Options
Today's filings in the Langbord lawsuit are being posted to the court docket.
SanctionII
Posts: 13,313 ✭✭✭✭✭
I am back in the office after spending most of the day in court working on pretrial motions in a case I have set for a jury trial tomorrow. Picking a jury tomorrow morning.
So I just loged onto the Langbord case. The government has filed two sets of jury intructions [one set for instructions both sides have agreed upon; and one set the government wants but the Langbords have not agreed to] and a 148 page motion in limine [a motion for an order from the court excluding from trial specific evidence that the party making the motion believes should be excluded from trial].
Have not read any documents yet and probably will not be able to until after my trial is over, but wanted to advise that documents are being filed. No postponement of today's filing deadline.
So I just loged onto the Langbord case. The government has filed two sets of jury intructions [one set for instructions both sides have agreed upon; and one set the government wants but the Langbords have not agreed to] and a 148 page motion in limine [a motion for an order from the court excluding from trial specific evidence that the party making the motion believes should be excluded from trial].
Have not read any documents yet and probably will not be able to until after my trial is over, but wanted to advise that documents are being filed. No postponement of today's filing deadline.
0
Comments
Good luck with your trial. Got a cute jury selection story I will type in later.
TD
An attractive woman sitting in a court room started coming on to a male juror during a long trial.
The objective wasn't to influence the jury. It was to determine when the jury would conclude deliberations.
The woman was connected to an investment firm which placed bets on volatility. The particular trial was going to end with or without a very large judgment against a corporate entity.
The scheme is legal. The judge figured it out and threw the woman out of the courtroom, but there was nothing else he could do.
I hope the other side in your case caves so that you have time to read and tell us what is going with the Langbord case. In the meanwhile, best of luck in your case!
It is an eviction lawsuit after a foreclosure sale of an Oakland property. My client is an investor who appeared at the foreclosure sale and bought the property. The former owner refuses to move from the property. My client filed an eviction lawsuit to get the lady out of the property. She is defending with all the strength she can muster. She represents herself, without an attorney. However, she is a legal secretary with decades of experience working for large SF law firms. So she has some legal skills.
The lady acquired the property from her husband in a divorce 13 years ago. At the time it had a single loan of $150k on it. In late 2004 continuing into 3-2006 the lady did 4 cash out refinance loans on the property pulling about $300k in cash out of the property. The last loan was made in 3-2006 and was for $495K. The first payment under this loan was due on 5-1-2006. The lady made one payment. She has been living free in the property since 6-2006.
In 6-2006 the lady started filing lawsuits in state and federal courts in Calif. and in Delaware bankruptcy court against the originating lender, the loan broker, downstream lenders who purchased the loan, loan servicers and others seeking to invalidate the loan and obtain clear title to the house, free of any loans [whe wants a free house] and millions of dollars in damages for the suffering she has endured as a result of obtaining trashy cash out refinance loans.
She settled some of her cases for $105k and she lost some other cases on the merits. However, no court ever invalidated the loan and the mortgage securing the loan.
The lender who owned the loan last fall finally was able to force a foreclosure sale of the property. On the date of the sale the lender was owed over $682K under the loan. The lender sold the property to my client for $193K. My client thought the property was worth $250K on the date of the sale.
My client received a foreclosure deed and has owned the property since last fall. My client has paid over $10k in back taxes and has paid insurance premiums on the property.
The lady contends that the foreclosure sale was a fraud, was a sham, that the loan had previously been paid off in full by some unknown third party, that the foreclosure is defective, that my client has not valid title to the property and that she should be allowed to remain in the property for free indefinitely.
So during the lawsuit I wanted to take the deposition of the lady. She refused to show up. Last week during pretrial work up of the case before the trial judge I asked the court to bar the lady from presenting evidence since she did not show up for her deposition. The judge ordered the lady to appear and give a deposition at my office last Wednesday and told the lady if she failed to do so the judge would order that she not be allowed to testify at trial in her defense of the case. The lady refused to appear for her deposition on Wednesday. The judge on Thursday issued an order prohibiting the lady from testifying at trial in her defense.
Today we met with the judge on additional pretrial matters. The judge is getting fed up with the lady and be tomorrow morning will likely issue additional pretrial rulings that prohibit the lady from introducing certain documents into evidence at trial [which the lady desparately wants to introduce into evidence].
I can see the trial going forward where I present my evidence, rest my case, and have the lady be unable to effectively introduce evidence at the trial during the presentation of her defense. The lady will go nuts and probably offend/annoy the heck out of the jury, judge and me.
I will be interesting to see how it all plays out, however my closing argument will point out that the lady pulled about $300k in cash out of the house, has been living for free for almost 5 years, has sued and settled for an additional $105K, refuses to move from a house she does not own and has the gall to come into court and ask you, the jury, to allow her to continue to live for free in a house she does not own. I make my house payment, you make your house or rent payment, the judge and other court staff do the same. Do the right thing and send a message to the lady that it is time that she move to a rental property and start actually paying for her monthly housing expense like the rest of us.
Do you think my client will win the case and be able to finally get possession of his property?
No
Ye of little faith.
I will provide the trial results after the case is over.
This is America.... land of the neverending lawsuit.
Most are very simple [you did not pay the rent, you have to move].
Some are exceedingly complex.
At their core, these types of cases are prime examples of the truth of the adage "possession is 9/10ths of the law". People who have possession of real property at times fight very hard to keep possession of same since living in a place for free is just much more desirable than actually having to PAY for your housing [rent or monthly house payment].
In my case, the lady used much of the money she obtained from the cash out refinances and from the $105K in settlement funds to pay for:
1. Bills;
2. A Mercedes;
3. An Audi; and
4. A "Diva" like life style.
While walking to our cars one day after a court hearing I talked with her and asked her if she had a "sugar daddy", to which she replied, "many".
A girl has got to get by, don't ya know
<< <i>Depends on the jury - be careful.
Especially in that part of the country.
Out east of there in Stockton whole neighbourhoods have been vacated by foreclosures. I am glad I sold all my California property by 2005 - just as the market peaked.
I think you should make certain that the jury is aware of her "Legal" background and, that she knows enough law to abuse the system.
Good Luck !
I have faith that you will be able to convey the truth to the jury, and have a favorable verdict.
From the mid 60's to the mid 80's my father drove a delivery truck in Detroit for a company that happened to be owned by the G****** Brothers, two bigshots in the Detroit mafia. Everybody in town knew it was one of their legitimate front organizations, and I mean everybody. Dad could go into the roughest part of his route and nobody ever bothered him.
Eventually the brothers got convicted on income tax evasion, and sold the company. Within a year my Dad was held up three times, and took a route in the suburbs at less money. At least one driver was shot around this time.
After he retired, my younger sister got called into federal court in Detroit for jury duty. She shows up, and the pool is being pre-screened. She gets up on the stand, and one of the presecutors asks her "Do you believe that the mafia exists?" She says "Why sure" as though he had asked her "Did the sun come up this morning?" Why sure.
There must have been something special in the way she said it, because the prosecutor said "Uh, Miss D-----, you sound awfully sure of yourself. Why is that?"
She says "Well, my Dad worked for the XXX Company when it was owned by the G***** Brothers, and he told us kids that when the G******** Brothers owned the company nobody ever robbed the drivers, but when they sold the company everybody got robbed!"
The courtroom dissolved in laughter. She was excused.
I like your odds with the jury, but there is still the matter of getting the sheriff out to the house after trial is finished.
It sounds like this lady ain't going anywhere until the law puts a gun to her face.
And I'm betting there are so many foreclosures going that getting the police to service an eviction may not be a gimme.
Edited to add, she will probably gut the place before moving out too. Copper wire is valuable.
The government has filed two sets of jury instructions, two motions in limine [motions to exclude from trial specified evidence], voir dire [questions for the potential jurors during jury selection], proposed finding of fact and conclusions of law, and a trial brief.
The Langbords have filed five motions in limine, voir dire and a pretrial memorandum.
Hunderds of pages of documents are in these filings.
I suppose more documents may have been filed by both side but they have not yet been imaged and post on the case docket [maybe by tomorrow].
Looking through these newly filed documents will give a very detailed picture of the evidence that both sides want to introduce in the case and the evidence that they want excluded from the case. Further the documents will name all lay and expert witnesses each side want to call at trial and will set forth the precise legal positions of both side on the claims and defenses pending in the pleadings on file in the case. The jury voir dire questions will give insight into what type of person [background, etc.] each side will want on and off the jury [i.e. are you a "tea bagger" or a "commie lib"
Reading and digesting it all will take hours, as will providing a report on same.
I need an advance on my fees for this project
Beware that you don't get hit by a class-action suit filed by true ladies everywhere who find the characterization slanderous.
http://www.shieldnickels.net
I am a banking consultant and there is a movement afoot to void millions of mortgages due to all the well-publicized robo-signing problems and the unfairness of the lending system you outlined above. No one knows where this will go, but some really high-powered people/firms are truly scared. If your client can hold on long-enough, she might become part of that class. Rumors that the banks were about to settle with the government by giving every delinquent mortgage holder a $10-20k forgiveness drew protests in DC yesterday, since it's obviously "not enough". BTW the existence of such a deal and the amounts of any such deal have been denied by all parties.
<< <i>
<< <i>Depends on the jury - be careful.
Especially in that part of the country.
Out east of there in Stockton whole neighbourhoods have been vacated by foreclosures.
<< <i>
That's a good point. I am certainly no lawyer, but if I was the defendant I would construct a closing argument tale in the, "innocent little old lady trying to fight the big, mean old bank with teams of high-priced lawyers at their disposal. I'm fighting this good fight on behalf of all the 'regular folks' out there... ".
I think you have to paint it as: "A conniving legal secretary has gamed the system thanks to her intimate knowledge of how hard it is to evict someone. She has been getting a free house for years and even six figures of income gaming the system, while law abiding folks like you and me have been playing by the rules. It is up to you to make this right, and time to make her start paying her fair share."
Coin Rarities Online
<< <i>
Do you think my client will win the case and be able to finally get possession of his property? >>
Depends. Any O.J. Simpson jurors likely to be impaneled?
Seriously, I know in CA that a deadbeat tennant can spend a very long time playing the system. Did your client not have enough/proper papers and or court docs. to have the sheriff physically evict her?
Or would this have been the picture of an elderly lady crying, being carried into street at the request of the evil new landlord?
Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.
bob
It does not surprise me that "higher ups" are pushing for giving "debt relief" to persons who have homes that are underwater and/or who can not afford to make their loan payments [particularly those payments due under the trashy negative amortization loans that were all the rage 4-5 years ago].
The thing that is both funny, sad, and true about any such "debt relief" is that if it comes true, in an extreme fashion [i.e. the entire debt is forgiven so that the owner/borrower owns the property free and clear], there would be tears of joy flowing from the cheeks of those who suddenly find themselves owning a house free and clear. The tears would last only a few minutes. After having the fact that their house is now owned by them free and clear, many of these people would immediately think "Ca-Ching" and would proceed to go out and look for a home loan in order to raise money so that they can buy everything they have ever watned. If the people who are out shopping for a home loan are not successful in finding anyone who would loan money [assuming that the lending industry still exists after the "debt relief" is implemented], these people would get angry and claim that they are being "victimized" and that their constitutional "rights to borrow money against their home" are being violated. Once this horrible situation comes to the attention of the powers that be residing in Washington, legislative action and/or executive orders will be taken/issued forcing any remaining lenders that exist in the private sector to make loans to those who have received the debt relief. If forcing the private sector to make these loans does not work, well the only remedy is to simply have Uncle Sam nationalize the real property finance sector and become the only lender around [imagine what a home loan application from Uncle Sam would look like].
Of course, some persons of a cynical nature may just believe that the above scenario has been the desire of many people in positions of power all along and that the current "foreclosure crisis" is simply the central theme in Act III of a four part play [and we all know what the script of Act IV of the play will be].
I also suspect that those persons who have a home loan and who pay the monthly payment every month, and those who had a home loan and paid it off in full so they now own their home debt free would be outraged at the prospect of extreme "debt relief" being given to those whoare unwilling or unable to pay their home loan payments.
Back to Langbord. Just checked this morning. No new filings beyond those I mentioned last night.
<< <i>Do you think my client will win the case and be able to finally get possession of his property? >>
I think so. Not sure, however.
I have (fortunately) only had one malpractice deposition taken. It consisted of the plaintiff's atty asking me the same thing over and over for two hours. It was wierd because I was a (presumably hostile) witness and not a defendant, as the plaintiff sued one of my collegues.
My employer ultimately settled and it went away before I had to testify at trial.
<< <i>Your client(s) must be very nice. Ethical considerations notwithstanding, mine would be very unhappy if I posted the details of matters entrusted to me in an online forum, particularly an online site wholly unrelated to their legal matters. >>
I think everything SanctionII mentioned is already in the public record.
The information about my case mentioned in this thread is all in the public record [in multiple court files].
Jury selection tomorrow morning.
Review of the Langbord documents is on the back burner for now.
We all anxiously await your summary of the Langbord documents...when time allows.
I hope the defendant in your case does not go to the news media portraying herself as a soon-to-be-homeless victim of ruthless and greedy lenders and buyers. A story easily could be written from a different perspective: how the lady is "playing" the system based on her years of law firm work, cashing in on her experience and leaving innocent people (your client) unable to obtain what is rightfully his. Probably depends on who gets the attention of the newspaper or TV station first.....
-donn-
would it be possible to provide a link to them?
Re: your personal tale...
I'm with TDN and others that while you may win, she may appeal, as well as your client may not get possession of the property, or may get possession of a trashed property.
Also, I think the publicized challenges that have been heard with respect foreclosures, collateralized mortgage sales and "who really owns" the property may come back in an appeal to haunt you. I don't see in your case where you discussed those aspects (although, if she is limited in presenting evidence, then you may not deal with those aspects in this trial). However, she could get clued in before any appeal and find out how to properly appeal her case on these grounds. Hmmm.... she'd just need to look into recent court cases.... maybe she has a log in to do that....
JJ
Yesterday afternoon I was served with a Petition For Writ Of Mandate and Request For Stay that the "lady" filed in the California Court Of Appeal in San Francisco. She wanted the court of appeal to intervene and reverse the trial judge's pretrial rulings that the lady did not like.
This morning she also file in the eviction suit an ex parte motion for an order consolidating the eviction suit with the separate quiet title lawsuit filed by the lady to set aside the foreclosure sale. The eviction judge denied the ex parte motion and proceeded with jury selection this morning since the court of appeal had not issued any ruling on the petition filed yesterday.
We picked a jury between 10:25 a.m. and 1:15 p.m. Lunch recess from 1:15 p.m. until 2:30 p.m.
At 2:30 p.m. we started again. The court gave introductory instructions to the jury [boiler plate, advising of how the trial will proceed, who goes first, witnesses, other evidence, etc.]. The I gave an opening statement for my client. Then the lady gave her opening statement. At about 3:35 p.m. I started presenting my client's case in chief with my client's manager testifying. Got part way through his testimony and wrapped up for the day at 4:30 p.m.
Left court and went to see my youngest son swim at a school swim meet [fun stuff].
Back in court tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. Hopefully the presentation of evidence will be completed by tomorrow, followed by closing argument and final jury instructions. If this happens and the case is given to the jury for deliberation, the jury will deliberate on Friday. If not, we have to come back on Monday. Need to prepare one supplemental jury instruction tonight and give to the court tomorrow.
Just checked the Langbord case. No new filings since the bulk filings on Monday.
Good luck with that.
Free Trial
<< <i>Just checked the Langbord case. No new filings since the bulk filings on Monday. >>
Forget the Langboard case - this eviction case is much more exciting!
<< <i>You'll win the case and need a shotgun to remove her from the property.
Good luck with that. >>
Have the sheriff move her chit out onto the curb wile she is in court.
If you win the case can your client forcibly/physically remove her himself?
My client won the case. The jury voted in favor of my client 11-1 (In California civil cases that are heard by a jury you need only have a jury vote of 9-3 or better to win the case, as opposed to criminal cases where the vote has to be 12-0).
Today's presentation of evidence went quickly. Through a combination of very narrow questioning by me of the "lady" as an adverse witness during my presentation of my client's case; and of pretrial rulings in my client's favor on motions to exclude much of the evidence the lady wanted to present in the case; and of a pretrial ruling barring the lady from testifying as a witness when she presented her "defense" of the case, the lady effectively could not put on much of a defense.
The closing arguments and final jury instructions went fast and the jury got the case for deliberations about 12:45 p.m. The jury took about 1.5 hours to reach a verdict. Again, 11-1 in my client's favor.
Now I have to present a "Judgment After Jury Trial" to the court for signature and filing. Once it is filed, I can then strat the process of having the sheriff remove the lady from the property. I suspect that she will seek a delay of the Sheriff's lockout and probably file a motion for a new trial and/or an appeal, none of which will be successful. Hopefully after she moves into a new rental she will lose interest in litigating with my client.
The jury was a cross section of people who live in the Oakland, Berkeley, Hayward area along the eastern shore of San Francisco Bay. I am a little surprised that the vote was 11-1 and that a verdict was returned so quickly.
Now I should have some time over the next day or so to snoop into the new Langbord filings and post a new thread on the contents of same.
bob
Are you surprised the vote was 11 to 1 versus 12 to 0? Or did you expect to get another soft head and wind up with a 10 to 2 vote?
Things I don't understand are: 1. Why is this a jury trial? What were the issue(s) that had to have a finding of fact and not just a finding in law? 2. Did this 'lady' actually post a bond for the expense of a jury trial she was sure to lose?
I hope there is some way for you to recover from her your client's costs.
Now, back to the Langbord suit!
I guess even some of the good citizens of the SF Bay Area figure that living in a house for almost 5 years for free and refusing to move after the property has been sold at a foreclosure sale is something that "just doesn't seem right or fair". It does not seem fair to me, but I am biased because I actually pay for my monthly housing expense
I want to know what POS was the odd man out with the "this lady has been wronged" vote....
<< <i>I thought the vote would be 10-2 or even 9-3. What reaaly surprised me is that the deliberations took such a short period of time.
I guess even some of the good citizens of the SF Bay Area figure that living in a house for almost 5 years for free and refusing to move after the property has been sold at a foreclosure sale is something that "just doesn't seem right or fair". It does not seem fair to me, but I am biased because I actually pay for my monthly housing expense
I feel for your client.
That said, while the lady should now move on, she's a hero in my book for scaming and 'getting some' from the Banksters who lent her the money.
The Banksters will be fine, they get bailed out by us because they are catagorized as "too big to fail".
Its all funny money now, boys, and just wait till the riots begin as the folks figure that out ;>
<< <i>I want to know what POS was the odd man out with the "this lady has been wronged" vote....