Comment: We filed a Motion For Injunction-

(See in situ)


We filed a Motion For Injunction-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

DALLAS DUGGER,
DEBORAH DUGGER,
Plaintiffs Case No: 1:10CV00076SNLJ

BANK OF AMERICA/COUNTRYWIDE
Defendant

MOTION FOR INJUNCTION

COMES NOW Plaintiff, Dallas and Deborah Dugger, and pleads to the Court for a Motion for Injunction to prevent the fraudulent selling of the Plaintiffs property: 901 Adam Street, in the city of Poplar Bluff, in the state of Missouri. 63901 In the county of Butler. And to prevent the fraudulent eviction of the Plaintiffs from the foresaid property until their complaint with the Court has been decided upon. The planned selling of foresaid property will be at the Butler County Court House steps on 2nd day of June 2010, 100 N Main Street, in the city of Poplar Bluff, in the state of Missouri .63901. In the county of Butler. And for the Plaintiffs plead states as follows:
The Plaintiff states that there is no delinquency, nor default with the Defendant: Bank of America/Countrywide. MERS is claiming (it) is the solely nominee for Lender. MERS is a Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, not a person. We dispute this due to the fact that MERS has no proprietary interest in the Plaintiffs property. MERS is neither the lender nor financial party in interest.
MERS is not a person, nor the leader of the Plaintiff’s property, but yet (it) is being used to fraudulently foreclose and evict the Plaintiffs.
The mortgage loan becomes ineffectual when the note holder did not also hold the deed of trust." Bellistri v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 284 S.W.3d 619, 623 (Mo. App. 2009).
The Missouri court found that, because MERS was not the original holder of the promissory note and because the record contained no evidence that the original holder of the note authorized MERS to transfer the note, the language of the assignment purporting to transfer the promissory note was ineffective. "MERS never held the promissory note, thus its assignment of the deed of trust to Ocwen separate from the note had no force." 284 S.W.3d at 624; see also In re Wilhelm, 407 B.R. 392 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2009) (standard mortgage note language does not expressly or implicitly authorize MERS to transfer the note); In re Vargas, 396 B.R. 511, 517 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008)

Wherefore the Plaintiff pleads to the Court to be granted the Motion for Injunction for the protection of their home and protection from the planned eviction by use of MERS.

______________________________________
DALLAS DUGGER, DEBORAH DUGGER
901 Adam Street
Poplar Bluff, Missouri 6390
573-718-5745

United We Stand