Ohio Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Duane Schwartzwald et al.

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Ohio Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Duane Schwartzwald et al.

Ohio Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Duane Schwartzwald et al.

How can you commence an action if you don’t have the proof you’re entitled to to enforce the action in the first place?

Must Lender Have Current Ownership Interest in Promissory Note or Mortgage at the Time Foreclosure Action Is Filed?

Or May Lack of Standing Be ‘Cured’ Through Mortgage Assignment Before Judgment?

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Duane Schwartzwald et al., Case nos. 2011-1201 and 2011-1362
Second District Court of Appeals (Greene County)

ISSUE: If a party files a lawsuit to foreclose on a mortgage and it is later shown that party did not have a current ownership interest in the mortgage or the underlying promissory note on the date the foreclosure action was filed, is the court required to dismiss the suit based on the plaintiff’s lack of standing to bring it? Or may the plaintiff “cure” a defect in standing or in naming the actual party in interest under Civil Rule 17(A) by obtaining an assignment of the mortgage prior to the court’s entry of a judgment in the case?

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Comments

comments

Related posts:

  1. Notice of Oral Argument on 4/4/12: Freddie Mac v. SCHWARTZWALD – Ohio Supreme Court H/T B. Behrens The Supreme Court of Ohio Federal Home...
  2. The standing issue is back before the Ohio Supreme Court. Fed. National Mtge. Corp. v. Schwartzwald H/T Andrew E. A motion to reconsider asking the Court...
  3. Ohio Supreme Court’s Shocking Decision in Landmark Case U.S. BANK v. DUVALL Via: Ohio Fraudclosure A Simple question was before the OHIO SUPREME COURT...
  4. MUST READ | Ohio Supreme Court Reviews Order Certifying Conflict Exists “Owner AND Holder” Read this below first to understand the Supreme Court: [CLICK...
  5. The Ohio Supreme Court is taking up the question of what a bank needs to prove to force someone from his home To preview the case check out OHIO APPEALS COURT AFFIRMS...

This post was written by:

- who has written 7089 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

3 Responses to “Ohio Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Duane Schwartzwald et al.”

  1. Sandy says:

    The defendant’s attorney missed something extremely important: Rule 17 allows curing after filing by substitution of right party in interest only if an honest mistake was made. That is not what happened here with Freddie. Freddie’s attorney did not come close to saying an honest mistake was made.

    Homeowners need to be more proactive against the parties who lack standing–its time to bring counterclaims for filing a fraudulent lien, filing false documents for the court, and filing false documents for recording. Filing a fraudulent lien and filing false documents for recording are felonies in most states. And when the law firm misrepresents the status of its client as the holder and owner of the note, the law firm violates the FDCPA. A recent case held that the law firm was liable under the FDCPA due to misrepresenting the status of the plaintiff. Each proved violation of the Act brings a fine of $1000.

    Remember, most plaintiffs with no standing in court committed crimes against homeowners. (Don’t think for a second that the LIBOR scandal doesn’t affect you.) Unless we put a stop to it, they will get away with no more than having to refile with better manufactured documents.

  2. Ohio Lawyer says:

    I read the briefs in this case. The Schwartzwalds’ lawyer raised the issue of understandable mistake in his briefs. It just didn’t come up in argument. The flow of argument is controlled by the justices’ questions. If you notice, Freddie Mac’s lawyer laid out four points he wanted to cover and didn’t manage to get to his first one because of questions from the bench.

    The recent FDCPA case you mentioned is big. I just noticed that the Schwartzwalds’ lawyer was also the lawyer for the homeowner in that Sixth Circuit case.

  3. slamtheshysters says:

    Well, it’s obvious based on the questions Asked by the Judges, that they are coming to the table with False Presumptions which will taint their rulings. For instance, the question about why would a lawyer bring a case if the party he represented had no standing, nor was a party of interest…the answer is “because they can”. The reason “they can” is because the highest judges in the land do Not come from a place of justice, they come from a place of prejudice and presumption and an antiquated paradigm. It’s a Huge Paradigm Shift for a judge to grasp that the lawyers come in with cases of no standing, not a party of interest, because of one thing only – Greed. Greed is the reason that the whole system went caput. Greed is the whole reason it stay messed up. Greed clouds peoples’ thinking apparatus. Until the Judges go through the Paradigm Shift, Nothing will change for the better.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Chip Parker, www.jaxlawcenter.com
Damian Figueroa, South Florida Realtor, Real Estate Agent
Jamie Ranney, www.NantucketLaw.pro

Advertise with Us!

LATEST TOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD CASES OPINIONS
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com

Archives