DISCRIMINATION in the Fourth District Court of Appeals in Ohio

~DISCRIMINATION FROM THE 4TH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS IN OHIO
No matter how the Fourth District in Ohio spins it – homeowners lose whether presenting evidence to the court or not that the specific bank filing the action is not the correct party. This appeals court shows their interests lie with the banks and they will do anything to throw a case to the banks. This appeals court even goes so far to put themselves above the Ohio Supreme Court  and the US Sixth Circuit court – why? You know the answers already, don’t you? This fourth district in Ohio is not representative of any of the other districts.  Thank goodness.
But the point to show in this specific commentary- is the contrast of the same issues put before the same appeals court, in this district and how far they trample the law and make a mockery of the justice system. Learn from these two cases which clearly shows the song and dance of these judges in this specific district.
First case example is Am. Savs. Bank v Wrage, 2014-Ohio-2168. Let’s look at paragraph 22 which states from this court the following:  ” Additionally, our review reveals that Wrage failed to provide any rebuttal evidence to the bank’s motion for summary judgment. Wrage did not (1) provide an affidavit or any other civil 56 (C) rebuttal evidentiary materials, (2) make any claims that the promissory note was not the one he signed, (3) assert that the note contained different terms, (4) assert that his signature did not appear upon the note, or (5) in any other manner raise any issues concerning the copy of the promissory note that the bank attached to its complaint and authenticated through Wamsley’s affidavit.”
KEEP in mind Number 1,2,5 of that Paragraph 22 of the court’s decision.
Paragraph 23 shows the continuing pattern of this district to uphold a bank’s affidavit no matter what that bank says, that’s usual.  Moving on.
In Paragraph 24 of that Court’s decision states – “Wrage,however, provided no evidence in rebuttal.  Thus, the trial court correctly determined that no genuine issue of material fact exists concerning the note’s authenticity or the bank’s status as holder of that note.”
OK – So, no rebuttal evidence they say.  Turn to another case which shows mountains of evidence against the servicer and alleged trustee.
 Different case but the SAME district.
Second case example is US Bank, as trustee vs Bobo Case No 13CA0045 decision entry filed Nov 05,2014.
This decision made same year, 2014 – and same circle of Judges belonging to the 4th district court of appeals. 
It’s a great case study for anyone is this area of law or for homeowners.  At paragraph 9, “Subsequently, in July 2012, New Century executed an allonge to the promissory note purporting to transfer the note to US Bank.  First of all – this allonge was dated and stated they owned and held the note until July 31, 2012. The complaint was filed March 27, 2012 and US Bank is claiming they held the note on that date.  Unless you believe the month of July COMES BEFORE March – then you have to ask – Were these Judges allegedly asleep or allegedly in the banks pockets.  And then they proceed to spell out how the mortgage follows the note.  You can’t have it both ways – no matter how the circle goes – US Bank has presented 2(TWO) holders of the same note.  You get the idea – in this specific district, whether you present evidence or not, their favor goes to the banks and servicers to uphold this fraud. 
The deception and fraud is proven by the homeowner.  There was no trust – you know what that means, no trust =no trustee.  Empty bag of tricks for investors – and a scam on homeowners.  It would be impossible to have a trustee for a trust that didn’t exist.  It is fraud to have a mortgage that did not make it to the trust and say that it made it to the trust.  Empty bag of tricks at the behest of the servicers and the attorneys for the servicers. (remember, proven by their own rules, the PSA) But to the point.  In this specific case, there was an affidavit from the homeowner.  The evidence put forth for this court was interrogatories, PSA, a dated allonge which showed the Plainitff US Bank was not the holder of the note.  The dated allonge showed New Century Mtg Corp was the present owner and holder of the note.  So, there were actually 2 holders of the note proven.  Genuine issue of material fact exists.  So, the forth district is not happy when you don’t provide evidence and they are not happy when you do provide evidence – could we say corrupt?
So, in one case this court is complaining no rebuttal evidence by homeowner but in a stark contrast, the other case lists endless evidence- shows genuine issues of material facts.
But, the 4th district upheld all the fraud presented by US Bank which was a front to Ocwen – This specific court was alledgely so desperate and far reaching to be in favor of these entities, they wrote an opinion that completely contradicts what they have stated in other cases -cases they decided in 2014 recently – you can take just these 2 cases and see what this district court is made out of and the discrimination.  The US Bank case was very in depth but you can see the trickle down effect-the rage of the trial court judge to the rage of the appeals court.  Judges rant and rave – no one is getting a free house- it’s not about a free house- it’s about correcting the fraudulent, illegal, fabricated documents these banks and servicers have thrown on homeowners. 
Back to the basic fact of the “D” word. D-I-S-C-R-I-M-I-N-A-T-I-O-N-  If you’re reading this opinion you know Ohio case law-summary judgment is to be awarded with the utmost caution not to usurp the litigant’s day in court etc.  Did these Judges do that – NO! 
But, both of these cases lost at appeals court level in the 4th District of Ohio.
In one case, they (4th dist court) claim no rebuttal evidence-the other case, they dance around and sidestep the issues back to making the point US Bank held the blank endosement while all along when complaint was filed, the allonge presented in discovery showed New Century Mortgage Corp was the “Present Owner and Holder” – Why do you think these Judges are so biased?
 Narrow minded mediators, Judges, Lawyers use the excuse -you’re not getting a free house- you’ve got to pay something.  Homeowners all across the nation did not set out to defraud these banks.  It was the banks and servicers who would not correct paperwork, these entities who literally fabricated illegal documents using robo signers in an attempt to take your rights away.  Are these Judges giving them a free pass – You be the judge.  Thankfully not all districts go like this-Not all Judges are alike – There are Judges out there that make fools out of those who disgrace their black robe.  As one Judge in this district stated – he wanted to be known for fairness-I don’t think that will happen unless something changes and he corrects the mess he has made.
Looks like the banks can’t lose with these Judges- no matter how many holders claim a robosigned copy of a note and the bank presented the evidence. 
Comparing just these two previously mentioned cases in the 4th Distict Court of Appeals for Ohio-  Take a look at another case decision by this same district court in Ohio.  JPMorgan Chase Bank Natl. Assn v Fallon, 2014-Ohio-525 at Paragraph 10.  This district points out and states, “In foreclosure actions, the real party in interest is the current holder of the note and mortgage” and also states, “Where a party fails to establish itself as the current holder of the note and mortgage, summary judgment is inappropriate.” – THIS 4th district can consistently only make up their mind in favor of a bank even though evidence is presented to the contrary.  These Judges go out of their way to defend a bank’s affidavit.  It’s amazing to watch these Judges squirm in these cases to uphold and defend banks and servicers even when tons of evidence is presented in favor of the homeowner. 
This is just a random sampling of 3 cases in Ohio in this same district.  Just reading these 3 cases, you can plainly see how biased.
In the US Bank v Bobo case, a motion for reconsideration was submitted.  Why was it submitted?  To remind this district Court of the Slorp decision which was entered Sept 29, 2014, rendered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of OHIO.  It was denied.  You expected that.  This 4th district of Ohio was given another chance to correct their wrongful position but they thumbed their nose to the US District Court of Ohio.  These Judges in the 4th district should be reminded-they are not circuit court judges – just little appeals judges but the arrogance of their decisions is astounding.  Ask youself this – Why would a little district court judge(s) think themselves superior over circuit court judges and superior over the Ohio Supreme Court- Keeping in mind the Schwartzwald decision from the Supreme Court which made it plain to these courts – a party has to have an interest in the note or mortgage.  In was quite plain in the Bobo case – The note allonge stated New Century was the present owner and holder-US Bank says, “no, we are the holder” – No matter how these Judges want to uphold their own corruption – there are TWO holders of the same note at the same time when the compaint was filed.  Genuine issue of materia fact.
THINK this should go to the Supreme Court? or DO you think a Wrongful Foreclosure Action should be filed?  These Judges look like fools – no libel or slander, only opinion.  Whether subjective, objective-whatever you want to call it – this 4th district upholds the banks and servicers corruption and fraud against homeowners.  These Judges need to take their own personal whiny feelings out of their judgments and get back to the laws that were written for them.  Like people say, maybe their ego just won’t take homeowners – maybe they are beyond furious that they are not Supreme Court Judges.  People have several opinions of these Judges.  At minimum, these judges could get their crooked decisions straight and not print so many contradictory statements, but, what fun would that be for the public.
Disclaimer -the contributor is not an attorney-does not want to be an attorney and this article is not intended to give advice!