LIT UPDATE AND COMMENTARY
OCT 24, 2024
Note: This is an appeal from the judgment entered in Judge Mike Engelhart’s court, the details of which you’ll obtain by scrolling down to near the end of this article. LIT has reason to believe this apartment is where Willie Calledare lives, Nicia Vitorino’s son and he’s been evicted per this order and upon review of the state court docket. (The article’s focus is on the main property at 3219 Ashton Park Dr.).
Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas at Houston
Order
Appellate case name: Nicia Vitorino, as Assignee of William Calledare v. Post Oak Crossing Council of Co-Owners
Appellate case number: 01-24-00717-CV Trial court case number: 2022-39990
Trial court: 151st District Court of Harris County
On September 23, 2024, appellant, Nicia Vitorino, as assignee of William Calledare, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s September 10, 2024 “Final Order Grating Summary Judgment on Behalf of [Appellee] Post Oak Crossing Council of Co-Owners.”
Prior to the appellate record being completed, on October 10, 2024, appellant filed, in this Court, a “Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, [and] Temporary and Permanent Injunctions.”
In her motion, appellant requests that this Court grant her injunctive relief pursuant to Chapter 65 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code.
Specifically, appellant states that she “seeks to stay wrongful eviction proceedings” by appellee and requests “an immediate Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on an ex parte basis to prevent imminent and irreparable damages” to appellant.
According to appellant’s motion, the underlying suit here involves a “[p]ending [w]rongful [f]oreclosure” action related to certain property located at “1818 Augusta Dr[.], No. 20 . . . a condominium unit part of Post Oak Crossing Council of Co-Owners.”
Additionally, however, according to appellant’s motion, that same property was also subject to a forcible detainer action, and in which the County Civil Court at Law No. 3 entered a judgment in favor of appellee on October 1, 2024, and set a $10,500 bond to suspend enforcement of the judgment pending appeal.
In her motion to this Court, appellant requests that we enter a temporary restraining order “to maintain and restore the status quo with respect to her rights in the Property so that the Court can decide if [appellant] is entitled to the relief she is seeking in the [t]rial [c]ourt.”
Appellant further seeks a temporary and permanent injunction.
Appellant’s motion seeks this injunctive relief “in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and [C]hapter 65 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.”
However, appellant’s motion fails to establish that this Court has the authority to grant the relief requested by appellant pursuant to the cited authority.
To this end, the authority of an intermediate appellate court, such as this Court, to grant injunctive relief is limited by statute.
See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221 (titled “Writ Power”).
Generally, an intermediate appellate court may only issue a writ of injunction as “necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court.”
See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a);
see also In re Olson, 252 S.W.3d 747, 747 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, orig. proceeding)
(“The purpose of a writ of injunction is to enforce or protect the appellate court’s jurisdiction.”).
Further, an appellate court may only issue a writ of injunction to “control, limit, or prevent an action in a court of inferior jurisdiction.”
In re Olson, 252 S.W.3d at 747;
see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(b)(1)
(appellate courts may issue writs “against a judge of a district, statutory county, statutory probate county, or county court in the court of appeals district”).
Because appellee is not a court as defined by the Government Code, we may not issue a writ of injunction, in the form of a temporary restraining order, against appellee unless it is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction.
Appellant’s motion does not reflect that this Court’s jurisdiction is challenged.
Accordingly, appellant’s “Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, [and] Temporary and Permanent Injunctions” is denied.
Further, to the extent appellant’s motion seeks “to stay wrongful eviction proceedings” by appellee, such a “stay,” or suspension of enforcement of a trial court’s judgment pending appeal, is effectuated by posting security as set by the trial court.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 24.1(a)
(allowing judgment debtors to suspend enforcement by written agreement with the judgment creditor, by filing a bond, or by making a deposit with the trial court in lieu of a bond).
Here, there is no indication in the appellate record that appellants have paid a supersedeas bond set by the trial court or made a deposit in lieu of a bond.
We note that the trial court’s judgment does not set any bond for suspending enforcement of the judgment pending appeal.
However, suspension of a judgment pending appeal requires the judgment debtor to comply with the supersedeas requirements set out in Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 24.
It is so ORDERED.
Judge’s signature: /s/ Amparo Monique Guerra
R Acting individually £ Acting for the Court Date: October 17, 2024
LIT UPDATE AND COMMENTARY
(MAY 17, 2024)
Ramesh Kapur.
Sued Again, Today in Harris County District Court.https://t.co/2ltq4orZYQ— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) May 15, 2024
LIT UPDATE AND COMMENTARY
(MARCH 31, 2024)
LOAN SPECIALIST JUDGE AL BENNETT QUIETLY ARRANGES ANOTHER LOAN MODIFICATION, ALLOWING FOR DISMISSAL OF LAWSUIT
Less than 3 weeks after dismissal, JPMorgan Chase arrange a loan modification which swallows up any equity in the home and despite claims by Plaintiff she is broke and was being paid below minimum wage. We’re not sure how her application could have been approved on a verifiable income basis – LIT having considered the allegations in related litigation.
Key facts
Original loan: $143.6k which has been in default since Feb 27, 2014.
Judge Bennett dismisses case in an order signed on Jan 10, 2023
Within 3 weeks of dismissal….
JPMorgan Chase Loan Mod: $279.4k (Feb 1, 2023) agreed, signed and notarized by Brenda Ramirez, The Lane Law Firm.
Zillow Home Value (Mar 2024): $274k
Loan mod “interest bearing” amount: $190.8k
Loan mod “no interest” amount $88.6k
Term: 40 years
How can you refinance – being generous and taking HAR’s current home value of $295k and not Zillow/Trulia’s $274k valuation – to 95% LTV in Texas?
Here is a press release about this amendment after COVID-19 swept through the nation, causing financial hardship;
An existing home equity loan may be modified at the request of the homeowner without violating the Texas Constitution…
However, this notice does not specifically address LTV.
REPORT
Click here for the Houston January 2023 HAR report.
An upswing in new listings and further pricing moderation bode well for homebuyers in the months ahead
HOUSTON (February 8, 2023) January was an expectedly slow month for home sales across the Houston area coming out of the holidays and easing back into the more familiar pre-pandemic trending of the start of a new year.
While sales were down, there were positive indicators for consumers considering reviving their homebuying quests this year, including more robust inventory and moderating prices.
According to the Houston Association of Realtors’ (HAR) January 2023 Market Update, single-family home sales fell 29.9 percent, with 4,549 units sold compared to 6,492 in January 2022. That marks the tenth consecutive monthly decline.
However, when compared to the last January before the pandemic January of 2020, with sales volume of 4,772 units sales were down just 4.6 percent.
All housing segments experienced declines in January.
By contrast, single-family home rentals had another solid gain, demonstrating that prospective buyers continue to pivot to the rental market until mortgage rates ease and other inflationary concerns dissipate.
HAR will report on rental trends in the January 2023 Rental Home Update, to be released next Wednesday, February 15.
January was a continuation of the slowdown that began last year with an onslaught of challenging economic conditions, said HAR Chair Cathy Treviño with Side, Inc. I think what’s happening now reflects more of a return to seasonal home sales trending slower volume during the holidays and new year than a market in distress.
Certainly consumers want assurances that inflation is subsiding, so if mortgage rates stabilize and homes continue hitting the market at more affordable price points, we could expect an upswing in sales later this year.
Single family home prices rose at the slowest pace since before the pandemic. The average price increased just 1.5 percent to $381,983. The median price rose just 1.6 percent to $315,000. Those are the lowest price increases since October 2019.
January Monthly Market Comparison
January became the tenth consecutive month of negative sales, as the market recovers from strong economic headwinds, including inflation, elevated interest rates, pricing and lower inventory. Year-over-year single-family home sales fell 29.9 percent,
but when compared to January 2020, just before the pandemic, sales were down only 4.6 percent; compared to January 2018, five years ago, sales were up 1.9 percent.
The monthly housing measurements for January offer a mixed bag of readings. In addition to the drop in single-family home sales, total property sales and total dollar volume fell; single-family pending sales declined by 14.9 percent. Active listings (the total number of available properties) remained 63.4 percent ahead of their level a year ago.
Months of inventory continued to improve, growing to a 2.7-months supply in January.
Housing inventory nationally stands at a 2.9-months supply, according to the latest report from the National Association of Realtors (NAR). A 4.0- to 6.0-months supply is generally considered to make up a balanced market in which neither the buyer nor the seller has an advantage.
Single-Family Homes Update
Single-family home sales fell 29.9 percent in January, with 4,549 units sold across the Greater Houston area compared to 6,492 a year earlier.
Pricing continues to moderate after reaching record highs last spring. January’s median price increased 1.6 percent to $315,000 while the average price rose 1.5 percent to $381,983. Those are the lowest price increases since October 2019.
For a pre-pandemic perspective, January sales are down 4.6 percent compared to January 2020, when a total of 4,772 single-family homes sold.
The median price then was 34.0 percent lower at $235,000, and the average price, at $289,952, was 31.7 percent lower. Sales are 1.9 percent ahead of where they were five years ago, in January 2018, when volume totaled 4,462.
Back then, the median price was $218,950 and the average price was $271,087 reflecting pricing jumps of 43.9 percent and 41.0 percent, respectively.
Days on Market, or the actual time it took to sell a home, grew from 39 to 59 days. Months supply registered 2.7 months compared to 1.3 months a year earlier. The current national supply stands at 2.9 months, as reported by NAR.
Broken out by housing segment, January sales performed as follows:
$1 – $99,999: decreased 17.0 percent
$100,000 – $149,999: decreased 24.3 percent
$150,000 – $249,999: decreased 35.1 percent
$250,000 – $499,999: decreased 29.6 percent
$500,000 – $999,999: decreased 22.6 percent
$1M and above: decreased 25.7 percent
HAR also breaks out sales figures for existing single-family homes. Existing home sales totaled 3,255 in January, down 36.8 percent from the same month last year. The average and median sales prices were unchanged at $374,519 and $300,000, respectively.
Townhouse/Condominium Update
Townhouses and condominiums experienced their eighth consecutive monthly decline, dropping 37.1 percent year-over-year with 353 closed sales versus 561 a year earlier. The average price dropped 4.3 percent to $230,775 and the median price fell 7.7 percent to $191,000. Both figures are below the historic highs reached in April 2022. Inventory grew from a 1.5-months supply to 2.1 months.
Houston Real Estate Highlights in January
Single-family home sales fell 29.9 percent year-over-year, as the market tries to recover from economic headwinds;
All housing segments experienced negative sales.
Days on Market (DOM) for single-family homes went from 39 to 59 days;
Total property sales fell 30.9 percent with 5,650 units sold;
Total dollar volume dropped 30.9 percent to $2.0 billion;
The single-family average price rose 1.5 percent to $381,983;
The single-family median price increased 1.6 percent to $315,000;
Single-family home months of inventory registered a 2.7-months supply, up from 1.3 months a year earlier;
Townhome/condominium sales experienced their eighth straight monthly decline, falling 37.1 percent, with the average price down 4.3 percent to $230,775 and the median price up 7.7 percent to $191,000.
First Amended Complaint with Exhibits (Sep 2023)
First, it should be noted that the appeal would be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
LIT’s interested in the non-judicial foreclosure attempts during the Harris County District Court proceedings.
The Appellee’s brief lays out their view;
“On June 10, 2022, Gerdes, on behalf of the Association, issued a Notice of Trustees sale to Calledare for unpaid assessments.
The first foreclosure sale was scheduled for July 5, 2022. At no time prior to the first foreclosure sale did Calledare request a payment plan from the Association or otherwise pay the unpaid assessments.
However, on July 5, 2022, Calledare on behalf of his unverified assignee, Plaintiff Nicia Vicia Vitorino, filed a lawsuit against the Association and obtained a Temporary Restraining Order to stop the first foreclosure sale.
The foreclosure sale was re-scheduled for October 4, 2022, when the Temporary Injunction was no longer in effect.
LIT: This assertion is contradicted by the TRO signed on Oct. 4, 2022 as shown on the docket in the district court.
The Woodforest property was sold to a third-party entity, West Chase Property Solutions, LLC. Calledare was notified of his right to redeem the property during the following 90 days as permitted by the Texas Property Code § 209.011.
Calledare also received the payoff amount of $19,474.44 for redemption.
Thereafter, Calledare redeemed the Woodforest property.
On October 17, 2022, the Appellant filed his sworn petition and motion for intervention against Appellee claiming that the Appellee was engaging in deceptive trade practices. CR 185.
LIT: Kapur alleges substitute trustee is unlawfully stacking thousands of dollars in foreclosure fees e.g. unjust enrichment.
Over the course of litigation, Appellant added—but never served—appellees who were therefore never proper parties to Appellant’s claims.”
Anuj is a native Texan and Houstonian. One conversation with him and it’s obvious: The respect and professionalism that exudes from his interactions is what makes him a pleasure to work with for both clients and colleagues alike.
Anuj grew up in Alief, Texas, where he graduated from Hastings High School in the top 3% of his graduating class.
After graduating high school, he attended the University of Houston, where he was a founding member of the Houston chapter of Sigma Beta Rho Fraternity.
In 2007, he graduated from UH Magna Cum Laude with a Bachelor of Business Administration in Accounting and a minor in International Studies.
Upon graduation, Anuj joined the Houston office of PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) as an external auditor in their assurance department.
Prior to joining the legal field, Anuj had a successful career as an Accountant, holding the positions of an Assistant Controller and an Accounting Manager at large multi-national companies.
After seeing how legalities played a role in all aspects of life, even the accounting world, Anuj decided to attend law school at the University of Houston Law Center.
Anuj is both an Accountant and Lawyer, something he uses to his advantage in his approach to cases and in delivering the most beneficial outcome for his clients.
Loan Specialist and Federal Judge Al Bennett approaches @jpmorgan and @Chase to help a friend of the court, Ramesh Kapur et al in this lengthy foreclosure proceeding. JPMorgan Chase oblige, providing a loan modification capitalizing $135k arrears into mod.https://t.co/VVRtvCLd1a pic.twitter.com/VandYPJNn8
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) March 31, 2024
LIT COMMENTARY
There’s a lot of movin’ parts to this case, but none more glaringly obvious than real scumbag and real estate investor Ramesh Kapur, and the partnership with state and federal judges, and bandit lawyers in Texas.
Read the above complaint to get an inside look at the fact that Vitorino relies on Kapur financially…
From: Ramesh Kapur <kapurhouston@yahoo.com>
Subject: Reporting fraud cause no: 202012994
Message Body:
LIT earlier reported BHAGIA’s refusal to take the citation from the Process Server and manipulated refusal. The plaintiff filed a Motion for new trial.
Bhagia used his influence and most likely used his connection with the lower court staff.
The judge’s order was restricted and fraudulently an entry was made in court docket sheet as if the court DENIED the NEW Trial, fk deny motion to state and so fort.
This was a restricted entry any one looking into the docket sheet would presume dismissal and denial of new Trial.
Plaintiff filed the apoeal and after nine months of ordeal, mental anguish, thousands in legal fees, Cory fees, Court Reporter’s and clerk’s fee in spending, Plaintiff saw a filing of court Reporter’s record and to his surprise that the judge’s order contained her signature granting in June 27. 2022
Plaintiff’s motion for new trial.
Plaintiff immediately notified this fraudulent entry to Burgess DC , the district clerk.
NO INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN ORDERED BUT THE REVERSAL OF THE ENTRY TOOK PLACE ON 15th Feb . 2023.
Bhagia knew exactly what the judge had ordered and had full knowledge and information .
The entry got reversed in line with the judge’s order abandoned very next day
BHAGIA WAS TELEPHONICALLY INFORMED BY A MEMBER IF COURT STAFF OF THIS EXPOSURE AS IS EVIDENT OF AN answer being filed in less than 12 hotness if reversal of entry
Bhagia and the member of court staff must be arrested and put to jail.
Plaintiff Kapur is entitled to damages and sue compensation.
This is akin to someone committed to murder but entry made of an exoneration.
What a shame the lower staff enjoy more power than even the judge.
Plaintiff Kapur sending you judge’s original obscured order and an email to Burgess and others .**
Trial case: 202012994
Appeal case; 14-22-00564-CV
—
This e-mail was sent from a contact form on Laws In Texas
** LIT replied with “No attachments”. No response was received.
DCA Generic Letter re deadline for trial docs; 31 March or case subject for dismissal
RE: Court of Appeals Number: 14-22-00564-CV
Trial Court Case Number: 2020-12994
Style: Ramesh Kapur v. Nanik Bhagia
On January 12, 2023, this court ordered a hearing in your court to determine whether documents submitted by appellant were an accurate copy of missing items.
The court asked that you make appropriate findings and recommendations, prepare a record of the proceedings, and transmit the record of the hearing to our court on or before February 13, 2023. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(e).
On February 13, 2023, Harris County District Clerk informed this court that no hearing date had been set and no findings had been filed.
As of today, the court has not received the requested record. Please forward the requested record to this court at the earliest possible date.
Sincerely,
\s\ Deborah M. Young, Clerk Pro Tempore
cc: Nanik Bhagia
Ramesh Kapur (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)
From: Ramesh Kapur <kapurhouston@yahoo.com>
Subject: Victim of Nanik Bhagia
Message Body:
My family has gone through a lot by the action of this crook , scumbag and master-mind who buys back everyone, city inspectors, elected officials, and so forth.
UNDER a fraud scheme, he would quit paying property taxes on one of his properties and let his corporate owned property intentionally reach to the stage of tax foreclosure let a hired person bid on that property at constable sale and buy at all cost money under other corporation name ( owned by him) at other tax sale to extinguish all other liens (mortgage, material-men, HOA and deprive legitimate lien holders of hundred of thousands of dollars)
Once the property struck off to his other corporation, he would let his wife pay even though the highest bidder who bid on his other corporation behalf ( paying money to constable)
I have pictures and photographs taken)
BHAGIA WOULD MAKE SURE HE WOULD END-UP BEING THE HIGHEST PAYING HIGHEST BIDDER BECAUSE PROCEEDS COME BACK TO HIM FROM THE FORECLOSED UPON CORPORATION.
It is just like taking money from one pocket and putting in other.
However, in the process he would wipe out all the liens.
He would further spot a deceased person, file thousands of dollar of Weed Cuttting lien against deceased person owned property, file a lawsuit through a known attorney ( party-to-scam).
No one would show up, the deceased person or his legal-heir would not appear to defend and finally no one would show up or even someone does, BHAGIA HAS HIS ATTORNEY knowing what BHAGIA IS DOING) the property ( EXAMPLE OF Barrington Tools owned several properties ) under this scheme he now ‘legally ’ own the deceased person’s properties).
In another scheme, Crook BHAGIA watch the tax sale and once a property is purchased by the third party and has generated large amount of excess proceeds, Crook BHAGIA would rush to the owner who just lost property, approach him, present his card with ‘Dr. BHAGIA’ name on card, sympathize and offer a free stay for six months but illegally get an assignment of excess proceeds signed, deed signed ( one day back-dated) as if he secured interest in the foreclosed property just at the time foreclosure occurred, record assignment and deed a day after the foreclosure (his own notary paid v high amount to notarize on back-date) recorded after the sale date ( won’t matter) file a claim on excess proceeds (again his own party-to -scheme) on the foreclosed upon but legally owned property and pocket hundred of thousands of excess proceeds.
Judge Miller once questioned him, how come you buy a day or two before foreclosure but record in County Clerk record always a day after) before the foreclosure day but recorded always a day after the foreclosure day and come to court to claim excess proceeds from the sale.
The law changed because of him that the person claiming proceeds must be a defendant in that tax suit to claim excess proceeds.
He , along with other family members, known attorney under that scheme must be investigated along with his Sheroo Bhagia (Bar card 24042916) and other attorney, party to his scheme).
I will be happy to present documents, photos and other record to implicate him.
I filed a cause number 2020-12994.
He was served by constable.
He did not make appearance or filed answer, I hired also a process server who filed an affidavit for his refusal to take legal document and took pride he would not have to be worried as the case would be dismissed by the judge.
I bid the same judge ( HONORABLE Judge Palmer) his family pictured with her, accepted political contribution and threw away my case, an abuse of discretion.
I have not money to hire Appellate attorney although the case is on appeal.
He earlier brought a lawsuit against my family and under the scheme he exhorted 100k from me.
Ex-judge Halbach imposed sanctions to ensure I pay Bhagia under that scheme. I am positive Bhagia or his attorney must have earned political ‘ contribution’
Halbach lost election.
—
This e-mail was sent from a contact form on Laws In Texas
| 202239990- 7 Ready Docket |
NICIA, VITORINO vs. POST OAK CROSSING COUNCIL OF CO-OWNERS | 7/5/2022 | 151 | Civil | OTHER CIVIL | |
| 202237414- 7 Case On Appeal – Civil |
KAPUR, RAMESH vs. U S BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE |
6/22/2022 | 234 | Civil | Quiet Title | |
| 202171176- 7 Ready Docket |
REDDY GREENSBROOK LTD vs. KAPUR, RAMESH (D/B/A AIC MANAGEMENT COMPANY) | 10/28/2021 | 129 | Civil | OTHER CIVIL | |
| 202012994- 7 ReInstated |
KAPUR, RAMESH vs. BHAGIA, NANIK |
2/7/2020 | 215 | Civil | OTHER CIVIL | |
| 201756784- 7 Disposed (Final) |
KAPUR, RAMESH (DOING BUSINESS AS AIC MANAGEMENT) vs. ENGELHARDT, STEVEN | 8/24/2017 | 270 | Civil | Malpractice – Legal | |
| 201750625- 7 Disposed (Final) |
KAPUR, RAMESH vs. FONDREN SOUTHWEST TEMPOS ASSOCIATION INC |
7/31/2017 | 151 | Civil | OTHER CIVIL | |
| 201658964- 7 Disposed (Final) |
KAPUR, RAMESH vs. THE OAKS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC | 9/1/2016 | 164 | Civil | Other Injury or Damage | |
| 201624748- 7 Disposed (Final) |
KAPUR, RAMESH vs. HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT |
4/19/2016 | 269 | Civil | OTHER CIVIL | |
| 201508539- 7 Disposed (Final) |
BHAGIA, SAROJINA (INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA vs. KAPUR, RAMESH (INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A AI | 2/13/2015 | 333 | Civil | OTHER CIVIL | |
| 201503473- 7 Disposed (Final) |
KAPUR, RAMESH (DBA AIC MANAGEMENT) vs. BHAGIA, NANIK S |
1/22/2015 | 189 | Civil | OTHER CIVIL | |
| 201404774- 7 Disposed (Final) |
AIC MANAGEMENT COMPANY vs. RIVERSTONE I ASSOCIATION INC | 2/3/2014 | 295 | Civil | Foreclosure – Other | |
| 201363597- 7 Disposed (Final) |
GARG, JYOTIKA vs. HARRIS COUNTY |
10/21/2013 | 189 | Civil | OTHER CIVIL | |
| 201343184- 7 Disposed (Final) |
OPEN PINES CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOCIATION (OPEN PINES ASSOCIATION) vs. KAPUR, RAMESH | 7/24/2013 | 125 | Civil | BREACH OF CONTRACT | |
| 201328083- 7 Disposed (Final) |
KAPUR, RAMESH vs. TRAN, KENT (TRUSTEE/GALVESTON TRUST) |
5/10/2013 | 269 | Civil | Debt / Contract – Fraud / Misrepresentation | |
| 201326880- 7 Disposed (Final) |
KAPUR, RAMESH vs. HARRIS COUNTY | 5/6/2013 | 080 | Civil | Foreclosure – Other | |
| 201300556- 7 Disposed (Final) |
KAPUR, RAMESH (DBA AIC MANAGEMENT COMPAN vs. CITY OF BAYTOWN |
1/4/2013 | 234 | Civil | OTHER CIVIL | |
| 201271264- 7 Disposed (Final) |
KAPUR, RAMESH (D/B/A AIC MANAGEMENT COMPANY) vs. HARRIS COUNTY | 12/3/2012 | 269 | Civil | Foreclosure – Other | |
| 201252649- 7 Disposed (Final) |
KAPUR, RAMESH vs. NATIONAL LLOYDS INSURANCE COMPANY |
9/11/2012 | 011 | Civil | MDL – HURRICANE IKE | |
| 201232577- 7 Disposed (Final) |
KAPUR, RAMESH (DBA AIC MANAGEMENT COMPANY) vs. BANK OF AMERICA NA | 6/5/2012 | 151 | Civil | Foreclosure – Other | |
| 201177605- 7 Disposed (Final) |
KAPUR, RAMESH (INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA AIC MANAGEMENT vs. NEWPORT FUND LLC |
12/30/2011 | 152 | Civil | BREACH OF CONTRACT | |
| 201064963- 7 Disposed (Final) |
KAPUR, RAMESH vs. WELLS FARGO BANK | 10/4/2010 | 061 | Civil | Foreclosure – Other | |
| 201013051- 7 Disposed (Final) |
FONDREN SOUTHWEST TEMPO ASSOCIATION INC vs. KAPUR, RAMESH (DBA AIC MANAGEMENT COMPANY) |
2/26/2010 | 151 | Civil | BILL OF REVIEW | |
| 200875890- 7 Disposed (Final) |
KAPUR, RAMESH vs. WALMART CORPORATION (CORPORATION) | 12/30/2008 | 061 | Civil | OTHER CIVIL | |
| 200841522- 7 Disposed (Final) |
WILCREST PARK TOWNHOME OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION vs. KAPUR, RAMESH (D/B/A AIC MANAGEMENT CO) |
7/10/2008 | 164 | Civil | Other Contract | |
| 200761388- 7 Disposed (Final) |
KAPUR, RAMESH vs. U S BANK N A | 10/4/2007 | 133 | Civil | DECLARATORY JUDGMENT | |
| 200126263- 7 Disposed (Final) |
KAPUR, RAMESH (DBA AIC MANAGEMENT) vs. SALOMAN BROTHERS REALTY CORPORATION |
5/22/2001 | 125 | Civil | INJUNCTION | |
| 200030355- 7 Disposed (Final) |
KAPUR, RAMESH vs. GOLDSTEIN, MARK | 6/16/2000 | 113 | Civil | CONTRACT | |
| 200030395- 7 Disposed (Final) |
BHAGIA, NANIK S vs. KAPUR, RAMESH (IND & DBA AIC MANAGEMENT) |
6/16/2000 | 011 | Civil | OTHER CIVIL | |
| 199837673- 7 Disposed (Final) |
KAPUR, RAMESH vs. KAPOOR, MRIDULA | 8/7/1998 | 129 | Civil | CONTRACT | |
| 199832358- 7 Disposed (Final) |
KAPUR, RAMESH vs. BENT TREE NATIONAL BANK |
7/8/1998 | 151 | Civil | DAMAGES (OTHER) | |
| 199439971- 7 Disposed (Final) |
NAVARRO, PETE vs. VONG, DOC | 8/24/1994 | 080 | Civil | PERSONAL INJURY (NON-AUTO) | |
| 198611327- 7 Disposed (Final) |
KAPUR, RANJANI vs. KAPUR, YODH RAJ |
3/11/1986 | 257 | Family | DIVORCE |
IMPOSTERS ARE REAL IN TEXAS COURTS They come disguised as lawyers n shell sham entities: Justice April “Imposter Syndrome” Farris of COA1, Texas asserts nondisclosure of past litigation in obtaining foreclosure TRO from ancillary judge warrants sanctions. https://t.co/33tAMxgOgG pic.twitter.com/KvF0MpU6Pb
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) March 31, 2024
Vitorino v. JP Morgan Chase Bank National Association
(4:22-cv-03452)
District Court, S.D. Texas, Judge Al “Bent” Bennett
OCT 6, 2022 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: OCT 16, 2022
U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:22-cv-03452
| Vitorino v. JP Morgan Chase Bank National Association Assigned to: Judge Alfred H Bennett
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal |
Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Date Terminated: 01/10/2023 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 290 Real Property: Other Jurisdiction: Diversity |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 10/20/2022 | 4 | CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by Nicia Vitorino, filed.(Lane, Robert) (Entered: 10/20/2022) |
| 10/26/2022 | 5 | ANSWER to 1 State Court Petition/Notice of Removal, COUNTERCLAIM against Nicia Vitorino by JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7)(Lewis, William) (Entered: 10/26/2022) |
| 11/11/2022 | 6 | RESPONSE to 5 Answer to State Court Petition/Notice of Removal,, Counterclaim, , filed by Nicia Vitorino. (Lane, Robert) (Entered: 11/11/2022) |
| 01/09/2023 | 7 | STIPULATION of Dismissal and Motion for Entry of Agreed Judgment by JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Agreed Judgment)(Hytken, Rachel) (Entered: 01/09/2023) |
| 01/10/2023 | 8 | AGREED JUDGMENT. Case terminated on January 10, 2023. (Signed by Judge Alfred H Bennett) Parties notified.(JacquelineMata, 4) (Entered: 01/12/2023) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 02/03/2023 23:01:51 |
No movement since response filed Nov. 11.
No movement since response filed Nov. 11.
No movement since response filed Nov. 11.
NOV. 11, 2022
Response
NOV. 10, 2022
No movement since Oct. 29 counterclaim/answer
Y’all Take Note, it May Never Happen that meeting, Sua Sponte ‘n’ all.
ORDER for Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference and Order to Disclose Interested Persons.
Initial Conference set for 2/10/2023 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 9A before Judge Alfred H Bennett.
(Signed by Judge Alfred H Bennett) Parties notified.(ClaudiaGutierrez, 4) (Entered: 10/07/2022)
Counterclaim AND Answer to State Court Petition/Notice of Removal (Oct 26)
U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:22-cv-03452
Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP
| Vitorino v. JP Morgan Chase Bank National Association Assigned to: Judge Alfred H Bennett
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal |
Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 290 Real Property: Other Jurisdiction: Diversity |
| Plaintiff | ||
| Nicia Vitorino formerly known as Nicia Calledare |
represented by | Joshua David Gordon The Lane Law Firm, PLLC 6200 Savoy Dr Ste 1150 Houston, TX 77036 713-595-8200 Email: joshua.gordon@lanelaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDRobert Chamless Lane The Lane Law Firm, PLLC 6200 Savoy Dr Ste 1150 Houston, TX 77036 713-595-8200 Email: notifications@lanelaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| V. | ||
| Defendant | ||
| JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association | represented by | Rachel L Hytken Quilling, Selander, Lownds, Winslett & Moser, P.C. Bryan Tower 2001 Bryan St, Ste. 1800 Dallas, TX 75201 214-880-1829 Fax: 214-871-2111 Email: rhytken@qslwm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDWilliam Lance Lewis Quilling Selander et al 2001 Bryan St Suite 1800 Dallas, TX 75201 214-871-2100 Fax: 214-871-2111 Email: llewis@qslwm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 10/06/2022 | 1 | NOTICE OF REMOVAL from 165th Judicial District Court, case number 2022-54935 (Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ATXSDC-28892220) filed by JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit A-1, # 3 Exhibit A-2, # 4 Exhibit A-3, # 5 Exhibit A-4, # 6 Exhibit B, # 7 Civil Cover Sheet)(Lewis, William) (Entered: 10/06/2022) |
| 10/06/2022 | 2 | CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association identifying The Vanguard Group, Inc. as Corporate Parent, filed.(Hytken, Rachel) (Entered: 10/06/2022) |
| 10/07/2022 | 3 | ORDER for Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference and Order to Disclose Interested Persons. Initial Conference set for 2/10/2023 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 9A before Judge Alfred H Bennett. (Signed by Judge Alfred H Bennett) Parties notified.(ClaudiaGutierrez, 4) (Entered: 10/07/2022) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 10/16/2022 14:10:47 |
| 202254935- 7 Disposed (Final) |
VITORINO, NICIA (F/K/A NICIA CALLEDARE) vs. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION | 8/31/2022 | 165 | Civil | Other Property | |
| 202102915- 7 Ready Docket |
VITORINO, NICIA vs. KAPUR, RAMESH (INDIVIDUALLY AND DOING BUSINESS AS AIC MANAGEMENT |
1/19/2021 | 334 | Civil | Debt / Contract – Debt / Contract | |
| 201851814- 7 Disposed (Final) |
VITORINO, NICIA vs. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION | 8/3/2018 | 215 | Civil | Foreclosure – Other |
#VOTE NO to Corrupt Judges in Texas
A quick intro on Harris County Judge Brittanye Morris who cannot resist flaunting her Judicial Immunity to Y’all while violating her Judicial Oath by refusing to recuse for her ole boss and much more. https://t.co/rIgDmgxYhM @harrisdemocrats pic.twitter.com/2NH78vY1R5— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) October 16, 2022
202239990 –
NICIA, VITORINO (AND RAMESH KAPUR) vs. POST OAK CROSSING COUNCIL OF CO-OWNERS
(Court 151, JUDGE MIKE ENGELHART)
JUL 5, 2022 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: MAR 12, 2023
Motion for Summary Judgment hearing Nov. 20, 2023.
ORDER SIGNED GRANTING MOTION T0 DISMISS IN PART SEE D/S – PARTIAL DISMISSAL ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION
Plaintiffs Original Sworn Petition for Temporary Restraining Order, Temporary Injunction, Permanent Injunction and Request for Disclosure
Curry Town Upkeep
Mailing Address for Kapur, returned undeliverable
Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a
202254935
VITORINO, NICIA (F/K/A NICIA CALLEDARE) vs. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
(Court 165, JUDGE URSULA HALL)
AUG 31, 2022 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: OCT 6, 2022
Removed to Federal Court on Oct 6, 2022
Donate Today – Laws In Texas https://t.co/JNHI8v2JhJ https://t.co/RXxg1eFwwm pic.twitter.com/ducKt2TC8G
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) October 15, 2022
Vitorino f/k/a Nicia Calledare v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association
(4:18-cv-03285)
District Court, S.D. Texas, Judge Kenneth Hoyt
SEP 14, 2018 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: OCT 16, 2022
The case would be dismissed without prejudice in Nov. 2018.
It’s taken 4 years to return to SDTX Federal court.
Now we know why, Judge.
David Murray, Daniel Murray, Percy Murray and the Alpha Entities in Spring, Texas https://t.co/6GfQoWu3zj@MikeEngelhart @uscourts @judgewise @JudgeClayJ @emilymiskel @RMFifthCircuit @JudgeFergusonTX @TRECommission @harrisdemocrats @texasdemocrats
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) October 15, 2022
202102915
VITORINO, NICIA vs. KAPUR, RAMESH
(INDIVIDUALLY AND DOING BUSINESS AS AIC MANAGEMENT
(Court 334, JUDGE DAWN ROGERS)
AUG 31, 2022 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: OCT 6, 2022
First Amended Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting a New Trial for Fraud on the Court
ORDER RESETTING TRIAL to MAY 1, 2023
Mailing Address for Kapur, returned undeliverable
Judge Al Bennett is Keepin’ it H-Town Real with a Burger at Barry n Sewart
Judge Alfred Bennett, a former Harris County State Court Judge is bound to be very familiar with the lawyers in this case.
Real Scumbags Series: Who is Real Estate Investor Ramesh Kapur DBA AIC Management?
We’re trackin’ Ramesh Kapur, DBA AIC Management Co.’s lawsuits, lawyers and real estate dealings and of course, the family tree.
Real Scumbags Series: Who is Slum Lord and Real Estate Investor Nanik ‘Nick’ Bhagia?
Decades of city violations for their slum lord rental apartments, including death, injury and alleged insurance fraud ain’t stopping Bhagia.
Sam Kapur
July 17, 2023 at 5:39 am
In a scheme to fraud IRS, BHAGIA , the real scumbag sells a house in CASG, get the check which is cashed at ‘ Senor’ check cashing place . The check never hits BHAGIA’s account and thus no record prevails of selling the property for cash.
It must be investigated how many properties owned byvBhagia or his family have Ben sold for cash and checks cashed at ‘Senor’ Check Cashing business.