Interesting SCOTUS Decision May Prevent Removal of Certain Lawsuits to Federal Court Where They Normally Die
by Neil Garfield
The full impact of this decision may not be known for years. But the immediate impact is that it gives homeowners a chance to move for remand back down to state court after attempted removal to Federal Court. Unless clarified later, which does not seem likely, this decision could mean that the Supreme Court of the United States says that Federal Courts have no jurisdiciton to hear statutory claims that can be filed in state courts. Here is the bonus: most statutory claims that can be filed under FDCPA, FRCA, RESPA, TILA etc can be filed in state court.
Specfically this means that if no actual damages are alleged (i.e., only statutory damages are claimed) then the Federal Court has no jurisidicition. So the court in attempting to minimize actions by consumers who are victims of illegal collection activities merely diverted them to state courts.
One of the interesting subissues is that these statutes may contain provisions (FRCA) for the judge, in his/her discretion to award punitive damages and this seems likely for class actions to rise rather than fall as seems to be intended by SCOTUS. Withte higher prospect of obtaining attorney fee awards and punitive damages this might make the cases more interesting.
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez
Making the Wrong Objection and Filing the Wrong Foreclosure Defense
by Neil Garfield
The recent Compton Case in Hawaii illustrates the nuances that have been weaponized by the investment banks. It further illustrates basic errors in procedure and objections that continue to result in homeowners inadvertently aiding and abetting an illegal foreclosure against them.
see USB v Compton 6-21-21 HI SupCt
The decision is correct. The failure to contest the existence of the underlying obligation together with the authority to enforce the note forced the court to accept U.S. Bank as a holder with flights to enforce. The delivery to the court together with testimony that t the note was part of some collection of business records is not a proffer of hearsay.
My point is always the same: if you don’t attack the central point of the case, you are admitting the central point. And that means you lose.
Homeowners seem afraid or just ignorant of the fact that they can force the opposition to actually prove the existence of the underlying obligation and that the named plaintiff owns it. But contrary to the belief of lay litigants and some lawyers, denial is not enough.
The recent Compton Case in Hawaii illustrates the nuances that have been weaponized by the investment banks.
The decision is correct. The failure to contest the existence of the underlying obligation together with the authority to enforce the note forced the court to accept U.S. Bank as a holder with rights to enforce. The delivery to the court together with testimony that the note was part of some collection of business records is not a proffer of hearsay. So the hearsay objection was wrong.
The central point of every foreclosure case is that there is an underlying obligation owed to the plaintiff that has been breached by the homeowner. In virtually all current foreclosure cases this is not what happened. But if you admit it, then for purposes of the case the legal fact is that the plaintiff owns an existing obligation that was breached by the homeowner. It is all downhill from there.
Homeowners seem afraid or just ignorant of the fact that they can force the opposition to actually prove the existence of the underlying obligation and that the named plaintiff owns it.
But contrary to the belief of lay litigants and some lawyers, denial is not enough. Your opposition need only invoke legal presumptions arising from the facial validity of documents (even though they are false, fabricated, and forged) to satisfy their legal burden of proving the prima facie case. And that is why the homeowner must employ aggressive discovery tactics,s strategies and motions that reveal the unwillingness or inability of the opposition to back up the facts that are preliminarily presumed to be true.
My observation is that the most common reason that this is overlooked is that the homeowner and lawyer cannot conceive of a scenario in which the underlying obligation does not exist. They arrive at this conclusion because the homeowner applied for a loan and believed that was what they received. Maybe they did.
But the moment that the transaction was sucked into the securities scheme invented by investment banks, the loan account receivable was extinguished. And for legal purposes that means the obligation is extinguished because without owning the asset you are not allowed to claim a financial loss arising from damage to that asset. This basic pleading, without which there is no claim.
LIST OF FORECLOSURE LAWS BY STATE
Get In Touch
Phone / Fax
Phone & Fax: 800-459-1215
Send A Message
THIS SITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE MISCONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE. FRAUD STOPPERS is a Private Members Association PMA. FRAUD STOPPERS PMA is NOT a law firm, non-profit organization, or government agency. FRAUD STOPPERS PMA does not operate in the public sector. Although this website is visible to the public FRAUD STOPPERS PMA does not intend for any information contained in this website to be considered as legal advise.
The information about Foreclosure law and other legal information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information. This website contains links to other third-party websites. Such links are only for the convenience of the reader, user or browser; FRAUD STOPPERS and its members do not recommend or endorse the contents of the third-party sites.
Readers of this website should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter. No reader, user, or browser of this site should act or refrain from acting on the basis of information on this site without first seeking legal advice from counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. Only your individual attorney can provide assurances that the information contained herein – and your interpretation of it – is applicable or appropriate to your particular situation. Use of, and access to, this website or any of the links or resources contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader, user, or browser and website authors, contributors, contributing law firms, or committee members and their respective employers. This site provides “information” about the law and is only designed to help users safely cope with their own legal needs. But legal information is not the same as legal advice — the application of law to an individual’s specific circumstances.
The views expressed at, or through, this site are those of the individual authors writing in their individual capacities only – not those of their respective employers, FRAUD STOPPERS, or committee/task force as a whole. All liability with respect to actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this site are hereby expressly disclaimed. The content on this posting is provided “as is;” no representations are made that the content is error-free.
For instant access to an affordable local competent attorney click here