|FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF SANTA FE
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Deutsche Bank National Trust,
v. No. D-0101-CV-2005-00515
Karen Marie Kline, Pro Se, et al,
COMES NOW Karen Marie Kline and replies:
It is simply untrue that my motion raises no new factual or legal issues or arguments. My
motion is necessary: If the Court continues to refuse to file its Order denying a hearing to
determine the necessary accommodations under the ADA, Title II, for me to have due
process, I can show that it was denied as a matter of law in thirty days, even if there is no
That was the law on my Motion to Reconsider the Approval of Sale, so clearly, under the
Constitution’s Equal Protection clause that will be the law here, too.
To appeal, I need the Court’s order. Now, as a matter of law I will have it.
It is important that my mortgage gave me a right to reinstate after acceleration:
19. Borrower’s Right to Reinstate After Acceleration. If Borrower meets certain
conditions Borrower shall have the right to have enforcement of this Security Instrument
discontinued at any time prior to the earliest of: (a) five days before sale of the Property
pursuant to any power of sale contained in this Security Instrument; (b) such other period as
Applicable Law might specify for the termination of Borrower’s right to reinstate; or (c)
entry of judgment enforcing this Security Instrument. Those conditions are that Borrower:
(a) pays Lender all sums which then would be due under this Security Instrument and the
Note as if no acceleration had occurred; (b) cures any default of any other covenant or
agreements; (c) pays all expenses incurred in enforcing this Security Instrument, including,
but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees, property inspection and valuation fees, and
other fees incurred for the purpose of protecting Lender’s interest in the Property and rights
under this Security Instrument; and (d) takes such action as Lender may reasonably require
to assure that Lender’s interest in the Property and rights under this Security Instrument, and
Borrower’s obligation to pay the sums secured by this Security Instrument, shall continue
When I learned of the foreclosure and sale as a result of Rick Green calling my listing agent
to say he’d bought title, I borrowed money to complete the amount needed and I tried to file
on February 27, 2006, my petition for redemption. But the clerks refused my petition and
cashier’s check for $128,250.00 (the sum of Green’s $90,000, the illegal liens and interest).
So I called Ocwen, the servicer, and was told how much I needed to wire. I went directly to
my bank and wired the amount and more to cover my next month’s payment, see attached
copy of wire instructions for $16,023.72. On March 8, 2006, more than five (5) days after
my payment, the Court approved the sale, ignoring my right to reinstate. Several days later
Ocwen wired my money back. In terms of the judgment, I was wrongfully barred from
doing anything before it because in violation of my due process rights, there was no hearing.
The Court was deaf to my pleadings.
The fact that Mr. Green was allowed to redeem my condo on the basis of liens that were
not judgment liens and were never authenticated as being valid is shocking and should shock
the conscience of anyone who values the Constitution of the United States of America. I
repeatedly asked for a hearing to determine the amount due on the liens, and was ignored.
That is an incredible violation of my due process rights. Why is the Court favoring a real
estate agent? one reported to be the real estate agent of a Condo Association director and
New Mexico Statute says:
No lien provided for in this act [48-4-1 to 48-4-4 NMSA 1978] shall bind any real estate for
a longer period than one (1) year after the same has been filed, unless proceedings be
commenced in the district court in and for the county in which the real estate or any of it,
described in said lien, is located within that time, to enforce the lien. The proceedings for
enforcement of said claims of lien shall be under the rules of pleading, practice and
procedure in the district courts and such proceedings shall be had as in the case of the
foreclosure of mortgages upon real estate; and the court may allow as part of the costs of
foreclosure, the moneys paid for the preparation of the claim of lien and for the filing and
recording thereof, and reasonable attorney's fees in the district and supreme courts.
The Condo Association liens were in excess of anything the Association was authorized to
claim under the Condominium Act. A hearing on material facts was needed.
Crocker’s lien for the pier that he admitted was the wrong size was older than a year and
Crocker had never commenced proceedings. Yet I had to defend against Cook’s redemption
petition based on that lien. At the same time I was given no opportunity to redeem my
property because the Fenton case says that the first to file wins. I could not be first because
1.) I didn’t know about the foreclosure judgment until after the sale and, 2.) because the
Court gave the Approval of Sale Order to Green’s attorney to file, and right after he filed it
he filed Green’s petition. The Court gave the redemption to Rick Green’s attorney when it
did that, which is prejudicial.
For anyone who owns property and has equity, the Fenton case takes that equity from them
and gives it to any acquisitive person who cares to take advantage. The Fenton decision
hurts old people who have paid the longest on their property, and it sets old people with
equity up as prey to Realtors or any other who sees how to take advantage of them under
the Fenton decision.
My property was foreclosed and sold and there was no hearing at which I could be heard.
Really this should shock the conscience of any Constitution loving American.
When any American court can flout the Constitution as retaliation or because of any
personal reason or incentive, then all Americans are decreased in their rights by that awful
violation. (I filed a federal case against a Judge Hall for refusing to accommodate my
disability: I had prepared for a Rule 56, Summary Judgment hearing and had brought
evidence. But Judge Hall said he was not going to follow Rule 56 regarding Summary
Judgments and would not let me produce the evidence. What is especially important about
this is that it was in my 2003 libel case against the New Mexican for publishing a piece
written by Christopher Alba that contained false statements of fact regarding exactly this
property, my condo at 729 W. Manhattan #3, and its common elements. Three of the many
false statements of fact published in the piece were these, “the real culprit: a nearby broken
sewer pipe,” “she decided to retreat from reason,” and “She ignored the counsel of everyone
who advised her.” The fact is that the privy pit was the real culprit because it kept subsiding
as the excrement in it continued to rot and decay and the subsidence of the privy pit caused
the sewer pit to break; the fact is that every step of the way I followed the advice of the
structural engineer hired by the condo association’s insurance, and it was reasonable to
follow his advice. I was denied my right to produce proof and now people in Santa Fe and
beyond question whether there was a privy pit. Rick Green said to me, when I called him
personally trying to redeem, that I was very bad to lie about the privy pit. I mean, how
shocking is that! There should be no question about the privy pit because I should have been
able to raise all the facts in court.) That particular type of court case is made legal and
available by the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title II, “Title II's enforcement provision
incorporates by reference §505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 92 Stat. 2982, as added,
29 U. S. C. §794a, which authorizes private citizens to bring suits for money damages. 42 U.
S. C. §12133.”
At the same time the Appeals Court was denying me free process saying I had equity in my
home. But how could I sell my home in the time given to file an appeal? I had no cash
money to use. The privy pit has caused me poverty and I should have been allowed the
default judgment against Wally Sargent, the developer who personally sold me my condo,
when he did not answer my Third Party Complaint and the Certificate as to the State of the
Record showed this fact in each of my other two foreclosures which his sale to me of this
unhealthy condo which I paid to remediate and then apparently lost to the real estate agent of
the condo association director and officer who wanted to buy my condo from me years ago
at a reduced rate, And, who refused to pay the Condo Association’s share of the remediation
which drove me into poverty and bankruptcy.
When a court can take my home and refuse me via the Fenton decision the right of
redemption provided in my mortgage, “If this Security Instrument is foreclosed, the
redemption period after judicial sale shall be one month,” page 15 of 16, then that court is
diminishing the rights of every American homeowner, whether they realize it or not. Also,
page 15 of 16 was not included by Deutsche in the copy of the Mortgage that it filed with the
Complaint. Deutsche had a duty to file a complete copy to include my redemption right.
Deutsche should be ordered to make good and everything from the service of the incomplete
Mortgage forward should be set aside.
New Mexico Statute provides at 3-36-7 for the application of proceeds from sale of
property pursuant to a foreclosure sale, and states,
C. third, after all such costs, liens, assessments and taxes are paid, to the former owner,
mortgage holder or other parties having an interest in the tract or parcel, upon such person
providing satisfactory proof to the court of such interest and upon approval of the court.
Yet the court returned the $5,000 difference between Green’s bid of $90,000 and the
amount due of $85,000 to Green, in yet another apparent violation of my legal rights.
Diminished rights often seem less than important to people who have not felt the
diminishment. Sometimes it is too late to react to the loss of rights because the diminishment
has been so gradual. Sometimes it is so unrelenting that it feels like a hopeless disaster. In
this case, the Court took my condo without allowing me a hearing, the Court allowed a
violation of the automatic stay when under federal bankruptcy law, 11 U.S.C. §362(h) a
violation of the automatic stay requires mandatory damages, the Court refused to have a
hearing on the actual amount due on the liens, the Court refused to have a hearing on my
disability to determine what additional time I had a right to because of my mental disability
and this despite the fact I had supplied the court with my Neuropsychological Evaluation
showing that I’ve lost about half my processing speed and working memory, and the Court
ignored and violated my right to reinstate my mortgage after acceleration and the Court
ignored the fact I had sent Ocwen the total amount of money due to reinstate my mortgage
after acceleration as per paragraph 19 of my mortgage. There should be relief for each of
these damaging diminishments.
WHEREFORE, I pray the court deny the redemption petition of Green, vacate the hearings
and orders which have denied me due process, set a hearing on my disability and the need
for accommodation so that the actual date that I would have had to file an Answer to the
Complaint can be clearly identified so that it can be seen whether or not the date on which
Leverick filed for default judgment was proper under the law, require Leverick to make good
and file a complete copy of the mortgage with the Complaint as is required, and allow me to
reinstate my loan as is my right provided by my mortgage, and all other relief which is right
Karen Marie Kline
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87507
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I hereby certify that I caused to be mailed a true copy of
the above on July 21, 2006, to:
John Hayes 530 B. Harkle Rd Santa Fe, NM 87505
Richard Leverick 5120 San Francisco Rd. NE Albq, NM 87109
Rodney Schlagel & Sherrill Filter, PO 3170 Albuq., NM 87190
|RESPONSE TO REPLY TO KAREN MARIE KLINE’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER
ORDER GRANTING AMENDED AND RESTATED REDEMPTION PETITION OF
RICHARD B. GREEN AND ORDER DENYING ORAL MOTION FOR HEARING
ON DISABILITY TO DETERMINE WHAT ACCOMMODATION IS NEEDED
PURSUANT TO THE ADA, TITLE II