HSBC v MARRA | FL 12th Circuit - Sarasota FL Magistrate Bailey denies motion to amend complaint - NO Standing, Violation of PSA

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

HSBC v MARRA | FL 12th Circuit – Sarasota FL Magistrate Bailey denies motion to amend complaint – NO Standing, Violation of PSA

HSBC v MARRA | FL 12th Circuit – Sarasota FL Magistrate Bailey denies motion to amend complaint – NO Standing, Violation of PSA

(I wonder if they even have transcripts? Stern had the case first.)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA

HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF THE
DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES, INC.,
MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2006-AB1,
MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES,
SERIES 2006-AB1,

Plaintiff,

VS.

THERESA M. MARRA a/k/a TERRY M.
MARRA, et al.,
Defendant

 

EXCERPTS:

On or about February 8, 2012, Marra filed a Motion to Dismiss with prejudice, alleging that the Plaintiff committed a fraud on the court when it filed the MERS Assignment of Mortgage in July 2009. Marra noticed her Motion for hearing on May 29, 2012. At the time of the hearing, the Magistrate advised Marra that to resolve the issue of fraud on the court she would have to set an evidentiary hearing. At the time of that hearing, the Magistrate questioned the substitution of HSBC as Plaintiff based on nothing more than the bare allegation of GreenPoint’s Motion back in July 2010. The Magistrate noted that the Court should possibly vacate the Order of Substitution, given the lack of any support for the assertion that GreenPoint “became known as” HSBC Bank

2


USA. Nevertheless, because the Magistrate did not rule on Marra’s Motion, no recommendation was issued that day.1
 . . .


18. After taking into consideration the above-cited information from the PSA, it appears that the transfers that have been variously asserted by the Plaintiff in several Motions and/or documents attached to those Motions as conferring standing upon it could not possibly have occurred as the Plaintiff represents. Further, the Magistrate cannot conceive of any manner in which the Plaintiff could possibly create additional documentation in an effort to manufacture standing in this action. At the very least, the instant Renewed Motion to Amend must be denied and the Magistrate so recommends.

5


Recommended Order


Plaintiff Renewed Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint is DENIED. 


Please take notice that pursuant to Rule 1.490(h), the parties to this cause have ten (10) days from the date of service of this Recommended Order to serve exceptions to its contents. The party filing exceptions is required to send copies of the exceptions directly to the Judge assigned to this case. as well as to the undersigned Magistrate. The party filing exceptions will be required to provide the Court with a record sufficient to support their exceptions or the exceptions will be denied. A record ordinarily includes a written transcript of all relevant proceedings.  The party filing the exceptions must have the transcript prepared for the court’s review. If exceptions are timely filed, they shall be heard on reasonable notice by either party or the court. If no exceptions are filed within ten (10) days from the date of service, the Court shall take appropriate action on the report.

[…]

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 8641 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