McDonald v. OneWest Bank | OneWest Bank AND Freddie Mac lose appeal on Quiet Title

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

OneWest Bank AND Freddie Mac lose appeal on Quiet Title

OneWest Bank AND Freddie Mac lose appeal on Quiet Title

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

Court of Appeals No. 11CA2627
Saguache County District Court No. 10CV6
Honorable Martin A. Gonzales, Judge

Bruce C. McDonald,
PlaintiffAppellee,

v.

OneWest Bank, FSB and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation,
DefendantsAppellants.

ORDER AFFIRMED
Division V
Opinion by JUDGE MILLER
Fox and Ney*, JJ., concur
NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(f)
Announced October 4, 2012

Excerpt:

In this quiet title action, defendants, OneWest Bank (OneWest)
and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), appeal the
district court’s order denying their motion to set aside a judgment
entered by default in favor of plaintiff, Bruce C. McDonald. We
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying defendants’ motion, and we affirm.

I. Background

This matter (the underlying action) is one of four separate
proceedings in state and federal courts relating to efforts to
foreclose on the property where plaintiff resides in Saguache
County. Plaintiff filed the initial complaint in the underlying action
against OneWest on March 3, 2010, seeking to invalidate an order
authorizing a foreclosure sale of his property in a prior proceeding
under C.R.C.P. 120. The public trustee sale was nevertheless held
on March 4, 2010, and the property was sold to OneWest, who then
transferred it to FHLMC. Although plaintiff filed and recorded a
notice of lis pendens concerning the underlying action on March 8,
2010, he did not serve defendants with the amended complaint
until September.

On June 29, 2010, FHLMC filed a complaint for forcible entry
and detainer against plaintiff (FED action).

On July 22, 2010, plaintiff filed an action for damages under
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C.
§§ 19611968, common law fraud, and other statutes in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado against OneWest
and other unknown defendants (federal action). The federal action
was dismissed for failure to state a claim in December 2010, and
the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that dismissal in June
of this year. McDonald v. OneWest Bank, 680 F.3d 1264 (10th Cir.
2012).

On September 10, 2010, plaintiff amended the complaint in
the underlying action, adding FHLMC as a defendant, alleging that
OneWest was not entitled to foreclose and did not convey good title
to FHLMC, and requesting that the court quiet title to the property
in him. Plaintiff served the amended complaint on FHLMC by
personal service on its designated representative in Virginia on
September 17, 2010 and on OneWest by personal service on its
designated representative in California on September 27, 2010.
Neither defendant had a registered agent in Colorado.

Meanwhile, the district court held a hearing in the FED action
on September 17, 2010 to determine whether it should be stayed
until the issue of ownership was resolved in the underlying action.
At that hearing, plaintiff’s counsel stated that the complaint in the
underlying action had been recently amended and had been sent
out for service. Plaintiff’s counsel further stated that he was
requesting that the FED action be stayed so that the underlying
action could proceed. The status and nature of the federal case was
also discussed.

Neither OneWest nor FHLMC timely responded to the
amended complaint in the underlying action, and plaintiff filed a
motion for entry of default on October 29, 2010 and a motion for
entry of default judgment on November 1, 2010. The district court
entered default and default judgment against both defendants and
quieted title in the property, as among the three parties, in plaintiff
on November 19, 2010. Plaintiff personally served defendants with
notice of the default in December 2010.

Defendants filed no papers addressed to the default judgment
until they filed a motion for relief pursuant to C.R.C.P. 60 on March
18, 2011. Following a hearing and supplemental briefing, the
district court denied the motion in a wellwritten
order. Defendants then filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to C.R.C.P. 59(a),
which the district court summarily denied.

[...]

Down Load PDF of This Case

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






Comments

comments

Related posts:

  1. NEVADA Dist. Court “QUIET TITLE VIABLE” SIFRE v. Wells Fargo Bank PAUL SIFRE, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, Defendant. No. 3:10-cv-00572-RCJ-VPC....
  2. Onewest Bank v Cumberbatch | NYSC “failed to offer any evidence to demonstrate the establishment of a FDIC receivership in connection with IndyMac Bank, F.S.B.” NEW YORK SUPREME COURT – QUEENS COUNTY ONEWEST BANK, FSB...
  3. MERS Loses Quiet Title Appeal in Texas, Affirms Trial Court Judgment of Voiding Deed of Trust: MERS v. GROVES Via: William A. Roper MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., AS...
  4. EMERALD GARDENS CONDO v. U.S. BANK | Washington State Appeals Court “QUIET TITLE BY DEFAULT” IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON...
  5. Onewest Bank, FSB v Galli | NYSC “ASMT between WMC & WAMU a nullity and therefore the plaintiff must establish how it procured the notes and mortgages” SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF...

This post was written by:

- who has written 6962 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

4 Responses to “OneWest Bank AND Freddie Mac lose appeal on Quiet Title”

  1. JIMI says:

    finally a judge that is a hero and stand with the truth and the homeowner against banksters fraud

  2. Sharon says:

    Kudos for the three appellate judges that did the right thing and didn’t cave into the banks. It is a good day in Colorado for justice.

    Special thanks goes to the Honorable Martin A. Gonzoles for not letting the banks push him around. And thank you Bruce McDonald for standing your ground and not giving up.

  3. OneWest and Freddie Mac didn’t stop there. They went to the Colorado Supreme Court with it on December 12, 2012, Case No. 2012SC878. We just got the order on the 3rd that their petition was DENIED.

    We filed to get my $5,000 bond back and attorney fees for the eviction case Freddie Mac attempted and they claim they are going to file to have the stay extended so they can pursue additional relief to enforce their rights to my property. I have no idea what that could even be. But are we surprised? No. Four years of B.S. from this bunch so far.

  4. dinsfla says:

    This is just harassing at this point!

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Chip Parker, www.jaxlawcenter.com
RR Compliance Consulting Inc was established to provide training and support services to the Loss Mitigation Consulting Community.  There is a huge void in the market for this training since those who are truly practicing in the field have neither the time nor interest in providing this training.
Jamie Ranney, www.NantucketLaw.pro
Kenneth Eric Trent, www.ForeclosureDestroyer.com
LATEST TOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD CASES OPINIONS
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com

Archives