| The proceedure is that the party seeking an appeal
(appellant)
perfects and files their brief, the opposing party (respondent) files a brief
in opposition, and the appellant may then file a reply brief in
opposition therein. This is the appellants Reply Brief.
| |
Bold captions are Wells Fargo's Italics in [ are our summary comment. ] We are Defendants-Appellants; Wells Fargo is the
Plaintiff-Respondent.
| |
PRELEMINARY STATEMENT
| Plaintiff-Respondent's Brief is replete with accusations and inuendos to prejudice the Court against Defendants-Appellants with repeated statements which we quote: ...
COUNTER STATEMENT OF FACTS
| Respondent's Opposition Brief, now for the first time is claiming that the foreclosure action is upon the consolidated mortgage, which Plaintiff tried to shield from the Lower Court, and stated in their Brief:
POINT I
| WELLS FARGO IS ENTITLED TO A FINAL JUDGEMENT ON FORECLOSURE AND SALE BECAUSE IT MADE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING OF ENTITLEMENT TO SUMMARY JUDGEMENT. [ A prima facie showing without having possession of the original signed note and mortgage in insufficient. ] NOT True
POINT II
| WELLS FARGO HAS PROPER STANDING TO BRING THIS ACTION BECAUSE IT IS THE HOLDER OF THE CONSOLIDATED LOAN [ Never in any of the affidavits or documents is there a claim that Wells Fargo had the original signed note and mortgaqe. Only after initiating the foreclosure suit did they apparently purchase the original 1995 mortgage that was paid in full and satisfied, which is why Wells Fargo is trying to claim that the foreclosure action was against the consolidated mortgage. The documents show this is not true. ]
POINT III
| THIS ACTION IS NOT BASED ON A MORTGAGE WHICH WAS PAID AND SATISFIED. [ Not true and they know it, and the documents and their sworn affidavits clearly show otherwise. ]
POINT IV
| CPLR 5019 (a) ALLOWS FOR AN ORDER TO BE AMENDED WITHOUT THE FORMALITIES OF A MOTION WHEN THAT ORDER CONTAINS AN ERROR WHICH DOES NOT AFFECT A SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT OF A PARTY [ Their own caption says it all, "...affect a substantial right of a party, which in this case it completely did, to the tune of $150,000 along with the failure of the lower court to follow black letter law. ]
CONCLUSION (same as initiating Brief)
|
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 670 (not shown)
|
DECISION AND ORDER...APPELLATE COURT (not shown)
|
PENZETTA LETTER (not shown)
| |