Just another way to keep you out of the loop…what is wrong with these judges and why do they protect the banks?
Ahh…remember these cases didn’t go well for the banks/servicers.
- Nevada Supreme Court Reversed & Remand – “Mediation, Sanctions, MERS Failed To Produce the Deed of Trust & Any Assignments” | HEREDIA-BONNET v. LOANSTAR (36.9) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA ANGELA…
- Nevada Supreme Court Reversed & Remand – “Foreclosure Mediation, Sanctions” | MALLOY v. WELLS FARGO (33.8) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA PATRICK…
- REDMON v. HOMEQ SERVICING INC. | Nevada Supreme Court Vacating Judgment & Remanding “Mediation, Sanctions, In RE PASILLAS” (29.2) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA PHILIP…
- PASILLAS v. HSBC Bank USA | Nevada Supreme Court Reverse “Sanctionable offenses under the Foreclosure Mediation Program, IBANEZ, AHMSI, Alleged Assignment” (23.8) Cite as: Pasillas v. HSBC Bank USA 127 Nev. Adv….
- LEYVA v. National Default Servicing Corp. | Nevada Supreme Court Remand and Reverse “Defective ASMT, U.C.C Article 3, No Endorsement, In Re Pasillas, Wells Fargo, MortgageIt”
Las Vegas Sun-
A district judge has ruled that records of the state’s foreclosure mediation program are not open to public inspection.
District Judge Todd Russell said this program was placed under the Nevada Supreme Court and the state’s public records law does not apply to the court.
Civil Rights for Seniors, a nonprofit group, filed suit saying it wants to inspect the records to determine if the program has had any success.
The Legislature created it in 2009 during the time Nevada led the nation in foreclosures. It establishes a chance for a homeowner having trouble paying his mortgage to meet with the lenders and with a mediator to determine if there are alternatives to losing the home.
Judge Russell said the judiciary “as a separate branch of government, has the inherent authority to manage its own records and dictate their disclosure.”
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
Stop with the knee-jerk reactions. Not only is this ruling correct, it furthers the purpose of mediation – permitting participants to share information during the process to effect a settlement. This is why all communication in mediation is privileged, i.e. may not be introduced into evidence at a later trial of the case.
Grand conspiracy theories only work to degrade the credibility of this site. You’re doing some really good things. But not all adverse court rulings are incorrect or indicative of some evil cabal.