“The plain wording of the statute says that once the notice is sent the OLD loan agreement is replaced with a NEW statutory mandatory loan agreement. This is the factor that is missed by most lawyers and judges on trial and appellate courts.“
“I think what the judge is telling you is that if you want to do something, in his opinion, you should file necessary papers to remove the DOT from your chain of title.“
“This is your opportunity to drill home the fact that they did not, in their complaint, identify the Plaintiff. While US Bank is a legal entity, it is not appearing on its own behalf. This leaves the question of “on whose behalf” do the attorneys attempt to state that US Bank is appearing?”
By Sydney Sullivan
The main focus on The Foreclosure Hour this week, Blackrock & PIMCO, et al v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, was so powerful it deserves to be highlighted. As usual legal protocol, the Plaintiffs’ claims are accepted by the court to be true. For example, the next move for the Defendant might be to file a motion to dismiss, a court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
WARNING: The contents of this complaint is likely to make certain foreclosure judges with hefty Plaintiff hedge funds preferred shares in their investment portfolios extremely nauseous.
Plaintiffs Blackrock & PIMCO and a multitude of subsidiaries, affiliates, associates, closely related and closely held companies for each sued U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION for BREACH OF CONTRACT; VIOLATION OF THE TRUST INDENTURE ACT OF 1939; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; BREACH OF DUTY OF INDEPENDENCE; AND NEGLIGENCE.
View original post 2,306 more words
Deadly Clear 