logo
当前位置:首 页 > 新闻中心 > 查看文章

Blake v. Domestic Offers & Loan, 2010 Ohio 2689 (Kansas Software. 6/3/2010)

新闻中心 你是第14个围观者 Blake v. Domestic Offers & Loan, 2010 Ohio 2689 (Kansas Software. 6/3/2010)已关闭评论 供稿者:

Blake v. Domestic Offers & Loan, 2010 Ohio 2689 (Kansas Software. 6/3/2010)

Blake appeals the fresh new conclusion wisdom choice of the Columbiana County Judge from Popular Pleas out-of Blake’s step against House Discounts & Financing Co

premier credit card cash advance limit

This timely appeal comes for consideration upon the record in the trial court and the parties ‘ briefs. Pro-se Appellant , Veronica A. , and New England Square Condominium Association , and Home Savings’ counterclaim against Blake and third party defendants Richard E. Whitley , Heritage Title Agency, Inc. , and Columbiana County Treasurer .

Blake’s claims against all parties , as well as her defenses against Home Savings’ counterclaim, were predicated on her allegation that she did not have valid title to her condominium property. On appeal, Blake argues that the trial court erred in finding that her property was not originally and irrevocably dedicated to public use by the original developer, Sitler Construction, Inc. Blake also argues that the trial court loans in Route 7 Gateway erroneously found that Blake owned her property in fee simple, because there was an encumbrance on her property. Finally, Blake argues that the trial court should not have granted Home Savings’ foreclosure via summary judgment, because Blake presented an issue of material fact regarding the validity of her title to the property, and therefore regarding the validity of the mortgage.

This new trial judge is why choice declined Blake’s activity to own bottom line wisdom , offered Appellee House Savings’ motion to own summation view , dismissed Blake’s criticism, located Blake and you can Whitley when you look at the standard to their promissory notice, and ordered a foreclosure to the Blake’s mortgage

The partial documentation of plats and declarations provided by Blake in the proceedings below do not indicate that her property or the lot on which it is located was ever dedicated by Sitler for public use. The parking area for other condominium units, which allegedly constitutes an encumbrance on Blake’s property, is not part of Blake’s property. Blake did not present any evidence that undermined the validity of her title to the mortgaged property, or the validity of her mortgage agreement with Home Savings. Thus there did not remain any genuine issue of material fact regarding Blake’s obligation on her mortgage, and the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Home Savings and dismissing Blake’s claims. Accordingly, the trial court ‘s decision is affirmed.

On , Blake filed a “Default/Foreclosure Special Defenses” against Home Savings and New England Square Condominium Association Board Officers. Blake stated that her filing was in response to a default notice sent by Home Savings. On a case designation form, Blake indicated “foreclosure” and “breach of contract.” The trial court accepted Blake’s filing and considered it to be a complaint. Blake asked that the trial court declare her mortgage contract with Home Savings to be void, and order Home Savings to refund all costs incurred in Blake’s purchase and mortgage of the property. Blake also asked that the Condominium Board be ordered to compensate Blake for maintenance fees and insurance costs due to faulty repairs.

Blake claims that her title to the condominium and her mortgage agreement are void because her condominium was built above a carport which provided parking for other condominium units, which means that her property actually belongs to the other units. Blake alternatively claims that the documentation required for the construction and initial conveyance of her condominium contained legally insufficient or contradictory descriptions, and concludes that the documentation problems prevented the property from being legally considered a condominium, rendering her title unmarketable. The complaint further claims that the original description of the development did not include Blake’s condominium, and that her condominium was constructed without obtaining a certificate of occupancy, and seems to conclude that Home Savings could not collect mortgage payments as a result.

97 start

—— 踪念霞

nancyzong
众说纷纭Comments
大眼 可爱 大笑 坏笑 害羞 发怒 折磨 快哭了 大哭 白眼 晕 流汗 困 腼腆 惊讶 憨笑 色 得意 骷髅 囧 睡觉 眨眼 亲亲 疑问 闭嘴 难过 淡定 抗议 鄙视 猪头
小提示:直接粘贴图片到输入框试试
努力发送中...
  • 评论最多
  • 最新评论
  • 随机文章
footer logo
未经许可请勿自行使用、转载、修改、复制、发行、出售、发表或以其它方式利用本网站之内容
Copyright © 哈尔滨工程大学加拿大校友会 All Rights Reserved. Theme by QQOQ