Jump to content

Bring on the brilliant bank attorneys

Recommended Posts

This is the stuff that I hate. Now I have to file a motion to dismiss under 2-619 for standing and maybe even a motion for sanctions. Read before you sign next time, brilliant bank attorney.


My disdain for you is so great, I must call you a brilliant bank attorney.


And lets discuss why they are substituting in: Sloppiness and FDCPA violations on the part of counsel who is bowing out.


Anyone with other ideas?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wish that these attorneys would at least pay attention and try to get this stuff right. Why not try to get it right when you are trying to kick someone to the curb. It doens't help that everytime I get something in the mail, I don't have to look hard to find mistakes. Some major, some minor.


It also makes it a lot easier to pick out the junk when they literally have 3 law firms on me. I would call that a pro-se gang-, oh nevermind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@shellieh98 Well freddie mac is the note holder, boa is the servicer. Interesting to note that resigning counsel brought the complaint that boa was both the servicer and investor.


Citimortgage? I have no idea how that one snuck in there. Maybe I should just pre-emptively file a quiet title action against citimortgage. I can see them opening the complaint and scratching their heads really hard til they bleed on that one.


The barrel of monkeys that could be released just because of one poorly edit appearance form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In court today, I met with one of the three law firms representing BOA. She said that one of the others present had stepped out. When the case was called, I approached the bench, dressed up as always and introduced myself politely to the judge.


The judge asked me if I had any objection. I carefully, if only momentarily pondered what I should say, and then and there I carefully and politely objected to the motion to substitute. I explained that I was concerned that there was either a careless mistake or dare I say an end around to pull a fast one by substituting in a new plaintiff who lacked standing.


The judge carefully reviewed the motion that had been filed, while the 2 attorneys fumbled and stuttered. The judge would not let them change the motion in the court record, and instead ordered that a new, proper, appearance/substitution be filed.


Hardly a victory by any means, however, a generally defendant adverse judge taking more than a few minutes in a packed courtroom where most cases are signed off on in seconds and the judge loudly deriding that there was currently 3 law firms litigating against one pro-se made me smile, but only after I thanked the judge and turned around.


So its safe to say it's only 2 against 1 now.


To be continued...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I hate to admit this but wow I'm so confused. Buried in all of this motion for more time is the statement that law firm #3 has been informed by the Plaintiff that they no longer wish to be represented by law firm #3. 


"Plaintiff requests an extension of time to reply to the defendants affirmative defenses so that Plaintiff can transfer this file to its new counsel."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.