Woods v. Flagstar Financial, Lakeview Financing Maintenance, LLC

17 Apr Woods v. Flagstar Financial, Lakeview Financing Maintenance, LLC

Defendants Flagstar Bank, Lakeview Mortgage Repair, and Loancare moved to write off Plaintiff’s says pursuant so you’re able to Government Rule from Civil Techniques 12(b)(6), as well as the undersigned issued a study and you will recommendation recommending the newest actions feel granted on the [#19]

So it Declaration and why not check here Recommendation issues the next three movements: (1) Plaintiff’s Affidavit out-of Affairs in support of Defendant’s Ginnie Mae Standard View [#17], which the Judge construes because the Plaintiff’s Activity to possess Standard Judgment against Defendant Ginnie Mae; (2) Plaintiff’s Affidavit out-of Affairs in support of Defendant’s Hughes, Watters & Amp Askanase Firm Default View [#18], that Courtroom construes because Plaintiff’s Motion to own Standard View facing Accused Hughes, Watters & Askanase; and you can (3) Defendant Hughes Watters & Askanase, LLP’s Code several(b)(6) Motion in order to Dismiss which have Bias [#21]. Following the Section Courtroom then followed the fresh undersigned’s earlier in the day declaration and you will testimonial, the fresh new Court re-introduced this example with the undersigned having aura of all of the remaining pretrial matters [#28]. New undersigned enjoys power to go into this testimonial pursuant to help you twenty eight U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Toward factors established below, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s Action to possess Default Wisdom against Defendant Ginnie Mae [#17] feel Rejected; Plaintiff’s Activity for Default Wisdom up against Defendant Hughes, Watters & Askanase [#18] become Ignored As MOOT; and you can Defendant Hughes Watters Askanase, LLP’s Signal a dozen(b)(6) Motion so you can Discount that have Prejudice [#21] end up being Supplied. The newest undersigned subsequent recommends the Section Court write off as opposed to prejudice Plaintiff’s left states up against Ginnie Mae sua sponte.

Simultaneously, the fresh undersigned found that Plaintiff’s allegation concerning your tape from a couple lien launches did not bring about one possible allege since new launches, whether or not pertaining to the house or property concerned, concerned an alternative loan unrelated to this fit

Plaintiff Sammy Lee Woods, Jr., proceeding expert se, submitted their Criticism into [#3] up against Defendants Flagstar Bank, Lakeview Financing Upkeep, LLC, Loancare, LLC, Ginnie Mae, and you can Hughes, Watters & Askanase. Plaintiff’s says matter assets located at 7727 Windview Way, San Antonio, Texas 78244 and you will a supposedly illegal test from the foreclosures. (Compl. [#3] on 2, 33.) Plaintiff’s Complaint, though very long, include few factual accusations as well as lacks a description away from the newest parties in order to differentiate new so-called misconduct of individuals Defendants. But not, construing Plaintiff’s Criticism or other pleadings liberally, it appears that they are alleging that he renegotiated their financing with a brand new promissory notice into , and therefore notice effectively paid off the borrowed funds in a way that one test during the foreclosures is actually unlawful. (Id. at dos.) What is causing action asserted within the Plaintiff’s Grievance are unclear, but Plaintiff appears to be asserting claims out of wrongful property foreclosure, violation of offer, ripoff, and you can denial off owed processes, and additionally abuses of Texas Organization and you can Business Password §3.603, the scenario For the Financing Operate (“TILA”), the real House Payment Methods Operate (“RESPA”), new Racketeer Swayed and Corrupt Teams Operate (“RICO”), and Uniform Industrial Code (“UCC”). (Id. at the step 3-twenty eight.) Linked to Plaintiff’s Grievance are certain files you to allegedly service their says. (Id. within 33-sixty.)

On the statement, the fresh undersigned figured Plaintiff’s allegation he fulfilled the amount due towards his loan of the submitting yet another note so you can Flagstar Lender didn’t produce one facially plausible allege, because note linked to Plaintiff’s Problem appeared to be unilaterally drafted and you may executed of the Plaintiff in just be sure to modify the loan’s terms and conditions. In the end, this new undersigned unearthed that Plaintiff’s states not as much as RILA, Regulation Z, and you will RESPA was basically banned because of the ruling statute out of limits and Plaintiff’s UCC and you will Tx Organization and you may Business Code states failed once the a matter of rules mainly because laws do not regulate liens into houses.