Castillo v. Nationstar | CA DC- This is one of the few cases where the settlement is public. The order explains some of it, but the Elizabeth Letcher declaration has the meat. - FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Castillo v. Nationstar | CA DC- This is one of the few cases where the settlement is public. The order explains some of it, but the Elizabeth Letcher declaration has the meat.

Castillo v. Nationstar | CA DC- This is one of the few cases where the settlement is public. The order explains some of it, but the Elizabeth Letcher declaration has the meat.

H/T Reader

Documents that could not be found were suddenly found. Endless refusals by Nationstar to answer RESPA letters and other inquiries. It is the best picture of how bad Nationstar treats its customers.

Castillo v. Nationstar Summ Jud. Order 11.22.2016 by DinSFLA on Scribd

Castillo ECF 123 Lethcher Dec. 03.28.2017 by DinSFLA on Scribd

Castillo v. Nstar Order Fees 12.20.2017 by DinSFLA on Scribd

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 11505 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD.

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 “Castillo v. Nationstar | CA DC- This is one of the few cases where the settlement is public. The order explains some of it, but the Elizabeth Letcher declaration has the meat.”

  1. margret brady says:

    Still not clear where this leaves a mortgage holder of an original Ditch mortgage transferred many time prior to a MERS transfer in 2011, that proved to be bogus but never corrected. Do they have a vail title? Who actually owns the mortgage, when the original has appeared to have been lost? Still mystified after all these years.

  2. Isisis says:

    If you’re in California like Castillo issues like who actually owns the debt no longer matter. Strange but true and curiously thanks to Yvanova or its subsequent backlash. Oh, it has and can be done if you have tons of spare cash to afford lengthy litigation and a sympathetic court but it’s far and away the exception. But the banks have be been so prolific in their misconduct that there’s still plenty of causes of action to go around

    Castillo with just breach, FDCPA and RESPA did really well, damages and attorney fees. Was it just me or did the judge seem a tad overawed by the Oklahoma trial lawyer Humphreys? He must have some clout. But the judge was no fool pointing out that cure in itself doesn’t necessarily end a breach under Restatement.

    Thanks for posting this one, DinSFLA!

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


Leave a Reply

Advert

Archives