SACCI v. MERS | CA Dist. Court "MYSTIFYING, UTTERLY CONFUSING ASSIGNMENTS, SUBSTITUTIONS, HOST OF ENTITIES, 2923.5"

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

SACCI v. MERS | CA Dist. Court “MYSTIFYING, UTTERLY CONFUSING ASSIGNMENTS, SUBSTITUTIONS, HOST OF ENTITIES, 2923.5″

SACCI v. MERS | CA Dist. Court “MYSTIFYING, UTTERLY CONFUSING ASSIGNMENTS, SUBSTITUTIONS, HOST OF ENTITIES, 2923.5″

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


ANGELA SACCI, et al

vs

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS , INC,, et al


EXCERPT:

This Court has dealt with numerous mortgage-related cases, and in the process of wading through them it has learned that seemingly straightforward transactions -non – judicial foreclosures- are not at all routine. Indeed, all too often they are mystifying, because of the utterly confusing assignments, substitutions, and other transactions (some recorded, some not) conducted by a host of entities. The number and names of the defendants in Plaintiffs’ FAC only hint at what has now been revealed as the tangled story underlying this loan and the other loans involved in many of these cases.

[...]

Not only is Gomes distinguishable on it’s facts, the Gomes court actually suggested a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure might survive if “the plaintiff complaint identified a specific factual basis for alleging that the foreclosure was not initiated by the correct party.” Id. (emphasis in original). Here, Plaintiffs have alleged just such a specific factual basis – namely, that RCS was not yet the beneficiary under the DOT when it executed the Substitution of Trustee in favor of Fidelity.

[...]

Scribd

© 2010-12 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
www.StopForeclosureFraud.com


DONATE

Related posts:

  1. Minnesota Dist. Court DENIES BAC, MERS MTD “TILA VIOLATION” LABELLE v. AMERCIAN BROKERS CONDUIT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Ann LaBelle and...
  2. Oregon Dist. Court Grants T.R.O. For “Failure To Record Assignments, TILA Violation” EKERSON v. Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF...
  3. MASSIVE RULING TO PROTECT CALIFORNIA HOMEOWNERS FROM NON JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE: MABRY v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY CODE 2923.5 From: b.daviesmd6605 PUBLISHED OPINION AT THE APPEALS LEVEL FOR CC 2923.5....
  4. MA BK COURT | MERS Purported Note “assignments” All Invalid. MERS Cannot Assign Mortgage AND Note IN RE: THOMAS In re: KATHLEEN THOMAS, Chapter 7, Debtor. KATHLEEN THOMAS, Plaintiff...
  5. REVERSED AND REMANDED: BALOUN v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 5th Dist. 2010 FRANCIS R. BALOUN and ANTOINETTE M. BALOUN, Appellant(s), v. CITIMORTGAGE,...

This post was written by:

- who has written 3707 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author

Leave a Reply

Advert
Kenneth Eric Trent, www.ForeclosureDestroyer.com
Chip Parker, www.jaxlawcenter.com
Jamie Ranney, www.Nantucketlaw.pro
Susan Chana Lask, www.appellate-brief.com

Archives