|
Appeal Wells Fargo Bank N.A. Plaintiff-Respondent - against - Scott E. Webster and Jean Allen Webster Defendants-Appellants Proceding pro se (for yourself without attorney) Be sure to see Appellants' Reply Brief that has been filed 11/12/08. The terms mortgagor is the borrorer who has title to the property. Mortgagee is the lender and holder of a mortgage. Appellant is the party requesting the appeal, and Respondent is the defending or answering party.
INDEX
| The various moving papers with exhibits in this Appeal
ARGUMENTS
| This page lists the arguments and questions to the Court
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
| This page lists the reasons of what this Appeal is all about
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
| Facts involved in the Appeal
CONCLUSION:
| Relief being sought in this Appeal
SUMMARY: Summary of critical documents as annexed to the
Appendix Record
| Relief being sought in this Appeal
POINT I:
| THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS INITIATED ON A MORTGAGE THAT WAS PAID AND SATISFIED
POINT II:
| FAILURE TO FILE SATISFACTION OF PAID MORTGAGE WITHIN 30 DAYS IS A VIOLATION OF RPAPL 1921 AND N.Y. Jur.2d Mortgages Section 375
POINT III:
| MUST A MORTGAGE SATISFACTION BE FILED IN THE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE ? NO: The filing of a Mortgage is for the protection of the lender and is not specifically required
POINT IV:
| CAN A LIS PENDENS BE FILED ON A MORTGAGE PAID AND SATISFIED? NO: Especially where foreclosure is initiated by a plaintiff who has firsthand knowledge of that satisfaction, whether filed or not, and does not have actual possession of the original mortgage and note
POINT V:
| CAN PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT FILE A SUIT WHEN IT DID NOT OWN OR HAVE ACTUAL POSSESSION OF ORIGINAL NOTE AND MORTGAGE WHEN IT FILED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION? NO: The actual holder of the originial note is the sole owner of instrument and may initiate a seperate action upon it placing mortgagee and singer in double jeopardy
POINT VI:
| CAN A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ISSUE ORDERS AND JUDGEMENTS WHEN PLAINTIFF NEVER HAD LEGAL JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANTS? NO: As clearly demonstrated by Federal Judge Boyko's recent decision that dismissed multiple actions where plaintiffs could not prove actual ownership of original notes and mortgages when they filed for foreclosure
POINT VII:
| CAN A LETTER WRITTEN TO THE COURT REQUESTING IT TO CHANGE AND DISTURB MAJOR HOLDINGS AND FINDINGS OF FACTS OF A PRIOR DECISION AND ORDER RISE TO THE LEVEL OF IT BEING A MOTION ? Yes!
POINT VIII
| A "de mimimus Court scriverner's error" CANNOT RISE TO THE LEVEL THAT JUSTIFIES JUDICIAL INTERVENTION VIA MOTION
POINT IX
| A PRIOR WRITTEN DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT THAT WAS ENTERED BY A NOTICE OF ENTRY AND NOT APPEALED FROM OR MOTIONED VIA CPLR 2221 WITHIN 30 DAYS, BECOMES THE LAW OF THE CASE, BINDING THE PARTIES TO IT
POINT X
| CPLR (8020)(a) REQUIRES THAT ANY MOTION MUST HAVE A FILING FEE - AND THEREFORE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT'S MOTION WAS ILLEGAL
POINT XI
| FILING OF A LEGAL AND PROPER MOTION MUST BE NOTICED UPON THE ADVERSE PARTY WITH THE PROPER RETURN DATE AND SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT SWEARING TO THE FACTS EITHER BY A PARTY TO THE ACTION OR AN ATTORNEY ASSERTING FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE, AND NOT BY A MERE LEGAL ASSISTANT
POINT XII
| NEITHER THE LOWER COURT NOR ANY PARTY TO AN ACTION CAN IGNORE AND BYPASS THE RULES OF THE COURT'S REQUIREMENT THAT A CPLR 2221 MOTION IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO REARGUE AND DISTURB A PRIOR DECISION AND ORDER OF A PRIOR MOTION WHICH HAS BECOME THE LAW OF THE CASE
POINT XIII
| THE LOWER COURT VIOLATED THE DOCTRINE OF STARRE DECISIS
POINT XIV
| THE CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE WAS THE ONLY SURVIVING AND SUPERCEDED MORTGAGE AND PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT WITHELD THAT FACT FROM THE LOWER COURT |
|
|
Scott E. Webster 276-728-5006 Virginia Number 845-265-3413 New York number Email info@the-cri.com and include for the subnject matter RE: Wells Fargo |