Certified Forensic Loan Auditors, LLC

 
  Upcoming Classes

Search CFLA's Article Archive:

Overcoming Res Judicata with the Law of Voids

by Greg 'da Goose | May 28, 2017

EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT VOID JUDGMENTS BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK!

Excerpts from VOID JUDGEMENT by Cornforth (215 pps)

If you are caught in a situation where you are just learning how to defend yourself after a judgment has already been rendered in your case and you have discovered jurisdictional failures in the plaintiff’s case or worse, instances of fraud by the plaintiff or their attorneys to force the hand of the judge in the case to make an expedient or default judgment… consider these…


Void judgments are those rendered by a court which lacked jurisdiction either of the subject matter or the parties, Wahl v. Round Valley Bank 38 Ariz. 41 1, 300 P. 955 (1931); Tube City Mining & Milling Co. v. Otterson, 16 Ariz. 305, 146 P. 203 (1914); and Milliken v. Meyer, 31 1 U.S. 457, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 2d 278 (1940).

A void judgment which includes judgment entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or lacks inherent Dower to enter the particular judgment. or an order procured by fraud,can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court. Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 ( C.A. 7 Ill. 1999).

A void judgment is one which from its inception was a complete nullity and without legal effect, Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 2 7, 453 F.2d 645, 14 A.L.R. Fed. 298 (C.A. 1 Mass. 1972).

A void judgment is one which from the beginning was complete nullity and without any legal effect, Hobbs v. US. Office of Personnel Management, 485 F. Supp. 456 — (M.D. Fla. 1980).

Void judgment is one that, from its inception, is complete nullity and without legal effect, Holstein v. City of Chicago, 803 F.Supp. 205, reconsideration denied 149 F.R.D. 147, affirmed 29 F.3d 1145 (N.D. I11 1992).

Void judgment is one where court lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction or entry of order violated due process, U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5 – Triad Energy Cop. v. McNell 110 F.R.D. 382 (S.D.N.Y. 1986).

Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process, Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4), 28 U.S.C.A.; U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5 – Hugh v. US., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985).

A void judgment is one which, from its inception, was, was a complete nullity and without legal effect, Rubin v. Johns, 109 F.R.D. 174 (D. Virgin Islands 1985).

A void judgment is one which fiom its inception is and forever continues to be absolutely null. without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind the parties or to support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of enforcement in any manner or to any degreeLoyd v. Director, Dept. of Public Safety, 480 So. 2d 577 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).

A judgment shown by evidence to be invalid for want of jurisdiction is a void judgment or at all events has all attributes of a void judgment, City of Los Angeles v. Morgan, 234 P.2d 319 (CaLApp. 2 Dist. 1951).

Void judgment which is subject to collateral attack is simulated judgment devoid of any potency because of jurisdictional defects, Ward v. Terriere. 386 P.2d 352 (Colo. 1963).

A void judgment is a simulated judgment devoid of any potency because of jurisdictional defects only, in the court rendering it and defect of jurisdiction may relate to a party or parties, the subject matter, the cause of action, the question to be determined, or relief to be granted, Davidson Chevrolet, Inc. v. City and County of Denver, 330 P.2d 1 1 16, certiorari denied 79 S.Ct. 609, 359 U.S. 926, 3 L.Ed. 2d 629 (Colo. 1958).

Void judgment is one entered by court without Jurisdiction of parties or subject matter or that lacks inherent power to make or enter particular order involved and such a judgment may be attacked at any time, either directly or collaterally, People v. Wade, 506 N.W.2d 954 (Ill. 1987).

Void judgment may be defined as one in which rendering court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, lacked personal jurisdiction or acted in manner inconsistent with due process of law, Eckel v. MacNeal, 628 N.E. 2d 741 (Ill. App. Dist. 1993).

Void judgment is one entered by court without jurisdiction of parties or subject matter or that lacks inherent power to make or enter particular order involved; such judgment may be attacked at any time, either directly or collaterally, People v. Sales, 55 1 N.E.2d 1359 (II1.App. 2 Dist. 1990).

Res judicata consequences will not be applied to a void judgment which is one which from its inception is a complete nullity and without legal effect, Allcock v. Allcock 437 N.E. 2d 392 (Ill. App. 3 Dist. 1982).

Void judgment is one which, from its inception is complete nullity and without legal effect, In re Marriage of Parks, 630 N.E. 2d 509 (Ill.App. 5 Dist. 1994).

Void judgment is one entered by court that lacks the inherent power to make or enter the particular order involved, and it may be attacked at any time, either directly or collaterally; such a judgment would be a nullity, People v. Rolland 581 N.E.2d 907, Ill.App. 4 Dist. 1991).

Void judgment under federal law is one in which rendering court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over dispute or jurisdiction over parties, or acted in manner inconsistent with due process of law or otherwise acted unconstitutionally in entering
judgment, U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5, Hays v. Louisiana Dock Co., 452 NE.2D 1383 Ill. App. 5 Dist.1983).

A void judgment has no effect whatsoever and is incapable of confirmation or ratification, Lucas v. Estate of Stavos, 609 N. E. 2d 1114, rehearing denied, and transfer denied (Ind. App. 1 dist. 1993).

Void judgment is one that from its inception is a complete nullity and without legal effect, Stidham v Whelchel, 698 N.E.2d 1152 (Ind. 1998).

Relief form void judgment is available when trial court lacked either personal or subject matter jurisdiction, Dusenberry v. Dusenberry, 625 N.E. 2d 458 (Ind.App. 1 Dist. 1993).

Void judgment is one rendered by court which lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction or acted in manner inconsistent with due process, U.S.C.A. Const. Amends. 5, 14 Matter of Marriage of Hampshire, 869 P.2d 58 ( Kan. 1997).

Judgment is void if court that rendered it lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction; void judgment is nullity and may be vacated at any time, Matter of Marriage of Welliver, 869 P.2d 653 (Kan. 1994).

A void judgment is one rendered by a court which lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process, In re Estate of Wells, 983 P.2d 279, (Kan. App. 1999).

Void judgment is one rendered in absence of jurisdiction over subject matter or parties, 310 N.W. 2d 502, (Minn. 1981).

A void judgment is one rendered in absence of jurisdiction over subject matter or parties, Lange v. Johnson, 204 N.W.2d 205 Minn. 1973).

A void judgment is one which has merely semblance, without some essential element, as when court purporting to render it has no jurisdiction, Mills v. Richardson, 81 S.E. 2d 409, (N.C. 1954).

A void judgment is one which has a mere semblance, but is lacking in some of the essential elements which would authorize
the court to proceed to judgment, Henderson v. Henderson, 59 S.E. 2d 227, (N.C. 1950).

Void judgment is one entered by court without jurisdiction to enter such judgment, State v Blankenship 675 N.E. 2d 1303, (Ohio App. 9 Dist. 1996).

Void judgment, such as may be vacated at any time is one whose invalidity appears on face of judgment roll, Graff v. Kelly, 814 P.2d 489 (Okl. 1991).

A void judgment is one that is void on face of judgment roll, Capital Federal Savings Bank v. Bewley, 795 P.2d 1051 (Okl. 1990).

Where condition of bail bond was that defendant would appear at present term of court, judgment forfeiting bond for defendant’s bail to appear at subsequent term was a void judgment within rule that laches does not run against a void judgment, Corn. V. Miller, 150 A.2d 585 (Pa. Super. 1959).

A void judgment is one in which the judgment is facially invalid because the court lacked jurisdiction or authority to render the judgment, State v. Richie, 20 S.W.3d 624 (Tenn. 2000).

Void judgment is one which shows upon face of record want of jurisdiction in court assuming to render judgment, and want of jurisdiction may be either of person, subject matter generally, particular question to be decided or relief assumed to be given, State ex rel. Dawson v. Bomar, 354 S.W. 2d 763, certiorari denied, (Tenn. 1962).

A void judgment is one which shows upon face of record a want of jurisdiction in court assuming to render the judgment, Underwood v. Brown, 244 S.W. 2d 168 (Tern. 1951).

A void judgment is one which shows on face of record the want of jurisdiction in court assuming to render judgment, which want of jurisdiction may be either of the person, or of the subject matter generally, or of the particular question attempted to decided or relief assumed to be given, Richardson v. Mitchell, 237 S.W. 2d 577, (Tenn.Ct. App. 1950).

Void judgment is one which has no legal force or effect whatever, it is an absolute nullity, its invalidity may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place and it need not be attacked directly but may be attacked collaterally whenever and wherever it is interposed, City of Lufkin v. McVicker, 510 S.W. 2d 141 (Tex. Civ. App. – Beaumont 1973).

A void judgment, insofar as it purports to be pronouncement of court, is an absolute nullity, Thompson v. Thompson, 238 S. W.2d 21 8 (Tex.Civ. App. – Waco 1951).

A void judgment is one that has been procured by extrinsic or collateral fraud, or entered by court that did to have jurisdiction
over subject matter or the parties, Rook v. Rook. 353 S.E. 2d 756, (Va. 1987).

A void judgment is a judgment, decree, or order entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction of the parties or of the subject
matter, or which lacks the inherent power to make or enter the particular order involved, State ex rel. Turner v. Briggs, 971 P.2d 581 (Wash. App. Div. 1999).

A void judgment or order is one that is entered by a court lacking jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter. or lacking the inherent power to enter the particular order or judgment, or where the order was procured by fraud, In re Adoption of EL.,
733 N.E.2d 846, (Ill. App. 1 Dist. 2000).

Void judgments are those rendered by court which lacked jurisdiction, either of subject matter or parties, Cockerham v. Zikratch, 61 9 P.2d 739 (Ariz. 1980).

Void judgments generally fall into two classifications, that is, judgments where there is want of jurisdiction of person or subject matter, and judgments procured through fraud, and such judgments may be attacked directly or collaterally, Irving v. Rodriquez, 169 N.E.2d 145, (Ill.app. 2 Dist. 1960).

Invalidity need to appear on face of judgment alone that judgment or order may be said to be intrinsically void or void on
its face, if lack of jurisdiction appears from the record, Crockett Oil Co. v. Effie, 374 S.W.2d 154 (Mo.App. 1964).

Decision is void on the face of the judgment roll when from four comers of that roll, it may be determined that at least one of three elements of jurisdiction was absent: (1) jurisdiction over parties, (2) jurisdiction over subject matter, or (3) jurisdictional power to pronounce particular judgment that was rendered, B & C Investments, Inc. v. F & M Nat. Bank & Trust, 903 P.2d 339 (Okla. App. Div. 3, 1995).

Void order may be attacked, either directly or collaterally, at any time, In re Estate of Steinfield, 630 N.E.2d 801, certiorari denied, See also Steinfield v. Hoddick, 513 U.S. 809, (Ill. 1994).

A void order which is one entered by court which lacks jurisdiction over parties or subject matter, or lacks inherent power to enter judgment, or order procured by fraud, can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that party is properly before court, People ex rel Brzica v. Village of Lake Barrington, 644 N.E.2d 66 (Ill-App. 2 Dist. 1994).

While voidable orders are readily appealable and must be attacked directly, a void order may be circumvented by collateral attack or remedied by mandamus, Sanchez v. Hester, 91 1 S.W.2d 173, (TexApp. – Corpus Christi 1995).

Arizona courts give great weight to federal courts’ interpretations of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure governing motion for relief from judgment in interpreting identical text of Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure, Estate of Page v. Litzenburg, 852 P.2d 128, review denied (Ariz.App. Div. 1, 1998).

When rule providing for relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is not a discretionary matter, but is mandatory, Oner v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307, (Colo. 1994).

Judgments entered where court lacked either subject matter or personal jurisdiction or that were otherwise entered in violation of due process of law, must be set aside, Jaffe and Asher v. Van Brunt, S.D.N.Y. 1994. 158 F.R.D. 278.

A “void” judgment, as we all know, grounds no rights, forms no defense to actions taken thereunder, and is vulnerable to any
manner of collateral attack (thus here, by). No statute of limitations or repose runs on its holdings, the matters thought to be settled thereby are not res judicata and years later, when the memories may have grown dim and rights long been regarded as vested, any disgruntled litigant may reopen the old wound and once more probe its depths. And it is then as though trial and adjudication had never been. 10/13/58 FRITTS v. KRUGH. SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN, 92 N. W.2d 604,3 54 Mich. 97.

0n certiorari this Court may not review questions of fact. Brawn v. Blanchard. 39 Mich 790. It is not at liberty to determine disputed facts (Hyde v. Nelson, 11 Mich 353), nor to review the weight of the evidence. Linn v. Roberts. 15 Mich 443: Lynch v. People. 16 Mich 472. Certiorari is an appropriate remedy to get rid of a void judgment, one which there is no evidence to sustain. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. Hunt, 39 Mich 469.

The really big deal, the real issue in void judgments is, tah, dum, de dum, SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION!!!!

Remember, subject matter can never be presumed, never be waived, and cannot be constructed even by mutual consent of the parties.

Subject matter jurisdiction is two part: the statutory or common law authority for the court to hear the case and the appearance and testimony of a competent fact witness, in other words, sufficiency of pleadings.

Subject matter jurisdictional failings:
(1) no Petition in the record of the case, Brown v. VanKeuren, 340 Ill. 118, 122 1930),
(2) defective Petition filed, Brown v. VanKeuren, 340 Ill. 118, 122 1930),
(3) fraud committed in the procurement of jurisdiction, Fredman Brothers Furniture v Dept. of Revenue,109 Il1.2d 202,486 N.E. 2d 893 (1985),
(4) fraud upon the court, In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 IIl.App.3d 393 (1962)
(5) a judge does not follow statutory procedure, Armstrong v Obucino, 300 Ill. 140, 143 (1921),
(6) unlawful activity of a judge, Code of Judicial Conduct,
(7) violation of due process, Johnson v Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 10 19 (1938); Pure Oil Co. v City of Northlake, 10 Il1.2d 241, 245, 140 N.E.2d 289 (1956); Hallberg v Goldblatt Bros., 363 Ill 25 (1936),
(8) if the court exceeded its statutory authority, Rosenstiel v Rosenstiel, 278 F.Supp. 794 (S.D.N.Y.1967),
(9) any acts in violation of 11 U.S.C. 362(a), In re Garcia, 109 B.R. 335 (N.D. Illinois, 1989),
(10) where no justiciable issue is presented to the court through proper pleadings, Ligon v Williams, 264 III.App.3d 701, 637 N.E.2d 633 (1st Dist. 1994),
(11) where a complaint states no cognizable cause of action against that party, Charles v Gore, 248 Ill.App.3d 441, 618 N.E. 2d 554 (1st Dist 1993),
(12) where any litigant was represented before a court by a person or law firm that is prohibited by law to practice law in that jurisdiction,
(13) when the judge is involved in a scheme of bribery (the Alemann cases, Bracey v Warden, U.S. Supreme Court No. 96-6133 (June 9, 1997),
(14) where a summons was not properly issued,
(15) where service of process was not made pursuant to statute and Supreme Court Rules, Janove v Bacon, 6 Ill.2d 245,249, 218 N.E.2d 706, 708 (1955),
(16) when the Rules of the Circuit Court are not complied with,
(17) when the Local Rules of the special court are not complied with,
(18) where the judge does not act impartially, Bracey v Warden, U.S. Supreme Court No. 96-6 133 (June 9, 1997),
(19) where the statute is vague, People v Williams, 638 N.E.2d 207 (la Dist. 1994),
(20) when proper notice is not given to all parties by the movant, Wilson v. Moore, 13 Ill.App.3d 632, 301 N.E.2d 39 (1st Dist. 1973),
(21) where an order/judgment is based on a void order/judgment, Austin v. Smith, 312 F.2d 337, 343 (1962); English v English, 72 Ill.App.3d 736, 393 N.E.2d 18 (1st Dist. 1979),
(22) where the public policy of the State of Illinois is violated, Martin-Tregona v Roderick, 29 Ill.App.3d 553, 331 N.E.2d 100 (1st Dist. 1975).

SUMMARY OF THE LAW OF VOIDS
Before a court (judge) can proceed judicially, jurisdiction must be complete consisting of two opposing parties (not their attorneys – although attorneys can enter an appearance on behalf of a party, only the parties can testify and until the plaintiff testifies the court has no basis upon which to rule judicially), and the two halves of subject matter jurisdiction = the statutory or common law authority the action is brought under (the theory of indemnity) and the testimony of a competent fact witness
regarding the injury (the cause of action). If there is a jurisdictional failing appearing on the face of the record, the matter is void, subject to vacation with damages, and can never be time barred.

There are an estimated fifty-million (50,000,000) void judgments on the books in America’s courthouses.

IF EVERY VOID JUDGMENT WAS VACATED WITH DAMAGES, IT WOULD REPRESENT THE GREATEST SHIFT IN MATERIAL WEALTH IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD!

So how do we vacate void judgments? We petition to vacate them – AND THEN

WE SUE THE PLAINTIFFS & MAYBE THE COURTS!

 

 

 

Order Cutting-Edge Services Now   Quiet Title Packages from Licensed Attorneys
     
CFLA Sponsored Attorney Links   CFLA Training Academy

 

 

Back to May 2017 Archive

 

"CFLA was founded by the Nation's Leading Foreclosure Defense Attorneys back in 2007 to serve the Foreclosure Defense Industry and fight pervasive Bank Fraud. Since opening our virtual doors, CFLA has rapidly expanded to become the premier online legal destination for small businesses and consumers. But as the company continues to grow, we're careful to hold true to our original vision. For us, putting the law within reach of millions of people is more than just a novel idea–it's the founding principle, just ask Andrew P. Lehman, J.D.. With convenient locations in Houston and Los Angeles, you can contact Our National Account Specialist and General Manager / Member Damion W. Emholtz at 888-758-2352 for a free Mortgage Fraud Analysis or to obtain samples of work product, including cutting edge Bloomberg Securitization Audits, Litigation Support, Quiet Title Packages, and for more information about our Nationally Accredited and U.S. Department of Education Approved "Mortgage Securitization Analyst Training Certification" Classes (3 days) 24 hours for approved CLE & MCLE Credit (Now Available Online)".

SEE BELOW- http://www.certifiedforensicloanauditors.com

Call us toll free at 888-758-2352

Bookmark and Share
spacer
Facebook Like us on Facebook
Twitter Follow us on Twitter
YouTube View our YouTube Videos
LinkedIn Connect to us on Linkedin
 
BBB Logo

 

spacer

Contact us or view our Sample Documents & Audits by completing the form below.

  • Reload
  • Should be Empty:

 

DVD Sets Only $99

 

FREE Mortgage Fraud Analysis

 

Order Cutting-Edge Services Now

 

Quiet Title Packages from Licensed Attorneys

 

Affiliate Services

 

CFLA Sponsored Attorney Links

 

Take-Home Education Package

 

ALB Law Firm

 

Advocate Legal

 

The True News Network

 

Sutton Law Firm, P.L.L.C.

 

Rubenstein Business Law

 

Atighechi Law Group

 

Scunziano & Associates

 

Get Certified to Perform Mortgage Securitization Audits

 

CFLA Training Academy

 

Expert Witness Services

 

Cutting Edge Expert Securitization Reports

 

CFLA Credit Cards

 

Breaking News

 

Letters to the Editor

 

CFLA Weekly Newsletters

 

Code of Ethics

 

Testimonials

 

Instructional Videos

 

Job Opportunities

 

License Opportunities

 

MARS Rule

 

Product Samples

 

Resource Links

 

Servicer Information

 

Foreclosure Laws

 

REST Report

 

Quiet Title Packages from Licensed Attorneys

 

Advertise on CFLA

 

Advertising Space: Mortgage Securitization, Quiet Title

 

Certified Forensic Loan Auditors, LLC
13101 West Washington Blvd.
Suite 444
Los Angeles, CA 90066

Phone: 832-932-3951
Toll Free: 888-758-CFLA (2352)
Mobile Users: CLICK TO CALL
info@certifiedforensicloanauditors.com

   
 
CFLA IS NOT A LAW FIRM AND DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY LEGAL ADVICE. CFLA DOES NOT OFFER FORECLOSURE CONSULTING OR FORECLOSURE RELIEF
SERVICES. CFLA DOES NOT OFFER OR ASSIST WITH ANY LOAN MODIFICATION SERVICE. CFLA ALWAYS RECOMMENDS THAT CLIENTS RETAIN COMPETENT COUNSEL IN THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTION. CFLA HAS A FREE PROGRAM TO REFER CFLA CLIENTS TO LAW FIRMS IN NEARLY EVERY STATE AND CFLA
DOES NOT CHARGE OR OBTAIN REFERRALS FEES FOR THESE SERVICES. SERVICES NOT OFFERED TO RESIDENTS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA.

 
Home About Us Privacy Policy Terms of Service Disclaimer SERVICES Careers Contact Us
 
COPYRIGHT 2007-2016 Certified Forensic Loan Auditors All rights reserved