Defendants Flagstar Lender, Lakeview Mortgage Maintenance, and you may Loancare transferred to write off Plaintiff’s states pursuant so you’re able to Federal Laws out-of Municipal Processes twelve(b)(6), while the undersigned provided research and testimonial indicating the newest activity getting provided to your [#19]
Which Statement and you will Testimonial inquiries another around three actions: (1) Plaintiff’s Affidavit out of Factors to get Defendant’s Ginnie Mae Standard Wisdom [#17], which the Court construes as the Plaintiff’s Action to possess Default Judgment against Accused Ginnie Mae; (2) Plaintiff’s Affidavit out of Circumstances in support of Defendant’s Hughes, Watters & Amplifier Askanase Firm Standard Wisdom [#18], which the Court construes given that Plaintiff’s Motion for Standard Wisdom against Defendant Hughes, Watters & Askanase; and you will (3) Defendant Hughes Watters & Askanase, LLP’s Rule twelve(b)(6) Actions to Write off that have Prejudice [#21]. Adopting the District Judge adopted the brand new undersigned’s past declaration and you will testimonial, the brand new Judge re-introduced this situation into the undersigned to have mood of all of the left pretrial things [#28] https://pdqtitleloans.com/payday-loans-mn/. This new undersigned provides expert to enter which testimonial pursuant in order to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Into the grounds set forth lower than, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s Activity getting Default Wisdom against Accused Ginnie Mae [#17] end up being Refuted; Plaintiff’s Activity to own Default Judgment facing Defendant Hughes, Watters & Askanase [#18] be Disregarded Just like the MOOT; and Offender Hughes Watters Askanase, LLP’s Code twelve(b)(6) Motion in order to Discount with Prejudice [#21] feel Granted. The brand new undersigned further recommends that Area Legal discount instead prejudice Plaintiff’s left states against Ginnie Mae sua sponte.
In addition, the undersigned learned that Plaintiff’s allegation regarding your recording of a few lien launches did not produce any possible allege just like the the new releases, whether or not linked to the home concerned, concerned another type of mortgage not related to that particular fit
Plaintiff Sammy Lee Woods, Jr., continuing expert se, recorded their Issue with the [#3] against Defendants Flagstar Financial, Lakeview Financing Servicing, LLC, Loancare, LLC, Ginnie Mae, and Hughes, Watters & Askanase. Plaintiff’s claims question property located at 7727 Windview Ways, San Antonio, Tx 78244 and you will a purportedly illegal test within property foreclosure. (Compl. [#3] at the dos, 33.) Plaintiff’s Grievance, regardless if extended, includes few factual allegations plus does not have a description regarding the latest parties to differentiate the fresh new so-called misconduct of one’s individuals Defendants. Although not, construing Plaintiff’s Issue or other pleadings liberally, it seems that they are alleging which he renegotiated his loan with a brand new promissory notice towards , and therefore mention effortlessly paid off the mortgage in a way that one sample at property foreclosure try unlawful. (Id. during the 2.) The causes of step asserted for the Plaintiff’s Problem also are unclear, however, Plaintiff appears to be asserting claims regarding unlawful foreclosures, infraction away from bargain, swindle, and you may denial out of owed processes, and additionally violations of your Texas Company and you may Trade Password §3.603, the scenario In Financing Act («TILA»), the genuine House Payment Tips Operate («RESPA»), the newest Racketeer Swayed and Corrupt Communities Work («RICO»), and the Consistent Industrial Password («UCC»). (Id. from the 3-twenty-eight.) Connected with Plaintiff’s Problem are specific data files you to presumably help his states. (Id. at 33-sixty.)
On the report, the new undersigned concluded that Plaintiff’s allegation which he fulfilled the total amount due to the his loan of the distribution another mention to help you Flagstar Bank did not produce any facially plausible allege, just like the mention attached to Plaintiff’s Criticism appeared as if unilaterally drawn up and done because of the Plaintiff during the you will need to modify the loan’s terminology. Ultimately, the fresh undersigned found that Plaintiff’s claims under RILA, Regulation Z, and RESPA was indeed banned from the ruling law off limitations and you can Plaintiff’s UCC and you can Colorado Company and you can Business Code says failed given that a point of laws mainly because guidelines don’t control liens on real property.