Trees v. Flagstar Lender, Lakeview Mortgage Servicing, LLC

Likewise, this new undersigned discovered that Plaintiff’s allegation concerning your recording out-of a few lien launches don’t bring about people plausible claim because the new releases, even though linked to the property under consideration, alarmed another mortgage not related to that particular fit

So it Statement and you will Testimonial issues another around three movements: (1) Plaintiff’s Affidavit from Issues to get Defendant’s Ginnie Mae Standard Wisdom [#17], which the Courtroom construes because Plaintiff’s Activity getting Default View facing Accused Ginnie Mae; (2) Plaintiff’s Affidavit out of Activities in support of Defendant’s Hughes, Watters & Amp Askanase Firm Default Judgment [#18], that Court construes since Plaintiff’s Activity to have Default Judgment facing Offender Hughes, Watters & Askanase; and you will (3) Accused Hughes Watters & Askanase, LLP’s Laws 12(b)(6) Action so you’re able to Write off with Bias [#21]. Following the Section Courtroom accompanied this new undersigned’s early in the day report and you can testimonial, the new Courtroom lso are-referred this situation on the undersigned for disposition of all the leftover pretrial matters [#28]. The undersigned possess authority to go into it recommendation pursuant so you’re able to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). To the reasons set forth below, we recommend that Plaintiff’s Action to have Standard Wisdom up against Offender Ginnie Mae [#17] become Denied; Plaintiff’s Action to have Default Judgment up against Offender Hughes, Watters & Askanase [#18] getting Ignored As MOOT; and Defendant Hughes Watters Askanase, LLP’s Signal twelve(b)(6) Activity in order to Discount which have Prejudice [#21] getting Provided. New undersigned subsequent advises the Section Legal dismiss rather than prejudice Plaintiff’s remaining claims facing Ginnie Mae sua sponte.

Plaintiff Sammy https://servicecashadvance.com/title-loans-mi/portage/ Lee Woods, Jr., continuing expert se, filed his Complaint on the [#3] up against Defendants Flagstar Financial, Lakeview Mortgage Repair, LLC, Loancare, LLC, Ginnie Mae, and you will Hughes, Watters & Askanase. Plaintiff’s states concern property found at 7727 Windview Means, San Antonio, Texas 78244 and you may a supposedly illegal try from the property foreclosure. (Compl. [#3] in the 2, 33.) Plaintiff’s Ailment, although a long time, consists of not many factual allegations and even does not have a description regarding the fresh new parties in order to identify this new so-called misconduct of one’s individuals Defendants. (Id. during the 2.) What can cause action asserted within the Plaintiff’s Issue also are not sure, but Plaintiff appears to be saying states out-of wrongful foreclosures, breach regarding deal, fraud, and you may denial away from owed processes, in addition to abuses of Texas Business and you will Business Code §3.603, the scenario In Credit Operate (“TILA”), the genuine Home Payment Tips Act (“RESPA”), the fresh new Racketeer Influenced and you can Corrupt Teams Operate (“RICO”), and Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”). (Id. during the step 3-28.) Linked to Plaintiff’s Complaint are specific data files you to definitely presumably assistance their claims. (Id. in the 33-sixty.)

not, construing Plaintiff’s Criticism or other pleadings liberally, it seems that he or she is alleging that he renegotiated his mortgage with a brand new promissory note to the , hence notice effortlessly paid down the loan in a manner that people decide to try from the property foreclosure are illegal

Defendants Flagstar Bank, Lakeview Mortgage Maintenance, and you can Loancare transferred to write off Plaintiff’s says pursuant to help you Federal Signal off Civil Processes several(b)(6), and also the undersigned approved research and testimonial recommending the fresh motion end up being offered toward [#19]. From the report, the newest undersigned concluded that Plaintiff’s allegation that he found the amount owed on the their financing from the distribution another type of notice to help you Flagstar Financial don’t bring about one facially possible claim, since note connected with Plaintiff’s Criticism appeared as if unilaterally written and you can executed from the Plaintiff inside the attempt to modify the loan’s words. Ultimately, the undersigned discovered that Plaintiff’s says below RILA, Regulation Z, and RESPA was in fact banned because of the ruling statute of limitations and Plaintiff’s UCC and you will Colorado Organization and you can Commerce Password says were unsuccessful while the a point of legislation because these laws and regulations don’t regulate liens towards real property.