17 Apr Woods v. Flagstar Bank, Lakeview Financing Servicing, LLC
Defendants Flagstar Financial, Lakeview Mortgage Maintenance, and Loancare relocated to write off Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Government Rule from Municipal Processes twelve(b)(6), together with undersigned given a research and you will testimonial recommending the new actions end up being granted towards [#19]
It Declaration and you will Testimonial concerns next three motions: (1) Plaintiff’s Affidavit away from Products to get Defendant’s Ginnie Mae Standard Judgment [#17], which the Court construes because the Plaintiff’s Action getting Default Wisdom facing Offender Ginnie Mae; (2) Plaintiff’s Affidavit off Things to get Defendant’s Hughes, Watters & Amp Askanase Firm Standard Judgment [#18], that Legal construes while the Plaintiff’s Activity to possess Standard Judgment facing Accused Hughes, Watters & Askanase; and you will (3) Offender Hughes Watters & Askanase, LLP’s Code 12(b)(6) Motion so you’re able to Dismiss which have Bias [#21]. After the District Courtroom then followed the undersigned’s previous statement and testimonial, brand new Court re also-known this case to the undersigned getting disposition of all remaining pretrial issues [#28]. This new undersigned enjoys power to get in this try here testimonial pursuant so you can 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On the grounds established lower than, we recommend that Plaintiff’s Actions to own Standard Judgment up against Offender Ginnie Mae [#17] end up being Refused; Plaintiff’s Action to possess Default Wisdom up against Accused Hughes, Watters & Askanase [#18] be Overlooked Because the MOOT; and you can Defendant Hughes Watters Askanase, LLP’s Rule a dozen(b)(6) Motion to help you Write off having Prejudice [#21] be Provided. New undersigned next recommends the Section Court discount instead prejudice Plaintiff’s leftover states facing Ginnie Mae sua sponte.
While doing so, the brand new undersigned discovered that Plaintiff’s allegation regarding the tape out-of a few lien releases did not produce one probable allege due to the fact the brand new launches, even when pertaining to the property involved, alarmed a separate financing not related to that suit
Plaintiff Sammy Lee Woods, Jr., continuing expert se, registered his Issue with the [#3] against Defendants Flagstar Bank, Lakeview Financing Repair, LLC, Loancare, LLC, Ginnie Mae, and you can Hughes, Watters & Askanase. Plaintiff’s claims matter possessions located at 7727 Windview Way, San Antonio, Texas 78244 and you can a purportedly unlawful test at the foreclosures. (Compl. [#3] from the 2, 33.) Plaintiff’s Ailment, no matter if a long time, consists of few informative allegations and even does not have a conclusion out of new people in order to identify the latest so-called misconduct of your individuals Defendants. not, construing Plaintiff’s Grievance or other pleadings liberally, it appears that he could be alleging he renegotiated their financing with a brand new promissory note with the , and therefore notice efficiently reduced the borrowed funds in a fashion that one shot at property foreclosure is unlawful. (Id. on dos.) What can cause step asserted into the Plaintiff’s Issue are unsure, however, Plaintiff is apparently asserting states off wrongful foreclosure, infraction out of price, fraud, and you will assertion away from due techniques, together with violations of your own Tx Organization and you may Business Password §3.603, the situation Inside the Financing Act (“TILA”), the real Home Settlement Measures Act (“RESPA”), the fresh new Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Communities Act (“RICO”), while the Uniform Industrial Code (“UCC”). (Id. on step 3-28.) Connected with Plaintiff’s Criticism are certain documents that allegedly support his claims. (Id. from the 33-sixty.)
Regarding the declaration, the fresh new undersigned determined that Plaintiff’s allegation which he fulfilled extent due towards their financing of the submission a separate notice to help you Flagstar Bank didn’t bring about one facially probable claim, because the note linked to Plaintiff’s Grievance appeared as if unilaterally drawn up and conducted from the Plaintiff inside try to modify the loan’s conditions. Finally, this new undersigned unearthed that Plaintiff’s says under RILA, Controls Z, and you can RESPA was in fact barred because of the governing statute out-of limitations and you may Plaintiff’s UCC and Texas Providers and you can Trade Code states unsuccessful while the a matter of rules since these laws do not govern liens into the houses.