Trees v. Flagstar Financial, Lakeview Financing Maintenance, LLC

At the same time, new undersigned unearthed that Plaintiff’s allegation regarding your tape off one or two lien launches failed to produce any possible allege given that brand new launches, in the event related to the property in question, concerned a unique financing unrelated to that particular fit

Which Statement and you will Recommendation concerns another about three motions: (1) Plaintiff’s Affidavit away from Factors to get Defendant’s Ginnie Mae Standard Judgment [#17], which the Judge construes because Plaintiff’s Actions getting Default Wisdom facing Defendant Ginnie Mae; (2) Plaintiff’s Affidavit regarding Circumstances meant for Defendant’s Hughes, Watters & Amplifier Askanase Law practice Standard Judgment [#18], that the Legal construes since Plaintiff’s Activity to possess Standard View against Offender Hughes, Watters & Askanase; and you can (3) Offender Hughes Watters & Askanase, LLP’s Rule a dozen(b)(6) Activity to help you Disregard that have Prejudice [#21]. Adopting the Region Judge accompanied new undersigned’s prior declaration and you may testimonial, the fresh Judge re-referred this example towards undersigned to have vibe of all of the left pretrial issues [#28]. New undersigned provides power to go into that it recommendation pursuant so you can twenty eight U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). To the factors set forth less than, we recommend that Plaintiff’s Motion to have Standard Wisdom up against Accused Ginnie Mae [#17] getting Declined; Plaintiff’s Actions for Default Judgment against Offender Hughes, Watters & Askanase [#18] end up being Ignored Due to the fact MOOT; and you can Accused Hughes Watters Askanase, LLP’s Rule 12(b)(6) Actions in order to Write off with Bias [#21] end up being Provided. The fresh undersigned next recommends that the Section Legal dismiss instead prejudice Plaintiff’s left says up against Ginnie Mae sua sponte.

Plaintiff Sammy Lee Woods, Jr., continuing pro se, registered his Issue to the [#3] up against Defendants Flagstar Financial, Lakeview Loan Repair, LLC, Loancare, LLC, Ginnie Mae, and you can Hughes, Watters & Askanase. Plaintiff’s says matter possessions found at 7727 Windview Means, San Antonio, Colorado 78244 and you can a purportedly unlawful test from the property foreclosure. (Compl. [#3] at the dos, 33.) Plaintiff’s Problem, even if extended, include not many informative accusations and even does not have a reason of the new events to separate the brand new so-called misconduct of your individuals Defendants. (Id. at the dos.) What causes action asserted inside Plaintiff’s Complaint are undecided, but Plaintiff seems to be asserting states of unlawful foreclosures, infraction out of offer, ripoff, and you may assertion from due processes, plus abuses of one’s Texas Business and you may Trade Code §step 3.603, happening In the Lending Act (“TILA”), the true Property Payment Methods Work (“RESPA”), the newest Racketeer Influenced and you may Corrupt Teams Operate (“RICO”), plus the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”). (Id. within step 3-28.) Connected with Plaintiff’s Grievance are certain files you to definitely allegedly service their states. (Id. at the 33-60.)

Although not, construing Plaintiff’s Ailment or any other pleadings liberally, it would appear that he’s alleging that he renegotiated their loan with a brand new promissory mention to your , hence mention efficiently paid down the borrowed funds such that one try at the foreclosure was unlawful

Defendants Flagstar Bank, Lakeview Loan Servicing, and you can Loancare relocated to disregard Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Government Code of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), additionally the undersigned provided a study and recommendation recommending this new motion 30 day title loans in Bogalusa feel offered towards the [#19]. Regarding the declaration, the undersigned concluded that Plaintiff’s allegation he found the quantity owed with the their mortgage from the distribution yet another mention in order to Flagstar Lender did not bring about any facially possible allege, as the note linked to Plaintiff’s Issue looked like unilaterally drafted and you can conducted from the Plaintiff inside you will need to modify the loan’s conditions. In the long run, brand new undersigned unearthed that Plaintiff’s says lower than RILA, Control Z, and RESPA was indeed banned because of the ruling statute out-of restrictions and Plaintiff’s UCC and Texas Company and Commerce Code states were not successful as an issue of laws because these legislation don’t govern liens to the houses.