Tag Archives: Privity of Contract

Carrie Lynn Luft’s Second Amended Complaint against Mortgage Note Securitization and Related Documents in the Middle District of Florida

Carrie Lynn Luft’s May 13 2013 FINAL Draft Second Amended Complaint with CLASS ACTION for Predatory Lending & Securitization ©

07-30-2008 USDC SDNY CITIGROUP GLOBAL v ACCREDITED HOME LENDERS Case 1-08-cv-03545-RJH Document 15 First Amended Complaint

Citi-Luft Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint

Carrie Lynn Luft to Mark N. Muller 05-31-2013 Request for Three Stipulations ©

06-11-2013 Carrie Lynn Luft’s Motion for Extension of Time to file Response to Muller MtD Second Amended Complaint  ©

06-11-2013 Motion for Extension of Time ©

Citi-Luft Response to Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion to Disqualify MHM et al

Citi-Luft Affidavit of Gerard Bellesheim (signed)

06-24-2013 Carrie Lynn Luft’s Motion to Convert Citigroup’s Motion under 12(b) to Summary Judgment and Reply to Citigroup’s Response to Motion for Extension of Time to file Response to Muller MtD Second Amended Complaint ©

06-26-2013 Carrie Lynn Luft USDC Middle District of Florida Clerk’s Docket

06-26-2013 US District Court MDFLa Carrie Lynn Luft v Citigroup Global-AHL et al

© All Editorial Copyrights Reserved by © Carrie Lynn Luft & Charles Edward Lincoln III—No Claim Made to Original Government Works, Public Record or to any registered Trademarks of Public or Private Companies—For Educational and Instructive Use as Whitepaper on Mortgage Finance Policy seeking additional Dialogue and Commentary. ©

Call to Arms: Wells Fargo Class Action possible on Mortgage Servicing/Holder-in-Due Course Fraud, Securitization issues?

FEDERAL CASE AGAINST WELLS FARGO

Currently I am the sole Plaintiff in a lawsuit against Wells Fargo in US District Court in Boise Idaho. The suit, like many of the others I write, is for Quiet Title to my property located in Caldwell Idaho. My assistant, Peyton Freiman, took it to the Court for filing in September along with an Application for Temporary Restraining Order, regarding which the Court immediately ordered a three hour hearing set for October 28, 2009.  Usually the decision on whether or not to grant a TRO is made in a manner of minutes in chambers. But, on this particular occasion, given the current economic climate, distrust of banks and maybe the individual language used in my pleadings I have been given a great deal of time to make my case for injunctions against Wells Fargo as we continue onward into Discovery and finally a trial. Hopefully this is a Court that realizes the seriousness of the matter and is giving me more time as a result, not simply a scare tactic to make me have second thoughts. Either way, I plan on being as prepared as ever to argue the issues in my pleadings.

I realize that this is a great opportunity and extend the option to anyone reading this who also has a loan out with Wells Fargo to intervene and join as a co-plaintiff in this case in Idaho. It would be a great strategic advantage  to have a massive list of Plaintiffs going into this hearing to give added weight to my words and possibly gain class action certification as a result.  To obtain certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, there has to be at least one claim and issue regarding which all class members have identical claims. They have gotten very strict about that recently, it seems.  So class action status as a co-plaintiff we would need to talk about what issues there are in common and whether we can make identical claims for damages, injunction, or declaratory judgment.   In other words, there’s a difference in drafting issues of a different kind here: tailored issues for class certification and designation of one representative as “typical.”  We will also have to get a lawyer representing everyone’s claims in this action.  There is nothing specific in Rule 23 that says you have to have a licensed attorney.  Rule 23(a)(4) requires that “the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, while Rule 23(c)(2)(B)(iv) states that “a class member may enter an appearance through an attorney if the member desires.  Almost decision I have seen, however, requires that a class be represented by a licensed attorney and I’m not sure this is the place to try to challenge that issue, although it may be.  I’m open to discussion on that point.  The Court’s discretion to impose the requirement of a licensed attorney springs from Rule 23(d) (1)(C) “In conducting an action under this rule, the court may issue orders that….impose conditions on the representative parties or on intervenors.”

For the time being, and I’m writing this as of September 30, 2009: I issue this “Call to Arms”—Will everyone who believes they have been defrauded by Wells Fargo in regard to the servicing or modification of a mortgage note or mortgage contract signed after January 1, 2000, or who particularly believes that Wells Fargo is no longer the “holder in due course” of their note, or has otherwise acted in a manner inconsistent with “privity of contract” contact me through Robert Ponte at 860-599-5557?  It would be easier to start out with people in the Ninth Circuit: Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and American Samoa, but we have another anchor state in Florida and still others in Massachusetts, Maryland, and Michigan where parallel actions could be filed.

I’d ask this:  I am working on the lawyer, are you, dear reader, willing to work with me?  If you want to know more I am willing to forward on the complaint, essentially the damages are “holder in due course” issues, which I talk about frequently on this blog. In short, if you think that somehow you and I don’t share the same kind of damages or allegations of material fact please think again: we are ALL being duped by big banks who have no idea where our original notes are. So, think about it and contact me if you wish,

CEL III

DEO VINDICE—AS OF JANUARY 19, 2009, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, WILL REQUIRE ALL INSTITUTIONAL PLAINTIFFS IN FORECLOSURES TO FILE THE ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE WITH THE COURT!

 

 

THE MOTTO OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA WAS “DEO VINDICE”
=BY GOD VINDICATED—THE “VINDICATIO” WAS A ROMAN LEGAL CAUSE OF ACTION JUSTIFYING OWNERSHIP OF LAND AND THE INSTRUMENTS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION, also known as “RES MANCIPI”—I now feel somewhat PERSONALLY VINDICATED, given as I have been one of the few people in the Country who realised that
as of August 18, 2005, Pinellas County was GROUND ZERO for the “ORIGINAL NOTE”(holder-in-due course, privity of contract) theory of MORTGAGE FORECLOSURES, by this ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN PINELLAS COUNTY—ALL NEW FORECLOSURE SUITS IN JUDGE WALT LOGAN’S OLD DISTRICT
MUST NOW INCLUDE THE ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE!  THIS IS A VICTORY FOR THE COMMON LAW OVER PROFITABLE CORPORATE COMMERCIAL PRACTICE—THIS IS A VICTORY OF JUSTICE AND COMMON SENSE OVER DECEIPT—THIS IS A MAJOR
VICTORY WHICH SHOULD BE COPIED ALL OVER THE UNITED STATES AND I AM PROUD TO HAVE BEEN ONE OF THE ADVOCATES OF THIS POSITION FOR MANY YEARS “

DEO VINDICE”


http://www.jud6.org/LegalCommunity/LegalPractice/

AOSAndRules/aos/aos2008/2008-081.htm


IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR PASCO AND PINELLAS COUNTIES, FLORIDA

 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 2008-081 PA/PI-CIR

printer- friendly version

 

RE:     MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE ACTIONS BY INSTITUTIONAL LENDERS

           

            Mortgage foreclosure cases have increased at an unprecedented rate in the Sixth Judicial Circuit.  In the Sixth Judicial Circuit in the last year alone, mortgage foreclosure case filings increased approximately 118%.  Frequently, attorneys who handle a large volume of mortgage foreclosure cases do not have their pleadings in order or fail to appear at scheduled hearings, causing the court to reschedule or delay hearings in mortgage foreclosure cases.  The volume of the cases and the resetting of these hearings results in difficulties scheduling these summary proceedings.  In light of the court’s finite resources, it is necessary to establish procedures for more efficient handling of mortgage foreclosure cases. 

 

            Pursuant to Rule of Judicial Administration 2.215, the Chief Judge has the authority to adopt administrative orders necessary to administer the court’s affairs.  Therefore, it is

 

ORDERED:

 

            1.   Filing of Initial Mortgage Foreclosure Complaint:  An institutional mortgagee lender that after January 19, 2009, files a complaint to foreclose a mortgage on homestead property must provide the following to the Clerk of Circuit Court with the initial filing:

 

            a.    A Notice to Homeowner, a copy of which is attached to this Administrative Order as Attachment A.

            b.   A Plaintiff/Lender’s Contact Information Sheet, a copy of which is attached to this Administrative Order as Attachment B.

 

Homestead property is property designated as “homestead” by the property appraiser’s office on the date of filing the complaint.  The plaintiff must include the Notice to Homeowner and Plaintiff/Lender’s Contact Information Sheet with each summons serving a complaint on the owner of residential homestead property.

 

            2.   Certificate Filed Prior to Requesting Summary Judgment Hearing Dates:  Prior to requesting a mortgage foreclosure summary judgment hearing date from the court, the attorney of record for the plaintiff must file a uniform certificate titled “Certification of Compliance with Foreclosure Procedures” with the Clerk.  The uniform certificate is 
Attachment C to this Administrative Order.  The uniform certificate provides the attorney’s certification of the completion of requisite actions and the dates on which they were completed.

 

            3.   Foreclosure Judgment Packet Prior to Hearing:  Unless the presiding judge provides otherwise, the plaintiff’s attorney must deliver a foreclosure judgment packet to the presiding judge’s office at least five (5) business days prior to the scheduled hearing date for a motion for summary judgment.  The foreclosure judgment packet consists of the following documents:

a.    Proposed Uniform Final Judgment.  Include sufficient copies for conforming and stamped, addressed envelopes for all parties;

b.   Original Promissory Note (unless previously filed);

c.    Notice of Sale;

d.   A copy of the Certification of Compliance with Foreclosure Procedures; and

e.    A copy of the Notice of Hearing.

 

            4.    Uniform Final Judgment:  All proposed final judgments of foreclosure shall be in the format of the Uniform Final Judgment of Foreclosure for the Sixth Judicial Circuit as provided in Attachment D unless otherwise specifically approved by the judge entering the final judgment.  Any changes to the Uniform Final Judgment of Foreclosure from that prescribed in Attachment D shall be brought to the attention of the presiding judge at the final judgment hearing.

 

            5.    Cancellation of Foreclosure Sale by Clerk upon Suggestion of Bankruptcy:  If the Clerk of Circuit Court receives, prior to the commencement of a foreclosure sale, a mailed or faxed suggestion of bankruptcy on behalf of a named defendant in a pending foreclosure action, the Clerk is directed to cancel the foreclosure sale.  The Clerk shall not cancel the sale if subsequently directed otherwise by the presiding judge or a United States Bankruptcy Judge.  The plaintiff is responsible to separately file with the Clerk any order from a United States Bankruptcy Judge that would preclude the Clerk from canceling a foreclosure sale; such filing must not be an attachment or exhibit.

 

            6.    Additional Procedures:  The judicial practice preferences of each judge, which may contain a judge’s individualized procedures for mortgage foreclosure cases, may be found on the Circuit’s Internet site at http://www.jud6.org/LegalCommunity/PracticeRequirementsofJudges.html.  The Chief Judge may update or make other amendments to the attachments of this Administrative Order without further amendment to this Administrative Order.

 

            7.    Application:  This Administrative Order applies to all mortgage foreclosure actions by institutional lenders except that paragraph one only applies to homestead property.

 

            8.    Effective Dates:  All mortgage foreclosure complaints filed after January 19, 2009, and all mortgage foreclosure summary judgment hearings scheduled to occur after January 19, 2009, must comply with this Administrative Order.    

 

            A plaintiff, who as of the date of this Administrative Order, has filed a mortgage foreclosure complaint and already has a foreclosure summary judgment hearing scheduled to occur after January 19, 2009, may keep the scheduled date and time.  However, the plaintiff’s attorney must file the Foreclosure Judgment Package, as prescribed in paragraph 3 of this Administrative Order, including the “Certification of Compliance with Foreclosure Procedures” with the Clerk of Circuit Court at least five (5) business days prior to the scheduled hearing date.  The presiding judge may cancel a schedule hearing that does not have the Foreclosure Judgment Package filed by that day. 

 

            A plaintiff, who as of the date of this Administrative Order, has filed a mortgage foreclosure complaint and has yet to schedule a foreclosure summary judgment hearing, must comply with paragraph 2 of this Administrative Order and file a “Certification of Compliance with Foreclosure Procedures” prior to requesting a hearing date.  Additionally, the plaintiff must file the Foreclosure Judgment Package, as prescribed in paragraph 3 of this Administrative Order, with the Clerk of Circuit Court at least five (5) business days prior to the scheduled hearing date.

 

            A plaintiff who files a mortgage foreclosure complaint after January 19, 2009, must comply with all requirements of this Administrative Order.

                         

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida this _____ day of December 2008.

 

 

 

_____________________________

Robert J. Morris, Jr., Chief Judge

 

Attachment:   

(A) Notice to Homeowner (html)
(A) Notice to Homeowner (word version)
(B) Plaintiff/Lender’s Contact Information Sheet (html)
(B) Plaintiff/Lender’s Contact Information Sheet (word version)
(C) Certification of Compliance with Foreclosure Procedures (html)
(C) Certification of Compliance with Foreclosure Procedures (word version)
(D) Uniform Final Judgment of Foreclosure for the Sixth Judicial Circuit (html)
(D) Uniform Final Judgment of Foreclosure for the Sixth Judicial Circuit (word version)

 

                    

                    

                      

 

 

cc:        All Judges

            The Honorable Ken Burke, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Pinellas County

            The Honorable Jed Pittman, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Pasco County

            Paula O’Neil, Chief Deputy, Pasco County Clerk’s Office

            Debbie Gay, Assistant Court Services Director, Pasco County Clerk’s Office

            Carol Heath, Executive Director, Pinellas County Clerk’s Office

            Gay L. Inskeep, Trial Courts Administrator

            Bar Associations, Pasco and Pinellas County

            Law Libraries, Pasco and Pinellas County