Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
17Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
US Bank v Duvall Fannie and Freddie Amicus Brief 27 Jun 2011

US Bank v Duvall Fannie and Freddie Amicus Brief 27 Jun 2011

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,856|Likes:
This is the Amicus Brief in the case U.S. Bank v. Duvall, Case No. 2011-0218, a matter before the Ohio Supreme Court. The case is a conflicts case on a certified question presented to the Ohio Supreme Court by the Ohio Court of Appeals for the 8th District and concerns conflicts in decision between Duvall and decisions of other intermediate appellate couts in Countrywide Home Loan Servicing v. Thomas, U.S. Bank N.A. v. Bayless and U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Marcino. This Amicus Brief was filed on behalf of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the case on June 27, 2011. This brief reflects your tax dollars at work and the corrupt administration of Pres. Barack Obama in seeking to cover up rather than prosecute rampant criminality by the banks and their foreclosure mill law firms.
This is the Amicus Brief in the case U.S. Bank v. Duvall, Case No. 2011-0218, a matter before the Ohio Supreme Court. The case is a conflicts case on a certified question presented to the Ohio Supreme Court by the Ohio Court of Appeals for the 8th District and concerns conflicts in decision between Duvall and decisions of other intermediate appellate couts in Countrywide Home Loan Servicing v. Thomas, U.S. Bank N.A. v. Bayless and U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Marcino. This Amicus Brief was filed on behalf of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the case on June 27, 2011. This brief reflects your tax dollars at work and the corrupt administration of Pres. Barack Obama in seeking to cover up rather than prosecute rampant criminality by the banks and their foreclosure mill law firms.

More info:

Published by: William A. Roper Jr. on Aug 07, 2011
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

07/26/2013

pdf

text

original

 
0 ^^/wIf
41
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
U.S. Bank, NationalAssociation, as Trustee for
CMLTI
2007-WFHE2C/O Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
V.
Antoine Duvall, et al.,Defendants-Appellees.
Case No. 2011-0218
On Appeal from Cuyahoga CountyCourt of Appeals, Eighth AppellateDistrictCourt of AppealsCase No: CA-10-094714MERIT BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE, FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC,IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTRick D. DeBlasis (0012992)Cynthia M. Fischer (0073761)
Jennifer B. Madine. (0082278)
Lerner, Sampson & Rothfuss120 East Fourth Street, Suite 800Cincinnati, OH 45202
Ph: (513) 412-6614Fax: (513) 354-6765
rdd@lsrlaw.com
Counsel
for Amici Curiae,
Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac
Scott A. King (0037582)
(COUNSEL OF
RECORD)
Terry
W. Posey Jr. (0078292)
Thompson Hine LLP
2000 Courthouse Plaza, NE
Dayton, Ohio 45401-8801Ph: (937) 443-6560Fax: (937) 443-6830
Scott.King@Thompsonhine.com
Counsel
for Plaintiff-Appellant,
U.S. Bank National
Association, as Trustee
for CMLTI2007-WFHE2
Gary Cook (0021240)(COUNSEL OF RECORD)
3655 Prospect Avenue East
3`d Floor
Cleveland, Ohio 44115Ph: (216) 965-4410Fax: (216) 431-6149gcookesq@yahoo.comMichael Aten (0083386)3214 Prospect Avenue EastCleveland, Ohio 44115
Ph: (216) 431-7400 x 117
Fax No. (216) 431-6149michaelaten@hotmail.com
Co-counsel
for Defendants-Appellees,
Antoine Duvall and Madinah Samad
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .............................................................:.............
Pa¢e
3
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT ................................................................... 8
STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ............................................... 9
STATEMENT OF FACTS ...... . . . . . . ........... .. . . . . . . . . ...... .. . . . . . . . . ...... . . . ......... . . . . . .. .... 13
ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 14
Proposition
of Law:
Whether a person is
an "owner" of
an instrument is
irrelevant to that person's standing as a plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure action...... 141. For centuries, the law has emphasized the importance of universality
and free assignability of negotiable instruments .................................... 14
2. Universality and consistency in the
law of
negotiable instruments remain
crucial to the development of the economy ........................................... 15
3. Ohio's version
of UCC Article 3 governs
who may enforce a note ............... 16
4. Under Ohio
law, the mortgage follows the note .................................... 18
5. The
departure of the
Ohio
First and Eighth District
Courts
of Appealfrom the long-standing rules regarding the enforcement of negotiable
instruments and security instruments should be reversed .......................... 21
6. Nationwide servicing contracts governing the relationship between
holders and owners of notes and mortgages sold on the secondary
market are enforceable under the doctrine of freedom of contract ............... 25
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . ....... . . . .......... . .. . . . . . . . . . ......... . . . . . . . .. ...... . . . . .. ...... .. . . . . ........... 27
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ........................................................................... 28
2
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
PageCASES:
A.I. Credit Corp v. Gohres
(D. Nev. 2004), 299 F. Supp. 2d 1156 .............................. 16
Allen v. Bank, 23
Ohio St. 97 ...................................... ....... ............................... ............ 19
Bank of New York v. Stuart,
9"' Dist. Case No. 06CA008953, 2007-Ohio-1483 ............... 24
Bankers Trust v. 236 Beltway Inv.
(E.D. Va. 1994), 865 F. Supp. 1186 ......................... 16
Billingsley v. Kelly
(1971), 261 Md. 116, 274 A.2d 113 ........................................... 16
CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Schippel
(March 2, 2011), Erie C.P. No. 2010-CV-0684,
Unreported ................................................................................................ 24
Corporacion Venezolana de Fomento v. Vintero Sales Corp.
(S.D.N.Y. 1978),
452 F. Supp. 1108 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Countrywide Home Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Thomas,
10"' Dist. App. No. 09AP-819,
2010-Ohio-3018 . .. ... .... . . ... . . . ..... . ...... ..... . . . ... . . . .... . . . ... . . . . . . ... . . ... . .... . . ... . . . ... . . ... 23
Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Steele
(S.D. Ohio, Jan 8, 2008),
Case No. 2:07-CV-886, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4937 .............................................. 22
Ex'rs of Swartz v. Leist,
13 Ohio St. 419 .............................................................. 19
Federal Land Bank ofLouisville v. Taggart
(1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 8, 508 N.E.2d 152.......... 16
First Horizon Home Loan Corp. v. Roberts,
8 th Dist. Case No. 93076, 2010-Ohio-60......... 24
Fithian v. Corwin,
17 Ohio St. 118 .................................................................... 19
Georg v. Metro Fixtures Contrs., Inc.
(Colo. 2008), 178 P.3d 1209 .......................:...... 16
Hays v. The Galion Gas Light and Coal Co.
(1876), 29 Ohio St. 330 ............................ 18
Harkrader v. Leiby, 4
Ohio St. 602 .................................................................... 19
Holmes v. Gardner,
50 Ohio St. 167 .................................................................. 19
Jordon v. Cheney,
74 Me. 359 .................... ...................................................... 19
3

Activity (17)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
RGARRASI added this note|
Bill, Lost track of you...where have you been, and what have you been up to? Bob G.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
William A. Roper Jr. added this note|
Christy: Your comments to the Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac Amicus Brief are legally erroneous. Under the UCC, an owner of a negotiable instrument has NO RIGHT OF ENFORCEMENT of the instrument UNLESS the owner is also a holder or another person entitled to enforce the instrument as set forth in the UCC. While it is true that it is necessary that there be an unpaid obligation to the holder (or other
John Reed liked this
Christy Cobbum Downey added this note|
To continue, the note is evidence of a debt and a plaintiff can hold evidence that a debt obligation was created some years ago. However, debt resides on a balance sheet and failure to plead ownership of the debt instrument is akin to pleading its value has been realized. Foreclosure is for enforcement of lien rights and those rights don't exist if the note's value has already been realized.
Christy Cobbum Downey added this note|
An ownership allegation is necessary to further plead that the note has remaining value as reported on the books of account. Lien rights only exist if the value of the note hasn't been fully realized on the balance sheet. A lender can fully realize the value of the note if it chooses to finance anticipated loan proceeds so as to free up its capital. Foreclosure is not for enforcement of a note.
Susan Decker liked this
Susan Decker liked this
gobomus liked this

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)//-->