10CV122
MOTION TO AMEND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO SUBSTITUE PARTY PLAINTIFF
Kellylhansen143@gmail.com
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ATTORNEYS COPY
Case No. 2010 CV 122
Hon. Robert W. Fairchild
DIV I K.S.A. 60
TITLE TO REAL ESTATE
INVOLVED
MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE
If MetLife has assigned or sold Defendants Note to any entity under K.S.A. 84-3-
302(1)(2)(C)(D)(E)(F)1 the entity accepting Defendants note would not be a holder in due
course as it took the security interest in the Defendants note subject to the same infirmity that
was present when it was held by MetLife. The accepting entity may not recover on the Note.
1 HURST ENTERPRISES, LLC, d/b/a Mr. Payroll Check Cashing, Appellant, v. Bryan CRAWFORD, an
individual, Cactus Roofing, LLC, Appellees.
Kellylhansen143@gmail.com
2.
Pursuant to the Kansas Statute of Frauds; Fraudulent Conveyances, Chapter 33, Article 1,
The Plaintiff has failed to make a prima facie showing it holds an interest in the
Defendants Note.
4.
At the Case Management Hearing on August 16th, 2010, Counsel for Plaintiff
stated there had been an additional assignment subsequent to the assignment to IBM Lender
Processing Services that took effect on May 1, 2010. In a transcript from the hearing, on page 4,
Mr. Robert M. Swiss, Counsel for MetLife advised Fannie Mae will now be substituted as the
party plaintiff. We havent filed a motion to substitute the plaintiff yet; we are waiting for the
affidavits showing that the note has been assigned . . . which I expect to be filed in the next
couple of weeks as soon as we get that affidavit finalized. The assignment to Fannie Mae was
made on July 26, 2010. Plaintiff announced it to the Court on August 16, 2010. Mr. Swisss
motion to substitute party plaintiff is not timely. Defendants request it be denied. A copy of
page 4 from the transcript of the Case Management Hearing is attached hereto as Defendants
Exhibit A and is incorporated herein by this reference.
5.
aver the Plaintiff holds no interest to sell) the DEFENDANTS move this Court to ORDER the
Plaintiff to put back to Fannie Mae its purported interest. There is no justification to substitute
party plaintiff this late in litigation at the caprice of the Plaintiff.
Kellylhansen143@gmail.com
6.
The court in Landmark Natl Bank v. Kesler (September, 2009) noted that investors
Allowing the Plaintiff such a legal maneuver would be prejudicial against the
DEFENDANTS; they have spent the 18 months preparing a defense against METLIFE, not
FANNIE MAE. Plaintiff should not be allowed to force the DEFENDANTS to jump through its
strategic hoops.
8.
The Plaintiff knows, or certainly has reason to know, it is illegal to sell a Note and
Mortgage in default a standard guideline in each of its Securitization Master Pooling and
Servicing Agreements.
9.
Neither METLIFE HOME LOANS nor FANNIE MAE are registered with the
Secretary of State as is required for all entities conducting mortgage business in the state of
2 Landmark Natl Bank v. Kesler, 216 P. 3d at 168 (quoting Johnson v. Melnikoff, No. 10548/2007, 2008
WL 4182397 (N.Y. Sup Ct. Sept. 11, 2008)).
Kellylhansen143@gmail.com
Neither METLIFE HOME LOANS, nor FANNIE MAE are licensed to service mortgage
loans as is required by the State of Kansas Office of the State Bank Commissioner. 4 See
DEFENDANTS Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim, 9 and Plaintiffs Reply to
Defendants Counterclaim, 9.
11.
JUDGMENT, has invoked K.S.A. 9-1121 in a very telling attempt to avoid the evidentiary
requirement of producing the Defendants original Promissory Note. In 2009, The U.S. Supreme
Court established in Cuomo v Clearinghouse, all National Banks, are subject to the laws of the
state in which they are foreclosing 5. See Motion to Amend Motion in Response to Plaintiffs
Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, Pp. 11-13.
DEFENDANTS state a foreclosing Plaintiff must show, at the time the foreclosure action is
filed, that it is the owner or the holder in due course of the DEFENDANTS Note 6 (MERS
cannot assign Notes) with rights to enforce the DEFENDANTS Note and Mortgage and that the
DEFENDANTS default has caused them harm. After an adequate period of discovery, the
Plaintiff has not been able to produce, and will not be able to produce, evidence sufficient to
Kellylhansen143@gmail.com
allow the Trier of fact to find the Plaintiff will be able to prove up the ultimate fact elements of
their case.
WHEREFORE, the Defendants respectfully request the Court deny the Plaintiffs Motion
to Substitute Party Plaintiff.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this Wednesday, February 9, 2011,