Chapeau v. Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC
(5:22-cv-00432)
District Court, W.D. Texas
MAY 3, 2022 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: MAY 6, 2022
Stipulation of dismissal filed…
and granted next day by judge.
Dismissed WITH PREJUDICE.
UPDATED 10 OCTOBER, 2022
This case involves a lawyer/ law firm (Van Cleave) for ‘homeowners’, who is known to participate in the ‘rent to buy’ scam.
If you look at the Bexar CAD, the homeowners here granted the home to Sergio Antillion, who we assume is the family of this deceased cop.
With investment cash available as part of the settlement, it looks like the rent to buy deal is still on, with the blessings of the foreclosure mill lawyers.
Case reopened after failed settlement. Extension of time to file answer submitted.
ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND ORDER OF ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURE
Before the Court is Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Plaintiffs’ Original Petition and Application for Temporary Restraining Order, filed on May 10, 2022. (Docket no. 3).
Through the date of the filing of this motion, the parties have been actively exploring the possibility of resolving their dispute.
So that the parties may continue their efforts to resolve their dispute, Defendant asks that the Court extend the deadlines for it to respond to Plaintiff’s Original Petition and Application for Temporary Restraining Order until June 10, 2022.
After careful consideration, the Court is of the opinion that this request should be granted.
Because this case cannot move forward until Defendant has answered or otherwise responded to Plaintiffs’ complaint, the Court finds this case is appropriate for administrative closure. See Mire v. Full Spectrum Lending, Inc., 389 F.3d 163, 167 (5th Cir. 2014)
(“District courts frequently make use of this device to remove from their pending cases suits which are temporarily active elsewhere (such as before an arbitration panel) or stayed (such as where a bankruptcy is pending). The effect of an administrative closure is no different from a simple stay “).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Plaintiffs’ Original Petition and Application for Temporary Restraining Order (docket no. 3) is GRANTED such that Defendant shall respond to Plaintiff’s Original Petition and Application for Temporary Restraining Order on or before June 10, 2022.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk’s office is DIRECTED to administratively close this case pending further order of the Court.
Though administratively closed, this case will still exist on the docket of this Court and may be reopened upon request or on the Court’s own motion. Parties may continue to file motions and documents in the case.
SIGNED this 11th day of May, 2022.
New foreclosure case. Bookmark for updates.
Foreclosure Mill Lawyer Michael Hord is Back in West Texas with a Select Job in Hand
Michael Hord of Hirsch Westheimer is joined by sanctioned Texas lawyer Gregory Van Cleave and his foreclosure defense law firm
Texas Equity Development Enterprises LLC, a Real Estate Investor In Court Over Purchased Property
1608 Saint Vincent St Gonzales TX 78629 is the property the investor Ed Melcher of San Antonio, Texas is asserting his company now owns.
Holland and Knight Enter the Foreclosure Business and Judge Catharina Haynes is Smilin’
George G. Robertson is a litigation attorney in Holland & Knight’s Houston office. He focuses on complex commercial litigation matters.
