i'm sure with the benefit of hindsight we all realize today that the fiasco that was the washington mutual collapse the assignments through the federal government in trying to clean up the foreclosure disaster to the banks that then sought to assert their stance of all right to payments on those mortgages or foreclosed upon them if there was nonpayment is something that in hindsight needs to be remitted remedied and it is being remedy is being damaged by the federal government's oversight and sanctioning of the banks some of which some of the banks have complied with those sanctions and some in not including wells fargo and i included the citation to the public record the department of justice's sanctioning of wells fargo for the very same practices of failing to verify notice notarization of the assignments from the original loan documents into the hands of wells fargo that get then gave them the right to  foreclose upon these properties that's the general overview and that's the status of the situation in a nutshell all of this because the u c c was allowed to be amended for bundling of secur d mortgages on residential real property where as for the securitization could occur with respect to negotiable and movable instruments but not mortgages on real property entire home mortgages interest on an entire piece of real property that then gets sold out to wherever and to whomever which is what occurred the owners of these properties the people that purchased them the people that refinance them based upon what in my judgment from again from heinz say wasn't over inflation of the values of those properties which were then used as predate credit predatory tactics were then used upon judgment was wrongfully after i certainly will your honor i was hoping to just provide just a little bit more background into that situation and that's what i was trying to provide in terms of explaining the process of how we got where we are today with respect to all of these cases as it pertains to my client he challenged the legitimacy of the assignment to wells fargo by washington mutual based what we know today to be a robo signing and that that challenge is the substantive state law challenge that gives my client the right to have a judicial as opposed to a nontraditional foreclosure by advertisement and i keep in mind the judicial all i'm seeing at this point before i get on to the fact that the case was in a temporary injunction status when it was removed potentially a default had been entered by the state court but the default was not and i wouldn't concede that at this point but i for argument's sake let's assume that it wasn't ok i can back up let's back up to the point of the status of the case was in a temporary injunction only upon the foreclosure by advertising so with it's a court was saying at that time was you cannot sell by advertisement alone and then the case is moved to federal court and it's removed to federal court before between the time that the temporary injunction enters and the time it's removed to federal court clearly under the law of the state of michigan which i asserted my brief is a political here wells fargo appeared in the state court action knowledge and intent civil procedure one on one unless you use appear only solely for the purposes of jet objecting excuse me unless you appear so only for the purpose of objecting to subject matter jurisdiction you show a knowledge of the action proceeding in the state court and you say you have an intent to submit yourself to that court to challenge something that's going on in  cause of action to the federal court containing a majority of state court issues and state court arguments and state court claims is a matter of discretion with the federal courts is it not when it was the federal court by the district court when the district court assumed jurisdiction over the case through that removal process the district court did not acknowledge the status quo ante of the case as it sat in the state court at the time it was removed that was in a temporary injunction status well that the district court doesn't have to continue the state court temporary injunction does it well according to the case law that i cite in my brief dokken versus gagan being the first hundred eighty u s supreme court case the federal court assumes the case in the in the posture that it was in when it was removed right but if they can decide what to do but the but the district court never set aside the injunction temporary injunction granted pending resolution of the merits by the district court or syslog pending well and i would argue pretty it's pending resolution of the merits of the state law claims and the state law issues by the certain circumstances i think it may it's kind of like you can't look back and put the toothpaste back in the tube well how do you know that we've got twenty eight u s c section fourteen fifty quote whenever any action is removed from a state court to assume the case of the status it was in when removed lots and basically section four hundred fifty of the code in but the status of the if it seems it in the status it has to do so on well underlying status because it's a matter of state it's actually a matter of comedy that the federal court not coming full faith and credit the federal court has to assume the state court action in the primary it was in when it arrived but as judge moore says a temporary injunction is only that temporary and it can be a summary judgment is in brief is that the state law substantive state law issues underlying my client's claim his right to challenge judicial foreclosure by advertisement and convert that proceeding to a trial on the merits in equity was essentially usurped by the fact that the district court in this case accepted the removal did not address the status of the case as it's like i said earlier you know i had not to be ok but you know you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube we can't go back and undo what's already been done here my client's property was sold at a foreclosure sale at the end of september ok he is living in the house it's been so this has all happened you know basically because the district court in this case didn't follow the steps they should have followed in order to at least acknowledge the situation as it was a temporary injunction on it precisely what happened at the end of september now and you know i and or stan that's probably water under the bridge i have considered buying a motion with foreclose upon his property without demonstrating that the signature or notary which we now know to have been robo signing other words the right to that note was never verified no one ever actually looked at the section six hundred point three two zero four i'm actually basing this upon case law in michigan common law which unequivocally says that when an entire mortgage interest is transferred  my my thinking of double the but the concept of double liability or perhaps double recovery as it is seems to be a bit of a red herring to me because under the circumstances in this case and and i want to answer your question your honor but i'm i would like to address that issue of my ability or double recovery because the real it's a red herring because under the circumstances of all of these cases those mortgages were bundled they were you know shredded the original notes were gone there disappeared no one  will ever see them again so it's very simple now to say in hindsight that the assignments to the banks that now are seeking to either collect payments or foreclose upon these properties have a legitimate right to do so because there's no proof to the contrary in hindsight of who held those originals and whether or not they were truly assigned to the person seeking to foreclose upon them the question of double liability or double cover is if that happens is someone else ever going to come to to this property and say oh no but actually i have the note and i have a right to the payments on the market or the right to the property now that's not going to happen what i think is happening is the banks were bailed out by the federal government they got money on one instance now they're getting the shell companies to foreclose on the properties and they're getting money the second time that's my concept of double recovery but the light is on so i understand and i was trying to answer  good morning may please the court jeff garish on behalf of wells fargo two years ago in a con one decision that was authored by judge clay the opinion started by noting that this court was once again required to delve into the morass of litigation over michigan foreclosures by advertisement here we are two years later and are doing again that this really just a garden variety it's to set aside a foreclosure that's barred for many many reasons the only wrinkle in this case is they're trying desperately to get back into state court i think it's understandable why they even resorted to filing a request for a default before default was due judge moore you're absolutely correct the fault was not entered and so judge gilman you're absolutely correct wells fargo was entitle to remove it which we did and once the case was removed they moved to remain and saying that a default had been entered which was false saying that they had that wells fargo had appeared which was false we didn't file a general appearance there wasn't a default the basis for the motion to remain and was completely lacking they argued several other points that they've completely waived on appeal they argued that there was non unanimity on diversity wells fargo didn't attach all the documents to its notice remove those of all been waived the only argument they make now is that we couldn't remove it because we had been defaulted and we had made a general appearance and both our hearing that's it so needless to say they don't cite any case from any jurisdiction that says a telephone call or an e mail between counsel agreeing to adjourn a hearing is an appearance that wave's jurisdiction and that's clearly not the case we were entitled to remove it we did remove it in terms of the merits of the case fails for all the reasons that most of these cases fail that there's mainly three the the entire challenge is to or the entire case is based on a challenge to the assignment from where i am moved to wells fargo but it's very well settled in conlon as one of the case among many connelly liv properties kim all kinds of cases that talk about this that they don't have standing to challenge an assignment because they're not a party to the assignment the only care to that is this is from properties if the if the document is non assignable or if there was a prior revocation or if wells fargo is not to title on or they don't argue that any of those apply and they don't so they don't have standing and the assignment in the foreclosure most of voidable not void this is kim kim is rate on point they really don't have anything and i was if i can digress a i'm always a little nervous when the court schedules oral argument in a case like this there was this case is very similar to a lot of cases we've had where there than an opinion without oral argument i know was requested but i've been trying to figure out where the flaw is in him but if not that's all i have had a right to a trial to challenge the irregularities in a proceedings of the four i'm calling a forged no to rebut the notarization by robo signing of the assignment that right to a trial disappeared when the district court assumed jurisdiction over the case after the removal refused to recognize the status of the case that it was in a temporary injunction pending a determination on the merits of whether or not the judicial foreclosure or the foreclosure by advertisement should occur none of that was ever located it's a short circuit of the entire procedures that the state court process is supposed to protect and in and in visions in fact and so and certainly my client never got a chance to determine judicially whether there were a good irregularities in the proceedings because of the district or some merrily treating this case as he did so essentially once again the bank has the opportunity in hindsight to basically just say everything we did was right there's no threat ever in the future a double recovery there's no basis to challenge or standing to challenge the assignment because that's what the case law says today but this this is in  hindsight what we're looking at is the substantive law of michigan as it was prior to the kim case no assignment of an entire mortgage interest can be made without a judicial challenge or an ability to challenge it judicially so maybe i'm speaking let me say we put that another way a foreclosure by advertisement cannot occur it must be a judicial foreclosure which means it must be an action in equity because you have to vet the means by which that foreclosure took place and the only way to do that is to have a trial on the merits so that the instruments that are being asserted is legitimate and valid to effectuate the foreclosure can be vetted through the judicial process thank you very much for allowing us to come here in ar