Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

EDWIN COLEMAN v. CARRIE M. WARD, et al.

Real property — Foreclosure sale — Timeliness of stay motion

On July 3, 2017, appellees, acting as substitute trustees,1 filed an Order to Docket in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, seeking to foreclose on real property owned by Edwin Coleman, appellant. Appellees filed the final loss mitigation affidavit on August 29, 2017, and Mr. Coleman filed a timely request for postfile mediation. The parties participated in postfile mediation on October 18, 2017, but no agreement was reached. Thereafter, the court ordered that appellees could proceed with the foreclosure sale.

On November 9, 2017, Mr. Coleman filed a “Motion to Stay the Sale and Ratification of Sale of Property and in the Alternative/Motion to Dismiss the Foreclosure Action” (first motion to stay). In that motion he claimed that: (1) he was improperly denied loss mitigation; (2) his mortgage lender could not foreclose on his property because they were under a conservatorship and the order to docket did not contain a directive from the conservator; and (3) his mortgage lender could not foreclose on the property because it was comprised of a board of directors and “[n]o name or signature of any Member of the Board of Directors . . . appear[ed] in the record[.]”

Read the opinion

1 of 1 article

0 articles remaining

Grow your business intelligence with The Daily Record. Register now for more article access.