110A TIMELINE
D-820-CV-2013-00405
1-2-02 HUD COUNTRYWIDE, AMERICA’S WHOLESALE LENDER, #3954619 $620K PAYS OFF $491K TO HOMECOMINGS, AMERICA’S WHOLESALE LENDER, AND ADDS $172K TO 110A, PAYS PEOPLE’S BANK 157K, SUNDANCE MORT. GETS $6,200; BP PAYS $20,976.
2-11-02 HUD BANK OF AMERICA, #6241388844 ADDS the SAME $172K TO 110B (BOTH ARE CALLED 110B, BUT SURVEY IS NOT 110B, IT IS 110C OR PART OF 110A) PEOPLE’S BANK IS PAID OUTSIDE OF CLOSING BY 100K CD OWNED BY BP FOR COLLATERAL OF BUSINESS LOAN. BP IS REFUNDED $137,804K WHICH IS USED FOR PRE CONSTRUCTION COSTS ON 110B. S&S FINANCIAL GETS $24,584
9-25-02 HUD COUNTRYWIDE, AMERICA’S WHOLESALE LENDER, #20703940 RAISED TO $630k, S&S FINANCIAL GOT $947, COUNTRYWIDE GOT $1,575, BP PAID $608.
[2-10-03, HUD NATIONAL CITY MORTGAGE #807401, SAME $172K ABOVE IN FIRST TWO MORTGAGES, IS ADDED TO 110B AND SUBTRACTED FROM THE $500K CONSTRUCTION TO PERMANENT LOAN, LEAVING $319K WITHHELD FOR CONSTRUCTION DRAWS. THE LAST $10,000 WAS NEVER DISBURSED TO BP, ONLY $309K WAS DISBURSED FOR CONSTRUCTION ON 110B.$5.840, BP RECEIVED $987 AT CLOSING.]
10-14-2003 HUD, COUNRYWIDE HOME LOANS, #038771793, $675K, 2nd, #38812577 ADDS $45,000 SECOND HELOC, S&S FINANCIAL GETS $15,508, BP GETS $28,921.66 WHICH GOES TOWARD CONSTRUCTION ON 110B, but the Second HELOC for $45K is never disbursed to Price, instead is POC, a check is written in the amount of $45,562.50 probably to S&S Financial and this EMBEZZLED HELOC is converted into a first mortgage which now shows up as a $71K DUN from Resolution Trust
[BANK LOAN GOES FROM $491K TO $675K IN 18 MONTHS FOR A GAIN OF $184K, PAYING OUT $44,429, FOR A NET GAIN TO THE BANK OF $139.671]
8-15-04 LAST MORTGAGE PAYMENT, $3,527.82 ON 1ST, #038771793 AND $191.10 ON 2ND, #38812577
1-19-05 NOTICE OF AUTOMATIC STAY, 11-05-10321-MS CHAPTER 11
4-26-05 PROOF OF CLAIM, AMERICA’S WHOLESALE LENDER, COUNTRYWIDE $642,418
5-29-08 MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM AUTOMATIC STAY, AMERICA’S WHOLESALE LENDER, COUNTRYWIDE – Reason, “Creditor is not receiving adequate protection payments from the Debtor”. Pg 2
7-21-2008 STIPULATED ORDER DECLARING AUTOMATIC STAY INAPPLICABLE – upon stipulation of America’s wholesale Lender, its assignees and/or successors in interest…(1) terminated May 19, 2006. (2) the automatic stay is inapplicable to prevent foreclosure of Secured Creditor’s mortgage.
1-11-2008 BANK OF AMERICA AGREES TO BUY COUNTRYWIDE, AMERICA’S WHOLESALE LENDER
8-26-2008 DEBTOR’S MOTION TO CONTINUE AND EXTEND AUTOMATIC STAY, DENIED
9-28-09 ORDER STRIKING DEBTOR’S MOTION TO DISCHARGE DEBT AS IMPROPERLY FILED
1-07-2010 ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES TRUSTEE’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL DECREE AND CLOSING CASE
6-14-13 QUICKEN ACCOUNT OF INSURANCE PAYMENTS MADE BY DEBTOR, 5-10-2002 THRU 6-04-2013, LENDER USURPED PAYMENTS, REFUNDED BP AND FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMS FUNDS AS MORTGAGE PAYMENT IN 2013 – CLONED MORTGAGE PAYMENT SO THAT THEY COULD PASS THE MORTGAGE OFF AS IN GOOD STANDING – THIS IS FRAUD – LAST MORTGAGE PAYMENT WAS SEPTEMBER OF 2004
9-06-2013 ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE, BANK OF AMERICA TO MERS [US Bank Endorsement appears on the wrong stamp; it should be on the Bank of America stamp – which everyone except Brenda Price, including the Appeals Court declared FALSLELY that the Bank of America stamp is “an anomaly”. Recorded at hearing. BANK OF AMERICA PURCHASED COUNTRYWIDE, AMERICA’S WHOLESALE LENDER IN JUNE OF 2008 AFTER AGREEING IN JANUARY TO DO SO.
11-25-2013 COMPLAINT FOR FORECLOSURE, US BANK [America’s Wholesale Lender becomes a Defendant – Foreclosure Complaint does not have the above Assignment attached, it is filed 8 days later]
11-26-2013 SUMMONS, TWO YEARS AFTER STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS EXPIRED AND DISREGARD OF FINAL DECREE OF FEDERAL CHAPTER 11 COURT.
4-25-2013 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST SET OF INTEROGATORIES, AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS [Oh what a tangled web we weave when once we practice to deceive as Bank of America and US Bank set up deceptions and fraud on the court]
2-06-2014 RESPONSE BY BRENDA PRICE
7- – 2015 MOTION TO RECONSIDER
9-24-2015 DEFENDANT BRENDA C. PRICE’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER REINSTATING CASE
1-11-16 DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1-11-2016 DEFENDANT BRENDA PRICE’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION AND MEMORANDUM FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1-21-2016 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
4-06-2016 NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF BRIEFING
9-05-2016 DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
6-07-2016 MOTION FOR ORDER PERMITTING WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL
1-09-2017 SUMMARY AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT
2/23/2017 DOCKETING STATEMENT IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
4-4-2017 NOTICE OF POSTPONEMENT OF FORECLOSURE SALE
4-7-2017 NOTICE OF PROPOSED SUMMARY DISPOSITION [ Ruled Lack of Standing]
4-17-2017 NOTICE OF DISMISSAL OF ATTORNEY
4-17-2017 INFORMAL MEMORANDUM IN OPOSITION TO SUMMARY DISPOSITION
4-25-2017 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE BRIEF TO DEDENDANT’S MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS DURING PENDENCY OF APPEAL
4-26-2017 DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO, PLAINTIFF US BANK RESONSE TO “STAY OF FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS DURING PENDENCY OF APPEAL”
4-27-2017 PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM ARTIALLY IN SUPPORT AND PARTIALLY IN OPPOSITION OF PROPOSED SUMMARY DISPOSITION – NM Court of Appeals ruled that Plaintiff , US Bank does not have Standing to Foreclose, declining to rule on the signature dispute on the Note because Natelson had not included that issue in his Docketing Statement; however, the issue had been discussed in District Court Hearing with Judge McElroy asking, “Why is Bank of America’s Indorsement on the Note?” Plaintiff answered, “I don’t Know.” Defendant was not allowed to speak, but knew that Bank of America purchased Countrywide, America’s Wholesale Lender in July of 2008. Plaintiff lied because the Assignment of Mortgage to US Bank in 2013 was made by Bank of America to US Bank and the indorsement appears on the wrong signature stamp. The Note was not filed when the Complaint for Foreclosure was filed; it was filed 8 days later. Then Plaintiff altered the signature page in their latest pleading committing fraud on the Court. It is impossible for the signature page on the Note be correctly Indorsed as presented by the Plaintiff because US Bank did not get the Assignment until September of 2013, and Countrywide, America’s Wholesale Lender no longer existed since 2008 when Bank of America’s Indorsement appears on the Note.
5-03-2017 REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM PARTIALLY IN SUPPORT AND PARTIALLY IN OPPOSITION OF PROPOSED SUMMARY DISPOSITION
6-29-2017 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TAOS COUNTY, ruled in favor of Defendant
US BANK DOES NOT HAVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE; DECLINED TO RULE ON ALTERED NOTE INDORSEMENT
6-29-2017 AFFIDAVIT FROM BRENDA PRICE
8-1=2017 NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF SALE
9-29-2017 MANDATE TO DISTRICT COURT CLERK
11-06-2017 NOTICE OF HEARING
3-06-2018 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE BY NATELSON; MC ELROY IN CONTEMPT OF HIGHER COURT, DENIES MOTION EVEN THOUGH NMCOA HAS RULED THAT US BANK HAS NO STANDING. HE SAYS, “NO, I’M NOT GOING TO ALLOW THAT, LET’S JUST SEE WHAT THE BANKS DO NOW.”
4-04-2019 NOTICE OF HEARING
9-28-2021 REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE
11-22-2021 FOUR YEARS LATER, MOTION FOR SUMMARY AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT BY US BANK, Plaintiff having altered the ENDORSEMENT OF THE NOTE, and falsified documents to show two bogus mortgage payments of $4,000 each made in 2013 – not made by Defendant who has been in Court since 2005 alleging that Fraud created this Debt.
Plaintiff is NOT a ‘Holder in Due Course’. The allegations in the complaint and the assignment of mortgage show the note was transferred knowing a default had occurred and the transfer is subject to UCC 9 requiring proof of the transfer chain and not UCC 3.
In addition, where the loan documents demonstrate that the loan is covered by HOEPA coverage, assignees “shall be subject to all claims and defenses with respect to that mortgage that the consumer could assert against the creditor.” 15 U.S.C. § 1641(d)(1).
This provision mirrors the FTC Holder Rule and creates assignee liability for all state and federal claims and defenses. For monetary damages claims under TILA, it provides an exception to general rule that violations must appear on the face of the documents. Pulphus v. Sullivan, No. 02 C 5794, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7080, at *64 n.11 (N.D. Ill. April 25, 2003); Dash v. Firstplus Home Loan Trust 1996-2, 248 F. Supp. 2d 489 (M.D.N.C. 2003); Cooper v. First Gov’t Mortgage & Investors Corp., 238 F. Supp. 2d 50 (D.D.C. 2002); Bryant v. Mortgage Capital Resource Corp., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS1566, at **17-22 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 14, 2002); Mason v. Fieldstone Mortgage Co., U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16415 (N.D. Ill. 2001); Vandenbroeck v. ContiMortgage Corp., 53 F.Supp. 965, 968 (W.D. Mich. 1999); In re Rodrigues, 278 B.R. 683 (Bankr. D.R.I. 2002); In re Jackson, 245 B.R. 23 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2000); In re Barber, 266 B.R. 309 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2001); In re Murray, 239 B.R. 728, 733 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1999).
BOOK DIRECT
PURCHASE QUOTE
YourCAMContractor
