Foreclosure WIN! ‘The Administration of Justice Outweighs the Important Interest in Finality of Litigation’

Court

“The notion that MERS could not assign an ownership interest greater than that which it held rests on age-old principles of property law, not on any recent development in our foreclosure jurisprudence”

~

Foreclosure WIN! ‘The Administration of Justice Outweighs the Important Interest in Finality of Litigation’

Cross posted (with some additions) from http://forthepeople2011.blogspot.com

I WON My Foreclosure Case!

The Maine Supreme Court has finalized my foreclosure case….in MY favor…citing “that the administration of justice outweighs the important interest in finality of litigation”! 

Imagine that…a court putting JUSTICE ahead of policy & practice (of a court not normally [and sparingly and only in a clear instance of previous error] reopening issues of law already decided ) because they wanted to prevent a manifest injustice! Manifest injustice means something which is ‘obviously unfair’ or ‘shocking to the conscience.’ It refers to an unfairness that is direct, obvious, and observable: an outcome in a case that is plainly and obviously unjust.

And in THIS case, because I didn’t just “sit on my rights” but kept fighting and going on throughout the court system stating the same thing over & over again that the bank didn’t own my mortgage deed due to a MERS assignment that only gave the bank the right to record which did NOT give them ownership to provide standing to sue and because under Maine law in Saunders (decided 28 months BEFORE my case) this argument was correct at the time I argued it in court and this was overlooked by the Supreme Court (thus a clear previous error which is plainly and obviously unjust and unfair), they chose to reopen my case and correct their error and serve justice!

From the Order:
(emphasis added)

In 2007, MERS, as nominee for Countrywide, purported to assign the mortgage to an entity called U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee for SAIL 2006-3. In 2009, that entity purported to assign the mortgage to the Bank. At some point, the Bank became the holder of the note. Reagan stopped making monthly mortgage payments in 2008.

Reagan filed a counterclaim alleging, among other things, that the Bank did not have standing to foreclose because MERS “had no rights to grant/convey [the] mortgage to the [Bank]” and “had no standing to grant/ convey anything of its own accord,” and that the Bank committed various forms of fraud by initiating the foreclosure action anyway.

The court (Fritzsche,].) held a trial in September of 2012, at which Reagan again argued that the Bank did not have standing to foreclose. On January 3, 2013, the court entered judgments in favor of the Bank on its foreclosure complaint and on Reagan’s counterclaim. The court then denied Reagan’s motion for reconsideration. Reagan appealed and, citing our decision in Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Saunders, 2010 ME 79, 2 A.3d 289, argued that the Bank did not have standing to foreclose because MERS did not have authority to assign the mortgage. The Court affirmed the foreclosure judgment in a memorandum of decision issued on December 24, 2013, see U.S. Bank, Nat’/ Ass’n v. Reagan, Mem 13-139 (Dec. 24, 2013), and denied Reagan’s motion for reconsideration.

In February of 2014, Reagan filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Maine against the Bank and other defendants, claiming “various constitutional and statutory violations in connection with [her] case.” After that court dismissed her complaint in October of 2014, she appealed from the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

In March of 2015, in the Maine District Court (Springvale), Reagan moved for relief from the foreclosure judgment pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 60(b )(5) and (6).2 She pointed out that the provisions concerning MERS in her mortgage are identical to those at issue in Saunders, in which the Court determined that “[t]he only rights conveyed to MERS … are bare legal title to the property for the sole purpose of recording the mortgage and the corresponding right to record the mortgage with the Registry of Deeds.” 2010 ME 79, iii! 9-10, 2 A.3d 289.

After the Superior Court denied Reagan’s motion, she initiated this appeal. Based on the unusual circumstances of this case, the Court ordered Reagan to file a motion for extraordinary relief…

The Court is convinced that the extraordinary circumstances of this case warrant extraordinary relief. Instead of “sitting on her rights,” Reagan pursued every possible avenue for relief. At virtually every stage of the proceedings, she argued that the Bank lacked standing to initiate the action because its ownership interest in the mortgage stemmed from an assignment by MERS that was ineffective to convey the ownership interest required for standing…

In this extraordinary case, the Court concludes that the administration of justice outweighs the important interest in finality of litigation. It is therefore ORDERED that Reagan’s motion for relief is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that this Court’s memorandum of decision deciding Reagan’s first appeal, U.S. Bank, Nat’/ Ass’n v. Reagan, Mem 13-139 (Dec. 24, 2013), is withdrawn. It is further ORDERED that the January 3, 2013, foreclosure judgment in the Bank’s favor is vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court for entry of a dismissal of the Bank’s foreclosure action without prejudice.

WOWZERS!!

See their [full] decision HERE!

Thanks go out to my lawyer (at the end of my trials of doing this as a pro se litigant, I hired a lawyer to do the final leg of this saga & enter the 60(b) motion) Matthew Williams and to my friends who stood by me & supported me and kept me basically sane and committed in staying the course and all the prayers sent out by many of you! I believe that God heard them and watched over the Maine Supreme Court Justices to do the right thing!

~

4closureFraud.org

~

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE ON BEHALF OF SAIL 2006-3 TRUST FUND v. DEBRA J. REAGAN

Comments
6 Responses to “Foreclosure WIN! ‘The Administration of Justice Outweighs the Important Interest in Finality of Litigation’”
  1. Ann S. Pellegrino, Esq. says:

    Congratulations…so far….However, it concerns me that the Court ordered a dismissal without prejudice. The bank will, more than likely, move forward with getting their documentation in order (“their ducks in a row”), after which they can and, more than likely, will continue to attempt foreclosure. But that is a fight for another day. For now, ENJOY this outcome.

    • Well, that would be very difficult to do. Here in Maine, a law was passed in 2015 due to a case “BoA v Greenleaf”, saying that MERS assignments were invalid from July 22, 2014 onwards. The bank swore that my assignment was valid and that it was the true & original giving them ownership for seven years. During which time, “MERS v Saunders” in 2010 was plainly saying that they weren’t, so they knew while foreclosing on me, that they didn’t own it. They’ll be hard pressed to NOW to bring forth yet another argument without raising much scrutiny by both my lawyer and the court. Besides which, I will get a second shot at proving that the note that they have in their possession is NOT the original note, it’s forged, and I’ll fly in my handwriting analyzer and the notary who signed it to prove it! And for the bank to get another assignment from the originator…good luck as it was Countrywide…one of the biggest crooked mortgage company in the USA and is now defunct!

  2. Randall Stephens says:

    Congratulations!!

    My favorite part of the order, middle of page 7:

    “The notion that MERS could not assign an ownership interest greater than that which it held rests on age-old principles of property law, not on any recent development in our foreclosure jurisprudence. E.g., Arey v. Hall, 81 Me. 17, 22, 16 A. 302 (1888) (“[T]he assignee can have no greater right … than the assignor.”).”

    Age-old principles. Not recent. Yep. I’m wondering how Reagan’s prior court managed to get it wrong when there is case law 128 years old that is clear and unambiguous.

    The first line of page 7 is pretty special, too:

    “According to Saunders, which we decided over twenty-eight months before the foreclosure judgment against Reagan was entered, that argument was correct.”

    Reagan should feel quite validated!!

    • TYVM! I had lots of support from my friends (who helped keep me sane!), prayers (of which God heard and acted upon!) and a great lawyer at the end who did the final action…a 60(b) motion for relief from judgment that finally made the court LISTEN and hear my much ignored pro se argument that they FINALLY heard and said was correct! So heck yeah, I feel VERY validated…and vindicated!

      Yes, page 7 is my fav too! I kept saying at every stage that MERS couldn’t grant more than they owned! Nice o see that after SEVEN years of fighting this, they finally heard it! (But it took a BAR CARD carrying member to make them!)

      The age-old principles comment was very important. It came because the other side was trying to say that I was taking a case called Greenleaf that was decided 6 months after the ruling in my case and retroactively apply to mine when actually I was using it to show the court that my very same argument that Greenleaf used to win was argued a whole year before in my case, so I was right all along! So that is the error that they say happened that they made and would manifest injustice if it stood so in the interest of justice over the finality of litigation, they decided that I should get justice (and mention that it wasn’t based on Greenleaf (recent foreclosure jurisprudence) but based upon age-old principles of property law! So yes, I’m wondering how not only the previous lower courts missed this, but also the highest court in the state, them…did too! It’s called…bias towards pro se litigants! They missed it when I said it….but not when my LAWYER said that I said it!!!

      So yeah….I of course am on cloud 9 with justice finally being done, but still livid that it took me SEVEN years to get it…and that it probably wouldn’t have happened because of MY arguments but did happen because of my LAWYER’S argument of my arguments! Bitter-sweet.

  3. Jo Henrion says:

    Congratulations Debra Reagan. We all needed some good news and today you delivered. A much-needed shot in the arm for all of us still fighting the fight. Atta girl!

    • Well thank you very much Jo….it was a long, hard road but with support from friends and many prayers on my behalf, it finally was decided correctly. Keep up the fight….JUSTICE CAN prevail! So I send you my prayers…they do work!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *