By Mandelman
Below is a case brought by a homeowner arguing that there was no real money involved in their loan. It was dismissed without leave to amend, and the homeowner was lucky that they managed to get out of court without being sanctioned. If you want to make the banks look good in court, while at the same time making homeowners appear certifiably insane, here’s how to do it.
The problem is that this is hardly an example of anything extreme, in fact, I heard some so-called legal theories that make this case look like Brown v. The Board of Education just a couple of days ago on Linked In and Facebook threads. One in particular had to do with identity theft, and I’d explain the rest but I can’t without the risk of brain damage. Look around, you’ll find it… and more, I’m afraid.
THE CASE OF THE MISGUIDED HOMEOWNER…
SHERRY MELINDA VINCENT, Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTRYWIDE dba BANK OF AMERICA, THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON N.A. and RECON TRUST COMPANY N.A., REEDSMITH LLP ATTORNEY SHAUDEE NAVID, Defendants.
No. C13-01569 HRL.
United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division.
October 16, 2013.
ORDER (1) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND (2) STRIKING NEWLY ADDED ATTORNEY DEFENDANTS [Re: Docket No. 24]
HOWARD R. LLOYD, Magistrate Judge.
The homeowner in this case (found below), the plaintiff, alleged that the defendants (Countrywide, Bank of America, et al) only provided an estimated 5% of their loan’s face value in actual money. In a reply, the homeowner clarified that the actual amount loaned could not be greater than 10% of the face value because that’s the percentage of cash deposits that the bank is required to keep in reserve, and that the rest of the money for the loan was created by the bank itself through a series of book entries.
The homeowner therefore concluded that the check issued by the bank was not backed by “lawful money of the United States,” and so the defendants “breached the loan agreement, committed fraud and racketeering, and violated usury laws and the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”).”
The court stated that: “Plaintiff’s underlying legal theory has been consistently rejected, and this Court likewise rejects it. The invalidity of her theory is fatal to each of her claims for relief, and none are salvageable by pleading additional facts.”
So, it would seem that the court thought that the bank loaned out real money, but that’s only …read more
Leave a Reply