Motion for Summary Judgment in NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC D/B/A MR. COOPER v. COSTELLO, JAMES T. Et Al| Trellis.Law

On November 26, 2018 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between Nationstar Mortgage Llc D B A Mr. Cooper, and James T. Costello, Lynwood Condominium Association, Inc., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., for P00 - Property - Foreclosure in the District Court of New Haven County.

Preview
UWY-CV-18-6044642 SUPERIOR COURT
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC J.D. OF WATERBURY
Vv.

JAMES T. COSTELLO, ET AL APRIL 19, 2023.

OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW

The Substitute Plaintiff, US Bank Trust National Association, not in its individual capacity

but solely as Owner Trustee for VRMTG Asset Trust, Objects to the Defendant, James T.

Costello’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied

for the reasons set forth below.

Background

The Defendant, James Costello, has made yet another dilatory filing in this 5 year old

mortgage foreclosure action. Among the procedural mancuvers employed by him include:

210 A Motion to Transfer the Case from this district;

215 A Motion to Disqualify the Judicial Authority;

Two Motions to Dismiss (#108 and 217).

Specifically, this Court denied the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss which challenged

standing on June 21, 2019. A copy of the decision is attached to this Memorandum. The ruling

denying the Motion to Dismiss found that the Plaintiff had produced the original note, and had

standing to foreclose the mortgage.(See copy enclosed) Now, some 4 years later, Mr. Costello

argues that he is entitled to Summary Judgment, which he is not, and in fact, raised the same
arguments previously in federal court litigation, which were denied. See Costello v. Wells Fargo

Bank National Association, 2017 U.S. Dist. Lexis 119277. (docket report enclosed).

The predecessor in interest to the Substitute Plaintiff, Wells Fargo, filed a Motion for

Relief from Stay on August 13, 2014, and was granted relief from stay on August 28, 2014 to

foreclose the mortgage. Mr. Costello surrendered the property in his Chapter 7. The Bankruptcy

Court docket shows that there were no assets to distribute, and that the Trustee received no money

or property. Indeed. Mr. Costello scheduled the mortgage as a secured claim in his Bankruptcy.

Significantly, he did not list the loan as disputed or contingent. His schedules also showed that the

subject property was owned by him in “fee simple”.

In the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, he now claims that he no longer owns the

subject property, and the foreclosure should not proceed. Many of these same arguments were

already made in federal court in prior litigation, in which Wells Fargo prevailed. See Costello v.

Wells Fargo Bank National Association, 2017 U.S. Dist. Lexis 119277. (docket report enclosed).

JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL BARS THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ALL
ARGUMENTS CONTAINED THEREIN,
Among the requirements of a Bankruptcy debtor including filing schedules under penalty

of perjury. 11 USC 521 (a)(2). Among the requirements includes a “statement of intention”,

addressing what a debtor plans to do with the collateral for his debts. ahDetiin,
In Re
Ke Heflin, §464 B.R. 545,

554 (2011). The debtor must declare in the statement as to whether he will surrender or redeem it.

In Re Boodrow, 126 F. 3d 43, 48 (2"4. Cir. 1997). Surrender, as was chosen here, requires the

debtor to return the collateral to the creditor. In Re: Boodrow, 126 F. 3d 43, 48 (2". Cir. 1997).

Courts interpret “surrender” under the Bankruptcy Code to mean voluntarily relinquishing all

rights in the property, including the right to possession, to the secured creditor. ALANS
In Re Frat,
Pratt, 462 F.
3d 14, 18-19 (1 Cir. 2006). Mr. Costello should be judicially estopped from asserting an

inconsistent legal position as he is in this case. Abandonment of a claim to obtain a Litigation

advantage precludes the later assertion of that claim. Peralta v, Vazquez, 467 F. 3d 98, 105 (2"4

Cir. 2006). "Because the rule is intended to prevent improper usc of judicial machinery . . . judicial

estoppel is an equitable doctrine invoked by a court at its diseretion . . . Accordingly, our review

of the trial court's decision not to invoke the doctrine is for abuse of discretion.” (Citations omitted;

internal quotation marks omitted.) Ass'n Res. v. Wall, 298 Conn. 145, 171, 2 A.3d 873 (2010).

Courts have adopted the position that a debtor cannot surrender the property in a

bankruptcy, and then proceed to challenge the same collateral being enforced in a state

foreclosure. Colon v. Buvview Loan Servicing, LLC. C.A. No. 1:19-cv-517-WES, 2020 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 99925. 2020 3051242 (D.R.L. June 8, 2020);In Re Failla, 838 F. 3d 1170, 1176-77.

We also agree with the bankruptcy court and the district court that "surrender"
equires debtors to drop their opposition to a foreclosure action. The
bankruptcy code docs not define the word "surrender," so we give it its
“contextually appropriate ordinary meaning." Scalia & Garner, supra, at 70; se
also Inre Piazza, 719 F.3d 1253. 1261 (11th Cir. 2013) (applying this canon to the
bankruptcy code). One meaning of "surrender" is "to give or deliver up possession
of (anything) upon compulsion or demand." Surrender, Webster's New
International Dictionary 2539 (2d ed. 1961); see also Surrender, Oxford English
Dictionary (online ed.) ("To give up (something) out of one's own possession or
power into that of another who has or asserts a claim to it.") (all Internet materials
as visited Sept. 15, 2016, and available in Clerk of Court's case file). But this
meaning is not contextually appropriate. When the bankruptcy code means
“physically turn over property," it uses the word “deliver” instead of
"surrender." See, eg,1l USC. 8§ 542(a), 543(b)(1): se: also id. §
727(d\(2) (using the phrase "deliver _or surrender," which suggests they are
different), The presumption of consistent usage instructs that "[a] word or phrase
is presumed to bear the same meaning throughout a text" and that "a material
variation in terms suggests a variation in meaning.” Scalia & Garner, supra, at 170;
see also Russello v. United States. 464 U.S. 16.23, 104 S. Ct. 296, 78 L. Ed. 2d 17
1983).
For these reasons, the mortgage foreclosure action may no longer be contested by Mr.

Costello. His Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied.

3
THE MORTGAGE LIEN PASSED THROUGH THE BANKRUPCTY

Itis undisputed that the mortgage lien passed through the Bankrupicy. Indeed, Mr. Costello

obtained a Chapter 7 discharge, but that has no impact on the Plaintiffs mortgage. Owen v. Owen,

500 U.S. 305, 308-309 (1991).

Mr. Costello’s argument that he allegedly executed and legally delivered a deed of the

property to Wells Fargo fails for a series of reasons. First, there is no written agreement signed by

both parties involving an offer and acceptance. Saint Bernard School of Montville Inc. v. Bank of

A merica, 312 Conn. 811,830 (2014). No documentation submitted by Mr. Costello meets that test,

including the requirement of the statute of frauds. CGS $2-550. More importantly, Mr. Costello

has not advised this Court that this very same argument was made- and rejected- in the federal

court in 2017. In Costello v. Wells Fargo Bank National Association, 2017 U.S. dist. Lexis 119277,

Mr. Costello advanced the same legal argument, which was rejected by the district court.

Specifically, the district court made a finding that “the quit claim deed does not prevent Wells

Fargo from being able to pursue foreclosure actions against the Property”. ( see copy enclosed).

The 2017 ruling by the district court precludes the same argument from being made here

under a series of preclusion doctrines. "Claim preclusion (res judicata) and issue

prechision (collateral estoppel) have been described as related ideas on a continuum. [C]laim

preclusion prevents a litigant from reasserting a claim that has already been decided on the merits.

...[[]ssue preclusion . . . prevents a party from relitigating an issue that has been determined in a

prior suit... . The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel protect the finality of judicial
determinations, conserve the time of the court, and prevent wasteful relitigation." (Citation

omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) U.S. Bank, N_A. v. Foote, 151 Conn. App. 620, 625,

94 A.3d 1267, cert. denied, 314 Conn, 930, 101 A.3d 952 (2014). The 2017 ruling in the district

court entered Judgment for the Defendants, which included Wells Fargo.

"Collateral estoppel . . . is that aspect of res judicata which prohibits the relitigation of an

issuc when that issue was actually litigated and necessarily determined in a prior action between

the same parties upon a different claim. . . . Collateral estoppel means simply that when an issue

of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again

be relitigated between the same par-ties in any future lawsuit. .. . Issue preclusion arises when an

issue is actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment, and that determination is

essential to the judgment. . . . Collateral estoppel may be invoked against a party to a prior adverse

proceeding or against those in privity with that party." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks

omitted.) U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Foote, 151 Conn. App. 628-29. The Substitute Plaintiffis in privity

with Wells Fargo in the sense that it is now the owner of the mortgage loan.

Given the extensive litigation history of this matter, this Court should not only deny Mr.

Costello’s Motion for Summary Judgment, but should also find that he has no basis to contest this

action for the reasons sct forth above. Mr. Costello’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be

denied.
The Substitute Plaintiff

By /s/.
Gcoffrey Milne
MceCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC
50 Weston Street
Hartford, CT 06120
860-240-9140
Geoffrey Milne@mcecalla.com

CERTIFICATION

Thereby certify that a copy of the above was mailed by us mail or by electronic means to the
following counsel and pro se parties of record as follows:

Jeffrey McDonald, Esq. jmcdonald@hgesq.com

Franklin Pilicy cryan@pilicy.com

James Costello jamescostello05@hotmail.com

/s/
Geoffrey Milne

aY
i
!
x
DOCKET NO. 18 6044642 SUPERIOR COURT
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC D/B/A
H
MR. COOPER J.D. OF WATERBURY
vs AT WATERBURY
JAMES COSTELLO, ET AL. JUNE 21, 2019

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
RE: MOTION TO DISMISS
I
BACKGROUND

In this action to foreclose his mortgage, the defendant James Costello has filed! a motion

to dismiss, dated November 16, 2018. In his motion, he asserts that the plaintiff, Nationstar

Mortgage, LLC-D/B/A Mr. Cooper, lacks standing and, therefore, the court lacks subj.:ct matter

jurisdiction. The essential claims of the defendant are, first, that this action is improperly

brought in the fictitious name of “Mr. Cooper,” a D/B/A and, second, that the Federal-National

Mortgage Association (Fannie Mac) was the undisclosed owner of his mortgage debt. Thus, the

defendant contends that the mortgage debt was not discharged as a result of his Chapt::r 7

bankruptcy estate, which occurred prior to any foreclosure, and, therefore, Fannie Ma‘: remains
the owner of the mortgage debt and the proper plaintiff in this case. The court held ar,

evidentiary hearing on the defendant’s motion to dismiss on June 3, 2019. For reason’ set forth

in this memorandum of decision, the motion to dismiss is denied.

Tn a prior action to foreclose the defendant’s mortgage by the plaintiff's predecessor,

Wells Fargo, the court found that although Wells Fargo had standing as the possessor of the

original note and mortgage, the matter was nonetheless dismissed because it failed to “resent
j
COPS Sent o 6-satig all Counse|
on Reg ant -ty Prose defendant, and Report
Tides be see 8
¥
"
1
sufficient evidence that notice of default and acceleration had occurred. Wells Fargo‘ Bank, N.A

v. Costello, Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury, Docket No. CV 15 6028725 (August
t
16, 2016, Tapter, J) “
8
E
Here, ‘the plaintiff, again, presented the original mortgage note for inspection By the
b
defendant and the court at the hearing held ‘on the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The face

amount of the mortgage note is $42,213 with an annual interest rate of 6.75 percent. ‘the original

lender was Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. The court found that the note was signed by the

defendant and endorsed in blank by the original lender. The mortgage deed was similarly

presented and found to be signed and witnessed. The plaintiff also provided evidence.and sworn
{
testimony of the its representative that these original mortgagé documents were in the’ possession

of the plaintiff priorto the initiation of this action to foreclose the defendant’s mortgajre.

0
+

DISCUSSION

Mr. Cooper

The first issue raised by the defendant is whether this foreclosure is improper]; brought

in the fictitious name of “Mr. Cooper,” a D/B/A, There is no question that Nationstar: Mortgage,

LLCi is, in fact, the legal plaintiff in this case and is properly registered to do business‘in

Connecticut. PI’s Exhibit 4, The plaintiff is also doing business as “Mr. Cooper” and’ 1as

provided evidence that it has properly filed a Certificate of Trade Name in Hartford. Fl’s Exhibit
3. Thus, because there is no evidence to suggest that the plaintiff's name is fictitious, {he motion

to dismiss as to this basis is denied.

Fannie Mae

The defendant’s second assertion in his motion to dismiss is that Fannie Mae 1:mains the

undisclosed owner of his mortgage debt. As such, he asserts that the mortgage debt was not

discharged as a part of his Chapter 7 bankruptcy estate prior to foreclosure and, therefore, Fannie

Mae remains the owner of the mortgage debt and the proper plaintiff in this case.

In this second action to foreclose, the plaintiff is again in possession of the ori; inal

mortgage note, endorsed in blank, as well as the original mortgage deed, assigned to te plaintiff

by Wells Fargo, the original lénder. It is undisputed that Fannie Mae, subsequent to V’ells

Fargo, became the investor and owner of the debt, which the defendant contends it retains. This

assertion is the gravamen of the defendant’s motion to dismiss. In moving to dismiss, ‘he

defendant relies upon 12 U.S.C. § 4617 (j) (3), for the proposition that that Fannie Ma::’s

property may not be foreclosed without its consent.! He further asserts that in his pric -

bankruptcy, Fannie Mae was not listed as the creditor of his mortgage debt and, instea 1, Wells

Fargo was listed on Schedule D— Creditors Holding Secured Claims. Def’s Exhibit 4. From

these facts, he concludes that the Fannie Mae mortgage was not properly disposed of j1 the

bankruptcy and, therefore, it remains an indispensable party to this foreclosure. °

"12 U.S.C. § 4617 (j) (3) provides: “No property of the Ageney shall be subject to le: -y,
attachment, garnishment, foreclosure, or sale without the consent of the Agency, nor siiall any
involuntary lien attach to the property of the Agency.”

3
2

‘et
~
In response, the plaintiff provided the court with evidence of its Limited Pow

Attorney from Fannie Mae, authorizing it to engage in mortgage transactions on its behalf,
€
including releases, modifications, foreclosures, as well as certain conveyances and assignments.

The defendant counters that there is no evidence to show that Fannie Mae authorized Wells

Fargo to bring the previous foreclosure or to assign the mortgage to the plaintiff. The,court

notes, however, that the previous action was dismissed by the court... “

The plaintiff provided no evidence of Fannie Mae's consent to Wells Fargo’s duthority to

conduct mortgage transactions on its behalf, however, Wells Fargo is not the plaintiff 'n this

action, and the question of its previous standing to foreclose has been litigated and is row moot.

Although Wells Fargo’s assignment of the mortgage to the plaintiff may result ini a cleud on title

to the property, it is not dispositive of the plaintiff's standing in the present case as it is now the

present holder of the mortgage note, endorsed in blank, and authorized to act on Fann: 2 Mae’s

behalf.

Standing

Possession of a mortgage note endorsed in blank, as established here, creates 2

presumption that the plaintiff has the right to enforce the mortgage. JLE. Robert Co., itc. v.

Signature Properties, LLC., 309 Conn. 307, 324-25, 71 A.3d 492 (2013). The defend: nt’s

rebuttal is limited to evidence that Wells Fargo asserted it was the defendant’s mortga'te creditor

in 2014 ina bankruptcy proceeding. -

“[General Statutes §] 49-17 codifies the well established common-law princip!e that the

mortgage follows the note, pursuant to which only the rightful owner of the note has t..e right to

4
«

enforce the mortgage. ... Appellate courts in this state have held that [the evidentiary-burden of

establishing ownership of the note] is satisfied when the mortgagee includes in its subinissions to

the court a sworn affidavit averring that the mortgagee is the holder of the promissory note in

question at the time it commenced the action. . . . Being the holder of a note satisfies the

plaintiff's burden of demonstrating that it is the owner of the note because under our law, the

note holder is presumed to be the owner of the debt, and uriless the presumption is rebutted, may

foreclose the mortgage under § 49-17. The possession by the bearer of a note [e]ndotied in

blank imports prima facie [evidence] that he acquired the note in good faith for value and in the

course of business, before maturity and without notice of any circumstances impeaching its

validity. The production of the note [endorsed in blank] establishes his case prima fac.e against

the makers and he may rest there, ... It [is] for the defendant to set up and prove the facts which

limit or change the plaintiff's rights. . . .. If the defendant rebuts the presumption that the plaintiff

was the owner of the debt at the time that the action commenced, then the burden wou d shift

back to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the owner has vested it with the right to receive the

money secured by the note. . . . » (Citations omitted; footnotes omitted; internal quotation marks

omitted.) American. Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. v. Reilly, 157 Conn. App. 127, 132-34, 1 17

A.3d-500, cert. denied, 317 Conn. 915, 117 A.3d 854 (2015).

“It is not sufficient to provide that proof, however, merely by pointing to some

documentary lacuna in the chain of title that might give rise to the possibility that som‘: other

party owns the debt. In order to rebut the presumption, the defendant must prove that someone

else is the owner of the note and debt. Absent that proof, the plaintiff may rest its stanc ing to

foreclose on its status as the holder of the note.” U.S. Bank, National Assn. v. Schaef r, 160

Conn. App. 138, 150, 125 A.3d 262 (2015).
1

Based upon the evidence presented, the court concludes that the plaintiff has sufficiently

shown that it is authorized to bring this actionto foreclose on behalf of Fannie Mae ald,

therefore, has standing to foreclose the defendant’s mortgage. The defendant has not sufficiently

rebutted the plaintiff's prima facie showing.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is denied.

BY THE COURT,

flak Nery be
Mark H. Taylor, Judge
aNnyids, 923 AM CT CMECF NextGen

CLOSED, EFILE >PROSE,STAYED

US. District Court
District of Connecticut (New Haven)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:16-cv-01706-VAB

Costello v. Wells Fargo Bank Natl Assn et al Date Filed: 10/13/2016
Assigned to: Judge Victor A. Bolden Date Terminated: 08/11/2017
Demand: $75,000 Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Cause: 28:1346 Tort Claim Nature of Suit: 240 Torts to Land
Jurisdiction: U.S. Govern:nent Defendant
Plaintiff
James T. Costello represented by James T, Costello
408 Bar Harbour Road
Stratford, CT 06614
203-386-0171
Fax: 203-386-0171
Email: jamescostello05@ hotmail.com
PRO SE

Vv.
Defendant
‘Wells Fargo Bank Nat! Assn represented by David M. Bizar
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
World Trade Center East
Seaport East, Two Seapo:t Lane
Suite 1200
Boston, MA 02210
617-946-4874
Fax: 617-790-5368
Email: DBizar@seyfarth som
ATTORNEY TO BE NOT‘CED
Defendant
Federal Housing Finance Agency represented by Brian D. Rich
conservator for Federal National Mortgage Barclay Damon
Association 345 Long Wharf Drive
New Haven, CT 06511
203-672-2670
Email: brich@barclaydamon.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOT.CED

Melanie Dykas
Connecticut General Ass. inbly
300 Capitol Ave
Room 3400
Hartford, CT 06106
860-240-8854

hitps:/fect.ctd.uscourts.gov/egi-bin/OktRpt.p!?200447449183589-L_1_0-1 ua
4119723, 9:23 AM CT CMECF NextGen :
Email: melanie.dykas@cyra.ct.gov
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTiCED
Defendant y

Mortgage Electronic Registration t
represented by David M. Bizar
Systems (See above for address’
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Nationstar Mortgage LLC represented by Vincent J. Averaimo
Barton Gilman, LLP
250 Broad Street
Milford, CT 06460 ‘
203-874-6773
Fax: 203-874-5765
Email: vaveraimo@bglav.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOT:CED
Defendant
Federal National Mortgage Association represented by David M. Bizar
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOT:iCED

_ ~ Sa
|Date Filed Docket Text
| 10/13/2016 COMPLAINT against Federal Housing Finance Agency, Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems, Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Wells Fargo Bank Natl Assn, filed ty James T. |
| |
Costello. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Fazekas, J.” (Entered:
10/14/2016)
—
10/13/2016 Filing fee received from Dorothy Smulley: $400.00, receipt number CT: B00007535.
(Fazekas, J.) (Entered: 10/14/2016)
10/13/2016 MOTION to Participate in Electronic Filing by James T. Costello. (Faze as, 1 (Entered:
10/ /14/2016)
4
10/13/2016 Consent to Electronic Notice by James T. Costello. (Fazekas, I) (Entere: £10/ 14/2016) :
4
10/13/2016 & Appearance Pro Se by James T. Costello. (Fazekas, J.) (Entered: 10/ 14/216)
10/13/2016 Request for Clerk to issue summons as to All Defendants. (Fazekas, J.) Modified on
| 10/14/2016 to correct file date (Fazekas, J.). Entered: 10/14/2016)
10/13/2016 2._| Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Motions to Dismiss due on 1/13/2017. Ame ided Pleadings
| due by 12/12/2016. Discovery due by 4/14/2017. Dispositive Motions di e by 5/14/2017.
Signed by Clerk on 10/13/2016.(Fazekas, J.) (Entered: 1 0/14/2016)
10/13/2016 STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER
Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 10/13/2016.(Fazekas, J.) (Entered: 10/14/2016)
10/14/2016 NOTICE TO COUNSEL/PRO SE PARTIES : Counsel or pro se parties nitiating or
removing this action are responsible for serving all parties with attached documents and
copies of 6 Standing Protective Order, 3 Consent to Electronic Notice fild by James T.
Costeilo, 4 Appearance Pro Se filed by James T. Costello, 1 Complaint filed by James T.
Costello, 5 Order on Pretrial Deadlines, 2 MOTION to Participate in Ele stronic Filing filed

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/ogi-bin/DktRpt.pl?200447449183589-L_1_0-1 29
419125, 9:23 AM CT CMECF NextGen
by James T. Costello
Signed by Clerk on 10/14/2016.(Fazekas, J.) (Entered: 10/14/2016)
pins
10/17/2016 8 | ORDER granting Plaintiff's 2 Motion to Participate in Electronic Filin, 2g. Signed by Judge
Victor A. Bolden on 10/ 17/2016. (Chen, C.) (Entered: 10/17/2016) 5
10/17/2016 9 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P)4 and LR 4 as to
“Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Nationstar Mortgage LLC, ‘ells Fargo Bank
Natl Assn* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. *James T. Gostello* *408 Bar
Harbour Road* *Stratford, CT 06614* (Fazekas, J.) (Entered: 10/ 17/2015)
10/17/2016 10 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and LR 4s to |
*Federal Housing Finance Agency* with answer to complaint due withit, *60* days.
*James T. Costello* *408 Bar Harbour Road* *Stratford, CT 06614* (Fezekas, J.)
(Entered: 10/17/2016)
s
10/18/2016 i ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH
:
COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER. a

PRO SE FILERS ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE JUDGE" S STANDARD
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER WHICH IS ATTACHED.
| Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 10/ 18/16.(Perez, J) (Entered: 10/ 18/2016)
11/07/2016 DQ NOTICE of Appearance by David M. Bizar on behalf of Wells Fargo Baik Nat! Assn :
(Bizar, David) (Entered: 11/07/2016)
11/07/2016 13 | Corporate Disclosure Statement by Wells Fargo Bank Natl Assn identify'ng Corporate
Parent Wells Fargo & Company, and Affiliate Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. {or Wells Fargo
Bank Nat! Assn. (Bizar, David) Modified on 11/8/2016 to add affiliate (Fazekas, J.).
{Entered: 11/07/2016)
—
11/07/2016 4 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleading by Wills Fargo Bank
Natl Assn. (Bizar, David) Entered: 11/07/2016)
11/07/2016 15 AFFIDAVIT of Service for complaint served on all defendants on Torie'2016, filed by
James T. Costello. (Attachments: # | Affidavit proof of, service)(Costello, James) (Entered:
11/07/2016)
11/07/2016 16 | CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by James T. Costello court documents (Ci stello, James)
(Entered: 11/07/2016)
11/08/2016 17 ORDER granting 14 Motion for Extension of Time until 12/7/2016 for L'efendant to file a
responsive pleading. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 11/8/2016. (Chen, C.) (Entered:
11/08/2016)
11/08/2016 Answer deadline updated for Wells Fargo Bank Natl Assn to 12/7/2016. ‘Fazekas, J.)
(Entered: 11/08/2016) 1
11/11/2016 18 | NOTICE of Appearance by Vincent J. Averaimo on behalf of Nationstar Viorigage LLC
(Averaimo, Vincent) (Entered: 11/11/2016) ‘
11/11/2016 19 First Corporate Disclosure Statement by Nationstar Mort gage LLC. (Averaimo, Vincent)
(Entered: 11/11/2016)
11/11/2016 20 First MOTION for Extension of Time to file Responsive Pleading by Na ionstar Mortgage
LLC. (Averaimo, Vincent) (Entered: 1 1/11/2016)
11/14/2016 21 ORDER granting 20 Motion for Extension of Time. Si gned by Clerk on ais, (Gould,
K.) (Entered: 11/14/2016)
—
https://ecf.ctd.uscourts. gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?200447449183589-L_1_0-1 we
49123, 9:23 AM CT CMECF NextGen
4
fg

[11/14/2016 Answer deadline updated for Nationstar Mortg: age LLC to 12/13/2016. Gout K)
Entered: 11/14/2016)
11/21/2016 22 | NOTICE of ‘Appearance by David M. Bizar on behalf of Mortgage Elect onic Registration
Systems (Bizar, David) Entered: 11/21/2016)
t
11/21/2016 23 MOTION for Extension of Time until December 7, 2016 to File Responsive Pleading
Nunc Pro Tunc by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems. (Bizar, Dévid) (Entered:
11/21/2016) &
x
11/21/2016 24 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Mortgage Electronic Registration Sy.tems identifying
Corporate Parent MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. for Mort; gage Electronic Registration
Systems. (Bizar, David) Entered: 11/21/2016)
11/22/2016 25 ORDER granting 23 Motion for Extension of Time until 12/7/2016 for Defendant MERS
to answer or respond to Plaintiff's complaint. Si igned by Judge Victor A. Bolden on
11/22/2016. (Chen, C.) (Entered: 11/22/2016) 2
11/22/2016 Answer deadline updated for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems *o 12/7/2016.
(Fazekas, J.) Modified on 11/22/2016 to correct date (Fazekas, J.). (Entered: 11/22/2016)
12/06/2016 26 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time until January 4, 2017 to answer of otherwise
respond to | Complaint by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Nationstar
Mortgage LLC, Wells Fargo Bank Natl Assn. @izar, David) (Entered: 1706/2016)
12/06/2016 22 MOTION to Amend/Correct 26 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time until January 4,
2017 to answer or otherwise respond to | Complaint by Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems, Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Wells Fargo Bank Natl Assn.Respoiises due by
12/27/2016 (Bizar, David) (Entered: 12/06/2016)
12/07/2016 28 ; ORDER granting 27 Motion to Amend/Correct Joint Motion for Extensitin of Time until
| 1/4/2017 for Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Cc ‘nplaint. Signed
by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 12/7/2016. (Chen, C.) Entered: 12/07/20 15)
—|
12/07/2016 29 ORDER finding as moot 26 Motion for Extension of Time, in light of thé Court's 28 Order
on Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 12/7/2016. (Chen, Cc)
Entered: 12/07/2016) ?
12/08/2016 Answer deadline updated for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems. Nationstar :
Mortgage LLC, Wells Fargo Bank Natl Assn. (Perez, J.) (Entered: 12/08/2016)
12/16/2016 30 ‘NOTICE of Appearance by David M. Bizar on behalf of Federal National Mortgage
Association ({Bizar, David) (Entered: 12/16/2016) ;
12/16/2016 3h First MOTION for Extension of Time until January 4, 2017 to answer of; otherwise
respond to 1 Complaint by Federal National Mortgage Association. (Bizer, David)
(Entered: 12/ 1 6/20 16)
=
12/19/2016 32 ORDER granting 31 Motion for Extension of Time until 1/4/2017 for Defendant Fannie
Mae to answer or otherwise respond to Complaint. Si; igned by Judge Vietor A. Bolden on
12/19/2016. (Chen, c) Entered: 12/19/2016)
12/19/2016 Answer deadline updated for Federal National Mort; gage Association to 1/4/2017.
(Fazekas, J.) (Entered: 12/19/201 6)
a
12/21/2016 33 NOTICE of Appearance by Brian D. Rich on behalf of Federal Housing “inance A gency
(Rich, Brian) (Entered: 12/21/7201 6)
a
12/21/2016 34 MOTION for Extension of Time until January 20, 201 7 Respond to Con plaint by F ederal
Housing Finance Agency. (Rich, Brian) Entered: 12/21/2016)
-
hitpsvfecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/ogi-bin/DktRpt p!?7200447449183580-L_1_0-1 t 4g
4/19/23, 9:23AM CT CMECF NextGen =
12/21/2016 NOTICE of ‘Appearance by Melanie Dykas on behalf of: Federal Hous inj Finance Agency
@ykas, Melanie) (Entered: 12/21/2016) -
12/22/2016 36 ORDER granting 34 Motion for Extension of Time until 1/20/2017 for Lefendant FHFA to |
tespond to the Complaint. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 12/22/2 1 6. (Chen, C.)
(Entered: 12/22/2016)
12/22/2016 ‘Answer deadline updated for Federal Housing Finance Agency to 1078) 17. (Fazekas, J.) |
(Entered: 12/22/20 16)
01/04/2017 MOTION to Dismiss J Complaint by Federal National Mortgage Associittion, Mortgage
Electronic Registration Systems, Wells F: argo Bank Natl Assn Response due by 1/25/2017
(Bizar, David) (Entered: 0 1/04/20 17)
01/04/2017 Memorandum in Support re 37 MOTION to Dismiss { Complaint filed t y Federal
National Mortgage Association, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systeris, Wells Fargo
Bank Nat! Assn. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 ExhibitC, # 4 Exhibit D,
# 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, /: 10 Exhibit J, #
1 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhilit O, # 16 Exhibit |
P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T)(Bizar, pei) (Entered:
01/04/2017)
01/04/2017 39 [NOTICE by Federal National Mortgage Association, Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems, Wells Fargo Bank Natl Assn to Pro Se Litigant Opposing Motic n to Dismiss
Gizar, David) Entered: 01/04/2017)
01/04/2017 40 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of, Jurisdiction and for failure to state a ci tim upon which
relief can be granted (12(b)(6)) by Nationstar Mortgage LLC. Responses 'due by 1/25/2017
(Averaimo, Vincent) (Entered: 01 £04/20 17)
01/04/2017 4l Memorandum in Support re 40 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdi'tion and for
Jailure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (12(b)(6)) filed »y Nationstar
Mortgage LLC. (Attachments: # | Exhibit Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit©, Copy of East
Point Systems Vv Maxim)(Averaimo, Vincent) (Entered: 01/04/2017)
—
01/04/2017 42 NOTICE by Nationstar Mortgage LLC to Pro Se Litigant Opposing Mot, on to Dismiss
(Averaimo, Vincent) (Entered: 01/04/2017)
01/06/2017 43 MOTION for Sanctions by James T. Costello.Responses due by 1/27/20! 7 (Costello,
James) (Entered: 01/06/20 17)
1
01/07/2017 44 | MOTION for Extension ofTime until 2/28/2017 respond 37 MOTION t» Dismiss J
Complaint, 40 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and for fail--re to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted (12(b)(6)) by James T. Costello. ' Costelto, James)
(Entered: 01/07/2017)
01/20/2017 MOTION to Dismiss by Federal Housing Finance Agency. Responses dus by 2/10/2014 7
(Dykas, Melanie) (Entered: 01/20/2017)
01/20/2017 Memorandum in Support re 45 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Federal H¢ using Finance
Agency. (Dykas, Melanie) (Entered: 01/20/2017) _
01/20/2017 47 NOTICE by Federal Housing Finance Agency re 46 Memorandum in Sunport of Motion,
45 MOTION to Dismiss To Pro Se Litigant Regarding Motion to Dismis; (Dykas,
Melanie) (Entered: 01/20/2017)
—
01/23/2017 48 OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS filed by Federal Housing Finance Agency. .
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B)(Rich, Brian) (Entered: 01/25/2017)

https:/ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt pl?2004474491835891_1_0-1 5/9
418123, 9:23 AM, CT CMECF NextGen v

Case Info

Judge

John L. Cordani Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

April 19, 2023

Case Filing Date

November 26, 2018

County

Parties

408 BAR HARBOUR ROAD Attorney for the Defendant
HASSETT & GEORGE PC Attorney for the Defendant
JAMES T. COSTELLO Defendant
LYNWOOD CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. Defendant
MCCALLA RAYMER LEIBERT PIERCE LLC Attorney
MCCALLA RAYMER LEIBERT PIERCE LLC Attorney for the Plaintiff
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC D/B/A MR. COOPER Plaintiff
PILICY & RYAN PC Attorney for the Defendant
PILICY & RYAN P.C. Attorney for the Defendant
PILICY RYAN & WARD P.C. Attorney for the Defendant
US BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT SOLELY AS OWNER TRUSTEE FOR VRMTG ASSET TRUST Plaintiff - Substituted
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. Defendant
Linda St Pierre Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion,Ex Parte: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC D/B/A MR. COOPER v. COSTELLO, JAMES T. Et Al

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties