Hogan v WAMU Az Appellate Decision Against Borrower


COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

SEE DECISION AT Hogan v WAMU Decision Against Borrower

EDITOR’S NOTE: If you actually read the decision rather than focusing exclusively on the results, you can see that the court was simply following precedent in the absence of a proper presentation by the Borrower. However you can be sure that the pretender lenders will waive this decision in front of judges in support of their pretension to foreclose on property in which they have no interest.

7 Responses

  1. Ibanez was not defended but a happier result. Ironic

    Looks as if New York and mass are the only states where some semblance of a sense of justice remain in this sad republic. Where is justice when a court won’t do the right thing. Justice they costs 300 to 500 an hour is not any justice I recognize Carie good luck learning how to be a lawyer. It can’t be so readily done without a compassionate judge. Very few of those the judges here knew what the plaintiff was trying to say and took pleasure on squashing him like a bug because he messed up. They most likely could have found a way to remand if they had wanted to or as I said, acted with a sense of justice as the ibanez court did. Instead they blessed a probable theft. Bah we’re as bad as the Italians, or the iranians playing at justice with show trials. It really disgusts me. I don’t think I want to lend myself to this hypocrisy which is why I lost my property. Its all a charade

    I wish we could get statistics on the number of
    pro se ers successful in confronting this foreclosure monster

  2. Marie—unfortunately (or fortunately?), we have been FORCED by the bank’s “grand deception” to LEARN the “rules of procedure”—whether we want to or not…welcome to our brave new world…

  3. read it again Marie – he waived issues by not presenting them in the brief or by not presenting them at the dismissal stage. it’s not some legalese barrier to entry for pro se, it’s knowing how to practice law according to the rules of procedure.

  4. No mercy if you don’t phrase it with artful legalese

  5. @fraud fighter – my observations of what he could have done better:
    1. He didn’t dispute default, which the court treated as an admission of default.
    2. He tried to go the “show me the note” route.
    3. He waived issues on appeal by not preserving the issues in his pleadings and not mentioning them in appeal brief.
    4. He focused on the note and WAMU’s right to enforce. Court implied he should have looked to DOT instead.
    These are taken from the court’s opinion. A review of his actual pleading would be informative and a potential source of what not to do.

  6. I would appreciate it if someone could show more precisely what the borrower did or did not do that brought about this decision.

    An in depth discussion on this could really help all pro se litigants who are trying to do their best in presenting complaints, answering motions and giving both evidence and exhibits to the court.

    Thanks in advance!!

  7. At first glance it appears the court takes refuge in semantics and technicalities and was perhaps a bit intimidated that the government was involved

    No justice required here. Hogan assuming he was pro se raised standing issues it seems to me but was given the back of the hand by the court. Perhaps I need to read this again.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: