California Reconveyance is suspect for many reasons

That NOTICE OF DEFAULT is probably not what it appears. It is probably an unauthorized document based upon incorrect financial data, and fabricated or useless documents.

That ASSIGNMENT might look good on its face but it probably has no legal effect.

California Reconveyance is suspect for the following reasons

  • The notice of default usually says they are either the trustee or the agent of the trustee. This is an admission that they don’t know who they are, which makes the notice default potentially defective for this and several other reasons. If they were the agent of the trustee, then where is the power of attorney? It certainly isn’t recorded, so the notice of default is defective unless California Reconveyance is the Trustee.
  • It can’t be the Trustee unless it is appointed by an authorized party and the recording of the substitution predates the notice of default.
  • The authorized party must be truly authorized and not a party with APPARENT authority because the authority must be executed in properly recordable form and then recorded PRIOR to the notice of the default.
  • Why was California reconveyance used at all? There already was a trustee.
  • Does California Reconveyance qualify as a Trustee under California law?
  • In all the cases I have seen, the assignment is dated long after the PSA was executed. If there was a close-out time (which there usually is) then the assignment might have been offered but by the terms of the PSA it wasn’t accepted because it couldn’t be accepted.
  • If there was an additional document(s) allowing the transfer, then that should have been recorded as well. But there couldn’t be such a document because
  • The pool ONLY accepts assignments of performing mortgages, not mortgages that are in default. Therefore it would be a direct violation of the PSA and Prospectus to put in a non-performing loan. Hence, again, the assignment may have been offered and might look good on its face, but it must be taken as only part of the securitization documents that create the securitization structure.
  • A claim of acceptance might be expected from the “Trustee” (whom we have already identified as not having any Trustee powers or duties in real life). This claim is an admission that the Trustee has violated the terms of the securitization document that put him in that position.
  • At least one judge expressed the opinion that these are matters between the creditors and do not affect either the borrower’s obligation nor the ability of some creditor possessing some aspect of credibility to foreclose on the home. This opinion should be met with a compelling argument: “Ordinarily I would agree your honor that these are mere technicalities that do not affect the obligation nor the ability to enforce it. I would also ordinarily agree that if the wrong party brings the action, then they might have some liability to some other creditor with a colorable claim. But here we have something different: legally the assignment was neither authorized to be made or accepted which means that there is a high probability that the loan is still owned by other parties and could very well have been assigned or will be assigned into a new pool of resecuritized assets. This leaves the borrower with financial double jeopardy. Perhaps worse than that we are compounding an already clouded title situation.In your effort to prevent the borrower from getting a free house, you are giving a free house to someone else who neither has any right to it nor do they represent anyone who does. Therefore it is a question of fact that must be heard on its merits, after an opportunity to conduct discovery (a) the identity of the actual creditor (b) the true balance of the obligation after allocation of third party payments and (c0 the true status of the loan and whether there ever was a default after allocation of the third party payments being applied in accordance with the terms of the note and Deed of Trust.
  • The UCC provides that a transfer of a loan in default might not be perfected. It may also be evidence of splitting the note and mortgage. (Deed of Trust)
About these ads

24 Responses

  1. Can someone email me print out info cazcando22@gmail.com
    About Cal Western Reconveyance
    Not having licensing to foreclose in Ca
    Aa they are about to file sake date.
    Their substitution of trustee looks very suspicious. My house of 25 years is in jeapordy. Being homeless with 6 animals is not an option.. :(
    Thanks for your help.
    Cynthia

  2. In further investigation anyone can just pull up Cal Western Art of corporations and print out that they do not have a foreclosure license to be foreclosing. Additionally one can go one line with the Cal . AG and search for the mandated license for Cal Western to be a foreclosing agent, it does not exist. Anyone whom wishes to sue Cal western can join forces contact learnlaw@earthlink.net and make a plan

  3. Thank you so much for the info.
    We are all suffering and looking for air!

    Sincerely, Matt Donegan

  4. All the above very well written.
    Q:How to educate the Judges???
    God Bless America
    God Bless California

  5. I was recently told by a federal judge 2:10-cv-00608-SRB here in Arizona that I could file a second amended complaint, but that I could not alude to any type of language that is considered “Prove the Note” such as chain of title, note, mortgage, as this court has roundly rejected prove the note as a claim. Further, the court warned that any such inferences would be dismissed with prejudice. So, when I submitted my SAM yesterday, I refrained from such terms and in place demanded that the current servicing agent EMC, demonstrate by affidavit that authority to service the loan was provided to them by the true Note Holder, not the previous servicer and so on. That evades the language of “chain” of those other things that I can not say.Regardless, the court can not turn its head on the point of law, and this is clearly law by any state, whether judicial or nonjudical. The one problem I have had is, Arizona is a Deed of Trust state. Boy, don’t think for one minute these attorney’s don’t jump on that. They say; in a DOT state, the banks do not have to prove who owns the loan to foreclose. That’s somewhat true, unless you sue. That’s when the true condition of the loan will develop, but you must present some kind of cause of action that will force the discovery. It could be TILA, RESPA, failure to provide notices as required, failure to record as required or many other wrongful acts, usually anytime MERS shows up on your loan in any capacity, is almost a garrantee of inappropriate process, you just have to dig and DON’T give up. The opposition will use terms like time barred, statute of limitations, fraud needs to plead with particularity and so on. And if you don’t get the expected result from the court, appeal to the next level. Generally, if the other guy knows your not going anywhere anythime soon, you may be offered a resolution to the continuation of the action. Again, DON’T give up. Persistence will prevail.

    Good Luck
    Mike

  6. Patrick, can I say that I am the authorized agent representing you without a power of attorney pursuant to CC 2924? Can I file an NOD and just tell the clerk that I am the authorized agent for lets say BOFA without any credentials under CC 2924? Does any agent need a power of attorney or just a signature on a napkin stating that I am the authorized agent for BOFA?

  7. Still can’t get ahold of Brad keiser and have no idea what the status is of my QWR that he did for me!!!!

  8. Patrick,
    I am fascinated with what you are writing. Especially given that there are multiple condidtions the PSA must meet in order for a loan to actual reside in the pool.

    You wrote: ****
    ***
    Try telling that to a judge in a CA Court. 2924 does not require proof of the Note will be the ruling. Nor does it require a Chain of Assignments.
    ****

    The PSA requires an indorsement for every step of the chain, along with an assignment in recordable form. They may not have to be recorded in the county recorders office but they DO HAVE TO EXIST. If these indorsements and assignments are not done, then the parties to the PSA have violated the very contract they say governs the trust the loan was SUPPOSE to reside in. Their issue (the foreclosing entites) is with the people in the chain, not the homeowner.

  9. Wrongful Foreclosure – Verbal Assurance that Foreclosure Sale Will be Postponed May be Enforceable

    Garcia v. World Savings, FSB, 183 Cal. App. 4th 1031 (2010)

    Deliberate and Effective External and Internal Communication is Critical

    The latest case following the mortgage meltdown underscores the need for lenders to be deliberate and clear in both their external and internal communications. In Garcia v. World Savings, FSB, 183 Cal. App. 4th 1031 (2010), the appellate court determined that the lender’s verbal agreement with the borrower to postpone a foreclosure sale could be enforceable, even absent consideration for the lender’s promise to postpone. The appellate court found that the loan officer’s telephonic assurance to the borrower that he could, and would, briefly extend the pending foreclosure sale under certain conditions was reasonably relied upon by the borrower.

    Take Away

    This case highlights the need for lenders to be clear and direct in their communications with borrowers particularly with regard to matters relating to enforcement of remedies upon default. Lenders need to recognize that verbal agreements, if reasonably relied upon by borrowers to their detriment, can be as binding as written contracts. Not only must lenders take care to precisely communicate with borrowers, it is crucial that lenders communicate effectively internally so that actions, decisions, or promises by one department or employee are consistent with those of other employees or departments. Failure to communicate effectively externally or internally can result in failed expectations, inconsistent actions, and potential liability.
    Garcia v. World Savings, FSB, 183 Cal. App. 4th 1031 (2010)

    4closureFraud.org

  10. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO

    ) CASE NO.: 2:10-CV-00257-JAM-KJM
    Sean Patrick; Solomon
    Karen J.Solomon Plaintiff
    v.
    E-Loan Inc.; )
    Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. )
    Lenders First Choice TRUSTEE1 ; )
    Wells Fargo Bank N.A )
    Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, )
    Cal-Western Reconveyance Corporation, )
    LSI Title Company, )
    Marco Marquez, )
    John Kennerty, )
    DOES I-XX, Inclusive. Et al )
    )
    )
    Defendant )
    ____________________________________)

    TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT AND THE HONORABLE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE JOHN A. MENDEZ PLAINTIFFS Sean Patrick; Solomon and Karen J. Solomon submit these objections to the Magistrate Judges Findings and Recommendations as to all Defendants.

    Plaintiffs do and will contend that Defendants brought the Motion to Dismiss under the allegations of Not Being Served Summons. Either the court affirms these allegations thereby tolling Plaintiffs time to amend the complaint or disagrees with the Movants allegations thereby affirming Plaintiffs declaration and request of Movants Default.
    AS TO STRIKING PLAINTIFFS FIRST AND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
    Defendants by filing a Motion to Dismiss was a pending response to the complaint at the time of Plaintiffs filing of their first and second amended complaints. Rule 12(a)(4)(A) would toll the deadline for answering the complaint until the Court Ruled on the Motion to Dismiss under Plaintiffs interpretation of the rules. E.g., Wolflake Terminals, Inc. v. Mut. Marine Ins. Co., 433 F. Supp. 2d 933 (N.D. Ind. 2005) (original complaint never answered, and motion to dismiss pending when amended complaint filed; thus, there was “time remaining for response to the original pleading” when the amended complaint was filed, and Rule 12(a)(4)(A) tolled the deadline to respond); Pinnacle Sys., Inc. v. XOS Tech., Inc., No. 02-CV-3804, 2003 WL 21397845 (N.D. Cal. May 19, 2003) (same); see also Olsen v. Hayes, No. 99-16815, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 8653, at *2 (9th Cir. Jan. 28, 2000) (unpublished) (defendants never served with original complaint; thus, the Rule 12(a)(1)(A) deadline to respond to an original summons and complaint applied).Therefore the Motion to Dismiss pending, being not an answer to the complaint thus allowing the Plaintiffs time to freely amend their complaint. Federal Rule 12(i) supports these findings as RULE 12(i) states “If a party so moves, any defense listed in Rule 12(b)(1)-(7) whether made in a pleading or by motion and a motion under Rule 12(c) must be heard and decided before trial unless the court orders a deferral”
    The language in the rule clearly describes Defendants Motion to Dismiss as “pending until Decided by the Court” thus, Plaintiff’s complaint is unanswered and Plaintiffs deadline to amend the complaint tolled.

    “TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1981 (a) Statement of equal rights. All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property.”
    Plaintiffs will also remind the court that Defendants Wells Fargo Bank N.A.(hereinafter “WFB”) Motion to Dismiss was untimely filed and failed to follow procedure. Defendant “WFB” received summons and complaint Jan 4, 2010 and were afforded 30 days to answer to the complaint. Feb 1, 2010 Attorney for Defendant “WFB” , by General Appearance, removed the State Court Case to Federal District Court case NO.: 2:10-CV-00257-JAM-KJM.. Evidence of the Summons and Complaint as well as other State Court Required Documents were filed by “WFB” upon removal (Docket #1). However “WFB” failed to provide this court with the entire case docket history at the time of removal most curious was the Certificate of Service of summons on all defendants, which was filed by Plaintiffs 1/26/2010 State Court Case #75565, Defendant “WFB” thereafter files false claims of the certificate not existing, an attempt to hold harmless for failing to notify all adverse parties and serve orders (Docket # 4 ) ORDER 4
    “ If this action was originally filed in a state court and removed to this court, the removing party shall immediately serve upon each of the other parties and upon all parties subsequently joined a copy of this order and shall file with the clerk a certificate of such service”

    And “WFB” Non Joinder of all adverse parties was Procedure overlooked by the court. Additionally as required by,

    Fed Rules of C.P. Rule 81 (c) “Removed Actions.
    (1) Applicability.
    These rules apply to a civil action after it is removed from a state court.
    (2) Further Pleading.
    After removal, repleading is unnecessary unless the court orders it. A defendant who did not answer before removal must answer or present other defenses or objections under these rules within the longest of these periods:
    (A) 21 days after receiving — through service or otherwise — a copy of the initial pleading stating the claim for relief;
    (B) 21 days after being served with the summons for an initial pleading on file at the time of service; or
    (C) 7 days after the notice of removal is filed. “

    By General Appearance of Attorney for “WFB” the State Court Case was Removed to District Court on Feb 1/ 2010” and assuming “WFB” was afforded the maximum 21 days to answer to the pleadings , Defendants should have filed on Feb 22, 2010. However “WFB” filed its Un-Timely Motion To Dismiss on March 3, 2010. Therfore “WFB” Default is Proper The Clerk is required under Fed Rules C. P. RULE 55 (a) to Enter the Defendants “WFB” Default.
    Moreover “WFB” stated reason for failing to timely defend,” lack of proper service of summons.” Shows Defendants failure to act with Due Diligence. Attorney for “WFB” claims, Personal Service of Summons was not executed therefore service is improper. These claims fail by the fact that Attorney for Defendants General Appearance Feb 1, 2010, is sufficient and satisfies the personal service of summons requirement as evidenced per,
    “Cal Code C.P.410.50. (a) Except as otherwise provided by statute, the court in
    which an action is pending has jurisdiction over a party from the
    time summons is served on him as provided by Chapter 4 (commencing
    with Section 413.10). A general appearance by a party is equivalent
    to personal service of summons on such party.”

    These procedures have been overlooked by the court and the WFB untimely Motion to Dismiss ruled in favor of the Movant. To make matters worse for the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs timely filed objections to Magistrate Judges Findings and Recommendations [28] were overlooked by the court along with plaintiffs Request for Reconsideration of Removal [7] pleading in this district court case. The Federal Rules Mandate that all pleadings shall be construed so as to do justice, and by the courts ruling on Pleadings after failing to rule on prior pleadings fails to adhere to this basic premise. Plaintiffs respectfully suggest that the procedures in this instant case are being applied in a manner as to unjustly prejudice the Plaintiffs and their right to be heard falling short of due process.

    All the while Plaintifffs becoming aware of Defendants previously name DOES and discovery of new fraudulent actions by the defendants. A complete forensic audit of the Loan in question, filed a First and Second amended complaint as in U.S. Court of Appeals, No. 84-1582
    “we agree with Judge Pregerson in Rumberg that the absence of a federal pleading mechanism comparable to section 474 should not deprive a plaintiff of the extension of the limitations period provided under California Doe practice. Rumberg, 424 F.Supp. at 298. A contrary rule would be a departure from Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938), and its progeny, particularly Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 65 S.Ct. 1464, 89 L.Ed. 2079 (1945), because it would result in the abridgment of substantive rights under state statutes of limitations.”

    With A detailed description of the “scheme to Defraud” supporting Plaintiffs allegations and justification for Preliminary injunction now before the court. An order dismissing the first and second amended complaints which allege new findings and evidence in support of the Preliminary Injunction clearly prejudices the Plaintiffs.
    Magistrate Judges Overlooking Defendants LSI /CAL-Western DECLARATIONS
    The Magistrate Judges statement the seven other defendants named have yet to answer to the allegations is incorrect and a matter of record, and shows the Plaintiffs validity in the claims the case is evolving with new discoveries of defendants and new evidence to support the Plaintiffs allegations.
    AS TO BARRING PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS FOR RESPA/FRAUD
    Plaintiffs will strongly object to the Magistrate Judges belief that “the complaint alleges that Plaintiffs immediately discovered the loan was problematic. Compl. Para. 62”. Therfore justifying barring all claims for fraud. Nowhere in paragraph 62 do the Plaintiffs allege this theory. However The defendants Motion to Dismiss propose this same erroneous statement. [20]Motion to Dismiss page 2 line 6 “ Plaintiffs discovered the loan was Problematic when the loan was made” Plaintiffs do allege in para. 162 of the complaint that the loan payments were less than their stated spendable income, and allege they had no hopes of repaying the loan. These allegations however in the third person looking back at the time when the loan was executed and taken out of context of the entire complaint . If one chooses to read on in the complaint it goes on to clarify the intentions of these statements and clarifies the context.
    Plaintiffs do not affirm the opinions cited above would bar all claims of fraud. The statutes of fraud commence from the discovery of the act that constitutes the fraud. Plaintiffs allegations of the lender being fraudulently defined as E-Loan and the misuse of Plaintiffs identity to create a second undisclosed “straw loan” of which Defendants fail to deny and the court fails to address were only discovered in the past year and entirely unrelated to the fact that Plaintiffs Loan may have exceeded their spendable income. Plaintiffs allege a multitude of frauds and non disclosures of which the defendants have never denied and the court has failed to address.
    Plaintiffs have repeatedly requested the initial undisclosed true identity of the lender of their loan which WFB has repeatedly failed to respond, thus continuing the secrecy and nondisclosure of the original transaction. Plaintiffs RESPA statute of limitations has never began for lack of full disclosure. Something that defendants affirm in WFB Motion to Dismiss Page 7 line 12 “The RESPA statute of limitations generally begins to run no later than the date of actual disclosure of actions constituting an alleged violation.”
    to the theory that Plaintiffs first and second amended complaints are barred and should be stricken. Rule 15. Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
    (a) AMENDMENTS BEFORE TRIAL.
    (1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its
    pleading once as a matter of course:
    (A) before being served with a responsive pleading;

    LSI AGENT to WELLS FARGO DECLARATION EXHIBIT A (FRAUD BEFORE THE COURT)
    Plaintiffs point out the courts record and Fraudulent Documents presented by ([42]LSI Declaration EXHIBIT A )and a comparison to Plaintiffs Deed of Trust (Exhibit A) original Complaint, in which it defines the LOAN#; A0740022 executed 09/15/2004 and MERS as a Separate Corporation.
    (E) “MERS” is Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. MERS Is a separate corporation that is acting solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns. (emphasis added)

    Nevertheless MERS being a separate Corporation having no License to do business in California, allegedly substitutes a trustee and assigns a deed of trust, the documents both executed, signed and notarized by employees of Cal-Western Reconveyance in El Cajon California, Cal-Western Reconveyance place of business. The forged documents recorded 04/28/2010 Nevada County Recorder. The substitution of trustee and Assignment of Trust Deed are defective forgeries by employees of CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE agent of WELLS FARGO BANK N.A. and an obvious attempt to defraud Plaintiffs. The notarizations are defective in that the acknowledgment dates do not correspond with the execution ( Notary did not witness the signatures) of the document and the Notary knew the certifying agents falsely misrepresented themselves as Officers for MERS.( Felonies by the Notary)
    The alleged Substitution of Trustee( [42]LSI Declaration EXHIBIT A) was executed at a date 03/03/04 prior to the Creation of Plaintiffs Deed of Trust 09/15/04 (complaint EXHIBIT A) ( A legal and common sense impossibility) it also alleges a loan number inconsistent with Plaintiffs Deed of Trust. Cal –Western Reconveyance has already stated they are acting under the direction of Wells Fargo Bank N.A.. Plaintiffs are informed and shown the court that Wells Fargo Bank N.A. has brought obvious fraud on this court in a an attempt to steal Plaintiffs Property, Plaintiffs believe they have shown good cause for a Preliminary Injunction and the Defendants and them all have to answer to the allegations and explain the fraud perpetrated on this court, and ultimately suffer the penalties for their criminal actions.

    Submitted, By, ____________________
    _________________ Sean Patrick; Solomon

  11. U.S. District Court
    Eastern District of California – Live System (Sacramento)
    CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:10-cv-00257-JAM-KJM
    This is a Complaint against E-loan, Wells Fargo Bank and Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, and A Bankrupt Trustee Lenders First Choice. The claims of fraud , predatory lending, scheme to defraud, violations of the business and professional code, violations of the truth and lending and and real-estate settlement and procedures act, Engaging in a piratical enterprise and others. This case originally filed by plaintiffs in the Nevada County Superior Court, was removed on basis of federal Question by attorney for defendants Wells Fargo /WFHM Feb 01. 2010

    (PS) Solomon et al v. E-LOAN, INC. et al
    Assigned to: Judge John A. Mendez
    Referred to: Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller
    Case in other court: Nevada County Superior Court, 75565
    Cause: 28:1446 Petition for Removal
    Date Filed: 02/01/2010
    Jury Demand: Plaintiff
    Nature of Suit: 371 Truth in Lending
    Jurisdiction: Federal Question
    Plaintiff
    Sean Patrick Solomon represented by Sean Patrick; Solomon
    Grass Valley, CA 95959
    Private Attorney General

    Plaintiff
    Karen J Solomon represented by Sean Patrick; Solomon
    Grass Valley, CA 95959
    Private Attorney General

    V.

    Defendant
    E-LOAN, INC.

    Defendant
    Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

    Defendant
    Lenders First Choice Trustee1

    Defendant
    Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. represented by Yaw-Jiun Gene Wu
    Anglin, Flewelling, Rasmussen, Campbell & Trytten Llp
    199 South Los Robles Avenue
    Suite 600
    Pasadena , CA 91107
    626-535-1900-239
    Fax: 626-577-7764
    Email: gwu@afrct.com
    LEAD ATTORNEY
    ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

    Defendant
    Wells Fargo Home Mortgage represented by Yaw-Jiun Gene Wu
    (See above for address)
    LEAD ATTORNEY
    ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

    Date Filed # Docket Text
    02/01/2010 1 NOTICE of REMOVAL from Nevada County Superior Court, case number 75565. by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo Home Mortgage. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit B to Removal, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet)(Wu, Yaw-Jiun Gene) (Entered: 02/01/2010)
    02/01/2010 2 NOTICE of Interested Parties by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo Home Mortgage. (Wu, Yaw-Jiun Gene) (Entered: 02/01/2010)
    02/01/2010 RECEIPT number #CAE200023441 $350.00 fbo Wells Fargo Bank by Margaret Pink on 2/1/2010. (Matson, R) (Entered: 02/01/2010)
    02/01/2010 4 CIVIL NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED; Initial Scheduling Conference set for 6/23/2010 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (KJM) before Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Forms) (Matson, R) (Entered: 02/01/2010)
    02/02/2010 5 CERTIFICATE of SERVICE of 4 New Case Documents by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo Home Mortgage. (Wu, Yaw-Jiun Gene) Modified on 2/2/2010 (Benson, A.). (Entered: 02/02/2010)
    02/09/2010 6 NOTICE THAT STATE COURT HAS RECEIVED THE REMOVAL NOTICE by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo Home Mortgage. (Wu, Yaw-Jiun Gene) (Entered: 02/09/2010)
    02/09/2010 7 EX PARTE APPLICATION by Sean Patrick Solomon for a TRO. (Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 02/10/2010)
    02/09/2010 8 REQUEST for reconsideration of removal by Sean Patrick Solomon. (Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 02/10/2010)
    02/09/2010 9 PROPOSED ORDER for tro re: prelim injunction by Sean Patrick Solomon. (Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 02/10/2010)
    02/09/2010 10 CERTIFICATE of SERVICE by Sean Patrick Solomon. (Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 02/10/2010)
    02/10/2010 11 MINUTE ORDER: re 7 Ex Parte Application for TRO denied. (Pro Se plaintiffs served via USPS) (Vine, H) (Entered: 02/10/2010)
    02/25/2010 12 REQUEST for JUDICIAL NOTICE; for entry of default and Proposed Order by Sean Patrick Solomon. (Becknal, R) (Entered: 02/26/2010)
    02/26/2010 13 RESPONSE by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. to 12 Request. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Wu, Yaw-Jiun Gene) (Entered: 02/26/2010)
    03/02/2010 14 NOTICE of MOTION and MOTION for Clerk’s Entry of Default by Sean Patrick Solomon, Karen J Solomon. (Carlos, K) (Entered: 03/03/2010)
    03/02/2010 15 MOTION to STRIKE portions of docket entry 13 by Sean Patrick Solomon, Karen J Solomon. (Carlos, K) (Entered: 03/03/2010)
    03/03/2010 16 CONSENT to JURISDICTION by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.. (Wu, Yaw-Jiun Gene) (Entered: 03/03/2010)
    03/03/2010 17 MOTION to DISMISS by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo Home Mortgage. (Wu, Yaw-Jiun Gene) (Entered: 03/03/2010)
    03/03/2010 18 MOTION to STRIKE Portions of Plaintiffs’ Complaint by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo Home Mortgage. (Wu, Yaw-Jiun Gene) (Entered: 03/03/2010)
    03/04/2010 19 AMENDED MOTION to STRIKE Portions of Plaintiffs’ Complaint by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.. Motion Hearing set for 4/7/2010 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (KJM) before Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. (Wu, Yaw-Jiun Gene) Modified on 3/8/2010 (Carlos, K). (Entered: 03/04/2010)
    03/04/2010 20 MOTION to DISMISS by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.. Motion Hearing set for 4/7/2010 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (KJM) before Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. (Wu, Yaw-Jiun Gene) (Entered: 03/04/2010)
    03/09/2010 21 MOTION to FILE UNDER SEAL private and confidential exhibits by plts. (Duong, D) (Entered: 03/10/2010)
    03/09/2010 22 MOTION to SHORTEN TIME – Order to Show Cause and MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by plts. Motion to be heard before Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. (Duong, D) (Entered: 03/10/2010)
    03/09/2010 23 MOTION to COMPEL Discovery and MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by plts. Motion to be heard before Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. (Duong, D) (Entered: 03/10/2010)
    03/09/2010 24 REQUEST for Judicial Determination re 14 Request for Clerk to enter Default by plts. (Duong, D) (Entered: 03/10/2010)
    03/10/2010 25 RESPONSE by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. to 23 Motions to Compel/ Temporary Restraining Order, 22 Motions for Order Shortening Time/ Temporary Restraining Order, and 21 Motion to Seal private and confidential exhibits. (Wu, Yaw-Jiun Gene) Modified on 3/12/2010 (Marciel, M). (Entered: 03/10/2010)
    03/12/2010 26 ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/12/2010. Plaintiffs’ 14 Motions for Entry of Default, 15 to Strike, 21 to file Under Seal, and 22 to Compel are all DENIED; and it is RECOMMENDED that 23 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order be denied. Within 14 days after being served with these F/Rs, any party may file written Objections with Court and serve a copy on all parties. (Marciel, M) (Entered: 03/12/2010)
    03/12/2010 SERVICE BY MAIL: 26 Order and Findings & Recommendations served on plaintiffs Karen J Solomon, Sean Patrick Solomon. (Marciel, M) (Entered: 03/12/2010)
    03/16/2010 27 RESPONSE to 20 Motion to Dismiss by Sean Patrick Solomon, Karen J Solomon. (Owen, K) (Entered: 03/17/2010)
    28 Filed: 03/26/2010
    Entered: 03/29/2010
    Objections to Findings and Recommendations
    29 Filed: 03/26/2010
    Entered: 03/29/2010
    Request for Judicial Notice

    30

    Defendants Wells Fargo Response to Plaintiffs Objections to Dismiss
    31

    Court Reporter Minutes of Motion Hearing
    32 Plaintiffs Notice Naming Defendants Does I-IV

    33 First Amended Complaint

    34 Motion For temporary Restraining Order

    35 Second Amended Complaint

    36

    Defendant Cal-western reconveyance declaration
    37 Defendant WFB opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction

    38 Minute Order Vacating Motion Hearing and Motion Submitted on the Papers

    39 Order on [23] Judicial error and order to Plaintiffs Objections on Magistrate Judge Findings

    40 Plaintiffs Objection To Trustees Declaration

    41 Minute Order Vacating Case Status Conference

    42 Plaintiffs Response To Defendants WFB opposition to TRO Preliminary Injuction

  12. Here Cal-Western records the NOD prior to being duly substituted, during a ongoing civil case, mind you. After calling them on this they file, themselves substituting themselves as trustee, executed by employees of Cal-Western signing as MERS VPs. Assignment of DOT was also done by Cal-Western Employees signing as VPs of MERS. The sub trustee was also executed and dated prior to the original DOT. The original DOT states that MERS is a seperate corporation. Cal-Western are crooks in collusion.

  13. Nick

    We are dealing with DEFAULT DEBT in foreclosure action. What you say is true – if the stated bank is the real current creditor. State law varies as to foreclosures, but it is pretty common ground that assignees of default debt produce valid assignments. Some states enforce complete chain of title before foreclosure action can even commence. In fact, it is universally accepted in bankruptcy that the current creditor be identified and that the creditor produce valid and legal right to collect the debt. Try to pull the “holder” issue in bankruptcy court.

    In many cases of foreclosure, who you are really dealing with is undisclosed debt buyers. In fact, many of these “mortgages” were not really mortgages from onset but just extension of already default debt (of course, borrowers were never told that). “Holding” the note, for default debt is not enough, nor is endorsement in blank because while servicer and trustees may “hold” the note – they are never the creditor – unless they have acquired legal title.

    Debtors do have some rights, albeit few, but one very important one is – the identity of the current creditor. While some cases may exist in which the true creditor is being identified – these cases are few in number. And, while foreclosure attorneys should have been getting their “ducks in a row” – they have not. There has to a reason why they are not. 1) they are getting away with naming the wrong creditor in court through fraud and 2) if they disclose the true creditor it may subject (other) parities to litigation and, possibly, criminal investigation. 3) many distressed debt buyers are hedge funds – in which agreements are “private”, thus attorneys claim “privacy” when it comes to answering discovery. Courts are dealing with these issues in different way – for judges it is just easier to get rid of the case on a legal technicality – rather than make a precedent decision. Judges do not want this responsibility.

    If the real party is not identified – foreclosure is invalid, bankruptcy is invalid – and the debtor will always still owe the money (never mind that title is likely invalid to any party that buys the foreclosed property).

    It is a real mess out there. Fortunately, some courts are starting to catch on and these courts are rightly focusing on assignment and real party. If someone is going to take your home, debtors have a right to know who is doing it. This is the focus in some New York courts. In addition, concealment of the creditor prevents direct negotiation to “modify” the situation. People are not even being given a fighting chance – and, all under fraud.

  14. MOST OF DEFECTIVE ASSIGNMENT CASES ARE USELESS. Mortgage notes are governed by UCC, and all banks have to do is show possession of the original note endorsed in blank (no date). Then, the note is enforceable by the “holder” as “bearer paper”, and the mortgage or deed of trust (security) follows with the note automatically by operation of law, regardless of whether assignments are permitted or not permitted.

    Similarly, as Patrick points out, once the banks do the above (produce an enforceable note), they can easily correct the NOD and everything else.

  15. A Man,

    THEY DONT TELL YOU WE DISTROYED THE NOTE ONE DAY AND AT COURT ALL OF THE SUDDEN THEY FIND THE ORIGINAL NOTE.

    ALL YOU HAVE TO PROOVE IS THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE ALL THE PIECES TO THE PUZZLE. EVEN ONE PIECE MISSING MEANS THE PUZZLE IS INCOMPLETE AND IS NOT VALID.

    Try telling that to a judge in a CA Court. 2924 does not require proof of the Note will be the ruling. Nor does it require a Chain of Assignments.

    Bk courts may be more sympathetic, depending upon the judge, but don’t count on it.

  16. THIS IS WERE I DISAGREE WITH PATRICK

    he banks screw up the NODs because they are overwhelmed with foreclosures. And it is not a big deal because one in 500 will even attempt a challenge. Sh why worry?

    ORGANIZATIONS THIS BIG DO NOT MAKE STUPID MISTAKES LIKE THE ABOVE. THEY ONLY MAKE WHAT LOOKS LIKE STUPID MISTAKES FOR A GOOD REASON TO MAKE A COVER UP FOR SOMETHING BIGGER.

    THEY DONT TELL YOU WE DISTROYED THE NOTE ONE DAY AND AT COURT ALL OF THE SUDDEN THEY FIND THE ORIGINAL NOTE.

    ALL YOU HAVE TO PROOVE IS THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE ALL THE PIECES TO THE PUZZLE. EVEN ONE PIECE MISSING MEANS THE PUZZLE IS INCOMPLETE AND IS NOT VALID.

    I

  17. YOU ARE CORRECT PATRICK ..

    SO HOW MUCH DO YOU THINK IT WILL COST?

    10k
    20k
    1OOK

    PLEASE GIVE A NUMBER IF YOU CAN.

    WHAT WILL THE BANKSTERS DO WHEN THEY HIT WEST LOS ANGELES LAGUNA NIGUEL BEVERLY HILLS SAN CLEMENTE MALIBU ETC… YOU KNOW THE
    PEOPLE WHO HAVE MONEY?

    PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN WHAT WERE $3MILLION HOMES THAT ARE WORTH $750k TODAY OR IN 6 MONTHS?

    They will make it easier for all of us.

    REGARDING 2924 ONCE THE JUDGE SAYS HE/SHE DISREGARDS THIS, I AM SURE THIS IS IMMEDIATE GROUNDS FOR APPEAL.

    Please correct me and give me a number?

    thanx

    Patrick

  18. The A Man,

    Bypass the lower courts as cheaply as possible? You really do not know the court system.

    To “bypass” the lower courts, you need to file the lawsuit, get the TRO temporarily stopping the auction, get an injunction, go into discovery and then get to trial.

    At trial, you have to lose the arguments, and then appeal the decision.

    This is only a simplified version of what goes on and does not address demurrers, dismissals, discovery and many other things. For most homeowners, this is out of the question financially.

    The banks screw up the NODs because they are overwhelmed with foreclosures. And it is not a big deal because one in 500 will even attempt a challenge. Sh why worry?

  19. Sad that the courts are fine with the “crash” of the homeowners but not the “crash” of the banks who brought all this upon us and themselves.

  20. WHILE PATRICK IS TECHNICAL AND REALISTIC.
    I ASK WHY WOULD THE BANKS SCREW UP ON THE NOD’S? IF IT WOULD COST THEM IN A FEW MONTHS AND MORE PAPERWORK? AND CAUSE THE COURT SYSTEM TO FAIL.

    MAYBE THAT IS WHY THE BANKS DID IT? TO COVER UP SOMETHING BIGGER?

    THE EXCUSE OF FLOODING THE SYSTEM ARGUEMENT IS PURE CORRUPTION EXCUSE BY THE JUDGES.

    UNLESS THEY ARE HIDING SOMETHING. THEY ARE THE PRETENDER LENDERS. THEY HAVE NO STANDING AND THEY ARE NO MORE THAN DEBT COLLECTORS AND COMINGLING FUNDS.

    REGARDING CALIFORNIA COURTS: WHY DO YOU THINK THE RICHEST STATE IN THE UNION IS ON HE VERGE OF BANKRUPTCY.

    WHERE THERE IS SMOKE THERE IS FIRE.

    CORRUPT OR MISGUIDED JUDGES IN CALIFORNIA LET THE CORRUPTION HAPPEN…

    REGARDING THE LOWER JUDGES IN CALIFORNIA THEY BY PASS THEM AS CHEAP AS POSSIBLE AND GO STRAIGHT TO APPELATE COURT.

    I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY, AND HAVE NO EQUITY IN MY HOME OR INVESTMENT. SO I PITY THE FOOL WHO EVEN THINKS OF SUEING ME.

  21. Thank you, thank you. Thank you so much! I believe this will be very helpful in my case.

  22. Abby,

    What is this case your refer to? Likely the case is in the Trial Courts. This means little until there is appellant court decisions. And what do you mean by the IRS is interested? Have they contacted the person or filed briefs? One would think that the IRS has already seen and made decisions for themselves on this subject. After all, this has only been ongoing since 2006 on a large scale.

    Almost every assignment has occurred after the NOD was filed. That could deny Holder In Due Course claims, but the rest is a simple matter to correct. File a rescission of the NOD, ensure the Assignment and Substitution is correctly executed, and then refile the NOD.

    Why do you think that CA courts are denying such arguments? They know that it is a simple matter to correct. Therefore, to the judges, if it delays the foreclosure process by 4 months, what good is it to rule for the homeowner. (I am just stating simply facts only.)

    Bottom line is that if CA courts start ruling on these matters for the homeowners, then the court system will “crash” and nothing will get done. Victories for homeowners in mass will result in the “crash” of the banks, and judges know this. So that must be considered.

    I am in constant contact with a former FDIC official who set up Good Banks and Bad Banks during the S&L crisis. He uses the same arguments for the homeowners, and each time he comes up with a new way to attack the problem, the courts deny it.

    I am firmly convinced that the BK courts in CA will be the way to go for the near term. And until the Trial Courts change opinions and Appellant Courts give affirmative rulings, the BK court will be the only game in town. But even then, only a few BK judges will respond until a significant wave of change of opinion occurs.

  23. I understand Patrick’s post and his putting forth some insight into California courts and the other ‘sides’ arguemennts, however I do disagree on his generalties, in particular the one about:

    The pool ONLY accepts assignments of performing mortgages, not mortgages that are in default. Therefore it would be a direct violation of the PSA and Prospectus to put in a non-performing loan …

    Well, in a case I know very well, an assignment into the pool was done on a mortgage after it was already in default!

    The case is ongoing and the issue is before the court. The IRS is interested as this appears to be a REMIC violation etc. as the investors were sold certificates based upon not everything being in the trust as stated in prospectus etc.

    I still strongly encourage all of you to obtain all county recordings (certified copies) and examine them thoroughly and go to the SEC website and review any documents filed there related to your property and loan and securities trust.

  24. Here we go again. There are issues with what Neil writes.
    Cal Reconveyance does not know whether they are Trustee or Agent. This doesn’t hold any water. They know what role that they play and the terminology on the NOD is for sake of convenience. Nor is this material.
    Under Ca law, the entity who can file the Notice of Default is the Trustee, Agent for the Trustee, Beneficiary, or other authorized entity. Nowhere in the law does it state that a Power of Attorney is required for each specific loan. Therefore, to say that the NOD would be defective on this point is a waste of time. Try this argument in a CA Court, and it will immediately be denied.
    As to Cal Reconveyance not being the Trustee until lawfully appointed prior to the NOD, that is technically correct. But most courts are saying that this is irrelevant as long as the Substitution occurs at some point. (I have heard of a few NOD’s being declared void on this point, but a few successes as compared to all the lawsuits being filed and challenging this point means little. Plus, the issue is easily remedied, so the judges don’t take it into consideration.)
    Why was Cal Reconveyance used at all since there was a Trustee already? Simple. Most of the Trustees originally appointed long since ceased business in 2008. Others do not do the foreclosure processing. Many trustees were appointed simply for a matter of convenience. I wonder why Neil does not understand this.
    As to the Assignment occurring after the PSA closing, the “flip side” of this argument that banks would argue is that the Deed follows the Note. Transfer of the Note would appear to suggest that the Deed went with it. Furthermore, the Deed is only the security. The Note is the evidence of the Debt. Therefore, the Note is the key point for the PSA. (These points are immaterial at this time in the Trial Courts. Most judges will not even entertain arguments related to Assignments to the PSA. Only a couple of BK courts in CA are entertaining these arguments.
    The pool ONLY accepts assignments of performing mortgages, not mortgages that are in default. Therefore it would be a direct violation of the PSA and Prospectus to put in a non-performing loan… Again, the bank argument is that the Note is the critical piece, since it is the debt. Furthermore, under CA law, there is no apparent requirement that the Assignment be immediately recorded. The recording would simply ensure the primacy of the Debt. Judges are mixed upon whether or not they will accept the Assignment arguments. Most ignore the arguments.
    At least one judge expressed the opinion that these are matters between the creditors and do not affect either the borrower’s obligation nor the ability of some creditor possessing some aspect of credibility to foreclose on the home. LOL, this is the opinion of most judges in the trial courts in CA.
    In summary, I am not saying that many of the arguments that Neil presents lacks merit. Instead, I am pointing out the arguments that the lender/servicer would make. Additionally, I point out that CA trial court judges are not accepting these arguments. The judges are saying that the Statutes, 2924, is “exhaustive” and any other arguments are not applicable. There is plenty of CA case law to support the judges rulings. BK courts are the better place to present such arguments, but only a few BK judges in CA are willing to even entertain the arguments.
    There is some evidence to suggest that this may be changing a bit, but change in CA is slow.

    Patrick Pulatie
    Loan Fraud Investigations

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,121 other followers

%d bloggers like this: