.jpg)
Service to mortgage lienholders in Motions to Avoid Judicial Lien
This is standard everywhere. The banks must be served by certified mail at FDIC addresses.
Sent from my Stella Havkin's IPhone
> On Jun 8, 2016, at 8:45 PM, Craig J Beauchamp legallycraig@gmail.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
> I have a Riverside judge who has denied my motion to avoid judicial liens in a Chapter 7 case because I did not serve the first and second mortgage lender according their FDIC address and sent certified. We sent certified mail address to the judgment lienholders to an officer at the FDIC address. But Judge stated as follows for service on the 1st and 2nd mortgage lenders whose interest is not at state in these motions. I have never serviced the mortgage lenders this way. I have usually used the lenders address used in Schedule D.
>
> Court cited
>
> "U.S. Bank, N.A. was not served at its address registered with the FDIC and was not served in accordance with FRBP 7004(h). Real Time Resolutions, Inc. was not served in accordance with FRBP 7004(b)(3). Proper notice to all lienholders is required by LBR 4003-2(c)(2)"
>
> I just got another judicial lien avoided by an LA judge today and had sent the mortgage lender notice to the address in Schedule D..
>
> This was not an adversary proceeding. Is judge right? Or can I file a Motion to Reconsider?
>
> I could use some help. I do not want to have to file a 3rd time. 1st time we thought the 2nd had been assumed by the 1st when Litton who held both mortgages went out of business. It took months and subpoenas to MERS and Ocwen to discover the status of the 2nd.
>
> Time is of the essence as I can't afford to have the case closed.
>
> Thanks
>
> Craig
>
>
> Craig J. Beauchamp, Esq.
> Attorney at Law
> PO Box 25857
> Santa Ana, CA 92799
> (949) 689-9709
> (714) 835-5763 fax
> Legallycraig@gmail.com
>
> NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept notice for Ex Parte Applications via voicemail or by email. You must comply with California Law and give notice to a person in my office during regular business hours.
>
> IMPORTANT NOTICE required by 11 U.S.C. 528: We are a debt relief agency. We help people file for bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code.
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message contains privileged and confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute, store, print, copy or deliver this message. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Reply-To: Craig J Beauchamp
X-Original-Return-Path: Craig J Beauchamp
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: groups-system
I have a Riverside judge who has denied my motion to avoid judicial liens
in a Chapter 7 case because I did not serve the first and second mortgage
lender according their FDIC address and sent certified. We sent certified
mail address to the judgment lienholders to an officer at the FDIC
address. But Judge stated as follows for service on the 1st and 2nd
mortgage lenders whose interest is not at state in these motions. I have
never serviced the mortgage lenders this way. I have usually used the
lenders address used in Schedule D.
Court cited
"U.S. Bank, N.A. was not served at its address registered with the FDIC and
was not served in accordance with FRBP 7004(h). Real Time Resolutions, Inc.
was not served in accordance with FRBP 7004(b)(3). Proper notice to all
lienholders is required by LBR 4003-2(c)(2)"
I just got another judicial lien avoided by an LA judge today and had sent
the mortgage lender notice to the address in Schedule D..
This was not an adversary proceeding. Is judge right? Or can I file a
Motion to Reconsider?
I could use some help. I do not want to have to file a 3rd time. 1st time
we thought the 2nd had been assumed by the 1st when Litton who held both
mortgages went out of business. It took months and subpoenas to MERS and
Ocwen to discover the status of the 2nd.
Time is of the essence as I can't afford to have the case closed.
Thanks
Craig
Craig J. Beauchamp, Esq.
Attorney at Law
PO Box 25857
Santa Ana, CA 92799
(949) 689-9709
(714) 835-5763 fax
Legallycraig@gmail.com
NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept notice for *Ex
Parte* Applications via voicemail or by email. You must comply with
California Law and give notice to a person in my office during regular
business hours.
IMPORTANT NOTICE required by 11 U.S.C. 528: We are a debt relief agency.
We help people file for bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code.
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message contains privileged and
confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If
you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute,
store, print, copy or deliver this message. Please notify the sender
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and
delete this e-mail from your system.
I have a Riverside judge who has denied my motion to avoid judicial liens in a Chapter 7 case because I did not serve the first and second mortgage lender according their FDIC address and sent certified.r at the FDIC address. But Judge stated as follows for service on the 1st and 2nd mortgage lenders whose interest is not at state in these motions. I have never serviced the mortgage lenders this way. I have usually used the lenders address used in Schedule D.Court cited"U.S. Bank, N.A. was not served at its address
registered with the FDIC and was not served in accordance with FRBP 7004(h). Real Time Resolutions,
Inc. was not served in accordance with FRBP 7004(b)(3). Proper notice to all lienholders is required by
LBR 4003-2(c)(2)"I just got another judicial lien avoided by an LA judge today and had sent the mortgage lender notice to the address in Schedule D..This was not an adversary proceeding. Is judge right? Or can I file a Motion to Reconsider?I could use some help. I do not want to have to file a 3rd time. 1st time we thought the 2nd had been assumed by the 1st when Litton who held both mortgages went out of business. It took months and subpoenas to MERS and Ocwen to discover the status of the 2nd.Time is of the essence as I can't afford to have the case closed.ThanksCraigCraig J. Beauchamp, Esq.Attorney at LawPO Box 25857Santa Ana, CA 92799(949) 689-9709(714) 835-5763faxLegallycraig@gmail.comNO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not acceptnotice forEx ParteApplications via voicemail or by email. You must comply with California Law and give notice to a person in my office during regular business hours.IMPORTANT NOTICE required by 11 U.S.C. 528:We are a debt relief agency. We help people file for bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code.CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute, store, print, copy or deliver this message. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.