Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Opposition to U S Bank s Preliminary Objections 1

Opposition to U S Bank s Preliminary Objections 1

Ratings: (0)|Views: 261 |Likes:
Published by DinSFLA
m
m

More info:

Published by: DinSFLA on Mar 07, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/24/2013

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIACivil DivisionCOUNTY OF WASHINGTON,PENNSYLVANIA
, on behalf of itself and allother similarly situated Pennsylvania Counties,
 
Plaintiff,
 
vs.
 
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,Defendant.Civil Action No.: 2011-7095
 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THEPRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF U.S.BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION TOPLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDEDCOMPLAINT
CODE:
 
Filed on behalf of Plaintiff, County of Washington, Pennsylvania and all othersimilarly situated Pennsylvania Counties
 
Counsel of Record for this Party:
 
D. AARON RIHN, ESQUIRE
 
Pa. I.D. No.: 85752
 
ROBERT N. PEIRCE, III, ESQUIRE
 
Pa. I.D. No.: 76130
 
ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
 
Firm I.D. 839
 
2500 Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street
 
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
 
(412) 281-7229
 
GARY E. MASON, ESQUIRE
 
WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
 
1625 Massachusetts Ave. NWSuite 605
 
Washington, DC 20036
 
 JASON S. RATHOD, ESQUIRE
 
WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
 
1625 Massachusetts Ave. NWSuite 605
 
Washington, DC 20036
 
 JONATHON W. CUNEO, ESQ.
 
CHARLES LADUCA, ESQ.CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA
 
507 C Street, N.E
 
Washington, D.C. 20002
 
DEBRA BREWER HAYES
 
REICH AND BINSTOCK, LLP
 
4265 San Felipe, Ste. 1000
 
Houston, TX 77027
 
Phone: (713) 622-7271
 
 
 i
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………….. 1II. FACTS ..................................................................................................................................3A.
 
 The Pennsylvania Recording Laws and the Statutory Duty to Record ....................3B.
 
 The Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. ................................................4C.
 
U.S. Bank Did Not Record Assignments, Yet Claimed the Benefits of Doing So...................................................................................................................7III. LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................................10IV. ARGUMENT .....................................................................................................................10A. There is A Statutory Duty to Record Mortgage Assignments ...............................10B. Plaintiff Has Standing for its Requested Declaratory and InjunctiveRelief ......................................................................................................................131. Plaintiff Has Standing Because the Injury it Alleges Touches onStatutorily-Designated Areas of its Concern ....................................................142. Plaintiff Has Standing Because Defendant’s Conduct Has Impairedthe County’s Recording System and Deprived it of Fees and theCounty Has a Duty to Protect Itself and the Public From This Harm ...............163. Plaintiff Has Standing Because Its Priority Rights as a Creditor ConferStanding to Challenge the Perfection of MERS Mortgages DefendantRepresents as Perfected.....................................................................................18C. Plaintiff Has Named the Correct Defendant ..........................................................20D.
 
Plaintiff States a Claim for Unjust Enrichment .....................................................201. Defendant Benefited from Claiming Compliance with a Statute thatit Violated ..........................................................................................................212. Defendant Benefited in its Role as an RMBS Trustee by Using theCounty Recorder to Claim that it Held Perfected Mortgages Whenit Did Not...........................................................................................................223. Defendant Benefited by Using the County Recorder to ProsecuteForeclosures When it Lacked the Authority to do so ........................................23E.
 
 The Court Should Overrule the Objections for the Quiet Title Claim ...................271. This Court is an Appropriate Venue for Plaintiffs Quiet Title Claim .............292. Plaintiff’s Quiet Title Claim Sufficiently Describes the Property ....................303. Plaintiff Has Alleged Sufficient Facts Showing the Securitization Trustee Has Possession of the Documents Sought to be Recorded ..................32

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->