BAM! | PATTERSON v. GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC JUDGMENT VACATED No Assignment = GMAC Mortgage did not own any interest in the house

PATTERSON v. GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC

Reginald A. Patterson and Diana V. Patterson, v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC.

No. 2100490.
Alabama Court of Civil Appeals.
Decided January 20, 2012.

On appeal, the Pattersons assert, among other things, that the trial court erred in determining that the foreclosure was valid. While the Pattersons’ appeal was pending, this court delivered its decision in Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans, LP, [Ms. 2100245, Dec. 16, 2011] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2011). In Sturdivant, BAC Home Loans, LP (“BAC”), initiated foreclosure proceedings on the mortgage encumbering Bessie T. Sturdivant’s house before the mortgage had been assigned to BAC. BAC then held a foreclosure sale at which it purchased Sturdivant’s house, and the auctioneer executed a foreclosure deed purporting to convey title to Sturdivant’s house to BAC. BAC was assigned the mortgage the same day as the foreclosure sale. Thereafter, BAC brought an ejectment action against Sturdivant, claiming that it owned title to her house by virtue of the foreclosure deed. After the trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of BAC, Sturdivant appealed to the supreme court, which transferred her appeal to this court. We held that BAC lacked authority to foreclose the mortgage because it had not been assigned the mortgage before it initiated foreclosure proceedings and that, therefore, the foreclosure and the foreclosure deed were invalid. We further held that, because the foreclosure and the foreclosure deed were invalid, BAC did not acquire legal title to Sturdivant’s house through the foreclosure deed and thus BAC did not own an interest in the house when it commenced its ejectment action. We further held that, because BAC did not own any interest in Sturdivant’s house when it commenced its ejectment action, BAC did not have standing to bring that action and, consequently, the trial court never acquired subject-matter jurisdiction over the ejectment action. Because BAC did not have standing to bring its ejectment action and the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the ejectment action, we held that the judgment of the trial court was void, and we vacated that judgment. Moreover, because a void judgment will not support an appeal, we dismissed the appeal.
In the case now before us, GMAC Mortgage, like BAC in Sturdivant, had not been assigned the mortgage before it initiated foreclosure proceedings. Consequently, under our holding in Sturdivant, GMAC Mortgage lacked authority to foreclose the mortgage when it initiated the foreclosure proceedings, and, therefore, the foreclosure and the foreclosure deed upon which GMAC based it ejectment claim are invalid. Moreover, under our holding in Sturdivant, because GMAC Mortgage did not own any interest in the house, it lacked standing to bring its ejectment action against the Pattersons. Because GMAC Mortgage lacked standing to bring the ejectment action, the trial court never acquired subject-matter jurisdiction over the ejectment action. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is void and is hereby vacated. Moreover, because a void judgment will not support an appeal, we dismiss this appeal. Id.

 

JUDGMENT VACATED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

Pittman, Thomas, and Moore, JJ., concur.

Thompson, P.J., concurs in the result, with writing.

Bryan, J., dissents, with writing.

THOMPSON, Presiding Judge, concurring in the result.

Or as Garfield puts it…

With those words tens of thousands of foreclosures, if not millions, are cast into doubt and, in Alabama — arguably the most conservative state in the nation, thousands of foreclosures can be overturned after eviction, after the sale at “auction” because if the creditor did not have proof of the sale of the loan (including payment, to complete the transaction, then they couldn’t very well initiate any Notice of Default, Notice of Sale, or submit a “credit bid” at auction, simply because they were not the creditor.

Copy of the full opinion here…

~

4closureFraud.org

Comments
8 Responses to “BAM! | PATTERSON v. GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC JUDGMENT VACATED No Assignment = GMAC Mortgage did not own any interest in the house”
  1. readdocs says:

    The borrowers need to make an extreme effort to discover who the REAL lender is. Discovery
    will allow them to know if the lender is still viable, or defunct. It will allow them to know if they still
    owe a debt and to whom. This is just good common sense in covering their butts.

    • lvent says:

      Readdocs…the original lender was the U.S. TAXPAYER….the note was a check we gave them to cash…they used that note as a poker chip and were gambling with the house money….the peoples money…they committed $700 trillion dollars in mortgage fraud selling interests in our notes to investors hundreds of times using our electronic signatures …! the banks and Wall Street committed exponential collateral mortgage fraud in our names!! They owe the U.S. TAXPAYERS HUNDREDS OF TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN ILL GOTTEN GAINS….The investors invested in the notes…they did not invest in the loans because the bank never sold the loan to the trusts…just interests in the money flow…the mortgage payments..!

    • Katheryn says:

      readdocs – that’s true if they will comply and turn over any information. I’ve had to file a motion to compel discovery and then they threatened me with scare tactics. They brazenly will spit in your face and that of the court. They follow no rules period. There are no Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They have been repaced with the Bank of America Corporation Rules of Uncivil Procedure and by which most judges carefully adhere to.

      • lvent says:

        They cant comply with those requests for discovery or they would have to reveal the fact they committed massive mortgage fraud with our signatures…they never sold the loans..they oversold interests in the notes..that is what they are trying to cover up and why they are robo-signing docs..! They are criminals!

      • lvent says:

        If the pretender lender has the Original unindorsed note..with no legal assignment..that is proof of fraud..there is no legal fix for the ORIGINATION FRAUD..! They never delivered the loans to the trust..or sold the loans…just interests in the notes…that is what they are trying to hide..

    • lvent says:

      There is no discovery….they never sold the loans to a trust….they held the originals and only sold an interest in the notes…hundreds of times…that is why they are insolvent!

  2. Michael says:

    Rename that state!

    From now on–it’s alaBAMa, to me….

    Way to go, AlaBAMa!

    I’m impressed……

    • Richard says:

      What happens if the “banksters” get another assignment and sue to foreclose again??? Was the dismissal with prejudice?

Leave a Reply