LIT UPDATE
FEB 9, APR 26, 2023
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court.
Since the plaintiff has timely filed an amended complaint as allowed by the recommendation, Defendants FCI Lender Services, Inc[.’s] and Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, as Owner Trustee of the Residential Credit Opportunities Trust V-E[’s] Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, or Alternatively, Motion for a More Definite Statement, filed August 25, 2022 (doc. 14), is DENIED as moot. This action will now proceed on the amended complaint.
SIGNED this 17th day of February, 2023.
CHIEF JUDGE DAVID GODBEY
See; Caballero v. FCI Lender Servs., Civil Action 3:22-CV-1578-N-BH, at *9-10 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 26, 2023)
(“IV. OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND Notwithstanding a plaintiff’s failure to plead sufficient facts, “district courts often afford plaintiffs at least one opportunity to cure pleading deficiencies before dismissing a case, unless it is clear that the defects are incurable or the plaintiffs advise the court that they are willing or unable to amend in a manner that will avoid dismissal.” In re Am. Airlines, Inc., Privacy Litig., 370 F.Supp.2d 552, 567-68 (N.D. Tex. 2005) (citing Great Plains Trust Co. v. Morgan Stanley Witter & Co., 313 F.3d 305, 329 (5th Cir. 2002)). Nevertheless, courts may appropriately dismiss an action with prejudice without giving an opportunity to amend when the plaintiff fails to respond, and the plaintiff has had ample opportunity to amend the complaint. See Rodriguez v. United States, 66 F.3d 95, 97 (5th Cir. 1995) (noting passage of 327 days). Dismissal with prejudice is also appropriate if a court finds that the plaintiff has alleged his or her best case. Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 327 (5th Cir. 1999). Here, Plaintiff has not amended his complaint since filing this action, and it does not appear that he has stated his best case with respect to any of his claims. He should accordingly be offered an opportunity to amend his complaint to sufficiently state a claim for relief.”)
The felonious homeowner was fighting in federal court and lost in 2022. What the state of play is now, we don’t have the details, but it’s most likely an expedited eviction suit in state court, if that hasn’t happened already.
WILMINGTON RE OWNED, 100 PERCENT
SOLD APR 4, 2022
Caballero v. FCI Lender Services Inc
(3:22-cv-01578)
District Court, N.D. Texas
JUL 5, 2022 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: JUL 5, 2022
ORDER
This order addresses Plaintiff Antonio Caballero’s motion for temporary restraining order (“TRO”) [20].
The Court denies the motion for TRO because Caballero has not demonstrated a substantial likelihood that he will prevail on the merits.
To obtain a TRO, the movant must demonstrate:
(1) a substantial likelihood that the movant will prevail on the merits;
(2) a substantial threat that imminent and irreparable harm will result if the injunction is not granted;
(3) that the threatened injury outweighs the threatened harm to the defendant;
and
(4) that granting the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest.
Clark v. Prichard, 812 F.2d 991, 993 (5th Cir. 1987)
(citing Canal Authority of the State of Florida v. Callway, 489 F.2d 567, 572–73 (5th Cir. 1974)).
A preliminary injunction “is appropriate only if the anticipated injury is imminent and irreparable,”
Chacon v. Granata, 515 F.2d 922, 925 (5th Cir. 1975), and not speculative.
ADT, LLC v. Capital Connect, Inc., 145 F. Supp. 3d 671, 694 (N.D. Tex. 2015);
see also Holland Am. Ins. Co. v. Succession of Roy, 777 F.2d 992, 997 (5th Cir. 1985)
(holding that “[s]peculative injury is not sufficient” to show irreparable harm).
The party seeking preliminary injunctive relief carries the burden of persuasion on all four requirements.
Bluefield Water Assoc., Inc. v. City of Starkville, 577 F.3d 250, 253 (5th Cir. 2009).
A TRO is a “highly accelerated and temporary form of preliminary injunctive relief.”
Hassani v. Napolitano, 2009 WL 2044596, at *1 (N.D. Tex. 2009).
As such, a movant must establish the same four elements as for a preliminary injunction.
However, TROs generally “preserv[e] the status quo and prevent[] irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer.”
Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70 of Alameda Cnty., 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974).
Caballero carries the burden of persuasion on all four elements; unless he proves a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits, the Court cannot issue the requested injunctive relief. Here, Caballero fails to prove a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits for three independent reasons.
First, Caballero’s request runs afoul of The Anti-Injunction Act.
“The Anti– Injunction Act generally prohibits federal courts from interfering with proceedings in state court.”
Vines v. Univ. of La., 398 F.3d 700, 704 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2283)).
Federal courts may enjoin state court proceedings in “only three specific circumstances”; Caballero does not offer any arguments explaining why the requested relief falls into one of these exceptions. Id.
Accordingly, the Court cannot provide the relief requested.
Second, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits this Court from interfering with the state court proceedings authorizing the impending eviction.
Except when authorized by Congress, inferior federal courts may not “modify or reverse state court judgments.”
Union Planters Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Salih, 369 F.3d 457, 462 (5th Cir. 2004).
Caballero’s TRO, in effect, collaterally attacks on the underlying state-court judgment, and the Rooker- Feldman doctrine precludes this Court from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction.
Lastly, Caballero has failed to provide enough factual substance in his complaint [1], response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss [18], or motion for TRO [20] to convince the Court that he will prevail on the merits.
Caballero’s complaint largely recites conclusory allegations, and his response to the motion to dismiss does not apply the few substantive facts to the elements of the cause of action.
Because Caballero has not provided a strong factual basis to support his claims, the Court cannot conclude that Caballero has a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits. Accordingly, the Court denies Caballero’s motion for TRO.
Furthermore, the Court notes that Caballero filed his motion for TRO pro se despite being represented by counsel in this case.
While Caballero is entitled to proceeding pro se or with counsel, he is not entitled to proceed in a hybrid form of representation.
Signed October 3, 2022.
Chief Judge David Godbey
The Dirty Mortgage Broker files 2 TRO motions, the first of which has been denied. Caballero did so ‘pro se’, while being represented by counsel…
U.S. District Court
Northern District of Texas (Dallas)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:22-cv-01578-N-BH
| Caballero v. FCI Lender Services Inc et al Assigned to: Chief District Judge David C Godbey Referred to: Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract |
Date Filed: 07/20/2022 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 220 Real Property: Foreclosure Jurisdiction: Diversity |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 08/25/2022 | 14 | Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Wilmington Savings Fund Society FSB Attorney Chase A Berger added to party Wilmington Savings Fund Society FSB(pty:dft) (Berger, Chase) (Entered: 08/25/2022) |
| 08/26/2022 | 15 | ORDER re: 14 Defendants FCI Lender Services, Inc, and Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, as Owner Trustee of the Residential Credit Opportunities Trust V-E, Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, or Alternatively, Motion for a More Definite Statement. The plaintiff may file a response by 9/15/2022. The defendants may file a reply by 9/29/2022. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez on 8/26/2022) (mcrd) (Entered: 08/26/2022) |
| 08/26/2022 | 16 | NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Chase A Berger for Chase A. Berger on behalf of Wilmington Savings Fund Society FSB. (Berger, Chase) (Entered: 08/26/2022) |
| 09/06/2022 | 17 | NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by George Colby Scherer on behalf of FCI Lender Services Inc. (Filer confirms contact info in ECF is current.) (Scherer, George) (Entered: 09/06/2022) |
| 09/15/2022 | 18 | RESPONSE filed by Antonio Caballero re: 14 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Kricken, Wade) (Entered: 09/15/2022) |
| 09/26/2022 | 19 | REPLY filed by FCI Lender Services Inc, Wilmington Savings Fund Society FSB re: 14 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Berger, Chase) (Entered: 09/26/2022) |
| 09/30/2022 | 20 | Emergency Request for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Antonio Caballero. (ygl) (Entered: 09/30/2022) |
| 10/03/2022 | 21 | Emergency RESPONSE re: 20 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Antonio Caballero. (mla) (Entered: 10/03/2022) |
| 10/03/2022 | 22 | ORDER denying 20 Motion for TRO (Ordered by Chief District Judge David C Godbey on 10/3/2022) (frw) (Entered: 10/03/2022) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 10/09/2022 16:17:55 |
No movement.
Order Setting Deadline/Hearing
U.S. District Court
Northern District of Texas (Dallas)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:22-cv-01578-G-BH
| Caballero v. FCI Lender Services Inc et al Assigned to: Senior Judge A. Joe Fish Referred to: Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract |
Date Filed: 07/20/2022 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 220 Real Property: Foreclosure Jurisdiction: Diversity |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 07/25/2022 | 4 | NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY AND ORDER: Antonio Caballero must address the following deficiency: The plaintiff has not paid the filing fee for a civil action or submitted a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Failure to comply with this order may lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute pursuant to FRCvP 41(b). Deadline to cure the deficiency is 7 days. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez on 7/25/2022) (Attachments: # 1 IFP) (mjr) (Entered: 07/25/2022) |
| 07/28/2022 | 5 | MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Antonio Caballero (Kricken, Wade) (Entered: 07/28/2022) |
| 07/28/2022 | 6 | Order and Notice of Deficiency: Antonio Caballero must address the following deficiency: The plaintiff must complete the enclosed Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) that was previously provided to him with the prior notice of deficiency and order dated 7/25/2022. Failure to comply with this order may lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute pursuant to FRCvP 41(b). Deadline to cure the deficiency is 7 days. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez on 7/28/2022) (Attachments: # 1 IFP Form) (oyh) (Entered: 07/28/2022) |
| 08/04/2022 | 7 | Supplemental MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Antonio Caballero (Kricken, Wade) (Entered: 08/04/2022) |
| 08/04/2022 | 8 | ORDER granting 5 Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Ordering Service of Process.; granting 7 Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez on 8/4/2022) (frw) (Entered: 08/04/2022) |
| 08/04/2022 | 9 | Summons Issued as to FCI Lender Services Inc, Wilmington Savings Fund Society FSB. (frw) (Entered: 08/04/2022) |
| 08/04/2022 | 10 | Business Reply Card signed by USMS; re 1 Complaint, 8 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, 9 Summons Issued. Signed on 8/4/2022. (sxf) (Entered: 08/04/2022) |
| 08/04/2022 | 11 | Business Reply Card signed by USMS; re 1 Complaint, 8 Order, 9 Summons Issued. Signed on 8/4/2022. (sxf) (Entered: 08/04/2022) |
| 08/11/2022 | 12 | SUMMONS Returned Executed as to FCI Lender Services Inc; served on 8/9/2022. (axm) (Entered: 08/12/2022) |
| 08/23/2022 | 13 | SUMMONS Returned Executed as to Wilmington Savings Fund Society FSB ; served on 8/22/2022. (sxf) (Entered: 08/23/2022) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 08/24/2022 16:14:20 |
How is there even a Foreclosure Auction?
How did Caballero manage to keep the home and why is the Government not involved in the auction?
It’s clear to LIT from the complaint, that Jose Antonio Caballero somehow managed to keep his house while incarcerated, complaining to the court, via motion, that his home had been unlawfully seized by the US Marshals Service.
That stated, we’re not sure how he managed to keep a hold of the property, considering he was ordered to repay a million dollars in restitution, and his follow-up QWR letter to the servicer states that there’s at least $800k equity in the homestead.
A review of the criminal docket does not show any judge addressing doc. 53, the motion by Caballero or the government’s prosecutors arguing for seizure of the property – after the hearing was reset a couple of times and canceled again per doc 72 – (ORDER granting 69 Agreed Motion to Cancel Hearing as to Jose Antonio Caballero (1). Signed by Magistrate Judge Christine A. Nowak on 06/27/2016. (kkc, ) (Entered: 06/27/2016)), and which was never reset and a new time entered.
The next major event on the docket was Caballero’s release, doc. 77 – Probation/Supervised Release Jurisdiction Transferred to ND/TX, Dallas Div as to Jose Antonio Caballero Transmitted Transfer of Jurisdiction form with Docket Sheet, Indictment, and Judgment. (Entered: 07/25/2017).
Moving onto the 2022 complaint by Caballero, he complains that he personally attended the scheduled foreclosure sale/auction and that no sale happened.
Furthermore he complains that the $104k plus of payments made to his mortgage account (after his arrest in 2015), were never reflected on the mortgage statement.
He submitted this QWR via an attorney, Ryan Daniel, who sent a Qualified Written Request (QWR) to the mortgage loan servicer (but the letter is not dated as far as LIT can tell, perhaps allowing the servicer to ‘ignore’ the letter).
Daniel and Caballero would part ways and Caballero submitted a follow up QWR on Apr 1, 2022 to the servicer, wherein he complains that he’s attempted to sell the property for $800k profit but that has been ‘blocked’.
The name Caballero mentions, and which we understand to be the current owner of the purchased mortgage debt, based on our interpretation of his limited english on the letter, is Ron McMahon of American Mortgage Investment Partners, (AMIP Management) who is the CEO, per his Linkedin profile, for this California-based entity.
AMIP use FCI Lender Services Inc as their servicer, and as you should know if you read LIT, the lenders like Wilmington listed in this civil action are straw men, the debt has been sold to AMIP, a debt buyer.
Caballero’s counsel is sanctioned Wade Kricken, who we assume has performed due diligence before accepting ‘Antonio Caballero’ as his client.
U.S. District Court
Northern District of Texas (Dallas)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:22-cv-01578-G-BH
| Caballero v. FCI Lender Services Inc et al Assigned to: Senior Judge A. Joe Fish Referred to: Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract |
Date Filed: 07/20/2022 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 220 Real Property: Foreclosure Jurisdiction: Diversity |
| Plaintiff | ||
| Antonio Caballero | represented by | Wade Travis Kricken Kricken Law Firm PLLC 4261 E University Drive Suite 30, PMB 261 Prosper, TX 75078 214-418-1187 Fax: 214-593-3108 Email: wade@krickenlawfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing |
| V. | ||
| Defendant | ||
| FCI Lender Services Inc | ||
| Defendant | ||
| Wilmington Savings Fund Society FSB as owner trustee of the residential credit opportunities trust V-E |
||
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 07/20/2022 | 1 | COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by Antonio Caballero. (Filer fee note- IFP motion in complaint or to be filed) Clerk to issue summons(es). In each Notice of Electronic Filing, the judge assignment is indicated, and a link to the Judges Copy Requirements and Judge Specific Requirements is provided. The court reminds the filer that any required copy of this and future documents must be delivered to the judge, in the manner prescribed, within three business days of filing. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms, instructions, and exemption information may be found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: Attorney Information – Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Kricken, Wade) (Entered: 07/20/2022) |
| 07/20/2022 | 2 | CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Antonio Caballero. (Clerk QC note: No affiliate entered in ECF). (Kricken, Wade) (Entered: 07/20/2022) |
| 07/20/2022 | 3 | New Case Notes: A filing fee has not been paid. CASREF case referral set and case referred to Magistrate Judge Ramirez (see Special Order 3). Pursuant to Misc. Order 6, Plaintiff is provided the Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge (Judge Ramirez). Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. (sxf) (Entered: 07/22/2022) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 07/24/2022 05:34:34 |
State Bar of Texas; notably no pdf’s or complaint available online regarding this lawyer’s disciplinary case.
On May 30, 2017, Wade Travis Kricken [#24034527], 41, of Prosper, received a one-year fully probated suspension effective June 1, 2017.
An evidentiary panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that Kricken filed frivolous actions on behalf of debtors in bankruptcy court without the debtors’ knowledge or consent, knowingly made false statements of material fact to a third person, and used means that had no substantial purpose other than to delay a third person.
Kricken violated Rules 3.01, 4.01(a), and 4.04(a). He was ordered to pay $3,222.50 in attorneys’ fees and $380.50 in direct expenses.
AMIP Management is an alternative asset management firm specializing in the acquisition and resolution of distressed residential real estate and mortgages across the United States.
We were established to capitalize on the significant investment opportunities resulting from the severe dislocation of asset values and substantial structural changes within the residential housing and mortgage finance markets.
We manage and co-invest in multiple institutional investment funds.
Our senior personnel have raised in excess of $1 billion of debt and equity financing to acquire, manage, and resolve more than $3 billion of distressed residential assets since the financial crisis of 2007-2008.
The underlying principal of our corporate philosophy is the preservation of homeownership in the United States.
We diligently work with our borrowers to ensure they have every opportunity to retain their home and avoid foreclosure.
In situations where home retention is not possible we will provide relocation assistance.
Borrowers are encouraged to make contact with our representatives at our servicer FCI Lender Services regarding our loss mitigation programs and relocation assistance.
For loss mitigation inquiries, or general questions regarding your mortgage, please contact our servicer FCI Lender Services
American Mortgage Investment Partners Management, LLC (d/b/a AMIP Management) is a registered investment advisor with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Registration with the SEC does not imply a certain level or skill or training. Additional information is available on the SEC’s website at www.adviserinfo.sec.gov.
Organized Crime in Texas Today = The Judiciary#TxLege #appellatetwitter pic.twitter.com/utUU7jZkTl
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) July 22, 2022
Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
Eastern District of Texas
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Dallas Former Mortgage Broker Guilty of Fraud
Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
CABALLERO REGISTERED AS OWNER (UNTIL 2022 FORECLOSURE SALE)
JUDGMENT as to Jose Antonio Caballero (1), Count(s) 1,
24 months imprisonment,
$997,712.77 restitution,
interest waived,
fine waived;
Supervised Release for 1 year, standard, mandatory and special conditions.
Signed by Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 7/22/15. (fnt, ) (Entered: 07/22/2015)
'SEAL BEACH' OF COURSE, COMES BACK TO AMIP MGT
SHERMAN, Texas – A 55-year-old Dallas former mortgage broker has pleaded guilty to federal charges in connection with a mortgage fraud scheme in the Eastern District of Texas, announced U.S. Attorney John M. Bales.
Jose Antonio Caballero pleaded guilty to defrauding the Department of Housing and Urban Development and Federal Housing Administration today before U.S. District Judge Amos L. Mazzant.
According to information presented in court, Caballero owned and operated American Processing Center, providing assistance to homeowners with mortgage loan modification programs, including the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP).
Between March 2011 and December 2011, Caballero worked with homeowners in Mesquite, Texas to obtain an extension and renewal of a loan and mortgage on their residence on Bayberry Drive, which was insured by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
In the process, Caballero falsified documents, including a Statement of Hardship Letter, a Monthly Income Expense Worksheet, and a Making Home Affordable Program Request for Modification and Affidavit. Caballero did so knowing the documents were fraudulent and for the purpose of defrauding the federal agencies.
Caballero also engaged in similar conduct with respect to 20 other properties located in Carrollton, Dallas, Farmers Branch, Fort Worth, Garland, Grand Prairie, Irving, Little Elm, Mesquite, and Rowlett, some of which were secured by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Caballero faces up to two years in federal prison at sentencing. A sentencing date has not been set.
This law enforcement action is part of President Barack Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. President Obama established the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes.
The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general, and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources.
The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes.
This case was investigated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Office of Inspector General and prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher A. Eason.
Component(s):
USAO – Texas, Eastern
Updated March 16, 2015
United States v. Caballero
(4:15-cr-00003)
District Court, E.D. Texas
JAN 9, 2015 – JUN 26, 2017 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: JUL 24, 2022
The banks are listed in the sentencing and restitution order, for fraud perpetrated by then mortgage broker Caballero, including OneWest Bank, who took over Indymac, and where NO bankers went to jail for admitted fraudulent loan applications, inflating incomes, valuations and much more.
However, this choice by the US Government to protect the greedy, thievin’ criminality by bankers, none of whom went to jail for their crimes and are allowed to unlawfully steal homesteads from their own citizens, resulted in the persecution of law abiding Texas Citizens and homeowners like the now elder and disabled Burkes, in Kingwood, Texas, who have been in litigation for over a decade fighting judicial and legal corruption in Texas.
It’s abhorrent and it’s criminal.
Ten Buck Bandit: Lawyer Silvia Mintz Files Fraudulent Legal Docs in Harris County Real Property Records
This article will be updated once the foreclosure trustee deed is (or isn’t) posted in real property records.
Homeowner Strikes Back: Counters Wolves Predatory Legal Scheme to Protract Litigation Until Death
Discover Josef Lamell’s battle against predatory legal tactics: at age 74, he stands against a scheme which has seen many meet untimely ends.
Foreclosure Wolf Mark Cronenwett for US Bank Takes a Bite at Lamell’s Time Expired Argument
This is a state case not a federal case as the PNC v. Howard Supreme Court decision affirmed. It has no place being decided relying upon erie.
Michele Rios
April 20, 2023 at 10:48 am
Hello how can i get more information on this. This person took 21,250 dollars from me. He pretended to sell me a home that was not his. I went to an attorney and there should be a judgement filed against his homestead. What steps should I take and how do I know if the judgement is still listed on his property.
JULISSA LARA
April 25, 2023 at 12:21 pm
My name is Julissa & I wanted to talk to you about this situation because I fear this is the “attorney ” I’m dealing with. 214-422-7749. Thank you.