Theresa Fay Jerry v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Robert Valdespino as Trustee

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided December 29, 2015·No. 04-15-00663-CV·Published

Opinion

04-15-00663-CV

IN THE

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRIST

AT SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

THERESA FAYE JERRY

V.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY and ROBERT VALDESPINO as TRUSTEE, Et al.

BRIEF OF APPELLANT,

Appeal from the 37**^ Judicial District Courtof BexarCounty, Texas Trial Court No. 2014-CI-05864

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

Argument

Issues Presented

Issue 1: Is it indeed appropriate that the act's which gave rise to the suit presented, that occurred in BexarCounty, and the homestead property at 9930 Spruce Ridge Dr. Converse, Texas 78109, Lot23, Block 5, CamelotSubdivision, Unit 63, Bexar County Texas, according to Plat thereof recorded in Volume 9400, pages221-222, Deed and Plat Records of BexarCounty, the subject matter of this suit which is also in Bexar County establishes diis venue [28 USC 1391 (b)(C)] and Jurisdiction as proper in reference to this Appeal? Issue 2: Is it lawful/legal that a Motion for Summary Judgment be granted for Traditional and No-Evidence when indeed there is evidence to dispute all allegations presented by Appellees in their motion. Alternatively, the evidence which should have been submitted by previous counsel that should have been on file was perhaps withdrawn, lost in records, or deliberately withheld from records. That leaves this Appellant with the question, what are the ramifications behind withholding, withdrawing, or losing evidence which is relevant/crucial to a case (use 18 § 2071)? Primary example: Your Honor, you state in your decision that the Clerk's Record contains no order on a motion for summary judgment, when clearly the Appellant was sent a copy of order granting a motion for summary Judgment to Deutsche Bank (see Exhibit A).

Issue 3: Is it lawful/legal for an Appellee to receive immunity for a harm or damage inflicted against another, intentionally or unintentionally that caused the resultant foreclosure on Appellant's Property with fraudulent documents? It is a concurrent occurrence where the Appellees', who are now referring to themselves as the Trustee, would switch from one trustee to another in an attempt to keep others off balance to their true intentions, and in the end depriving individuals of their rights (USC 42 § 1983, [Exhibits B &C]). This is like playing Russian roulette with an individual's livelihood, and the deception is hard to decipher. Alternatively, does this not cloud a Title that is voided by these fraudulent documents?

Issue 4: Is it not the fiduciary duty of the Appellees/Defendants, attorneys included, to be subject to the duties imposed by the common law, the duties imposed by the Texas Trust Code, and the duties imposed by the instrument creating the Trust Tex. Trust Code Ann. § 113.051 (Vernon 1984). Even an unintentional violation can result in serious sanctions.

The Trustee shall administer the trust according to its terms and in the absence of anv contrary terms in the trust instrument or contrarv provisions of this subtitle, in administering the trust the trustee shall perform all of the duties imposed bv trustees by the common law. Tex. Trust Code Ann. S 113.051 (Vernon 1984). The fundamental duties of a trustee include the use of the skill and prudence which an ordinary capable and careful person will use in the conduct of his own affairs. InterFirst Bank Dallas, N.A. vs. Risser, 739 S.W.2d 882, 888 (Tex. Civ. App. Texarkana 1987, no writ), citing Tucker vs. Dougherty Roofing Company, 137S.W.2d 884(Tex. Civ. App. Dallas 1940, writ dism'd Judgment cor.); Bogert &Bogert, The Law of Trusts and Trustees §12 (2"'' Edition 1985) § 541; Scott, supra, § 174; Restatement (Second) ofTrusts, supra, § 174. Why would individual plaintiffs be compelled to perform under any civil action set forth, but the defendants are not held to the same standard? Issue 5: The fact that all evidence was readily available on and/or before June 19, 2014 and prior to an order granting Appellant's counsel's motion for withdrawal on September 19, 2014, why was said evidence not presented into the Clerk's Records, and if presented how where they lost or withdrawn (USC 18 § 2071)? Was it not Appellant's previous counsel's duty to protect her against unreasonable risk of injury, and would not this duty become a breach if indeed previous counsel did not submit into evidence the materials which prove the facts in Appellant's case prior to withdrawal from Appellant's case? Would his actions in this case be grounds for neglect? Ifso, would this not be causation according to (USC 42 §1986)?

Issue 6: Isn't it factual that "Every Cause of Action Has to Evidence a Tangible Injury." Alternatively, this Appellant has been injured by the actions of these corporate entities, but where is their corpus delecti.

Honorable Luz Elena D. Chapa, this Appellant is not accustomed to violating the law, but it appears that the system which has failed this Appellant is accustomed to not abiding to all the laws that itsets forth. How is itpossible that partofthe law can be taken, but not all the law in its totality, by all parties involved? This Appellant has spent more than $65,000.00 in mortgage payments on a note that started out at $88,650.00, over$4,000.00 in attorneys' fees on bias and incompetent legal representation/services, and an undetermined amount on obtaining and copying official documents for evidence to prove the statements which Appellant attested to in her lawsuit. Statement of the Case

This appeal isfrom a summary judgment made after a District Court judgment. The summary judgment granted a Motion for Summary Judgment against the Plaintiff/Appellant, based on a Traditional and No-Evidence Motion which was not an accurate assumption ofthe true facts of the case, and it deprives Appellant the rights to a fair hearing and trial on the proceedings of this mortgagefiasco. At the time Citibankand its affiliates (Residential Real Estate IMortgages), Et al. was handling Appellant's mortgage, November 1, 2007 to February 2009 respectively, they were being investigated by the Office of Comptroller of Currency for unsafe and unsound/fraudulent business practices, which consisted of but not limited to:

(a) filed or caused to be filed in Stateand Federal Courts affidavits executed by Its employees or employees of third-party service providers that assertions made in affidavits were made based on personal knowledge or based on a review of the books and records, when in many cases they were not based on such knowledge and/or review of the relevant books and records;

(b) filed or caused to be filed in State and Federal Courts, and/or in local lands records offices, numerous affidavits or other mortgage-related documents that were not properly notarized, including those not signed or affirmed in the presence of a notary;

(c) litigated foreclosure proceedings and initiated non-judicial foreclosure proceedings without ensuring that either the promissory note or the mortgage document were properly endorsed or signed and in the possession of the appropriate party at the appropriate time. These repetitive violations continue to have concurrent occurrences, which these entities have committed even after being involved in lawsuits and consent judgements.

U.S. Department of Treasury Comptroller of Currency, In The Matter of Citibank, N.A. [OCC No. AA-EC-11-13]; U.S. Department of Treasury Comptroller of Currency, In The Matter of MERSCORP, Inc. and the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. (whose affiliations are with Deutsche Bank National Trust, and J R. Morgan), [OCC No. AA-EC-11-20 (April 13, 2011)]; U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission v.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Theresa Fay Jerry v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Robert Valdespino as Trustee, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Theresa Fay Jerry v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Robert Valdespino as Trustee (Theresa Fay Jerry v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Robert Valdespino as Trustee) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Interfirst Bank Dallas, N.A. v. Risser
739 S.W.2d 882 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1987)