Livinglies's Weblog

Probably the most important comments from judge Boyco relate to the fact that (1) these cases are about money for the banks (or whoever is claiming to be the successor to an originator who may or may not have actually loaned money to the homeowner) and (2) these cases are about forfeiture as it relates to the homeowner. Forfeiture is an extreme remedy in which the courts should pay special attention to the requirements of standing and other jurisdictional issues, as well as rulings in discovery, motion practice and at trial. My comment is that nearly all the Judges have relied upon the former assumption: that the case for money automatically leads to forfeiture even if the requirements are not met.

see Ohio – Judge Boyko Decision 2007

Hat tip to Bill Paatalo

Sometimes it is a good idea to look at older decisions that occurred before millions of foreclosures were concluded against the homeowner in which the homeowner forfeited ownership and possession of their homestead under at best, questionable circumstances. The argument from the banks has been consistent: this is the way we have been doing things so now it is law. Federal Judge Boyco stops them at the gate.

Here are some of the relevant comments by Judge Boyco when he dismissed a series of cases. He clearly understood that there was something inherently wrong with the position of the “banks” and trusts and servicers and therefore something inherently wrong and defective about allowing foreclosures when the initiator of the foreclosure showed no real interest in the alleged transaction.

Probably the most important comments from judge Boyco relate to the fact that (1) these cases are about money for the banks (or whoever is claiming to be the successor to an originator who may or may not have actually loaned money to the homeowner) and (2) these cases are about forfeiture as it relates to the homeowner. Forfeiture is an extreme remedy in which the courts should pay special attention to the requirements fo standing and other jurisdictional issues, as well as rulings in discovery, motion practice and at trial. My comment is that nearly all the Judges have relied upon the former assumption: that the case for money automatically leads to forfeiture even if the requirements are not met.

To satisfy the requirements of Article III of the United States Constitution, the plaintiff must show he has personally suffered some actual injury as a result of the illegal conduct of the defendant. (Emphasis added). Coyne, 183 F. 3d at 494; Valley Forge, 454 U.S. at 472.

In each of the above-captioned Complaints, the named Plaintiff alleges it is the holder and owner of the Note and Mortgage. However, the attached Note and Mortgage identify the mortgagee and promisee as the original lending institution — one other than the named Plaintiff.

none of the Assignments show the named Plaintiff to be the owner of the rights, title and interest under the Mortgage at issue as of the date of the Foreclosure Complaint. The Assignments, in every instance, express a present intent to convey all rights, title and interest in the Mortgage and the accompanying Note to the Plaintiff named in the caption of the Foreclosure Complaint upon receipt of sufficient consideration on the date the Assignment was signed and notarized. Further, the Assignment documents are all prepared by counsel for the named Plaintiffs. These proffered documents belie Plaintiffs’ assertion they own the Note and Mortgage by means of a purchase which pre-dated the Complaint by days, months or years.

“The provision should not be misunderstood or distorted. It is intended to prevent forfeiture when determination of the

proper party to sue is difficult or when an understandable mistake has been made. … It is, in cases of this sort, intended to insure against forfeiture and injustice …” Plaintiff-Lenders do not allege mistake or that a party cannot be identified. Nor will Plaintiff-Lenders suffer forfeiture or injustice by the dismissal of these defective complaints otherwise than on the merits.

since the unique nature of real property requires contracts and transactions concerning real property to be in writing. R.C. § 1335.04. Ohio law holds that when a mortgage is assigned, moreover, the assignment is subject to the recording requirements of R.C. § 5301.25. Creager v. Anderson (1934), 16 Ohio Law Abs. 400 (interpreting the former statute, G.C. § 8543). “Thus, with regards to real property, before an entity assigned an interest in that property would be entitled to receive a distribution from the sale of the property, their interest therein must have been recorded in accordance with Ohio law.” In re Ochmanek, 266 B.R. 114, 120 (Bkrtcy.N.D. Ohio 2000) (citing Pinney v. Merchants’ National Bank of Defiance, 71 Ohio St. 173, 177 (1904).1

the federal courts must act as gatekeepers, assuring that only those who meet diversity and standing requirements are allowed to pass through. Counsel for the institutions are not without legal argument to support their position, but their arguments fall woefully short of justifying their premature filings, and utterly fail to satisfy their standing and jurisdictional burdens. The institutions seem to adopt the attitude that since they have been doing this for so long, unchallenged, this practice equates with legal compliance. Finally put to the test, their weak legal arguments compel the Court to stop them at the gate.

The Court will illustrate in simple terms its decision: “Fluidity of the market” — “X” dollars, “contractual arrangements between institutions and counsel” — “X” dollars, “purchasing mortgages in bulk and securitizing” — “X” dollars, “rush to file, slow to record after judgment” — “X” dollars, “the jurisdictional integrity of United States District Court” — “Priceless.

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.

Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: assignments, back-dated assignments, Boyco, Federal court, forfeiture, Ohio, requirement of recording |