Smackdown… Houston area homeowner scores win versus U.S. Bank. Read it here…Final Judgment – US Bank Johnson.
While a Default Judgment is unlikely to last forever, U.S. Bank never bothered to answer the lawsuit in the first place.
This isn’t the first time a large bank has been forced to negotiate themselves out of hole.
We continue to see homeowners win the initial battles versus large banks when they are willing to pursue the bank and force them to come forward to defend their position as a rightful foreclosing entity.
Tip for the day…attack early and often.
To boot, when they do answer they are likely to just make it up as they go along…Below is an except from a Florida case regarding U.S. Bank. The Plaintiff is the bank, Defendant is homeowner.
The Assignment, as an instrument of fraud in this Court intentionally perpetrated upon this court by the Plaintifff was made to appear as though it was created and notarized on December 5, 2007. However, that purported creation//notarization date was facially impossible: the stamp on the notary was dated May 19,2012. Since Notary commissions only last four years in Florida (see F .S. Section 117.01 (l )), the notary stamp used on this instrument did not even exist until approximately five months after the purported date on the Assignment.
Posted on April 7, 2010 by Neil Garfield
Plaintiff has failed to produce answers to the Interrogatories for a period of 26 months, between the time the Interrogatories and the Request for Production were served on January 8, 2008 and the date of the hearing on the Motion to Compel took place on March 1,2010. Additionally, the court finds that the Plaintiff failed to produce responses to the Request for Production propounded in July 2009.
Defendant’s Motion in Limine/Motion to Strike was based on an allegation that the Assignment of Mortgage was created after the tiling of this action, but the document date and notarial date were purposely backdated by the Plaintiff to a date prior the filing of this foreclosure action.
The court specifically finds that the purported Assignment did not exist at the time of filing ofthis action; that the purported Assignment was subsequently created and the execution date and notarial date were fraudulently backdated, in a purposeful, intentional effort to mislead the Defendant and this Court. The Court rejects the Assignment and finds that is not entitled to introduction in evidence for any purpose. The Court finds that the Plaintiff does not have standing to bring its action. (See BAC Funding Consortium, Inc. ISOAIATIMA v. Genelle Jean-Jacques, Serge Jean-Jacques, Jr. and U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee fo rthe C-Bass Mortgage Loan Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2006-CBS (2nd DCA Case No. 2f)~08-3553) Feb. 12,2012.)
The Assignment, as an instrument of fraud in this Court intentionally perpetrated upon this court by the Plaintiff, was made to appear as though it was created and notarized on December 5, 2007. However, that purported creation/notarization date was facially impossible: the stamp on the notary was dated May 19,2012. Since Notary commissions only last four years in Florida (see F .S. Section 117.01 (l )), the notary stamp used on this instrument did not even exist until approximately five months after the purported date on the Assignment.
