Recommended Posts

Hello Forum,

HELP!!!

I am a Texas resident and Homestead Property owner involved in a Pro Se "unconscionable contract" dispute with Nationstar Mortgage.

My original petition is attached.  

Nationstar is a "Debt Collection" agency/service provider for Freddie Mac.  

The defendant Nationstar has sent an open letter of "General Denial" to my claim stating:

1) Defendant asserts statue of limitations.

2) Plaintiff has failed to name all necessary parties.

3) Plaintiffs complaint alleges damages that are the result of acts or omissions committed by non-parties to this action over whom the Defendant has no responsibility or control.

4)  Plaintiff failed to state a legal basis for his claim. 

My questions/comments are as follows:

1) I am WAY out of my league as a Pro se litigant.  My experience level in life has not prepared me to fight a giant like Freddie Mac & Nationstar Mortgage but I have lost everything in my pursuit of an equitable judgement and this is my final hope.

2) What do I do?  In responding to the 4 points listed above I can only provide these statements for your help & consideration on how I might go about defending my home.

Point 1:  Defendant asserts statue of limitations:  Taylor Bean & Whitaker were my original mortgage "Note" holders and the FBI put them into force receivership when they raided their offices in 2012 and put several of the executive directors in jail for mortgage lending fraud.  FreddieMac transferred my "Note" to Cenlar just 3 short weeks before the FBI raid.  Cenlar as the second service provider and in the summer of 2015 FreddieMac assigned my note to Nationstar for Debt Collection.  A final letter of denial for assistance from Nationstar was received on 01/25/2017.  I immediately filed against them with this petition.

Point 2:  Plaintiff has failed to name all necessary parties.  As I am not an attorney, i am not sure what other parties I should be filing against for "unconscionable contract" when Nationstar is the only "Note Holder."  Am I supposed to be filing against Freddiemac too?

Point 3:  Plaintiffs complaint alleges damages that are the result of acts or omissions committed by non-parties to this action over whom the Defendant has no responsibility or control.  This the big one.  Does anyone have a legal precedent in Texas that I can reference that says that all responsibility lies with the current service provider and that the current service provider inherits all previous errors and omissions?

Point 4:  Plaintiff failed to state a legal basis for his claim.   i thought I did this when i stated my claim is an "unconscionable contract."  How do I respond to this?

Angels are out there and I could really use one right now.

Can anyone help with this?

With humility, respect and overwhelming gratitude.

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fist of all thank you all for your input.  You are all invaluable sounding board to a very heavy conflict.

Here are the meat & potatoes of the suit.

1. This is an action brought by an unskilled, unsophisticated and inexperienced home buyer acting as a consumer who is requesting relief from the continued unjust retention of benefits and enforcement of an unconscionable contract with the Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, the current "Note Holder" of the Plaintiffs mortgage.
2. The action brought by this consumer is in connection with a debt appearing on Plaintiffs consumer reports and the Defendants' refusal to remove or correct inaccuracies regarding it, despite written correspondence specifying the inaccuracies and providing information that would facilitate a reasonable reinvestigation of the matter. Thus, the plaintiff seeks damages and, to the extent possible, injunctive and declaratory relief.
3. Nationstar's refusal to remove or correct inaccuracies discovered in the collateral used to secure the Plaintiffs promissory "Note" continue to cause undue financial hardship on the Plaintiff at the continued benefit of the Defendant Nationstar.

4. On April 18, 2007, Plaintiff entered into a residential mortgage contract to purchase a residential home in south west Dallas.
5. Plaintiff obtained an agreed sale price with the sellers of the property as follows:
     • For Sale by Owner= $339,900
     • Dallas Central Appraisal District (DCAD) Market Value= $244,800
     • Plaintiffs Original offer to Sellers = $250,000 based on DCAD Public Record.
     • Contract= $305,000 Prior to Appraisal
     • Appraisal= $295,000
     • Final Sale = $300,000
6. Due to the vastly different price variation between the Dallas Central Appraisal District Market Value of $244,800, and the For Sale by Owner price of$339,900 an accurate appraisal was imperative for establishing fair and equitable trade terms and assuring adequate security was provided to support the loan decision.
7. In accordance with the terms of the ONE TO FOUR FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONTRACT, Plaintiff agreed to purchase the subject property, provided the property satisfied Section 4.A.(1) of the contract for Third Party Financing and Property Approval which acted as assurance and justifiable reliability that the subject property being utilized as equity for the Plaintiffs loan met the federal lender guidelines and requirements for underwriting the mortgage which included Plaintiff's right to a true and accurate appraisal of the collateral he endorsed.

8. On May 27, 2007, after paying 20% down on the property, Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with "The Lender" Taylor Bean & Whitaker (TBW) by endorsing a promissory "Note" in the amount of $236,000.
9. On May 27, 2007, the "Note" for the residential agreement was endorsed by the Plaintiff and secured by a Deed of Trust on the Plaintiffs property and filed with the Dallas County Court house.
10. In 2010, a Retroactive Appraisal and an Appraisal Review were performed on the property where it was discovered that multiple Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USP AP) guidelines were violated which effected the credibility of the appraisal report utilized by the Plaintiff as collateral when endorsing his loan. Therefore, a true and accurate appraisal report was not provided to the Lender, nor to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was not given the right to exercise clause 4.1 of the contract which stipulates for the termination of the contract and all earnest money to be refunded should the property not satisfy the lenders underwriting requirements.
11. Due to Plaintiffs lack of knowledge and inexperience in the home buying, process, Plaintiff employed multiple professionals to assist him in this process and because of Plaintiff's reliance on these licensed, certified, and insured professionals, Plaintiff was not aware he was supplied with false information in the original appraisal, and that the home & property actually suffered from what was later described to him as a house with a "functional obsolescent" floor plan, and almost a full acre, (.8660 acres) out of his total 2.213 acre property would be re-classified and devalued 90% due to "diminished site utility."

12. According to The Fannie Mae Seller/Services Guide:
     • "Functional depreciation" (which is traditionally referred to as "functional obsolescence") is a loss in value that is caused by defects in the design of the structure-for example, inadequacies in such items as architecture, floor plan, or sizes and types of rooms. It also can be caused by changes in market preferences that result in some aspect of the improvements being considered obsolete by current standards-for example, the location of a bedroom on a level with no bathroom, or access to one bedroom only through another bedroom.
13. The terms "functional obsolescence" and "diminished site utility" are trade terms and the ramifications of those characterizations are not readily recognizable to the layman house buyer, yet these two major undisclosed "errors and omissions" property description created a loss in equity so vast in their miss-characterization of the collateral endorsed by the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff will never be able to refinance, rent or sell his home as it was sold to him.

14. The deficiencies noted as errs and omissions that were later disclosed to the Plaintiff and to the Defendant are so expansive in their disillusion of the true property characteristics that no reasonable person in the Plaintiff's position would have agreed to the contract had they been properly informed of the "diminished site utility" and "functional obsolescent" equity devaluations.

15. 0n May 29, 2007, Plaintiff signed a 15-year residential mortgage contract with the lender Taylor Bean & Whitaker (TBW). On August 3, 2009, following an FBI investigation, raid and forced closure of the TBW offices in Ocala, Florida, TBW filed for bankruptcy.

16. Plaintiff was never informed of this action by the FBI against his original "Note Holder."
17.  On or about October 12, 2009, Freddie Mac ordered the transfer of the Plaintiff's "Note" to Cenlar.
18. On July 24, 2012, Plaintiff supplied evidence to the "Note Holder" Cenlar of the property mischaracterizations and the list of the USP AP guidelines that were violated, and despite being provided with knowledge and hard evidence in support of the true appraised value, Cenlar completely ignored the list of certified documents supplied to them by denying Plaintiff's request for review of the errs and omissions stating:

"In completing our review of your financial documentation we have determined that you have the ability to continue making your mortgage payment without the need for a Foreclosure alternative."

19. Plaintiff appealed and on August 16, 2012, Cenlar replied to Plaintiff's request for resolution stating:
     • "Your allegation is being submitted to the investor, Freddie Mac, for additional review and response."
20. Plaintiff filed a letter of hardship and complaint with Freddie Mac and during the Plaintiff's consumer complaint process, the Plaintiffs "Note" was sold to the Defendant Nationstar on June 26, 2015 for "debt collection."
21. In the Plaintiffs collaboration with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Plaintiff was instructed to reference the Mortgage Servicing Rules under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act with the Defendant that specifically instruct servicers on their obligations to correct errors asserted by the borrower.
22. After notifying the Defendant and the CFPB of the forced bankruptcy by the FBI of the loan originator Taylor Bean & Whitaker (TBW), Plaintiff followed the instructions of the CFPB to correspond with the Defendant as the legally bound note holder of the security agreement and mortgage.
23. As the new "Note Holder" of the loan, Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the errors and omissions found in the original appraisal and provided the

Defendant with justifiably reliable supporting documentation that showed how the appraisal and subsequent contract did not disclose the negative equity aspects of "functional obsolescence" and "diminished site utility," and in fact the appraisal report specifically declares, in bold and capitalized lettering:

  "NO INADEQUACIES NOTED.  NO FUNCTIONAL OR EXTERNAL OBSOLESCENCE WAS NOTED."

24. Defendants were provided with reliable and justifiable sworn and certified reports from multiple third party professional appraisers identifying the mischaracterized physical description of both the land ( diminished site utility), and house (functional obsolescence) that had existed yet were undisclosed at the time Plaintiff purchased his home in 2007 to include the publicly available 90% property devaluation on file with the Dallas Central Appraisal District.
25. Despite being supplied with overwhelming documentation which included the publicly available 2012 property reclassification and property devaluation by the Dallas Central Appraisal District, Defendant issued a letter to the Plaintiff on October 27, 2015 stating:
• "We have conducted an investigation, and it was determined the error asserted within your correspondence did not occur on the account."
26. ln this same correspondence noted to be a "debt collection" letter to the Plaintiff, Defendant states the enforcement of the very contract Plaintiff was induced into signing by stating:

"After further review, we have determined the subject loan remains in full force and effect, and we will continue to service the loans in accordance with the valid, binding documents that you signed at the time of origination."

27. Plaintiff appealed the decision with the Defendant and on October 26, 2015.  Plaintiff received the following reply from Steve Safavi, Credit Risk Manager at Nationstar stating:

""I reviewed the appraisal, there is not enough evidence that would indicate the appraiser committed fraud in 2007, specifically since the report was completed almost 10 years ago. The borrower agreed to purchase the property for $305,000 prior to ordering the appraisal which was valued for $295,000."

28.  Throughout the Fall of 2015 Plaintiff sent multiple appeals to the Defendant and on December 22, 2015, Plaintiff received a follow up e-mail from the Defendant with underlined emphasis quoting the response the Defendant received from Freddie Mac:
• "They realize an error was made on the appraisal."
29. On December 22, 2015, after finally obtaining the acknowledgement from the Defendant stating that Freddie Mac now recognized and affirmed with the Defendant that the errors and omissions did indeed occur with underlined emphasis, Plaintiff received the additional response from the Defendant:
• "They realize an error was made on the appraisal. However, due to the statute of limitations Freddie Mac can't go back and undo the appraisal.

30. Defendant is a national corporation and is well suited to absorb the costs associated with resolving this dispute whereas the Plaintiff faces the personal burden of the high cost associated with the pursuit of an equitable judgment thus preventing the Plaintiff from effectively vindicating his rights to the fullest extent of the law.
31. Plaintiff does not have near the level of experience and sophistication in financial matters or mortgage lending practices as the Defendant, and as a result Plaintiff continues to make payments toward a negative equity contract that no longer has an equitable loan-to-value ratio.
32. Plaintiff continues to pay for this unequitable contract at the exclusive benefit of the Defendant without the Defendant assuming any risk or incentive to correct the erroneous contract. Defendant continues to receive interest and servicing fees from the Plaintiff despite having full knowledge of the unconscionable and unequitable agreement Plaintiff endorsed for his property.
33. Defendant's Note is nothing more than a "license to steal" from the Plaintiff and allows Defendant to continue to unjustly strip additional equity from the Plaintiff in the collection of additional profits at the expense of the Plaintiff.
34. Plaintiff endorsed a promissory note utilizing his Homestead property as the collateral towards that note. Plaintiff discovered that over $80,000 of his collateral was no longer secured at the value of his promissory note due to "functional obsolescent" and "diminished site utility" mischaracterizations.

35. Plaintiff has been ceremoniously and unlawfully stripped of net worth and is now burdened with a note that has a gross imbalance and is severely one sided in favor of the Defendant.
36. Defendant has shown no initiative to assist the Plaintiff, and in fact refuses to recognize their own correspondence notifying the Plaintiff that an error did indeed occur on the account.
37. Defendant's adamant stance as "Debt Collectors," and refusal to acknowledge their own correspondence as well as their denial of the certified and publicly available documentation presented to them demonstrate their intent to make it difficult for the Plaintiff to seek a cure to the financial burden imposed on him as an unsuspecting Texas Homesteader.

0n January 25, 2017, Defendant sent the Plaintiff a final denial of claim stating:  "Upon further review of the aforementioned responses, there is no record of any response advising you that any investigation determined that an error occurred. Our records reflect a fraud investigation was conducted and completed in September 2015, and August 2016, and as determined in by the fraud investigation and as previously advised, there is insufficient evidence to substantiate that any fraud was committed. However, our records reflect the appraisal determined a property value of $295,000.00, which is only a difference of $10,000.00, not $80,000.00."

1. Plaintiff now has an upside down mortgage and is unable to refinance, rent or sell his home for the value he secured as collateral in the home purchase and his only interest for relief is to be made whole.
2. The damage model Plaintiff is seeking recovery from is for relief from the contract with which the Plaintiff is burdened, which include the $80,000 overvaluation of the Plaintiffs property, excessive taxes, insurance, closing costs, interest over time, the professional fees associated with hiring additional third party professionals in defense of his claims and the legal fees Plaintiff has incurred.
3. Defendant is a professed "Debt Collector" and Plaintiff requests an injunction and temporary restraining order against the Defendant to preserve and protect the rights of the Plaintiff until the action between the parties of over.
4. Plaintiff is requesting to place ALL subsequent payments towards the "Note" in question into the courts registry until a trial can be held.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Groovystuff

If you don't want your identity revealed, you should redact your personal information from your documents. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's public information anyhow now that it's a lawsuit....  I'm pretty sure there are no social security numbers or banking information in the documents....

Will do though......Thanks for the suggestion.  I'll try and black them out and will repost now.

C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. This is an action brought by an unskilled, unsophisticated and inexperienced home buyer acting as a consumer who is requesting relief from the continued unjust retention of benefits and enforcement of an unconscionable contract with the Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, the current "Note Holder" of the Plaintiffs mortgage.
2. The action brought by this consumer is in connection with a debt appearing on Plaintiffs consumer reports and the Defendants' refusal to remove or correct inaccuracies regarding it, despite written correspondence specifying the inaccuracies and providing information that would facilitate a reasonable reinvestigation of the matter. Thus, the plaintiff seeks damages and, to the extent possible, injunctive and declaratory relief.
3. Nationstar's refusal to remove or correct inaccuracies discovered in the collateral used to secure the Plaintiffs promissory "Note" continue to cause undue financial hardship on the Plaintiff at the continued benefit of the Defendant Nationstar.

4. On April 18, 2007, Plaintiff entered into a residential mortgage contract to purchase a residential home in south west Dallas.
5. Plaintiff obtained an agreed sale price with the sellers of the property as follows:
• For Sale by Owner= $339,900
• Dallas Central Appraisal District (DCAD) Market Value= $244,800
• Plaintiffs Original offer to Sellers = $250,000 based on DCAD Public Record.
• Contract= $305,000 Prior to Appraisal
• Appraisal= $295,000
• Final Sale = $300,000
6. Due to the vastly different price variation between the Dallas Central Appraisal District Market Value of $244,800, and the For Sale by Owner price of$339,900 an accurate appraisal was imperative for establishing fair and equitable trade terms and assuring adequate security was provided to support the loan decision.
7. In accordance with the terms of the ONE TO FOUR FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONTRACT, Plaintiff agreed to purchase the subject property, provided the property satisfied Section 4.A.(1) of the contract for Third Party Financing and Property Approval which acted as assurance and justifiable reliability that the subject property being utilized as equity for the Plaintiffs loan met the federal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks BV for the heads up.....

 

OK, there are a lot of separate issues going on here, but at least for much of this, you are barking at the wrong car, so to speak.  Regardless of Nationstar's status as potentially the current note-holder, they are not liable for what TBW did back when this was originated.  Nationstar will only be liable for their own actions.

5 hours ago, Groovystuff said:

On July 24, 2012, Plaintiff supplied evidence to the "Note Holder" Cenlar of the property mischaracterizations and the list of the USP AP guidelines that were violated, and despite being provided with knowledge and hard evidence in support of the true appraised value, Cenlar completely ignored the list of certified documents supplied to them by denying Plaintiff's request for review of the errs and omissions stating:

"In completing our review of your financial documentation we have determined that you have the ability to continue making your mortgage payment without the need for a Foreclosure alternative."

The time to argue this would have been back then, and with Cenlar.   Also, keep in mind that for many things of this nature, your best remedy would have been to take action against them if they chose at that time to ignore their responsibilities under the law.  But there's so much to this fight that you really need to be either willing to get an attorney, or spend a TON of time and effort researching the law, case law, etc etc etc.  I've been in my own fight since 2006--when the fraud on their part first began--and 2010--when this issue first wound up in a court room.....I have had to go it alone because no attorneys in this area want to do anything more than file BK and stall.  I have recorded phone conversations--legal in my state to do it, so I did--proving that the OC in my case knew they had taken $$$ from me and never applied it to the loan, but still did not fix anything.  They put me in default when I was current, and they admitted it.  I have a ton of late fees--more than 150, in fact--that were charged to this account by the time that this loan was only 65 months old.  In other words, the original lender saw fit to charge me, on average, more than 2 late fees per month....this is not even physically possible.  Even if I had made every payment late, there could have only been a maximum of 65 late fees at that time.  They charged me 153.  It's ridiculous.  To date, this was never fixed either.  

Fast forward to last year, I discovered that the OC in my case was taking my mortgage payments for years, but sold the loan to someone else immediately after the papers were signed. The loan was securitized into a trust, and we were never told.  I only found out by accident, and their attorney all but admitted as much.  

 

Today, this case of mine has been in some form of litigation or other since 2010.....We have never even completed discovery.  There's not even been a pretrial hearing up to this point.  It's been sitting with no action for far too long. I followed my state's laws and tried to get it dismissed, because my state law says no action for 3 years means the case has been abandoned.  The court intentionally mishandled my motion to dismiss, violated several laws, ignored the case law from my state appeals courts and supreme court, and denied the motion...but not until after they helped the plaintiff move its case along so that they felt they could not dismiss it.  Even when the law supports your actions, as a pro se in a mortgage dispute case, you should prepare to go to appeal because of a trial court that's either crooked or indifferent.  

I saw that you mentioned that you are an unskilled person in this endeavor, but under the law, the court can only offer you a very little leeway.  Even as a pro se, you are expected to know the rules of procedure, the local court rules, rules of evidence, case law, and so on.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to quote portions of your post and offer thoughts.

 

6 hours ago, Groovystuff said:

2. The action brought by this consumer is in connection with a debt appearing on Plaintiffs consumer reports and the Defendants' refusal to remove or correct inaccuracies regarding it, despite written correspondence specifying the inaccuracies and providing information that would facilitate a reasonable reinvestigation of the matter. Thus, the plaintiff seeks damages and, to the extent possible, injunctive and declaratory relief.

First, did you identify the specific inaccuracies?  Did you dispute them directly with the creditor, or through the credit bureaus?  It does make a difference.  The Fair Credit Reporting Act could provide an avenue for you to seek damages against them for errors on your credit report that they put there, but you must follow the required steps in order to have the right to sue for those damages.

Second, did you specify what injunctive and declaratory relief you were seeking?  If you did not, then you have not properly framed your complaint.  You must show the specifics--what they did....what law that action broke...what they were required to do instead...what the law says the penalty for that action is...and so on.

 

6 hours ago, Groovystuff said:

3. Nationstar's refusal to remove or correct inaccuracies discovered in the collateral used to secure the Plaintiffs promissory "Note" continue to cause undue financial hardship on the Plaintiff at the continued benefit of the Defendant Nationstar.

Does the note require them to correct the inaccuracies you mention?  If not, then you are fighting a losing battle pointing to the contract and saying that they are obligated.  The courts have a long history of looking within the "four corners of the contract".  If there's no evidence in the contract that they must take a certain action, then the court will likely not find them at fault.

6 hours ago, Groovystuff said:

On April 18, 2007, Plaintiff entered into a residential mortgage contract to purchase a residential home in south west Dallas.
5. Plaintiff obtained an agreed sale price with the sellers of the property as follows:

This will be a very tough sale, in my opinion.  Nationstar is not liable if TBW committed some violations way back then.  Remember, TBW was shut down not too many years after your mortgage was written, right?  They were doing wrong and got caught.

6 hours ago, Groovystuff said:

23. As the new "Note Holder" of the loan, Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the errors and omissions found in the original appraisal and provided the

Defendant with justifiably reliable supporting documentation that showed how the appraisal and subsequent contract did not disclose the negative equity aspects of "functional obsolescence" and "diminished site utility,"

This statement is a legal conclusion...you are concluding that the documentation you provided was justifiably reliable.  The court cannot agree to such a statement without seeing those documents themselves, but that would be irrelevant to the matters at hand because Nationstar is not liable for another's actions like that.

The 2012 reclassification is not something that you can take action against Nationstar for.  Nationstar has no connection to that action.  Also, you signed a legally binding document in that mortgage, and the events in the future do not override your decision to do so at that time.  Indeed, a lot of people took out mortgages only to see the value of their home plummet years later for a variety of reasons.  The courts do not find that a borrower is entitled to recover damages in such an instance, usually.  

 

I'm sorry to say, I think this is a VERY uphill battle for you and I do not see it ending with a win.  I'm not an attorney, and this is only my opinion, but here's the thing....a lot of what you have claimed does not relate to Nationstar.  Here's the thing about this---every day in this country, people go up against Nationstar and others for foreclosure fraud and mortgage fraud, among other claims.  Every day, many of those people have legitimate arguments, can prove legitimate wrongdoing, and have evidence to back it up...and still lose.  The courts are so hopelessly tilted against homeowners in these kinds of cases, unfortunately.  Here is one example out of Florida, it's about the most ridiculous example that I have heard of in quite a while:

http://www.stayinmyhome.com/judge-as-impartial-arbiter/

 

This is a foreclosure case.  The attorney, Mark Stopa, represents the homeowners.  He fought on their behalf and got to the end, and the situation was such that he SHOULD have had a relatively "easy" win for his clients...the plaintiff did not and could not prove that it had the legal right to foreclose.  But rather than rule on the merits, when both parties rested their cases, the judge called a recess.  The judge went to his chambers, got on his computer...FOUND EVIDENCE THAT COULD HELP THE BANK....and printed it out and HANDED IT TO THE BANK.  Then, urged the bank to reopen its case.  The court then accepted this "evidence" over the objection of Mr. Stopa.....and ruled for the bank.  No kidding.  The court went WAY over the line.  Defendant motioned for rehearing, the same judge denied.  So, this went to the appeals court.  This case was clear--the bank could not prove it owned the note and therefore by matter of law cannot foreclose. The judge even admitted at trial that they had not proven their case...then, he went and helped them. Completely disgusting...but if that happens in a case where the issues are more clear-cut, imagine what could happen when the allegations you have made are at best murky.  

 

I'm really sorry, I wish I had better thoughts to offer you.  I would seriously consider an attorney if there is any possibility at all.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all so very kindly for your input.

Not sure how to reply to comments above so will have to put all my comments here.

"First, did you identify the specific inaccuracies?    Yes, I sent the specific inaccuracies to Cenlar, and all other consumer and state bodies.

Did you dispute them directly with the creditor, or through the credit bureaus? Both

It does make a difference.  The Fair Credit Reporting Act could provide an avenue for you to seek damages against them for errors on your credit report that they put there, but you must follow the required steps in order to have the right to sue for those damages. "  My claim against them is for unjust enforcement of an "unconscionable contract."  Additional violations can be added to the petition to include Fair Credit Reporting Act Violations.

KraftyKrab:  I initiated a legal dispute against the original appraisers in 2010.  I filed a consumer complaint against them with every known agency on both a Federal and State level but as I didn't discover the damages until after 2 years, all agencies responded saying my case was either outside of their jurisdiction or they said it was a legal matter and could not get involved,

Public documentation citing the true and correct property description on file at the time I bought my property with the Dallas Central Appraisal District.  As a result, my case went all the way to a  denied "Petitition for Review" with the Texas Supreme Court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You REALLY need a lawyer for something this complicated where a home is at serious risk.  The issue(s) you are raising are WAY beyond the scope of knowledge of those who volunteer here.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.