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.

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.

@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.

please sign

http://act.boldprogressives.org/sign/petition_conway/?akid=5241.673717.q29Frh&rd=1&source=e1-conway-petition-3mo-nonty&t=4

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.”

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.

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.

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!