Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

STATE OF NEW MEXICO COUNTY OF SANDOVAL THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT BOKF, N.A. DBA BANK OF OKLAHOMA, N.A.

, Plaintiff, vs. GARON BODOR, Defendant. SUPPLEMENT OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES TO DEFENDANTS GRANTED HEARING REGARDING PLAINTIFF STANDING COMES NOW the Defendant, Garon Bodor, by and through pro se in response to the Plaintiff, BOKF, N.A. dba Bank of Oklahoma, N.A.s (the Plaintiff) Motion for Summary Judgment to provide points and authorities that demonstrate that the Plaintiff has no standing in the Thirteenth Judicial District Court and hence the Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment must be denied. The Court provided Notice of Motion Hearing set for the date Monday, 26th day of March, 2012 at 9:00 AM with the matter to be heard that of the MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT of Plaintiff Standing. Jurisdiction for the hearing of the Plaintiffs action is not appropriate for review in this court due to diversity jurisdiction, a form of subject-matter jurisdiction in civil procedure, since the parties are diverse in citizenship as citizens of different states. The plaintiff is not recognized by the State of New Mexico as a legal entity and hence has no standing in this court. This case meets the requirement for complete diversity where the plaintiff and the defendant are NOT from the same state. Diversity is determined at No. D-1329-CV-2011-01320

the time that the action is filed and the Plaintiff was not and is not currently a recognized, neither private nor corporate, entity by the State of New Mexico where as the Defendant is indeed a state resident having a domicile within the state and has relationship with the state as a taxpayer for the past 15 years as well as having two children born during that time within the state. Not only is the Plaintiff not a recognized entity in New Mexico, neither is its mortgage servicer Bank of Albuquerque recognized as a legal entity by the State of New Mexico though certainly the name is confusing. All correspondence with the Defendant has originated from the Plaintiffs nerve center in Tulsa, Oklahoma outside of the legal council hired within the state to provide the Plaintiff the appearance of standing and therefore to ease access to the illegal foreclosing on the homes of New Mexicans by the illegal assignments of mortgages in 2010from Charter Bank to itself, the Plaintiff, via perjured robosigners Bryan Bly, Vilma Castro, and Christopher Jones of Nationwide Title Clearing, Florida. The FDIC also recognizes the Plaintiff as beingl not based in New Mexico, rather in the state of Oklahoma like their name actually implies. On February 23, 2010, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held in Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 2009 No. 08-1107 United States Court of Appeals (Ninth Circuit) that a corporations principal place of business is presumed to be the place of the corporations nerve center from which its Officers conduct the corporations important business. The Plaintiff conducts its business from the State of Oklahoma. This case also meets the diversity jurisdiction requirement in the contested amount exceeding the $75,000 minimum requirement of the United States Congress under

28 U.S.C. 1332(a) hence the Defendant requests that this matter be removed from state court. The Thirteenth Judicial District Court has no obligation nor authority to rule on this case. The Plaintiff states in its Complaint that as an assignee of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, they enjoy holder in due course status whether or not it satisfies the requirements of the New Mexico Uniform Commercial Code as such citing 12 U.S.C. 1823(e), however their citation clearly states that it is applicable where federal jurisdiction is NOT based on diversity of citizenship. The issue of standing is further aggravated by the separation of the note from the mortgage during securitization therefore annulling the note and no foreclosure can be conducted on behalf of the Plaintiff as the note must move with the assignment of mortgage Carpenter v. Longan 83 U.S. 271 (1872). The assignment of the mortgage from Charter Bank, Santa Fe, New Mexico to the Plaintiff is also an act of perjury because the signatories on the assignment were not aware of the facts that they claimed to recognize in the signing the assignment of mortgage. Those signatories include Bryan Bly as Vice President of the Plaintiff, Vilma Castro as Asst. Secretary of the Plaintiff and Christopher Jones, Notary Public all of which were simultaneously employed by several other national banks at the time and also by Nationwide Title Clearance located in Florida who actually uses its legal council to defend the signatories rights to privacy from public comment on their illegal and self admitted perjuries. All three of these people are notorious and self-admitted robosigners and are not indeed true Officers of the Plaintiff though the Plaintiff continues to present this perjured assignment of mortgage to the court

as evidence that they enjoy holder status of the note to the Defendants home. This perjury constitutes that the Plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy by foreclosing due to the fact that the Plaintiff has acted unethically and has come before the court with unclean hands. The Unclean Hands Doctrine is a rule of law that someone bringing a lawsuit or motion and asking the court for equitable relief must be innocent of wrongdoing or unfair conduct relating to the subject matter of his/her claim. It is an affirmative defense that the Defendant may claim the Plaintiff has "unclean hands" and that is clearly the case here. Plaintiffs actions, by accepting the Defendants application for a modification acted as a waiver of the foreclosure proceedings. The Plaintiffs actions could also be viewed so as to create a situation where the Plaintiff should be equitably estopped from foreclosing on the property until the adequacy or accuracy of the modification program compliance could be shown. Finally, Plaintiff is in breach of fiduciary duties owed to the Defendant, precluding summary judgment at this time. Waiver is the intentional abandonment or relinquishment of a known right. An intention to waive a right is ordinarily a question of fact. Chavez v. Gomez, 77 N.M. 341, 423 P.2d 31 (1967). In the present matter, the Plaintiff agreed to allow Defendant to apply for a loan modification. Estoppel is the preclusion, by acts or conduct, from asserting a right which might otherwise have existed, to the detriment and prejudice of another, who, in reliance on such acts and conduct, has acted thereon. Miller v. Phoenix Assur. Co., Limited, of London, 52 N.M. 68, 191 P.2d 993 (1948). New Mexico case law requires

some showing of reliance on the part of the other party, in this case, St. Paul, before estoppel is applied against the party making a claim. See Design Professionals Ins. Companies, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 1997-NMCA-049, 123 N.M. 398, 403, 940 P.2d 1193, 1198. In this case, Defendant absolutely relied upon Plaintiff to fairly and accurately perform the modification of her loan. Plaintiff is in the business of home loans. Defendant is not. Plaintiff was under a duty to fairly and accurately perform the modification process. The relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant should also be viewed as being fiduciary in nature and Plaintiff must exercise its duties with the utmost good faith and integrity. See Iriart v. Johnson, 75 N.M. 745, 411 P.2d 226 (1965); Twomey v. Mitchum, Jones & Templeton, Inc., 262 Cal.App.2d 690, 69 Cal.Rptr. 222, (1968). Plaintiff would have a duty to exercise reasonable skill and ordinary diligence and not to act negligently. Wilson v. Hisey, 147 Cal.App.2d 433, 305 P.2d 686 (1957); Mattieligh v. Poe, 57 Wash.2d 203, 356 P.2d 328, 94 A.L.R.2d 464 (1960). At this juncture, it is clear that the Plaintiff did not act in good faith and non-negligently and does not have standing in this court. Dated this 22 day of March, 2012 Respectfully submitted,

Garon Bodor, Homeowner 813 Villa Verde Drive, SE Rio Rancho, NM 87124 (505) 506 - 4127

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on _________________________, 2011, I did mail a true and correct copy of the foregoing Response to Motion for Summary Judgment with attached Affidavits to ______________________________________________________ at _______________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________ Garon Bodor

Вам также может понравиться