OUTLAW JUDGE TAMI CRAFT SELF-RECUSES AFTER VIOLATING EVERY TEXAS LAW, RULE AND CIVIL PROCEDURE
JAN 25, 2023
On Dec. 11, 2023, LIT’s founder, Mark Burke, filed a motion to disqualify Judge Tamika Craft-Demming, aka Tami Craft.
She had 3 days to decide – mandatory rule. Craft failed to do anything, rather blanking the motion. Thereafter, she went on a tirade of retaliatory acts.
First, the court refused to accept the filing, claiming the exhibits had to be renamed. Mark refused, citing to prior examples of naming convention for exhibits accepted by the court. The court would then rename all exhibits as “Exhibit”.
Then on Dec. 27, 2023 she’d be the assigned ancillary judge for party Joanna Burke in her request for a TRO in case; 202386973 – BURKE, JOANNA vs. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY (Court 011). At the oral hearing she DENIED the TRO without reason, despite the overwhelming evidence supporting the TRO. See signed ORDER denying TRO, dated Dec. 27, 2023.
Next, on submission day – Jan. 8, 2024, Mark intervened in the matter; 202366239 – IDEA 247 INC vs. EPPS, RAYMOND (A/K/A RAY EPPS) (Court 189) and the court would GRANT Idea’s motion to STRIKE the INTERVENTION, despite the objections and request for hearings which were also blanked by the court. The order was signed at 3.35 pm.
Also, at 1.16 pm earlier that day, the court – in the case 202311266 – KRUCKEMEYER, ROBERT J vs. BLOGGER INC D/B/A LAWIN TEXAS.COM (Court 189) – would email Mark falsely claiming “The courts do not have a record of a Proposed Order for the following setting. Please file one or contact the court if there is one on file.”. This was a ruse and Mark wittingly chose to ignore the premeditated invite to respond.
As detailed below, today, Jan. 23, 2023, the court and Outlaw Craft would contradict their own rule by holding the hearing (no proposed order, no hearing) and 3 minutes later stating it was PASSED. Shortly thereafter, it is clear from the online docket, Craft would then enter her self recusal – once her trail of destruction was complete.
Let it be known, this is only the beginning, Outlaw Craft, not the end of your ongoing relationship with Mark Burke and LIT.
See; Barnhill v. Agnew, No. 12-12-00080-CV, at *2 (Tex. App. Oct. 16, 2013)
(“When a party files a motion to recuse a trial judge, the responding judge, regardless of whether the motion complies with the requisites of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18a, must, within three business days after the motion is filed (1) sign and file with the clerk an order of recusal or (2) sign and file with the clerk an order referring the motion to the regional presiding judge.
See TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a(f)(1).
Failure to comply with the rule renders void any actions taken subsequent to the violation.
In re A.R.,236 S.W.3d 460, 477 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2007, no pet.).”)
Notably, no email from the Court advising of this sua sponte recusal
Absent from the Docket as at Jan. 23 - An Order re Self-Recusal by Outlaw Tami Craft
Immediately after hearing...
3 minutes...
In Foreclosure, Your Attorney Can Be Counsel or Trustee, But Not Both
EXCEPT IN THE BANANA REPUBLIC KNOWN AS TEXAS (LIT COMMENT)
by: Lance P. Martin of Ward and Smith, P.A.
OCT 20, 2022 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: JAN 17, 2024
FIVE YEARS AGO, THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AMENDED THE FORECLOSURE STATUTE TO PROHIBIT AN ATTORNEY WHO SERVES AS TRUSTEE OR SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEE FROM REPRESENTING THE NOTEHOLDER OR THE BORROWER DURING A FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING.
In the old days, lenders often could rely on counsel simultaneously to conduct the foreclosure and represent their interests.
These days, a non-judicial foreclosure under the power-of-sale provision in a deed of trust requires two parties — a substitute trustee and lender’s counsel.
If there was any doubt about the new law, a recent decision from the North Carolina Court of Appeals invalidated a foreclosure because the lender’s counsel also acted as trustee.
The Court of Appeals held that a trustee must be neutral and can’t also serve as counsel for the lender.
In 2014, Mickey, Wayne, and Sally Simmons refinanced a mortgage with the Groces. Attorney Matthews closed the loan for the Groces. Two years later, the Simmonses fell behind on their payments, and Matthews sent them a demand letter as counsel for the Groces. When the Simmonses failed to reinstate their loan, Matthews commenced a foreclosure special proceeding, filing a notice of hearing and other foreclosure pleadings that he signed as “Trustee.” (Matthews was the original trustee under the deeds of trust.) The Yadkin County Clerk of Court entered an order allowing a foreclosure sale. Matthews, as Trustee, held the foreclosure sale, where the Groces placed the highest bid. Matthews, as Trustee, then tendered a Trustee’s Deed to the Groces.
One year later, the Simmonses moved the court to set aside the foreclosure sale. The Clerk denied the motion. The Simmonses appealed. The Court of Appeals held that the Clerk had abused her discretion and failed to follow the law, and directed the lower court to set aside the foreclosure.
The Court of Appeals held that Matthews committed errors of form and substance. As to form, he did not include the statutorily-required statement of neutrality in the notice of foreclosure hearing. The trustee is a fiduciary to both the lender and the borrower. He or she may not advocate for either side during the foreclosure hearing and must use diligence and fairness in conducting the sale. It’s easy to understand why Matthews didn’t include the statement – he couldn’t make it because he wasn’t neutral. He was also serving as counsel for the lender and had sent demand letters to the Simmonses.
As to substance, the Court of Appeals pointed to the law that took effect in 2017. It clearly states: “An attorney who serves as the trustee or substitute trustee shall not represent either the noteholders or the interests of the borrower while initiating a foreclosure proceeding.” It was indisputable that Matthews was doing double-duty as trustee and counsel for the noteholders.
This was an unforced error by Matthews and the Groces. It appears from the facts they had the right to foreclose. Perhaps they were nostalgic for the old ways when counsel routinely wore two hats during foreclosure. The dual role was efficient, cost-effective, and fine for many foreclosures. If the foreclosure was uncontested, or if the borrower attended hearings solely to seek a continuance (i.e., to provide time to refinance the debt), a lawyer could serve this dual role without violating his ethical obligations or his fiduciary duty.
But those days are over, and the Groces – almost three years after the foreclosure sale – now will need to start from scratch. If they sold the property since then, they will have a real mess on their hands. The takeaway for noteholders is to follow the law and not try to save money by having your counsel serve as trustee. Retain an independent substitute trustee and pay for their services.
Urban Row Holdings, LLC v. U.S. Bank Trust National Association
(4:24-cv-00021)
District Court, S.D. Texas
JAN 3, 2024 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: JAN 17, 2024
The same day as dismissal with prejudice, home is listed on HAR
The real property records for the home show Kevin Zarate transfer the home to Urban with a note for $360,500 with RFLF 4 LLC on Nov. 1, 2022.
Less than 24 hrs after LIT called out corrupt Mackie Wolf and the Catholic Bandit Cronenwett, this happened:
JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
Pursuant to an agreement reached between the parties, Plaintiff Urban Row Holdings, LLC (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee of Grove Funding I Trust (“Defendant”), according to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(c) and 41(a)(1)(ii), file this Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice and show:
Plaintiff and Defendant respectfully request that the Court sign an order of voluntary dismissal as to the above-referenced action ordering:
- That this Joint Stipulation of Dismissal is granted; and
- That all of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant in this action are dismissed with prejudice; and
- That each party is to bear its respective costs and attorney’s
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff and Defendant stipulate as provided above and pray that the Court sign an order granting such stipulation. Plaintiff and Defendant request all other relief to which they are entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
Supplement
Removed to federal court
U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:24-cv-00021
Urban Row Holdings, LLC v. U.S. Bank Trust National Association et al Assigned to: Judge Andrew S Hanen
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 290 Real Property: Other Jurisdiction: Diversity |
Plaintiff | ||
Urban Row Holdings, LLC | represented by | Bruce W Akerly Akerly Law PLLC 2785 Rockbrook Drive Suite 201 Lewisville, TX 75067 469-444-1878 Fax: 469-444-1801 Email: bakerly@akerlylaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
V. | ||
Defendant | ||
U.S. Bank Trust National Association as Trustee of Grove Funding I Trust |
represented by | Mark Douglas Cronenwett Mackie Wolf Zientz & Mann, P.C. 14160 N. Dallas Parkway, Ste. 900 Dallas, TX 75254 214-635-2650 Fax: 214-635-2686 Email: mcronenwett@mwzmlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
Defendant | ||
AVT Title Services, LLC | ||
Defendant | ||
RF Mortgage Services Corporation | ||
Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
---|---|---|
01/03/2024 | 1 | NOTICE OF REMOVAL (Filing fee $ 405 receipt number ATXSDC-31005031) filed by U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee of Grove Funding I Trust. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Cronenwett, Mark) (Entered: 01/03/2024) |
01/03/2024 | 2 | CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee of Grove Funding I Trust, filed.(Cronenwett, Mark) (Entered: 01/03/2024) |
01/04/2024 | 3 | ORDER for Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference and Order to Disclose Interested Persons. Initial Conference set for 3/21/2024 at 10:30 AM by video before Magistrate Judge Peter Bray. (Signed by Judge Andrew S Hanen) Parties notified.(BrandisIsom, 4) (Entered: 01/04/2024) |
01/05/2024 | 4 | CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by Urban Row Holdings, LLC, filed.(Akerly, Bruce) (Entered: 01/05/2024) |
01/05/2024 | 5 | DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Urban Row Holdings, LLC, filed.(Akerly, Bruce) (Entered: 01/05/2024) |
01/11/2024 | 6 | SUPPLEMENT to 1 Notice of Removal by U.S. Bank Trust National Association, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Cronenwett, Mark) (Entered: 01/11/2024) |
PACER Service Center | |||
---|---|---|---|
Transaction Receipt | |||
01/17/2024 14:58:23 |
202388045 –
URBAN ROW HOLDINGS LLC vs. U S BANK TRUST NA, AVT TITLE SERVICES, ET AL
(Court 269)
DEC 27, 2023 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: JAN 2, 2024
At the TRO hearing, the appointed ancillary judge was Tami Craft. The plaintiff is Robert Wiseman of Wiseman Homes, and related entity here, Urban Row Group. Defendants include AVT Title Services, LLC. Most of the docket is sealed, including petition, affidavit etc., in violation of Texas laws. Judge Craft granted the TRO.
MACKIE WOLF AND THE CATHOLIC BANDITS
Two years ago, SDTX BK Judge Isgur labeled the bandits at the Foreclosure Wolves as despicable for a proof of claim which was late, false and despicable. Despite this, Mackie Wolf’s still free to commit these abhorrent crimes and abuses. #TWO pic.twitter.com/IoinFhRmB9— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) December 24, 2023