Challenging Constitutional Standing to Foreclose & “Subject Matter Jurisdiction” of the Court


Article III of the Constitution of the United States as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court has long ago established a constitutional, irreducible, minimum set of requirements for a party in a genuine dispute to establish that it has the Standing to redress a claimed “Injury In Fact” before it can bring a dispute before any court.

Without the existence of Standing all courts in the land must acknowledge that the court has no subject matter jurisdiction to hear any merits of a case and that it has no choice whatsoever but to dismiss the subject action. In Borrower’s cases, this subject action is the claim that the foreclosing party is the party in interest that has the “right” to foreclose on a Borrower’s property and that it is claiming and proving that it has been injured by the Borrower enabling its right to foreclose

The three requirements to prove Standing in a case involving Judicial Foreclosure state foreclosure actions in which the foreclosing party is the Plaintiff and the Borrower is the defendant

1. The foreclosing party is the Plaintiff and it must claim and prove in its lawsuit against the Borrower, who is the defendant, that it has sustained an “Injury in Fact” due to the actions of the Borrower and that it is demonstrating that its evidence is “concrete and particularized”.

The Borrower Defendant’s “only burden” is that he must deny ever having been in default with this Plaintiff in this case. This will be true in nearly every case.

2. This injury must be have been proven by the foreclosing party with “concrete and particularized” evidence to be fairly traceable to the foreclosed party with concrete and particularized evidence.

The Defendant Borrower is trying to void and set aside the foreclosure sale that the foreclosing party claims were legal and that it has already happened properly although it has never yet been presented in any court.

I do not use the words lender or bank because I have never seen any party in a foreclosure trial ever even try to prove a Lender’s status. So, whenever reading my writings you will see me use the decoraciĆ³n oficinas term “foreclosing party” instead of giving this entity any higher status before the judge.

Your foreclosing party has only one possible injury it can claim. That the foreclosing party used its’ own money to fund the closing of the loan, or used its’ own money to purchase the alleged subject Promissory Note and did not get paid back you, the mortgagor.

I have never seen the foreclosing party ever claim or state that it had suffered an “Injury in Fact”, nor ever described one. I have never seen the foreclosing party claim to be the Holder in Due Course.

The United States Constitution guarantees that the issue of standing may be raised at any time, even after appeal.

(Article III of the U.S. Constitution) (Lacey v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 480 B.R. 13 (2012), United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts, Bankruptcy No. 10-19903-JNF, Adversary No. 12-1249) (Ibanez, 458 Mass. At 651, 941 N.E.2d 40) (Bailey v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA (In re Bailey), 468 B.R. 464 (Bankr. D.Mass. 2012)) (Ball v. Bank of New York, No. 4:12-CV-0144-NKL, 2012 WL 6645695, at *2 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 20, 2012) (Williams v. Kimes, 996 S.W.2d 43 (Mo. 1999))

Standing is a jurisdictional issue antecedent to the right to relief. Missouri Courts and Federal Courts are well settled on the matter. There is no court discretion. If Standing has not been proved by the offending party, then the court has no jurisdiction to hear the merits of the case.

Article III Standing: Standing is a requirement in all state and federal courts in the United States. This requirement gives a party the “right to make a legal claim or seek judicial enforcement of a duty or right. Standing requirements for the federal courts are uniform and based upon constitutional requirements. For a lender to foreclose on a debtor’s property, the lender must meet certain substantive constitutional requirements established by the doctrine of standing and prudential limitations required by rules of civil procedure. Courts have stated that “[T]he concept of standing subsumes a blend of constitutional requirements and prudential considerations.” Importantly, courts have recognized that failure to satisfy all standing requirements may be dispositive in cases involving foreclosures. (dispositive: fail to win)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *