This is a judgment proposition that encompasses a serious argument. For the reasons given below, the motion of the defendant is subject to a general judgment.
Plaintiff Petra Martinez brought the action against the defendants for damages and equal correction in the Monterey High Court. All the defendants appealed the action to the corporate court. After the dismissal, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action, and in response, the Plaintiff tried to cancel their state requests and remanded the action to a state court. During the trial of the action before the person listed below, the defendant was ordered to file an application for a general sentence to develop the record, and the motion in question was dismissed impartially. Plaintiff’s notice of dismissal of their federal applications was interpreted as an attempt to change the claim, but because it did not change within 21 days after the defendants were rejected, Plaintiff could not request it rule 15 does not change. (a) (1). The attorney’s notice dismissing his state charges is considered a step to change his complaint and denied the Defendants then go to summarize the verdict.
The circumstances of this case are as follows. In January 2006, the Plaintiff and her husband, Dr. Stanley Atkins, owed $ 1.5 million (“AWL”) in damages (pl. L 10). Debt and Salina (id. ¶¶ 1, 10, Ex. B). These loans are interest-only, with a 6.5% interest rate as of March 2013 (id. Ex. B). According to the loan application, the plaintiffs had prepared more than $ 1 million of the existing loan to renew the loan date and provided special debt, approximately $ 420,000 DeclExh. A). List of requirements for AWL defendants as a borrower, CTC Sales Representative, and Electronic Technology License, Inc. (“MERS”) as an inheritance (Complete. B). In addition to $ 1.5 million in mortgages, the planner gave a fair mortgage on the property and lent an additional $ 300,000 in March 2006 (Lui-Kwan reported. Exh. 2). Around the same time, Dr. Atkins shifted his interest in personal property to the complaint by enforcing the Amendment Act (Id. Figure 3). In May 2006, the AWL Defendant filed a lawsuit against CWMBS, a Delaware institution which he brought to the New York Mellon Defense Bank (“BNYM”) (Cerchio Over). Out. ¶¶ 1-5). The BNYM defender is now holding the mortgage for the loan (Id. ¶¶ 5-6). When the notification is made by different parties, MERS will continue to benefit from the agreement (Appendix B).
In May 2008, the planner stopped paying his mortgage loan. She and her husband immediately started calling on a national defender to try to negotiate a loan change (Decl. MerziotisExh. O). Negotiations on a loan exchange lasted several months until December 2008 (ibid.). Immediately after the planner stopped paying the loan, the defendant across the country notified a planner by letter that the loan was failing (id. Ex. K). In September 2008, the National Defendant sent Plaintiff a letter in accordance with Section 2923.5 of the California Code, asking him to contact him to consider his current loan situation (id. Exh. L). In November 2008, Defendant Countrywide sent another letter informing the planner that his loan was not failing and explaining how he could remedy the negligence (id. Exh. M). In January 2009, the defendant, Reconstruct, acting as agent for MERS, filed a bankruptcy notice against the property, alleging that Plaintiff had violated the $ 79,555.75 loan (including, for example, E). In April 2009, three months after the submission of the notice of infringement, the defendant Recontrust submitted the notice of sale from the trustee to the property and set the date of sale as 20 May (ibid.).
Meanwhile, in February 2009, following a notice of default on the property, Ron Doster, a credit intermediary representing the Plaintiff, faxed the defendant across the country and asked the defendant across the country to accept the Plaintiff’s offer to sell the property for less than the amount owed her ex-husband on loan, Dr. Atkins, a procedure called short selling (Merziotis Decl. Exh. N). From March to September 2009, the complainant and Dr. Atkins called defendants across the country several times to monitor the status of Dr.’s commandments. Atkins for property (id. Ex. P).
In August 2009, plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in Monterey County High Court and filed a license Pendens against the property, halting the property confiscation process. In September 2009, Defendant Countrywide notified Dr. Atkins stated that the short sale offer was rejected because of his relationship with the plaintiffs and because he became a party to the trust agreement in January 2006 (Merziotis Decl. Exh. Q). The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants had no legal right to confiscate the property because the defendants did not have the original promissory notes and that the defendants did not comply with various provisions of federal laws and state. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the Real Estate Settlements Act, Federal Fair Debt Collection Act, Rosenthal’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, California Business Professional Code section 17200 and that they intentionally and unreasonably caused their perceived concern. He also pleaded guilty to claims for misappropriation of property, tax evasion, accounting, and foreclosure.
If “the requirements in the case file, the investigation results and major disclosures, and any oaths show that there are no real problems with any substantive facts, and the mover has the right to trial in accordance with the law. “The true problems of facts can be reasonably resolved based on actual records, and It is good for any party. The real problem with a “substantial” fact is that it may affect the outcome of the case under the governing law. Anderson v. the United States, Liberty Lobby, Inc., United States 477 242, 248-49 (1986). In order to obtain a summary judgment, the agent must first “prove that there are no substantive authenticity issues.” Celotex Corp. v. Carteret (Carettt), United States 477 317, 323 (1986). If the agent fails to fulfill its original allegation, it must reject the motion. If the agent satisfies the first burden, the non-agent must specify specific facts that exceed the requirements to show that there is a real test problem. ID. At 325. Neither concluding allegations nor unsubstantiated statements can satisfy this burden. See Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, USA 497 871, 888 (1990).
For information on foreclosure defense call us at (877) 399 2995. We offer litigation document review support, mortgage audit reports, securitization audit reports, affidavit of expert witness notarized, and more.