New Foreclosure Blogs Posted
Our purpose here at TheForeclosureDetonatorFORUM has always been to encourage people to fight against injustice by fighting their foreclosures. In keeping with our purpose our aim is to keep you informed. If you have an attorney some of what we present to you may be of use to them. If you are representing yourself Pro Se then the information is definitely useful.
ADDING TWO NEW LINKS
We have added two new links. One – Foreclosure Industry – I have just come across and found it of value. The other –LivingLies – by Neil Garfield has been around for quite some time and is probably the most read foreclosure defense blog around. It is chock full of information. You must take time to navigate through it but there is much valuable information that can be used by your attorney or yourself as Pro Se.
The foreclosure crisis is not yet over. Foreclosures are on the rise again and there are literally millions of foreclosure cases around the country that have yet to make their way through the bogged down court systems.
As an introduction to Foreclosure Industry I offer this clip and link from a story I found very interesting.
How Fraudulent Joinder is Used to Remove Cases to Federal Court
This weekend, I worked on a Motion to Remand. The bank removed my case to federal court, which is standard procedure these days, at least here in Arizona. The issue of fraudulent joinder was raised, which led me to some interesting information on the subject.
I’m posting this because I don’t know how many lawyers are familiar with fraudulent joinder, and it’s increasingly being used in foreclosures in removals to federal court.
Essentially, fraudulent joinder is an emerging doctrine being used by bank defendants who don’t want to litigate in state courts.
Removal based on general diversity jurisdiction is proper only when there is complete diversity among the parties and there is no properly joined and served in-state defendant.
In plain language, this means that removal from a state court to a federal court is allowable only when all parties are not citizens of the state where they lawsuit it filed.
So, if a plaintiff wants to defeat diversity jurisdiction, they may add (sue) a non-diverse or in-state defendant along with the diverse defendants.
This makes the non-diverse or in-state defendant a “jurisdictional spoiler” because it “spoils” the diversity of all defendants, which would normally keep the case in state courts.
This means that the case cannot be removed unless ALL defendants are diverse, and if one party is NOT diverse, removal is not appropriate.
But this doesn’t stop the banks. They simply allege that the non-diverse party was fraudulently joined. In other words, the only reason the plaintiff added the non-diverse party was to keep the case in state courts.
Read More…click here
Refer to these sites and others in your fight against injustice that is destroying the American way of life … and our Republic.
Related articles
- Joined at the Hip?: Is the Fraudulent Misjoinder Doctrine the Fraudulent Joinder Doctrine’s Twin or a Red-Headed Stepchild? (lawprofessors.typepad.com)
- New Foreclosure Blogs Posted (theforeclosuredetonator.wordpress.com)
- Judge reverses course on letting his court be used for mass copyright suit farce (techdirt.com)
- Iowa leaders predict more foreclosure woes (thegazette.com)
- Kramer-Kaslow: Homeowners Fight Back with a Massive Lawsuit Against Wells Fargo/Wachovia (WELLS) (prweb.com)
- KEL Attorneys Files Groundbreaking Lawsuits to Represent California Homeowners Facing Foreclosure (prweb.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment