Baker Donelson

Operation Elder Abuse: 22 Years Later It’s Time for Peaceful Possession and Quiet Title to Her Homestead

Since Nov. 2023, US/TX gov. has intercepted the legal filings sent by 85-year old Joanna Burke, and refused to file time-sensitive pleadings.

LIT UPDATE & COMMENTARY

MAR 19, 2024

Appellant and non-prisoner, Joanna Burke, pro se, moves this court for an extension of 120 days to file for rehearing in this appeal.

This is not for the purposes of delay, but rather so Appellant can address the ongoing elder abuse and illegal acts by Appellees in this case, which includes officers of the court.

As this court is aware, as a result of this court granting the first motion for time due to the imminent foreclosure auction of her homestead which was unlawfully scheduled, Joanna Burke took the necessary legal steps required to protect her homestead of 22 years.

This did not stop the assault on Appellant. EXHIBIT: PHHMN_BDFHOPKINS_ELDERABUSE.pdf, submitted with this motion explains how Mark and Shelley Hopkins of Hopkins Law, PLLC, as authorized by PHH Mortgage Corporation, have fraudulently removed Appellant’s case to federal court last week, and now the Appellant has to expend more time and expense addressing their latest scandal and abuse of Appellant.

Relatedly, Joanna Burke directly emailed counsel for Appellees asking if they would waive process of service, a key dispute in this appeal.

Once more, they responded negatively via Texas attorney and Appellee here, Shelley Hopkins of Hopkins Law, PLLC as detailed in EXHIBIT: PHHMN_BDFHOPKINS_ELDERABUSE2.pdf.

This response despite the fact Hopkins appeared and removed the case for PHH Mortgage Corporation, shortly after Appellant filed her partial Motion for Summary Judgment pertaining to Quiet Title, having served PHH in the Texas state court proceeding.

The acts in Texas state, federal and bankruptcy courts by Appellees materially impacts the Appellant’s anticipated pleading in this Appeal, and she respectfully suggests her liberty interest and constitutional rights require an extension of time sufficient to directly address the illegal acts in Texas; make sure her case is expedited back to state court, and; she remains in her home.

Unfortunately, upon checking timelines for such ORDERS returning cases to state court can take a few months.

See; Mosely v. Newrez Mortg., Civil Action 4:21-CV-396 (S.D. Tex. May 4, 2022); a total of 118 days.

In Mosely’s state foreclosure case, removal was initiated by Newrez (Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing) on Feb. 2, 2022 and it would be remanded on May 31, 2022.

Critically, at no time was injunctive relief present or requested during the months it was on the new federal case docket.

Upon remand, and despite an amended petition seeking injunctive relief as filed on August 8, 2022, no hearing has ever been held and no injunction issued. Furthermore, there is no joint agreement between counsel or their clients on the docket at the state court level in these proceedings.

Indeed, no TRO or injunction has ever been issued since inception of this state court case, which was filed on Jan. 20, 2021.

See; 202103881 – MOSELY, CHARLES vs. NEWREZ MORTGAGE LLC (D/B/A SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING) (Court 215, Judge Elaine H. Palmer presiding).

In short, in the absence of a Temporary Injunction no foreclosure has occurred as at the date of this filing, and the last docket entry affirms a trial date of May 6, 2024 or thereabouts.

This is not all. The prior stop foreclosure proceedings commenced by pro se Charles Ray Mosely in Harris County District Court on December 28, 2016 mimics’ his current case; there was never a TRO or injunction in this proceeding either.

See; 201688212 – MOSELY, CHARLES vs. SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING (Court 125, Judge Kyle Carter presiding).

That case ended after Mosely non-suited (without prejudice) on Jan. 24, 2018, notably just after the trial docket was set in those proceedings.

These facts completely contradict Appellees arguments in Texas that they can perform a non-judicial foreclosure in the absence of a temporary restraining order or injunction, as they attempted during this Minnesota case and appeal.

Hence, the request for sufficient time here to make sure no further illegal attempts at foreclosure are made by Appellees in the interim period. Indeed, the statute of limitations bars any such attempts by Appellees, as detailed in Appellant’s most recent state court pleadings.

CONCLUSION

Respectfully, and for the above reasons, Appellant prays the court will GRANT the extension of 120 days in order that she may file her rehearing in this appeal.

Furthermore, should the court require a status update on a monthly or bi-monthly basis, Appellant will comply with any requirement this court deems necessary, and so that justice may be served.

DATED: March 18, 2024

JOANNA BURKE

TO THE UNASSIGNED HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE AND ALL INTERESTED PARTIES:

Joanna Burke hereby submits her emergency motion to remand without waiver of her constitutional and legal rights to supplement her argument, authorities, request for punitive damages and/or for any other relief sought.

This emergency motion to remand is provided in accordance with applicable state, federal and bankruptcy court rules and regulations.

EMERGENCY MOTION: THE FACTS

On March 13, 2024, Mark Daniel Hopkins and Shelley Hopkins of Hopkins Law, PLLC, purportedly acting solely on behalf of  PHH Mortgage Corporation did violate federal laws by fraudulently, maliciously and willfully removing the state court action as detailed on the docket and in pleadings and exhibits attached and incorporated.

In response, Joanna Burke seeks emergency relief: an order granting immediate remand to the state court and case style identified, without delay. In support of this request, Plaintiff presents the following argument and legal authority.

MEMORANDUM AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT

Argument and Legal Authority in Support of Emergency Remand

Despite 16 pages of rambling, baseless and frivolous discussion as to why they can continue to harass the Plaintiff and violate Texas and Federal laws, PHH and their fellow Defendants, Hopkins admit in their notice of removal at 9 and 9 a., (p.4 of 16, doc. 1), and continue at A. and 10. (p.5 of 16, doc. 1) that Joanna Burke filed for Bankruptcy on March 1, 2024.

The Controlling Question

The only question this court need consider in order to expeditiously grant remand is:

Whether or not the 30-day automatic stay was in effect at the date and time of removal.

The answer is irrefutably: Yes, the stay was in effect.

Terminally, no relief from stay was obtained prior to removal.

As such, relying upon Fifth Circuit precedential case law, remand is mandatory.

See; In re Phillips, 124 B.R. 712, 716 n.7 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 1991)

(“the FDIC violated the automatic stay established by the bankruptcy filing when it removed the state collection and foreclosure action to federal court post-petition without relief from stay.

See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1); R.Bankr.P. 9027(a)(2).

The Fifth Circuit has held that such violation is voidable, i.e., that the notice should be dissolved and the case remanded to state court.

Sikes v. Global Marine, Inc., 881 F.2d 176, 178 (5th Cir. 1989). ”).

Phillips and Sikes are supported by Chapman v. Bituminous Insurance, 345 F.3d 338 (5th Cir. 2003), where the appellate court reached another important question, and which should be included here to avoid any further frivolous argument from PHH and Hopkins.

Namely, any “argument that only the bankruptcy court can make this voidness determination is unpersuasive”, at 345 n.24;

(We have previously noted that “other [federal] district courts retain jurisdiction to determine the applicability of the stay to litigation before them, and to enter orders not inconsistent with the terms of the stay.”

Picco v. Global Marine Drilling Co.,900 F.2d 846, 850 (5th Cir. 1990);

see also Siskin v. Complete Aircraft Servs. (In re Siskin),258 B.R. 554, 561-64 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y. 2001)

(noting that the majority of jurisdictions have held that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction to decide whether the bankruptcy stay applies to pre-petition state court actions)).

All other reasons provided by PHH and Hopkins are mooted by the above question and legal authority in support of remand.

CONCLUSION

The Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Remand is mandatory, should be granted immediately by order of the court,  and without further delay. Plaintiff respectfully requests any and all other relief the court deems appropriate and just in light of the egregious acts of retaliation perpetrated by PHH and Hopkins against the Plaintiff, by attempting to delay and/or sabotage her state lawsuit, including Joanna Burke’s state constitutionally protected rights as pertaining to a fundamental liberty interest: her homestead;

“Those established homestead rights are subject to rigid protections.

Pierce v. Washington Mut. Bank, 226 S.W.3d 711, 717 (Tex. App. — Tyler 2007, pet. denied)

[“Homestead protection is a treasured liberty in Texas, which has been encrusted in its constitution since 1839”]. ”

In re McKeithan, No. 10-60825, at *6 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2011).

RESPECTFULLY submitted this 13th day of March, 2024.

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I did not confer with PHH Mortgage Corporation and their counsel, Mark Hopkins, Shelley Hopkins of Hopkins Law, PLLC due to my allegations in ongoing litigation pertaining to this court.

This decision was not taken lightly and relies upon the following opinion, Melvin v. Rimkus Consulting, Case 4:08-cv-02707, Document 10, Filed in TXSD on 10/07/08,

and visible online at; https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txsd-4_08-cv-02707/pdf/USCOURTS-txsd-4_08-cv-02707-0.pdf

(last visited March 13, 2024).

The opinion by United States District Court Judge Gray Miller, Houston division, states in relevant part;

“Rimkus also urges the court to consider that Melvin’s counsel failed to confer with opposing counsel as required by this court’s procedures prior to filing the motion to remand and failed to attach a certificate of conference as required by the local rules.

Additionally, Rimkus stresses its belief that Melvin’s complaint is without merit.

Neither of these arguments go to the objective reasonableness of the removal. Therefore, the court will not address them.

Last, Rimkus argues that federal question jurisdiction will be implicated in this case eventually. The court declines to theorize on the prospect of future jurisdiction, because it does not impact the present lack of jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the motion to remand is GRANTED. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), this case is REMANDED to the 333rd District Court of Harris County, Texas.”

LIT UPDATE & COMMENTARY

MAR 9, 2024

TO ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD:  PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the hearing on Plaintiff, JOANNA BURKE’S motion  for partial summary judgment as to quiet title has been set on the Court’s in-person hearing docket at 11:00 a.m. for Monday, April 15, 2024.

RESPECTFULLY submitted this 12th day of March, 2024.

Arranging submission/hearing re partial motion for summary judgment with clerk of court 11.

MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO QUIET TITLE BY JOANNA BURKE

MAR 9, 2024

Plaintiff  Joanna Burke, individually, files this motion for partial summary judgment against Defendants by submission. See; L.R. 3.3.3.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT FACTS

The facts are  simple and clear. First, judicial notice of Joanna’s operative complaint pleadings and exhibits relative to her quiet title claim should be included herein for the purposes of this motion.

Legal Description: Quiet Title

The principal issue in a suit to quiet title is the existence of a cloud on the title that equity will remove.

Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. Groves, No. 14-10-00090-CV, 2011 WL 1364070, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 12, 2011, pet. denied) (mem. op.).

A “cloud” on legal title includes any deed, contract, judgment lien or other instrument, not void on its face that purports to convey an interest in or makes any charge upon the land of the true owner, the invalidity of which requires proof.

The term “suit to quiet title” is used to describe legal disputes regarding (1) title to and possession of real property; and (2) the validity of other “clouds” on an undisputed owner’s title to real property.

The first type of claim Joanna pleaded in her petition is essentially a trespass-to-try-title action.

An action for trespass to try title is used to determine title to lands, tenements, or other real property, to clear problems in chains of title, or to recover possession of land unlawfully withheld from a rightful owner. Groves, 2011 WL 1364070, at *3.

Absent a boundary dispute, a trespass-to-try-title claim is the exclusive remedy by which to resolve competing claims to property.

Tex. Prop. Code § 22.001(a); MBM Fin. Corp. v. Woodlands Operating Co., L.P., 292 S.W.3d 660, 669 n. 48 (Tex. 2009); Jordan v. Bustamante, 158 S.W.3d 29, 34 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. denied).

The second type of claim Joanna pleaded in her petition challenges an adverse interest that indirectly impacts title and possession. Groves, 2011 WL 1364070, at *3.

“A claim is sufficiently adverse if its assertion would cast a cloud on the owner’s enjoyment of the property.”

The affected owner must allege his right, title, or ownership with sufficient certainty to warrant judicial interference.

The underlying nature of Plaintiff’s action is not altered by any request for declaratory relief.

See Parker v. Hunegnaw, 364 S.W.3d 398, 401-02 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.).

Evaluation is based on the nature of the dispute, despite any pleadings for a declaratory-judgment action.

Background, Argument and Legal Authorities

Joanna has maintained uninterrupted possession of her homestead since December 31, 2001 and is entitled to quiet title and peaceful possession under Texas law.

After the devastating financial crisis left millions of homeowners across the nation in turmoil, Deutsche Bank made a brazen move in 2011, dragging Joanna into federal court in an attempt to seize her home through foreclosure. But this so-called mortgage was nothing more than a predatory loan from a defunct lender—a legal nullity.

In a remarkable display of resilience, Joanna stood her ground and defeated Deutsche Bank not once, but twice. First, in a hard-fought bench trial in 2015, and again in late 2017 following an appeal. That’s right—twice Joanna Burke, alongside her late husband, thwarted Deutsche Bank’s relentless pursuit in federal court.

Yet, despite 22 years of unwavering residency in her retirement haven, these remorseless financial institutions, aided by their foreclosure mill counsel, persist in their heartless pursuit of an 85-year-old widow. The harassment continues unabated, a stark reminder of the ongoing plight faced by those victimized by the financial crisis.

Both former Magistrate Judge Stephen W. Smith and former Beck Redden Partner and counsel for the Burke’s Constance ‘Connie’ Pfeiffer (on remand) agreed on the record this court’s opinion was a manifest injustice to the Burkes’:-

“That’s correct, Your Honor. And I DO want to make an important clarification, which is WE DON’T necessarily AGREE that the FIFTH CIRCUIT was correct in REVERSING this Court’s judgment.”  (Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. v. Burke, CIVIL ACTION NO: H-11-1658, Doc. 126 (S.D. Tex. Feb 26, 2017)).

The Fifth Circuit misapplied over 200 years of precedential laws and opinions pertaining to property law when reversing the Burke’s victory at a bench trial against (‘straw man’) Deutsche Bank National Trust Company.

Indeed, former Magistrate Judge Smith ruled not once, but twice in favor of the Burkes, his last opinion stated in finality in Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. v. Burke, CIVIL ACTION NO: H-11-1658, at *13 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 21, 2017).

“Accordingly, the court concludes that neither Deutsche Bank nor any mortgage servicer acting on its behalf has the right to foreclose on the Burkes’ Kingwood residence. The court further concludes that at no time has Deutsche Bank possessed any right, title, or interest in the Burkes’ note and security interest executed on May 21, 2007.”.

However, relying upon an erroneous erie guess, and in violation of the rule of law and orderliness, the Fifth Circuit refused to apply binding Texas laws.

See; Judge Gregg Costa, 5th Circuit in Priester v. Deutsche Bank , No. 19-40158, at *3 (5th Cir. Oct. 9, 2020)

“Making an Erie guess, we concluded that the Priesters’ constitutional claim was barred by the statute of limitations.

Priester v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 708 F.3d 667, 674 (5th Cir. 2013).

Three years later—as, regrettably, sometimes happens—our guess turned out to be wrong when the Supreme Court of Texas interpreted Texas law differently and declined to apply the limitation period to the constitutional provision.

Wood v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 505 S.W.3d 542, 547 (Tex. 2016); see also Alexander v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 867 F.3d 593, 600 (5th Cir. 2017)

(noting that “Wood made plain that our ‘Erie guess’ in Priester was wrong”).”

The first opinion by the Fifth Circuit in the Priester case was rejected after oral argument and briefing at the Texas Supreme Court, a decision that was significantly influenced by Texas lawyer Constance Pfeiffer in the landmark Wood case cited above. It’s crucial for this court to acknowledge that Ms. Pfeiffer served as counsel for Joanna Burke during the remand in her federal case. Therefore, Ms. Pfeiffer’s legal assessment and critique of the appellate court in the transcript on remand from the Fifth Circuit in 2017 before Judge Smith and Mark Hopkins at the oral hearing in S.D. Texas Federal Court carry exceptional weight. Her argument was further bolstered by other esteemed legal experts, including Steve Berman of Hagens Berman, who represented Joanna upon return to the Fifth Circuit. In summary, Ms. Pfeiffer’s opinion holds significant authority and should be regarded as equally binding, as evidenced in the cited transcript (Doc. 126);

Ultimately, the Fifth Circuit declined to hear oral arguments upon the case’s return to their court. Furthermore, the three-panel judges refused to seek assistance from the Texas Supreme Court in determining Texas law. This decision was pivotal, as it concerned a fundamental liberty interest—the protection of a homestead—and directly contradicted the panel’s speculative interpretation, an erie guess. Regrettably, their legally flawed opinion would lead to a deficient and void order permitting foreclosure, as issued by the lower court on November 29, 2018.

In support of Texas law – and firmly rejecting federal interpretation – the appeals court in the PNC case discussed herein was left unimpressed by prior federal court opinions, stating:-

“We do not agree with this reading of our opinion.”; “We view the potential problems created by these [4 federal court] holdings as manifold.”; “We affirm the trial court’s judgment declaring any lien or power of sale held by PNC on the Howards’ property void and unenforceable.”

– notably, a case where Mark Hopkins and Shelley Hopkins are counsel of record; PNC Mortg. v. Howard, 651 S.W.3d 154 (Tex. App. 2021).

Since that date and relying upon Defendants  belief they have a valid and enforceable order of foreclosure (a view not shared by Joanna), Defendants have failed to act within the statutory time allowed – four years – thus barring their recent attempts to illegally foreclosure on Plaintiff’s home.

See; PNC Mortg. v. Howard, 668 S.W.3d 644, 647 n.7 (Tex. 2023) (“See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.035(a):-

“A person must bring suit for the recovery of real property under a real property lien or the foreclosure of a real property lien not later than four years after the day the cause of action accrues.”).”.  

Here, Deutsche Bank’s cause of action accrued the date they received the judgment of foreclosure they sought, which was on Nov. 29, 2018.

In short, they (i) did not bring suit within the intervening 4-year timeline, and; (ii) it is clear that they did not auction, sell, evict and/or obtain title to Plaintiff’s homestead during that time period either (a failure to recover the real property).

See; Holy Cross Church of God in Christ v. Wolf, 44 S.W.3d 562, 567 (Tex. 2001):-

“Under state law, a sale of real property under a power of sale in a mortgage or deed of trust that creates a real-property lien must be made not later than four years after the day the cause of action accrues.

 Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code § 16.035(b); McLemore v. Pacific Southwest Bank, 872 S.W.2d 286, 292 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1994, writ dism’d by agr.).

When this four-year period expires, the real-property lien and the power of sale to enforce the lien become void. Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code § 16.035(d).

This four-year limitations period can be suspended by filing a written agreement in the county clerk’s office where the real property is located.

Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code § 16.036.”.

Having perused the real property records, no such filing exists pertaining to Joanna’s homestead. As such, both the lien and the power of sale are void.

It is worth noting counsel Mark Hopkins has arrived in these proceedings for Defendants. He was on the losing side (PNC Bank) of this recent Texas Supreme Court decision favoring the homeowners, the Howards’, and where the Court chided their baseless and frivolous arguments during oral argument, and where Mark Hopkins was present.

That stated, Mark and Shelley Hopkins of Hopkins Law PLLC, as known and admitted counsel for PHH Mortgage Corporation and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company have already indicated in their first response they will present baseless, frivolous, and  fraudulent arguments in opposition. This court should reject the same, based on binding precedent from Texas highest court and relying upon distinguished Texas laws.

Indeed, Mark Hopkins admits in the federal court transcript Doc. 126 above (on remand from the 5th Cir.), that he knowingly withheld the servicer’s mortgage file from the Burkes. This is because he knew the file did not support his untruthful and fraudulent legal pleadings and arguments.

Given Deutsche Bank’s failure to act within the statutory time limit and their baseless arguments, Joanna seeks finality and relief from the court. She urges the court to reject any further harassment or attempts to illegally sell or evict her from her home of over two decades.

In support, Joanna expands on her factual argument below:-

Accrual

Under its terms, the purported note would mature in June 2037, the month the last installment was due. See; Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code § 16.035(e). However, as stated in Joanna’s operative petition, Onewest Bank FSB’s letter dated Feb. 10, 2011 allegedly accelerated this maturity date.

Abandonment

Abandonment is not implicated in this case.  Joanna has presented conclusive evidence that Onewest Bank, FSB accelerated the note on Feb 10, 2011. As such, any cause of action on the note accrued on that date and that limitations then began to run. See; NSL Prop. Holdings, LLC v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, No. 02-16-00397-CV, at *14 (Tex. App. Aug. 17, 2017):-

“the January 2010 letter—which is replete with language inconsistent with the then-present right to foreclose—compels the conclusion that the lender abandoned the acceleration.”.

Here, the opposite is true. Onewest Bank FSB’s 2011 letter  is replete with language consistent with the then-present right to foreclose, compelling the conclusion that acceleration occurred and abandonment is not implicated in this case.

Acceleration

Section 51.002 establishes the procedures for conducting a foreclosure sale. Joanna’s summary judgment evidence conclusively establishes the note’s acceleration date.

As there is no other contrary agreement between the parties, a clear and unequivocal notice of intent to accelerate and a notice of acceleration is enough to conclusively establish acceleration.

Therefore, Joanna’s evidence conclusively established the date its purported note was accelerated and thus the date of Deutsche Bank’s cause of action accrued.

Further, as the cause of action accrued after the FDIC had purportedly sold Indymac Federal Bank, FSB to Onewest Bank, FSB on March 19, 2019, and then purportedly MERS assigned it to Onewest Bank, FSB, on Jan. 20, 2011, the Texas four-year statute of limitation is applicable to foreclosure actions which govern this case.

See; Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. v. Burke, CIVIL ACTION NO: H-11-1658, Doc. 133 p.4-6 (S.D. Tex. Dec 21, 2017);  Holy Cross Church of God in Christ v. Wolf, 44 S.W.3d 562, 569, 574 (Tex. 2001).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, based on the overwhelming evidence and legal authority presented, Joanna Burke’s request for relief should be granted, bringing an end to her prolonged ordeal with Deutsche Bank and Defendants.

VERIFICATION, PRAYER & RELIEF

In closing, I, Joanna Burke, as Plaintiff with due authority and competency, resident of Kingwood in the livable forest of Harris County, Texas, born on November 25, 1938 (85 years old), in Kirkintilloch, Scotland, United Kingdom, and currently holding U.S. Citizenship, a valid State of Texas Driver License (last 3 digits are 738), and a Social Security Card (last 3 digits are 874), do solemnly declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are true and correct. This verified declaration, made under Chapter 132, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, holds significant weight in legal precedent, as evident in ACI Design Build Contractors Inc. v. Loadholt, 605 S.W.3d 515, 518 (Tex. App. 2020), McMahan v. Izen, No. 01-20-00233-CV, at *15-17 (Tex. App. Sep. 2, 2021), and In re Whitfield, No. 03-21-00170-CR, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App. Nov. 10, 2021).

JUDGMENT

Accordingly, plaintiff Joanna Burke respectfully requests that she receives judgment in her favor, and other relief requested above, that she recovers recover costs as allowed by this court and in law, and that Joanna Burke have and recover all other and further relief to which she may be entitled under Texas laws.

RESPECTFULLY submitted this 9th day of March, 2024.

ORDER

MAR 9, 2024

Plaintiff Joanna Burke’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Quiet Title came on for consideration before this Court on ________________.

After considering the Motion and all supporting and opposing documents, and having heard oral argument of counsel, and otherwise being duly advised on all matters presented on this cause,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED; and

FURTHER ORDERED that any debt, note, lien or foreclosure deed is void and a nullity it Texas law; and

FURTHER ORDERED that Joanna Burke is entitled to peaceful possession of her homestead without interruption or harassment, and free from any debt or incumbrances; and

FURTHER ORDERED that defendants PHH Mortgage Corporation, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, AVT Title Services, LLC, and/or their agents have no valid or existing legal interest in Joanna Burke’s real property located at 46 Kingwood Greens Drive, Kingwood, Texas, 77339, legally described as;

LOT FIFTY-SIX (56), IN BLOCK TWO (2) OF KINGWOOD GREENS VILLAGE, SECTION FOUR (4), AN ADDITION IN HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN FILM CODE NO.397052 OF THE MAP RECORDS OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.

hereafter the “Property”.

and they are ORDERED to cease and desist from any and all actions, lawsuits and attempts to foreclosure of the property with immediate effect; and

FURTHER ORDERED that Joanna Burke is entitled to recovery of her court costs and expenses allowed in law for these proceedings and related proceedings; and

FURTHER ORDERED that Joanna Burke’s petition and remaining claims will proceed to a jury trial, and where damages may be assessed separately, including the background and facts pertaining to this interlocutory ORDER, and;

FURTHER ORDERED that this interlocutory ORDER is not appealable and any attempts to appeal will result in monetary sanctions payable to Joanna Burke in the sum of $20,000, and $5,000 to non-profit legal justice advocates Blogger Inc.,  payable within 10 days.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated this____ day of___________, 2024

 

________________________

Kristen Brauchle Hawkins
District Court Judge

Harris County Judge Tami Craft Caught Defaming a Lawyer in Good Standing With State Bar of Texas

Texas Lawyer “Andy Taylor is a real clown and I will forever recuse myself from ALL cases that he files…He’s a disgrace to the entire Bar”.

Outlaw Judge Tami Craft Grants TRO Bond At Dec. 28, 2023 Hearing Against AVT Title Services, et al

The judicial misconduct continues as Wiseman obtains TRO against AVT Title Services denied 24 hrs earlier to pro se 85-yr-old Joanna Burke.

Texas Jay’s Sprawlin’ Opinion on Unlawful Debt Collectin’ for Florida Loan Sharks and Lawyers

Founder of LIT’s intervention has Debt Collectin’ Lawyer Clyde Jay Jackson of Burford Perry over-zealously advocating for his law firms.

Operation Elder Abuse: 22 Years Later It’s Time for Peaceful Possession and Quiet Title to Her Homestead
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top