Bagels at a Bar mitzvah Part II

[moretrouble]

Oregon has a case law for this (recent 2022 case law):

Arrowood Indem. Co. v. Fasching, 369 Or. 214 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Arrowood Indem. Co. v. Fasching, 369 Or. 214, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

I emailed the attorney who won the case ( Jonathan M. Radmacher ) but he said too busy for my case.
I think it's a result of my fighting. My bad, I checked on-line version of my motion again. The version that I submitted electronically was untouched. To be sure I also handed a version to the court clerk to scan and upload, I think there was problem with the scanner. The scanned version was missing pages and all the highlighted were blacked-out. Just want to make sure nobody doctored my filings.
Also checked out similar cases. If you do not do anything after they scheduled the sale, the house will be sold. If you do challenge by filing a tort case, or in my case filing a challenge, they will delay the sale to just before the expiration, then cancel the last minute.

 

[kraftykrab]

So this just happened....

Went for MSJ hearing this morning. Both parties had filed MSJs.

They filed first, so they go to speak first.

Apparently, courts don't look favorably upon plaintiffs that intentionally confuse issues such as "is the note lost or not". In this case, plaintiff's lawyer even stated in a motion 6 years ago that they were the "holder in possession" of the note. That's a judicial confession. They filed this case in 1/13, and made zero mention of the note being lost, despite executing a lost note affidavit 7 months prior. Since that time, both alleged servicers have stated in writing that the note was not lost. Caliber went as far as to say that the note was not lost, that they had it in their possession and could produce it for court if needed. Also, Caliber claimed that an executed lost note affidavit is only a "legal precaution" in case the note ever becomes lost....which just plain sounds ridiculous that one would make a sworn admission that the note is lost if it really isn't. That's double speak for "we dont have a clue", I think.

So the judge questioned this--the most recent servicer in a letter 5 months ago stated that the note was not lost. Plaintiff's attorney started coming unglued at this point and started babbling a bit on her words. She gave it her best try, but the judge agreed that this definitely presents an issue of material fact in dispute. He denied their summary judgment.

He also denied mine as well, though I believe he did that in error. We'll address that later. But as we walked from the courtroom, this lawyer had totally lost it. We're out in the foyer outside the court room and I went to ask her why I never received a copy of their final reply memorandum. She cut me off 2 words in and started YELLING at me..."Don't talk to me, I'm not talking to you!" Like legit, YELLING....one of the officers there had to tell her to calm it down.

We get outside the building, and she's flat out losing her junk. Yells some more, tells me I'm a CROOK because she has had 12 years and still cannot prove the most basic elements of her own case. As we're walking away, I simply told her that she represented her profession very well today....and she's still yelling that I am a crook...she yells out, "Oh, youre such a good father, you pay your mortgage....you're a crook!!"

Five bucks says she thought she was walking out with an easy win today. Not so fast. You have lied to us, you have lied to this court, and you will NOT win. Count on that. She's now faced with the fact that she cannot unwind the clock--that statements made by multiple parties cannot simply be ignored as she hoped.

 

[moretrouble]

I am writing memorandum for my upcoming hearing. Looking back, I have been too nice, holding back too much while the opponents ruthlessly trying to steal my house. Reading the old trial memorandum from BOfA atty he accused me of nefarious lies to keep BNYM from enforcing the lien. It turns out he was the one who lied in court. No mor Mr. Nice Guy.

 

[kraftykrab]

I am writing memorandum for my upcoming hearing. Looking back, I have been too nice, holding back too much while the opponents ruthlessly trying to steal my house. Reading the old trial memorandum from BOfA atty he accused me of nefarious lies to keep BNYM from enforcing the lien. It turns out he was the one who lied in court. No mor Mr. Nice Guy.

Same with my recent adventure.

This lawyer has some serious dishonesty. She claims to the court that none of the allegations we made have any truth to them, but 100% of the evidence we used to show what they did came from them. They told the court from the go that we made it all up (I'm paraphrasing there), but then they had the evidence the whole time that proved us right.

Then, they were less than forthcoming with the court--they never told the court that the note was supposedly lost. Filed complaint in 2013....even stated in a written motion in 2017 that they were "the holder in possession" of a certain note....and NOW, they tell the court that they did not even have a copy of the note since the inception of the suit--her exact words in court this week--and somehow, that makes me a "Crook"....??

Once again, she had the nerve to stand up in court and say that none of the things we claimed ever happened. But she's mad at me because she/her supposed clients keep changing THEIR claims. The note was lost (2012, before suit)....then it wasn't lost (2013)...then it was (2014)...then it wasn't (2014, 2015).....then it was (2016)....then it wasn't (2017)....then it was (2017)....then it wasn't (2021)....then it was (2021)....then it wasn't again (2023)....then it was again (2023)...and somehow, this makes me a crook....lol....

Don't tolerate their abuse.

 

[Survivor_IN]

Same with my recent adventure.

This lawyer has some serious dishonesty. ....and NOW, they tell the court that they did not even have a copy of the note since the inception of the suit--her exact words in court this week--and somehow, that makes me a "Crook"....??

This psychological term for accusing you of something they do is called "projection." We know who the real crooks are. I love these wins! Congrats. I just wish they were more complete and final wins.

 

[Survivor_IN]

Here's another interesting thought, the lender's are only entitled to their "share" of the note. Where the note has been sold at a discount rate, they can only collect this share or percentage, ie the actual value of their payment. If you have evidence that they did not pay full value, you could claim this. Sorry don't have ready references but there is such a thing as a "partial claim" on these notes.

 

[moretrouble]

I lost, motion for new trial and challenge to writ denied. At the hearing last Friday, the judge said she had read thru all motions, memos, challenge, past filings, briefs of my case, she had no dispute on any of the evidence. BUT the Court is bound by its procedural rule: "new trial motion has to be filed within 10 days of the judgement or 30 days with the court's discretion" so my motion. The opposing asked for sanction because they claim I was just trying to frustrate the Plaintiff. Judge said she believe I was acting for what I believe in and denied the request. Basically, I lost on procedure.
Lost a battle, still in the war.

 

[isisis]

Just a few days away from a sale. I've filed complaints with all the usual suspects, my attorney wants a million dollars to get a TRO and the court will want me to post a bond. Unbelievable, I've stated a claim for breach of contract, the bank is trying to unlawfully foreclose and yet the judge wants me to put up money to stop them! Probably go for a Chapter 13.

Meanwhile I'm taking this in another direction: civil rights. Anyone familiar with "acting under the color of law" in the context of foreclosure? Haven't had time yet to research in depth but it's a federal offensive, a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 242.

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section..."

This comes in two flavors, criminal and civil in which they "shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . ." 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1988)

Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act that may operate in violation of law. The concept is slightly complicated because the wrongdoer must have the semblance of legal authority but be misusing it. That's not usually a problem because it's most commonly used when there's been misconduct among law enforcement.

But numerous groups and even private citizens can act under the color of law. I'm sure you can see how this could relate to wrongful foreclosure.

This gets a little ticklish in non judicial because it's not a state action but even so it's regulated by the state and if statutory provisions aren't followed...

An insulting and yet amusing aside. You guys know those handwritten letters that you get offering to buy your property?

My area has become gentrified and very expensive, flooded with rich people eager to live the Wine Country lifestyle. This used to be a charming agriculture small town with real people and an arty vibe. Now we have the ultra rich with attitude and things priced beyond imagining.

Anyway, in one handwritten letter the person was apparently drawn to my rundown farmhouse with flowers and pets in the yard. They said they dreamed of replacing it with their flowers and pets and wanted to restore my home to its former glory. I'm feeling compelled to hone my wit on their presumption.

But will resist the urge until after I get this bloody sale cancelled.

 

[Javagold]

Just a few days away from a sale. I've filed complaints with all the usual suspects, my attorney wants a million dollars to get a TRO and the court will want me to post a bond. Unbelievable, I've stated a claim for breach of contract, the bank is trying to unlawfully foreclose and yet the judge wants me to put up money to stop them! Probably go for a Chapter 13.

Meanwhile I'm taking this in another direction: civil rights. Anyone familiar with "acting under the color of law" in the context of foreclosure? Haven't had time yet to research in depth but it's a federal offensive, a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 242.

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section..."

This comes in two flavors, criminal and civil in which they "shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . ." 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1988)

Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act that may operate in violation of law. The concept is slightly complicated because the wrongdoer must have the semblance of legal authority but be misusing it. That's not usually a problem because it's most commonly used when there's been misconduct among law enforcement.

But numerous groups and even private citizens can act under the color of law. I'm sure you can see how this could relate to wrongful foreclosure.

This gets a little ticklish in non judicial because it's not a state action but even so it's regulated by the state and if statutory provisions aren't followed...

An insulting and yet amusing aside. You guys know those handwritten letters that you get offering to buy your property?

My area has become gentrified and very expensive, flooded with rich people eager to live the Wine Country lifestyle. This used to be a charming agriculture small town with real people and an arty vibe. Now we have the ultra rich with attitude and things priced beyond imagining.

Anyway, in one handwritten letter the person was apparently drawn to my rundown farmhouse with flowers and pets in the yard. They said they dreamed of replacing it with their flowers and pets and wanted to restore my home to its former glory. I'm feeling compelled to hone my wit on their presumption.

But will resist the urge until after I get this bloody sale cancelled.

I would recommend you File Chapter 13 BEFORE the Sale of YOUR home. Barebones if you are up against the Clock, as it will buy you enough time to fully File BK13 And defend YOUR Home !!

 

[kraftykrab]

Just a few days away from a sale. I've filed complaints with all the usual suspects, my attorney wants a million dollars to get a TRO and the court will want me to post a bond. Unbelievable, I've stated a claim for breach of contract, the bank is trying to unlawfully foreclose and yet the judge wants me to put up money to stop them! Probably go for a Chapter 13.

Meanwhile I'm taking this in another direction: civil rights. Anyone familiar with "acting under the color of law" in the context of foreclosure? Haven't had time yet to research in depth but it's a federal offensive, a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 242.

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section..."

This comes in two flavors, criminal and civil in which they "shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . ." 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1988)

Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act that may operate in violation of law. The concept is slightly complicated because the wrongdoer must have the semblance of legal authority but be misusing it. That's not usually a problem because it's most commonly used when there's been misconduct among law enforcement.

But numerous groups and even private citizens can act under the color of law. I'm sure you can see how this could relate to wrongful foreclosure.

This gets a little ticklish in non judicial because it's not a state action but even so it's regulated by the state and if statutory provisions aren't followed...

An insulting and yet amusing aside. You guys know those handwritten letters that you get offering to buy your property?

My area has become gentrified and very expensive, flooded with rich people eager to live the Wine Country lifestyle. This used to be a charming agriculture small town with real people and an arty vibe. Now we have the ultra rich with attitude and things priced beyond imagining.

Anyway, in one handwritten letter the person was apparently drawn to my rundown farmhouse with flowers and pets in the yard. They said they dreamed of replacing it with their flowers and pets and wanted to restore my home to its former glory. I'm feeling compelled to hone my wit on their presumption.

But will resist the urge until after I get this bloody sale cancelled.

1983 cases involve a party that can be called a "state actor". Numerous courts have ruled that attorneys can fall into that category, but not always. Generally, you must show 1) that your Constitutional rights were violated, and 2) that the violating party acted under color of state law---but--

" A private party is considered a state actor if the alleged deprivation was "caused by the exercise of some right or privilege created by the state or by a rule of conduct imposed by the state or by a person for whom the tate is responsible." Id. at 937. A state's "[m]ere approval of or acquiescence in the initiatives of a private party" does not amount to state action." Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004 (1982). Sabri v. Whittier Alliance, (8th Cir. 2016).

 

[Survivor_IN]

Isisis, I consider this Civil Rights claims where you are subject to an illegal (search and) seizure by virtue of being prevented access to the courts without payment of bond. Somewhere this was attempted before and I don't have ready refs but the process of requiring a homeowner to put up a bond during litigation to prevent a sale prior to being heard on claims (and causing irreversible harm by losing property) was abandoned. - There's a difference between intrinsic fraud and extrinsic fraud where intrinsic is between the parties and extrinsic affects the machinery of the courts. If a judge is saying this, or the lender is demanding it, he/ she is affecting your access to justice and your affirmative claims and damages (which would result in offsets against the debt and make foreclosure inequitable). You need to object but I'm not quite sure how but it looks like you have references. In addition I believe civil rights claims are a federal claim, but you can merge this into state court or you can file in federal court as well. Keep in mind bankruptcy is in federal court and this may be a potential benefit. I agree with the filing as necessary. Also, if you file early, you typically have 2-4 weeks to add the full schedules and list of creditors, etc.

It does appear the lender/servicer is succeeding in coercing your attorney to abandon you (or increase fees for service) with these repetitive actions requiring repetitive responses. (which mind you should be actually less expensive since he has a format in place.) I actually had my attorney quit on the never-ending litigation (even though dismissed twice for non-activity, they managed to continue by pleading by declaring they didn't get the notice). Alas, you may become pro se with the rest of us. Hopefully not but understandable due to costs.

 

[Survivor_IN]

Regarding "tender" in California

Per: Chavez v. Indymac Mortgage Services, 219 Cal. App. 4th 1052 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate

"(6) To obtain the equitable set-aside of a trustee's sale or maintain a wrongful foreclosure claim, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendants caused an illegal, fraudulent, or willfully oppressive sale of the property pursuant to a power of sale in a mortgage or deed of trust; (2) the plaintiff suffered prejudice or harm; and (3) the plaintiff tendered the amount of the secured indebtedness or was excused from tendering. (Lona v. Citibank, N.A. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 89, 112 [134 Cal.Rptr.3d 622] (Lona).) Recognized exceptions to the tender rule include when (1) the underlying debt is void, (2) the foreclosure sale or trustee's deed is void on its face, (3) a counterclaim offsets the amount due, (4) specific circumstances make it inequitable to enforce the debt against the party challenging the sale, or (5) the foreclosure sale has not yet occurred. (Id. at pp. 112-113 [outlining the first four exceptions]; Pfeifer v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1280-1281 [150 Cal.Rptr.3d 673] [recognizing the fifth exception ].)

The trial court sustained Defendants' demurrer to this claim finding that to the extent it was based on breach of the Modification Agreement, the claim failed because the Modification Agreement did not comply with the statute of frauds, and to the extent the claim was based on Defendants' failure to serve the requisite notices, Chavez did not plead that she could tender the indebtedness. Chavez argues that she alleged a valid claim for breach of the Modification Agreement and she was not required to allege tender. We agree."

 

[moretrouble]

Just a few days away from a sale. I've filed complaints with all the usual suspects, my attorney wants a million dollars to get a TRO and the court will want me to post a bond. Unbelievable, I've stated a claim for breach of contract, the bank is trying to unlawfully foreclose and yet the judge wants me to put up money to stop them! Probably go for a Chapter 13.

Meanwhile I'm taking this in another direction: civil rights. Anyone familiar with "acting under the color of law" in the context of foreclosure? Haven't had time yet to research in depth but it's a federal offensive, a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 242.

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section..."

This comes in two flavors, criminal and civil in which they "shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . ." 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1988)

Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act that may operate in violation of law. The concept is slightly complicated because the wrongdoer must have the semblance of legal authority but be misusing it. That's not usually a problem because it's most commonly used when there's been misconduct among law enforcement.

But numerous groups and even private citizens can act under the color of law. I'm sure you can see how this could relate to wrongful foreclosure.

This gets a little ticklish in non judicial because it's not a state action but even so it's regulated by the state and if statutory provisions aren't followed...

An insulting and yet amusing aside. You guys know those handwritten letters that you get offering to buy your property?

My area has become gentrified and very expensive, flooded with rich people eager to live the Wine Country lifestyle. This used to be a charming agriculture small town with real people and an arty vibe. Now we have the ultra rich with attitude and things priced beyond imagining.

Anyway, in one handwritten letter the person was apparently drawn to my rundown farmhouse with flowers and pets in the yard. They said they dreamed of replacing it with their flowers and pets and wanted to restore my home to its former glory. I'm feeling compelled to hone my wit on their presumption.

But will resist the urge until after I get this bloody sale cancelled.

That is my plan. I am kind of give up on the state courts. A bunch of corrupt, lack of courage judges fail to do what is right. I will file a chapter 13 maybe a week before the schedule sale, listing balance at default as secured loan, and the originator Ameriquest as my secured creditor, the $450K additional Bank Of A says I owed as unsecured, my loan balance in the trust of $169K as unsecured. Then we can argue in the BK court which one is secured or unsecured and what balance is allowed, at the same exposing the "call rights scheme". That basically was my challenge of execution except now I am not bound by the untimely issue. I will follow up with a wrongful foreclosure suit, not seeking to overturn the state judgment (res judicata), but focus on FFDCPA, declaratory judgment (does FEDERAL law allows you fake a note and lie to steal while suffering no financial damage?, does not matter if the state law does) , jury demanded, claim for damage because my credit score will be hit after filing chapter 13 to void the illegal sale, basically getting a new trial in the Federal court.

 

[Survivor_IN]

Well MoT at least the Judge did not allow opposing counsel to sanction you! That is a win on principal even though you lost the motion. I've got a plan to execute over the next month and a half with regards to Plaintiff's standing and the forged note. It's going to get interesting. The Plaintiff did show the note but there were glaring deficiencies in the signatories that were easily identified as forged. The wet ink signatures were all differing shades of blue and the (new) Master Commissioner documented all the items I pointed out. Not only was the copy paste of the note apparent, along with being a printout and not a genuine note as claimed, the Plaintiff still has not proven its standing at inception. The MC stopped all arguments but opposing counsel tried talking over to present his argument. He apparently has case law on not needing possession (because they can't prove possession prior to the date they showed the note.) Um okay fine. lol. Now it's a volley where I go first, the plaintiff responds, and I get the last word. Basically a small win in the ongoing battles. I have homework to do!

 

[moretrouble]

An old case but maybe helpful.

 

[moretrouble]

a timely article:

Challenging the Validity of a Mortgage Loan in Bankruptcy: A Simplified Guide - LivingLies

When people talk about bankruptcy, they often feel overwhelmed and confused by the legal jargon. But it's crucial to understand these laws, especially if

livinglies.me

 

[isisis]

Sale continued for a month and a half and not by Chapter 13 or a TRO but because they just chose to postpone until after meditation. I'm taken aback. Curiously, I happened to get along with their attorney in deposition. He showed decidedly reasonable characteristics. It's almost disconcerting to find them with tendencies of human decency.

Hmmm, maybe I shouldn't have accused them of felonies on the Attorney General website. No, this is different, the normal rules of courtesy and fairness aren't applicable: this is war. Just because they display a momentary lapse of propriety doesn'tmean they're not generally ruthless.

Next in the settlement conference I get to go up against three trained professionals who will use their persuasive courtroom skills to convince me of fairy tales. My own attorney - working on my dime - their attorney and the mediator will do their best to make me believe that it's ok and inevitable for the bank to cause financial injury and that the only redress for that is agreeing that they can do more injury. That after breaching the loan contract and entirely contrary to contract principles, the mortgage company does not need to cure or compensate for injury and in fact in order to convince them not to do further injury the only choice is to pay them additional money.

 

[isisis]

Regarding "tender" in California

Per: Chavez v. Indymac Mortgage Services, 219 Cal. App. 4th 1052 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate

"(6) To obtain the equitable set-aside of a trustee's sale or maintain a wrongful foreclosure claim, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendants caused an illegal, fraudulent, or willfully oppressive sale of the property pursuant to a power of sale in a mortgage or deed of trust; (2) the plaintiff suffered prejudice or harm; and (3) the plaintiff tendered the amount of the secured indebtedness or was excused from tendering. (Lona v. Citibank, N.A. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 89, 112 [134 Cal.Rptr.3d 622] (Lona).) Recognized exceptions to the tender rule include when (1) the underlying debt is void, (2) the foreclosure sale or trustee's deed is void on its face, (3) a counterclaim offsets the amount due, (4) specific circumstances make it inequitable to enforce the debt against the party challenging the sale, or (5) the foreclosure sale has not yet occurred. (Id. at pp. 112-113 [outlining the first four exceptions]; Pfeifer v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1280-1281 [150 Cal.Rptr.3d 673] [recognizing the fifth exception ].)

The trial court sustained Defendants' demurrer to this claim finding that to the extent it was based on breach of the Modification Agreement, the claim failed because the Modification Agreement did not comply with the statute of frauds, and to the extent the claim was based on Defendants' failure to serve the requisite notices, Chavez did not plead that she could tender the indebtedness. Chavez argues that she alleged a valid claim for breach of the Modification Agreement and she was not required to allege tender. We agree."

It looks like these days tender in a wrongful foreclosure action isn't the deal breaker it uses to be from I've read. I even half way considered wrongful foreclosure as an option because there are attorneys who'll do it on contingency. But once someone actually buys your home that gets scary, you might not get it back.

 

[isisis]

That is my plan. I am kind of give up on the state courts. A bunch of corrupt, lack of courage judges fail to do what is right. I will file a chapter 13 maybe a week before the schedule sale, listing balance at default as secured loan, and the originator Ameriquest as my secured creditor, the $450K additional Bank Of A says I owed as unsecured, my loan balance in the trust of $169K as unsecured. Then we can argue in the BK court which one is secured or unsecured and what balance is allowed, at the same exposing the "call rights scheme". That basically was my challenge of execution except now I am not bound by the untimely issue. I will follow up with a wrongful foreclosure suit, not seeking to overturn the state judgment (res judicata), but focus on FFDCPA, declaratory judgment (does FEDERAL law allows you fake a note and lie to steal while suffering no financial damage?, does not matter if the state law does) , jury demanded, claim for damage because my credit score will be hit after filing chapter 13 to void the illegal sale, basically getting a new trial in the Federal court.

That sounds like a good plan, calling a portion of the alleged debt unsecured. Explain how call rights figure into it.

 

[kraftykrab]

An old case but maybe helpful.

Mine isnt BK but is somewhat similar, in that the foreclosing party has been all kinds of sloppy. Attorney even contradicts her own words repeatedly, such as writing in a motion that they are the holder and in possession of the note that they now say was lost even before they filed the suit. Just plain sloppiness. No one knows what the other parties are doing or saying, or have done and said, so they keep trying to make it up as they go. They have violated several civil procedure articles in the process, and that's going to bite them as well.

It was rather comical when the lawyer got caught in her own lie at their summary judgment hearing and theirs was denied---her yelling at me like a petulant child who didnt get her way was just too funny. You're supposed to be a professional, and you acted like a spoiled brat--all because of your own lack of honesty and diligence in your case. Judge denied your MSJ because of YOUR mistake and YOUR changing claims about the status of the note--and that doesnt make me a "Crook" by any means, lol.

They "reserved the right to file another MSJ at a later time" just before we left the court room--no idea why she said that, they don't need to reserve the right. They can simply file another one. But last Wednesday, I got an email from the lawyer, now telling me that they are moving to set the case for a full trial. So much for all that "we reserve the right" stuff, I guess. But I understand why she got so upset at that last hearing. MSJ requires a lower burden of proof than a trial does. And they cannot meet that burden for MSJ because of how they have tried to play this out. Their dishonesty came back and bit them--and it's on the record, which they cannot go back in time now and remove or correct, at least not without having to change their entire case....and if that happens they will only look like backtracking crooks that got caught lying. So now, if you cannot meet the lower burden, you're not going to be able to meet the higher one. Well, either way, the knucklehead shouted at me not to talk to her after that hearing. So I didnt even respond to her email--hey, I'm just trying to respect her wishes!!

I will only be sharing what happens after it happens in here from now on until this is over, because said knucklehead did inform me a couple years ago after a hearing date that they follow me online. They have come onto this forum and she made comments to me face to face about posts that I'd made to help other people. Just know that something interesting is happening down here and I'll update everyone as I'm able.