Nationstar Mortg. v. Rodriguez | NV SC – Foreclosure Mediation Rule —Rodriguez discovered the note’s fraudulence on June 18,2013…

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Nationstar Mortg. v. Rodriguez | NV SC – Foreclosure Mediation Rule —Rodriguez discovered the note’s fraudulence on June 18,2013…

Nationstar Mortg. v. Rodriguez  | NV SC – Foreclosure Mediation Rule —Rodriguez discovered the note’s fraudulence on June 18,2013…

Nationstar Mortgage LLC Et Al v Rodriguez, 132 Nev 55 by DinSFLA on Scribd

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



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 8610 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

One Response to “Nationstar Mortg. v. Rodriguez | NV SC – Foreclosure Mediation Rule —Rodriguez discovered the note’s fraudulence on June 18,2013…”

  1. Mr. Behavior says:

    What a bummer.

    “The district court excused the untimeliness of the petition based on good cause, and after an evidentiary hearing, found that the note’s certification was false and that Nationstar knew of the falsity. As a result, the district court sanctioned Nationstar $100,000.”

    The Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure provide for some untimely filings, at 6(b)(2), where cause is shown. This is often thought of as “excusable neglect.” A party may neglect to file something within a prescribed time period, but if they have a good excuse the court may/can accept a late filed something.

    Neither the 2011 Foreclosure Mediation Rules, at 21(2), nor the current Foreclosure Mediation Rules, at 23(1) and (3), provide for any enlargements of the 30 day time period in which a Petition for Judicial Review must be filed.

    But … but …

    The mediation occurred on October 6, 2011.

    The Petition for Judicial Review was filed on July 22, 2013.

    It appears to be 20 months late. That is … pretty late.

    But … but …

    The different version of the note wasn’t produced until June 18, 2013. Rodriguez didn’t know, and probably couldn’t have known, the prior version of the note (the version the district court determined to be a known false note) was … false until the different version was produced 19 months later.

    Rodriguez could not have presented the issue of the known false note in mediation until she became aware of it by comparison with a different note (was the different version another false note, or was the different version really the real note?).

    Did Nevada set up the FMR to facilitate a resolution, hopefully a resolution that keeps a homeowner in, and in possession of, a home? That is how it was presented.

    This case, however, gives a strong impression the FRM were set up to facilitate … more illegal behavior by banks, and that without fear of reprisal by banks, and banks attorneys.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com
Kenneth Eric Trent, www.ForeclosureDestroyer.com

Archives