This case arises out of a foreclosure proceeding initiated in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County by substitute trustees Kristine D. Brown, William M. Savage, and Gregory N. Britto (collectively, the “Substitute Trustees”), appellees. In the foreclosure proceeding, the Substitute Trustees foreclosed on real property located at 2202 Dunrobin Drive, Bowie, Maryland 20721 (“the Property”) owned by mortgagor Foday David Kamara (“Kamara”), appellant. The foreclosing lender, HSBC Bank USA (“HSBC”), appellee, purchased the Property at public auction. Following the foreclosure sale, but before the ratification of the sale, Kamara filed a third-party complaint against HSBC seeking damages and a declaratory judgment. Kamara’s third-party complaint was later dismissed. Upon the dismissal of Kamara’s third-party complaint, the circuit court ratified the foreclosure sale and granted HSBC’s motion for judgment …show more content…
At the hearing, the trial judge observed that the third-party complaint failed to allege sufficient facts that would entitled Kamara to the relief he sought. Notwithstanding the deficiencies in his complaint, the trial judge declined to rule on the motion and opted instead to permit Kamara to file an amended complaint within ten days. On January 22, 2014, Kamara filed an amended third-party complaint. Thereafter, on April 14, 2014, the circuit court dismissed Kamara’s third party complaint. Following the dismissal of Kamara’s third-party complaint, the circuit court ratified the foreclosure sale and granted HSBC’s motion for judgment awarding possession. Additionally, the circuit court denied motions made by Kamara to reconsider the dismissal of his third-party complaint, and the ratification of the foreclosure sale. This timely appeal followed. Additional facts will be discussed as necessitated by the issues
Doris Reed bought a house for $76,000.00 from Robert King. Mr. King and his real estate agent failed to disclose to Mrs. Reed that a murder had taken place in the home ten years ago. Neighbors told Mrs. Reed about the murders and the stigma associated with the house after she moved in. The property appraised in the amount of $65,000.00 with reference to the history of the house. Reed sued King on allegations of misrepresentation for the purchase of the home seeking rescission and damages to terminate the contact.
When doing an evaluation of any case, you should always look at all the relevant facts and issues involved before jumping to conclusions. As for this case, Mike Thurmond, the operator of Top Quality Auto Sales, a used car dealership, has financed his dealerships inventory of vehicles by creating a financing arrangement with Indianapolis Car Exchange (ICE). ICE then filed a financing statement that listed Top Quality’s inventory as collateral for the financing. After this, Top Quality sold a Ford truck to Bonnie Chrisman, who was also a used car dealer. Chrisman paid Top Quality for the truck and then proceeded to sell it Randall and Christina Alderson, who paid Chrisman for the vehicle. In
3. Procedural History: This matter comes before the court on motions of defendants for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for new trial pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for amended judgment. We have considered defendants' motions collectively and individually and conclude that neither a new trial, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, nor amended judgment is warranted. The evidence supports the jury's verdict.
Nature of the Case: First Amendment lawsuit on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News, seeking compensation for lost front/back pay or reinstatement of former positions.
Recommendations: It is recommended that our law office regretfully deny service to Ms. Carry based upon the precedent in Kentucky. Based upon the analysis the issue, it is apparent that Ms. Carry would not receive a promising conclusion to her situation. Due to the facts involved and the cases discussed (which are somewhat on point) Ms. Carry does not make a claim in which relief can be granted.
letter; the court refused, by a vote of 92 to 17, and was dismissed. The
In the case or Yost v. Rieve Enterprises, Inc. Rieve Enterprises engages into a contract with Mr. Yost for a lease to purchase deal. The facts of the case are that Rieve visited the Red Barn Barbecue Restaurant with the intention of purchasing. Rieve and Mr. Yost entered into a contract after Rieve conducted a visual inspection of the premises. The deal was to include a five year lease with the option to buy the land and building. Prior to the sale, the Red Barn had been cited for numerous health code violations. Mr. Yost had these all corrected and disclosed this information. Mr. Yost then warranted that “the premises will pass all inspections” to conduct business. Shortly after Rieve Enterprises
During the purchase Green Tree Financial Corp mandate to buy Vendor's Single Interest insurance. It also mandated any legal situation under case law or statutory law, has to be resolved by binding arbitrator. Randolph sued Green Tree Financial Corp didn’t disclose hidden fess in terms of the finance charge the Vendor's Single Interest insurance will charge.
The banking industry is under pressure in today’s business climate. Banks have been through big changes. There is opportunity, but there is also increasing competition. To be the preferred bank means changing “good enough” into a unique value proposition. And that means changing the way people have always done things, change on this level requires cutting edge technology. Change cannot be achieved with a simple directive or surface adjustment especially within the banking industry. It requires an innovative rethink of the entire system, in a strong partnership between bank leaders and their change agents. New systems and policies must support the strategy to be successful. The real test of a good strategy implementation plan is whether the people understand the strategy, are motivated and enabled to implement it, and actually start achieving its goals.
Timeline of this case should be clearly organized in order to better understanding this case. In 2009, Poor Son transferred Rich Grandson to Parent. In 2010, Poor Son filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the US bankruptcy code, and Parent deconsolidated Poor Son from statements. In 2011, Poor Son filed an action against Parent seeking to void the transfer of Rich Grandson. In May 2012, the bankruptcy court held a selection meeting in which it considered competing plans of reorganization submitted by four bidders. In June 2012, OtherCo, an unrelated party, became the wining plan sponsor. In July 2012, OtherCo rescind its offer because the bad evonomic condition. In December 2014, the bankruptcy court recommended
McLaughlin v. Heikkila is a case that involves Wilbert Heikklia and David Mc Laughlin who entered into an agreement involving eight parcels to be sold to Mr. Mc Laughlin by Mr. Heikklia. According to Cheeseman (2013), the facts of the case indicate that Mr. Mc Laughlin submitted offers to Mr. Heikklia for the purchase of three parcels and afterwards, McLaughlin submitted earnest-money checks and three printed purchase agreements to Heikklia. According to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, McLaughlin himself never signed any of the agreements. However, his wife did sign two of the agreements and she initiated the third agreement on September 14, 2003. Then, two days later on September 16, 2003 Heikklia made changes to two of the agreements by increasing the cost of the parcels, and he changed the closing dates on all three agreements, including add a reservation of mineral rights to all three (Minnesota Court of Appeals, 2005).
In the pleadings, a complaint needs to be filed by the plaintiff with the court and the defendants. In this case, the complaint was filed for wrongful death and injunctions. The complaint was given to both companies on May 14, 1982. Then, the defendants must answer within twenty-four hours of receiving the complaint to the summon or risk losing the case by default of the court. W.R. Grace denied the allegations against them. Also, their other defenses was that the complaint didn’t state any cause of action, in the complaint the company named was misnamed, the company followed the due of care at all times and acted in “good faith,” and the claims against them are barred. The next step is the methods of discovery.
Advises the borrower(s) that in the event the real estate vendor did not provide the Residential Property Disclosure or Disclaimer Statement, they have the unconditional right to rescind the contract of sale, within 5 days following receipt of this notice.
John Pierpont Morgan is considered one of the founding fathers of the modern United States economy. He was an industrial genius that is accredited with the founding of many companies including General Electric and AT&T. However, Pierpont is looked upon as a saint and demon the same. He received a honorary degree from Harvard university that read: "Public citizen, patron of literature and art, prince among merchants, who by his skill, wisdom and courage, has twice in times of stress repelled a national danger of financial panic." But Robert LaFollette, the Wisconsin progressive, saw him as "a beefy, red-faced thick-necked financial bully, drunk with wealth and power." Despite conflicting opinion on his persona, his influence and character shaped the business world more so than any other person at the turn of the century. Morgan was a banker, railroad czar, industrialist, financier, philanthropist, yachtsman, and ladies' man. He was king to a handful of millionaire barons who controlled the country's wealth in an era of little government regulation.
Finally, by not ordering the transfer of the domain names from Nissan Computer to Nissan Motor Co. the courts action was fair to both parties and the general public. Nissan Motor Co. had enough time to register their domain name; therefore they had no legal or ethical rights to acquire the domain names from Nissan Computer. Overall the courts acted in good faith to both parties and the society as a whole.