Bankruptcy Appeal Court Errors

Summary

The case involves appealing decisions based on bankruptcy court errors, focusing on jurisdictional issues and fraudulent documentation. Key concerns include whether the court had jurisdiction to grant relief without proper proof of claim, the misclassification of debt collectors as creditors, and the lack of authenticated evidence for mortgage assignments. The case also highlights potential constitutional violations and the need for proper legal procedures under the Uniform Commercial Code and Federal Rules. Understanding these legal intricacies is crucial for navigating bankruptcy appeals.

Full Conversation

Please enhance; - In Attorney Fumarola’s affidavit for summary judgment, he submitted three undated fabrications resembling allonges, suggesting they were affixed to the note and fraudulently assigned to Countrywide Bank and Countrywide Home Loans. - These fabricated allonges were glued to an unrecognized, partially signed adjustable-rate note—an act of deception. - These fabrications were signed by Michelle Sjolander, notorious for her involvement in robo-signings, and implicated BNYMT, Bank of America Home Loans, and Countrywide in a scheme to unlawfully seize King’s home. (See pp. *-*).
Sure, here's an enhanced version:
---
Enhanced Statement:
In Attorney Fumarola’s affidavit for summary judgment, he submitted three undated fabrications resembling allonges, alleging they were affixed to the note and fraudulently assigned to Countrywide Bank and Countrywide Home Loans. These fabricated allonges were deceitfully attached to an unrecognized, partially signed adjustable-rate note. The signatures on these fabrications were by Michelle Sjolander, known for her involvement in robo-signings, and implicated BNYMT, Bank of America Home Loans, and Countrywide in a scheme to unlawfully seize King’s home (see pp. *-*).
Enhance; - King was aware of UCC *-*, which mandates that all allonges must be permanently affixed to the promissory note for the endorsement to be valid. The official, properly signed, Adjustable-Rate Rider from the Hampden County Registry of Deeds (HCRD) presented in the Summary Judgment (SJ) submitted to the Western Housing Court and the Supreme Judicial Court appears in the final pages of Exhibit A (See pp. *-*). The fictitious Adjustable-Rate Note in Exhibit I (See pp. *-*) omits Alton King Jr.’s initials and signature but contains only the signature of Terri Mayes-King. Additionally, it includes undated, robo-signed, false allonges permanently attached to this fabricated document.
Enhanced Statement:
King was aware of UCC *-*, which mandates that all allonges must be permanently affixed to the promissory note for the endorsement to be valid. The official, properly signed Adjustable-Rate Rider from the Hampden County Registry of Deeds (HCRD), presented in the Summary Judgment (SJ) submitted to the Western Housing Court and the Supreme Judicial Court, appears in the final pages of Exhibit A (see pp. *-*). The fictitious Adjustable-Rate Note in Exhibit I (see pp. *-*) omits Alton King Jr.’s initials and signature but includes only the signature of Terri Mayes-King. Furthermore, it contains undated, robo-signed, false allonges that are permanently attached to this fabricated document.
Background: Court Take Judicial Notice In support thereof, On November *, *, King requested the court to take judicial notice and address, under Rule * of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires written conclusions based on facts of finding, for the following concerns: *. Was the court without jurisdiction to grant relief to the debt collector, Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee, because they failed to file proof of claim as required by Rule *? *. Was the court without jurisdiction because Bank of New York Mellon was assigned a defaulted charged off mortgage that was not secured by the promissory note and mortgage obligation that was conveyed to the original refinance lender?
Case Rating: *
It looks like you have a complex issue involving jurisdiction and potentially fraudulent documentation in a bankruptcy case. Here are some key points summarized:
- King requested the court take judicial notice under Rule * of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
- The concerns are whether the court had jurisdiction to grant relief due to procedural issues with proof of claim and the assignment of a defaulted mortgage not secured by the promissory note and mortgage.
Would you like to provide more details about your case or ask specific questions regarding your situation?
Please enhance the last tread
Sure, here's an enhanced version:
---
Background: Court Take Judicial Notice
In support thereof, on November *, *, King requested the court to take judicial notice and address, under Rule * of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires written conclusions based on facts of finding, for the following concerns:
*. Jurisdiction to Grant Relief: Was the court without jurisdiction to grant relief to the debt collector, Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee, because they failed to file proof of claim as required by Rule *?
*. Assignment of Defaulted Mortgage: Was the court without jurisdiction because Bank of New York Mellon was assigned a defaulted charged-off mortgage that was not secured by the promissory note and mortgage obligation that was conveyed to the original refinance lender?
---
Would you like to provide more details about your case or ask specific questions regarding your situation?
Please enhance; *. Did Bank of New York Mellon as Trustee, BNYMT, transfer the debt for the sole purpose of collecting the debt on behalf of a trust, defining it as a debt collector, who was not a party to the promissory note and mortgage contract? *. Did the defendants along with their counsel, debt collecting law firms, have reason to know that an assignment of mortgage executed by a non-party to the promissory note and mortgage contract possesses no rights to enforce the debt obligation pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code, UCC *-*(d)?
Case Rating: *
Sure, here's an enhanced version:
---
Background: Court Take Judicial Notice
In support thereof, on November *, *, King requested the court to take judicial notice and address, under Rule * of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires written conclusions based on facts of finding, for the following concerns:
*. Jurisdiction to Grant Relief: Was the court without jurisdiction to grant relief to the debt collector, Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee, because they failed to file proof of claim as required by Rule *?
*. Assignment of Defaulted Mortgage: Was the court without jurisdiction because Bank of New York Mellon was assigned a defaulted charged-off mortgage that was not secured by the promissory note and mortgage obligation that was conveyed to the original refinance lender?
*. Debt Transfer for Collection: Did Bank of New York Mellon as Trustee, BNYMT, transfer the debt for the sole purpose of collecting the debt on behalf of a trust, defining it as a debt collector, who was not a party to the promissory note and mortgage contract?
*. Knowledge of Invalid Assignment: Did the defendants, along with their counsel and debt-collecting law firms, have reason to know that an assignment of mortgage executed by a non-party to the promissory note and mortgage contract possesses no rights to enforce the debt obligation pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code, UCC *-*(d)?
---
Would you like to provide more details about your case or ask specific questions regarding your situation?
Please enhance; *. Was the court aware that the debt collector, who were not creditors, knew that MERS was not a party to the mortgage or promissory note contract. MERS was solely a nominee for the lender, ComUnity Lending Incorporated,? *. Did the bankruptcy court have the sole responsibility to determine the validity of a secure claim irrespective of decision(s) made by state courts? *. Was the court aware that the purported assignment of King’s property filed in the Hampden County Registry of Deeds on December *, *, while the mortgage was in default, which was verified by the 90 day right to cure sent June *, *, unquestionably establishes a status of being unsecured debt?
Case Rating: *
Sure, here's an enhanced version:
---
Background: Court Take Judicial Notice
In support thereof, on November *, *, King requested the court to take judicial notice and address, under Rule * of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires written conclusions based on facts of finding, for the following concerns:
*. Jurisdiction to Grant Relief: Was the court without jurisdiction to grant relief to the debt collector, Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee, because they failed to file proof of claim as required by Rule *?
*. Assignment of Defaulted Mortgage: Was the court without jurisdiction because Bank of New York Mellon was assigned a defaulted charged-off mortgage that was not secured by the promissory note and mortgage obligation that was conveyed to the original refinance lender?
*. Debt Transfer for Collection: Did Bank of New York Mellon as Trustee, BNYMT, transfer the debt for the sole purpose of collecting the debt on behalf of a trust, defining it as a debt collector, who was not a party to the promissory note and mortgage contract?
*. Knowledge of Invalid Assignment: Did the defendants, along with their counsel and debt-collecting law firms, have reason to know that an assignment of mortgage executed by a non-party to the promissory note and mortgage contract possesses no rights to enforce the debt obligation pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code, UCC *-*(d)?
*. Awareness of Debt Collector's Knowledge: Was the court aware that the debt collector, who were not creditors, knew that MERS was not a party to the mortgage or promissory note contract, as MERS was solely a nominee for the lender, ComUnity Lending Incorporated?
*. Bankruptcy Court Responsibility: Did the bankruptcy court have the sole responsibility to determine the validity of a secured claim irrespective of decision(s) made by state courts?
*. Purported Unsecured Debt: Was the court aware that the purported assignment of King’s property, filed in the Hampden County Registry of Deeds on December *, *, while the mortgage was in default, which was verified by the *-day right to cure sent June *, *, unquestionably establishes a status of being unsecured debt?
---
Would you like to provide more details about your case or ask specific questions regarding your situation?
Please enhance; *. Was this court aware that the original lender, ComUnity Lending Inc., was in Northern California Bankruptcy Court (NCBC) from January *, * through November *, *, which required that bankruptcy court to approve of any assignment sale or transfer of the debt obligation? *. Was the court stating that it relied upon the decision of the lower court, which was based on fraudulent altered certified documents submitted in the summary judgment, a violation of King's Constitutional Rights? *. Did the bankruptcy court have an obligation to determine if there was a secure claim independent of any state court decision?
Case Rating: *
Sure, here's an enhanced version:
---
Background: Court Take Judicial Notice
In support thereof, on November *, *, King requested the court to take judicial notice and address, under Rule * of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires written conclusions based on facts of finding, for the following concerns:
*. Jurisdiction to Grant Relief: Was the court without jurisdiction to grant relief to the debt collector, Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee, because they failed to file proof of claim as required by Rule *?
*. Assignment of Defaulted Mortgage: Was the court without jurisdiction because Bank of New York Mellon was assigned a defaulted charged-off mortgage that was not secured by the promissory note and mortgage obligation that was conveyed to the original refinance lender?
*. Debt Transfer for Collection: Did Bank of New York Mellon as Trustee, BNYMT, transfer the debt for the sole purpose of collecting the debt on behalf of a trust, defining it as a debt collector, who was not a party to the promissory note and mortgage contract?
*. Knowledge of Invalid Assignment: Did the defendants, along with their counsel and debt-collecting law firms, have reason to know that an assignment of mortgage executed by a non-party to the promissory note and mortgage contract possesses no rights to enforce the debt obligation pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code, UCC *-*(d)?
*. Awareness of Debt Collector's Knowledge: Was the court aware that the debt collector, who were not creditors, knew that MERS was not a party to the mortgage or promissory note contract, as MERS was solely a nominee for the lender, ComUnity Lending Incorporated?
*. Bankruptcy Court Responsibility: Did the bankruptcy court have the sole responsibility to determine the validity of a secured claim irrespective of decision(s) made by state courts?
*. Purported Unsecured Debt: Was the court aware that the purported assignment of King’s property, filed in the Hampden County Registry of Deeds on December *, *, while the mortgage was in default, which was verified by the *-day right to cure sent June *, *, unquestionably establishes a status of being unsecured debt?
*. Bankruptcy Court Approval: Was this court aware that the original lender, ComUnity Lending Inc., was in Northern California Bankruptcy Court (NCBC) from January *, *, through November *, *, which required that bankruptcy court to approve any assignment, sale, or transfer of the debt obligation?
*. Reliance on Fraudulent Documents: Was the court stating that it relied upon the decision of the lower court, which was based on fraudulent altered certified documents submitted in the summary judgment, a violation of King's Constitutional rights?
*. Determination of Secure Claim: Did the bankruptcy court have an obligation to determine if there was a secure claim independent of any state court decision?
---
Would you like to provide more details about your case or ask specific questions regarding your situation?
Please enhance; *. What perfected evidence has been presented to this court, or any other court, to validate that the debt collectors ever had a legitimate claim? *. Did the court have the obligation to address these judicial notice issues in writing pursuant to Federal Rule *? There are major aspects to this case which the courts have not addressed and have abused their discretion allowing debt collectors to proceed into foreclosing action without any authenticated verification of evidence; including, the original refinanced bifurcated loans deficiencies, lack of proof of claim, lack of Article * standing, lack of verified assignment. Their refusal to provide written explanation of their finding of facts further violates King's Constitutional Rights.
Case Rating: *
Sure, here's an enhanced version:
---
Background: Court Take Judicial Notice
In support thereof, on November *, *, King requested the court to take judicial notice and address, under Rule * of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires written conclusions based on facts of finding, for the following concerns:
*. Jurisdiction to Grant Relief: Was the court without jurisdiction to grant relief to the debt collector, Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee, because they failed to file proof of claim as required by Rule *?
*. Assignment of Defaulted Mortgage: Was the court without jurisdiction because Bank of New York Mellon was assigned a defaulted charged-off mortgage that was not secured by the promissory note and mortgage obligation that was conveyed to the original refinance lender?
*. Debt Transfer for Collection: Did Bank of New York Mellon as Trustee, BNYMT, transfer the debt for the sole purpose of collecting the debt on behalf of a trust, defining it as a debt collector, who was not a party to the promissory note and mortgage contract?
*. Knowledge of Invalid Assignment: Did the defendants, along with their counsel and debt-collecting law firms, have reason to know that an assignment of mortgage executed by a non-party to the promissory note and mortgage contract possesses no rights to enforce the debt obligation pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code, UCC *-*(d)?
*. Awareness of Debt Collector's Knowledge: Was the court aware that the debt collector, who were not creditors, knew that MERS was not a party to the mortgage or promissory note contract, as MERS was solely a nominee for the lender, ComUnity Lending Incorporated?
*. Bankruptcy Court Responsibility: Did the bankruptcy court have the sole responsibility to determine the validity of a secured claim irrespective of decision(s) made by state courts?
*. Purported Unsecured Debt: Was the court aware that the purported assignment of King’s property, filed in the Hampden County Registry of Deeds on December *, *, while the mortgage was in default, which was verified by the *-day right to cure sent June *, *, unquestionably establishes a status of being unsecured debt?
*. Bankruptcy Court Approval: Was this court aware that the original lender, ComUnity Lending Inc., was in Northern California Bankruptcy Court (NCBC) from January *, *, through November *, *, which required that bankruptcy court to approve any assignment, sale, or transfer of the debt obligation?
*. Reliance on Fraudulent Documents: Was the court stating that it relied upon the decision of the lower court, which was based on fraudulent altered certified documents submitted in the summary judgment, a violation of King's Constitutional rights?
*. Determination of Secure Claim: Did the bankruptcy court have an obligation to determine if there was a secure claim independent of any state court decision?
*. Evidence of Legitimate Claim: What perfected evidence has been presented to this court, or any other court, to validate that the debt collectors ever had a legitimate claim?
*. Written Conclusions Under Rule *: Did the court have the obligation to address these judicial notice issues in writing pursuant to Federal Rule *?
There are major aspects to this case which the courts have not addressed and have abused their discretion by allowing debt collectors to proceed into foreclosing action without any authenticated verification of evidence; including, the original refinanced bifurcated loans deficiencies, lack of proof of claim, lack of Article * standing, and lack of verified assignment. Their refusal to provide written explanations of their findings of facts further violates King's Constitutional Rights.
---
Would you like to provide more details about your case or ask specific questions regarding your situation?
Please enhance; Legal Standard FRBP *(c) is a rule that outlines the time limits for filing a proof of claim in a bankruptcy case. The court allowed the debt collector, BNYMT, and its attorneys working together to violate King’s constitutional rights by improperly allowing the debt collector relief from the automatic stay without presenting the required “proof of claim” to prevent the debtor from properly asserting his rights in the bankruptcy process. Here are some key points: - Proof of Claim Deadlines: Generally, a proof of claim must be filed within 70 days, in a Chapter *, after the bankruptcy case was filed October *, *.
Case Rating: *
---
Legal Standard:
FRBP *(c) outlines the time limits for filing a proof of claim in a bankruptcy case. The court allowed the debt collector, BNYMT, and its attorneys to violate King’s constitutional rights by improperly granting relief from the automatic stay without presenting the required proof of claim, preventing King from asserting his rights in the bankruptcy process.
Key Points:
- Proof of Claim Deadlines: Generally, a proof of claim must be filed within 70 days in a Chapter * case after the bankruptcy case was filed on October *, *.
---
Would you like to provide more details about your case or ask specific questions regarding your situation?
Enhance; - Constitutional Violations: If there is evidence of a conspiracy to suppress or manipulate the proof of claim filing process, it could potentially be a constitutional violation, particularly if it involves due process rights under the 5th or 14th Amendments. -Case law: *. The Supreme Court precedent clearly stated in Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson: “The trustee normally bears the burden of investigating claims… The audience in Chapter * bankruptcy cases include a trustee, * U. S. C. §*(a), who must examine proof of claim and, where appropriate, pose an objection, §§*(a)(*), *(b)(*) (including any timeliness objection, §§*(b)(*), *).
Case Rating: *
Enhanced Statement:
Legal Standard:
- Constitutional Violations: If there is evidence of a conspiracy to suppress or manipulate the proof of claim filing process, it could potentially be a constitutional violation, particularly involving due process rights under the 5th or 14th Amendments.
- Case Law:
*. Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson: The Supreme Court precedent states, “The trustee normally bears the burden of investigating claims… The audience in Chapter * bankruptcy cases includes a trustee, * U. S. C. §*(a), who must examine proof of claim and, where appropriate, pose an objection, §§*(a)(*), *(b)(*) (including any timeliness objection, §§*(b)(*), *)."
Would you like to provide more details about your case or ask specific questions regarding your situation?
Please enhance; And that trustee is likely to understand that, as the Code says, proof of claim is a statement by the creditor that he or she has a right to payment subject to disallowance (including disallowance based upon, and following, the trustee’s objection for untimeliness). §§*(*)(A), *(b), *(a)(*), *(b)(*).” Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, * U.S. * (*).” The lack of authenticating evidence presented by the debt collector should activate the disallowance of this claim.
Case Rating: *
Enhanced Statement:
---

Legal Standard:
- Constitutional Violations: If there is evidence of a conspiracy to suppress or manipulate the proof of claim filing process, it could potentially be a constitutional violation, particularly involving due process rights under the 5th or 14th Amendments.
- Case Law:
*. Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson: The Supreme Court precedent states, “The trustee normally bears the burden of investigating claims… The audience in Chapter * bankruptcy cases includes a trustee, * U. S. C. § *(a), who must examine proof of claim and, where appropriate, pose an objection, §§ *(a)(*), *(b)(*) (including any timeliness objection, §§ *(b)(*), *)."
And that trustee is likely to understand that, as the Code says, proof of claim is a statement by the creditor that they have a right to payment subject to disallowance (including disallowance based upon, and following, the trustee’s objection for untimeliness). §§ *(*)(A), *(b), *(a)(*), *(b)(*).” _Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, * U.S. * (*)._
The lack of authenticating evidence presented by the debt collector should activate the disallowance of this claim.
---
Would you like to provide more details about your case or ask specific questions regarding your situation?
Enhance; Argument: Lack of Jurisdiction A very straightforward case has escalated into a complex malicious prosecution of an *-year-old victim. The primary issue in the federal bankruptcy court was to determine if the claimant had a valid claim, regardless of the lower court's decision. A non-party to the mortgage contract and promissory note, as a threshold matter, needed to provide authenticate evidence to establish **Article * standing and to be recognized as a holder in due course with the right to foreclose. The party has failed to: - Validate the debt. - Show any injury. - Establish themselves as a creditor. - Present the chain of title. - Provide a negotiated instrument proving possession of the promissory note.
Case Rating: *
Enhanced Argument:
Argument: Lack of Jurisdiction
A straightforward case has escalated into a complex malicious prosecution of an *-year-old victim. The primary issue in the federal bankruptcy court was to determine if the claimant had a valid claim, regardless of the lower court's decision. A non-party to the mortgage contract and promissory note, as a threshold matter, needed to provide authenticated evidence to establish Article * standing and to be recognized as a holder in due course with the right to foreclose.
The party has failed to:
- Validate the debt
- Show any injury
- Establish themselves as a creditor
- Present the chain of title
- Provide a negotiated instrument proving possession of the promissory note
Would you like to provide more details about your case or ask specific questions regarding your situation?
Please enhance; - Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article *: Governs negotiable instruments, including promissory notes and the requirements for a party to be a holder in due course. - Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure *: Requires proof of claim to be accompanied by documentation that supports the claim. - In re Veal, * B.R. * (B.A.P. 9th Cir. *): An important case that discusses the requirements for standing in bankruptcy court, including the need to show possession of the promissory note. -Without these essential elements, once again the court has not established subject matter jurisdiction.
Case Rating: *
Enhanced Statement:
- Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article *: Governs negotiable instruments, including promissory notes, and the requirements for a party to be a holder in due course.
- Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure *: Requires proof of claim to be accompanied by documentation that supports the claim.
- In re Veal, * B.R. * (B.A.P. 9th Cir. *): An important case discussing the requirements for standing in bankruptcy court, including the need to show possession of the promissory note.
Without these essential elements, the court has not established subject matter jurisdiction.
Would you like to provide more details about your case or ask specific questions regarding your situation?
Please enhance; - A disputed claim dealing with property rights should have been prosecuted as an adversarial proceeding under * USC *. It must be heard by the District Court or the Bankruptcy Court under * USC *(a) and *(e)(*), which grant district court’s jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases and related proceedings. - Sending this case back to the Western Housing Court instead of moving it to the District Court is a clear violation of King's Constitutional 5th Amendment right to due process. - Once in bankruptcy, BNYMT was judicially estopped from filing a claim anywhere without submitting a proof of claim.
Case Rating: *
Enhanced Statement:
- A disputed claim dealing with property rights should have been prosecuted as an adversarial proceeding under * USC *. It must be heard by the District Court or the Bankruptcy Court under * USC *(a) and *(e)(*), which grant district courts jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases and related proceedings.
- Sending this case back to the Western Housing Court instead of moving it to the District Court is a clear violation of King's Constitutional 5th Amendment right to due process.
- Once in bankruptcy, BNYMT was judicially estopped from filing a claim anywhere without submitting a proof of claim.
Would you like to provide more details about your case or ask specific questions regarding your situation?
Enhance; Argument: Misclassification of Debt Collector as Creditor • The court erred by concluding that the debt collector was a creditor. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), specifically * U.S.C. § 1692a(*), clearly states that a party who purchases a debt in default is a debt collector, not a creditor, and is subject to the FDCPA. • The court erred; According to Cornell Law, Debt Collectors are not Creditors, * USC § 1692a(*); The term “creditor” means any person who offers or extends credit creating a debt or to whom a debt is owed, but such term does not include any person to the extent that he receives an assignment or transfer of a debt in default solely for the purpose of facilitating collection of such debt for another.
Case Rating: *
Enhanced Argument:
Argument: Misclassification of Debt Collector as Creditor
- The court erred by concluding that the debt collector was a creditor. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), specifically * U.S.C. § 1692a(*), clearly states that a party who purchases a debt in default is a debt collector, not a creditor, and is subject to the FDCPA.
- According to Cornell Law, debt collectors are not creditors. * U.S.C. § 1692a(*) defines a "creditor" as any person who offers or extends credit creating a debt or to whom a debt is owed, but excludes any person who receives an assignment or transfer of a debt in default solely for the purpose of facilitating collection of such debt for another.
Would you like to provide more details about your case or ask specific questions regarding your situation?
Please enhance; • The court erred; Debt collectors did not validate that they suffered an injury or provide authenticated evidence of the mortgage assignment or promissory note endorsement, violating * U.S.C. § 1692g(b). • The court erred; Debt collectors violated * U.S.C. § 1692e by falsely claiming they were entitled to enforce a promissory note they were not a party to. • The court erred; Debt collectors BNYMT, Select Portfolio Servicing, and its attorneys never disclosed that they were debt collectors, violating * U.S.C. § 1692e(*).
Case Rating: *
Enhanced Argument:
Argument: Debt Collector Violations
- The court erred by concluding that the debt collector was a creditor. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), specifically * U.S.C. § 1692a(*), clearly states that a party who purchases a debt in default is a debt collector, not a creditor, and is subject to the FDCPA.
- According to Cornell Law, debt collectors are not creditors. * U.S.C. § 1692a(*) defines a "creditor" as any person who offers or extends credit creating a debt or to whom a debt is owed, but excludes any person who receives an assignment or transfer of a debt in default solely for the purpose of facilitating collection of such debt for another.
- The court erred; Debt collectors did not validate that they suffered an injury or provide authenticated evidence of the mortgage assignment or promissory note endorsement, violating * U.S.C. § 1692g(b).
- The court erred; Debt collectors violated * U.S.C. § 1692e by falsely claiming they were entitled to enforce a promissory note they were not a party to.
- The court erred; Debt collectors BNYMT, Select Portfolio Servicing, and its attorneys never disclosed that they were debt collectors, violating * U.S.C. § 1692e(*).
Would you like to provide more details about your case or ask specific questions regarding your situation?
Please enhance; • Pursuant to regulation F of the FDCPA, validation of debt, and Massachusetts General Laws Chapter *, § *, the note would have been time-barred, six years from the last payment on the debt, January *, *. The original refinance lender CLI, declared liquidating bankruptcy January *, *, without selling, assigning, or transferring the obligation.
Case Rating: *
Enhanced Argument:
Pursuant to Regulation F of the FDCPA, validation of debt, and Massachusetts General Laws Chapter *, § *:
- The note would have been time-barred six years from the last payment on the debt, January *, *.
- The original refinance lender, CLI, declared liquidating bankruptcy on January *, *, without selling, assigning, or transferring the obligation.
Would you like to provide more details about your case or ask specific questions regarding your situation?
Enhance; Argument: * Day Right to Cure Deception *. Mismatch in Addresses - Evidence: Exhibit J, Attorney Fumarola provides the bar code and tracking number for the mandatory *-day right to cure document supposedly sent to Alton King and Terri Mayes-King by registered mail at * Memery Lane, Longmeadow, MA * (See pp. *-*). - Discrepancy: In Exhibit H, the actual delivery was made to an address in East Longmeadow, MA. The barcode number “* *” and the address do not match the delivery location. *. Lack of Signature - Absence of Confirmation: There were no signatures confirming receipt of the registered mail. This indicates that the *-day right to cure notice was not properly delivered.
Case Rating: *
Enhanced Argument:
Argument: * Day Right to Cure Deception
*. Mismatch in Addresses
- Evidence: Exhibit J shows Attorney Fumarola provided the bar code and tracking number for the *-day right to cure document supposedly sent to Alton King and Terri Mayes-King by registered mail at * Memery Lane, Longmeadow, MA * (See pp. *-*).
- Discrepancy: Exhibit H reveals the actual delivery was made to an address in East Longmeadow, MA. The barcode number “* *” and the address do not match the delivery location.

*. Lack of Signature
- Absence of Confirmation: There were no signatures confirming receipt of the registered mail, indicating that the *-day right to cure notice was not properly delivered.
Would you like to provide more details about your case or ask specific questions regarding your situation?
Please enhance; *. Default Status Confirmation - Undelivered Notice: The undelivered *-day right to cure notice confirms that the note was in default when assigned to BNYMT on December *, *. This indicates the debt collector’s unsecured status. *. Fraud Upon the Court - Counts of Fraud: The mismatched addresses, lack of signature, and the confirmation of default status collectively indicate three counts of fraud upon the court. These inconsistencies and lack of proper delivery procedures undermine the legitimacy of the opposing party’s claims.
Case Rating: *
Enhanced Argument:
Argument: * Day Right to Cure Deception
*. Mismatch in Addresses
- Evidence: Exhibit J shows Attorney Fumarola provided the bar code and tracking number for the *-day right to cure document supposedly sent to Alton King and Terri Mayes-King by registered mail at * Memery Lane, Longmeadow, MA * (See pp. *-*).
- Discrepancy: Exhibit H reveals the actual delivery was made to an address in East Longmeadow, MA. The barcode number “* *” and the address do not match the delivery location.

*. Lack of Signature
- Absence of Confirmation: There were no signatures confirming receipt of the registered mail, indicating that the *-day right to cure notice was not properly delivered.
*. Default Status Confirmation
- Undelivered Notice: The undelivered *-day right to cure notice confirms that the note was in default when assigned to BNYMT on December *, *. This indicates the debt collector’s unsecured status.
*. Fraud Upon the Court
- Counts of Fraud: The mismatched addresses, lack of signature, and the confirmation of default status collectively indicate three counts of fraud upon the court. These inconsistencies and lack of proper delivery procedures undermine the legitimacy of the opposing party’s claims.
Would you like to provide more details about your case or ask specific questions regarding your situation?
Please enhance; *. Intent to Deceive - Deliberate Action: The opposing attorney filed altered, fraudulent information in his affidavit for summary judgment to manipulate the court’s decision in their favor. *. Prejudice - Impact on Case: This fraudulent information prejudices my case and affects the court's decision, undermining the fairness of the judicial process. *. Violation of Massachusetts Law - Legal Breach: The purported sending of the *-day right to cure by the servicer, Select Portfolio Servicing, six months prior to the Bank of New York Mellon as Trustee being assigned the property, means the bank never sent it. This is a violation under Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter *, Section 35A.
Case Rating: *
Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?
---
Enhanced Argument:
Argument: * Day Right to Cure Deception
*. Mismatch in Addresses
- Evidence: Exhibit J shows Attorney Fumarola provided the bar code and tracking number for the *-day right to cure document supposedly sent to Alton King and Terri Mayes-King by registered mail at * Memery Lane, Longmeadow, MA * (See pp. *-*).
- Discrepancy: Exhibit H reveals the actual delivery was made to an address in East Longmeadow, MA. The barcode number “* *” and the address do not match the delivery location.
*. Lack of Signature
- Absence of Confirmation: There were no signatures confirming receipt of the registered mail, indicating that the *-day right to cure notice was not properly delivered.
*. Default Status Confirmation
- Undelivered Notice: The undelivered *-day right to cure notice confirms that the note was in default when assigned to BNYMT on December *, *. This indicates the debt collector’s unsecured status.
*. Fraud Upon the Court
- Counts of Fraud: The mismatched addresses, lack of signature, and the confirmation of default status collectively indicate three counts of fraud upon the court. These inconsistencies and lack of proper delivery procedures undermine the legitimacy of the opposing party’s claims.
*. Intent to Deceive
- Deliberate Action: The opposing attorney filed altered, fraudulent information in his affidavit for summary judgment to manipulate the court’s decision in their favor.
*. Prejudice
- Impact on Case: This fraudulent information prejudices my case and affects the court's decision, undermining the fairness of the judicial process.
*. Violation of Massachusetts Law
- Legal Breach: The purported sending of the *-day right to cure by the servicer, Select Portfolio Servicing, six months prior to the Bank of New York Mellon as Trustee being assigned the property, means the bank never sent it. This is a violation under Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter *, Section 35A.
Would you like to provide more details about your case or ask specific questions regarding your situation?
Please enhance; Argument: Rooker-Feldman ) The Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine generally prevents parties from bringing claims in federal district courts when the plaintiff in federal court seeks to void the state court judgment. - Great Western Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, * F.3d *, *–* (3d Cir. *). The Debtor is alleging independent federal claims, which he could not allege in the state court action, under Section * to avoid the foreclosure as a fraudulent transfer and the Takings Clause to show equity theft.
Case Rating: *
Enhanced Argument:
Argument: Rooker-Feldman Doctrine
- The Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply. This doctrine generally prevents parties from bringing claims in federal district courts when the plaintiff in federal court seeks to void the state court judgment.
- Great Western Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, * F.3d *, *–* (3d Cir. *): The Debtor is alleging independent federal claims under Section * to avoid the foreclosure as a fraudulent transfer and the Takings Clause to show equity theft.
Would you like to provide more details about your case or ask specific questions regarding your situation?
enhance; - Although the Section * claim and the Takings Clause claim are closely related to the state foreclosure judgment, that by itself does not mean that Rooker-Feldman applies. ** Skinner v. Switzer, * U.S. *, *, * S.Ct. *, * L.Ed.2d * (*) (presenting independent claims that are similar to state court claims is not an impediment to federal jurisdiction). - The court's consideration of the Section * and Takings Clause claims is not a review and rejection of the state court foreclosure judgment because the court can assume the state court reached a proper foreclosure judgment, but then independently decide whether the foreclosure could be avoided as a fraudulent transfer under Section * or as an impermissible taking under the Fifth Amendment and/or the New Jersey Constitution.
Case Rating: *
Enhanced Argument:
Argument: Rooker-Feldman Doctrine
- The Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply. This doctrine generally prevents parties from bringing claims in federal district courts when the plaintiff in federal court seeks to void the state court judgment.
- Great Western Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, * F.3d *, *–* (3d Cir. *): The Debtor is alleging independent federal claims under Section * to avoid the foreclosure as a fraudulent transfer and the Takings Clause to show equity theft.
- Although the Section * claim and the Takings Clause claim are closely related to the state foreclosure judgment, that by itself does not mean that Rooker-Feldman applies. ** Skinner v. Switzer, * U.S. *, *, * S.Ct. *, * L.Ed.2d * (*) (presenting independent claims that are similar to state court claims is not an impediment to federal jurisdiction).
- The court's consideration of the Section * and Takings Clause claims is not a review and rejection of the state court foreclosure judgment because the court can assume the state court reached a proper foreclosure judgment, but then independently decide whether the foreclosure could be avoided as a fraudulent transfer under Section * or as an impermissible taking under the Fifth Amendment and/or the New Jersey Constitution.
Would you like to provide more details about your case or ask specific questions regarding your situation?
Enhance; See In re Philadelphia Ent. & Dev. Partners, * F.3d *, *-* (3d Cir. *) (Rooker-Feldman does not apply to a fraudulent transfer action); - In re Lowry, No. *-*, * WL *, at ** (6th Cir. Dec. *, *); - In re Isaacs, * F.3d * (6th Cir. *) (Rooker-Feldman does not apply to causes of action brought under Code Section *); - In re Sasson, * F.3d *, * (9th Cir. *) (Rooker-Feldman does not bar the exercise of federal bankruptcy power and bankruptcy courts may avoid state judgments in core bankruptcy proceedings, under Sections *, *, *, *, may modify judgments under * U.S.C. §§ *, *, and, may discharge judgments under * U.S.C. §§ *, *, *).
Case Rating: *
Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?
No thank you; Please enhance
Case Rating: *
Enhanced Argument:
Argument: Rooker-Feldman Doctrine
- The Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply. This doctrine generally prevents parties from bringing claims in federal district courts when the plaintiff in federal court seeks to void the state court judgment.
- Great Western Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, * F.3d *, *–* (3d Cir. *): The Debtor is alleging independent federal claims under Section * to avoid the foreclosure as a fraudulent transfer and the Takings Clause to show equity theft.
- Although the Section * claim and the Takings Clause claim are closely related to the state foreclosure judgment, that by itself does not mean that Rooker-Feldman applies. ** Skinner v. Switzer, * U.S. *, *, * S.Ct. *, * L.Ed.2d * (*) (presenting independent claims that are similar to state court claims is not an impediment to federal jurisdiction).
- The court's consideration of the Section * and Takings Clause claims is not a review and rejection of the state court foreclosure judgment because the court can assume the state court reached a proper foreclosure judgment, but then independently decide whether the foreclosure could be avoided as a fraudulent transfer under Section * or as an impermissible taking under the Fifth Amendment and/or the New Jersey Constitution.
- In re Philadelphia Ent. & Dev. Partners, * F.3d *, *-* (3d Cir. *): Rooker-Feldman does not apply to a fraudulent transfer action.
- In re Lowry, No. *-*, * WL *, at ** (6th Cir. Dec. *, *): Rooker-Feldman does not apply to causes of action brought under Code Section *.
- In re Isaacs, * F.3d * (6th Cir. *): Rooker-Feldman does not apply to causes of action brought under Code Section *.
- In re Sasson, * F.3d *, * (9th Cir. *): Rooker-Feldman does not bar the exercise of federal bankruptcy power. Bankruptcy courts may avoid state judgments in core bankruptcy proceedings under Sections *, *, *, *, may modify judgments under * U.S.C. §§ *, *, and may discharge judgments under * U.S.C. §§ *, *, *.
Would you like to provide more details about your case or ask specific questions regarding your situation?
Enhance; Constitutional and Civil Rights Violations Argument *. Court Errors and Rights Violation - Court errors have compromised King's Constitutional and Civil Rights, including due process. - Pursuant to * USC § * and § *, it is unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. This ongoing conspiracy must be addressed to uphold justice. *. Constitutional Protections - The 5th and 14th Amendments protect against deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law and ensure equal protection under the law.
Case Rating: *
Enhanced Argument:
Constitutional and Civil Rights Violations Argument
*. Court Errors and Rights Violation
- Court errors have compromised King's Constitutional and Civil Rights, including due process.
- Pursuant to * USC § * and § *, it is unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. This ongoing conspiracy must be addressed to uphold justice.
*. Constitutional Protections
- The 5th and 14th Amendments protect against deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law and ensure equal protection under the law.
Would you like to provide more details about your case or ask specific questions regarding your situation?
Please enhance; *. Violation through Fabricated Evidence - Presenting fabricated evidence to obtain possession of property is a violation of these rights.- * U.S.C. § *: Falsifying, concealing, or covering up a material fact or making fraudulent statements in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the U.S. government. - * U.S.C. § *: Pertains to bank fraud, including schemes to defraud a financial institution. - These ongoing unlawful activities whose scope and persistence pose a special threat to social well-being.
Case Rating: *
Enhanced Argument:
Constitutional and Civil Rights Violations Argument
*. Court Errors and Rights Violation
- Court errors have compromised King's Constitutional and Civil Rights, including due process.
- Pursuant to * USC § * and § *, it is unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. This ongoing conspiracy must be addressed to uphold justice.
*. Constitutional Protections
- The 5th and 14th Amendments protect against deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law and ensure equal protection under the law.
*. Violation through Fabricated Evidence
- Presenting fabricated evidence to obtain possession of property is a violation of these rights.
- * U.S.C. § *: Falsifying, concealing, or covering up a material fact or making fraudulent statements in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the U.S. government.
- * U.S.C. § *: Pertains to bank fraud, including schemes to defraud a financial institution.
- These ongoing unlawful activities whose scope and persistence pose a special threat to social well-being.
Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?
Please enhance; Conclusion A straightforward case has escalated into an elaborate ongoing malicious prosecution of an *-year-old victim. The primary issue in federal bankruptcy court was to determine if the claimant had a valid claim, regardless of the lower court's decision. A non-party to the mortgage contract and promissory note needed to provide authenticated evidence to establish Article * standing and become a holder in due course with the right to foreclose. The bankruptcy judge abused her discretion by not determining if there was a legitimate claim, granting a non-party, who did not file a “proof of claim”, relief from automatic stay and then compounded this error by allowing a Title * case to go back to the Western Housing Court.
Case Rating: *
Conclusion
A straightforward case has escalated into an elaborate ongoing malicious prosecution of an *-year-old victim. The primary issue in federal bankruptcy court was to determine if the claimant had a valid claim, regardless of the lower court's decision. A non-party to the mortgage contract and promissory note needed to provide authenticated evidence to establish Article * standing and become a holder in due course with the right to foreclose. The bankruptcy judge abused her discretion by not determining if there was a legitimate claim, granting a non-party, who did not file a “proof of claim,” relief from the automatic stay and then compounded this error by allowing a Title * case to return to the Western Housing Court.
Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?
Please enhance; The housing court judge further violated King’s constitutional rights to due process by, (*) not referring the case back to the Bankruptcy or district court; (*) not addressing the * before and 60B6 claims; (*) not providing written responses based on findings of facts pursuant to rule *; (*) relying on a lower court decision, which was based on fraud, without determining if there was a legitimate claim. The courts have allowed debt collectors, their attorneys, and agents to avoid addressing core issues by invoking the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine; knowing or should have known this doctrine does not apply to fraudulent transfers.
Case Rating: *
---
Conclusion
The housing court judge further violated King’s constitutional rights to due process by:
*. Not referring the case back to the Bankruptcy or district court.
*. Not addressing the Rule * and 60B6 claims.
*. Not providing written responses based on findings of facts pursuant to Rule *.
*. Relying on a lower court decision based on fraud without determining if there was a legitimate claim.
The courts have allowed debt collectors, their attorneys, and agents to avoid addressing core issues by invoking the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, knowing or should have known this doctrine does not apply to fraudulent transfers.
Would you like to provide more details about your case or ask specific questions regarding your situation?
Please enhance; The party has not validated the debt, shown any injury, established themselves as a creditor, presented a chain of title, or provided a negotiated instrument establishing possession of the promissory note. Instead, they falsified an assignment of the mortgage contract, and never claimed ownership or produce and endorsed promissory note misrepresentations. The records show that their allegations were not supported by authenticated affidavits, reducing them to mere hearsay. Without these factors, the court has never established jurisdiction.
Case Rating: *
Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?
---
Enhanced Argument:

Conclusion
The party has not validated the debt, shown any injury, established themselves as a creditor, presented a chain of title, or provided a negotiated instrument establishing possession of the promissory note. Instead, they falsified an assignment of the mortgage contract and never claimed ownership or produced an endorsed promissory note. The records show that their allegations were not supported by authenticated affidavits, reducing them to mere hearsay. Without these factors, the court has never established jurisdiction.


Would you like to provide more details about your case or ask specific questions regarding your situation?
Please enhance; - Having determined that the claimant was not the original lender, the court needed verification of how and when the claimant became a holder with the right to enforce the promissory note. Instead of addressing this crucial core issue, along with numerous deficiencies, the court has allowed the case to proceed with a non-party that has not submitted authenticated evidence establishing Article * standing. This oversight undermines the integrity of the judicial process and the rights of an elderly victim. It is imperative that the court demands authenticated evidence to ensure a fair and just resolution.
Case Rating: *
Enhanced Argument:
- Having determined that the claimant was not the original lender, the court needed verification of how and when the claimant became a holder with the right to enforce the promissory note. Instead of addressing this crucial core issue, along with numerous deficiencies, the court has allowed the case to proceed with a non-party that has not submitted authenticated evidence establishing Article * standing. This oversight undermines the integrity of the judicial process and the rights of an elderly victim. It is imperative that the court demands authenticated evidence to ensure a fair and just resolution.
Would you like to provide more details about your case or ask specific questions regarding your situation?
Please enhance; The District Court of Massachusetts has the authority pursuant to its inherent powers to void all orders based on “fraud on the court,” lack of jurisdiction, or court errors. This authority allows the court to: *. Specific Restitution Requests: - King requests the court to order monetary damages for any financial losses incurred due to the fraudulent actions. - He requests compensation for punitive damages to deter similar future conduct by the violators. - He requests for compensation for any emotional distress caused by the prolonged litigation and fraudulent actions.
Case Rating: *
Enhanced Statement:
The District Court of Massachusetts has the authority pursuant to its inherent powers to void all orders based on “fraud on the court,” lack of jurisdiction, or court errors. This authority allows the court to:
*. Specific Restitution Requests:
- King requests the court to order monetary damages for any financial losses incurred due to the fraudulent actions.
- He requests compensation for punitive damages to deter similar future conduct by the violators.
- He requests compensation for any emotional distress caused by the prolonged litigation and fraudulent actions.
Would you like to provide more details about your case or ask specific questions regarding your situation?
Please enhance; *. Legal Fees: - He requests reimbursement for all legal fees and costs associated with defending against the fraudulent claims. *. Corrective Actions: - He asks the court to mandate corrective actions, such as public records correction, to remove any fraudulent liens or claims on his property. *. Injunctions: - He requests an injunction to prevent the violators from continuing any harmful or fraudulent actions against him in the future. *. Public Apology: - He requests a public apology from the violators, acknowledging their wrongdoing and the harm caused to him.
Case Rating: *
Enhanced Statement:
The District Court of Massachusetts has the authority pursuant to its inherent powers to void all orders based on “fraud on the court,” lack of jurisdiction, or court errors. This authority allows the court to:
*. Specific Restitution Requests:
- King requests the court to order monetary damages for any financial losses incurred due to the fraudulent actions.
- He requests compensation for punitive damages to deter similar future conduct by the violators.
- He requests compensation for any emotional distress caused by the prolonged litigation and fraudulent actions.
*. Legal Fees:
- He requests reimbursement for all legal fees and costs associated with defending against the fraudulent claims.
*. Corrective Actions:
- He asks the court to mandate corrective actions, such as public records correction, to remove any fraudulent liens or claims on his property.
*. Injunctions:
- He requests an injunction to prevent the violators from continuing any harmful or fraudulent actions against him in the future.
*. Public Apology:
- He requests a public apology from the violators, acknowledging their wrongdoing and the harm caused to him.
Would you like to provide more details about your case or ask specific questions regarding your situation?
In the New York Supreme Court settlement agreement in which Bank of New York Mellon trustees were awarded $*.* billion from countrywide and Bank of America was based on what violations?
Case Rating: *
The New York Supreme Court settlement agreement in which Bank of New York Mellon trustees were awarded $*.* billion from Countrywide and Bank of America was based on the following violations:
- Misrepresentation: Countrywide was accused of misrepresenting the quality of mortgage-backed securities.
- Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Countrywide failed to uphold its duties to investors.
- Violation of Securities Laws: Countrywide and Bank of America were found to have violated various securities laws.
Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?
Were there any origination discrepancies of the loans?
Case Rating: *
Here are some common origination discrepancies in loans that could be relevant to your case:
- Incomplete or inaccurate documentation.
- Misrepresentation of borrower information.
- Failure to disclose important information to the borrower.
- Improper verification of income or employment.
- Inflated property appraisals.
Would you like to provide more details about your case or ask specific questions regarding your situation?
Those are perfect, is it written someplace in a or the document?
Case Rating: *
It's great to hear that you found the information helpful! If you need any further assistance or specific details to be included in your documents, feel free to ask. Is there anything else you would like to know or need help with regarding your case?
is it written someplace in a or the document?
Case Rating: *
These issues are typically documented in the loan origination files, mortgage agreements, or court filings related to your case. You may need to review these documents or consult with a legal professional to pinpoint where these discrepancies are recorded. Do you need help with anything else?
I am only looking for where the violations were stated in the court case or for a summary
Case Rating: *
It appears that you are dealing with a complex bankruptcy and foreclosure case involving multiple claims of fraud, jurisdictional issues, and potential violations of federal and state laws. Here are the key points you might find useful:
- Misrepresentation and Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Misrepresentation of mortgage-backed securities quality and breach of fiduciary duty to investors, as seen in similar cases like the New York Supreme Court settlement.
- Origination Discrepancies: Incomplete documentation, misrepresented borrower information, failure to disclose, improper income verification, and inflated appraisals.
For specific citations and detailed summaries, you should review the court case files, affidavits, and rulings.
Would you like to provide more details about your case or ask specific questions regarding your situation?
In my conclusion I should have added that once the Debtor in title * cases filed in bankruptcy court the claimant had to provide A verified proof of claim In order to seek relief or any payments. Without providing the proof of claim claimant was judicially estopped from filing for relief in any court. Furthermore, After successfully arguing A position in a court case to argue the opposite in a different case is judicial estoppel.
Case Rating: *
Enhanced Conclusion:
In my conclusion, I should have added that once the Debtor, in Title * cases, filed in bankruptcy court, the claimant had to provide a verified proof of claim in order to seek relief or any payments. Without providing the proof of claim, the claimant was judicially estopped from filing for relief in any court. Furthermore, after successfully arguing a position in a court case, to argue the opposite in a different case constitutes judicial estoppel.
Would you like to provide more details about your case or ask specific questions regarding your situation?

Related Chats

Bankruptcy Impact On Mortgages

Bankruptcy Lawyer Misconduct Consequences

Filing Chapter 7 Bankruptcy

Understanding BBBY Opt Out Letter

Filing Chapter 7 Bankruptcy

< < Go Back