Next month, the Minnesota Supreme Court will hear argument in the case of Doris Ruiz against 1st Fidelity Loan Servicing, LLC.
The issue in the case is whether the foreclosing entity, loan servicer/defendant 1st Fidelity Loan Servicing LLC, is in a ?world of pain? (a.k.a., is liable to plaintiff) because it foreclosed in the name of ?1st Fidelity? and not ?1st Fidelity Loan Servicing LLC.? ?Minnesota law calls for?strict compliance with its foreclosure statutes. ?If foreclosers have to ?strictly comply,? does that mean they must perfectly comply?
The case includes a related claim. Ms. Ruiz?s property was a duplex. ?After the foreclosure and after the lapse of the redemption period, an agent for the forecloser inspected the property, concluded that one of the two premises was unoccupied, and changed the locks to secure the property.
Ms. Ruiz, however, allegedly occupied both parts of the duplex. ?She therefore broke into the upstairs premises and, because she alleges the entire foreclosure was invalid, she argues that locking her out of her own property was also illegal.
The argument is more than a little similar to another matter in which I went to trial alongside the same law firm?that is representing 1st Fidelity Loan Servicing LLC here, Wilford & Geske, nearly two years ago.
Suffice it to say that our legal system is appropriately concerned that foreclosing lenders follow proper steps when taking possession of Minnesotans? homes. ?On the other hand, others will argue that an absolutist and extreme sense ?strict compliance? does not truly protect Minnesotans from bad lender practices. ?It gums up and unnecessarily adds great expense to an already costly process.
Plaintiff is represented by Drewes Law.
sat cheating scandal hangover cure lebron james engaged auld lang syne end of the world 2012 pink martini times square
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.