| 07/25/2016 |
Yes |
- Mortgage
- Conventional fixed mortgage
|
- Loan modification,collection,foreclosure
|
|
Web |
|
|
Hunt Leibert Jacobson P.C. ( HL ) has filed a foreclosure complaint in the XXXX Ct Superior court without the validation/verification required by the FDCPA, which was clearly requested by me, a defendant. In the summons they attached a letter stating they would not proceed until validation was given. They went ahead and have filed suit, months have passed with no validation. In a previous foreclosure on the same mortgage the court ordered the same plaintiff to file a new complaint and SHOW INTEREST. They have filed the complaint without showing interest. Per FDCPA the mortgage and note were rescinded and the rescission recorded on the land record in 2009. Plaintiff knows this from being served the rescission and from the previous court case that they withdrew. The supreme court is clear that the Federal Statute renders the mortgage and note void, and that disputed or not, it stands. TILA is clear a suit must be brought within XXXX, to dispute the rescission. HL and its attorneys are using the court to steal a property, knowing the mortgage and note have been void for years and further ignoring their letter that nothing would go forward without validation. Validation is legal impossibility with rescission. Foreclosure is a legal impossibility with a void mortgage and note.
Connecticut requires a foreclosure case to move every fourteen days, the case is sitting there with no activity as there is no validation and no interest shown as required by the court.
HL will probably file a default and a motion to foreclosure for failure to plead on the part of the defendants, when the plaintiff has not complied with federal statutes. Defendants should not have to plead when HL said it would not go forward with the case. I can not be in default on a void mortgage.
|
| 07/20/2016 |
Yes |
- Mortgage
- Reverse mortgage
|
- Loan modification,collection,foreclosure
|
|
Web |
|
|
The law firm Hunt Leibert Jacobson PC ( HL ) and it attorneys are using the superior court of XXXX to bring fraud upon the court through a foreclosure to execute theft of real property. The Maker of the Note and Mortgage is deceased. The firm named as the defendants the beneficiaries who are not on the documents of the complaint, and have only an inchoate interest in the property. XXXX statute 802b requires all claims on real property to be filed in writing with the fiduciary of the probate court. HL nor the plaintiff have filed a claim with probate. XXXX statute asserts all property is under the jurisdiction of the probate court, Federal Statute does not allow a man to have to pay a dead man 's debt. HL has a motion of default for failure to plead, and a motion for strict foreclosure to deceive the defendant who appeared into believing, and thus consenting that he must pay the dead man debt. The defendant has filed notice into the court that he is not the owner, and can not be responsible for this debt. HL is using procedure to deceive the defendant into the loss of the property. Rescission was mailed pursuant to TILA. XXXX v XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX settled that rescission, right or wrong, voids the mortgage and the note, and the lender/creditor must perform bring a non foreclosure lawsuit to prove their claim against the maker of the mortgage and note. HL and the plaintiff did not file a claim against the rescission Instead they used the prima facie documents in a foreclosure suit, after rescission, with the knowledge the note and mortgage are void by operation of law. The foreclosure suit was filed in the name of a plaintiff that had ceased doing business, rather than the name of the correct entity
|
| 02/18/2016 |
Yes |
|
- Loan modification,collection,foreclosure
|
|
Referral |
|
|
|
| 03/25/2015 |
Yes |
|
- Loan modification,collection,foreclosure
|
|
Referral |
|
|
|