Review Mortgage Lenders

Cendant Mortgage

10637 McClemont Ave, Tujunga, Homes for Sale

cel:818.262.5446 email:800041.lead@cendant.lead Shelley Rizzotti cel:818.516.6409 email:800041.lead@cendant.lead Ewing &amp ...

Cendant Mortgage DBA Burnet Home Loans vs Lopin


THAT all pre-foreclosure requirements have been complied with; that no action or proceeding has been instituted at law or otherwise to recover the debt secured by said mortgage, or any part thereof;

PURSUANT, to the power of sale contained in said mortgage, the above described property will be sold by the Sheriff of said county as follows:

DATE AND TIME OF SALE: March 7, 2017, 10:00am

PLACE OF SALE: Sheriff's Main Office, Dakota County Law Enforcement Center, 1580 Hwy 55, Lobby S-100, Hastings, MN 55033

to pay the debt secured by said mortgage and taxes, if any, on said premises and the costs and disbursements, including attorneys fees allowed by law, subject to redemption within 6 months from the date of said sale by the mortgagor(s) the personal representatives or assigns.

TIME AND DATE TO VACATE PROPERTY: If the real estate is an owner-occupied, single-family dwelling, unless otherwise provided by law, the date on or before which the mortgagor(s) must vacate the property, if the mortgage is not reinstated under section 580.30 or the property is not redeemed under section 580.23, is 11:59 p.m. on September 7, 2017, or the next business day if September 7, 2017 falls on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday.

Supreme Court Decides Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage Corporation

, No. 14-1055, holding that Fannie Mae’s corporate charter, which gives Fannie Mae the power “to sue and be sued, and to complain and defend, in any court of competent jurisdiction, State or Federal,” does not grant federal jurisdiction over all cases involving Fannie Mae.

The corporate charter of the Federal National Mortgage Association (commonly called Fannie Mae) authorizes it “to sue and be sued, and to complain and defend, in any court of competent jurisdiction, State or Federal.” 12 U.S.C. § 1723(a). In this case, which arose out of a home foreclosure, Fannie Mae argued that its charter language created federal jurisdiction over all cases brought by or against it. The district court and a divided Ninth Circuit panel both agreed with that argument.

But the Supreme Court reversed and held that the sue-and-be-sued clause in Fannie Mae’s corporate charter does not contain a grant of federal jurisdiction. Instead, it refers to “any court of competent jurisdiction,” which is most naturally read to mean “a court with an existing source of subject-matter jurisdiction.” The Court rejected the argument, based on one of its previous decisions, that a federal charter creates federal jurisdiction any time it expressly references federal courts. No such absolute rule exists. Ultimately, the Court concluded that “Fannie Mae’s sue-and-be-sued clause is most naturally read not to grant federal courts subject-matter jurisdiction over all cases involving Fannie Mae” but to permit “suits in any state or federal court already endowed with subject-matter jurisdiction over the suit.”