Wall Street’s Catamount Properties Invokes LIT’s Legal Declarations Averring Rampant TX Title Deed Fraud

This case study revolves our mission statement at LIT, an organization advocating for victims of predatory lending and exposing fraudulent activities related to wrongful home seizures driven by Wall Street’s greed.

LIT’s investigations reveal a disturbing twist in the narrative, as a select cartel of foreclosure defense lawyers and their clients, purportedly aiding distressed homeowners, are accused of exploiting the legal system for personal financial gain.

One highlighted relationship in the case involves Anthony Welch, a convicted felon operating under DBAs Mr Properties and Superior Consulting Group, and Rhonda Ross, a Houston lawyer who previously faced judicial admonishment for her role.

Together, it is understood they run websites like TexasEvictionStoppers.com, reaching out to homeowners facing foreclosure with promises of halting the process and securing them an additional 6 to 12 months in their homes. This website offers no legal disclosures, disclaimers or privacy policy. Nor does it identify the business entity or owners and whether they have any prior background or licenses to offer these services in Texas. The website merely claims “We are a team of professionals…”

And, upon review of their old website, in part it clearly states;

“Assumption/Lease-Option. Most loans these days are no longer assumable. The average mortgage now contains a “due on sale” clause by which the borrower agrees to pay the loan off entirely if and when they transfer the property. However, if you are facing foreclosure, you might be able to persuade your lender to modify your loan, delete this clause and allow another buyer to assume your loan. The lender may want to assess the new buyer’s qualifications, but it can be a win-win-win option for all.”

In short, Welch, Ross, et al know they are filing frivolous lawsuits repeatedly in Texas courts.

The court system in Texas is accused of affording these alleged abusers more time and resources than the actual victims of wrongful foreclosure. Homeowners, in desperate situations, often trust these individuals, unaware of their questionable practices.

Moreover, LIT alleges the existence of a syndicated network of so-called “foreclosure defense” lawyers, protected by the judiciary despite being highlighted by LIT over months and actual case studies. This protection seemingly allows these lawyers to continue their activities unchecked.

LIT has attempted to engage foreclosure mill attorneys, representing banks, questioning their indifference to the fraud and perjury committed by these title deed scammers.

However, these attempts at communication have been consistently ignored, leading LIT to assert that the foreclosure mill attorneys may be complicit in these activities, possibly avoiding any association with defense lawyers to shield themselves from any labeling as “rats”, or the fact they know more than LIT does about the internal relationships between the parties, lawyers and the judges themselves.

The latest filing by Catamount is a testament to LIT’s work and also after we called out “Despicable Damian” of HWA, who represents Amcap Mortgage and where we opined in a related article update on Oct. 4, 2023:

“Foreclosure mill attorney Abreo fails to zealously advocate for his client, nor does he even mention the prior lawsuits by Jackson/Superior Consulting.

The purpose of this lawsuit is clear – delay foreclosure. The court should be labeling Jackson’s pro se lawsuits as vexatious and applying prefiling injunctions and sanctions, if they were being consistent.

However, as LIT has made clear, Jackson is tied to the court by family relations, so this will not happen.”.

Recent events in the legal landscape suggest a potential shift within the courts, marked by the unexpected resignation of foreclosure lawyer Robert “Clay” Vilt, a figure previously accused of aiding and abetting the theft of distressed citizens’ homes. Vilt, known for his involvement in fraudulent activities, had allegedly collaborated with others, including Justina De Pasquale.

However, a court pleading filed under penalty of perjury, claiming Vilt’s resignation, was later revealed to be another instance of fraud on the court. Contrary to the filing, Vilt remains active as a lawyer at the State Bar of Texas, raising questions about the veracity of legal proceedings and the mechanisms in place for monitoring attorney conduct.

LIT, committed to monitoring court activities, reports a prevailing sentiment by the government and aided by the most dangerous branch, the judiciary, to swiftly shut down our non-profit media organization. Ongoing legal cases and actions are specifically targeting LIT’s founder, his businesses and family.

Despite these challenges, LIT expresses determination to continue the fight for justice into 2024. LIT pledges to expose the injustices stemming from the 2008 financial crisis, including the rampant title deed fraud in Texas, and promising to publish information on atrocities occurring in courts nationwide.

Our legal blogging platform at LIT, calls for support in its mission to be the voice for real victims of foreclosure fraud. We encourage individuals, businesses and readers to rally behind our non-profit cause.

LIT seeks stakeholders assistance in exposing and confronting criminal scammers and their legal representatives who engage in fraudulent practices.

By advocating for transparency and justice, LIT aims to empower those affected by foreclosure fraud and hold wrongdoers accountable for their actions.

COMES NOW, Defendant Catamount Properties 2018, LLC (“Catamount”) and files this Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Anthony Welch d/b/a Superior Consulting Group’s (“Plaintiff”) claims against Catamount pursuant to TEX. R. CIV. P. 91a, and in support hereof respectfully shows the Court the following:

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

1.                  Plaintiff was not a party to the deed of trust or loan agreement upon which the foreclosure sale of the subject property was based. Black letter law in Texas is that Plaintiff was simply not entitled to any of the notices (or lack thereof) as alleged in the Petition, and the only person who was entitled to the notices, is not complaining. There is no basis in fact or law whereby Plaintiff, who had no right to receive notices, can now avoid the foreclosure sale.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2.                  This is the second suit Plaintiff has filed tie up title to the real property located at 15407 Arrowhead Ridge Drive, Humble, Texas 77396, and more particularly described as:

LOT FORTY-EIGHT (48), IN BLOCK ONE (1), OF BALMORAL PARK LAKES EAST, SECTION 1, A SUBDIVISION IN HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN FILM CODE NO. 679291 OF THE MAP RECORDS OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.

(the “Property”).

3.                  The first suit was filed on March 31, 2023, a day after a deed was executed transferring the Property from the prior owner, Anthony Jackson, to Plaintiff Welch.

Welch initially obtained a temporary restraining order preventing the scheduled April foreclosure sale, then the suit was removed to federal court in Cause No. 4:23-CV-03165 in the Southern District of Texas (the “Federal Case”).

Presently, Welch is facing a motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss from the lenders in the Federal Case.

Catamount is not a party to the Federal Case.1

4.                  The factual portion of Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition sets forth the following alleged factual background:

1.                  Plaintiff, Anthony Welch dba Superior Consulting Group is the owner of a tract of land described as Lot Forty-Eight (48) in Block One (1) of Balmoral Park Lakes East, Section 1, a subdivision in Harris County, Texas according to the map or plat thereof, recorded in film code 679291 of the map records of Harris County, Texas (Property).

The street address of the property is 15407 Arrowhead Ridge Drive, Humble, TX 77396.

2.                   Defendants, Planet Home Lending, Prestige Default Services, LLC and Auction.com, Inc. conducted a fraudulent and wrongful foreclosure sale of the

1 For what it is worth, sadly, this is not Plaintiff’s first rodeo.

Courts have already sanctioned Welch for filing similar, frivolous lawsuits.

See Welch v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 01-21-00704-CV, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 1257, at *20 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.], Feb. 28, 2023, no pet.)

(affirming the trial court’s grant of sanctions against Anthony Welch);

Superior Consulting Group & Deborah Nevarez v. Morgan Stanley Mortg., 2021 Tex. Dist. LEXIS 19811, *4 (Harris Cty. Dist. Ct. Nov. 9, 2021)

(ordering Superior to pay $11,000 in sanctions for filing multiple frivolous lawsuits to delay foreclosure).

property on September 5, 2023, and allegedly sold the property to the Defendant, Catamount Properties 2018, LLC.

3.                   Plaintiff, nor the prior owner and mortgage holder received any Notice of Sale, nor Notice of Intent to Accelerate as required by Texas law before Defendants sought foreclosure.

Additionally, Planet has not provided proof of the current amount owed either through a payment history or detailed description of outstanding debt.

The Notice of Sale was not posted properly at the Harris County Courthouse nor recorded among the property records of Harris County.

4.                   It has been reported based upon the Substitute Trustee’s Deed that the alleged sale was conducted on September 5, 2023, by the Defendant, Auction. Com, Inc.

The Defendant Auction.com, Inc. is a California Corporation purportedly conducting business under the assumed name of Auction.com.

On September 5, 2023, the Defendant did not have a valid assumed name certificate on file with the Harris County Clerk or the Texas Secretary of State.

4. [sic] As such, Defendants Planet did not have standing to seek non-judicial foreclosure of the property that was allegedly scheduled and wrongfully held on September 5, 2023.

…

14.               Plaintiff purchased the property in March of 2023 having acquired the interest in the property from the prior owner, Anthony Jackson.

Plaintiff was not served with any of the foreclosure papers nor did Defendant Planet through its counsel advise the Plaintiff’s counsel of the foreclosure sale even though inquiries has been made for the payoff amount.

15.               During the process of purchasing the Property, Anthony Jackson executed a note in the amount of $295,948.00 as well as a Deed of Trust with Amcap as the mortgage holder.

16.               Sometime thereafter, Defendant Planet became the mortgage servicer.

17.               Instead of following proper procedure pursuant to the Texas Property Code as well as the related Deed of Trust, Defendants Planet and Prestige failed to send a notice of default, provide the opportunity to cure or a notice of intent to accelerate the debt to the borrower and to the Plaintiff prior to sending the notice of acceleration of debt.

Instead, Defendants violated the Plaintiff’s due process rights by simply accelerating the debt and conducting a wrongful and secret foreclosure sale.

Defendants Planet and Prestige failed to post and record the notice of sale in two places at the Harris County Courthouse and then conducted a secret foreclosure sale.

The foreclosure sale that was illegally held by Defendants and should be void as a matter of law because Defendants held an illegal sale.

18.               Plaintiff obtained a copy of the notice of sale that was prepared by Defendant, Prestige and the Plaintiff states that is defective and failed to provide the borrower or the Plaintiff with an effective mechanism to reach the Substitute Trustee.

19.               At this time several foreclosure posting companies in the Harris County area were contacted and none have reported the posting of this foreclosure and subsequent sale to Defendant Catamount.

The purchase price by Defendant Catamount is far below the market value of the property, giving proof to the Plaintiff’s belief that the sale never took place as set forth in the Substitute Trustee’s Deed.

20.               The alleged “secret” sale was conducted by Auction.com supposedly at the Bayou Event Center on September 5, 2023.

There has been no time given for the sale as required by the Texas Property in the Substitute Trustee’s Deed and Affidavit.

Auction.com has in the past been the assumed name for Auction.com, Inc., but on September 5, 2023, there was no valid assumed name certificate on file with the Texas Secretary of State, thus essentially making auction.com a non-existent entity wrongfully conducting business in Texas.

See attached Exhibit A, verification from the Texas Secretary of State.

21.               Plaintiff seeks to set aside the wrongful and illegal foreclosure sale that claims to have been held on September 5, 2023.

Defendant Catamount is colluding with Defendants Planet, Auction and Prestige by seeking possession of the property as having allegedly purchased the property at the “secret sale”.

5.                  Once the chronological order of Plaintiff’s statement of facts is set forth, the fundamental issues barring Plaintiff’s right to recovery become clearly apparent:

·         First, non-party Anthony Jackson purchased the Property.

As part of the purchase, non-party Anthony Jackson executed a note in the amount of $295,948 in favor of Amcap, secured by a deed of trust.2

Plaintiff Welch was not involved with the Property at this juncture.

·         THEN, Anthony Jackson sold the Property to Welch.3

·         The lender noticed and set the Property for foreclosure sale.4

·         Catamount bought the Property on September 5, 2023.

6.                  As a result of this series of events, Plaintiff has cast blanket allegations against

2 Exhibit A, Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition at ¶ 15.

3 Exhibit A at ¶ 14.

4 Exhibit A at ¶ 18. Ironically, Plaintiff claims notices were not properly sent, posted, or recorded, but Plaintiff also seemingly has the notices and claims they were just deficient.

“Defendants” seemingly claiming Catamount:

(1) committed statutory fraud in a real estate transaction;

(2) committed common law fraud;

and

(3) seeking to quiet title to the Property (now held by Catamount).

Catamount (like Plaintiff) is a complete stranger to the note and deed of trust arrangement between Jackson, Amcap, and Planet.

Catamount’s first and only involvement in this matter is that it showed up and bought the Property at the foreclosure sale.

Frankly, the only claim that could plausibly make sense against Catamount is the suit to quiet title, but due to Plaintiff’s allegations of the claims against “Defendants”, Catamount must address each potential cause of action.

ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES

I.                   Legal Standard.

7.                  Rule 91a allows a party to move to dismiss a claim brought against it if the claim has “no basis in law or fact.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 91a.1.

If a claimant’s factual allegations, taken as true, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from those allegations do not entitle the claimant to the relief sought, the claim has no basis in law.

TEX. R. CIV. P. 91a.1.

Two examples of the meaning of “no basis in law”:

a.                   The petition alleges too few facts to show a viable, legally cognizable right to relief. In other words, inadequate content may justify dismissal because it does not provide fair notice of a legally cognizable claim for relief.

b.                  The petition alleges additional facts that, if true, bar recovery.

See Reaves v. City of Corpus Christi, 518 S.W.3d 594, 608 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2017, no pet.); Stallworth v. Ayers, 510 S.W.3d 187, 190 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, no pet.); Guillory v. Seaton, LLC, 470 S.W.3d 237, 240 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, pet. denied); DeVoll v. Demonbreun, No. 04-14-00116-CV, 2014 WL 7440314, at *3 (Tex. App.— San Antonio Dec. 31, 2014, no pet.).

8.                  A claim has no basis in fact if “no reasonable person could believe the facts pleaded,” which is similar to a legal-sufficiency review.

TEX. R. CIV. P. 91a.1; City of Dall. v. Sanchez, 494 S.W.3d 722, 724 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam);

see Drake v. Chase Bank, No. 02-13- 00340-CV, 2014 WL 6493411, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 20, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.).

The trial court’s factual inquiry is limited to “the pleading of the cause of action” and any pleading exhibits permitted by Rule 59, which are those attached to or copied into the plaintiff’s pleadings.

TEX. R. CIV. P. 91a.6, 59; see Bethel v. Quilling, Selander, Lownds, Winslett & Moser, P.C., 595 S.W.3d 651, 656 (Tex. 2020).

Complaints should be liberally construed in favor of the claimant, and all well-pleaded facts should be taken as true. Id. However, “threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”

GoDaddy.com, LLC v. Toups, 429 S.W.3d 752, 754-55 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2014, pet. denied)(quoting, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

II.                Plaintiff’s Statutory Fraud Claim against Catamount has no Basis in Fact.

9.                  Plaintiff’s statutory fraud claim is premised on the textbook conclusory allegation that Defendants

“(1) made a false representation of fact,

(2) made a false promise,

or

(3) benefitted by not disclosing that a third party’s representation or promise was false.”5

Plaintiff goes on to allege

“Defendants are not the actual holders of a properly perfected security instrument, that they failed to properly accelerate the note and post the notice of foreclosure sale and therefore Defendants were not entitled to foreclose or collect on the debt.”

Plaintiff additionally alleges

“Defendants are not the actual holders of a properly perfected security instrument, that they failed to properly accelerate the note and post the notice of foreclosure sale and therefore Defendants were not entitled to foreclose or collect on the debt.”

10.              Again, Catamount was a complete stranger to the loan that resulted in this foreclosure.

Catamount is not a lender.

There is no conceivable set of circumstances whereby Catamount would have sent any notices to any of these parties about a default, acceleration, or notice of a sale of the Property.

The only specific allegations relating to acts by Catamount in Plaintiff’s Petition are that

(1) Catamount purchased the Property (to which we are in agreement);

(2) the purchase price was “far below the market value of the Property”;

and

(3) Catamount “is colluding with Defendants Planet, Auction, and Prestige by seeking possession” of the Property. Aside from the conclusory statement that Catamount is “colluding” to seek possession of the Property which Catamount had just purchased, there are no specific allegations as to Catamount supporting Plaintiff’s fraud claim as to Catamount.

III.             Plaintiff’s Common Law Fraud Claim is Similarly without Factual Basis.

11.              Plaintiff alleges “Defendants’ representatives made false and material representations about the posting of the notice of the foreclosure and recording of a foreclosure deed.”6 Again, there is no allegation of any representations—relating to the foreclosure sale or otherwise— set forth in Plaintiff’s own pleadings by Catamount.

Catamount was a total stranger to the foreclosure process until it appeared and bid on the Property.

Again, Plaintiff’s “threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do[es] not suffice.”

GoDaddy.com, 429 S.W.3d at 754-55.

IV.             Plaintiff’s Suit to Quiet Title has no Basis in Fact or Law.

12.              Plaintiff’s suit to quiet title is also quite vaguely pleaded, with the blanket statement that “Planet, Auction, and Prestige wrongfully foreclosed” on the Property.7

Looking elsewhere, it appears the gist of Plaintiff’s gripe is that Planet, Auction, and Prestige supposedly failed to send

6 Exhibit A at ¶ 26.

Plaintiff or the prior owner (Mr. Jackson) notice the requisite notices for a foreclosure sale.

This is problematic for several reasons.

First, the prior owner, Mr. Jackson, is not a party and is not here claiming a lack of notice or seeking to undo the foreclosure sale on this basis.

Second, it is black letter law in Texas that Plaintiff is simply not entitled to any of the allegedly deficient notices.8

13.              As set forth in Plaintiff’s own recitation of the facts, Plaintiff acquired a deed to the property AFTER the deed at trust that was ultimately foreclosed upon.

As this Court well knows, it is bedrock Texas real estate law that a purchaser takes a property subject to instruments recorded in the county records.

Similarly, it is well established that “a purchaser who purchased property from debtor obligated to pay debt created by vendor’s lien note was not entitled to notice of foreclosure sale by holder of note even if holder had been aware that landowner had purchased property.”

Lawson v. Gibbs, 591 S.W.2d 292, 295 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1979, writ ref’d n.r.e.);

Pantoja v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. CV-H-19-3442, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183309, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 23, 2019)

(holding the “debtor” who must be provided notice under section 51.002 is the borrower on the note)

WTFO, Inc. v. Braithwaite, 899 S.W.2d 709, 720 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no writ)

(“Under section 51.002(e), service of notice is complete when deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed to the debtor’s last known address as shown by the records of the holder of the debt.”).

This, of course, has been well considered in Texas and makes perfect sense.

If this were not the law, any time a person was facing foreclosure, they could simply deed the property to a friend, and send the foreclosing lender back to square one.

And repeat until the end of time.

8 As preliminary matter, the deed to Plaintiff and his first lawsuit to stop foreclosure were both filed the same day, on March 31, 2023.

Plaintiff obtained a TRO stalling the foreclosure sale set four days later on April 4, 2023.

Plaintiff knew full well the status of the superior deed of trust at the time of his purchase and that the time for notices for default, acceleration, etc., had long passed well before Plaintiff’s claimed interest.

14.              Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations that some other person did not receive a notice, a person who is not a party and not here supporting said allegations, does not pass muster.

Plaintiff’s claim that he did not receive notices simply does not and cannot matter under the law.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s suit to quiet title must fail.

ATTORNEY’S FEES

15.              The Court may award a defendant its reasonable and necessary attorney fees and costs incurred as a result of plaintiff’s baseless cause of action.

See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 30.021; TEX. R. CIV. P. 91a.7.

Therefore, if the Court grants defendant’s motion to dismiss, either in whole or in part, Catamount asks the Court to award Catamount its reasonable and necessary attorney fees and all costs incurred as a result of preparing this motion to dismiss.

CONCLUSION

16.              Based on Plaintiff’s own pleadings, Plaintiff cannot recover on his claims as a matter of law. This lawsuit should be dismissed.

PRAYER

For the foregoing reasons, Catamount prays the Court to:

1.      set this motion for hearing no later than 45 days from the date the motion is filed;

2.      dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Catamount;

3.      award Catamount its costs and attorney’s fees incurred in seeking the dismissal of Plaintiff’s basis claim;

and

4.      grant Catamount all such other and further relief as to which Plaintiff shall show itself entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

Hanszen ▪ Laporte, LLP
By:  /s/ Forrest D. Cohrs

Forrest D. Cohrs
State Bar No. 24110802
fcohrs@hanszenlaporte.com

Alexandra Pierce
State Bar No. 24131912
apierce@hasznelaporte.com

14201 Memorial Dr.
Houston, Texas 77079
Telephone: 713-522-9444
Facsimile: 713-524-2580

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS CATAMOUNT PROPERTIES 2018, LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 15, 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure to all parties, including those set forth below.

Anthony Welch
anthonywelch562@gmail.com

7322 Southwest Freeway, Suite 802
Houston, Texas 77074
Telephone: 713-909-9641
Pro Se

C. Charles Townsend, SBN: 24028053
townsend@hinshawlaw.com
Taylor D. Hennington, SBN: 24116508
thennington@hinshawlaw.com

HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
1717 Main Street, Suite 3625
Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone: 945.229.6390
Facsimile: 312.704.3001

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT PLANET HOME LENDING, LLC
/s/ Forrest D. Cohrs

Forrest D. Cohrs