Thursday, June 16, 2011
Friday, June 10, 2011
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Family Wins $1M After Pigs Ate Their Son's Body
Family Wins $1M After Pigs Ate Their Son's Body
By DEE MOORE
SALEM, Ore. (CN) - Three men who fed a murdered man's body to pigs must pay the victim's family $1 million, the Marion County Circuit Court ruled.
The details of the grisly 2006 murder sound like a plot pulled straight from fiction. In April 2006, Christopher Lampkin was visiting someone at the Cedar Crest Apartments in Salem. During the visit, the 23-year-old got into an altercation that quickly turned deadly with other residents of the apartment.
"Leonardo Garcia Gonzalez, Victor Hernandez and others told Mr. Lampkin to get on his knees and say his prayers," Lampkin's mother, Denise Mullins, claimed in 2008 complaint. "Mr. Lampkin was then shot 'execution style' in the head and taken to the bathtub where Leonardo and Victor Hernandez began to cut off his head and limbs of his body with kitchen knives."
The men stuffed the remains in a duffel bag and called a friend, Joseph Norman Schmidt, whose father owned a pig farm in rural Yamhill County.
Schmidt put the duffel bag into a feed barrel for the pigs, an animal that is famous for its omnivorous palate.
Police recovered parts of Lampkin's remains from the feed barrel in 2007, and Schmidt cooperated with the investigation in exchange for immunity.
Mullins reportedly identified her son's remains by the watch that was still strapped to the corpse's arm, and DNA tests later confirmed the identification.
Her lawsuit states that Schmidt and his father, Joseph Francis Schmidt, "knew or should have known criminal activity such as mutilation of a corpse and drug use occurred on their property."
Ultimately, a judge dismissed the charges against the farm owner, the apartment complex and that complex's owner. It also appears that Mullins misidentified Gonzalez' co-conspirator, whose name appears as Victor Tovar Gonzalez in the latest court filing.
The Gonzalezes, who are cousins, are each serving time in Oregon penitentiaries.
Marion County Circuit Court Judge Dale Penn awarded more than $1 million to Lampkin's estate earlier this month.
Each defendant will pay a third of the judgment.
Gonzalez said he attacked Lampkin because he became paranoid that Lampkin was there to rob him, according to Associated Press coverage of Gonzalez's trial.
"I become convinced he was scoping out the apartment to rip me off," Gonzalez reportedly told the judge. "I was really afraid someone was going to rob and shoot me."
Mullins is represented by Brian Lathen of Swanson, Lathen, Alexander, McCann & Prestwich.
Copyright by Courthouse News Service
By DEE MOORE
SALEM, Ore. (CN) - Three men who fed a murdered man's body to pigs must pay the victim's family $1 million, the Marion County Circuit Court ruled.
The details of the grisly 2006 murder sound like a plot pulled straight from fiction. In April 2006, Christopher Lampkin was visiting someone at the Cedar Crest Apartments in Salem. During the visit, the 23-year-old got into an altercation that quickly turned deadly with other residents of the apartment.
"Leonardo Garcia Gonzalez, Victor Hernandez and others told Mr. Lampkin to get on his knees and say his prayers," Lampkin's mother, Denise Mullins, claimed in 2008 complaint. "Mr. Lampkin was then shot 'execution style' in the head and taken to the bathtub where Leonardo and Victor Hernandez began to cut off his head and limbs of his body with kitchen knives."
The men stuffed the remains in a duffel bag and called a friend, Joseph Norman Schmidt, whose father owned a pig farm in rural Yamhill County.
Schmidt put the duffel bag into a feed barrel for the pigs, an animal that is famous for its omnivorous palate.
Police recovered parts of Lampkin's remains from the feed barrel in 2007, and Schmidt cooperated with the investigation in exchange for immunity.
Mullins reportedly identified her son's remains by the watch that was still strapped to the corpse's arm, and DNA tests later confirmed the identification.
Her lawsuit states that Schmidt and his father, Joseph Francis Schmidt, "knew or should have known criminal activity such as mutilation of a corpse and drug use occurred on their property."
Ultimately, a judge dismissed the charges against the farm owner, the apartment complex and that complex's owner. It also appears that Mullins misidentified Gonzalez' co-conspirator, whose name appears as Victor Tovar Gonzalez in the latest court filing.
The Gonzalezes, who are cousins, are each serving time in Oregon penitentiaries.
Marion County Circuit Court Judge Dale Penn awarded more than $1 million to Lampkin's estate earlier this month.
Each defendant will pay a third of the judgment.
Gonzalez said he attacked Lampkin because he became paranoid that Lampkin was there to rob him, according to Associated Press coverage of Gonzalez's trial.
"I become convinced he was scoping out the apartment to rip me off," Gonzalez reportedly told the judge. "I was really afraid someone was going to rob and shoot me."
Mullins is represented by Brian Lathen of Swanson, Lathen, Alexander, McCann & Prestwich.
Copyright by Courthouse News Service
Leave Us Alone, Title Company Tells Oregon
Leave Us Alone, Title Company Tells Oregon
By DEE MOORE
SALEM, Ore. (CN) - Stewart Title Co. says Oregon illegally demanded that it pay $200,000 in "retaliatory tax," 10 years after a judge told the state that its demand for the tax was "simply incorrect."
The title company claims that Oregon's recent demand is a rehash of a demand it made a decade ago, when the Marion County Court "agreed with Stewart Title's plain reading" of Oregon's retaliatory tax statute, and "rejected" the state's interpretation as "simply incorrect."
Stewart Title sued the state and its Department of Consumer and Business Services in Marion County Court - the same court that issued the ruling between the same parties 10 years ago.
"Now, a decade later, the Department has billed Stewart Title for an amount of 'retaliatory' tax based on its very same judicially rejected interpretation of the Retaliatory Tax Statutes," the complaint states. "This billing also directly contradicts promises the department made to Stewart Title upon which Stewart Title reasonably relied."
Stewart Title challenges the state tax on "foreign domiciled" insurance companies. It claims that it is licensed to conduct business in Oregon, and works with and through Oregon-based agents who retain a "significant portion" of the money generated in the state.
Stewart claims the department not only misinterpreted Oregon law, it misinterpreted Texas law when calculating the taxes, by including "fees transactions that were not the business of insurance," such as title searches and examination services.
"The Retaliatory Tax Statutes do not empower the department to access retaliatory taxes against Stewart Title for amounts paid to or retained by its agents in Oregon for title search and examination work," the title company says.
And it says the tax is unconstitutional, as it does not apply to all insurers in the same manner.
Stewart Title says the state assessed the tax as "a revenue raising measure," but the state does not get "a second bite at the apple."
Stewart Title seeks declaratory judgment. It is represented by G. Kevin Kiely with Cable Huston Benedict Haagensen & Lloyd, of Portland.
Copyright Courthouse News Service
By DEE MOORE
SALEM, Ore. (CN) - Stewart Title Co. says Oregon illegally demanded that it pay $200,000 in "retaliatory tax," 10 years after a judge told the state that its demand for the tax was "simply incorrect."
The title company claims that Oregon's recent demand is a rehash of a demand it made a decade ago, when the Marion County Court "agreed with Stewart Title's plain reading" of Oregon's retaliatory tax statute, and "rejected" the state's interpretation as "simply incorrect."
Stewart Title sued the state and its Department of Consumer and Business Services in Marion County Court - the same court that issued the ruling between the same parties 10 years ago.
"Now, a decade later, the Department has billed Stewart Title for an amount of 'retaliatory' tax based on its very same judicially rejected interpretation of the Retaliatory Tax Statutes," the complaint states. "This billing also directly contradicts promises the department made to Stewart Title upon which Stewart Title reasonably relied."
Stewart Title challenges the state tax on "foreign domiciled" insurance companies. It claims that it is licensed to conduct business in Oregon, and works with and through Oregon-based agents who retain a "significant portion" of the money generated in the state.
Stewart claims the department not only misinterpreted Oregon law, it misinterpreted Texas law when calculating the taxes, by including "fees transactions that were not the business of insurance," such as title searches and examination services.
"The Retaliatory Tax Statutes do not empower the department to access retaliatory taxes against Stewart Title for amounts paid to or retained by its agents in Oregon for title search and examination work," the title company says.
And it says the tax is unconstitutional, as it does not apply to all insurers in the same manner.
Stewart Title says the state assessed the tax as "a revenue raising measure," but the state does not get "a second bite at the apple."
Stewart Title seeks declaratory judgment. It is represented by G. Kevin Kiely with Cable Huston Benedict Haagensen & Lloyd, of Portland.
Copyright Courthouse News Service
Ruling Challenges Ore. Foreclosure System
Ruling Challenges Ore. Foreclosure System
By DEE MOORE
PORTLAND, Ore. (CN) - Bank of America and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems broke the law when they failed to record every time the trust deed for a couple's home mortgage changed hands, a federal judge found in a ruling that questions Oregon's system of allowing banks to foreclose without going to court.
Although home owners Ivan and Katherine Hooker have been in default on their loan since 2009, Judge Owen Panner found that the bank and Mortgage Electronic foreclosed on the couple's loan after too many unrecorded transfers left the couple in the dark about who to contact for a loan modification.
"While I recognize that the plaintiffs have failed to make any payments on the note since September 2009, that failure does not permit defendants to violate Oregon law," Panner wrote.
Oregon is one of the few states that allow banks to foreclose on mortgages outside of the courtroom. The only caveat to this is a state statute which requires that all records of sales and transfers be listed in the county land records office where the property is located. Banks are required to record these transactions before initiating a non-judicial foreclosure according to the Oregon Trust Deed Act.
Mortgage Electronic (MERS) argued that the Act allowed it to be lax on recording each individual transfer with the county, as long as it kept track of the transfers in its own internal system and recorded the "final assignment" with the county before initiating foreclosure.
But Panner said the law requires every transfer to be recorded with the county.
"Considering what is commonly known about the MERS system and the secondary market in mortgage loans, plaintiffs allege sufficient facts to make clear that defendants violated the Oregon Trust Deed Act."
In the case of the Hookers, the paper trail to find the holder of their deed was convoluted and, completely missing in some places, making it impossible to figure out which bank to approach about a loan modification.
According to Panner, this information could have helped avoid the pain of foreclosure.
"When a borrower on the verge of default cannot find out who has the authority to modify the loan, a modification or a short sale, even if beneficial to both the borrower and the beneficiary, cannot occur," the judge wrote.
This confusion, Panner wrote, is primarily a result of the system instituted by Mortgage Electronic, which was created in the 1990s by the mortgage industry to facilitate the process of bundling and reselling mortgages as securities.
The situation was so bad that on one day in May 2010 the company made three changes to the plaintiff's deed of trust on behalf of three different people, all certified by the same notary.
To find the paper trail, Panner ordered Mortgage Electronic to provide the court with a chain of title for the note and trust deed. The company uses a system it calls "summary and milestones" to track transfers of servicing and ownership rights of loans.
But the judge found numerous holes in the data. There is no record in the summary of how Guaranty Bank obtained its interest in the trust deed before transferring it to Wells Fargo, the ruling states. And neither Mortgage Electronic nor any of the banks recorded the transfers with the Jackson County land records office, where the property was situated, Panner wrote.
In fact, it took the homeowners' complaint to call attention to the fact that the documents filed last spring were "out of order" and appeared to be "rushed," thereby briefly stopping the foreclosure, according to the opinion.
"A lender that knows it will immediately sell a loan on the secondary market has no incentive to ensure the appraisal of the security is accurate," Panner wrote. "Similarly, the lender need not concern itself with the veracity of any representations made to the borrower. In short, the MERS system allows the lender to shirk its traditional due diligence duties."
Panner said the fact that an agency which can not accurately police itself has the authority to foreclose on people's homes was cause for concern.
"Foreclosure by advertisement and sale, which is designed to take place outside of any judicial review, necessarily relies on the foreclosing party to accurately review and assess its own authority to foreclose," the judge wrote. "Considering that non-judicial foreclosure of one's home is a particularly harsh event, and given the numerous problems I see in nearly every non-judicial foreclosure case I preside over, a procedure relying on a bank or trustee to self-assess its own authority to foreclose is deeply troubling to me."
This is one of six separate cases in which Oregon courts have halted foreclosures involving Mortgage Electronic.
Copyright Courthouse News Service
By DEE MOORE
PORTLAND, Ore. (CN) - Bank of America and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems broke the law when they failed to record every time the trust deed for a couple's home mortgage changed hands, a federal judge found in a ruling that questions Oregon's system of allowing banks to foreclose without going to court.
Although home owners Ivan and Katherine Hooker have been in default on their loan since 2009, Judge Owen Panner found that the bank and Mortgage Electronic foreclosed on the couple's loan after too many unrecorded transfers left the couple in the dark about who to contact for a loan modification.
"While I recognize that the plaintiffs have failed to make any payments on the note since September 2009, that failure does not permit defendants to violate Oregon law," Panner wrote.
Oregon is one of the few states that allow banks to foreclose on mortgages outside of the courtroom. The only caveat to this is a state statute which requires that all records of sales and transfers be listed in the county land records office where the property is located. Banks are required to record these transactions before initiating a non-judicial foreclosure according to the Oregon Trust Deed Act.
Mortgage Electronic (MERS) argued that the Act allowed it to be lax on recording each individual transfer with the county, as long as it kept track of the transfers in its own internal system and recorded the "final assignment" with the county before initiating foreclosure.
But Panner said the law requires every transfer to be recorded with the county.
"Considering what is commonly known about the MERS system and the secondary market in mortgage loans, plaintiffs allege sufficient facts to make clear that defendants violated the Oregon Trust Deed Act."
In the case of the Hookers, the paper trail to find the holder of their deed was convoluted and, completely missing in some places, making it impossible to figure out which bank to approach about a loan modification.
According to Panner, this information could have helped avoid the pain of foreclosure.
"When a borrower on the verge of default cannot find out who has the authority to modify the loan, a modification or a short sale, even if beneficial to both the borrower and the beneficiary, cannot occur," the judge wrote.
This confusion, Panner wrote, is primarily a result of the system instituted by Mortgage Electronic, which was created in the 1990s by the mortgage industry to facilitate the process of bundling and reselling mortgages as securities.
The situation was so bad that on one day in May 2010 the company made three changes to the plaintiff's deed of trust on behalf of three different people, all certified by the same notary.
To find the paper trail, Panner ordered Mortgage Electronic to provide the court with a chain of title for the note and trust deed. The company uses a system it calls "summary and milestones" to track transfers of servicing and ownership rights of loans.
But the judge found numerous holes in the data. There is no record in the summary of how Guaranty Bank obtained its interest in the trust deed before transferring it to Wells Fargo, the ruling states. And neither Mortgage Electronic nor any of the banks recorded the transfers with the Jackson County land records office, where the property was situated, Panner wrote.
In fact, it took the homeowners' complaint to call attention to the fact that the documents filed last spring were "out of order" and appeared to be "rushed," thereby briefly stopping the foreclosure, according to the opinion.
"A lender that knows it will immediately sell a loan on the secondary market has no incentive to ensure the appraisal of the security is accurate," Panner wrote. "Similarly, the lender need not concern itself with the veracity of any representations made to the borrower. In short, the MERS system allows the lender to shirk its traditional due diligence duties."
Panner said the fact that an agency which can not accurately police itself has the authority to foreclose on people's homes was cause for concern.
"Foreclosure by advertisement and sale, which is designed to take place outside of any judicial review, necessarily relies on the foreclosing party to accurately review and assess its own authority to foreclose," the judge wrote. "Considering that non-judicial foreclosure of one's home is a particularly harsh event, and given the numerous problems I see in nearly every non-judicial foreclosure case I preside over, a procedure relying on a bank or trustee to self-assess its own authority to foreclose is deeply troubling to me."
This is one of six separate cases in which Oregon courts have halted foreclosures involving Mortgage Electronic.
Copyright Courthouse News Service
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
