This is the (very very) brief take:
In the instant action, Ms. Johnson-Seck claims to be: a Vice President of MERS in the March 16, 2009 MERS to INDYMAC assignment; a Vice President of INDYMAC in the May 14, 2009 INDYMAC to ONEWEST assignment; and, a Vice President of ONEWEST in her June 30, 2009-affidavit of merit.Ms. Johnson-Seck must explain to the Court, in her affidavit: her employment history for the past three years; and, why a conflict of interest does not exist in the instant action with her acting as a Vice President of assignor MERS, a Vice President of assignee/assignor INDYMAC, and a Vice President of assignee/plaintiff ONEWEST.
While Ms. Johnson-Seck may explain her employment at IndyMac and OneWest easily (the latter was a successor-corporation of the former), it will be a bit more interesting to see her affadavit's explanation of the MERS Vice-Presidency, as MERS had no employees.
None.
HT: Denninger
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment