Laws v. Priority Trustee Serv. of N.C., L.L.C., No. 3:08-cv-103 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 11, 2008).

Not So Breaking News / CAFA-E! exclusive: Undercover Blogger reporting.

It started in a small country café, over coffee, quiet enough of course for Mrs. Law to overhear the scandalous CAFA conversation. What Mrs. Law heard was shocking; Morris Schneider had been playing both sides of the fence (not that there was anything wrong with it – of course not), and what was worse, it was doing it in exchange for cold hard cash.

CAFA Question to MS: Is it true that you were swinging both ways – not that there’s anything wrong with that?

MS: No comment during the litigation.

CAFA: Is it true that money was involved, that you performed these “services” for money?

MS: No comment during the litigation.

CAFA: Is it true that the Laws have outed MS, and that MS wasn’t even aware it was ever in?

MS: No comment during the litigation.

The topics overheard by Mrs. Law: North Carolina Deeds of Trust. Priority Trust Services (referred to in court documents obtained by CAFA-E! as PTS) allegedly provided certain “services” related to these trusts under the cloak of a trustee and sometimes initiated foreclosures when necessary. 

The scuttle: Morris Schneider was apparently playing both sides of the field, often representing both PTS and the lenders initiating foreclosure. 

The scuttle shocked Mrs. Law.

CAFA: Is it true that you have outed Morris Schneider; that MS was playing both sides of the field.

Mrs. Law: I’ll only say that I was shocked at the nugget uncovered by my eavesdropping. In my day, people kept this type of activity veiled from public light – not that there’s anything wrong with doing that. 

The irony: PTS had initiated foreclosure on the Laws’ property. The Laws filed bankruptcy, and subsequently brought a class alleging that Morris Schneider acted as counsel for both PTS and the trust holding the Deed of Trust on the Laws’ property, and was paid attorney’s fees. Their secret activities had been yanked right out of the closet (not that there’s anything wrong with what they were doing). 

The defendants timely removed under CAFA. CAFA jurisdiction was maintained because the amount in controversy was adequately pleaded, and none of the exclusions applied.