QUIET TITLE IS NOT A DEFENSE — IT IS OFFENSE AND IT IS A HIGHLY EFFECTIVE LAWSUIT

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

I WRITE THIS BECAUSE WITH SO MANY PRO SE LITIGANTS AND UNINFORMED LAWYERS WEIGHING IN IT IS SOMETIMES NECESSARY TO CLARIFY THE ISSUES.

Quiet Title is not a defense. If used defensively you will most likely lose your case and also unintentionally waive rights that you might not even know you had. The fact that it is being used as a defense it testament to the number of bad decisions we get. They are not really bad. They are inevitable because “quiet title” was presented incorrectly.

You can say what you want about the rules being burdensome, but rules are necessary to make sure that everyone is doing the same thing in the same way. Otherwise there would be chaos.

So here is the deal: Quiet Title is a lawsuit, also known as a cause of action. There are numerous example of quiet title lawsuits in the forms on this blog and in the articles. I think there are even some forms in the comments.

You are seeking the Court to enter an order in which the Judge signs a piece of paper (Final Judgment) that declares the TITLE rights of the parties with respect to a particular piece of property.

The Judgment is entered in civil court clerk’s office but then you must also record it in the title registry.

Normally, homeowners seek to have their title determined to be unencumbered by the claims of one or more defendants who have either expressed their claim somehow or who appear in the title record but actually (factually) lack any interest in the particular piece of real property that is the subject matter of the lawsuit.

Typically, and most easily you have a Plaintiff or Petitioner, as it may be called who files the lawsuit. That is usually the Homeowner but it could be another lien-holder who believes that the title encumbrances to be either invalid or inferior to their own lien (see articles on HOA liens for assessments).

The Petitioner Homeowner is asking the Court for a declaration that says the Petitioner’s title is in fee simple absolute and that it is not encumbered by the lien that appears in the title registry by way of a mortgage deed or deed of trust.

The Petitioner must tell the court why that lien that is recorded in the title registry is not valid or has a lower priority than the title of the homeowner. Normally the reason is something like the fact that the record contains a lien in favor of Company X but that no money is owed to Company X and that therefore there is no obligation, which therefore means that there is no note that could be introduced as evidence of a non-existent obligation and in turn means that the mortgage lien is securing an obligation that does not exist, possibly never existed. There are other reasons too that you can use. See articles on this Blog.

The target should most likely be the originating lender as that would destroy the chain of title FROM the originating lender, unless there are already assignments recorded. If there are assignments recorded you may want to name those who hold those assignments as Defendants or respondents, as they be called, to clear their supposed interests, base upon robo-signing or any number of other reasons.

Quiet Title is not about the obligation and does not wipe out the obligation. It merely declares that one or more liens cannot be enforced and should be removed from the title registry. You will see some cases where pro se litigants lost — because they did not plead or prove their case correctly. If you look at quiet title actions in which both sides are institutions you will find plenty of support for what you are doing.

 

 

About these ads

42 Responses

  1. MUST READ for California:
    PAY ATTENTION TO DISSENTING OPINION

    Quiet Title Ruling Filed 2/14/13 Maconick v. Chase Home Finance

    http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B239093.PDF

  2. I have been researching Quiet Title actions for some time now. After repossessing a property during a foreclosure (for which I hold a 3rd mortgage), I managed to get the case dismissed (with prejudice).

    I’ve been reading a lot about foreclosure fraud (robo-signers, MERS, invalid assignments…) and came to the conclusion that I needed to file a Quiet Title action against the original “lender” (and whomever else would be proper).

    As a holder of a mortgage (and in possession of the property) I thought I had a good case to start building… until I read this.

    Holders of mortgages are not entitled to maintain actions to quiet title.
    Cook v. Pontious, 1929, 98 Fla. 373, 123 So. 765.

    Any input?

  3. to Tony and tnharry or tnharry and tony:

    I read both your takes on in rem, etc. I’m frankly unfamiliar with this type of law – and I need both of you to input on this so please put on your respective legal thinking caps and dig in . . . here is the scenario: A CA BK case was filed; the debtor was a resident of CA so all property was under the jurisdiction of CA including a ‘2nd home’ purchased in PA in 2007 – CA had jurisdiction over the property – an entity (pretender lender) filed a proof of claim – the BK judge denied their claim in its entirety as not being a real party in interest – now this same entity never filed a motion for relief from stay; never appealed, objected to or otherwise prosecuted the objection motion and in essence defaulted and lost – the question (prevailed argument) was that the entity was not a real party in interest; w/o legal standing or authority and could not rely on MERS – okay so far? The sustained objection was heard in May 2010 – less than a month later the same entity that failed to prosecute the CA bk case now (3 years later) while BK case is still opened – does a MERS assignment bit – but has failed to gain permission from the judge, trustee or debtor to conduct a transfer of property of the estate which case is still opened and active and the stay is still in effect because a relief was never sought nor lifted – by August they file a foreclosure complaint in PA – however, the BK case is still opened and it turns out they never possessed an endorsed note; and turns out they transferred or became the ‘investor’ without disclosure to anyone 4 months after the Bk case was filed – the debtor has argued that because MERS could not convey (per Walker) what it did not possess under CA law it is void – and by the way the ‘original’ lender was never a member of MERS so there was never a ‘bridge’ between the parties to the transaction and MERS thus MERS could not transfer anything by virtue of the fact no one had a contract with them in which to conduct a legal transaction – with me so far – the debtor further argues under doctrines of res judicata/ collateral estoppel the entity is barred from re-litigating the issue as it was already litigated and adjudicated since a BK order is a form of judgment;thus the entity was barred from prosecuting the exact same issue (Full Faith and Credit Act, etc.) in any court in the US – they failed to prosecute when that window was opened and never appealed or sought any remedies to change the ruling – and the debtor claims that the property was unsecured – un-perfected lien as that entity failed to validate or perfect any rights it claimed to have – thus not valid (void ab initio – fraud at origination) – and only an obligation unsecured could be sought – the property was fully exempt as within the exemption limits for CA ($125K) and a homestead declaration was filed long before anything else and recognized by the recorder – last but not least a few months ago the entity attempted to present an endorsed note (more than 3 years after the fact) – which was nothing but a rubber stamp (no original signature) and the name in the stamp has been long gone from the entity and was in fact not employed by the entity when the transaction occurred – the bk judge acquiesced a quiet title . . . the debtor in the foreclosure action has an attorney (also a DA) and was curious about this quasi-rem v rem bit you both fight over – but since this case was already litigated and ‘issue abated’ it would be appreciated if both of you comment to this scenario so there is more fodder to discuss with the attorney. . . thx!

  4. Tony, your stuff might work in a judicial, and that’s a big might. Doesn’t work at all in a nonjudicial state though.

  5. Good lord Tnharry you can use Supreme Court case of a state, but then I pull one up and you say “state court doesn’t matter”. You runny all over the place to win this one huh. :) That ok if it makes you fill good throw in a case from England in too. :)

  6. Good try tnharry to try to play personal, but In Re Stewart and the bankruptcy code might have something different to say. There is plenty of case law not, Tony that settles this. It’s called victory by windfall, you might want to look up cases on this.

    Oh and please smart and just one explain to me how someone can sue to get a property from the so called debtor without bringing the debtor to court and her/his name on the docket?

    Keep in mind the law of the lamd on In Rem and personam is Freeman vs Alderson and it said that you can not go after the property because the property did no wrong. That you MUST bring in the person in order to sue to get the property. Please tell me how can you sue the person if the federal injunction stop anyone from suing you of old debt PERIOD. For the bankruptcy code does say “or property of the debtor”.

    Also I didn’t say the lien is gone after discharge, but rather they can not enforce it because they can not go after the person. Who cares about bankruptcy, jurisdiction is what matters here not a banks lien.

    If a bank files after a discharge Amy Smith vs BOA, Amy can file to dismiss the case due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. They can not put Amy Smith on the docket due to the federal injunction. Also they can not do 1610 james st, because 1610 did not do anything wrong. So bankruptcy rules does nothing for you if you can not reach the res.

    You also said there would be a long line if Tony bankruptcy rules applied. Well for one you don’t know your bankruptcy rules:
    The bankruptcy court already put the steps in place so this could not happen. They could ask for relief of the automatic stay. 2. could ask the court for the debtor to reaffirm the debt. 3. Could ask for a delay in the discharge if they wanted to now file relief of the stay.

    Soon as the discharge comes final they are out of options period. They had there window, your case you quoted was based on could someone file 7 and then 13. They then used bullard and bullard was about someone trying to hide there property. The court deemed it fraud and have a right to take the res. Not one case was about In rem vs personam and how In rem meant you can sue Amy though in truth you really suing the house. What did I miss here is a house a corporation? Can a house sue and be sued? If so when did this happen?

    The court made up that banks have In rem rights nstead of looking at there own case log to see that the supreme bench already ruled on this. i guess what ever law clerk working for the judges missed that case. Its not just In re freeman but, famed supreme court judge Story ruled on many of these cases and said the same thing. For In re Freeman quotes these cases and many others from other judges.

    So please stop using bankruptcy and look at subject matter jurisdiction. I am getting kind of tired writing the same thing. Give me something new and good to come back with next time. :)

  7. a little more for you Tony –

    The discharge debtor received in connection with his personal liability in connection with the mortgage did not adversely affect S&T Bank’s mortgage lien against debtors’ personal residence. See Dewsnup v. Timm, 502 U.S. 410, 418, 112 S. Ct. 773, 778, 116 L. Ed. 2d 903 (1992). Its right to foreclose on the mortgage lien survived and passed through bankruptcy unaffected. Owen v. Owen, 500 U.S. 305, 308-09, 111 S. Ct. 1833, 1835-36, 114 L. Ed. 2d 350 (1991). Moreover, the mortgage lien remained a vehicle for bringing an in rem action involving debtor. Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 U.S. 78, 84, 111 S. Ct. 2150, 2154, 115 L. Ed. 2d 66 (1991). [**7]

    Section 524(a)(2), in short, does not prohibit the holder of an unavoided lien from enforcing it against a debtor in an in rem proceeding. It prohibits only the commencement or continuation of an action to collect debtor’s personal liability that arose in connection with the lien.

    Under the law of Pennsylvania, an action in mortgage foreclosure may not include an in personam action to enforce the debtor’s personal liability. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1141.

    According to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, a judgment in mortgage foreclosure is de terris — i.e., against the land. It imposes no personal liability upon the mortgagor against whom the judgment is obtained. Meco Realty Co. v. Burns, 414 Pa. 495, 497-98, 200 A.2d 869, 871 (1964).

    Recognizing that a judgment in mortgage foreclosure imposes no personal liability upon a mortgagor, the lower courts of Pennsylvania have uniformly characterized an action in mortgage foreclosure as an in rem proceeding. E.g, Insilco Corp. v. Rayburn, 374 Pa. Super. 362, 368, 543 A.2d 120, 123 (1988); New York Guardian Mortgage Corp. v. Dietzel, 362 Pa. Super. 426, 431, 524 A.2d 951, 953 (1987). [**8]

    We conclude in light of the foregoing that HN11a post-discharge action in mortgage foreclosure brought under Pennsylvania law does not seek to collect or enforce a debtor’s personal liability for a debt previously discharged in bankruptcy and, consequently, does not violate § 524(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.

    Reed v. S&T Bank (In re Reed), 274 B.R. 155, 158 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2002)

  8. Tony – there’s no negative treatment of Johnson. One case criticized it in a footnote. That’s 1 criticism and 199 following cases per your precious Shepards. Your information is simply untrue. And if your position that chapter 7 wiped out not merely the personal obligation to pay but rather wiped out the lien as well was true, the line to the bankruptcy clerk’s counter would be 100 miles long in every courthouse. Your position is wrong, whether you want to believe that or not.

    Do you think Ch7 results in lien-free cars and boats? How about removal of federal tax liens and their rights to sale?

    I guess under the Tony bankruptcy code, reaffirmation agreements don’t exist either then, do they? No need to maintain payments on secured debts if there is no right to enforce the security instrument.

  9. tnharry:

    Last time I check the state law case quotes the Alderson vs Freeman supreme law case to find out WHAT IS IN REM AND WHAT IS IN PERSONAM. Again survives discharge is not the matter. I can survive a 100 story fall and still be hurt, but I can’t say I’m dead. Bankruptcy can say it can go through, but the person to SUE UPON they can not.

    You do know the case you quote has negitive treatment across the board, and is not controlling law. Freeman vs Alderson has not been given any negative treatment in any court and is used throughout the court districts.

    Then I just thought to myself, tnharry doesn’t sherpardize his case law, what would he know. Plus In Re Freeman is not a bankruptcy case, you would of known this if you ever read it. This is why the case is used in major lawsuits today. It’s the law of In rem vs personam.

  10. It’s so nice to see how these communications are educating ourselves and others. Maybe someday WE CAN make a difference. By the way, check out Matt Weidner’s Law Blog. http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/ He’s ready for a revolution and I say ‘Let’s roll…’

  11. and the point is, why doesn’t Chase or BofA or Cap 1 send me a letter telling me that Joe Sucker Collections is now collecting for them.

    lets see, original creditor debt is sold to collector b and then collector b sells to collector c, and so on…………but nowhere in the chain does original creditor tell borrower who gets to collect all along the chain?.

  12. carie,

    and when Joe Sucker Collections sends somebody a piece of paper saying we are debt collectors, original creditor Chase or Bank of Amercia or Capital One, original debt $5000. We are authorized to offer you a settlement for $2500 or 5 equal payments of $700.00, or whatever BS they offer

    I say where is the letter from Chase or BofA or Cap One telling me you are authorized to collect. Show me your papers.

  13. Right, cubed2k, so when the servicer says: “I’m collecting this debt for the Deutsche Bank Trust that your loan is pooled into”—I say PROVE IT…and they CAN’T.

  14. I made one “trial plan” payment for a “loan mod” before I learned about the fraud…then I sent a QWR DEMANDING all kinds of info—including proof of conveyance to the “trust that you say my loan is in”—and guess what—I haven’t had a peep from them in months…they know I’m on to them and I’m a fighter, so they have left me alone…meanwhile I’m building my arsenal for whatever they may or may not try in the near or far future…pigs.

  15. Jack—maybe they are ignoring you because you are “current” on your payments…if you default they will definitely not ignore you…and then you start slamming them with everything you’ve got!

  16. Carie, Yea, I tried the QWR letter three times, phrased differently each time. The pretend lender just ignored them.

  17. Carie / Jack

    Carie, nice QWR.

    Key points of FDCPA:

    The term “debt collector” means any person who uses
    any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails
    in any business the principal purpose of which is the
    collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or
    attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed
    or due or asserted to be owed or due another.

    “due another” is the key point and only point to consider. Who is the debt collector collecting for and what gives him the authority (contract or written agreement) to do so. How does one know that so and so debt collector is collecting for so and so creditor, the guy who lent the money.

    The rest of the code is just double speak meant to confuse, doesn’t matter.

  18. your Freeman case from 1886 predates bankruptcy in its current form. Johnson (decided in 1991) is the case on topic. the ABN AMRO case dealt specifically with IL judicial foreclosure and had nothing to do with bankruptcy. furthermore, it’s an IL Supreme Court case, not US Supreme Court.

    Johnson represents the prevailing view following discharge in bankruptcy.

  19. Wow, thanks for the love, you do know that the case you just stated Johnson v. Homestate Bank, 501 U.S. 78 quotes Long vs Bullard 1886.

    Freeman vs Alderson 119 U. S. 185 (1886) (you know the case you keep hiding from and acting like it does not exist) is about does a creditor have In Rem right or just personam. The Judge said this:

    “Actions in rem, strictly considered, are proceedings against property alone treated as responsible for the claims asserted by the libellants or plaintiffs. The property itself is in such actions the defendant, and, except in cases arising during war for its hostile character, its forfeiture or sale is sought for the wrong, in the commission of which it has been the instrument, or for debts or obligations for which by operation of law it is liable.

    The court acquires jurisdiction over the property in such cases by its seizure, and of the subsequent proceedings by public citation to the world, of which the owner is at liberty to avail himself by appearing as a claimant in the case.

    There is, however, a large class of cases which are not strictly actions in rem, but are frequently spoken of as actions quasi in rem, because, though brought against persons, they only seek to subject certain property of those persons to the discharge of the claims asserted.

    Such are actions in which property of nonresidents is attached and held for the discharge of debts due by them to citizens of the state, and actions for the enforcement of mortgages and other liens.

    Indeed, all proceedings having for their sole object the sale or other disposition of the property of the defendant to satisfy the demands of the plaintiff are in a general way thus designated. But they differ, among other things, from actions which are strictly in rem in that the interest of the defendant is alone sought to be affected, that citation to him is required, and that judgment therein is only conclusive between the parties.”

    As you can clearly read there is no such thing for a bank to have in rem. The same court that ruled on Bullard ruled on this to set the record straight.

    Read ABN AMRO MORTGAGE GROUP INC v. McGAHAN 931 N.E.2d 1190 (2010) 237 Ill.2d 526

    See the problem is that people talk about the debt is discharged and it does not survive bankruptcy. Instead of using the the defense that even if the rules say the lien survives bankruptcy, this does not mean it is in rem they have but merely quasi In rem. Thus meaning that since the federal Injunction is in place against me the person, the court lack jurisdiction to take the property because they need me in order to take it.

    Quasi In rem does not give In Rem rights. There is no need to talk about a lien surviving. The just of the case is does a bank have In Rem. The answer must be no, because Freeman vs Alderson clearly explained the meaning. While Johnson v. Homestate Bank only talks about liens. This is why ABN AMRO MORTGAGE GROUP INC v. McGAHAN went into Quasi In Rem, In Rem, and Personam in depth.

    Ok to sum up:

    People stop talking about liens and use Freeman vs Alderson and tell the judge it is about showing banks do not have In Rem they have Quasi In Rem. If you have a discharge that mean they can not go against you meaning there Quasi In Rem right can not be used for you are protected by the federal injunction.

  20. Jack—how about a QWR—qualified written request— (under RESPA), asking them for FULL accounting and proof of conveyance to “trust’, dispute of debt, etc…starting something like this:

    Dear sir/madam,

    Please be advised that this is a “Qualified Written Request”, under the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act,12 U.S. C. 2605 (e). This is also a “Request for Debt Validation”under 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq)..and a DISPUTE that the above referenced account is a debt – for which_________________ is a debt collector. Therefore validation of debt and ALL legal assignments/sales—INCLUDING “conveyance” to the “Trust”—are hereby requested. We also dispute any alleged fees, on the above referenced accounts. We dispute the status of the above referenced account, and dispute ____________’s authority, as a debt collector, to collect the above referenced account. I, the _____________ hereby request copies of the entire file for the loan, including, but not limited to, the following documents: (add what you want)…

    Worked for me…(but I’m not an attorney)…

  21. tnharry, what if your house has not been sold? What if you are current on payments and you win quiet title against original lender. Now you’ve got unsecured debt and a current lender that you believe has no right to your payments. What are your options then? Sue them to force them to prove they have a right to your payments? Sell and hope they don’t come after you?

  22. I’ll give you that argument. But in the meantime your house has already been sold to pay your other unsecured debts

  23. @tnharry—you said—“If you filed bankruptcy to deal with the unsecured debt, depending on your state, the BK trustee may sell your house to pay your unsecured debts, including the debt owed to Bank X.”

    What if “debt” is not proven to be “owed” to anybody? You don’t have to pay a “servicer” or the empty “trust”.

  24. @mkd – couple of things about that :

    “If you filed BK, house was listed as a secured debt, BK is discharged so then the debt becomes an unsecured debt, the bank lifts the BK stay and they continue with the foreclosure process.”

    neither the BK nor the discharge turn the debt into an unsecured debt. the debt is discharged from personal liability. the underlying lien survives. and Tony – before you start again, see Johnson v. Homestate Bank, 501 U.S. 78 – The United States Supreme Court held that a creditor’s right to foreclose on a lien survives the bankruptcy proceedings notwithstanding the discharge of personal liability of the debtor pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 524(a).

    as to the fraudulent FC issue – that would be a post-BK issue and would be litigated wherever you choose. it’s not a BK issue at all. and the trustee wouldn’t have an interest in it either.

  25. If you filed BK, house was listed as a secured debt, BK is discharged so then the debt becomes an unsecured debt, the bank lifts the BK stay and they continue with the foreclosure process. House eventually gets sold. Let’s say a year later you discover that your foreclosure was based on fraud. What do you do re-open the BK or sue whomever for fraud? And if you re-open the BK does the trustee then become involved? If you are successful in proving the fraud, filed a quiet title claim and win, would the trustee be able to sell the house and pay all the debtor from the BK even after the discharge?

  26. Bank X was the lienholder you quieted titled against. Neil’s article and the commenter to whom I was responding (Jack) both referenced the remaining underlying obligation after you remove the lien itself. And maybe you owe it and maybe you don’t under various theories, but I was just discussing one scenario.

  27. Tn

    In your quiet title scenario, how do you default to bank x when bank x has never revealed itself as creditor/lender?

  28. I saw that marilyn and it’s frankly a little disturbing that they want to buck a model rule of professional conduct that seems to work fine for 49 states.

  29. @tnharry

    I was reading Jacoby & Meyers .attempts in NY Appellate Court to quash a rule allowing non attorneys to be an owner of a lawfirm and where the AG Eric Schneiderman motioned against such participation etc. The case is not over yet. but I was curious.

  30. I have a pro se quiet title moving forward in the Bk court. The judge allowed it to remain as a cause of action on the adversary complaint without alleging tender. If anyone can send information and/or pleadings on how to prosecute this as I prepare for discovery, I will put it to use.

    I agree with the article that it is easy to plead this and survive a motion to dismiss. But closing the circle is where the rubber meets the road.

    davidwood100@yahoo.com

  31. but Donna, HSBC didn’t do your appraisal and has nothing to do with zoning. who defrauded you? was it the seller, the agent, or the mortgage broker? if representations were made about the property that weren’t true, you may still have causes of action for those. but it sounds like the “bad actors” may have been third parties instead of HSBC

  32. Well here in colorado, they don’t do things according to the law or we wouldn’t have been in the situation we had. We had extensive fraud – fraudulent appraisal, commercial zoning and so many other things wrong or misrepresented about the property that our assessed value went from $250k for the land down to only $50k!

    HSBC claimed they owned our loan and hid behind the “we don’t have to prove anything” defense according to CO statues. We filed a QT and got it!! Only to have them vacate it one hour later because the 2nd judge didn’t want to go against the first Rule 120 judge who would do nothing about the fraud claims and continued the foreclosure.

    The whole transaction should have been null & void. It was based on fraud from the very start and nobody in Colorado would even listen to us! Well, we lost our property last week. I have so had it with what is happening in the US. I don’t see things changing in time to help us anytime soon. As a result we have moved out of the country. We needed a break from all of this. The toll is way too high and there are too many sharks in high places. I believe that we will have our day…just not anytime soon.

  33. @Jack – good questions and ones I’ve tried to discuss before. You successfully quiet title and remove the lien. However, you default on what is now an unsecured debt to Bank X. If Bank X sues you and wins, they can now record that judgment against your property as a lien including interest, court costs, and atty fees. If you filed bankruptcy to deal with the unsecured debt, depending on your state, the BK trustee may sell your house to pay your unsecured debts, including the debt owed to Bank X. There are defenses you might raise to either of those scenarios, but just two examples to show that it’s not quite as cut and dry as some may think.

  34. Thank You!!! Thank You!!! Thank You Mr. Garfield for the clarity in laymans terms!!! You’re the BEST!!!! Will you also write a post regarding ways to attack an improper foreclosure sale? For example, alleged credit bids assigned to non-creditors, alleged trustees as high bidder assigning bids to closed trusts, closed trusts sharing address with LPS according to the trustee’s deeds, robo-signed cancellation of deeds of trust or no cancellation of deed of trust recorded at all.

    Speaking of the Satisfaction/Cancellation of Deed of Trust/Mortgage, will you also post strategies one might use to sue the “lender” for not forwarding the notes and deeds of trust marked “Paid In Full” to the foreclosed homeowner after the Satisfaction/Cancellation has been recorded? Thanks again for all you do!!

  35. What does quiet title get you by itself, honestly? You still have a debt obligation, although unsecured. If you sell the house, the lender can still come after you for the debt, right? Declaring bankruptcy doesn’t help if you live in a state that does not have a homestead exemption for bankruptcy.

  36. I am very gratified to see a “clean-up” of the issues in Quiet Title lawsuits.

  37. @marilyn – Being a principal doesn’t necessarily imply fee-splitting, which would be a violation of the Model Rules. Not sure where you go with that even if you could prove they were fee-splitting.

    As to the laches, it’s not an automatic sort of defense. One has to show that their defense has been impaired by the passage of time to make laches work. Here’s a quick quote : “Certainly mere lapse of time will not give validity to a void instrument or proceeding. Some one must be put in a worse attitude or some advantage gained by a delay before estoppel can arise.”

  38. Does anyone have any actual signed rulings and orders where a Judge quieted the title AND that didn’t get reversed? Where’s Dave K.?

  39. At least it should be… I’ll let you know how Jeanne Ingress’ is going. Right now NH seems stuck on stupid:

    WEDNESDAY, JULY 27, 2011

    http://mortgagemovies.blogspot.com/2011/07/us-bank-v-kimball-vt-no-2010-169-and_27.html

    WEDNESDAY, JULY 27, 2011

    U.S. Bank v. Kimball, (Vt. No. 2010-169) and other New England foreclosure cases beg the question: Did Diane Nicolosi and Shawn
    Masterson pass Civil Procedure class?

    **********

    Meanwhile things are getting spicier down in NJ:

    http://mortgagemovies.blogspot.com/2011/08/jackass-phelan-hallinan-schmieg-in-big.html

    MONDAY, AUGUST 1, 2011

    Jackass Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg in big trouble with NJ Bar Ethics Complaint: One Gateway security Chief calls KingCast/Mortgage Movies about their abusive police call.

    Dear Mr. Catullo:

    Please see the four transmissions of the Notice of Media Appearance that were sent to both offices at Phelan on 27 July, 2011 — two (2) full days before my appearance. I also found the hit the firm placed on my journal after that and am forwarding as screen capture attachment. I have a tracker and I know they are lying scumbags like many of the lawyers I dealt with over the past twenty years. The difference is now we have broadband and much more technology to keep them in check and turn the game around.

    As a matter of fact I am going to file an Ethics Complaint……

  40. correct that it’s not a defense, but there’s no reason why it couldn’t be used in a counterclaim. you’d probably need to add some additional parties to do it properly though.

  41. Does Quiet Title in New York have latches as to a time limit on a Forged Deed?

    @Mary Cochrane

    On the FDIC sues LLPS and Corelogic thread, I just posted a question referring to a non attorney Doreen D. being a principal at
    David K Fiveson’s law firm. If you get a moment look at it. Thanks.

  42. great post and most needed by many readers of this blog. THANK YOU.

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 3,467 other followers

%d bloggers like this: