Pro se Kentucky Homeowner WINS Appeal on Standing Issue – DEUTSCHE BANK Summary Judgment Vacated

Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2009-CA-000058-MR

~

GLENN D. AUGENSTEIN APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM HENRY CIRCUIT COURT

v.

HONORABLE KAREN CONRAD, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 07-CI-368
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL
TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE
FOR THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS
OF SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST
2005-OPT4, ASSET BACKED
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-OPT4;
PAMELA FOREE; AND
DONALD T. PRATHER

OPINION
VACATING AND REMANDING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:  DIXON AND MOORE, JUDGES; ISAAC, SENIOR JUDGE. MOORE, JUDGE:  Glenn D. Augenstein appeals the Henry Circuit Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Deutsche Bank and subsequent entry of a judgment and order of sale.  He also appeals the court’s denial of his motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment.  After a careful review of the record, we vacate because Deutsche Bank did not have standing at the time it commenced this appeal.

Congratulations Glenn!!!

Full order below…

~

4closureFraud.org

~

Glenn D. Augenstein vs Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee

Comments
12 Responses to “Pro se Kentucky Homeowner WINS Appeal on Standing Issue – DEUTSCHE BANK Summary Judgment Vacated”
  1. Glen, I have oaths to office on Pinellas county, As it seems that most judges are not in compliance with Art,2 section(5)b. Also Department of State is also liaable.It seems that the judges do not have Thier oaths to office as required in F.S.876.05, 876.10,I’ve researched This in great depth.It’ a strategy to recuse your next judge or the last decision.There is a strict procedure to elections in the constitution, Bob Hurt wrote a book on this subject that is handy.

  2. Stupendous Man - Defender of Liberty - Foe of Tyranny says:

    Unfortunately the case is marked “Not to be Published” and cannot be used as binding precedent in other cases. However, Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure 76.28(4) has a new provision, (c), which allows the case to be used as persuasive, and states, in pertinent part:

    “Opinions that are not to be published shall not be cited or used as binding precedent in any other case in any court of this state; however, unpublished Kentucky appellate decisions, rendered after January 1, 2003, may be cited for consideration by the court if there is no published opinion that would adequately address the issue before the court.”

    A few recent cases on point:

    1) “In conclusion, we turn to a procedural matter. Prior to oral argument, the Commonwealth requested leave to cite an unpublished opinion of this Court which was not final as of the date of oral argument. While a new section has been added to CR 76.28(4) allowing for the citation of unpublished opinions upon a showing that there is no published opinion on point, we read that rule as relating only to unpublished opinions which have become final. Accordingly, the Commonwealth’s motion to cite a non-final opinion is hereby DENIED.” Alexander v Commonwealth, 220 S.W. 3d 704, 2007 Ky. App. LEXIS 95 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007).

    2) “To our knowledge, there are no published cases dealing explicitly with this question. The Court of Appeals, however, has rendered several unpublished decisions addressing the issue. Pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 76.28, we are now permitted to cite such cases for consideration if there are no published opinions that address the same issue.” Eberenz v Commonwealth, 2008 Ky. App. LEXIS 184 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008).

    3) “We note that parties to this action have cited to unpublished cases failing to meet the requirements of Kentucky Civil Rule 76.28(4)(c). This is particularly true where the parties have cited to unpublished cases from other jurisdictions. Kentucky Civil Rule 76.28(4)(c) only allows citation to unpublished Kentucky appellate opinions rendered after January 1, 2003. Accordingly, those cases cited in the parties’ briefs failing to meet this criteria were not considered in deciding this matter.” Ann Taylor, Inc. v Heritage Ins. Servs., 2008 Ky. App. LEXIS 215 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008).

    I expect this opinion will be cited for consideration, pursuant to this rule, in the very near future.

  3. TheSmartREI says:

    Just because the bank refiles doesn’t mean they will win. Sure, Glen will have much more work to do but I’m confident he will prevail. And, even if the bank eventually wins and is allowed to foreclose, that may not stop the SEC from pursuing fraud charges and Glen may be able to recover damages in to the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

  4. Rik says:

    Once Deutsche Bank refiles with correct paperwork, chances are they will be able to foreclose. The importance of this court ruling is that banks will have a much harder time filing foreclosure actions that are incorrect. Having people foreclosed on when they did not pay and the filing party is in fact the bank that owes the mortgage is not what is causing the big problems. The problem is the fraudulent foreclosures and fraudulent mortgage assignments, which will hopefully go away after court rulings like this.

  5. Andrew says:

    Congratulations Glenn. You have done an amazing job. TY for your guidance and God Bless.

  6. I’m happy to see more often the word Victory in this site : )

  7. Joyce says:

    Why should Deutsche bank be able to refile the case ? If they didn’t have standing to commence a foreclosure proceeding in the fist place, what has changed ? It’s like the judge is saying, go back and start over and this time robo sign up some fraudulent paperwork but this time get the dates right ? What kind of crap is that ?

  8. nita says:

    None so Blind as those who will not See !!!! But there is away to get justice just write the motion & always APPEAL, put as much documentation in the record as possible.

  9. Lit Gant says:

    Glenn won because he was right. The lower robo-court was shown for the fraud it was. That idiot judge knew the assignment was after the commencment of the foreclosure suit. And this jerk said there were no material facts in the case inresolved? In his mind Glenn owed the debt; did not pay; case closed no other material facts necessary and any defenses raised were just wasting the court’s resources. Sounds like Judge McGrady in Pinellas County here or the jerks down in Lee County. It is a sweet victory. This case will have to be dismissed and refiled. Then Glenn will need some other defenses to win this case. I hope he finds the right fraud. There are plenty of people out here to help him. He can start on the Hamlet and also this web site. There are others. It is time for these judges to go to jail. Did any of them ever get a sanction from a higher court for these silly cases and wasting the resource time of the Appeal courts? There needs to be a penalty. Go Glenn you deserve a banana split treat on this victory.

  10. THIS IS A HISTORIC DAY FOR KENTUCKY!

    CONGRATULATIONS GLENN! YOU MADE HISTORY! YOU GIVE PEOPLE HOPE!

    Your fight is not over but THANK G-D THAT YOUR FIGHT IS NOT OVER!

  11. dormanmom says:

    Whooot Hooooot, congrats to Glenn! Way to go. An inspiration to pro se’s everywhere.

  12. noel says:

    the hamlet has truly made some amazing things possible.

Leave a Reply