Nationstar Mortgage LLC Et Al v Rodriguez, 132 Nev 55 by DinSFLA on Scribd
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
Comments
Related posts:
- Jordan v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC | The Washington Supreme Court held that the deed of trust provisions in this case conflicted with Washington law because they allowed Nationstar to take possession of the property after default IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON CERTIFICATION...
- Walters v. Nationstar | FL 5DCA – Nationstar failed to establish that Aurora, Nationstar’s predecessor in interest, had standing to bring the foreclosure action. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF...
- Nationstar closes on $16 billion in Aurora servicing This after Nationstar to buy $10.4 Billion in Mortgage-Servicing Rights...
- Tharpe v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, Court of Appeals, 11th Cir. | Tharpe has alleged that Nationstar’s business involves the regular collection of thousands of debts from thousands of consumers. That allegation, if true, would support a finding that Nationstar is a “debt collector” within the scope of the FDCPA. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692(6). ANTHONY THARPE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, Defendant-Appellee. No. 15-13153,...
- Massachusetts Court Hears Pivotal Mortgage-Transfer Case in Foreclosure BEVILACQUA v. RODRIGUEZ Knowing what the world knows now on the way they...
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.