Debt Collector

Coastline Capital Fund 7 is Chasin’ a Written Off Debt with Another Removed Foreclosure before the Chief of SD Tex.

The removed action was by U.S. Bank’s foreclosure mill lawyers at Mackie Wolf and now they have filed their 2nd motion to dismiss.

LIT SUMMARY

So let’s get the timeline correct here before we go making any alleged accusations that may be construed as conclusory or frivolous with regards to this final order by the Chief Judge for Southern District, Lee “It’s You Against Me” Rosenthal.

LIT lit up foreclosure defense lawyer Clay Vilt of Vilt and Associates for false advertising.

His website blasts out STOP FORECLOSURE AND KEEP YOUR HOME, yet all he does is milk every last dime from struggling homeowners and they lose their home to foreclosure anyway. It’s an expensive way to “buy time”. Homeowners want wrongful foreclosures results like that in the Wolf’s case to bring meaningful relief and compensation.

 

 

 

 

Despite the billions of dollars in fines for predatory lending in Texas and the USA, no homeowners are winning cases in state or federal courts and the figures clearly show that they won’t win because judges are bought by Wall St. That’s a fact. LIT has proven it time and time again.

This Order is a prime example of the blatant collusion between the legal profession and the judiciary.

Let’s present the data; We questioned Vilt in the following 3 state cases and one removed federal case, all posted to LIT on May 8, 2022:

Strange v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, (4:22-cv-01194) District Court, S.D. Texas before Judge Keith “Gimme the Keys” Ellison

202225354 -RODRIGUEZ, THOMAS vs. IDAHO HOUSING AND FINANCE ASSOCIATION (Court 061)

and

202225278 – DUNN, STEPHEN vs. FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION (Court 215)

Two Harris County Court Cases where filings are pretty much identical in reasoning and arguments AND why there was no mention of the ‘Texas Homeowners Assistance Fund’.

202225232 – URBACH, SANDI vs. CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES LLC (Court 125)

Questioning Vilt’s record of ‘success’ for homeowners since 2008. (Zero).

There are many more cases by Vilt we’ve not listed but you can review by searching LIT.

LIT Articles are Monitored by US Federal Courts

We are well aware our investigation into the judiciary is being closely monitored and hence the timing of the dismissal of the Mitchell case is too obvious. Clay Vilt and his son et al have a business in the foreclosure defense arena and are well known to foreclosure mills and the judiciary. We note Mitchell went so far as to file and amended complaint after removal by Mackie Wolf (who owe us some more up-to-date staff pictures, just sayin’). That was on March 9.

A conference with the Chief was held on March 18 with Clayton Vilt in attendance and former BDF employee Nick Frame for Mackie Wolf for the bank. Mackie then filed a renewed (second) motion to dismiss on March 30 with a response by Vilt on Apr 14.

Now, if you’ve amended the complaint in Federal Court and then responded to the second motion to dismiss, why are you now suddenly stating that there is no case – 4 days after LIT lights up Vilt and Associates? Why is Vilt not facing sanctions for filing a frivolous lawsuit?

Ochlocracy and corruption is the clear answer. Foreclosure defense lawyers is a must have service for the judiciary, otherwise there would be a long line of pro se litigants before the court.  Foreclosure Defense lawyer Clay Vilt is in the “inner circle”, where the litigation game is played over time, giving Vilt an income by falsely assuring homeowners that they can STOP FORECLOSURE AND SAVE YOUR HOME’, all the while pilfering as much money out of these stressed and worried homeowners.

Vilt holds a legal code of conduct between himself, opposing counsel and the courts, whereby he knows that the homeowners will not defeat foreclosure and the foreclosure mills know that Vilt is earning a handsome income from these distressed homeowners, but it’s giving them ‘time’, staying the execution so to speak. It’s a win-win situation for the legal profession and a lose-lose situation for the homeowners. And more importantly, it’s why there is no sanctions in this case, which most definitely are warranted, if the facts are true. If it was a homeowner who had filed this lawsuit, then they would have been sanctioned and/or deemed a vexatious litigant. A lawyer who provides an invaluable service to the judiciary (keeping pro se’s out of their court), that sanctionable conduct is overlooked.

That’s right Chief, you’re still labeled the “It’s me against them judge”, and rightly so.

Mitchell v. Coastline Capital Fund 7, LLC

(4:22-cv-00393)

District Court, S.D. Texas

FEB 7, 2022 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: MAR 10, 2022

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Vaughn Mitchell sued U.S. Bank in state court alleging that he never received proper notices before the posting of his property for a foreclosure sale.

(Docket Entry No. 1-1 at 8).

U.S. Bank moved to dismiss, and Coastline Capital Fund 7, LLC, the current holder of the relevant note and deed, was substituted as the defendant.

(Docket Entry Nos. 6, 7, 8).

Mitchell then filed a first amended complaint against Coastline Capital.

Coastline Capital has moved to dismiss Mitchell’s first amended complaint.

(Docket Entry No. 16).

Mitchell has responded, informing the court that based on the information he has learned from the initial stages of litigation, he no longer has a factual basis for his claims and agrees that Coastline Capital’s motion to dismiss should be granted.

(Docket Entry No. 17). The court grants Coastline Capital’s motion to dismiss.

(Docket Entry No. 16).

This action is dismissed with prejudice.

Each party will bear its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses.

SIGNED on May 12, 2022, at Houston, Texas.

 

 

Lee H. Rosenthal
Chief United States District Judge

Update 9 Apr. 2022: The initial conference is reset until May 23 and the Wolves at Mackie Wolf Foreclosure Mill have now filed their SECOND motion to dismiss on March 30, which is frowned upon at such an early stage in proceedings. Do they care? Hell no.

U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:22-cv-01194

Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP

Strange v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
Assigned to: Judge Keith P Ellison

Case in other court:  151st Judicial District Court of Harris County, TX, 22-20277

Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

Date Filed: 04/13/2022
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 220 Real Property: Foreclosure
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Plaintiff
Robert F Strange, Jr. represented by Robert Clayton Vilt
Vilt and Associates – TX, P.C.
5177 Richmond Ave
Ste 1142
Houston, TX 77056
713-840-7570
Fax: 713-877-1827
Email: clay@viltlaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Defendant
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
as Trustee, in trust for Registered Holders of Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2004-4, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2004-4
represented by Michael F Hord , Jr
Hirsch Westheimer PC
1415 Louisiana
36th Floor
Houston, TX 77002-2772
713-220-9182
Fax: 713-223-9319
Email: mhord@hirschwest.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
04/18/2022 3 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, filed.(Hord, Michael) (Entered: 04/18/2022)

 


 

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
05/16/2022 06:08:08

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUDGE LEE H. ROSENTHAL:

COMES NOW Vaughn Mitchell, Plaintiff herein, filing this his First Amended Complaint complaining of Coast Line Capital Fund 7, LLC, Defendant herein, and for causes of action would respectfully show the Court as follows:

PARTIES

1. Vaughn Mitchell is an individual who resides in Harris County, Texas and may be served with process on the undersigned legal counsel.

2. Coastline Capital Fund 7, LLC is now the Defendant due to the Court granting a Motion to Substitute (document 6) in this State Court Action that had been removed by the previous Defendant to federal court, but has yet to answer.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. The parties agree that this Court has personal and subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.

RELEVANT FACTS

4. The subject matter of the lawsuit is the real property and the improvements thereon located at 505 Marleen Street, Houston, TX 77034 (the “Property”).

5. The Property was owned by Vaughn Mitchell (“Mitchell”) and his wife Nora Livas Mitchell [subsequently deceased] in 2003 on which date Mitchell entered into a Home Equity Loan. During the process of entering into the Home Equity Loan, Mitchell executed a Texas Home Equity Security Instrument (“Security Instrument”) in the amount of $69,750.00 which was payable to New Century Mortgage Corporation. A true copy of the Security Instrument is attached hereto as Exhibit “1” and incorporated herein for all purposes.

6. Upon further information and belief, the Security Instrument was transferred to U.S. Bank, N.A. (“U.S. Bank”) and then GITSIT Solutions, LLC and then finally to Coastline Capital Fund 7, LLC which also services the loan.

7. Mitchell subsequently began to have financial difficulties. Realizing that he may soon become in default on his mortgage payments, Mitchell began contacting U.S. Bank to discuss loss mitigation options.

8. Due to the nature and extent of Plaintiff’s perceived delinquency, U.S. Bank filed its Plaintiff’s Original Complaint on a Home Equity Loan which case is styled Cause No. 4:21- cv-1801;U.S. Bank National Association, not in its individual capacity, but solely as Trustee for NRZ Pass-Through Trust VII (NPL) v. Vaughn Mitchell, Denise Garcia Martinez, Veronica De La Cruz Luna; In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas – Houston Division (the “Foreclosure Lawsuit”).

9. The Foreclosure Lawsuit culminated in a Partial Default Order as to Defendant Vaughn Mitchell “Partial Default Order’; however, the Order was never signed. A copy of the unsigned Partial Default Order is attached hereto as Exhibit “2” and incorporated herein for all purposes.

10. Since an Order has yet to be signed, U.S. Bank does not have the authorization to foreclose on the property.

11. Regardless, Mitchell never received a copy of a Foreclosure Notice from U.S. Bank. Instead, the undersigned legal counsel provided Mitchell with a Notice of Foreclosure Sale thereby informing Mitchell that U.S. Bank is going to sell his Property at a foreclosure sale on February 1, 2022.

A true and correct copy of the Notice of Foreclosure Sale is attached hereto as Exhibit “3” and incorporated herein  for all purposes.

12. Accordingly, Plaintiff alleges that U.S. Bank is about to wrongfully sell the Property at a foreclosure sale on February 1, 2022 in violation of Mitchell’s due process rights, the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure §736, the Texas Property Code, and the Security Instrument.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

13. To the extent not inconsistent herewith, Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through 12 as if set forth fully herein.

14. Plaintiff seeks a determination that with the present foreclosure, Defendant failed to properly follow the procedures as set forth in the Security Instrument, the Texas Property Code, the Texas Constitution, and Texas Rules of Civil Procedure §736. Specifically, U.S. Bank failed to provide proper notice and opportunity to cure pursuant to Texas Property Code §51.002.

15. Further, Plaintiff seeks a determination that the pending foreclosure sale of his real property is wrongful because Defendant was enjoined from taking any action whatsoever to foreclose on Plaintiff’s Property without first complying with the Texas Property Code and the Partial Default Order.

A. Notice of Trustee’s Sale

16. Section 51.002 of the Texas Property Code governs the sale of real property under deeds of trust or other contract liens. Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 51.002 (West); Holy Cross Church of God in Christ v. Wolf, 44 S.W.3d 562, 569 (Tex. 2001).

In particular, section 51.002(d) provides that “[n]otwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, the mortgage servicer … shall serve a debtor in default … with written notice by certified mail stating that the debtor is in default … and giving the debtor at least 20 days to cure the default before notice of the sale can be given.” Id. § 51.002(d).

Section 51.002(b) states that notice of sale, in turn, must be given at least twenty-one days before the date of the sale and specifies various locations where the notice must be made available. Id. §§ 51.002(b)(1)-(3). In addition to the minimum statutory requirements, the deed of trust executed by the debtor-mortgagor usually details the agreed contractual terms and conditions for foreclosure of real property.

B. Amount of Debt

17. If the note secured by the property is an installment note payable in periodic payments, acceleration of an installment debt requires demand be made and an opportunity to cure the default be given.

If the notice does not inform prospective bidders of the terms, conditions and amounts of the outstanding indebtedness, it can be argued the notice is ipso facto invalid.

Even strong supporters of creditor’s rights suggest the better practice is to detail the default to the extent necessary to provide the mortgagor an opportunity to cure the default in the notice of sale. See Baggett, Texas Foreclosure Law and Practice, § 2.27 (1984).

C. Lack of Authority

18. Section 736.9 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure governs the Effect of an Order Authorizing a Foreclosure under TRCP 736. However, to have the authorization to foreclose on a Section 50(a)(6) loan, a lender must first obtain an Order authorizing such pursuant to TRCP 736.

As there was no signed order from the Foreclosure Suit, Plaintiff seeks a determination on whether U.S. Bank had the right to pursue a foreclosure at the time of the sale.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: BREACH OF CONTRACT

19. To the extent not inconsistent herewith, Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through 18 as if set forth fully herein.

20. The actions committed by Defendant constitute breach of contract because:

A. There exists a valid, enforceable contract between Plaintiff and Defendant;

B. Plaintiff has standing to sue for breach of contract;

C. Plaintiff performed, tendered performance, or was excused from performing his contractual obligations;

D. Defendant breached the contract; and

E. The breach of contract by Defendant caused Plaintiff’s injury.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF TEXAS PROPERTY CODE §51

22. To the extent not inconsistent herewith, Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through 21 as if set forth fully herein.

23. Pursuant to the provisions of the Texas Property Code, the holder of a note must ordinarily give notice to the maker of the holder’s intent to accelerate the time for payment as well as notice of acceleration.

If the mortgagee intends to accelerate the maturity of the debt, the notice must unequivocally inform the mortgagor of the mortgagee’s intention. A proper notice of default must give the borrower notice that the alleged delinquency must be cured; otherwise, the loan will be accelerated, and the property will go to foreclosure.

Prior to a foreclosure action, the noteholder is also required to give the homeowners clear and unequivocal acceleration notice.

Effective acceleration requires two acts: notice of intent to accelerate and notice of acceleration.

24. The actions committed by Defendant constitutes violations of the Texas Property Code §51 because Defendant never sent proper and timely notice of default, the opportunity to cure the default, notice of intent to accelerate the debt, notice of acceleration, and notice of foreclosure sale which are required in order for Defendant to foreclose on its lien rights to the Property.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION:

VIOLATIONS OF TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE §736

25. To the extent not inconsistent herewith, Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through 24 as if set forth fully herein.

26. Pursuant to the provisions of the TRCP, the holder of a note must obtain a court order to foreclose on a Section 50(a)(6) note before going through the foreclosure process.

27. The actions committed by Defendant constitutes violations of the TRCP§736 because Defendant never obtain a signed court order authorizing foreclosure under TRCP§736 which is required in order for Defendant to foreclose on its lien rights to the Property.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION: BREACH OF DUTY OF COOPERATION

28. To the extent not inconsistent herewith, Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through 27 as if set forth fully herein.

29. Texas law recognizes a duty to cooperate that “is implied in every contract in which cooperation is necessary for performance of the contract.”

This duty “requires that a party to a contract may not hinder, prevent, or interfere with another party’s ability to perform its duties under the contract.”

Case Corp. v. Hi-Class Bus. Sys. of Am., Inc., 184 S.W.3d 760, 770 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. denied).

30. As described above, Defendant did not respond to Mass with the information needed to properly perform the obligations of the Loan or to extend his obligations under the Note.

Furthermore, their inaction was an intentional act designed to trigger the default interest rate. Defendant has therefore breached the implied duty of cooperation.

Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result as described in the Damage section below.

DAMAGES: ACTUAL DAMAGES

31. Plaintiff is entitled to recover his actual damages from Defendant for which Plaintiff plead in an amount which does not exceed the jurisdictional limits of this Court.

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

32. Plaintiff is entitled to recover his exemplary damages from Defendant for which Plaintiff plead in an amount which does not exceed the jurisdictional limits of this Court.

ATTORNEYS’ FEES

33. Plaintiff were forced to employ the undersigned attorneys to represent him and has agreed to pay them reasonable attorneys’ fees for their services. Plaintiff is entitled to recover his reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Chapter 38 of the Texas Civil Practices & Remedies Code for which Plaintiff pleads in an amount which does not exceed the jurisdictional limits of this Court.

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

34. All conditions precedent to the Plaintiff’s right to bring these causes of action have been performed, have occurred, or have been waived.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully requests that:

A. Defendant be cited to appear and answer herein; and

B. Upon final hearing or trial hereof, the Court order the default judgment allowing Defendant to foreclose on Plaintiff’s Property be set aside and schedule a new trial in the matter as well as a judgment in favor of Vaughn Mitchell against Coastline Capital Fund 7, LLC for his actual damages, exemplary damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, all costs of court, and such other and further relief, both general and special, at law or in equity, to which Plaintiff may be entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

VILT AND ASSOCIATES – TX, P.C.

By: /s/ Robert C. Vilt

ROBERT C. VILT
Texas Bar Number 00788586
S.D. Bar No. 20296 Email: clay@viltlaw.com
5177 Richmond Avenue, Suite 1142
Houston, Texas 77056
Telephone: 713.840.7570
Facsimile: 713.877.1827
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 9, 2022 the foregoing was filed with the Court via the CM/ECF system and that the Clerk of the Court will forward a copy of same to the following CM/ECF users:

Mark D. Cronenwett Nicholas M. Frame
Mackie Wolf Zientz & Mann, P.C.
14160 North Dallas Parkway, Ste 900
Dallas, TX 75254

By: /s/ Robert C. Vilt
ROBERT C. VILT

Rogue Lawyer Vilt and his Thievin’ Client Kim Bellotte, a former Precinct 2 Lieutenant in Harris County District Court

The only parties allowed in HC District Court are criminals and miscreants. The Outlaws in Dirty Robes prefer ’em to honest litigants.

Lawyer Clay Vilt’s Harris County Court Foreclosure Affidavit for Eddie Lindsey is Perjurious by Non-Disclosure

All the rogue lawyers are involved in Eddie Lindsey’s hard money loan, which has been converted to a foreclosure sale in Harris County.

Who is Texas Attorney Robert Clayton Vilt And Why So Many Law Firm Entities?

We’re Updating this Article Live and Posting as we Work on LIT’s Investigation into Texas Lawyer Robert C. Vilt and his Legal Cohorts.

U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:22-cv-00393

Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP

Mitchell v. Coastline Capital Fund 7, LLC
Assigned to: Chief Judge Lee H Rosenthal

Case in other court:  55th Judicial District, Harris County, TX, 202205412

Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

Date Filed: 02/07/2022
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 290 Real Property: Other
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Plaintiff
Vaughn Mitchell represented by Robert Clayton Vilt
Vilt and Associates – TX, P.C.
5177 Richmond Ave
Ste 1142
Houston, TX 77056
713-840-7570
Fax: 713-877-1827
Email: clay@viltlaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Defendant
U.S Bank, N.A.,
TERMINATED: 02/23/2022
represented by Nicholas Michael Frame
Mackie Wolf Zientz Mann, P.C.
5177 Richmond Avenue
Suite 1230
Houston, TX 77056
713-730-3219
Email: nframe@mwzmlaw.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDMark Douglas Cronenwett
Mackie Wolf Zientz & Mann, P.C.
14160 N. Dallas Parkway, Ste. 900
Dallas, TX 75254
214-635-2650
Fax: 214-635-2686
Email: mcronenwett@mwzmlaw.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Coastline Capital Fund 7, LLC

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
02/07/2022 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from District Court 55th Judicial District, Harris County, Texas, case number 202205412 (Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ATXSDC-27712258) filed by U.S Bank, N.A.,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Cronenwett, Mark) (Entered: 02/07/2022)
02/07/2022 2 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by U.S Bank, N.A.,, filed.(Cronenwett, Mark) (Entered: 02/07/2022)
02/16/2022 3 ORDER Scheduling Rule 16 Conference With the Court and Setting Out the Requirements for Initial Pretrial Work. Initial Conference set for 3/18/2022 at 11:50 AM by video before Chief Judge Lee H Rosenthal. A Zoom link will be provided. (Signed by Chief Judge Lee H Rosenthal) (Attachments: # 1 Supplement) Parties notified.(leddins, 4) (Entered: 02/16/2022)
02/16/2022 4 ORDER on Initial Discovery Protocols for Residential Mortgage Cases.(Signed by Chief Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(leddins, 4) (Entered: 02/16/2022)
02/17/2022 5 NOTICE of Appearance by Nicholas M. Frame on behalf of U.S Bank, N.A.,, filed. (Frame, Nicholas) (Entered: 02/17/2022)
02/18/2022 6 MOTION to Substitute Party in place of U.S Bank, N.A., by U.S Bank, N.A.,, filed. Motion Docket Date 3/11/2022. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order)(Cronenwett, Mark) (Entered: 02/18/2022)
02/18/2022 7 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(6), and Brief in Support, by U.S Bank, N.A.,, filed. Motion Docket Date 3/11/2022. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order)(Cronenwett, Mark) (Entered: 02/18/2022)
02/23/2022 8 ORDER granting 6 Motion to Substitute Defendant. Coastline Capital Fund 7, LLC added. U.S Bank, N.A., terminated.(Signed by Chief Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(JosephWells, 4) (Entered: 02/23/2022)
02/24/2022 9 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by Vaughn Mitchell, filed.(Vilt, Robert) (Entered: 02/24/2022)
02/24/2022 10 DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESS LIST by Vaughn Mitchell, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Resume of Robert C Vilt)(Vilt, Robert) (Entered: 02/24/2022)
02/24/2022 11 INITIAL DISCLOSURES by Vaughn Mitchell, filed.(Vilt, Robert) (Entered: 02/24/2022)
03/09/2022 12 First AMENDED COMPLAINT against Coastline Capital Fund 7, LLC filed by Vaughn Mitchell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Vilt, Robert) (Entered: 03/09/2022)

U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:22-cv-00393

Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP

Mitchell v. Coastline Capital Fund 7, LLC
Assigned to: Chief Judge Lee H Rosenthal

Case in other court:  55th Judicial District, Harris County, TX, 202205412

Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

Date Filed: 02/07/2022
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 290 Real Property: Other
Jurisdiction: Diversity

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
03/14/2022 13 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by U.S Bank, N.A.,, filed.(Cronenwett, Mark) (Entered: 03/14/2022)
03/14/2022 14 PROPOSED ORDER (Proposed Scheduling Order), filed.(Cronenwett, Mark) (Entered: 03/14/2022)
03/18/2022 15 Minute entry for proceedings before the Hon. Lee H. Rosenthal. Initial conference held on March 18, 2022. The court and the parties conferred. The initial conference is reset for May 23, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., by Zoom. Appearances: Clayton Vilt for Pltf. and Nicholas Frame for Deft.(Court Reporter: D. Smith), filed.(leddins, 4) (Entered: 03/21/2022)
03/30/2022 16 Second MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(6) and Brief in Support, by Coastline Capital Fund 7, LLC, filed. Motion Docket Date 4/20/2022. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order)(Cronenwett, Mark) (Entered: 03/30/2022)
Coastline Capital Fund 7 is Chasin’ a Written Off Debt with Another Removed Foreclosure before the Chief of SD Tex.
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Laws In Texas is a blog about the Financial Crisis and how the banks and government are colluding against the citizens and homeowners of the State of Texas and relying on a system of #FakeDocs and post-crisis legal precedents, specially created by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to foreclose on homeowners around this great State. We are not lawyers. We do not offer legal advice. We are citizens of the State of Texas who have spent a decade in the court system in Texas and have been party to during this period to the good, the bad and the very ugly.

Donate to LawsInTexas. Make a Difference.

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

We keep your data private and share your data only with third parties that make this service possible. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

© 2020-21 LawInTexas com is an online trading name which is wholly owned by Blogger Inc., a nonprofit 501(c)(3) registered in Delaware. | All Rights Reserved.

To Top