FAIL | Ohio Supreme Court’s Shocking Decision in Landmark Case U.S. Bank National Assoc. v. Antoine Duvall et al. CASE DISMISSED as MOOT

HOW had DUVALL’s three year legal battle……suddenly become MOOT ???
How was the “CASE of the CENTURY” …..suddenly and quietly dismissed ???
Well it appears that Wells Fargo and US Bank decided to satisfy (pay in FULL) the Duvall mortgage once they realized that this case would be scrutinized at the highest Level…


FAIL | Ohio Supreme Court’s Shocking Decision in Landmark Case U.S. Bank National Assoc. v. Antoine Duvall et al. CASE DISMISSED as MOOT

A Simple question was before the OHIO SUPREME COURT JUSTICES:

To have STANDING, as a plaintiff, in a mortgage foreclosure action, must a party show that it owned the NOTE and the MORTGAGE when the complaint was filed?

OHIO’s highest court  – took the easy way out  – with a simple one page ruling  (HERE) which completely avoids succinctly resolving this issue and now leaves a number of identical cases and litigation – still before them. We had heard from a multiple of sources, attorneys, and “insiders”…. that this was the best and easiest “way-out” and a “back- door” solution for Ohio’s Highest Court and Judges. The court – once again “buried” their no decision on the LAST PAGE of a 15 page document
HERE – on the fifteenth and last page under MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS)

The MOOTNESS decision was a predicated result, after a well planned out and orchestrated effort to get this case “Kicked.” You see US Bank NA had failed in their three (3) previous attempts to FRAUDulently foreclose  – on the DUVALLS (with a phony undelivered and improperly indorsed note along with a post filing FRAUDulent robo-signed mortgage assignment)

Be sure to check out the rest here…


27 Responses to “FAIL | Ohio Supreme Court’s Shocking Decision in Landmark Case U.S. Bank National Assoc. v. Antoine Duvall et al. CASE DISMISSED as MOOT”
  1. Ohio Lawyer says:

    Yesterday, U.S. Bank filed a motion with the Ohio Supreme Court asking it to reconsider the dismissal. The bank argues that the Court has, in other cases, ruled on certified conflicts issues when the underlying case is moot.

  2. Ohio Lawyer says:

    Gwen – You are wrong. There was no settlement between the bank and Mr. Duvall. If there had been, that fact would have been disclosed to the Court. I know for a fact that the release of the mortgage was not the result of a settlement.

  3. Ohio Lawyer says:

    It is completely unfair to think that the Ohio Supreme Court “took the easy way out.” It had to dismiss the case. The homeowner pointed out to the Court that the mortgage had been released of record with the notation that it had been paid in full. U.S. Bank conceded that the case was moot. The Court had no other choice. Because there was no longer a fight between the parties (the loan having been marked as “paid”) there was no case to be adjudicated. Although I don’t agree with the outcome (for reasons stated below), given U.S. Bank’s position the Court made the correct decision. Interestingly, the Court’s dismissal highlights one of the major issues involved in the case – whether an Ohio court can decide a case which does not present a “justiciable matter.”

    And it did not bury its decision. The Court has always disclosed its procedural decisions via a lengthy list of the day’s business. The decisions on motions, etc. are categorized by the type of motion or request being considered – appeals accepted, appeals declined, motion for argument etc. In this case, there was no true “motion” before the Court. The homeowner had filed a “Suggestion of Mootness,” not really a motion to dismiss. Thus, the Court’s decision relating to the Suggestion was not really like any other matter included in the list, so it was filed under “Miscellaneous Dismissals.” Anyone who regularly watches how the Court conducts its business would see this as completely normal.

    And neither is it correct to say that U.S. Bank didn’t want the case decided. It is the party who filed the appeal in the first place. In fact, the entire mortgage industry wants the issue of standing to be decided by the Ohio Supreme Court. That said, I think it is fair to say that U.S. Bank changed its mind. When it started the appeal process in the Supreme Court there were no other cases before the Court on this issue. Since then, the Court has accepted another case on the same issue (U.S. Bank v. Perry), and another case is pending before the Court on a certified conflict (Freddie Mac v. Schwartzwald). The facts of Perry and Schwartzwald are a little cleaner with respect to the evidence before the trial court. I think U.S. Bank decided that the facts it had to rely on in making its arguments might be confusing, or might raise a red flag to the IRS. In responding to the homeowner’s Suggestion of Mootness, U.S. Bank agreed that the case was moot. It didn’t make any argument to keep the case on the Court’s docket. I found that very odd (I thought there were several argument to be made that the case was not moot. In fact, I don’t think the case was moot at all. The release of mortgage did not satisfy the note. Sure it said the debt was paid, but that is not binding on the bank until the homeowner reasonably relies on the statement. I am virtually certain the bank changed its mind and did not want the world, and especially the IRS, to take note the the mortgage was transferred to the securitized trust well after the trust’s close date, rendering the transfer subject to the 100% penalty.

    If the dismissal was orchestrated, it was done so ONLY by U.S. Bank. Don’t worry folks, the Perry and Schwartzwald cases (as well as another one in the pipeline) will be before the Court and decided.

  4. gwen caranchini says:

    This is an outrageous caption on this post and is another reason I don’t go to this blog anymore. However, a friend called me and asked me to explain to you folks out there and I am going to do so. I will start out by saying I don’t practice anymore although I am working on getting licensed again by taking the bar exam in Mo. I do have 25 yeears of trial exper and 10 more in the administrative forums of fed sec employees and I have sued every one from GM, to the FBI, Catholic Church and Sprint if you get my drift. I have severalhundred hours of mediation training and over a 1000 hrs in mediation. I’ve briefed in the 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th Cir Ct of Appeals, S.Ct and Mo and Ks courts of appeal and tried about 100 cases. So I think I know what I am saying. The Ohio supreme court did not screw with anyone. From my reading of this and prior posts prior to the Ohio Supreme Court hearing oral arguments the bank(s) paid off the debtors mortgage. What is not being said is that the debtor entered into a settlement agreement with the banks and whoever else was sued. That is the only way the banks would have paid off the note. The lawsuit was fully resolved “to the mutual satisfaction of hte parties” which rendered the case “moot” for purposes of oral argument or decision by any court. What as part of the settlement? All settlements today for the most part of confidential and the above phrase is used to tell people the case is settleed. How much did they get. You don’t know and won’t know. Was there a settlement before it was paid off. Most definitely. The banks are not stupid and neither was this person’s lawyer. They were in settlement neglitations and the debtors lawyer probably told the bank’s lawyers that there was a good chance the Ohio Supreme Court would rule for the debtor and if the banks wanted to settle “nows the time”. The banks evaluated the situation and agreed. What was part of the settlement you won’t know. There may have been some other terms such as money but not limited to that. But in no event was this mortgage paid off BEFORE the settlement was agreed to. And, as part of the settlement, the parties advised the Supreme Court of Ohio of the settlement and that court stopped processing the case. This is the normal process. There is no “screw job” by that court. They are doing what is usually done. Whoever wrote this post is a nut case and knows jack s_ _ T about trial practice an settlement. If I did one settlement i did 1000 over the years and there is nothing unusual about this. Again, this is why I don’t post on this blog anymre. This garbage upsets people because they don’t understand what is going on. The debtor’s lawyer did a good job for his client. Outcomes of court decisions are a crap shoot and from what I can see he did his client well. So the idiot who posted this should be shot in my opinion. Would that we all get such settlements. Know this, when the banks are up against the wall and smell a bad decisio coming they are going to settle. End discussion.
    P.S. Don’t contact me as I am not licensed and I only do my own case and work for lawyers who hire me as a paralegal. If you don’t have a lawyer who can hire me, don’t call or email me as I can’t help you and it would be the unauthorized practice of law and I don’t go there given I want to practice law again.

    • housemanrob says:

      Hey Gwen….Why would I hire you… haven’t said anything we don’t already know……..other than your resume. A nd being you that don’t like this blog……why are you advertising here?

    • housemanrob says:

      Gwen…..THOUSANDS of hours of lawsuits and no license….what happened…..did you forget to read “How to make friends and influence people?” Or do you just have a naturally combative personality. Try the sports blogs…..they will give you all the bitch action you need!

    • Tbar says:

      From as layman’s perspective, it seems a sham to call this legal system any thing but absurd. When the Art of lawyers is to place an order before the court anticipating Settlement rather than establishing resolution thru the creation of Legal president for the issues at hand by following thru diligently with what should only be a solid case, nothing will get resolved and the games continue as usual. No wonder the banks won’t change their ways. They can always “settle” on a case that gets a little too dicey. Maintaining this ludicrous monetary/judicial system of administering private trusts that each individual is between a Public Trust in order to process DEBT/Money. A continuing charade of lies and deceit. I suppose that old habits are hard to break, and the truth would be just to confusing.

      There’s not a moment lost for laughing.

    • JamesM says:

      Ad hominem attacks on Gwen are inaproprate, impolite, off subject and unproductive. Don’t.

      When someone who is schooled in the law comes on and explains the background, the briefs and motions, and how court came to this decision pay attention an listen.

      Yes the bank blinked. It decided it did not want an unfavorable decision and so paid off the mortgage. I don’t know if they paid and gave them a free house, or if they worked out a replacement mortgage for less money and a lower rate. Whatever. What matters is the case is moot. This is probably because the bank, realizing the way the wind was blowing, took pains to avoid an unfavorable decision.

      There are cases in Florida where appellate courts have refused to drop a case when the plaintiff files a voluntary dismissal, (which is normally a right), because in some cases the court finds the matter is of “great public importance” and so proceeds to rule despite the Appellant or mutual attempts at withdrawing the appeal.

      Maybe a way to force the issue in Ohio is the next time this issue comes up, a third party could file a well thought out amicus curiae brief that requests a written opinion on the matter.

      • Ohio Lawyer says:

        James – I agree that there is no need for personal attacks. But Gwen is wrong. There was no settlement in Duvall. So the premise of her post was faulty. As for an amicus, there were four separate amici briefs filed in Duvall. With one exception – questions referred from federal courts on issues of state law – the Supreme Court only decides cases, not issues. If the case is moot, no number of amici will give the Court the power to decide an issue.

  5. Readdocs says:

    How does the dismissal of the suit give the borrower relief from foreclosure?
    If these banks pulled their suit from court, because they had no true standing,
    then how does this relieve the person paying the note? Also if neither of these
    banks are not the payment path to the true lender, where were all the note
    payments going before the borrower went into default on the note?
    The borrower then still owes the real lender, who has never has satisfaction
    of the note being paid off while banks have walked away with the money paid
    is by the borrower.

    • housemanrob says:

      Yes, possibly…..but from what I have learned is………how do you put the jigsaw puzzle together…..when all of the guidelines have been violated!

    • housemanrob says:

      For example…..My loan originator is history…gone the way of the dinosaurs….whenever I look at mortgage loan paperwork….I feel like I am looking for Waldo!

    • housemanrob says:

      ….and who might that real lender be…….and why haven’t they showed up because they have a capital stake involved………….it’s because they don’t……they have no stake……..nada!

      • housemanrob says:

        I am sure there are at most a handfull of legal mortgages underwritten in the last 10 years……….therefore, there are nothing BUT pretender lenders. These were huge money making investment vehicles or conduits. Huge profits on the front and the rats scurrying away when the daylight comes!

  6. housemanrob says:

    People of Ohio….Isn’t this the living end for you folks? Have you had enough yet….haven’t heard about any demonstrations in Cleveland, Columbus or Cincinatti…yet!

  7. Eugene Villarreal says:

    How long and how many cases will it take for the public to see that it’s the ” JUDGES ” that have helped the banks continue their fraudulent foreclosures. Every foreclosure complaint needs to be challenged and appealed to the hightest court. That will break the banks if the continue to payoff the mortgages. Who is going to SIGN the Satisfaction Of Mortgage ?
    Jion the Wall St. Protest !

  8. foreclosurefight says:

    What.The.HELL??? If these jerks have no business being in the Court Room in the first place, then how can they even be considered the proper party to “pay off” and “satisfy” this mortgage??? Guess we know who is in bed with who!!!

    • RobertSanDiego says:

      I believe the Supreme Court did exactly what was expected of them; TO RULE ON THE CASE BEFORE THEM, and not take up “Sua Sponte,’ the question that many of us want answered. It is rare for a court to enter into the fray unless placed exactly there. The “At-Law” side of court is all about procedure, statutes, codes, etc. The question was a good question to get answered,…however, I think the Bank Lawyers out-maneuvered everybody,…and “Gamed-The-System, for their own longer term benefit.

      If the bank paid off their mortgage, it removed the controversy, as filed, so there is no more argument, just name-calling. I believe the other reason for the “Dismissed for being Moot,” order was because the issue of “Standing,” is a “Threshold Issue,” already well established. The Bank’s lawyers have clouded many straight-forward laws with (what I always considered) to be silly argument. It’s always absolute, that only a Party in Interest has Standing to bring a suit and make claims. Once (assertively) challenged with proper evidence to raise a genuine issue and discrepancy,…the Judge must act upon it. Admittedly,…the judges are moreso beginning to discount Recorded Paperwork (not) to have the, “Presumption of Validity,” it once had. (It’s about G’damn time, too)..

      There may have been a settlement (probably),…but the homeowners get their house free and clear. It doesn’t matter who pays your mortgage. It’s still your house, (they’re just volunteers without a contract with you to re-pay).

      It is too bad we didn’t get to hear the Supreme Court slam them, though.

      These Lawyers were a bit more intelligent than the Bank Attorneys on the “Ibanez” case is Mass. The IBANEZ case was very damaging to both MERS and the Banks. That case never should’ve made it to the Supreme Land Court. If the Bank was paying attention and had smarter Lawyers, it wouldn’t have? The banks do not want precedent to be created,…so they removed the controversy and made the case, “MOOT.”

      • Ohio Lawyer says:

        @Robert SanDiego – The issue of standing in foreclosure cases will be decided by the Supreme Court.. There are other cases currently pending on this issue. In one of them, the bank cannot “release” its way out of the case.

        The issue of standing is not nearly as simple as you put it. Let me restate that: it has not been approached as simply as you indicate it should. The issue has two parts to it. The first is what interest the bank must have in the loan to prove standing (and what evidence is need to make that proof). The second is when must standing be established. Frankly, it is the second item which is the problematic part for the banks. And they are “banking” (sorry) on the Court not wanting to open a huge bag of worms if it were to rule that standing must be established at the time suit is filed.

        If the court rules that standing is needed at the start of the case to invoke the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction, then completed foreclosures in which standing was not established until after the case was filed will be subject to attack. That would throw land titles into turmoil, not to mention imposing potentially huge liability on already financial unstable banking system. In this regard, it is not entirely clear that the Supreme Court would slam the banks.

Leave a Reply