Laserfiche WebLink
The subject property was sold at a sheriff's sale on July 13, 2010. Mr. Engelhart did not <br />raise any defense or objection to the judgment or sheriff's sale prior to July 2, 2010, over <br />ten months after the Court entered default judgment. <br />2. Mr. Engelhart has raised two arguments as to why the sheriff's sale should not be <br />confirmed. First, he argued that Bank of America must perform a refinancing evaluation <br />under the federal Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). Second he argued <br />that the mortgaged parcel cannot be sold because it violates a Dane County ordinance. <br />Neither of these arguments have merit. Neither should prevent the Court from confirming <br />the sheriffs sale. <br />3. Mr. Engelhart's HAMP argument is now moot. Bank of America offered Mr. Engelhart a <br />loan modification consistent with RAMP guidelines on June 27, 2011. (Manna Aff. ¶ 2.) <br />Mr. Engelhart rejected the bank's offer on October 19, 2011. (Manna Aft ¶ 3.) <br />4. Mr. Engelhart waived his second, parceling -related argument. It arises out of facts that <br />existed at the time he was served with the Summons and Complaint in this matter, so it <br />was his responsibility to raise the argument in his answer. He did not, so the argument is <br />waived. See Wis. Stat. § 802.06. <br />5. Even if Mr. Engelhart had not waived the parceling argument by defaulting and failing to <br />raise the argument for over a year after judgment, he should still be barred from obtaining <br />equitable relief under the "unclean hands" and estoppel doctrines. As part of his <br />agreement with Bank of America, Mr. Engelhart promised that he was "lawfully seised of <br />the estate" conveyed in the Mortgage. (Compl., Ex. B: Mortgage, p.3.) He also warranted <br />title and promised to defend title "against all claims and demands." Id. Mr. Engelhart is <br />2 <br />4826-6604-3662.1 <br />