Haywood Jackson Mizell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al.

Jack Mizell exercised the right of redemption and offered full loan payment to PHH and Wells Fargo yet both defendants refused to accept payment and thereafter both should be considered NON-HOLDERS-IN-DUE COURSE WITHOUT POWER OF SALE by their own words. PHH nor Wells Fargo would disclose who the note was sold to, which was Fannie Mae separating it from the mortgage. Regardless of Jack Mizell’s legal tender offered the note was recalled by PHH and thereafter PHH conducted a simulated foreclosure auction which was sold to banks (Fannie Mae’s) attorney and then resold to the City of Ozark for a large profit. PHH also refused to accept a bid from plaintiff Jack Mizell because they contended they were not the holders in due course yet initiated and conducted the fore-closure sale. In the end, PPH at the simulated auction excepted a credit bid from Fannie Mae’s attorney. From the above the issues in the lower court made a clearly erroneous ruling which is can be reversed and because there was fraud involved the normal statute of limitations does not apply as these lower courts applied. 1.Whether or not a mortgagee is required to “Surrender the unseparated mortgage and promissory note instruments of debt if full payment 1s made.” 2.Whether or not a mortgagee, without authority, can use absent power of sale in a simulated nonjudicial foreclosure auction to convey private property for public use in order for the public entity to evades payment of just compensation, the rogue foreclosure attorney to use the proceeds from the auction “trust