P. 1
Objection to Substitution of Plaintiff 110801

Objection to Substitution of Plaintiff 110801

|Views: 1,143|Likes:
Published by Robert Lee Chaney
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. wants to replace Chase Home Finance LLC as Plaintiff. JPMorgan was original lender who assigned Mortgage to Chase H F after Loan was overdue.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. wants to replace Chase Home Finance LLC as Plaintiff. JPMorgan was original lender who assigned Mortgage to Chase H F after Loan was overdue.

More info:

Published by: Robert Lee Chaney on Aug 01, 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

10/22/2013

pdf

text

original

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR HIGHLANDS COUNTY, FLORIDA CHASE HOME FINANCE

, LLC, Plaintiff, v. JEREMIAH T. AMMANN, et al. Defendants. _____________________________/ DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO "MOTION FOR HEARING BY TELEPHONE," "MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE PARTY PLAINTIFF" and DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS The Defendants, Jeremiah and Laura Ammann, OBJECT to: 1) attorney, Katherine M. Tilka's non-compliant appearance in the "Motion for Hearing by Telephone" served on 26 July 2011 (hereafter "Phone Motion"); and to 2) "Motion to Substitute Party Plaintiff" served on 28 July 2011 (hereafter "Party Motion"). Defendants MOVE the Court to strike the Phone Motion as a nullity. Defendants MOVE the Court to strike the Party Motion and order Plaintiff to submit the requested documents before the Court makes a decision as to whether or not to allow the requested substitution of Plaintiff. As grounds therefore, Defendants state: OBJECTIONS TO THE PHONE MOTION 1. Brian Hummel ("Mr. Hummel") signed the initial Complaint filed herein as the initial attorney of record for Plaintiff. He has not filed a notice of withdrawal. He has not filed a notice of substitution of attorney. Thus, he remains the Plaintiff's attorney of record. 2. The Phone Motion is signed by "Katherine E. Tilka," Florida Bar No. 70879 ("Ms. Tilka"). Ms. Tilka has not filed a notice of substitution of attorney. Ms. Tilka has not filed a notice of appearance as co-counsel.
Helpful comments or questions send to: robchaney@yahoo.com

CASE NO. 08 000 937 - GCS

3. The Judicial Rules of Administration, Rule 2.505(e)(3) states, in pertinent part: "An attorney may appear in a proceeding [as co-counsel] ... By filing with the court and serving upon all parties a notice of appearance." 4. As the Second District Court of Appeal ruled: Additional attorney was required to file notice of appearance before or contemporaneously with his initial pleading, and thus [additional attorney's] motion ... filed before notice of appearance was a nullity. [Emphasis added.] The court must be able to rely on representations of attorneys because such representations bind the client. Notices of appearance for attorneys who come upon the scene at later dates have a similar effect on the court and other parties. The court and parties must know with whom they must deal.1 5. Ms. Tilka is a non-compliant attorney and her Phone Motion appears to be a nullity. When a judges fails to enforce the established rules of court as to one party, it is prejudicial to the other party. 6. Attached hereto, as Exhibit A, is a copy of a "Notice of ... Change of Attorney of Record Within Firm" [emphasis added] which was filed in this Courthouse on 9 June 2011 under case number 2010-CA-000849. The attorney filing said Notice appears to be a "compliant" attorney. Law firms DO file a notice when there is a change of attorney "within" the firm. 7. We do not object to a telephonic appearance by an attorney of record, who has complied with the rules. We do object to any non-compliant attorney making any appearance for anyone at any time. OBJECTIONS TO THE PARTY-SUBSTITUTION MOTION 8. On the electronic docket, the Plaintiff's name has, erroneously, been changed to JPMorgan. Defendants object to this. First, no "change of plaintiff" has been approved by the Court, and second, "The names of the parties in the caption are never changed...."2
1 2

Pasco County v. Quail Hollow Properties, Inc., 693 So.2d 82 (Fla. App. 2 Dist. 1997) at 82 and 83. Trawick, Fla. Pract. and Proc. § 6:2, at page 94 (2010 Edition) Emphasis in original.

Helpful comments or questions send to: robchaney@yahoo.com

2

9. The Party Motion is signed by "Matthew Marks," Florida Bar No. 524336 ("Mr. Marks"). Mr. Marks has not filed a notice of substitution of attorney. Mr. Marks has not filed a notice of appearance as co-counsel. Thus, he appears to be a non-compliant attorney and his motion is a legal "nullity" as mentioned above. 10. Again, if the Court does not enforce the rules, it is prejudicial to Defendants. 11. The Party Motion makes a misstatement of fact. At paragraph 1, it says "The undersigned counsel [Mr. Marks] initiated this action...." Contrary to this allegation, the record shows that Brian Hummel was the attorney who "initiated this action." 12. Said paragraph 1 contains a second misstatement of fact when it says: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (hereafter "JPMorgan") "holds the loan documents sued upon in this action." Contrary to this allegation, the purported original "loan documents" are in the files of this Court's records. For the sake of argument, JPMorgan may own said documents, but it, clearly, does not "hold" them. Usually, ownership of a note does not occur until it is delivered. 13. Said paragraph 1 contains a conclusion of law which is not supported by any pertinent paperwork or other admissible evidence. It alleges that JPMorgan "is now the correct Plaintiff...." Defendants object to this unsupported conclusion. If the Court accepts such a conclusion without any admissible evidence thereof, it would be prejudicial to Defendants. 14. Without laying any foundation, without any evidence and without any affidavit, paragraph 2 of the Party Motion makes two more unsupported conclusions that JPMorgan is the: 1) "real party in interest;" and 2) the "proper Plaintiff in this action." 15. If the Court grants such unauthenticated motion, without any supporting evidence, it would be prejudicial to Defendants.

Helpful comments or questions send to: robchaney@yahoo.com

3

16. Plaintiff's attorneys have filed certificates of service that were contradicted by testimony from Co-Defendant, Laura Amman, and Co-Defendant Highlands County's attorney at hearings in this case. 17. A law suit in New York has named JPMorgan as one of several defendants and it says in its opening paragraph: "While numerous financial institutions enabled Madoff's fraud, JPMC was at the very center of that fraud, and thoroughly complicit in it."3 18. Fraud is rampant in the news regarding the home mortgage industry and the Court should not take a bank's word, alone, as it would be prejudicial to Defendants. 19. The instant case is a pending action in Highlands County. 20. The alleged merger between Chase Home Finance, LLC and JPMorgan is relevant to the instant case, because it involves the possibility of a change in the identity of the Plaintiff. 21. The alleged merger may affect the substantive rights of Defendants in the subject property. There should be no "privilege" which would prevent Defendants from viewing such a document. 22. If there is a "merger," as alleged, then there must be a written agreement between the two parties and, as such, it should be in the care, custody or control of JPMorgan. MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 23. In light of the foregoing, Defendants move the Court to order JPMorgan to provide a true and accurate copy of the original agreement whereby "A merger has occurred between CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION." Defendants ask for an affidavit to support said agreement. 24. Defendants seek, especially, that certain agreement (or any material part thereof) which supports JPMorgan's allegation that it is, now, the "correct Plaintiff" and, also, that certain agreement (or any material part thereof) which supports JPMorgan's allegation that it "holds the
3

Irving Picard v. JPMorgan Chase, et al., Adv. Pro. No. 10-04932 (BRL), 2 December 1010

Helpful comments or questions send to: robchaney@yahoo.com

4

loan documents sued upon in this action." (Note: the use of the singular "affidavit," "agreement" and "part" includes the plural.) WHEREFORE, the Defendants move the Court to strike the Phone Motion as a nullity. Defendants MOVE the Court to strike the Party Motion and order Plaintiff to submit the requested documents to the Court and to the Defendants for their review before the Court makes a decision as to whether or not to allow the requested substitution of Plaintiff. Defendants move the Court to have the Court Clerk correct the Court Docket as to the name of the original Plaintiff herein, Chase Home Finance LLC. Defendants move the Court for findings of fact and conclusions of law, and for such other, further and different relief as the Court deems proper. Respectfully submitted by Co-Defendants, Self-Represented: JEREMIAH T. AMMANN and LAURA U. AMMANN ____________________________

________________________________

1820 IRIS AVENUE - SEBRING, FL 33875-6090 - (863)-385-3138 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing was served upon the parties listed below on the 1st day of August 2011 as indicated below: by U.S. mail: BRIAN HUMMEL FLORIDA DEFAULT LAW GROUP, P.L. P O BOX 25018 TAMPA FL 33622-5018 Certified by: Laura U. Ammann _______________________ 1820 Iris Avenue Sebring, FL 33875-6090 Telephone: (863) 385-3138 by hand delivery: HIGHLANDS COUNTY c/o ELIZABETH V LENIHAN 2543 US HWY 27 SOUTH SEBRING FL 33870-2125

Helpful comments or questions send to: robchaney@yahoo.com

5

*************** 25. Our point is that banks and loan companies have been charged with fraud all across the United States. Banks securitize homeowners' promissory notes without disclosing this fact and without sharing any of the profits with the homeowners. They sell mortgage-backed securities filled with notes they believe will be defaulted while paying a credit-rating agency to put a AAArating on the securities. The securities warn investors that they could lose all the money they invest in these securities. The banks "hedge their bets" by purchasing so-called "insurance" that will pay them off if the notes are defaulted as they are convinced they will. Big insurance companies like AIG sold this so-called insurance without putting away any reserves to pay for eventual claims. (The law did not require them to put away any reserves.) Then, when the notes begin to default, The banks and insurance companies go to Congress to get the financial burden dumped upon the taxpayers/homeowners who have been kept in the dark and fed a lot of manure just like a bunch of mushrooms!

Helpful comments or questions send to: robchaney@yahoo.com

6

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)//-->