Übersetzung für "Mortgage documents" in Deutsch

This mortgage document disclosed an interest rate of 6.875%.

My only consolation is that the mortgage document consistently referred to "reasonable attorney's fees".

Possibly the underwriter had been negligent in drafting the mortgage document.

My only consolation is that the mortgage document consistently referred to “reasonable attorney’s fees”.

In my earlier Memorandum of Law in opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for a summary judgment, I cited three substantial issues that were in dispute: 1. that the legal description of the property being foreclosed upon in the plaintiff's affidavit and also in the mortgage document differs from the description in the Quit Claim deed for the same property.

In their initial summons filed on January 22, 2015, the plaintiff stated in its claim for relief that the description in the mortgage document was "in error" because it did not include the two feet of land in the north 138 feet of the east 42.5 feet of Lot 15.

The plaintiff gave no reason why the omission of this land in the Mortgage document was erroneous.

In rummaging through drawers in my office, I had come across the Quit Claim deed for the property at 1715 Glenwood, compared its legal description with that on the mortgage document, and concluded that there was a problem because the two differed.

There is evidence of laziness or incompetence, first, in the attorney's failure to check the legal description in the mortgage document to see who owned the referenced parcel of land other than for the duplex at 1715 Glenwood Avenue.

When defendant William McGaughey located the deed to 1715 Glenwood Avenue in a file cabinet and found that its legal description differed from that on the mortgage document, he assumed that the other part of the description pertained to some other property.

I would argue that if the legal descriptions of the foreclosed property differed between the mortgage document and the Quit Claim deed - that on the Quit Claim deed is also shown for the property on Hennepin County's property website - there is a genuine issue needing to be resolved.

The HKM law firm demonstrated incompetence on a number of occasions - for instance, not catching the discrepancy in legal descriptions on the mortgage document by the time of the May 5th appearance before Judge Vasaly - combined with personal nastiness in repeatedly accusing me of lying.

I noted that the legal description for the land on which the duplex sat differed from that in the mortgage document.

Complicating factors were that the building being foreclosed on sat on a nonbuildable lot and the legal descriptions on the mortgage document had uncertain references.

However, she did not deny the motion on any of the three "genuine issues of material fact" that the defendant had cited in his memorandum of law dated May 5, 2015, namely: 1. that the legal descriptions on the mortgage document and the quit claim deed for the property at 1715 Glenwood Avenue differed, 2. that the duplex at 1715 Glenwood Avenue sat on an unbuildable lot, and 3. that there was uncertainty as to whether Lian McGaughey was being sued.

The plaintiff alleges in section 4 that the legal description of the property contained in the Mortgage document is in error because it does not contain the land described as follows:

Again, when I mentioned that the legal descriptions on the mortgage document and the Quit Claim deeds did not match, the judge remarked that I was conveying my interest in the property, whatever that might be.

In her order dated May 6, 2015, the judge found that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding ownership of the property referenced after the AND in the legal description in the mortgage document.

It is true that defendant McGaughey incorrectly stated that part of the legal description on the mortgage document pertained to property that he did not own.

As previously mentioned, these lawyers had not bothered to check the legal descriptions that were on the mortgage document to see if the defendant owned the property described after the AND, which turned out to be his vacant lot.

There was a genuine issue with respect to material facts in that the duplex did not sit on a buildable lot, that the legal description in the mortgage document differed from that in the Quit Claim deed that I had received for the property, and that the mortgage document listed both me and my former wife as debtors but the lawsuit seemed to be directed at me alone.

There is evidence of laziness or incompetence, first, in the attorney’s failure to check the legal description in the mortgage document to see who owned the referenced parcel of land other than for the duplex at 1715 Glenwood Avenue.

However, she did not deny the motion on any of the three “genuine issues of material fact” that the defendant had cited in his memorandum of law dated May 5, 2015, namely: 1. that the legal descriptions on the mortgage document and the quit claim deed for the property at 1715 Glenwood Avenue differed, 2. that the duplex at 1715 Glenwood Avenue sat on an unbuildable lot, and 3. that there was uncertainty as to whether Lian McGaughey was being sued.