[Dec 15 2019] Foreclosure Saga - http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=FBTCV196091825S

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

Will DSP file his bankruptcy before MidFirst Bank gets their hands on his WAkhando?

  • Yes

    Votes: 112 51.9%

  • No

    Votes: 104 48.1%
  • Total voters
    216
PieceofShet said:
So anyway. It did it again. Maybe its just a big coincidence, but this is not the first time.
Click to expand...
But how would midfirst bank even know who Phil is?

Oh wait...

Capture.PNG Capture2.PNG Capture3.PNG
 
DiabeticSP said:
Wouldn't a lean fuck DSP's credit?
Click to expand...

Yes but that's frankly a footnote compared to the foreclosure + bankruptcy. There is also a strange double standard where it comes off his credit report after 7-10 years, the same timeframe as the bankruptcy, but he is liable for it even after it comes off his report.

Balr0g said:
I just watched the old Nick and Null stream on Phil's initla bankruptcy filing. At 01:18:00 (i think) Nick said that if Phil has surrendered the Condo to Midfirst the bank can't claim the difference of 40k should Phil have been granted a chapter 7 bankruptcy. So is all this Limbo that Midfirst is actually doing for naught? Or is this excempt because Midfirst asked for a stay?
Click to expand...

I posted earlier about this but none of us could find a law that clearly discusses these kinds of situations. We all assumed that MidFirst must have some plan because otherwise they would just be wasting money here but our legal eagle autists have either reached the same conclusion as Nick or been unable to figure it out at all due to some really weird wording in CT law. So I'm not sure the relief from stay matters but there is a very good chance Nick was right.
 
Balr0g said:
I just watched the old Nick and Null stream on Phil's initla bankruptcy filing. At 01:18:00 (i think) Nick said that if Phil has surrendered the Condo to Midfirst the bank can't claim the difference of 40k should Phil have been granted a chapter 7 bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

I don't believe Nick actually said that and if he did he's full of shit.
 
AnOminous said:
I don't believe Nick actually said that and if he did he's full of shit.
Click to expand...

Meh, to be fair... Bankruptcy law can be pretty complicated and I don’t think Nick specializes in it. AND he’s from another state which could also be a factor.

He’s doing a live show where he can’t research the law and precedents like a lawyer normally would.

So it’s quite possible that he got something wrong.

(And fuck, law often isn’t black or white. In many cases you see two lawyers come to completely different conclusions about the legalese neither of which is “wrong”.)

twattycake said:
I posted earlier about this but none of us could find a law that clearly discusses these kinds of situations. We all assumed that MidFirst must have some plan because otherwise they would just be wasting money here but our legal eagle autists have either reached the same conclusion as Nick or been unable to figure it out at all due to some really weird wording in CT law. So I'm not sure the relief from stay matters but there is a very good chance Nick was right.
Click to expand...

It’s in-house legal counsel who works on this, so it’s not like Midwest is spending money on it. Or are being hustled by a lawyer who knows there’s a snowballs chance in hell, but wants to keep piling on those hours.

It’s a smallish, privately owned bank (Well, smallish by Bank of America standards, but one of the largest privately owned banks) and I would assume they know what they’re doing.

Or maybe they’re going for it, hoping it’ll slip through the cracks. (You know, kinda like PHIL’S BANKRUPTCY)

Which would of course be the funniest outcome. Phil whining and tarding our about losing $15K would be hilarious in itself. But Phil losing $15K because he “did nothing wrong” and the bank cheated?

Mmhm, that’s 1st grade, premium tard-tears right there!
 
Last edited:
Fapcop said:
(And fuck, law often isn’t black or white. In many cases you see two lawyers come to completely different conclusions about the legalese neither of which is “wrong”.)
Click to expand...

In most cases, you have at least two lawyers looking at the same stuff and coming to opposite conclusions. If they agreed, the case would settle pretty easily.
 
I seem to recall October 22nd being a deadline for Phil to respond to something. Court case page hasn't added anything, but sometimes stuff doesn't show there. Anything happening here?
 
actually said:
I seem to recall October 22nd being a deadline for Phil to respond to something. Court case page hasn't added anything, but sometimes stuff doesn't show there. Anything happening here?
Click to expand...

A skim of the case docket does not turn up anything for October 22 or any other deadline for the judge/bank. In fact, I can't find a deadline for whatever comes next in this trial-the default judgment earlier this year means Phil isn't entitled to time to respond or even a copy of the filings anymore, but the motion for strict foreclosure filed back in June still has not been acted on and does not contain any sort of deadline.

Foreclosure sales have resumed in CT so the three explanations I can think of are (not in any real order): The judge has a backlog of foreclosure sales to certify after they were shut down for ~half a year, the judge and bank aren't sure how Phil's bankruptcy interacts with this suit either, or the Connecticut court system is just that slow and inept.
 
twattycake said:
A skim of the case docket does not turn up anything for October 22 or any other deadline for the judge/bank. In fact, I can't find a deadline for whatever comes next in this trial-the default judgment earlier this year means Phil isn't entitled to time to respond or even a copy of the filings anymore, but the motion for strict foreclosure filed back in June still has not been acted on and does not contain any sort of deadline.

Foreclosure sales have resumed in CT so the three explanations I can think of are (not in any real order): The judge has a backlog of foreclosure sales to certify after they were shut down for ~half a year, the judge and bank aren't sure how Phil's bankruptcy interacts with this suit either, or the Connecticut court system is just that slow and inept.
Click to expand...

Proper Pangolin said:
Big Ups Mr. Huth

View attachment 1599068
Click to expand...
This is what I was referring to, though looking at it now, it says a default may be entered beginning on October 22nd, so it doesn't have to have happened yet.
 
actually said:
This is what I was referring to, though looking at it now, it says a default may be entered beginning on October 22nd, so it doesn't have to have happened yet.
Click to expand...
Things move slowly in courts and in Covid world things crawl along, I don't except an update on the same day that Phil had to respond by. He could have a postmarked letter in route if he chose to respond. Time will tell. I except an update next week or so.
 
Proper Pangolin said:
Things move slowly in courts and in Covid world things crawl along, I don't except an update on the same day that Phil had to respond by. He could have a postmarked letter in route if he chose to respond. Time will tell. I except an update next week or so.
Click to expand...

Yeah, for some reason, in my head, it was an automatic "if nothing changes by this date, certain things kick in immediately" deadline.
 
Proper Pangolin said:
Phil didn't enter a plea at all. MidFirst is set up to cut him deep.
Click to expand...
Um no you nudnik he did make a plea-deal to meet MidFirst in the courtroom and pretend to litigate it out only to give the judge stereo DX crotch chops but nope Midfirst was pretty hard set on getting the judgment in their favor hence no crotch chops.
 
It's not a foreclosure if you told them to do it. That's called a gift, and it's tax deductible.
 
Proper Pangolin said:
Phil didn't enter a plea at all. MidFirst is set up to cut him deep.
Click to expand...
Forgive my ignorance on the subject but does this mean they will go after him to make up for that money? Or will MidFirst eat the cost? What is the standard procedure for situations like this?
 
Midfirst is seeking to foreclose against both DSP and Deerfield Woods Condominium Association. The "failure to plead" is on the part of the condo organization, not DSP. He already failed to appear and so already defaulted. Since those were the only defendants, MidFirst has secured the condo. (clarifying edit: the defendants both defaulted so their claim to the condo is unopposed but it's not theirs yet; they're now asking the court to give it to them)
Lilly Philly Burnelli said:
Forgive my ignorance on the subject but does this mean they will go after him to make up for that money? Or will MidFirst eat the cost? What is the standard procedure for situations like this?
Click to expand...
They filed in June for a Strict Foreclosure, which seeks to take the property without deficiency. They state their claim (for procedural reasons) as $103k on the loan itself - presumably, this cannot be collected under a strict foreclosure - and just under $2,500 for taxes, insurance, and legal fees. I don't know if they could claim that amount from DSP, but if they do, I'm sure his defense of ignoring everything would be sufficient.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom