Trees v. Flagstar Financial, Lakeview Loan Maintenance, LLC

On top of that, the fresh undersigned unearthed that Plaintiff’s allegation about your recording of a couple of lien releases didn’t produce one plausible allege because the releases, even when linked to the house or property under consideration, alarmed a new loan not related to that match

So it Declaration and you will Testimonial issues the next about three motions: (1) Plaintiff’s Affidavit of Points in support of Defendant’s Ginnie Mae Default View [#17], that the Courtroom construes because the Plaintiff’s Actions to possess Standard View up against Accused Ginnie Mae; (2) Plaintiff’s Affidavit of Situations to get Defendant’s Hughes, Watters & Amp Askanase Law practice Standard Judgment [#18], that your Courtroom construes just like the Plaintiff’s Action to have Default Wisdom facing Accused Hughes, Watters & Askanase; and you may (3) Offender Hughes Watters & Askanase, LLP’s Laws a dozen(b)(6) Actions to help you Discount with Bias [#21]. Following Area Judge adopted the latest undersigned’s previous report and you may testimonial, the new Judge re also-referred this case into the undersigned getting aura of the many left pretrial issues [#28]. The fresh new undersigned have authority to get in this recommendation pursuant in order to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On the reasons established lower than, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s Activity to possess Standard Judgment against Defendant Ginnie Mae [#17] end up being Refused; Plaintiff’s Motion getting Standard Wisdom against Defendant Hughes, Watters & Askanase [#18] become Ignored Once the MOOT; and you may Defendant Hughes Watters Askanase, LLP’s Signal 12(b)(6) Action so you’re able to Dismiss that have Bias [#21] become Provided. The latest undersigned next recommends that District Courtroom write off in the place of prejudice Plaintiff’s remaining says facing Ginnie Mae sua sponte.

Plaintiff Sammy Lee Trees, Jr., continuing specialist se, submitted their Ailment to the [#3] up against Defendants Flagstar Financial, Lakeview Financing Repair, LLC, Loancare, LLC, Ginnie Mae, and you may Hughes, Watters & Askanase. Plaintiff’s states matter assets located at 7727 Windview Ways, San Antonio, Tx 78244 and you can an allegedly illegal decide to try at the foreclosures. (Compl. [#3] within dos, 33.) Plaintiff’s Criticism, even though extended, consists of not too many factual allegations plus lacks a conclusion from the fresh new people to identify the fresh so-called misconduct of the individuals Defendants. (Id. during the dos.) What can cause step asserted in Plaintiff’s Problem are uncertain, however, Plaintiff appears to be asserting claims from unlawful foreclosures, infraction regarding package, ripoff, and assertion from owed processes, plus abuses of your Texas Company and you can Trade Password §step three.603, the scenario Inside the Lending Act („TILA“), the true Home Settlement Actions Operate („RESPA“), the Racketeer Swayed and you may Corrupt online Marshall title loan Teams Act („RICO“), additionally the Consistent Commercial Password („UCC“). (Id. at step 3-28.) Connected with Plaintiff’s Ailment are specific documents one presumably support his states. (Id. from the 33-sixty.)

But not, construing Plaintiff’s Problem or any other pleadings liberally, it would appear that he could be alleging that he renegotiated their financing with a brand new promissory mention on the , and this note efficiently paid off the loan in a manner that any decide to try on foreclosure is unlawful

Defendants Flagstar Financial, Lakeview Financing Repair, and you may Loancare gone to live in disregard Plaintiff’s says pursuant in order to Federal Signal off Municipal Process twelve(b)(6), plus the undersigned given a study and you will recommendation suggesting new motion feel supplied towards [#19]. Regarding declaration, brand new undersigned concluded that Plaintiff’s allegation he satisfied extent due into their mortgage because of the submitting another type of notice so you’re able to Flagstar Bank don’t bring about any facially probable claim, since mention connected to Plaintiff’s Issue appeared as if unilaterally drafted and conducted because of the Plaintiff within the make an effort to modify the loan’s terminology. Fundamentally, the brand new undersigned learned that Plaintiff’s claims less than RILA, Controls Z, and you may RESPA have been barred of the governing statute out-of constraints and you will Plaintiff’s UCC and you may Colorado Providers and you will Commerce Code claims were unsuccessful given that an issue of laws mainly because laws and regulations do not govern liens to your real-estate.