PITTMAN v FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCATION; AND IBM BUSINESS PROCESS SERVICES, INC., | Nevada SC Grants Sanctions, Attorney Fees

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

PITTMAN v FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCATION; AND IBM BUSINESS PROCESS SVS, INC., | Nevada SC Grants Sanctions, Attorney Fees

PITTMAN v FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCATION; AND IBM BUSINESS PROCESS SVS, INC.,  | Nevada SC Grants Sanctions, Attorney Fees

Many mutually agreed dismissals in this Supreme Court. This one just waited til the last minute.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

KRIS PITTMAN,
Appellant,

vs.

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCATION; AND IBM BUSINESS
PROCESS SERVICES, INC.,
Respondents.

 

.

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL,
GRANTING SANCTIONS, AND REMANDING

This is an appeal from a district court order granting a
petition for judicial review and directing a foreclosure certificate to be
issued in a foreclosure mediation program (FMP) matter. Second Judicial
District Court, Washoe County; Patrick Flanagan, Judge.
Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal and
requesting sanctions against respondents in light of respondents
withdrawing the applicable notice of default without notifying appellant.
Respondents have filed an opposition to the request for sanctions and
appellant has filed a reply. We grant the motion to dismiss the appeal
based on appellant’s voluntary dismissal.

As to appellant’s motion for sanctions, appellant argues that
respondents withdrew the notice of default the same day that she filed her
opening brief, but failed to notify anyone of this action, and thus, the
appeal was unnecessarily fully briefed before this court. Appellant seeks a
sanction for attorney fees and costs incurred in this appeal. Based on the
timing of when respondents withdrew the notice of default and their
failure to notify their counsel, appellant or appellant’s counsel, or this
court, we conclude that sanctions in the amount of attorney fees incurred
by appellant to continue her pursuit of this appeal after respondents’
withdrawal of the notice of default are warranted. As this amount of
attorney fees is a question of fact, we remand this matter to the district
court to determine the appropriate amount of attorney fees as a sanction.

It is so ORDERED.

Down Load PDF of This Case

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 8684 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

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com

Archives