On February 16, 2017 I filed a complaint against J. Scott Lundberg USB# 2020 with the Utah Stat Bar of which I alleged and stated the following:
I filed a complaint against J. Scott Lundberg on January 23, 2016 which ended with Lundberg withdrawing their foreclsoure practice against my home aong with the Bar stating that it ordinarily does not intercede where there is a more appropirate forum.
My January 23rd complaint brought to the attention of Lundberg copies of documents proving that their client had no legal or equitable interest in my loan which Lundberg, upon receipt of these documents, immediatily forwarded them to their client whom in trun stopped thier foreclosure practice.
Never at any time has lundberg or his law firm, or the client they represent to foreclose on my property, have ever provided any kind of documentation to me suggesting my documnets as being wrong or inacurate.
Since my January 23rd complaint I have made several written requests to the banking entity who alleges rights to my loan. I reminded them of documents I provided to them from my earily correspondances that prove they have no legal rights in regards to my loan at all. All of my requests were ignored and Lundberg knows this. Also Lundberg knows that in the case of Bank of N.Y. for the Certificatholders Cwalt, Inc. V. Cepada, 39 Misc. 3d 1221, 972 N.Y.S. 2d 142, 2013 NY Slip Op. 50686 (H.Y. Sup. Ct. '2013) it found that an agency acting as a nominee for an owner of a mortgage loan may not effectively assign the note and mortgage, and were therfore stopped form doing a foreclosure. This is also in my case as well. This Lundberg ignores.
Lundberg has had in their posession for over a year documentation proving that his client has no right to foreclose on my property which he ignores. This is in violation of 15. USC Sec. 1692e.
My renewed complaint to the Bar concerns not who owns my loan or any dollar amounts. My complaint is agaisnt Lundberg for violating his fudiciary duty to be honest and to avoid deceptive pracatices which is a violation of being an officer of the court. The appeal court " . . . explained that attorneys have a duty "to seek the truth and to do justice" and that"[i]t runs contrary to this purpose and casts an unfavorable reflection upon the integrity of the court [for attorneys to do otherwise] . . . And it runs contrary and cast an unfavorable reflection upon the integrity of the court for attorneys to lie." (Second brackets added). Pioneer Builders Co. Of Nev. v. K D A Corp., 2012 Ut 74 292 P.3d 672.
Rule 14-501 of the Utah Rules Of Profesional Conduct doesn't allow for attorney's to be dishonest. Lawyers first have a duty to seek the truth and justice and to reframe from all deceptive practices either by themselves or by the clients they represent. It is a deceptive practice of Lundberg to foreclosre upon my home when he knows his clients have no legal right to do so.
When I filed my first compalint to the Bar against Lundberg this was his response: “. . . it is not the obligation of an attorney to require that a client prove its right to service a loan nor the information it provides regarding ownership of the loan – at least no without some other indication that the information provided is incorrect.” Lundberg has admitted that as an officer of the court, when there is indication that his client has no right to foreclose on a loan, he has an obligation to verify that his client has the right to foreclose. But does he do this, NO!! In my situation he should had instructed his client to address my claims and to have it resolved as best they can before seeking a foreclosing outside the court. Lundberg here is going against his own claim which is deceptive.
Also in response to my first complaint to the Bar it stated that it ordinarily does not intercede where this is a more appropriate forum. If lawyers have a fiduciary responsibility to be honest and to seek the truth, then the Bar must understand that this is the right forum under this circumstance to check if Lundberg is being honest and seeking the truth with his client in order to verify any legal right to foreclose.
Another reason this Bar forum is proper is because the only other forum available to me would be a lawsuit. How can this be just when Lunberg can wrongfully foreclose outside of the court while leaving me with no recourse outside the court to stop a wrongful foreclosure. Being that there exist no forum outside the court to stop a wrongful foreclosure, this forum becomes the only forum available outside the court which would be to check the honesty of Lundberg whom under this circumstance has an obligation to verify with his client to make sure that his client has the legal right to foreclose, which verification should be shown to me in order to address my allegations.
An added good practice for Lundberg would be to advice his client to address my documents and allegations. I have the right to know who owns my mortgage including who has the right to foreclose and to address any other important concerns.
Lunberg knows I have made claims with documentation proving that his client has no legal right to foreclose on my property. Lunberg is now ignoring my claim the same way Bayview has done. This is a deceptive practice and Lunberg knows that the only way I can stop him is to bring it to court; heavily burdensome and unfairly unjust when he can proceed outside the court to take my property. A wrongful non-judicial foreclosure shouldn’t put a person in court to stop it. If you can foreclose outside the court you should be able to stop it outside the court otherwise the law benefits one to the demise of the other. As an officer of the Court does Lundberg care. NO!! Lundberg is like a hired gun with no moral preception or code (he may even be LDS), he get's paid to shoot whomever his client wants
Again, this isn’t a claim for the Bar to resolve as to who owns my note, or how much money is due or any default, I have already declared with proof who owns my note with no denial from Lundberg or his client. This is a claim against Lunberg who has violated his fiduciary responsibility as an officer of the court as stated above, to be honest, to seek the truth and justice, not to ignore the truth and take property because you have a big client against a little guy.
An act of justice would have been for Lundberg or his client, after my many requests, to at least provide documentation in contravention to my documents, but he nor his client have done so.
Under this circumstance, Lundberg should be checked for his dishonesty for failing to address or recognize documents that prove his client has no right to foreclose. And because he can commit such dishonesty outside the court which can result of the taking of property, I should have a recourse outside the court to stop it, this is the only recourse available outside the court which indeed is a very effective one.
Furthermore, Lundberg’s website boasts of Lundberg as being “AV” rated. If his expertise as an attorney is of such a high rating then it can only be assumed that he is impugned with the knowledge that the notice of default and election to sell, that he signed against my property, is barred by the statute of limitations, and that his action herein of being dishonest does not stem from his “AV” rating which actions come in complete disregard to the case of Pioneer as stated above. And in regards to the statute of limitation on a nonjudicial foreclosure, the case of Walcker v. Benson and McLaughlin, P.S., 904 P.2d 1176, 79 Wn.App. 739 (Wash. App. Div. 3, 1995) stated that “Elmer and Stella Walcker appeal the Superior Court's order dismissing their action to quiet title. They contend that, because the statute of limitations has expired on enforcement of the underlying promissory note, Benson and McLaughlin, P.S., should not be permitted to proceed with its nonjudicial foreclosure of a deed of trust. We agree.”
How important is it for attorneys to be subject to the case of Pioneer including Lundberg, and how important is it for an officer of the court to be honest in the practice of law especially when they can take property outside the court?
The failure of the Bar to check the honesty of lawyers that it gives licenses to has produced what we have today; a society that suffers much from corrupt and dishonest lawyers who become judges too. The Bar has the power to bring much respect to our officers of the court then what exists today. It’s been said that the only people who like attorneys are wanna be attorneys.
I hope the Bar discipline Lundberg for his dishonest as has been represented above!
Lundberg & Associates Reviews
On February 16, 2017 I filed a complaint against J. Scott Lundberg USB# 2020 with the Utah Stat Bar of which I alleged and stated the following:
I filed a complaint against J. Scott Lundberg on January 23, 2016 which ended with Lundberg withdrawing their foreclsoure practice against my home aong with the Bar stating that it ordinarily does not intercede where there is a more appropirate forum.
My January 23rd complaint brought to the attention of Lundberg copies of documents proving that their client had no legal or equitable interest in my loan which Lundberg, upon receipt of these documents, immediatily forwarded them to their client whom in trun stopped thier foreclosure practice.
Never at any time has lundberg or his law firm, or the client they represent to foreclose on my property, have ever provided any kind of documentation to me suggesting my documnets as being wrong or inacurate.
Since my January 23rd complaint I have made several written requests to the banking entity who alleges rights to my loan. I reminded them of documents I provided to them from my earily correspondances that prove they have no legal rights in regards to my loan at all. All of my requests were ignored and Lundberg knows this. Also Lundberg knows that in the case of Bank of N.Y. for the Certificatholders Cwalt, Inc. V. Cepada, 39 Misc. 3d 1221, 972 N.Y.S. 2d 142, 2013 NY Slip Op. 50686 (H.Y. Sup. Ct. '2013) it found that an agency acting as a nominee for an owner of a mortgage loan may not effectively assign the note and mortgage, and were therfore stopped form doing a foreclosure. This is also in my case as well. This Lundberg ignores.
Lundberg has had in their posession for over a year documentation proving that his client has no right to foreclose on my property which he ignores. This is in violation of 15. USC Sec. 1692e.
My renewed complaint to the Bar concerns not who owns my loan or any dollar amounts. My complaint is agaisnt Lundberg for violating his fudiciary duty to be honest and to avoid deceptive pracatices which is a violation of being an officer of the court. The appeal court " . . . explained that attorneys have a duty "to seek the truth and to do justice" and that"[i]t runs contrary to this purpose and casts an unfavorable reflection upon the integrity of the court [for attorneys to do otherwise] . . . And it runs contrary and cast an unfavorable reflection upon the integrity of the court for attorneys to lie." (Second brackets added). Pioneer Builders Co. Of Nev. v. K D A Corp., 2012 Ut 74 292 P.3d 672.
Rule 14-501 of the Utah Rules Of Profesional Conduct doesn't allow for attorney's to be dishonest. Lawyers first have a duty to seek the truth and justice and to reframe from all deceptive practices either by themselves or by the clients they represent. It is a deceptive practice of Lundberg to foreclosre upon my home when he knows his clients have no legal right to do so.
When I filed my first compalint to the Bar against Lundberg this was his response: “. . . it is not the obligation of an attorney to require that a client prove its right to service a loan nor the information it provides regarding ownership of the loan – at least no without some other indication that the information provided is incorrect.” Lundberg has admitted that as an officer of the court, when there is indication that his client has no right to foreclose on a loan, he has an obligation to verify that his client has the right to foreclose. But does he do this, NO!! In my situation he should had instructed his client to address my claims and to have it resolved as best they can before seeking a foreclosing outside the court. Lundberg here is going against his own claim which is deceptive.
Also in response to my first complaint to the Bar it stated that it ordinarily does not intercede where this is a more appropriate forum. If lawyers have a fiduciary responsibility to be honest and to seek the truth, then the Bar must understand that this is the right forum under this circumstance to check if Lundberg is being honest and seeking the truth with his client in order to verify any legal right to foreclose.
Another reason this Bar forum is proper is because the only other forum available to me would be a lawsuit. How can this be just when Lunberg can wrongfully foreclose outside of the court while leaving me with no recourse outside the court to stop a wrongful foreclosure. Being that there exist no forum outside the court to stop a wrongful foreclosure, this forum becomes the only forum available outside the court which would be to check the honesty of Lundberg whom under this circumstance has an obligation to verify with his client to make sure that his client has the legal right to foreclose, which verification should be shown to me in order to address my allegations.
An added good practice for Lundberg would be to advice his client to address my documents and allegations. I have the right to know who owns my mortgage including who has the right to foreclose and to address any other important concerns.
Lunberg knows I have made claims with documentation proving that his client has no legal right to foreclose on my property. Lunberg is now ignoring my claim the same way Bayview has done. This is a deceptive practice and Lunberg knows that the only way I can stop him is to bring it to court; heavily burdensome and unfairly unjust when he can proceed outside the court to take my property. A wrongful non-judicial foreclosure shouldn’t put a person in court to stop it. If you can foreclose outside the court you should be able to stop it outside the court otherwise the law benefits one to the demise of the other. As an officer of the Court does Lundberg care. NO!! Lundberg is like a hired gun with no moral preception or code (he may even be LDS), he get's paid to shoot whomever his client wants
Again, this isn’t a claim for the Bar to resolve as to who owns my note, or how much money is due or any default, I have already declared with proof who owns my note with no denial from Lundberg or his client. This is a claim against Lunberg who has violated his fiduciary responsibility as an officer of the court as stated above, to be honest, to seek the truth and justice, not to ignore the truth and take property because you have a big client against a little guy.
An act of justice would have been for Lundberg or his client, after my many requests, to at least provide documentation in contravention to my documents, but he nor his client have done so.
Under this circumstance, Lundberg should be checked for his dishonesty for failing to address or recognize documents that prove his client has no right to foreclose. And because he can commit such dishonesty outside the court which can result of the taking of property, I should have a recourse outside the court to stop it, this is the only recourse available outside the court which indeed is a very effective one.
Furthermore, Lundberg’s website boasts of Lundberg as being “AV” rated. If his expertise as an attorney is of such a high rating then it can only be assumed that he is impugned with the knowledge that the notice of default and election to sell, that he signed against my property, is barred by the statute of limitations, and that his action herein of being dishonest does not stem from his “AV” rating which actions come in complete disregard to the case of Pioneer as stated above. And in regards to the statute of limitation on a nonjudicial foreclosure, the case of Walcker v. Benson and McLaughlin, P.S., 904 P.2d 1176, 79 Wn.App. 739 (Wash. App. Div. 3, 1995) stated that “Elmer and Stella Walcker appeal the Superior Court's order dismissing their action to quiet title. They contend that, because the statute of limitations has expired on enforcement of the underlying promissory note, Benson and McLaughlin, P.S., should not be permitted to proceed with its nonjudicial foreclosure of a deed of trust. We agree.”
How important is it for attorneys to be subject to the case of Pioneer including Lundberg, and how important is it for an officer of the court to be honest in the practice of law especially when they can take property outside the court?
The failure of the Bar to check the honesty of lawyers that it gives licenses to has produced what we have today; a society that suffers much from corrupt and dishonest lawyers who become judges too. The Bar has the power to bring much respect to our officers of the court then what exists today. It’s been said that the only people who like attorneys are wanna be attorneys.
I hope the Bar discipline Lundberg for his dishonest as has been represented above!