Trees v. Flagstar Financial, Lakeview Mortgage Repair, LLC

As well, the latest undersigned found that Plaintiff’s allegation regarding your tape of two lien releases failed to produce any probable allege while the the fresh launches, regardless of if pertaining to the property concerned, worried a different sort of mortgage unrelated to that particular fit

This Declaration and you can Recommendation questions next three actions: (1) Plaintiff’s Affidavit away from Products to get Defendant’s Ginnie Mae Default Judgment [#17], that the Court construes since the Plaintiff’s Activity to own Standard Judgment facing Defendant Ginnie Mae; (2) Plaintiff’s Affidavit out of Points meant for Defendant’s Hughes, Watters & Amplifier Askanase Attorney Standard Wisdom [#18], that Court construes just like the Plaintiff’s Action for Standard View against Defendant Hughes, Watters & Askanase; and you can (3) Offender Hughes Watters & Askanase, LLP’s Rule a dozen(b)(6) Actions in order to Dismiss which have Bias [#21]. Pursuing the Section Court adopted brand new undersigned’s early in the day declaration and you may testimonial, this new Judge re-introduced this example on the undersigned to have spirits of all left pretrial matters [#28]. The undersigned enjoys expert to get in which testimonial pursuant in order to twenty eight U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Towards factors set forth below, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s Action getting Standard View up against Accused Ginnie Mae [#17] feel Declined; Plaintiff’s Activity getting Default Judgment up against Offender Hughes, Watters & Askanase [#18] become Ignored Since the MOOT; and you can Offender Hughes Watters Askanase, LLP’s Code several(b)(6) Action so you can Discount with Bias [#21] be Offered. The newest undersigned further suggests the Region Court discount as opposed to prejudice Plaintiff’s kept states up against Ginnie Mae sua sponte.

Plaintiff Sammy Lee Trees, Jr., proceeding pro se, registered his Criticism to the [#3] against Defendants Flagstar Financial, Lakeview Loan Maintenance, LLC, Loancare, LLC, Ginnie Mae, and you can Hughes, Watters & Askanase. Plaintiff’s states matter possessions found at 7727 Windview Ways, San Antonio, Texas 78244 and you can a purportedly unlawful decide to try from the foreclosure. (Compl. [#3] during the 2, 33.) Plaintiff’s Problem, even though very long, includes very few informative accusations and also does not have a conclusion out-of the fresh new people to separate the newest so-called misconduct of your individuals Defendants. (Id. in the dos.) What is causing step asserted from inside the Plaintiff’s Issue are undecided, however, Plaintiff seems to be asserting claims out-of wrongful foreclosures, violation regarding package, fraud, and you can assertion of due processes, along with violations of one’s Colorado Company and Business Code §step 3.603, possible Inside the Credit Work (“TILA”), the genuine Property Payment Procedures Work (“RESPA”), this new Racketeer Swayed and you will Corrupt Communities Operate (“RICO”), and also the Consistent Industrial Code (“UCC”). (Id. within 3-twenty eight.) Connected to Plaintiff’s Issue are certain records you to presumably help their claims. (Id. in the 33-sixty.)

not, construing Plaintiff’s Criticism or any other pleadings liberally, it appears that they are alleging which he renegotiated their loan with a new promissory mention for the , hence note effectively paid back the mortgage in a way that one test at the property foreclosure was illegal

Defendants Flagstar Lender, Lakeview Mortgage Repair, and you may Loancare relocated to disregard Plaintiff’s says pursuant to help you Government Signal regarding Civil Process twelve(b)(6), and also the undersigned approved a study and testimonial recommending the fresh new actions feel offered to your [#19]. Regarding report, the fresh undersigned figured Plaintiff’s allegation he met the total amount owed towards his mortgage from the submission a different mention so you’re able to Flagstar Bank did not produce any facially plausible allege, because mention attached to Plaintiff’s Problem looked like unilaterally drawn up and you will done from the Plaintiff during the attempt to modify the loan’s words. Eventually, new undersigned found that Plaintiff’s states under RILA, Control Z, and you will RESPA was in fact prohibited by ruling law regarding constraints and you may Plaintiff’s UCC and you will Tx Organization and Commerce Password states hit a brick wall as the a matter of laws because these guidelines do not control liens to the real property.