Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
9Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
THE MOORE'S WIN APPEAL AGAINST US BANK AS TRUSTEE FOR GSAA SECURITIES-REVERSED AND REMANDED

THE MOORE'S WIN APPEAL AGAINST US BANK AS TRUSTEE FOR GSAA SECURITIES-REVERSED AND REMANDED

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4,748|Likes:
Published by 83jjmack
ANALYSIS FROM JUSTIA.COM

Appellants David and Barbara Moore defaulted on the Note to their mortgage in 2008. U.S. Bank, National Association, commenced foreclosure proceedings later that year, not in its individual capacity, but solely as trustee on behalf of GSAA Home Equity Trust 2006-6 (Appellee). According to the verified petition, the Appellee was "the present holder of said Note and Mortgage having received due assignment through mesne assignments of record or conveyance via mortgaging servicing transfer." The original petition did not attach a copy of the note in question sued upon. Appellants answered, pro se in 2009, disputing all allegations and requesting that the Appellee "submit additional documentation to prove [its] claims including the representation that they were the "present holder of said Note." Appellee subsequently filed an amended petition and a second amended petition to add additional defendants. Neither of these amendments included a copy of the note. Appellee submitted its Motion for Summary Judgment to the court, again representing that it was the holder of the Note. Documentation attached to the Motion attempted to support this representation: including the Mortgage, the Note, an Assignment of Mortgage, and an Affidavit in Support of Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment. For the first time, Appellee submitted the Note and Mortgage to the trial court. The note was indorsed in blank and contained no date for the indorsement. Appellants did not respond to Appellee's Motion, and the trial court entered a default judgment against them. The trial court entered a final judgment in favor of the Appellee. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no evidence in the record establishing that Appellee had standing to commence its foreclosure action: “[t]he trial court's granting of a default judgment in favor of Appellee could not have been rationally based upon the evidence or Oklahoma law.” The Court vacated the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
ANALYSIS FROM JUSTIA.COM

Appellants David and Barbara Moore defaulted on the Note to their mortgage in 2008. U.S. Bank, National Association, commenced foreclosure proceedings later that year, not in its individual capacity, but solely as trustee on behalf of GSAA Home Equity Trust 2006-6 (Appellee). According to the verified petition, the Appellee was "the present holder of said Note and Mortgage having received due assignment through mesne assignments of record or conveyance via mortgaging servicing transfer." The original petition did not attach a copy of the note in question sued upon. Appellants answered, pro se in 2009, disputing all allegations and requesting that the Appellee "submit additional documentation to prove [its] claims including the representation that they were the "present holder of said Note." Appellee subsequently filed an amended petition and a second amended petition to add additional defendants. Neither of these amendments included a copy of the note. Appellee submitted its Motion for Summary Judgment to the court, again representing that it was the holder of the Note. Documentation attached to the Motion attempted to support this representation: including the Mortgage, the Note, an Assignment of Mortgage, and an Affidavit in Support of Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment. For the first time, Appellee submitted the Note and Mortgage to the trial court. The note was indorsed in blank and contained no date for the indorsement. Appellants did not respond to Appellee's Motion, and the trial court entered a default judgment against them. The trial court entered a final judgment in favor of the Appellee. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no evidence in the record establishing that Appellee had standing to commence its foreclosure action: “[t]he trial court's granting of a default judgment in favor of Appellee could not have been rationally based upon the evidence or Oklahoma law.” The Court vacated the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

More info:

Published by: 83jjmack on Apr 13, 2012
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

10/09/2014

pdf

text

original

 
U.S.BANKv.MOORE2012OK32CaseNumber:109763Decided:04/10/2012THESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFOKLAHOMANOTICE:
if
HISOPINIONHASNOTBEENRELEASEDFORPUBLICATIONIN
if
HEPERMANENTLAWREPORTS.UNTILRELEASED,ITISSUBJECTTOREVISIONORWITHDRAWAL.
u.s.
BANK,NATIONALASSOCIATION,NOTINITSINDIVIDUALCAPACITYBUTSOLELYASTRUSTEEONBEHALFOFGSAAHOMEEQUITYTRUST2006-6,Plaintiff/Appellee,
v.
DAVIDF.MOORE,a/k/aDAVIDF.MOOREandBARBARAMOOREa/k/aBARBARAK.MOORE,Defendants/Appellants.ONAPPEALFROMTHEDISTRICTCOURTOFOKLAHOMACOUNTYHONORABLEBRYANC.DIXON
DISTRICTJUDGE
~o
AppealofasummaryjudgmentgrantedonMay13,2011,infavorofChaseHomeFinance,LLC,andagainstDavidF.andBarbaraMoore.InaJournalEntryofJudgment,filedonAugust26,2011,thetrialcourtfoundtheAppellantwastheundisputedownerandholderoftheNoteandMortgage.TheMooresappealedonSeptember23,2011,arguingstanding,andthisCourtretainedthematteronNovember18,2011.REVERSEDANDREMANDEDWITHINSTRUCTIONSGaryL.Blevins,GARYL.BLEVINS
&
ASSOCIATES,PC,OklahomaCityOklahoma,forDefendants/Appellants.BryanMilesHarringtonandA.GrantSchwabe,KIVELL,RAYMENTANDFRANCIS,PC,Tulsa,Oklahoma,forPlaintiff/Appellee.COMBS,J.FACTUALANDPROCEDURALHISTORY~1OnOctober21,2005,DavidF.MooreandBarbaraMoore,husbandandwife(hereinafter"Appellants"),executedaNoteandMortgageinfavorofColonialBank,N.A.(hereinafter"Lender"),forpropertylocatedinOklahomaCounty,Oklahoma.MortgageElectronicRegistrationSystems,Inc.
 
(hereinafter"MERS"),wasdesignatedasthenomineeforthelenderpursuanttosubsection(C)oftheMortgage.lWithintheMortgagewasasecurityinterestprovisionwiththefollowinggrantingclause:BorrowerunderstandsandagreesthatMERSholdsonlylegaltitletotheinterestsgrantedbyBorrowerinthisSecurityInstrument,but,ifnecessarytocomplywithlaworcustom,MERS(asnomineeforLenderandLender'ssuccessorsandassigns)hastheright:toexerciseanyorallofthoseinterests,including...therighttoforecloseandselltheProperty.~2AlsocontainedintheMortgagewasaprovisionentitled"SaleofNote;ChangeofLoanServicer."Perthetermsofthisprovision:TheNoteorapartialinterestintheNote(togetherwiththisSecurityInstrument)canbesoldoneormoretimeswithoutpriornoticetoBorrower.Thus,theborrowermayhavedifficultyindeterminingwhoholdsthenoteandmortgage,andtowhomthepaymentisdue.~3AppellantsdefaultedontheNoteduringAugustof2008.U.S.Bank,NationalAssociation,commencedforeclosureproceedingsonDecember24,2008,notinitsindividualcapacity,butsolelyastrusteeonbehalfofGSAAHomeEquityTrust2006-6(hereinafter"Appellee").Accordingtotheverifiedpetition,theAppelleewas"thepresentholderofsaidNoteandMortgagehavingreceiveddueassignmentthroughmesneassignmentsofrecordorconveyanceviamortgagingservicingtransfer."Theoriginalpetitiondidnotattachacopyofthenoteinquestionsuedupon.Appellantsanswered,prose,onMay20,2009.AppellantsdisputedallallegationsandrequestedthattheAppellee's"submitadditionaldocumentationtoprovetheirclaimsincludingtherepresentationthattheywerethe"presentholderofsaidNote."Appelleesubsequentlyfiledanamendedpetitionandasecondamendedpetitiontoaddadditionaldefendants.Neitheroftheseamendmentsincludedacopyofthenotesuedupon.~4AppelleesubmitteditsMotionforSummaryJudgment(hereinafterthe"Motion")tothecourtonNovember20,2009.Again,theAppelleerepresentedthatitwastheholderoftheNote.DocumentationattachedtotheMotionattemptedtosupportthisrepresentation:itincludedtheMortgage,theNote,anAssignmentofMortgage,andanAffidavitinSupportofAppellee'sMotionforSummaryJudgment.Forthefirsttime,AppelleesubmittedtheNoteandMortgagetothetrialcourt.Thenotewasindorsedinblankandcontainednodatefortheindorsement.
 
~5ExecutedonOctober21,2005,theNotedesignatedtheAppellantsastheBorrowersandColonialBank,N.A.,astheLender.Thefollowingagreement,interalia,wasmade:I[Appellants]understandthattheLendermaytransferthisNote.TheLenderoranyonewhotakesthisNotebytransferandwhoisentitledtoreceivepaymentsunderthisNoteiscalledthe'NoteHolder.'AnAssignmentofMortgage(hereinafterthe"Assignment")wasattachedtothemotion.MERS,againasnomineefortheLender,assignedtheMortgage,whichsecured"thepaymentofacertainpromissorynote"describedtherein,totheAppellee.2TheAssignmentwasexecutedandnotarizedonFebruary11,2009;itwasrecordedoneweeklater,butmadeeffective"11/27/2008."Inotherwords,theAssignmentwasexecutedaftertheforeclosuresuitcommenced,butmadeeffectivebeforethefilingofthepetitionaswellasanysubsequentamendmentstothepetition.~6AppellantsdidnotrespondtoAppellee'sMotion,andthetrialcourtenteredadefaultjudgmentagainstthem.Thetrialcourtenteredafinaljudgment,onDecember17,2009,(hereinafter"Judgment")infavoroftheAppellee.ThejudgmentconcludedthatAppelleewastheownerandholderoftheNoteandMortgage;thecourtthenapprovedanOrderofSale.Approximatelysix(6)weekslater,onJanuary31,2010,theAppellantsfiledforprotectionunderChapter7ofTitleXIoftheUnitedStatesBankruptcyCode,whichstayedtheproceedings.OnMarch2,2011,thebankruptcycourtgrantedAppellee'sMotiontoLifttheAutomaticStay.Shortlythereafter,onMarch18,2011,withtheassistanceofcounsel,theAppellantsfiledaPetitiontoVacatetheJudgment.ThetrialcourtsubsequentlydismissedtheAppellantsPetitiontoVacatetheJudgment.STANDARDOFREVIEW~7Thestandardofreview3foratrialcourt'srulingeithervacatingorrefusingtovacateajudgmentisabuseofdiscretion.FergusonEnterprises,Inc.v.WebbEnterprises,Inc.,2000OK78,~5,13P.3d480,482;Hassellv.Texaco,Inc.,1962OK136,372P.2d233.Aclearabuse-of-discretionstandardincludesappellatereviewofbothfactandlawissues.Christianv.Gray,2003OK10,~43,65P.3d591,608.Anabuseofdiscretionoccurswhenacourtbasesitsdecisiononanerroneousconclusionoflaw,orwherethereisnorationalbasisinevidencefortheruling.Fentv.OklahomaNaturalGasCo.,2001OK35,~12;27P.3d477,481.ANALYSIS

Activity (9)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
nikki613 liked this
rifishman liked this
SLAVEFATHER liked this
83jjmack liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

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