Notice of Appeal: U.S. BANK, N.A., SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE TO LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ON BEHALF OF THE HOLDERS OF BEAR STEARNS ASSET BAKED SECURITIES I TRUST 2007-HE7, ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES SERIES 2007-HE7 VS. GERARDO CASTILLO,ALICIA CASTILLO

On January 05, 2022 a Notice of Appeal was filed involving a dispute between Us Bank N.A. Successor Trustee To Lasalle Bank National Association, and Castillo, Alicia, Castillo, Gerardo, for JP Appeal in the District Court of Hidalgo County.

Preview
NOTICE TO APPEAL

TEXAS COURT APPEALS

NO. CL-22—0058-D

GERARDO CASTILLO IN THE COUNTY AT LAW No.4

407 MANHATEN CIRC DONNA TX 78537

DEFENDANT PRO SE HIDALGO COUNTY TEXAS.

US BANK.NA, SUCCESOR TRUSTEE
AT 33! oﬁ'éfgCK—E—M
T0 LASELLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

ON BEHALF OF THE HOLDERS OF BEAR MAY 15 2022

STEARNS ASSET BACKED SECURITIES 1 TRUST 2007-HE7
0 W0
AT WN
JR" COWTY
0F
m
HMGO CO.

ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES SERIES 2007-HE7

PLAINTIFF

NOTICE TO APPEAL

CAUSE NO. CL-0058-D.

IN THE FINAL DECISION IN THE LETTER, IT DEFINES THAT THE DEFANDANT DID NOT APPEAR,
WHEN HE APPEARED BY ZOOM ON MAY 9, 2022 AT 10 AM, ZOOOM MEETING ID;

89419449778 AND PASSCODE 405184. WHERE THE JUDGE TALKED DIRECTLY TO THE
;

DEFENDANT AND ASKED HIM IF THEY MADE THE PAYMENTS AND THE BANK'S PROCEDURE
AND ATTITUDE REGARDING THE LOAN, AND THE JUDGE WAS NOTIFIED THAT THEY DID NOT
ACCEPT THE PAYMENTS AND THE BANK NEVER NOTIFIED THE MR. GERARDO CASTILLLO, THE
FORECLOSE PROCESS, THE JUDGE NOTIFIES US THAT HE WILL REVIEW THE CASE IN DETAIL
AND WE WILL BE NOTIFIED BY WRITTEN LE1TER,

IASK THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR A DETAILED INVESTIGATION OF ALL THEDOCUMENTS
PRESENTED BY THE PLAINTIFF, WHICH NEVER SUBMITTED ALL THE NOTICES AND NOTICES TO
MR. GERARDO CASTILLO, TO CARRY OUT THE FORECLOSE PROCESS, COMPLETELY VIOLATING
ALL TEXAS PROPERTY CODE RULES.

IASK THIS COURT IN THE FOLLOWING APPEAL A JURY TO THE COURT OF APPEALS.
PLAINTIFF US BANKNA, SUCCESOR TRUSTEE TO LASELLE BANK NATIONALASSOCIATJON

ON BEHALF OF THE HOLDERS OF BEAR STEARNS ASSET BACKED SECURITIES 1 TRUST 2007-HE7

ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES SERIES 2007- HE7 .

CL—22-0058-D ,

FROM THE IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 IN AND FOR HIDALGO COUNTY TEXAS.

(The state court action") see plaintiff filed an answer on JANUARY 1, 2022 in the state Court
Action”) to the united states.

Plaintiff denies the allegations of the complaint and the damages contained therein and , files

this notice without waiving any defenses, exceptions, or obligations that may exist in its favor
of her in state or federal court.

||.
-
PLEADINGS AND NOTICE TO STATE COURT

2.-True and correct copy 0f all process and pleadings in the state court action aré being filed

along with this notice . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(d), written notice is being served on plaintiff

and filed in the state court action.

Ill.- STATEMENT OF STATUTORY BASIS FOR JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This action is within the original jurisdiction of the United States District court pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 1332(A)(1). That statute provides , in pertinent part ,that "the district court shall have

the original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and cost, and is between citizens of different states," 28
U.S.C. 1332(a)(1) venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. 1441(A) because the state
court where the state court Actions been pending is located in this district. As discussed in

detail below, this action satisfies the statutory requirements for diversity of citizenship
jurisdiction.

IV.- DIVERSITY JURISDICTION

A.- CITIZENSHIP OF THE PARTIES

4.- This civil action involves a controversy between citizens of different states.

Defender s a citizen of states of Texas.
5.- trustee is not a citizen of Texas. U.S BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, N.A. is the trustee

ASSOCIATION, N.A. is the trustee of a trust. When determining citizenship of a trust for
purposes of diversity jurisdiction, it is the citizenship of the trustee which control, not the
citizenship of the beneficiaries of the trust, U.S BANK National Association's articles of
association establish that Ohio is its main office.

Therefore, trustee is a citizen of Ohio for diversity purposes.

6. - Since Defendant is a citizen of Texas and plaintiff is a citizen of a state other than Texas,
there is complete diversity ofcitizenship among the parties.

B. - Amount in controversy

7 .- This case places an amount in controversy that exceeds the $75,000 threshold.

A party may remove an action from siate Court to federal court if the action is one over which
the federal court possesses subject matterjurisdiction, See 28 U.S.C. 1441(a).

Such jurisdiction exists as long as the parties are completely diverse and the amount in

controversy exceeds $75,000. SE 28 U.S.C. 1332(3).

8.- When ascertaining the amount in controversy in the context of a motion to remand, district

courts query whether a defendant state court petition, as it existed at the time of removal,

alleged damages in excess of the statutory minimum.

See S.E.S erectors , inc v. infax.inc. 72 f,3d 489,492 (5th cir,1996) if the petition does not allege
amount of damages the removing party must prove by a preponderance of the
a specific

evidence that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied, Se lewis v. State Farm Lloyds

.205 fspp.2d 706,708 (s.d. Tex. 2002) citing de Aguilar v. boeing co. 111 f.3d 55.58 (5th cir

1993); see also Manguno v prudential prop and cas ins. co.,276 f.3d 720,723 (5th ci_r

2002)(explaining that the removing party satisfies this burden if the court finds it ”facially

apparent" that the defendant's claimed damages likely exceed $75,000. Allen v r& H olil& Gas
co. 63 F ,3d 1326,1335 (5th cir 1995).

9.- Defendant never received any notice of foreclose as required by law, Therefore, the
foreclose did not follow the steps mandated by statute, l, and the Texas Property Code.

From step eviction ,of property located at 407 Manhattan circ Donna Texas 78537 (The
property) and Evalue of the property exceeds $75 000.
10.— The evalue of property according to the Hidalgo County appraisal District for 2012 is no
less than $242,306 .

11.— Federal jurisdiction can be established by facts alleged | the petition for removal that
support a conclusion that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied.

In action seeking declaratory or injunctive relief ,it is well established that the amount in

controversy is measured by the value 0f the object of the litigation ,defendant seek relief

which if successful would preclude enforcement 0f the contractual loan obligations and
trustee's right to foreclose on and take possession of the property.

12.- When the validity of a contract or a right to property is called into quéstion in its entirety,

the value of the prOperty controls the amount in controversy. The amount in controversy in an
action for declaratory or injunctive relief , is the value of the right to be protected or the
extent of the injury t0 be prevented.

Also, where a party seek to quiet title or undo a foreclose , the object of the litigation is the
property at issue and the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the property.

The value of the subject property in this instance for diversity purposes is no less than
$242,306.00 per the records ofthe Hidalgo county Appraisal District for 2021. See d.

The value of the property in this instance satisfies the jurisdictional amount of $75,0000 for

diversity purpose as does the specific claim for money damages asserted by defendant.

V.- CONCLUSION

14.— FORTHE FOREGOING REASONS, DEFENDANT ASKS IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW N0. 4
IN AND FOR HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS.

Pro se DEFENDANT reserves the right to supplement this information. DEFENDANT also
reserve the right to call any witnesses identified by PLAINTIFF , any other partyto this lawsuit

and any necessary rebuttal witnesses.

(ll) all copy of or a description by category and location of all documents electronically stored

information and tangible things that the disclosing party has in its possession custody 0r
control and may use to support its claims.
RESPONSE:

A) on or about July 13 ,2007,DEFENDANT executed a promissory note in the original
principal amount of one hundred fifty three thousand dollars and no cents.

($153,000.00) us currency.

B) The promissory note called for DEFENDANT to make monthly payments iin the amount
of about one thousand, fifty and eight Dollars ten cent ($1058.10) including taxes and
insurance.

C) DEFENDANT ,as collateral ,granted by deed of trust a security interest in real property
I

legally described as:

LOT 10 , AN ADDITION TO THE CITY THE
PARADISE HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION
DONNA,HIDALGO COUNTY,TEXAS ACCORDING TO MAP THERE OF RECORDEDTIN
VOLUME 32,PAGE 1443,MAP RECORDS OF HIDALGO COUNTY TEXAS. And known
locally as 407 Manhatten Circle ,Donna, Hidalgo County, texas 78537.

D) Real property located at 407 Manhatten circle ,Donna ,Hidalgo county, Texas'78537.
ls DEFENDANT homestead and sole residence and was improperly foreclosed on January
7,2020.

E) DEFENDANT had been able to more make payments for over 14 year. Ordinarily

DEFENDANT woul be making his mortgage payments timely; however, due t_o

unexpected circumstances ,DEFENDAT stayed behind on a few payments.

F) DEFENDANT contacted PLAINTIFF regardin their situation , but PLAINTIFF refused to
take late payments. due to a car accident, poor physical health, a very slow recovery
process for more than 4 years, even so was making payments, the same SELECT
I

PORTFOLIO SERVICING,INC informed me that there was
, a loan modificatioﬁ program,
to lower the interest of the note from 11% to a lower one, I took their consideration,
and l asked to enter the program.

G) lsent my documents that they asked me, see They took a long time to make the
all

modification that they had to ask me for more updated documents, until thé time came,

when was going
l to make the monthly payment, they did not accept the payments,

their explanation was why we were in the process of The loan modification.

H) for me it was not normal, and less l asked that in what was done, the loan they, would
take the payments, they did not accept them, this to me worried me more about the
situation, see the dates of the documents expired sent, and had to fly see th:em to
renew by instructions from them, a lot of time passed on this, they with the same
position, of not receiving payment, and they said that it was part of their own
administration of the loan modification.

DEFENDANT wishes to remain in his home and requested PLAINTIFF to allow
DEFENDANT pay his arrears.

J) DEFENDANT has never received a demand letter from PLAINTIFF putting DEFENDANT
on notice of demand for late payments or intent to accelerate if not cured.

K) PLAINTIFF failed to provide DEFENDANT the right to a cure period, Demand for
payment and notice of acceleration must not be simultaneous. Williamson v.
Dunlap,693 S.W. 2d 373 ( tex.1985) Her ,DEFENDANT were not allowed their legal
right to cure; therefore ,invalidating any notice of acceleration provided herein.

l) Situation that they themselves caused due to the modiﬁcation of the loan, that they
did not accept the payments, they did not have the opportunity to cure the note and

at the end of the current year, they did not notify, that the modification was not
approved, at the end December, and not give time or notice to speed up the note.

PLAINTIFF have not made a due diligent affort to allow DEFENDANT to bring the account
current despite the fact that DEFENDANT has tried to make his payments but PLAINTIFF
have refused to accept payment.

Furthermore DEFENDANT will have an irreparable injury and/or has no adequate remedy at
law unless this honorable court grants a temporary restraining order against SELECT
PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC. AND

US BANK.NA, SUCCESOR TRUSTEE T0 LASELLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ON BEHALF
OF THE HOLDERS OF BEAR STEARNS ASSET BACKED SECURITIES 1 TRUST 2007-HE7 ASSET
BACKED CERTIFICATES SERIES 2007-HE7 PLAINTIFF

M) DEFENDANT never received any notice of foreclosure as required by law therefore the

foreclosure did not follow the steps mandated by statute ,i.e. the Texas Property
Code...As to substitute trustee,

N) There is however, much confusion as to the status of the substitute trustee and the
identity of said trustee.
0) There cannot be more than one trustee to perform all of the duties entrusted to said

individual as a "trustee"....the deed of trust and Texas Property Code speaks of "a"

trustee not several trustees.

P) The appointment of several trustees and for each to have a separate duty might fulfil

the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law.

Q) The substitute trustee has several duties not only the actual verbal sale of the property.

R) The trustee has double duty ;one to the mortgage and another to the mortgage,
therefore said duty may not be "tossed around" at the last minute.

S) The trustee may not be "scratched" out at the last minute. The duty has already been
imposed to said individual.

T) The appointment is ab initio and not after the fact for the substitute trustee , the duty
befalls on the once appointed .it is not a shared duty.

U) The appointing a trustee is to inform the public of the sale and that the trustee is to
inform the public of the sale and that the trustee has the right to negotiate as to the
representative of the mortgage.

V) The appointment and the duties attached to the power of substitute trustee a/e not
retroactive but to be exercised in the future.

W)A substitute trustee may not be blotted out after the fact.

X) The appointment must be a formal document property notarized and properly filed in

the official in the records of the county. Every act must be most transparent.

Every step of foreclosure is controlled by statute these are the following: Tex. Prop. Code
ss 12.00.12, 51.002, 51.0075 , 51.0076 and 51.007.

The legislative intent would be frustrated when there would be several trustees and the work
of one would be applied retroactively.

The substitute trustee ,or the original trustee if no substitute is appointed, is required to give
notice of the foreclosure sale, to give notice of the sale ,the trustee must

(1) post the Notice of substitute trustee’s sale at the courthouse door of each county where
the property is located ,
(2)file the notice with the cou nty clerk of each county where the property is located, and
(3)5erve written notice of the sale on each person obligated to pay the debt by certified mail.
'

Tex. Prop. Code 5551.002
.
(b) .

The notice requirements must be met at least 21 clays before the date of sale. Tex. EProp.
'

Code . ss 51.002 (b).

The sae must be scheduled for a time between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. and stard Within tree
hours of the scheduled time. 51.002 (a),(c).ln 2015,the Texas Legislature enacted Téxas.

Property . Code . Ss 51.0076, which establishes that the appointment of a substitute trustee

in a notice of sale is effective as of the date of the notice as long as the notice complies with

the statute states...”notwithstanding...any agreement,” the statute is to b e followed.

Fortunately , the prOperty was purchased by PLAINTIFF at the foreclosure sale.

Shortly thereafter, PLAINTIFF began eviction proceedings against DEFENDANT.

In that the attorney representing PLAINTIFF had agreed that defendants would ceése eviction
proceeding if DEFENDANT would file an original petition to set aside foreclosure sa!e,

DEFENDANT immediately filed this cause of action.

The PLAINTIFF now being represented by a difference counsel who
is is commencing eviction

proceedings against DEFENDANT prior to any hearing with this court , in a breach to the
aforementioned agreement.

DEFENDANT will suffer irreparable injury and has no adequate remedy at law if this court does
not issue a temporary restraining order and subsequently , a temporary injunction]-

Plaintiff here by brings the causes of action which are breach of contract ,wrongful
foreclosure, unjust enrichment ,negligence ,negligence per se, gross negligence ,breach of duty

by trustee, fraud ,consumer protection and breach of rights prescribed by Texas Property
Code.

All copy of or a description by category and location of all documents electronically stored
information and ta ngible things that the disclosing party has in its possession custgdy or
I

control and may use to support its claims.

A computation of any category of damages claimed by the disclosing party makihg available
for inspection and copying as under Rule 34 the documents or others evidentiary material ,

not privileged or protected from disclosure ,on which such computation is based ,including
material bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered.
For inspection and coping as under Rule 34 any insurance agreement under whichgany

person carrying on an insurance business may be liable to satisfy part or all of a judgment
which may be entered in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy
thejudgment.

Respectfully submitted,

CERTIFICATE 0F SERVICE

l HEREBY CERTIFY THAT 0N THIS 14 DAY OF MAY, 2022 A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
FOREGOING AND/OR ATTACHED WAS SERVED 0N THE FOLLOWING IN ACCORDANCE WHICH
RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 5
'

(B) AS FOLLOWS:

Pro se Defendant representative (s) under the subject loan , this potential witnesses' may
testify from the loan file ,
regarding all issues pertaining to the subject loan as necessary

Plaintiff allegations

RESPONSE: Pro se Defendant representative (s) under the subject loan .

Pro se Defenda nt

Gerardo Castillo

407 Manhattan circ .Dona texas 78437.

Telephone: (956) 223 9407 and (956) 4610878.

Matrixdigitalll@vahoo.com

JACK O’BOYLE&ASSOCIATES,PLLC

Chris Ferguson

SBN: 24069714

chris@iackoboyle.com

P.O. Box 815369

Dallas, Texas 75381

P: 9722470653/ F: 9722470642.

Via Email, and U.S. MAIL. PLAINTIFF

Case Info

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

May 16, 2022

Case Filing Date

January 05, 2022

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Notice of Appeal: U.S. BANK, N.A., SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE TO LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ON BEHALF OF THE HOLDERS OF BEAR STEARNS ASSET BAKED SECURITIES I TRUST 2007-HE7, ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES SERIES 2007-HE7 VS. GERARDO CASTILLO,ALICIA CASTILLO

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties