Acceleration

Fifth Circuit Judge Donny Willett Stands Alone to Spear Cindy Logue Without Merit

LIT’s review of this case is not to look at personal circumstances but rather, as judges say, apply the law. Willett fails to do so here.

LIT COMMENTARY

LIT has closely watched Judge Donny Ray Willett since his move from the Texas Supreme Court to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. We also reviewed his work in 2020, after he joined the 5th Circuit, and decided that he is the master of politics and seeks only to benefit himself and not be a public servant of the people.

Based on the opinion below, our non-prisoner view firmly remains the same.

In the case below you’ll see the perfect example of what LIT calls wordsmithing. Judge Willett now has his former childhood school with his name on it, and a Duke University degree in advanced judicial balderdash.

The case below focuses mainly on an act to protect service members and their dependents, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (“SCRA). There is also questions of first impression which Willett adjudicates, applying an erie guess , incorrectly. For example, he doesn’t know for certain what a jury would say, but there is no hesitation in his words to issue a guess as to how they would decide the case.

That type of merits based opinion-writing is not ethical behavior for a circuit judge, because he is effectively ‘legislating from the bench’. Willett did not write the legislation for the SCRA, yet he believes he has all the answers. That behavior is unacceptable and Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor has lambasted the Fifth Circuit before for this type of judicial overreach penned by Judge Don Willett and co.

Let’s return to the SCRA, and take for example the 2nd Circuit’s approach, which should have been embraced by Willett. Just this year, they invited the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) to answer a foreclosure related question which the appeals court did not know the precise answer to, but invited the agency that did know the answer – the CFPB.1

As a result of this amici invitation, the lower court decision was reversed and remanded – in favor of the homeowner and against PHH Ocwen.

Likewise, the SCRA is well detailed on the CFPB’s website, as it’s protections are to be viewed in the best light for the servicemember and their dependants, not the lenders.

The ability to ask the responsible agency for the SCRA to reply via Amici was well within Willett’s reach. Arrogantly, he refused to do so.

But even without relying upon asking the responsible agency to answer the question,  when LIT reviews current case law, we noted in Culley;

Culley v. Bank of Am., CIVIL ACTION No. 18-cv-40099-DHH, at *25 (D. Mass. Mar. 29, 2019)

(“Wells Fargo filed an SCRA complaint against Plaintiffs in Massachusetts Land Court in May 2012, which resulted in a judgment concluding that Plaintiffs were not entitled to the benefits of the SCRA.

Actions taken to comply with the SCRA are not in themselves part of the foreclosure process.

Beaton v. Land Court, 326 N.E.2d 302, 305 (Mass. 1975); see also Cazales v. HSBC Bank, NA, 12-cv-10263-RGS, 2012 WL 1969320, at *1 n.9 (D. Mass. June 1, 2012).

They “occur independently of the actual foreclosure itself and of any judicial proceedings determinative of the general validity of the foreclosure.”

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Matt, 981 N.E.2d 710, 715 (Mass. 2013) (quoting Beaton, 326 N.E.2d at 305).”)

This, itself rebuffs Willett’s claims that the SCRA ‘thwarted’ the foreclosure.

The above case law confirms, SCRA is handled independently.

The fact Wells Fargo did not do so – and admittedly continued to allow SCRA benefits to a non-qualifying member – easily decides this case in favor of Logue.

Willett tries to excuse Wells Fargo for providing SCRA benefits to Cindy Logue’s mortgage, a non service member.

However, case law states quite clearly in Kimball v. Orlans & Assocs., P.C., No. 14-12861, at *5 n.1 (E.D. Mich. Sep. 28, 2015)

(“The SCRA defines “dependent ” to include a spouse, child, or “individual for whom the servicemember provided more than one-half of the individual’s support for 180 days immediately preceding an application for relief under [the SCRA ].” Id. § 511(4).”)

It does not say who is responsible for the mortgage  – no is says “support” – which we determine to mean salary or earned income of the servicemember (contribution to the household).

As a qualifying ‘dependent’, Cindy Logue is allowed protection and ability to sue, also per Kimball v. Orlans & Assocs., P.C., No. 14-12861, at *4-5 (E.D. Mich. Sep. 28, 2015)

(“Upon application to a court, the foreclosure protections of SCRA § 533 apply to a servicemember’s dependent “if the dependent’s ability to comply with a lease, contract, bailment, or other obligation is materially affected by reason of the servicemember’s military service.” Id. § 538. The SCRA provides a private right of action for “[a]ny person aggrieved by a violation” of the Act, authorizing the recovery of “any appropriate equitable or declaratory relief with respect to the violation” and “all other appropriate relief, including monetary damages.” Id. §597a(a).”)

We could go on and on, but the bottom line is clear, Wells Fargo WILLINGLY provided SCRA coverage to a non servicemember (dependent). In effect, they are responsible for that decision and if they wanted to terminate that benefit they had around a decade to do so, which Wells Fargo did not.

And as stated above citing Culley, that is a separate cause of action.

In summary, this ends all arguments re acceleration and Judge Willett has made an egregious finding of fact on an erie guess and in contradiction with the law.

As he did in McKesson, Judge Donny Willett should have another ‘judicial change of heart’ and admit he ‘got it wrong’ and reverse his decision in favor of Cindy Logue. 2

1  “After oral argument, the [Second Circuit] panel solicited and received the views of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) concerning the interpretation of the relevant portions of RESPA and Regulation X.”

2 “I originally agreed with denying Mckesson’s First Amendment defense,” Willett wrote in a rare dissenting opinion issued months after the court’s initial decision, “but I have had a judicial change of heart.”

Logue v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 21-20217 (5th Cir. Apr. 1, 2022)

APR 9, 2022

Before Higginson, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Don R. Willett, Circuit Judge:*

When Cindy Logue fell behind on her mortgage, the lender started to foreclose, only to pause in “appreciation” of Logue’s husband’s military service. A decade later, after Logue and her husband had divorced, the lender’s patience finally wore thin. Logue sued to stop the foreclosure, but

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

the district court ruled against her, as do we.

Because no reasonable jury could conclude that the lender’s latest foreclosure suit was untimely, we AFFIRM the district court judgment that the foreclosure can proceed.

I

Cindy Logue bought a house in Houston in 2007. Morel Mortgage, L.L.C.1 provided the loan and secured it with a deed of trust on the home.

By early 2009, Morel had assigned the mortgage to Wells Fargo, and Logue had defaulted.

Wells Fargo provided notice, accelerated the loan under the deed of trust, and noticed the Property for foreclosure.

The foreclosure has yet to take place, and Logue has yet to cure her default.

So why did one of the nation’s largest banks delay foreclosure for more than a decade?

Well, in 2010 Mrs. Logue married Mr. Logue. Importantly, Mr. Logue was then serving on active duty in the Army.

And Congress has provided certain property protections to our men and women in uniform.

Under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, a court may stop a lender’s efforts to “enforce an obligation” on real property if certain conditions are met.2

One of those conditions, though, is that the “servicemember” has to “own[]” the real property.3

That may be why when Logue, who has never served on active duty, applied to Wells Fargo for relief under the SCRA, it told her she was “not eligible to receive benefits.”

Even so, Wells Fargo extended some mortgage mercy to Logue:

“[I]n appreciation of your family’s sacrifice in service to our country, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage will grant you full SCRA benefits, for the remainder of your

1 According to Wells Fargo, Morel Mortgage was never served and has not appeared, despite its inclusion in the case caption.

2 50 U.S.C. § 3953.

Id. § 3953 (a) (emphasis added).

spouse’s active duty period.”

That included, said Wells Fargo, benefits like “not be[ing] asked to pay anymore than 6% on [the] loan,” and “not be[ing] assessed any late fees.”

Wells Fargo never did foreclose.

And Mrs. Logue sent periodic updates to Wells Fargo validating that Mr. Logue remained on active duty.

But then things changed. The Logues divorced in 2013, though Mr. Logue continued to serve on active duty until 2015.

Wells Fargo, for its part, continued to extend Logue “SCRA protection” until 2019.

Once Logue’s protection expired, Wells Fargo sent her notices of acceleration and sale since she had not cured her default in the intervening decade.

Wells Fargo then assigned its interest in the mortgage to Specialized Loan Servicing, L.L.C.

Soon after that, and days before the foreclosure sale, Logue sued to stop it in Texas state court.

The Texas trial court granted Logue a temporary injunction to stop the foreclosure.

Specialized then removed the case to federal court.

Specialized and Wells Fargo then each moved for summary judgment against Logue.

The district court, by adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendations, granted both motions and entered final judgment in the Defendants’ favor.

Logue timely appealed.

II

Our standard of review is familiar.

“We review summary judgment de novo and apply the same standard as the district court.”4

Summary judgment is proper only if “no genuine dispute of material fact exists” and the moving party is “entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”5

A fact dispute is “genuine” if “a reasonable jury could return a verdict for [Logue] based on the evidence”6—and not genuine if supported only by “legalistic argumentation.”7

III

Logue’s central contention—one that underlies all her requested relief—is that Wells Fargo waited too long to foreclose on the Property.

That’s because, under Texas law, the holder of a deed of trust has four years to initiate a foreclosure after its cause of action accrues.8

That claim accrues when, in a deed of trust like this one, the holder invokes an acceleration clause because of the default.9

So, says Logue, because Wells Fargo first accelerated the loan in 2009, well over four years ago, it cannot now foreclose.

That’s simple enough. And the Defendants even agree with Logue about what law applies.

4 Coleman v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., 19 F.4th 720, 726 (5th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted).

5 Id. (citation omitted). 6 Id. (citation omitted). 7 Id. (citation omitted).

8 Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.035(a); see also id. (d) (“On the expiration of the four-year limitations period, the real property lien and a power of sale to enforce the real property lien become void.”).

See Holy Cross Church of God in Christ v. Wolf, 44 S.W.3d 562, 566 (Tex. 2001) (“[T]he action accrues . . . when the holder actually exercises its option to accelerate.”).

Yet they urge us to pump the brakes based on an important exception.

As we have explained before, a holder of a deed of trust can reset the foreclosure clock by voluntarily abandoning the acceleration.10

Everyone agrees that Wells Fargo never did that expressly. But maybe it didn’t have to.

Since “traditional principles of waiver” govern abandoning acceleration, Wells Fargo would have been well within its rights to “impliedly” abandon the acceleration.11 So did it?

We agree with the Defendants that it did.

Wells Fargo had to meet three conditions to voluntarily abandon its acceleration.

It needed to have:

(1) “an existing right, benefit, or advantage”;

(2) “actual knowledge of its existence”;

and

(3) “actual intent to relinquish the right, or intentional conduct inconsistent with the right.”12

The parties do not dispute that Wells Fargo had a right to accelerate the mortgage.

Nor do they dispute that Wells Fargo knew about that right.

Indeed, Logue concedes that Wells Fargo lawfully did accelerate the Property’s mortgage after she defaulted on it in 2009.

She disputes only the third element.

On that element, though, a reasonable jury could come out only one way based on the summary- judgment evidence:

Wells Fargo, at minimum, intended to act inconsistently with its right to continue with the acceleration and foreclosure.

Specifically, Wells Fargo extended Logue “full SCRA benefits.”

The SCRA generally thwarts ongoing foreclosures.13

At the same time, though, the parties agree that Wells Fargo didn’t have to extend SCRA benefits.

10 Boren v. U.S. Nat’l Bank Ass’n, 807 F.3d 99, 105–06 (5th Cir. 2015).

11 Id. (citations omitted).

12 Id. at 105 (quoting Thompson v. Bank of Am. Nat’l Ass’n, 783 F.3d 1022, 1025 (5th Cir. 2015)).

13 See 50 U.S.C. § 3953.

And Logue, for her part, neither served nor acquired the Property during her marriage.

In fact, Wells Fargo told Logue that it was extending her “benefits” only in “appreciation” for her husband’s service.

But it also explained that she was “not eligible” for real benefits under the SCRA and that Wells Fargo was acting “above and beyond” what the law required.

Moreover, Wells Fargo’s notice to Logue expressly provided that for the “remainder of [her husband’s] active duty period” she would not pay more than “6%” interest or any “late fees.”

Immediately capping interest rates and eliminating late fees is plainly intentional conduct inconsistent with pursuing acceleration and foreclosure.14

So we must agree with the district court.

A reasonable jury could only conclude on these facts that Wells Fargo intended to act inconsistently with its right to accelerate and foreclose on the Property.

We are not persuaded by Logue’s legalistic argumentation otherwise.

She argues that “it has not been specifically determined by a court that SCRA benefits qualify as abandonment of acceleration.”

That remains true today since the SCRA never actually protected Logue as to the Property.

But it is also of little consequence.

Wells Fargo merely needed to show that it was intentionally acting inconsistent with its right to pursue acceleration.

It did just that by voluntarily agreeing to extend benefits that would stop a foreclosure if they actually applied.15

14 Cf. Swoboda v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 579 S.W.3d 628, 633–34 (Tex. App. 2019)

(holding that a lowering of interest and elimination of late fees was not evidence of intent to abandon a prior acceleration only because it included conditional language requiring a “properly executed” loan-modification agreement and “down payment” before it would take effect).

15 We leave for another day Logue’s other counterargument.

We have explained before that sending a “request for payment of less than the full obligation—after initially accelerating the entire obligation—[is] an unequivocal expression of the bank’s intent to abandon or waive its initial acceleration.”

Martin v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 814 F.3d 315, 318 (5th Cir. 2016).

Specialized argues that capping interest rates and waiving late fees counts as a request for payment of less than the full obligation.

Logue disagrees by pointing to a decision from the Texas intermediate courts of appeal tending to support that

Based on the summary-judgment evidence, a reasonable jury could only conclude that Wells Fargo intended to act inconsistently with its right to pursue acceleration and foreclosure, thus voluntarily abandoning it. Therefore, we need not reach the parties’ remaining arguments.16

IV

Logue also asks us for other relief.

She argues that her claim to quiet title on the Property survived summary judgment;

that her claim for declaratory judgment survived, too;

that she is entitled to a permanent injunction against the Defendants to prevent foreclosure;

and

that Specialized is not entitled to attorney’s fees under the deed of trust.

But all of those arguments explicitly rely on her contention that the district court erroneously granted the Defendants’ motions for summary judgment.

Because it did not, and because Logue offers us no other ground for reversing on any of these issues, these other arguments have no traction.

something more explicit, like an express request for payment, is required.

See Swoboda, 579 S.W.3d at 635–36 (discounting statements that did not “actually request[] a payment from [the debtor]”).

But since we have already concluded that no genuine issue of material fact exists over Wells Fargo’s intent to act inconsistently with its right to pursue acceleration and foreclosure, we reserve this issue for another day.

16 Wells Fargo argues, in the alternative, that the SCRA tolled the statute of limitations.

Logue disagrees, arguing that “detrimental reliance” ended any such tolling in 2016.

The Defendants also urge that “quasi-estoppel” prevents Logue from asserting the statute of limitations as a defense.

Again, Logue disagrees.

We need not weigh-in on either issue since we have already concluded that Wells Fargo intended to act inconsistently with its right to pursue acceleration and foreclosure.

Based on the summary-judgment evidence, a reasonable jury could only conclude that Wells Fargo abandoned its 2009 acceleration, thus making the current foreclosure suit timely.

Because no other genuine dispute of material fact exists in the record, and because the Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we AFFIRM.

Facing the Turncoats. An Incredible True Story Exclusively on LIT

The significant and distressing difference is the Burkes battle is not just with the opposing parties, but with the judicial machinery itself.

Who’s the Puppet Master? Judge Willett’s Words Ring Hollow as the Judiciary Controls His Decision-Making

ABOVE THE LAW: Private citizens who are brutalized by rogue federal officers (OF THE COURTS) can find little solace … DUE TO IMMUNITY.

Magistrate Judge Edison Cited a Foreclosure Case Where Attorney Fees Were Denied by a Judicial Colleague

Judge Edison omits quotation for a reason, Atlas denies atty fees : Rodriguez v. Quicken Loans, Inc., (S.D. Tex. 2017) (quotation omitted).

U.S. District Court
District of South Carolina (Beaufort)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 9:10-cv-01756-MBS

Rowles v. Chase Home Finance LLC
Assigned to: Honorable Margaret B Seymour
Cause: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Date Filed: 07/06/2010
Date Terminated: 01/10/2012
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 480 Consumer Credit
Jurisdiction: Federal Question

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
09/16/2011 50 TEXT ORDER granting 49 Motion for Extension of Time to file supporting memoranda, affidavits, declarations and other evidence concerning the pending settlement due on or before September 23, 2011. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 9/16/2011.(asni, ) (Entered: 09/16/2011)
09/23/2011 51 SUPPLEMENT by George Holloway, Jonathon Rowles to 36 MOTION for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Appointment of Class Counsel and 42 MOTION for Preliminary Approval of attorneys’ Fee and Notice of the petition to Class Members (Harpootlian, Richard) (Entered: 09/23/2011)
09/23/2011 52 MOTION for Joinder to Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval by Chase Home Finance LLC. Response to Motion due by 10/11/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jennifer M. Keough)No proposed order(Matthews, Steve) (Entered: 09/23/2011)
10/31/2011 53 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE in Support re 52 MOTION Joinder to Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval Response filed by Chase Home Finance LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of J. Gang in Support of Final Approval of Class Settlement, # 2 Exhibit Supp. Declaration of J. Keough re Notice & Settlement Administration)(Becker, James) (Entered: 10/31/2011)
10/31/2011 54 DECLARATIONbyGeorge Holloway, Jonathon Rowles of Richard A. Harpootlian, Esquire. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit October 3, 2011 correspondence, # 2 Exhibit October 12, 2011 correspondence)(Harpootlian, Richard) (Entered: 10/31/2011)
11/10/2011 55 MOTION for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and MOTION for Attorneys’ Fees and Class Representative Incentive Awards by George Holloway, Jonathon Rowles. Response to Motion due by 12/1/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Class Notice)No proposed order(Harpootlian, Richard). (Entered: 11/10/2011)
11/15/2011 56 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Honorable Margaret B Seymour: granting 55 Motion for Settlement; granting 55 Motion for Attorney Fees; Settlement Conference held on 11/15/2011. Class representative Rowles sworn, questioned by Court. Revised declaration from settlement administration, written order forthcoming. Court Reporter Gary Smith. (mdea ) (Entered: 11/15/2011)
11/18/2011 57 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings. fairness hearing held on November 15, 2011, before Judge Margaret B. Seymour. Court Reporter/Transcriber Gary Smith, Telephone number/E-mail (803) 256-7743, Gary_Smith@scd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 7 calendar days from the filing of the transcript to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction.. Redaction Request due 12/9/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/19/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/16/2012. (gsmith, ) (Entered: 11/18/2011)
12/15/2011 58 TEXT ORDER granting 52 Motion for joinder to Plaintiff’s motion for final approval Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 12/15/2011.(asni, ) (Entered: 12/16/2011)
12/20/2011 59 MOTION to Seal Document by Chase Home Finance LLC. Response to Motion due by 1/6/2012 (Attachments: # 1 Supporting Documents non-confidential description of document sought to be filed under seal, as required by Local Rule 5.03(B)(1), # 2 Supporting Documents certification of compliance with Local Rule 5.03(B)(1))No proposed order(Matthews, Steve) (Entered: 12/20/2011)
12/20/2011 60 DECLARATIONbyChase Home Finance LLC Second supplemental declaration of class administrator. (Matthews, Steve) (Entered: 12/20/2011)
01/06/2012 61 JOINT STIPULATION by Chase Home Finance LLC, Johnathon Rowles, George Holloway. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of class counsel, # 2 Affidavit Declaration of class administrator)(Matthews, Steve) (Entered: 01/06/2012)
01/10/2012 62 FINAL APPROVAL SETTLEMENT ORDER dismissing all claims against defendant with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 1/10/2012. (asni, ) (Entered: 01/11/2012)
05/14/2012 64 SUPPLEMENT by George Holloway, Jonathon Rowles to 62 Order Issued by the Court on January 10, 2012. (Attachments: # 1 Main Document Special Master’s Preliminary Report, # 2 Exhibit Sample letter, # 3 Exhibit Fund II Awards (filed under seal), # 4 Exhibit Fund II Awards-Supplemental Information (filed under seal))(Harpootlian, Richard) (Entered: 05/14/2012)
06/20/2012 65 ORDER approving Preliminary Report subject to conditions of said order. The Final Report shall be filed, with any accompanying exhibits, by September21, 2012.. Signed by Chief Judge Margaret B Seymour on 6/20/2012. (asni, ) (Entered: 06/20/2012)
09/21/2012 66 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Special Master Report by Chase Home Finance LLC, George Holloway, Jonathon Rowles. Response to Motion due by 10/9/2012. Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel.(Newman, Graham) (Entered: 09/21/2012)
09/25/2012 67 ORDER granting 66 Motion for Extension of Time to file the Special Master’s Final Report due October 5, 2012. Signed by Chief Judge Margaret B Seymour on 9/24/2012.(asni, ) (Entered: 09/25/2012)
10/05/2012 68 SUPPLEMENT by George Holloway, Jonathon Rowles to 65 Order, . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Special Master’s Final Report, # 2 Exhibit (Filed Under Seal) Revised Chart from Previous, # 3 Exhibit (Filed Under Seal) Revised Chart from Previous, # 4 Exhibit (Filed Under Seal) Supplementation and Late Claims)(Newman, Graham) (Main Document 68 replaced on 10/9/2012) (asni, ). Modified to replace document with corrected signature as provided by filing user on 10/9/2012 (asni, ). additional attachment entry 74 added on 11/16/2012 (asni, ). (Entered: 10/05/2012)
10/05/2012 69 MOTION to Seal Exhibits of Special Master’s Final Report by George Holloway, Jonathon Rowles. Response to Motion due by 10/22/2012. No proposed order.(Newman, Graham) additional attachment entry 71 added on 11/6/2012 (asni, ). (Entered: 10/05/2012)
11/05/2012 71 Additional Attachments to Main Document 69 MOTION to Seal Exhibits of Special Master’s Final Report. First attachment description: Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Seal . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Descriptive Index of Documents, # 2 Exhibit Certification of Counsel)(Newman, Graham) (Entered: 11/05/2012)
11/16/2012 72 Withdrawal of Motions: 69 MOTION to Seal Exhibits of Special Master’s Final Report filed by George Holloway, Jonathon Rowles. Refiled by the clerk to correct event type. (asni, ) (Entered: 11/16/2012)
11/16/2012 74 Additional Attachments to Main Document 68 Supplement, First attachment description: Revised distribution awards . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit revised distribution awards, # 2 Exhibit Suplemental and late claims)(Harpootlian, Richard) (Entered: 11/16/2012)
01/29/2013 75 MOTION Joint Request for Approval of Designated Programs re 62 Order by Chase Home Finance LLC, George Holloway, Jonathon Rowles. Response to Motion due by 2/15/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Jennifer Keough, # 2 Affidavit of Nathan Herman, # 3 Affidavit of Jonathon Rowles, # 4 Affidavit of Graham Newman, # 5 Exhibit November 3, 2011 Testimony of Charles Abbot, # 6 Exhibit September 14, 2006 Testimony of Charles Abbot, # 7 Exhibit News Articles, # 8 Exhibit 2011 Annual Report, # 9 Exhibit 2010-2011 Audited Financial Statements, # 10 Exhibit 2010 IRS Form 990, # 11 Exhibit May 8, 2008 IRS Determination Letter, # 12 Exhibit 2011 Audited Financial Statements, # 13 Exhibit 2011 IRS Determination Letter, # 14 Exhibit 2010 IRS Form 990, # 15 Exhibit 2011 Annual Report, # 16 Exhibit 2011 IRS Form 990, # 17 Exhibit 2010-2011 Audited Financial Statements, # 18 Exhibit March 12, 1943 IRS Determination Letter, # 19 Exhibit March 2012 Strategic Plan)No proposed order.(Harpootlian, Richard) additional attachments entry 76 77 added on 1/30/2013 (asni, ). (Entered: 01/29/2013)
01/29/2013 76 Additional Attachments to Main Document 75 MOTION Joint Request for Approval of Designated Programs re 62 Order . First attachment description: 2002 Articles of Incorporation . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2011 Annual Report, # 2 Exhibit 2011 IRS Form 990, # 3 Exhibit 2010-2011 Audited Financial Statement, # 4 Exhibit September 2008 Report, # 5 Exhibit Website-Chesapeake Health Education Program, # 6 Exhibit 2011 IRS Form 990-Chesapeake Program, # 7 Exhibit March 2012 Testimony of Ken Fisher, # 8 Exhibit News Articles, # 9 Exhibit 2012 IRS Determination Letter, # 10 Exhibit 2011 Audited Financial Statements, # 11 Exhibit 2010 Annual Report, # 12 Exhibit 2010 IRS Form 990, # 13 Exhibit News Articles, # 14 Exhibit 2010 IRS Form 990)(Harpootlian, Richard) (Entered: 01/29/2013)
01/29/2013 77 Additional Attachments to Main Document 75 MOTION Joint Request for Approval of Designated Programs re 62 Order . First attachment description: March 11, 2010 Testimony of Deborah Frett . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit June 2009 Testimony of Deborah Frett, # 2 Exhibit News Articles, # 3 Exhibit Fact Sheet, # 4 Exhibit 2010-2011 Financial Statement and Auditors Report, # 5 Exhibit 2010 IRS Form 990, # 6 Exhibit News Articles, # 7 Exhibit 2011 Financial Statements, # 8 Exhibit 2010 IRS Form 990, # 9 Exhibit 2008 IRS Determination Letter, # 10 Exhibit News Articles, # 11 Exhibit Press Releases, # 12 Exhibit Washington Secretary of State Charity Profile Report, # 13 Exhibit Article Regarding Neuroscience, # 14 Exhibit 2010 IRS Form 990, # 15 Exhibit 1993 Testimony of Michael Winship, # 16 Exhibit 1990 Testimony of Craig Fisher, # 17 Exhibit 2010-2011 Financial Statements, # 18 Exhibit 2010 Annual Report, # 19 Exhibit 2010 IRS Form 990)(Harpootlian, Richard) (Entered: 01/29/2013)
01/31/2013 78 ORDER granting 75 Motion for Approval of Designated Programs Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 1/31/2013.(mdea ) (Entered: 01/31/2013)
04/22/2013 79 SUPPLEMENT by George Holloway, Jonathon Rowles to 68 Supplement,, . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Supplement to Special Master’s Final Report)(Newman, Graham) (Entered: 04/22/2013)
09/30/2013 80 SUPPLEMENT by George Holloway, Jonathon Rowles to 79 Supplement . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Supplemental Report of Special Master)(Newman, Graham) (Entered: 09/30/2013)

U.S. District Court
District of South Carolina (Beaufort)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 9:10-cv-01756-MBS

Rowles v. Chase Home Finance LLC
Assigned to: Honorable Margaret B Seymour
Cause: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Date Filed: 07/06/2010
Date Terminated: 01/10/2012
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 480 Consumer Credit
Jurisdiction: Federal Question

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
07/06/2010 1 COMPLAINT against Chase Home Finance LLC ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 0420-2816382.), filed by Jonathon Rowles.(asni, ) (Entered: 07/07/2010)
07/06/2010 2 Summons Issued as to Chase Home Finance LLC. (asni, ) (Entered: 07/07/2010)
07/06/2010 3 Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Jonathon Rowles.(asni, ) (Entered: 07/07/2010)
07/20/2010 5 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jonathon Rowles. Chase Home Finance LLC served on 7/13/2010, answer due 8/3/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A return executed) Refiled by the clerk to correct event type.(asni, ) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
08/16/2010 6 Consent MOTION to Stay by Chase Home Finance LLC, Jonathon Rowles. Response to Motion due by 9/2/2010 No proposed order(Harpootlian, Richard) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
08/16/2010 7 TEXT ORDER granting 6 Motion to Stay Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 8/16/2010.(asni, ) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
08/24/2010 8 NOTICE of Appearance by James Y Becker on behalf of Chase Home Finance LLC (Becker, James) (Entered: 08/24/2010)
11/30/2010 9 NOTICE of Request for Protection from Court Appearance by Richard A Harpootlian for December 27-31, 2010 (Harpootlian, Richard) (Entered: 11/30/2010)
12/22/2010 10 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Jonathon Rowles. Response to Motion due by 1/10/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Email from Defense counsel, # 2 Exhibit Affidavit of Richard A. Harpootlian)Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel(Harpootlian, Richard). Added MOTION for Preliminary Injunction on 12/23/2010 (mdea, ). (Entered: 12/22/2010)
12/22/2010 11 Minute Entry. Proceedings held via telephone before Honorable Margaret B Seymour: granting 10 Motion for TRO; Motion Hearing held on 12/22/2010 re 10 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Jonathon Rowles. Defendant to file response to motion for preliminary injunction by 12/30/2010. Hearing to be held on 1/3/2011. Court Reporter Kathleen Richardson. (mdea ) (Entered: 12/23/2010)
12/23/2010 13 TEXT ORDER The court, having heard argument from both parties on Plaintiff’s motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, grants the motion. (Entry 10). The parties will brief the issues and a hearing to address the request for a preliminary injunction will be scheduled for January 3, 2011 at 4:00 p.m. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 12/22/2010. (mdea ) (Entered: 12/23/2010)
12/23/2010 14 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 10 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction : Motion Hearing set for 1/3/2011 04:00 PM before Honorable Margaret B Seymour. This hearing will be conducted via telephone. Plaintiff’s counsel shall initiate the call and have all parties on the line prior to contacting the Court at 803-253-3421.(mdea ) (Entered: 12/23/2010)
12/23/2010 15 MOTION For an Order Governing Parties Contact with Putative Class Members re 10 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Jonathon Rowles. Response to Motion due by 1/10/2011 No proposed order(Harpootlian, Richard) (Entered: 12/23/2010)
12/30/2010 16 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Michael John Agoglia ( Filing fee $ 250 receipt number 0420-3123132) by Chase Home Finance LLC. Response to Motion due by 1/18/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Application for Pro Hac Vice, # 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing)No proposed order(Becker, James) (Entered: 12/30/2010)
12/30/2010 17 RESPONSE in Opposition re 10 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, 15 MOTION For an Order Governing Parties Contact with Putative Class Members Response filed by Chase Home Finance LLC.Reply to Response to Motion due by 1/10/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Michael J. Agoglia, # 2 Exhibit A to Agoglia Declaration, Agoglia email to Harpootlian of 12/22/10, # 3 Exhibit B to Agoglia Declaration, Harpootlian email to Agoglia of 12/21/10, # 4 Declaration of Laura DeAtley, # 5 Exhibit 3 Case Law)(Becker, James) (Entered: 12/30/2010)
01/03/2011 18 REPLY to Response to Motion re 10 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Response filed by Jonathon Rowles. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plaintiff Rowles Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit Case Law)(Harpootlian, Richard) (Entered: 01/03/2011)
01/03/2011 19 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Honorable Margaret B Seymour: finding as moot 10 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; finding as moot 15 Motion for an order governing parties contact with putative class Members; Motion Hearing held on 1/3/2011 re 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Jonathon Rowles, 15 MOTION For an Order Governing Parties Contact with Putative Class Members filed by Jonathon Rowles. Court Reporter Jenny Williams. (mdea ) (Entered: 01/03/2011)
01/03/2011 20 TEXT ORDER granting 16 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 1/3/2011.(asni, ) (Entered: 01/04/2011)
01/05/2011 21 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of teleconference held on December 22, 2010, before Judge Margaret B. Seymour. Court Reporter/Transcriber Kathleen Richardson, Telephone number (803)779-6709 or kathleen_richardson@scd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 7 calendar days from the filing of the transcript to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction.. Redaction Request due 1/26/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/7/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/5/2011. (kari, ) (Entered: 01/05/2011)
01/07/2011 22 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 01-03-11, before Judge Margaret Seymour. Court Reporter/Transcriber Jenny H. Williams, Telephone number (803)351-9742 or Jenny_Williams@scd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 7 calendar days from the filing of the transcript to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction. Redaction Request due 1/28/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/7/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/7/2011. (jwil, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
02/04/2011 23 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Jonathon Rowles, Sarah Letts-Smith, Martin Hupfl. (Harpootlian, Richard) Modified on 2/7/2011 (asni, ). Modified to remove attachments and file separately as documents 24 & 25 on 2/7/2011 (asni, ). (Main Document 23 replaced on 2/10/2011) (asni, ). Modified at the request of the attorney to replace PDF document to correct scrivener’s error on 2/10/2011 (asni, ). (Entered: 02/04/2011)
02/04/2011 25 Summons Issued as to Chase Auto Finance Corp., Chase Home Finance LLC. (asni, ) (Entered: 02/07/2011)
02/15/2011 26 MOTION to Lift Stay by Martin Hupfl, Sarah Letts-Smith, Jonathon Rowles. Response to Motion due by 3/4/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion)No proposed order(Harpootlian, Richard) (Entered: 02/15/2011)
02/28/2011 28 Joint MOTION to Lift Stay by Chase Auto Finance Corp, Chase Home Finance LLC, Martin Hupfl, Sarah Letts-Smith, Jonathon Rowles. Response to Motion due by 3/17/2011 No proposed order(Matthews, Steve) (Entered: 03/01/2011)
03/01/2011 29 DELETION OF DOCKET ENTRY NUMBER 27 Reason: document not signed correctly Corrected Filing Document Number 28 Modified filing date to that of original filing: 2/28/2011 Response due date modified to that of original filing: 3/17/2011 (asni, ) (Entered: 03/01/2011)
03/01/2011 31 ORDER granting 28 Motion to Lift Stay; granting 26 Motion to Lift Stay Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 3/1/2011.(asni, ) (Entered: 03/01/2011)
04/21/2011 33 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal without prejudice by Martin Hupfl, Sarah Letts-Smith (Harpootlian, Richard) (Entered: 04/21/2011)
04/21/2011 35 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against Chase Home Finance LLC, filed by Jonathon Rowles, George Holloway. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Consent letter) (Harpootlian, Richard) (Entered: 04/21/2011)
04/21/2011 36 MOTION for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Appointment of Class Counsel by George Holloway, Jonathon Rowles. Response to Motion due by 5/9/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Memo in Support of Preliminary Approval, # 2 Exhibit Executed Agreement)No proposed order(Harpootlian, Richard) (Entered: 04/21/2011)
04/22/2011 38 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 36 MOTION for Preliminary Approval of Settlement : Motion Hearing set for 5/6/2011 02:00 PM in Columbia # 5, Matthew J. Perry, Court House, 901 Richland St, Columbia before Honorable Margaret B Seymour. (asni, ) (Entered: 04/22/2011)
04/29/2011 39 ORDER directing the parties to submit a joint response to specific questions prior to preliminary approval hearing regarding settlement agreement, ( Specific Document due by 5/4/2011.). Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 4/29/2011. (asni, ) (Entered: 04/29/2011)
05/04/2011 40 REPLY by Chase Home Finance LLC, George Holloway, Jonathon Rowles to 39 Order, Set Deadlines,, Joint Response to questions from the Court. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Special Claim Form (revised), # 2 Exhibit Special Claim Form (redlined against Exhibit C in Dkt. Entry No. 36-2))(Matthews, Steve) (Entered: 05/04/2011)
Fifth Circuit Judge Donny Willett Stands Alone to Spear Cindy Logue Without Merit
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