Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ward v. Sisco

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division

April 5, 2017

TIMOTHY WARD et al ., Plaintiffs,
v.
KATHLEEN SISCO et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          David J. Hale, Judge United States District Court

         Plaintiffs Timothy Ward and Carrie Ward filed the instant pro se action. Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” A review of the complaint reveals that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court will dismiss the action.

         I. SUMMARY OF CLAIMS

         Plaintiffs name the following Defendants: Kathleen Sisco; Strictly Referrals; Wilburn R. Sisco; and Moulton and Long, PLLC A/K/A C. Mike Moulton. The complaint also names as real parties in interest Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, and VA Vendee Financing. The complaint stems from Plaintiffs' attempt to purchase a home in Elizabethtown, Kentucky. The complaint describes the “Nature of the Action” as follows:

[] This action is brought pursuant to
I. Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, K.R.S § 367.170, et seq.
II. Common Law for Breach of Implied Warranty
III. Common Law Breach of Express Warranty
IV. Common Law Claim Unjust Enrichment
V. Common Law Negligent Misrepresentation
VI. Common Law Fraud

         In the statement of facts, Plaintiffs state that “the Defendants agreed to sell the property for $100.000 with a $2000.00 down payment.” They further allege the following:

[] The Plaintiffs states that the Defendants Wilburn Sisco and Kathleen Sisco stated and agreed to a 30 day warranty on the property, beginning March 11th 2016 and ending May l0th 2016. The Plaintiffs states that the Defendants agreed to a 30 day Warranty on the property. the Defendants agreed the warranty would cover any problems the property would have and the Defendants would pay for the problem and repairs. The Defendants were informed about problems with the property and breach the 30 day Warranty did not fix the problems. The Plaintiffs states that the Defendants failed to fix and replace the window and frames that were rooting away. There were several window that did not open, and widow frames were rooting away, this may be a termite problem. The Plaintiff has had to fix problems and pay for repairs, the Defendants' refused to pay for the repairs. The Defendants action violates the 30 day Warranty agreement.
[] The Plaintiffs states that the Defendants deliberately lied and breach the Contract for Deed, the Defendants now are telling the Plaintiffs they are not buying the property. The Plaintiffs states that the monthly payments were ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.