Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Pikaart v. Financial Freedom

United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division

October 31, 2017

DANIEL T. PIKAART, Plaintiff,
v.
FINANCIAL FREEDOM, Defendant.

          Hon. Robert J. Jonker

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          RAY KENT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         This is a an action brought by pro se plaintiff Daniel T. Pikaart (sometimes referred to as “Pikaart”) against defendant Financial Freedom. Compl. (ECF No. 1).[1] This matter is now before the Court on defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9). In the motion, defendant identifies itself as “CIT Bank, N.A.”, and states that plaintiff incorrectly identified it as “Financial Freedom a division of Cit Bank NA.” See Motion (ECF No. 9, PageID.25).

         I. Background

         In this action, plaintiff seeks to stop state foreclosure proceedings based upon a default of the terms of an adjustable rate home equity conversion mortgage (“reverse mortgage”) of property owned by his now-deceased wife. The basis for plaintiff's federal question jurisdiction and his cause of action is difficult to glean from his complaint. When asked to explain the basis for federal jurisdiction, plaintiff alleged (in his words):

In the case of a person with a revers mortage upon their death a surviving spouse claimed to not be on the mortgage mortgage documents (in this case the Note) but on all the rest of the documents Financial Freedom claiming the Mortgage Mature. Thus disallowing Danie Pikaart the surviving spouse of Judith Ann Pikaart to maintain ownership and possession until Death, Sale, or Vacating the property according to Reverse Mortgage HUH HECM rules which is a violation or Daniel Pikaart's rights.

Compl. (ECF No. 1, PageID.3).

         Plaintiff set forth the following Statement of Claim (in his words):

Plaintiffs spouse died 4/20/2016 Freedom Financial has claimed mortgage Mature and is claiming plaintiff may not maintain ownership and reside in property becasuse he did not sigh the mortgage NOTE while he did sign all the other mortgage documents. According to HUD rules said position is a violation of Plaintiff rights. According to Bennett et al v Donavan and HUD rules surviving spouse has the right to maintain ownership and occupy said property in question until Death, Sale or moving from said property even if they are not on all the documents.

Id. at PageID.4.

         Plaintiff seeks the following relief (in his words):

The court file an injunction to stop any forclosur action and allow the Plaintiff to stay in possession of the property until Death, Sale or Vacating without further action. (note property is on the market with the Grand Rapids Real Estate Multiple Listing Service) and any continued action by Freedom Financial would cause irrepreble harm to the value of the property on an open sale from bargain hunters and would damage plaintiffs ability to keep the sale from being considered a distresed sale which would lower the sale price. Said distressed sale could cost Plaintiff more than $50000.00 in equity.

Id. at PageID.4.

         II. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.