Exceptions To Sale MD

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY MARYLAND
Carrie M. Ward et. al., *

6003 Executive Blvd Suite 101 *
Rockville, MD 20852 *
Substitute Trustees *
Plaintiffs, *
*
vs. * CASE NO. CAEF16-43695
*
Frederick L. Savage *
6726 Darkwood Court *
District Heights, MD 20747
*
Defendant *
*
****************************************************
EXCEPTIONS TO SALE AND MOTION TO RECONSIDER

ORDER TO RATIFY SALE
COMES NOW, Frederick L. Savage, Defendant by and through Pro Se, and objects to
the foreclosure sale conducted by Carrie M. Ward et. al., (“Substitute Trustees”), and to Report
of Sale therein, and asks this court to reconsider its order to ratify said sale on the following
grounds:
I. Substitute Trustees materially violated Maryland’s Foreclosure Mediation Statute
Real Property §7-105.1, when they prematurely sold Defendants home after a request for
foreclosure mediation was made on 07-26-2017 but mediation was not yet held. This action
denied Defendants due process of law by extinguishing his property rights before the foreclosure
mediation process was complete.
II. Substitute Trustees advertised and executed the sale of Defendants home while
foreclosure mediation was still pending, in violation of Maryland Rules §14-209.1(b) and
§14-305(d)(2).
1
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
1. On or about 07-26-2017 Defendant was served with a final loss mitigation affidavit by
Plaintiff’s.
2. On or about 07-26-2017 Defendant filed a request for Foreclosure Mediation.
3. To this day Defendant has not been nofified of a mediation date or heard whether or not the
mediation was denied.
4. On or about October 10, 2017 Defendant, not represented by counsel filed an Emergency
Motion to Stay Foreclosure Sale pursuant to Maryland Rule §14-211.
5. On or about October 11, 2017 while the foreclosure mediation date was still pending,
Substitute Trustees sold Defendants home in a foreclosure auction.
6. On or about October 13, 2017 Defendants Emergency Motion to Stay Sale was denied.
7. On October 23, 2017 Substitute Trustees filed a Report of Sale with the Prince Georges
County Circuit Court.
ARGUMENT
I. Substitute Trustees’ Materially Violated Maryland’s Foreclosure Mediation Statute,
Real Prop., 7-105.1, When They Prematurely Sold Defendants Home While A Request For
Mediation Was Pending.
The Maryland Legislature passed the foreclosure mediation statute to address the rapidly
increasing amount of foreclosures and mortgage fraud cases in the state, the consequences of
which include increased homelessness and decreased property values. Maryland’s foreclosure
mediation statute lays out a clear procedure for owner-occupied foreclosure cases.
2
1. First, lenders, usually through their Substitute Trustees, must correctly file a
complete Final Loss Mitigation Affidavit, which must include a form and instructions to Request
a Foreclosure Mediation. Real Prop., §7-105.1(g)(1)(ii)(2).
2. To avail themselves the right to mediation, the homeowner must submit their
request for a mediation session to the Circuit Court. If the Court grants the Request for
Mediation, the case is referred to OAH which notifies both parties of the time and place where
the foreclosure mediation will take place. Real Prop., §7-105.1(h)(1).
3. Once mediation is requested, a foreclosure sale may not take place before 15 days
after mediation. Real Prop., §7-105.1(l)(3)(i).
The statute balances the due process concerns of homeowners by prohibiting a
foreclosure sale before the mediation process is complete. By selling the Defendants home prior
to the chance of mediation, Substitute Trustees violated Defendants due process rights.
A. Substitute Trustees’ material violation of the foreclosure mediation statute
impermissibly denied Defendant due process of law by extinguishing his
property rights before the foreclosure mediation process was complete.
The U.S. and Maryland Constitutions guarantee due process of law for
deprivations of life, liberty or property through state action. U.S. Const Amend. XIV; Md.
Const. Decl. of Rts. Art. 24. State action includes “mortgage foreclosure conducted
pursuant to a legislatively enacted statute and rules promulgated by the Court of
Appeals”. Knapp v. Smethurst, 139 Md. App. 676 at 706 (2001). Foreclosure mediation
is a vehicle of due process.
The mediation statute aims to enforce homeowner’s due process rights in several
ways. First, the statutes requires that certain representatives from the lending party who
3
have the power to settle the matter attend the mediation. Real Prop. §7-105.1(j)(1)(iv).
Requiring decision makers to attend the mediation, the Maryland Legislature
acknowledges the magnitude of the mediation’s forum. Without those parties, mediation
would not adequately serve the homeowner’s right to be heard.
The statute also requires mediations to be conducted by a neutral third party who
reports the outcome of the mediation to the Circuit Court. Real Prop. §7-105.1(j)(3).
The mediator offers not only a neutral perspective, but also through his report to the
Court, is a representative of the “law of the land” Md. Const. Decl. Rts.art.24.
Finally, the statute prohibits foreclosure sales before mediation takes place. Real
Prop. §7-105.1(l)(3). This is so that lenders cannot extinguish a homeowners property
rights before the homeowners participate in this crucial part of the foreclosure process.
By circumventing the foreclosure procedures outlined in Maryland’s foreclosure
mediation statute, Substitute Trustees denied Defendant due process of law by
extinguishing his property rights in his home without giving him the opportunity first to
be heard in mediation and determine whether there were any alternatives to foreclose
available to him. This violates not only the spirit and express intent of the foreclosure
mediation statute, it is also unfair and unjust and should not be ratified by this Court.
II. Substitute Trustees’ advertised and executed sale of Defendants home while foreclosure
mediation was still pending, in violation of Maryland Rules §14-209.1(b) and §14-305(2).
The Maryland Rules require that foreclosing parties refrain from advertising owner-
occupied residential property while foreclosure mediation is pending. Md. Code Ann., MD Rule
14-209.1(b). Further, a sale should not be ratified unless it was fairly and properly made. Md.
Code Ann., MD Rule 14-305(e)(2). Substitute Trustees’ actions fail on both accounts.
4
A. This Court has both equitable and statutory authority to invalidate the
foreclosure sale on its own initiative.
Assuming arguendo that these exceptions are not properly brought or were never
filed, the rules above give this Court the equitable authority to invalidate the foreclosure
sale on its own initiative, in the interest of justice.
This Court has explicit statutory authority to strike the sale on its own initiative
under Maryland Rule 14-207.1, which was adopted on an emergency basis by the Court
of Appeals in 2010. This rule provides in part “if the court determines that the pleadings
or papers filed do not comply with all statutory and Rule requirements, it may give notice
to the plaintiff and each borrower, record owner, and party that the action will be
dismissed without prejudice or that some other appropriate order will be entered by
reason of the non-compliance if the plaintiff does not demonstrate within 30 days that the
papers are legally sufficient or that the deficiency has been cured”. Maryland Rule 14-
207.1
Therefore, this Court may elect to deny the ratification of the foreclosure sale if it
determines that the sale was not properly and fairly made, notwithstanding the filing or
validity of exceptions. For the reasons stated above this Court should exercise its
discretion to invalidate Substitute Trustees premature and illegal sale of Defendants
home.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court
1. VACATE the October 23, 2017 order ratifying the foreclosure sale
herein;
2. ORDER that the foreclosure sale herein be setaside;
5
3. ORDER such other and further relief as the nature of the Defendants cause
may require.
Respectfully
Submitted,
FREDERICK L. SAVAGE
Pro Se
6726 Darkwood Court
District Heights, MD 20747
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day of , a copy of the

foregoing was emailed and mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid, to:
BWW Law Group, LLC

6003 Executive Blvd Suite 101
Rockville, MD 20852
Phone: (301) 961-6555
Fascimilie: (301) 961-3545
Email: [email protected]
FREDERICK L. SAVAGE
Pro Se
6
7

Exceptions To Sale MD

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exceptions To Sale MD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY MARYLAND

Carrie M. Ward et. al., *

EXCEPTIONS TO SALE AND MOTION TO RECONSIDER

I. Substitute Trustees materially violated Maryland’s Foreclosure Mediation Statute

mediation process was complete.

2. On or about 07-26-2017 Defendant filed a request for Foreclosure Mediation.

mediation was denied.

Motion to Stay Foreclosure Sale pursuant to Maryland Rule §14-211.

Substitute Trustees sold Defendants home in a foreclosure auction.

County Circuit Court.

I. Substitute Trustees’ Materially Violated Maryland’s Foreclosure Mediation Statute,

Mediation Was Pending.

a Foreclosure Mediation. Real Prop., §7-105.1(g)(1)(ii)(2).

the foreclosure mediation will take place. Real Prop., §7-105.1(h)(1).

after mediation. Real Prop., §7-105.1(l)(3)(i).

The statute balances the due process concerns of homeowners by prohibiting a

A. Substitute Trustees’ material violation of the foreclosure mediation statute

impermissibly denied Defendant due process of law by extinguishing his

property rights before the foreclosure mediation process was complete.

pursuant to a legislatively enacted statute and rules promulgated by the Court of

is a vehicle of due process.

Requiring decision makers to attend the mediation, the Maryland Legislature

would not adequately serve the homeowner’s right to be heard.

Prop. §7-105.1(l)(3). This is so that lenders cannot extinguish a homeowners property

By circumventing the foreclosure procedures outlined in Maryland’s foreclosure

mediation statute, Substitute Trustees denied Defendant due process of law by

foreclosure sale on its own initiative.

sale on its own initiative, in the interest of justice.

discretion to invalidate Substitute Trustees premature and illegal sale of Defendants

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court

2. ORDER that the foreclosure sale herein be setaside;

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day of , a copy of the

BWW Law Group, LLC

You might also like