Related posts:

1. U.S. Bank National Association v. Kotak | Hawaii ICA – We conclude that U.S. Bank did not satisfy it’s burden to produce admissible evidence demonstrating that it was entitled to enforce the Note at time of this action was commenced. VACATED Dubin Law Offices has been whipping butt!! 035045982 by DinSFLA...
2. HSBC Bank USA v. Bartolome | Hawaii ICA – Another Victory for Dubin Law Offices – We conclude that HSBC did not satisfy it’s burden to produce admissible evidence demonstrating that it was entitled to enforce the Note at time of this action was commenced. VACATED 035118463 by DinSFLA on Scribd © 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD |...
3. Bank of America v Yeh | HAWAII ICA – BANA did not present evidence to establish its entitlement to enforce the Note at the time the action commenced. H/T DUBIN LAW OFFICES 028866654 (1) by DinSFLA on Scribd...
4. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v. Riopta | Hawaii ICA – The evidence in this case fails to demonstrate that the original plaintiff, Citimortgage, was entitled to enforce the Note when this action was commenced. VACATED Dubin Law Offices are on a roll! 035010218 by DinSFLA...
5. JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Rundgren | Hawaii ICA – VACATED! genuine material fact as to whether JP Morgan Chase was entitled to enforce the subject Note at the time this foreclosure action was commenced Via DUBIN LAW OFFICES 034937431 by DinSFLA on Scribd ©...