The homeowners contested the foreclosure, arguing that their mortgage was defective because it contained a provision that used a method of calculating interest that violated Wisconsin law. Lawyers defending the foreclosure submitted a number of discovery questions to Deutsche Bank to determine who actually owned the mortgage, in order to see if the bank had standing to pursue the foreclosure at all. ” If you want to foreclose on the house, you have to own the mortgage,” says Justin Wallace, an attorney for Nash, Spindler, Grimstad & McCracken, the firm defending the foreclosure.
” Vague and Undefined”
The response was perplexing, to say the least. The bank responded to requests on whether Deutsche Bank National Trust Company or GSAMP Trust 2006-FM1 c/o American’s Servicing Company owned or held legal title to the mortgage with a series of objections”“ that the terms ” owner,” ” ownership” and ” legal title” are ” vague and undefined.”
Matt, what if the Bank attorney commits purjury in court?? This occurred in Cook County Foreclosure court with my commercial property the other day. The bank brought a second motion to strike my affirmative defenses. I told the Judge they never responded to my answer. The bank attorney said she never got it though my response was in her motion to strike! I objected. The judge would not let me respond. He gave me three weeks to re-enter it a third time and gave the bank 5 weeks to respond and set a hearing date on the matter for June. The Judge asked me if I have an attorney. I told him no your honor. He told me to get one. Well, there aren’t any. Ive spoken to at least 7. I do have an attorney advising me a bit. He said that HE CANT Rep me in court. I requested the bank produce the docs. There are actually 2 plaintiffs. The bank fraudulently conveyed the property to a debt collector after the foreclosure was filed which should be cause for a motion to dismiss. The bank attorney had a meltdown in the hall after court after I confronted her in the hall. She told me that she is not a liar and she wont be back in June and shes glad because this case is a mess! What do you think Matt?
Ah yes, the semantic games! In my suit, Fannie Mae claimed to be the note holder, the note owner, AND the investor–all at different times, of course. When pointed out to the judge, he didn’t think that these represented any attempt at obfuscation by Fannie. However, if I had said I had signed the note, then came back and said I didn’t sign the note, and then filed another paper and said that my agent signed the note with my signature, you better believe the judge would have had a big problem with that.
Further, Fannie Mae NEVER said it was the holder in due course. And Fannie never said it was my creditor. In fact, they said BAC was my creditor. That is, until they changed their minds and BAC started telling me that Fannie Mae was my creditor. If I were the judge, I wouldn’t want to wade into this madness either, but that’s why I’m not a judge. If one is a judge, one has to expect to weed out the truth in the face of lots of bogus claims and information. Isn’t that part of the job description?