Trees v. Flagstar Bank, Lakeview Financing Maintenance, LLC

As well, brand new undersigned found that Plaintiff’s allegation concerning your recording regarding two lien launches failed to give rise to any plausible claim while the the brand new launches, even though about the property at issue, worried a separate loan not related to this suit

So it Declaration and you will Testimonial issues the second around three movements: (1) Plaintiff’s Affidavit out of Issues meant for Defendant’s Ginnie Mae Standard Judgment [#17], which the Courtroom construes as the Plaintiff’s Activity getting Default Wisdom facing Defendant Ginnie Mae; (2) Plaintiff’s Affidavit from Circumstances meant for Defendant’s Hughes, Watters & Amplifier Askanase Law firm Default Wisdom [#18], that your Judge construes while the Plaintiff’s Actions to own Default Wisdom against Accused Hughes, Watters & Askanase; and you may (3) Offender Hughes Watters & Askanase, LLP’s Rule 12(b)(6) Action so you can Discount with Bias [#21]. Pursuing the Section Courtroom used the fresh undersigned’s earlier in the day statement and testimonial, easy money title loan Waynesboro the brand new Courtroom lso are-referred this example for the undersigned having spirits of all of the leftover pretrial things [#28]. The fresh new undersigned has actually expert to enter it testimonial pursuant to twenty eight U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). To your factors set forth lower than, we recommend that Plaintiff’s Activity to possess Default Judgment up against Accused Ginnie Mae [#17] getting Refuted; Plaintiff’s Action having Standard Judgment facing Offender Hughes, Watters & Askanase [#18] end up being Disregarded Since MOOT; and you may Defendant Hughes Watters Askanase, LLP’s Rule twelve(b)(6) Actions to Dismiss that have Prejudice [#21] become Granted. This new undersigned further advises that the Section Legal disregard versus prejudice Plaintiff’s leftover says against Ginnie Mae sua sponte.

Plaintiff Sammy Lee Trees, Jr., continuing specialist se, recorded their Complaint towards the [#3] facing Defendants Flagstar Financial, Lakeview Mortgage Servicing, LLC, Loancare, LLC, Ginnie Mae, and you may Hughes, Watters & Askanase. Plaintiff’s claims concern possessions found at 7727 Windview Way, San Antonio, Texas 78244 and a supposedly unlawful take to in the foreclosure. (Compl. [#3] within dos, 33.) Plaintiff’s Problem, even in the event lengthy, consists of few factual allegations as well as does not have a description out of the fresh new events so as to differentiate the new so-called misconduct of your some Defendants. (Id. from the dos.) What can cause step asserted when you look at the Plaintiff’s Criticism also are uncertain, but Plaintiff seems to be asserting states of wrongful foreclosure, breach away from deal, scam, and you can assertion out of owed techniques, also abuses of your own Tx Providers and you can Business Code §3.603, the situation For the Lending Operate («TILA»), the actual House Settlement Measures Work («RESPA»), this new Racketeer Swayed and you may Corrupt Organizations Work («RICO»), plus the Uniform Commercial Code («UCC»). (Id. at the 3-twenty-eight.) Attached to Plaintiff’s Ailment are specific data files you to allegedly support their states. (Id. at 33-sixty.)

But not, construing Plaintiff’s Problem or any other pleadings liberally, it would appear that they are alleging which he renegotiated their mortgage with a new promissory note to your , and this note efficiently paid back the mortgage in a manner that one shot from the foreclosures is illegal

Defendants Flagstar Financial, Lakeview Loan Repair, and you can Loancare gone to live in dismiss Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Government Laws off Civil Processes a dozen(b)(6), additionally the undersigned awarded research and recommendation recommending this new action getting supplied with the [#19]. On declaration, new undersigned figured Plaintiff’s allegation which he fulfilled extent owed towards his loan from the distribution another type of notice to Flagstar Financial did not produce any facially possible allege, just like the notice connected with Plaintiff’s Problem appeared as if unilaterally drafted and you will carried out of the Plaintiff in just be sure to modify the loan’s terminology. In the end, the brand new undersigned unearthed that Plaintiff’s says not as much as RILA, Regulation Z, and you will RESPA have been prohibited from the governing law of restrictions and you will Plaintiff’s UCC and you may Tx Company and Trade Password states unsuccessful as a question of laws mainly because rules don’t regulate liens into real-estate.