Federal Home Loan Mtge. v. Schwartzwald et al. | Ohio Supreme Court unanimously holds that a foreclosure plaintiff must have standing upon the filing of the suit.

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Federal Home Loan Mtge. v. Schwartzwald et al. | Ohio Supreme Court unanimously holds that a foreclosure plaintiff must have standing upon the filing of the suit.

Federal Home Loan Mtge. v. Schwartzwald et al. | Ohio Supreme Court unanimously holds that a foreclosure plaintiff must have standing upon the filing of the suit.

Huge victory for Attorney Andrew M. Engel [link]

The Supreme Court of Ohio

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp

v.

Duane Schwartzwald et al.

EXCERPT:

{¶ 1} Duane and Julie Schwartzwald appeal from a judgment of the
Second District Court of Appeals affirming a decree of foreclosure entered in
favor of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. In addition, the appellate
court certified that its decision in this case conflicts with decisions of the First and
Eighth Districts on the following issue: “In a mortgage foreclosure action, the
lack of standing or a real party in interest defect can be cured by the assignment of
the mortgage prior to judgment.”

{¶ 2} Federal Home Loan commenced this foreclosure action before it
obtained an assignment of the promissory note and mortgage securing the
Schwartzwalds’ loan. The Schwartzwalds maintained that Federal Home Loan
lacked standing to sue. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of
Federal Home Loan and entered a decree of foreclosure. The appellate court
affirmed, holding that Federal Home Loan had remedied its lack of standing when
it obtained an assignment from the real party in interest.

{¶ 3} However, standing is required to invoke the jurisdiction of the
common pleas court, and therefore it is determined as of the filing of the
complaint. Thus, receiving an assignment of a promissory note and mortgage
from the real party in interest subsequent to the filing of an action but prior to the
entry of judgment does not cure a lack of standing to file a foreclosure action.

{¶ 4} Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and
the cause is dismissed.

[...]

Scribd

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






Comments

comments

Related posts:

  1. 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...
  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. PHH MTGE. CORP. v. Easterling, 2012 Ohio 4916 – Ohio: Court of Appeals | Affidavit of Mychal Farmer, Loan Modification, Never in Default, Never Missed a Payment 2012-Ohio-4916 PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Appellee, v. NANCY E. EASTERLING, et...
  4. REJECTED, REVERSED, LACK OF STANDING, ASSIGNMENT ERROR: Bank of New York v. GINDELE, 2010 Ohio 542 – Ohio: Court of Appeals, 1st Dist., Hamilton 2010 Ohio 542 Bank of New York, As Trustee For...
  5. 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...

This post was written by:

- who has written 7128 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

2 Responses to “Federal Home Loan Mtge. v. Schwartzwald et al. | Ohio Supreme Court unanimously holds that a foreclosure plaintiff must have standing upon the filing of the suit.”

  1. Charles Reed says:

    Writing is on the Wall, that these foreclosing party don’t and did not have a financial interest in the Notes and were using MERS or some other madness to fraudulently submit documentation to court to illegally assignments.

    The best example of this type of fraud is Ginnie Mae who’s entire portfolio is base on having blank Notes as alleged collateral for it’s Mortgage Backed Security program is just one big Ponzi scheme.

    Ginnie Mae has absolutely no underlying collateral for the securities product that was sold, and cannot allow some servicer to foreclose because the Notes, Debts & Titles have all been separated and the blank Notes are non-negotiable document and are worthless because the holder of the Notes (Ginnie Mae) don’t possess the debt as by law they cannot purchase a home mortgage loan.

    We are currently owed as the US Taxpayers around $24 billion to include in that total treble damage! When is it that we are returned our money?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. [...] is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with Fed. Home Loan Mtge. Corp. v. Schwartzwald, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2012-Ohio-5017, ___ N.E.2d [...]


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
Susan Chana Lask, www.appellate-brief.com
Jamie Ranney, www.NantucketLaw.pro

Advertise with Us!

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

Archives