy and for the substantive reasons stated above, the Judge kicked the case back to state court. The wording of the opinion is such that the state court judge must take note that a federal judge recognized that there were meritorious and novel issues that were presented in construing state law within the context of so-called securitized loans.

21 Responses

  1. @John
    Hahaha, I AM in California, at Neil’s seminar 🙂
    I think in CA you have a notice of default in stead of a deed of appointment, where the foreclosing entity would recite its bogus assertions. I would look at the statutory and common law requirements of such notices of default, and then would look at whether you can record anything to counter that.

  2. ANONYMOUS

    thank you.

    BoA story is like
    Alice in wonderland. or Lucy in the sky with diamonds.

  3. Now the robosigners are sueing the attorneys that defend foreclosures

    MATT WEIDNER, ESQ OF Florida.

    http://www.tampabay.com/news/nationwide-title-goes-on-attack-against-vocal-critics/1139169

    robosigners is a nice name i would call them nazi pigs.

    i think it is time to send judges a copy of Mein Kampf, and the transcripts to the neurenberg trials. So they wont be able to claim ignorance.

    Even Herr Hitler the Banksters hero knew that he should bet the German People (VolksVagen). behind him. The banksters are gonna loose big time.

    NEVER AGAIN.

    NOW WIKILEAKS HAS A FRIEND CALLED OPENLEAKS.

  4. THE A MAN,

    What is BofA going to say in the affidavits? Do not believe they can state that the trusts are not now back on their balance sheet. And, do not believe they can state that servicer advanced all payments/fees/taxes to the trust on behalf of borrower — as required by the PSA for loan to stay in trust. Also, do not believe they can state that foreclosure proceeds will be forwarded the trustee – for a trust that is dissolved – with no servicer advances – and invalid conveyance to the trust to start with.

    It is not BofA that is refiling — it is their attorneys — question is — who are these attorneys REALLY representing??? BofA may have been creditor at one time — but no more. Servicer is “servicing” for someone else that BofA has an agreement with.

  5. We are in a war!!!!!! God help us!!!!

  6. So the banks are just CREATING new docs and starting to foreclosure…OMG

  7. b davies….I wish I lived in Oklahoma! Nice Save!

  8. http://www.scribd.com/doc/45063608/Indymac-Class-Action-Security-Law-Suit-2007-Their-Lending-Standards-Were-Covered-Up

    THIS READ TRUE TODAY. SO IF YOU ARE INVOLVED WITH INDYMAC, INDYMAC FEDERAL, ONEWEST AND HAVE FUNDED BY LATE 2007 YOU SHOULD READ THIS ONE.

  9. Bank of America trying to resume foreclosures

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704720804576009922888850258.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_realestate

    Are the Banksters on LSD.

  10. If mortgage and note was purchased from the originator and securitized, isn’t the satisfaction of mortgage suppose to be filed in the county records?

    Also, can a trust own and hold bearer paper, if under NY Trust Law?

  11. I think in California we have our foot in the door so to speak now that Chase v Ortiz says that unperfected titles is a defense at the unlawful detainer. This makes sense since in California due to the one way law (all paid off using non-judicial means) the homeowner should get back for the house their blue ink signed note. There is no reason to allow the lender to continue trading your note!…or take their word that they are not.

  12. Hey Gregory Bryl, We need you in California…pronto!

  13. Ian,
    I too cannot believe that Scott Anderson (one of – if not the most notorious “robosigner”) has NOT been placed under the microscope … maybe we need Dog The Bounty Hunter (!?!) – OR – does ‘Scott Anderson’ even exist???

  14. In re: robosigners- say, does anyone have any updated information on the whereabouts or existence of Scott Anderson, of Ocwen,Option One, Deutschbank, and 101 other companies? You know, the one with 32 different signatures? Who didn’t show up in Judge Schack’s courtroom with proof of his employment for the previous 3 years? Anybody? He was deposed in absentia? by someone on one of the posts here. What if I have docs signed by him, what if he doesn’t exist?

  15. Soooooooooo, the Fed Judge kicks it to the State Court, then the State Court kicks back to Fed Judge, then Back to State, then back to Fed, and so on, and so on.

    The Fed Judge is passing the buck! It must be interrupting with his/her Nap Time.

    Ho Hummm.

  16. HOTDOG! MAYBE WE CAN BUILD SOME AZ CASE LAW WITH……SHOW ME THE NOTE YOU CROOKS! I MEAN BANKS 🙂

  17. this is the single best case that I have seen as to why quiet title cases do not belong in federal court and why they need to be remanded if the defs try to remove. everyone having this problem needs to read this case. My remand was denied but I am on the way to the courthouse now asking the court to reconsider based uon this case.

  18. More on nonjudicial states.

    The problem with nonjudicial state has been the difficulty to force the bank to prove their case. This is because in such states the bank can use its own self-serving recordings to prove their case. More on this here:
    http://bryllaw.blogspot.com/2010/12/burden-of-proof-in-nonjudicial-states.html
    So instead of filing a complaint against the bank, you use its own weapon: you turn your (true) statements into recordings.

    Just as they review their paperwork, take the position that their Bank as Trustee should be able to collect on the note and is therefore the noteholder, and then recite their baseless conclusions in their recorded document, you can take your evidence, make appropriate conclusions (e.g., that some now-defunct entity still holds the note; that such-and-such deed of appointment is void because it’s executed by a known robo-signer, etc.), and then record such statements in the land records after their documents.

    You will then have conflicting records of equal evidentiary weight with respect to the property. Since it is the bank that is seeking to change the status quo (force a transfer of the property), they will likely bring a suit against you to enjoin (stop) you from recording your documents. That’s when you just sit back, poke holes in their case, and force them to plead and prove their case to the full extent required by the rules of evidence.

    Of course, you have to ensure that all the statements in your recordings are truthful and defensible, otherwise you may expose yourself to charges of fraud.

  19. How wonderful–my case is split–the quiet title is in fed court and the common law causes of action are in state court. I am trying to get the quiet title and declaratory judgment actin remanded to state court–I will certainly use this case to help me get there. Wonderful decision.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: