Baker Donelson

Operation Elder Abuse: Mackie Wolf’s March 5 Bid Report Denial by Catholic Bandit Disingenuous

LIT analyzed prior Bid reports as a comparison and homes which had a bid amount were sold at the auction. LIT also has additional evidence.


MAR 10, 2024


MAR 6, 2024

Mackie Wolf Zientz & Mann, P.C.
14160 North Dallas Parkway
Suite 900, Dallas, TX, 75254

March 6, 2024


My references:
Case No.: 23-3593, Court of Appeals for the 8th Cir.
Case: Burke v. PHH Mortgage Corporation et al
Case No.: No.: 202359141, Court 234, Harris County District Court
Case No.: 202386973, Court 011, Harris County District Court

Your references:
Loan No.: ending in 1333

Dear Sir or Madam

Re: Violation of Automatic Stay  In re Joanna Burke – Case No: 24-30885,
United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas

I, Joanna Burke, filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 13 in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Texas. The petition was assigned the case number 24-30885 at 10:42 hrs on Friday, March 1, 2024. I made you aware of the bankruptcy filing by email and fax on March 2, but you willfully and maliciously continued with the void sale.

I have been made aware from your website list of sales (under Texas Investors tab) that you violated this second automatic bankruptcy stay, and purportedly sold my home at the March 5, 2024 auction, screenshot below;

See; Section 362(c)(3) – if a debtor had a prior case pending within one year of his or her current bankruptcy case, the automatic stay goes into effect upon the new filing.

A bankruptcy stay “is automatically triggered when the bankruptcy petition is filed whether or not a party or the non-bankruptcy court learns of it prior to taking action against the debtor.” Paine v. Sealy, 956 S.W.2d 803, 805 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no pet.). “[A]ny action taken against a debtor in violation of an automatic bankruptcy stay is void, not merely voidable.”

The automatic stay does not occur after a third filing, see; Dixon v. Federal National Mortgage Association, Civil Action No. H-06-2799, Bankruptcy Case No. 06-31692, at *5 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2006).

The actions for such a violation are subject to mandatory damages/sanctions. See; In re Webb, 472 B.R. 665 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2012).

“It is irrelevant to a court faced with imposing § 362(k) sanctions whether a defendant actually intended to violate the automatic stay. If the defendant had knowledge of the bankruptcy case and took a deliberate act in violation of the automatic stay, a bankruptcy court must award the plaintiff actual damages, including costs and attorney’s fees. In re Hill, 222 B.R. 119, 123 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1998).

“[A] willful violation of the stay can be found from an act of omission and does not require an act of commission.” Banks, 253 B.R. at 31.

Therefore, if a creditor has an affirmative duty to halt a pending state court action, failure to do so can result in a willful violation of the stay. A creditor’s good faith belief that its intentional actions did not violate the automatic stay is not a defense to a § 362(k) action.

TranSouth Fin’l Corp. v. Sharon (In re Sharon ), 234 B.R. 676, 688 (6th Cir.BAP1999).

This is true even if the creditor’s belief is based on “a mistake of law or legal dispute regarding its rights.”

In re Johnson, 253 B.R. 857, 861 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 2000); Fleet Mortg. Group, Inc., 196 F.3d at 268–69

(“A good faith belief in a right to the property is not relevant to a determination of whether the violation was willful.”);

Sansone v. Walsworth ( In re Sansone ), 99 B.R. 981, 987 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.1989)

(“Not even a ‘good faith’ mistake of law or a ‘legitimate dispute’ as to legal rights relieve a willful violator of the consequences of the act [under § 362(k) ].”).

A party who has violated the automatic stay “cannot defend against liability for a stay violation by claiming a lack of continuing harm. That is, a compensable stay violation will exist once a resulting injury from the stay violation occurs….” In re Russell, 448 B.R. 212, 216 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 2011).”

This is a formal notice by me, Joanna Burke, requiring you to provide me with written confirmation that you have rescinded the void auction of my homestead at 46 Kingwood Greens Dr., Kingwood, TX, 77339 by 1700 hours today, March 6, 2024, and that you will record this correction on your website, as well as the relevant state or federal agencies, branches, courts, and departments you have noticed or filed any false or void legal paperwork. This should include my bankruptcy case cited above and my Harris County District Court case, styled 202386973 – BURKE, JOANNA vs. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY (Court 011).

Given the urgency of this matter, I emphasize that this is a one-time email. For the record, I have communicated this demand via email to the addresses listed below and to MW’s fax machine. As requested, I expect a response by no later than 1700 hrs on Wednesday, March 6, 2024 upon your receipt of this emailed letter, confirming the cancellation of the scheduled sale. A copy should be emailed to and/or faxed to +1 (866) 705-0576.

List of email recipients:

Your cooperation is mandatory, to ensure that all your actions are in compliance with the bankruptcy laws. As such, your immediate recission and notice of this void sale is mandatory, in law.

With prejudice.


Joanna Burke
46 Kingwood Greens Dr.,
Kingwood, Texas, 77339
Fax: (1) 866-705-0576

Elder abuse in Texas includes physical abuse, mental abuse and emotional abuse. A variety of programs in Texas ensure that senior citizens will not be abused or taken advantage of in any form. Anyone convicted of elder abuse will be charged with a felony in either the first, second, or third degree, depending on the circumstances of the abuse. Texas residents are required by law to report any known elder abuse. Those who don’t will be convicted of a misdemeanor.


MAR 6, 2024

As soon as MW received the letter from Joanna Burke requesting the auction be rescinded, the website page at Mackie Wolf would remove the Bid Report and prematurely replace it with the April auctions scheduled to-date. It hasn’t been updated since.

Foreclosure Wolf Mark Cronenwett for US Bank Takes a Bite at Lamell’s Time Expired Argument

This is a state case not a federal case as the PNC v. Howard Supreme Court decision affirmed. It has no place being decided relying upon erie.

Operation Elder Abuse: PHH Mortgage Corporation and Deutsche Bank Judge Shopping Continues

Forum Shopping aka Judge Shopping is a disease in Texas courts says Congress, demanding this form of case assignment be outlawed.

LIT’s ON IT: Expedited Foreclosure Lawsuit filed by DBNTCO and ONITY aka PHH Mortgage Corp. v. Hummel

LIT’s ON IT with ONITY as the grave robbers and foreclosure wolves of Texas try again a decade later to foreclose on the same home.

Operation Elder Abuse: Mackie Wolf’s March 5 Bid Report Denial by Catholic Bandit Disingenuous
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

To Top