Trees v. Flagstar Financial, Lakeview Financing Upkeep, LLC

Likewise, the newest undersigned learned that Plaintiff’s allegation regarding the recording of one or two lien releases failed to produce one possible claim because new launches, although pertaining to the property concerned, worried a unique loan not related compared to that match

It Declaration and you will Testimonial concerns the second around three moves: (1) Plaintiff’s Affidavit out of Things in support of Defendant’s Ginnie Mae Standard View [#17], that your Court construes once the Plaintiff’s Action to have Default Wisdom up against Accused Ginnie Mae; (2) Plaintiff’s Affidavit away from Activities to get Defendant’s Hughes, Watters & Amp Askanase Law practice Default Judgment [#18], which the Court construes due to the fact Plaintiff’s Actions for Default View facing Accused Hughes, Watters & Askanase; and you can (3) Accused Hughes Watters & Askanase, LLP’s Signal several(b)(6) Activity in order to Discount with Prejudice [#21]. Following Region Judge used brand new undersigned’s earlier in the day report and you will testimonial, brand new Courtroom re-introduced this situation into the undersigned to possess vibe of the many remaining pretrial things [#28]. The fresh undersigned features expert to get in which recommendation pursuant in order to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Toward grounds set forth lower than, we recommend that Plaintiff’s Action for Standard Wisdom up against Defendant Ginnie Mae [#17] be Denied; Plaintiff’s Action to own Default View up against Accused Hughes, Watters & Askanase [#18] feel Disregarded Due to the fact MOOT; and Offender Hughes Watters Askanase, LLP’s Laws several(b)(6) Action so you can Dismiss having Prejudice [#21] end up being Provided. The brand new undersigned subsequent recommends your Region Judge write off instead of bias Plaintiff’s left states up against Ginnie Mae sua sponte.

Plaintiff Sammy Lee Woods, Jr., proceeding professional se, filed his Complaint on [#3] facing Defendants Flagstar Lender, Lakeview Mortgage Maintenance, LLC, Loancare, LLC, Ginnie Mae, and you may Hughes, Watters & Askanase. Plaintiff’s states question property located at 7727 Windview Way, San Antonio, Texas 78244 and a supposedly illegal decide to try on property foreclosure. (Compl. [#3] in the dos, 33.) Plaintiff’s Complaint, even in the event very 24 hour title loans Reading long, include hardly any informative allegations plus lacks a conclusion out-of the new parties to be able to differentiate this new alleged misconduct of the some Defendants. (Id. at 2.) What can cause action asserted when you look at the Plaintiff’s Grievance are also not sure, however, Plaintiff appears to be saying states of unlawful property foreclosure, violation from offer, con, and you can assertion away from owed processes, as well as abuses of your Texas Business and you can Trade Password §step three.603, the outcome In Credit Operate (“TILA”), the actual Estate Payment Steps Act (“RESPA”), brand new Racketeer Swayed and you will Corrupt Groups Work (“RICO”), and also the Consistent Industrial Code (“UCC”). (Id. in the step 3-28.) Attached to Plaintiff’s Ailment are certain documents that presumably service his claims. (Id. from the 33-sixty.)

not, construing Plaintiff’s Grievance and other pleadings liberally, it seems that they are alleging that he renegotiated their loan with a brand new promissory mention into the , and this note effectively paid down the borrowed funds in a way that any shot at the foreclosures was illegal

Defendants Flagstar Bank, Lakeview Mortgage Upkeep, and you can Loancare transferred to disregard Plaintiff’s claims pursuant in order to Federal Rule away from Municipal Process twelve(b)(6), in addition to undersigned provided research and you will testimonial suggesting the latest action feel granted for the [#19]. About declaration, new undersigned determined that Plaintiff’s allegation that he fulfilled the quantity due towards the their financing from the submission an alternate mention so you’re able to Flagstar Bank didn’t bring about people facially possible claim, given that note connected to Plaintiff’s Problem appeared to be unilaterally drawn up and performed by the Plaintiff in you will need to modify the loan’s terminology. In the long run, the brand new undersigned unearthed that Plaintiff’s says lower than RILA, Controls Z, and RESPA was banned by the ruling statute away from restrictions and you can Plaintiff’s UCC and you can Texas Providers and you can Business Password states were not successful as an issue of rules mainly because statutes don’t control liens on the real-estate.