sd main logo

Credit Union Defrauds Widow

Credit Union Defrauds Widow

Menu

Terms Denied the Month Before

Notice of Breach Must Describe Deficiency

The credit union describes the default of the NOTE_1 Deed of Trust on the May 2016 Notice of Breach, worded identical as it was described in the July 2014 Notice of Breach.  Both notices reference a secured obligation of the NOTE_1 Deed of Trust; which secured repayment according to agreed upon Terms found in NOTE_1 and the (36) NOTE_1 payments with terms modified by NOTE_3 (NOTE_2 modified (11) NOTE_1 payments all complete).  DOWNLOAD NOTICE OF BREACH
NOTE_1 Payment Terms
NOTE_1 Payment Terms

Due Date Excludes NOTE_1

NOTE_1 terms set payments due on the 30th of each month excluding NOTE_1 from further consideration.  On the other hand, terms of NOTE_3 provide a due date of the 10th each month. Also, NOTE_3 modified monthly payments, prior to June 10, 2014, due for March 2014.
NOTE_3 Payment Terms
NOTE_3 Payment Terms

Payments DO NOT Exist!

The description the credit union includes refers to payments that do not exist because on June 10, 2014; the terms of NOTE_3 merge ALL remaining principle and interest into ONE payment due that day.  

Collectively, the different due date from NOTE_1 and balloon demand of NOTE_3 reveal neither obligation secured by the referenced deed of trust corresponds with the Credit union’s description. DOWNLOAD NOTE_1 and NOTE_2

Categorically Misrepresents Default

The default described on a notice of breach must correspond to terms agreed upon in a note the referenced deed of trust secured.  Default described by BDCU claims payments of $13,580.36 on the 10th of each month (“March 10, 2014 and all subsequent”).  

However, an obligation secured by the NOTE_1 Deed of Trust, made on June 10, 2014 or later, stated in terms of $13,580.36/month payments, categorically misrepresents the default by failing to provide material facts Nevada law mandates such descriptions include (such as a balloon demand). DOWNLOAD STAFF MEMO
Board Refuses Extension
Board Refuses Extension

Delinquent Payments Do Not Exist!

  • Board denied NOTE_3 after May 2014
  • NOTE_3 final payment due June 2014
  • ALL remaining principle and interest. 
  • NOTE_3 installments DO NOT EXIST!

Fraud Mocks Courts, Betrays Trust

“Cottages” Developer Earns $18M Payday
“Cottages” Developer Earns $18M Payday

Fraud Betrays Public Trust

As heinous, as the sudden demand to repay the loan appeared; the real crime had only begun.  Boulder Dam Credit Union’s notice of breach did not disclose the demand made to Anneliese.  Instead, the credit union claimed Anneliese stopped monthly.  The same payment denied by the Board the previous month.  

DECLARATIONS PROVE ESTES AND BUTLER CONSPIRACY

Estes submits (4) declarations between 2015-2017 facilitating the cruel, sadistic scheme to exploit a vulnerable Anneliese.  The fraud perpetrated on the Court, as much the victim; mocks the rule of law through misdirection and manipulation.  No Holding by a Court this Fraud taints credibly stands.

The (4) declaration rely on the “material “facts,” stated by the Notice, confirming those facts as true.  “Facts” proven false because the Board denied them. Estes and Butler incriminate one another, swearing to false facts as true and each other, as competent to say so, but neither the case.



Credit Union Mortgage Fraud