Another win against Downey Savings

29 Jun

645068 – US BANK VS. MARTIN, A – Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment – DENIED. The Plaintiff as moving party has established a prima facie showing that it is entitled to judgment for possession against Defendant as a matter of law. However, Defendant’s objections Nos. 1, 3-6, 8, 9, and 11 to the Johnson Declaration are overruled; and objections Nos. 2, 7 and 10 are sustained, based on a lack personal knowledge and/or hearsay, regarding the alleged transfer of the beneficial interest to Plaintiff and as to the reasonable rental value.

Further, the Court finds the Defendant has met his burden of establishing triable issues of fact to rebut the presumption of validity of the sale and the issue of whether Plaintiff had the right to proceed with foreclosure. Namely the evidence of a gap in title and security interest from Downey Savings & Loan through the FDIC to Plaintiff during the time of the foreclosure proceeding, as well as missing evidence to show whether the Trustee, DSL Service Company, was authorized to act as Plaintiff’s agent in continuing to pursue the sale once Downey Savings & Loan had lost its security interest. (See Plaintiff’s undisputed fact # 7 and Defendant’s objection thereto; and Declaration of Defense counsel, McCandless, paragraphs 2, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13). As such, triable issues of material fact remain and the motion for summary judgment is denied.

Advertisements

4 Responses to “Another win against Downey Savings”

  1. John June 30, 2010 at 4:43 am #

    The issue with the FDIC, of which I have won cases against, is that of what did the FDIC purchase or take over when they took over the assets of a Bank that had defaulted!

    In most of the cases that I have reviewed they only took over the Servicing Rights that the Bank maintained after they sold the Note (and who knows if the mortgage / deed of trust when with it).

    No attorney (except ones that I am working with) has pursued this fact issue. If the FDIC sold something to another bank it was not the NOTE or the rights to collect from the homeowner.

    More fraud that the Attorneys are missing.

    Forensic Mortgage Auditing and Foreclosure Defense
    oliver@ipa.net
    john

    • Kevin Lane January 6, 2011 at 11:38 pm #

      This is an interesting perspective as it affects a large number of clients. Most ordinary borrowers have not got around to asking this question.

      I’d be really interested to know as GMAC and I think Downey dealt with a lot of negam loans in California what services you offer in this respect.

      I have many clients who would be interested.

      Thanks Kevin 760 208 2609

  2. donny kasper April 11, 2011 at 8:19 am #

    I’ve seen your name a lot on the web when it comes to Downey Savings and Loan. I have a client that needs to sue Downey, and I can’t find their registered agent anywhere save for the FDIC. Is the FDIC the registered agent now “as receiver for” Downey? If so, do I use the TX address to serve for CA? Also, would FDIC AS RECEIVER FOR be listed on the lawsuit or would I still keep it on Downey? It’s a very strong case, when you email me I’ll tell you what these guys did. Thanks Mr. Mccandless!

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Timothymccandless's Weblog - July 10, 2010

    […] Another win against Downey Savings […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: