Can a Broken Chain Lead to Cancellation of Instrument: NO!

 

In the strategy I have dubbed DENY and DISCOVER I have cautioned lawyers and pro se litigants from starting with an attack on the documents which clouds the mind of the Judge. You should start by denying that the money came from the party on the note, denying that you ever completed a financial transaction with the payee on the note or any of its putative successors. If you never completed a deal with the originator, which in most cases is true, then you have every reason to deny the obligation, note and mortgage and file actions for quiet title and cancellation of void instrument (the mortgage or deed of trust).

To do otherwise gets you in the thick of a he-said she-said argument that most borrowers and their attorneys are losing. Denying the whole thing, the Judge is constrained to accept your denial as true. That puts the matter at issue. And if it is at issue in must be put o the trial docket, which enables you to pursue discovery, during which you will find the absence of any money in all the transactions claimed by the other side.

THEN you use the the false, fabricated, forged documents breaking the chain as corroboration for your denial, affirmative defenses and counterclaim. Otherwise you are affirming what is already in the Judge’s mind: there was a loan, the borrower didn’t pay when due, and now the borrower wants some relief.

Instead you take control of the narrative and get the Judge to accept the fact that you are alleging there was no transaction, which means there was no loan, no payment due, no default and no right to issue of Notice of Sale, auction or credit bid from a non-creditor who neither funded nor pruchased the cloan.

A broken chain of title comes from one of two things, the second of which is almost universally missed by pro se litigants and lawyers. Caveat: the more you argue about the documents alone the further you dig into the rabbit hole.

The chain is broken either when the parties on their face show no continuity of title. So when A sells to B and B sells to C and C sells to D then there is an unbroken chain of title. Anyone who has attended Max Gardner’s boot camp has been taught this ad nauseum. If A sells to B and then C sells the same thing to D, you have a broken chain of title on its face and it isn’t hard to show that neither C nor D ever was a stakeholder.

But this does not lead to cancellation of the instrument. Cancellation is directed only at those documents that were defective, void or voidable from the beginning. See Cal Sec 3412 or its counterpart in all other states. So what does happen?

Demonstrating a broken chain merely means that, in the above example where A sold to B, that B still has title. But that doesn’t mean that B can do anything with it or can claim being a legitimate stakeholder or creditor. If B received payment in full from ANYONE, there is no receivable for the loan obligation. Therefore while theoretically the foreclosure can begin, it will not end with a sale, auction or credit bid, because the creditor can only submit a credit bid for the amount due from the borrower to the creditor. If that foreclosing party really wants the property, they must bid and pay cash like anyone else.

Which brings us to the second break in the chain. “for value received” is so commonplace, nobody reads it or pays any attention to it. But the fact is that the payee on the note never loaned the money nor purchased the loan. So in discovery, when I say follow the money, I mean follow the actual transactions in which the other side can prove money ex changed hands. It didn’t. Nobody paid for anything because the whole scheme was funded by investor-lenders ignorant of how their money was actually being used.

But by creating paperwork that carries with it the assumption or presumption that the assignee of course paid the assignor, the banks and servicers have so far accumulated title to more than 6 million homes most of which with a credit bid from a party who neither funded nor purchased the loan and who therefore could not be a creditor and who was not permitted under statute to submit a credit bid. This break in the chain of title is more akin to civil theft but it qualifies as a break.

About these ads

29 Responses

  1. Reply To: Darryl Evans

    Will you let me communicate with you regarding your post below? Fax # below.

    It seems to me that what you are postulating can be applied not only to foreclosure threats, but to, also, recover land and property from fraudulently induced short sales, liens in lieu, and to mortgages not in trouble (conscientious objectors).

    Because fraud, and intent to deceive with intent to steal is involved in most, if not all current mortgages, do you consider that more than civil “unfair business practice” is involved? Maybe, crime?

    Do you think your knowledge on what you wrote might be effective formed as a notice and affidavit of criminal activity? that can be adjusted to a particular situation and state? I have a “general knowledge” of most points you mention, but not enough on my own to bring into existence a notice and affidavit of crime, or similar.

    I’m looking for someone(-s) to work with who can help me get this going in about three or four states, and onward from that. Until a personal penalty beyond fines faces the actors, a serious change in the present order of things will not occur.

    Respectfully,
    Beryl
    Fax: 800-678-7414

    Darryl Evans, on October 26, 2012 at 8:07 am said:

    I disagree.

    A broken chain can lead to cancellation of the mortgage or deed of trust. As a matter of fact, a complete chain can lead to cancellation of the mortgage or deed of trust. However, in order to truly understand how to do it, one must first have a general understanding of the following:

    1. Money
    2. The Lending Process of Commercial Banks
    3. The Definition of “Loan”
    4. The Definition of “Debt”
    5. U.C.C. Article 3 (Negotiable Instruments)
    6. U.C.C. Article 9 (Secured Transactions)
    7. P.S.A. Language
    8. The Securitization Process
    9. How to Formulate Proper Allegations

    Once understood, one will come to the conclusion that the home owner is not a maker of a note within the meaning of UCC § 3-412, therefore it is non-negotiable and it does not evidence a promise to pay a monetary obligation within the meaning of UCC § 9-102(a) (65), so it’s unenforceable.

  2. **************************************************************************************************************************************************************
    Jan van Eck, and Carie, this is reply to your post October 23, 2012 at 1:32 pm and 1:27 pm, copied below mine.

    I am very interested in a “conversion” as you described. Criminal pursuit is the way to go, I believe. Criminality can be based on most of Neil’s logic in this post and many of the other insightful comments and arguments from Carie, Javagold, hman, others, and yours, copied below for continuity with this reply.

    What exactly to do with all the ideas and discussion for a binding beneficial effect, I’m not sure (though at times I thought I was), which is the reason for this reply, even though I’ve been learning, researching, and dealing with the frauds for over five years. Now we know that even footnote 35 in the 2010 TARP Oversight Report, which I obtained 12/2010 and Carie quotes here, is a case of Brer Rabbit and the briar patch, and guess who is the fox??!!!!

    Things are developing, coming to view, but it was all opened long ago in Scripture. Who was paying attention, taking it to heart, or even reading it, let alone believing it? For one, I was, and am convinced that soon we will see the tables of the money-changers overturned again. Don’t laugh. You’ll see.

    For a long time, I have been wanting to initiate an out-of-court procedure that will be effective to stop a foreclosure and, at the same time, begin a criminal investigation and charge against the specific perpetrators, such as filing, with county recorder of deeds, a notice and declaration or affidavit of criminal activity (substantiated, authoritatively documented and well written), serving it to AG, governor, sheriff, county and city prosecutors, and whoever else.

    Do you know any reason why charges of “conversion”, or wording to effect the same, could not be put in such a notice and affidavit of criminal activity? And RICO? Out of court.

    Are you, and/or anyone, able and willing to provide any suggestions, references, cases, sections of law and/or other help to bring forth the proper and strong documents? Washington State is mine, also have family facing the same in Missouri, L.A. County California, and want to recover from fraudulent foreclosure-threat induced short sale in Hawaii in which BA from Countrywide were the actors.

    If we can accomplish more than discussion and actually put together an effective one or two documents, or a logical set of documents, that owners of the land can file with the county recorder of deeds (What a deed, indeed, this will be!) to bring the white collar criminals to answer, and do this initially for four states, and then more, I believe we will be DOING something worth our time, something that actually empowers the people, rather than those who can help just continuing to play “think tank”.

    Lawyers, honest and knowledgeable ones, and others knowledgeale and experienced in relevant fields (Mel) can be advisors on law and procedure, with or without compensation, at least not up-front, remembering that the people are not being paid to save what the lawyers should have prevented, plus we have to pay the fees for recordings, etc., plus much time spent past, present, and future. Character and transparency will manifest.

    Recently, the relative whose home I live in was allegedly “approved” by JPMorgan Chase, alleged “servicer” for alleged FNMA “owner of the loan” (which is itself a lie–FNMA doesn’t own loans, they insure them, as I understand it) allegedly seized from WaMu. As aptly brought forth again in this post, even WaMu had no beneficial interest. The current alleged foreclosure sale is scheduled for 4/5/13.

    Today, we sent the 1st of 3 “trial payments” based on: “After the trial period payments are made on time, your mortgage will be permanently modified.” Fraud, we know. Payment 3 is fraudulently “due 4/1/13″. I’d sure rather put that money to good use fighting the situation, though I do expect to get it back over multiplied.

    The ONLY REASON we’re going along with the modification is to have time to know just exactly how to face-up the frauds without dealing with a possible sheriff’s eviction from a wrongful and fraudulent foreclosure. Without a place to live and work, we can’t do much except barely survive, so it seems, and waste a LOT of time moving. More distractions!!!

    A lot of help is needed to pull the pieces together for this, but I am willing to do it, with help, so that it can be duplicated elsewhere, based on the laws of the jurisdiction. If anyone else really believes and lives by the golden rule, monetary compensation should not be a real issue. We do what we honestly can–without money or with it.

    An out-of-court notice and declaration or affidavit (or other appropriate term) of criminal activity will also provide a way for us to help a distraught neighbor, friend, or relative directly, though not a signing party. We ALL are affected by what is happening. Amicus curiae didn’t originate with lawyers and legislators.

    Substantiating wrongs, fraud, and claims for a given situation, such as mine, or yours, and bringing state, federal, county, municipal law to bear on these, is the work that needs to be put together into one or two united documents, or a set, and served for state officers and legislators, federal, county and municipal law-enforcers’ action against crime. They are already paid to do this. Imagine that! Getting them to do the major part of the work now, since they have been accomplices of sorts!

    Together with Neil’s post, given Carie’s correction to it, for my own convenience and continuity of my reply, I’ve copied below some of the ideas and “facts” within this page that might contribute to the procedure I have in mind as briefly laid out above.

    It would be stellar if Neil would step forth and offer help and comment, and others. I will be putting up a website for this (just learning this, too). OweNone.com It may look funny for a while until I learn how to change the automatically generated page style and picture, and work with the content. The blog will be (not yet): OweNone.com/blog

    B wRight for a change!

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Jan van Eck, on October 23, 2012 at 1:32 pm said:

    The “break in chain of title” is not properly described as a “civil theft,” but as a “criminal theft,” a larceny, although admittedly in actual practice nobody is going to do anything about it. The difference is that if you describe it as a “theft by conversion” then you can obtain as a remedy, either twice or three times the value of the property converted (depends on the State, of course). In my view, in many cases, suing for “conversion,” even if you still have possession of the home and the adverse has effectively seized the title by filing transfers on the Land Records, is much more profitable. Getting whacked for treble damages on a conversion count takes the fun out of stealing houses. Banksters beware: I will whack you every single time on a conversion count. usually attracts attorney fees also (a nice touch).

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Carie, you said:

    carie, on October 23, 2012 at 1:27 pm said:

    Neil—you sounded great until this sentence:

    “…Nobody paid for anything because the whole scheme was funded by investor-lenders ignorant of how their money was actually being used…”

    Security investors are NEVER a lender, NEVER a creditor—you know that, Neil.

    The article is finally getting close to what ANONYMOUS has been saying all along—the note is not a note…because:

    “…The notes are not NEW notes, the notes are not notes at all, HARP/HAMP tries to get borrowers to sign to modify the debt — as if it was a valid mortgage with a valid note.

    HARP/HAMP is a continuation of the Fraud — not the original source.

    The subprime refinances (and new purchases) were already modifications of default debt — but, no one was ever told.

    HARP/HAMP just allows borrowers to modify the default debt — AGAIN.

    Refer to the TARP Oversight Panel November 2010 report — footnote 35 — “Without the note, a mortgage is unenforceable, while without the mortgage, a note is simply an unsecured debt obligation, no different from credit card debt.”

    Mortgages were not validly discharged/cancelled by a subprime refinance.

    The mortgage, as GSE charge-off, remains with the subprime refinance only serving as modification to the (false) default debt.

    Were the subprime refinances presented as a valid mortgage to the borrowers??? YES.

    But, this was FALSE and fraudulent.

    They were NOT valid mortgages, as the mortgage remained intact — only by servicer advance —not by the borrower refinance.

    And, the servicer “modifies” the original “note”, by the subprime refinance, on behalf of an unidentified creditor/”investor” – mortgage remains.

    Borrower remains in default status with GSE.

    Does a valid UCC negotiable note exist by
    the subprime refinance??

    NO.

    Of course not, the prior mortgage was never validly discharged, and although the servicer advances, the borrower is NOT recorded as paying.

    In effect, the actual borrower on the subprime refinance is —- THE SERVICER — (on behalf of the actual JUNK debt buyer creditor/”Investor”).
    ….
    Yes– Corridor Agreements exist — and are buried reference in Registration Statements (S-3), and Prospectus.

    Possibly not even referred to at all. And, certainly not filed as viewable with the SEC.

    Correspondent brokers and bankers, YES, made a bundle on the deals — irrelevant to the borrower — except they paid for in the form of higher interest rates on the modified JUNK debt — called a subprime refinance.

    All subprime loans (falsely called refinances) were sold to one of the big banks.

    Only the big banks had contracts with GSEs.

    The banks then securitized (passed-through cash flows — that is all securitization is) — to security investors.

    (SECURITY INVESTORS ARE NOT THE LENDERS, NEIL)

    The very structure of the REMIC subprime was to provide credit enhancement to generate AAA ratings.

    But, the Prospectus said otherwise, the Prospectus clearly states how the certificates to “risky” loan contained in the REMIC are sold TO THE SECURITY UNDERWRITERS — who do NOT report financial statements to the IRS — their parent corporation does.

    Further, securitization must involve removable of receivables from the corporation’s balance sheet.

    By transferring the pass-through to off-balance sheets, the corporation was able to avoid reporting that the loans they “securitized” were not actually loans with valid receivables, in fact, they were COLLECTION RIGHTS to DEFAULT DEBT, by which the corporation could only report the cash received as income — not receivables.

    BINGO — invalid securitizations — and, that is why the subprime REMICs collapsed…”

    AND SO WENT THE ECONOMY…

    WAKE UP.

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    hman said to Javagold:

    hman, on October 23, 2012 at 12:12 pm said:

    Javagold,

    Not an attorney by a long shot but my thoughts are that you put the “bank/servicer” whoever is attempting to foreclose in the hot seat and getting them to “prove” their case. In non-judicial states the burden of proof falls on the homeowner because the banks can go outside the judicial system to sell the home and you have to sue them to stop. Suing the bank puts the burden of proof on you my friend.

    If you could “prove” the parties were misidentified you’d put a huge hole in their story. If you could show that the loan was table funded and the party identified on the docts is not correct well then the bank has some explaining to do.

    Honestly, best case scenario if you have a competent attorney you would get the house. ….

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    And, Javagold said:

    Javagold, on October 23, 2012 at 1:33 pm said:

    “…The notes are not NEW notes, the notes are not notes at all, HARP/HAMP tries to get borrowers to sign to modify the debt — as if it was a valid mortgage with a valid note. ……
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    **************************************************************************************************************************************************************

  3. There are definitely quite a lot of particulars like that to take into consideration.

    That is a nice level to deliver up. I offer
    the thoughts above as common inspiration but clearly there are questions just like the one
    you convey up where the most important thing shall be working in honest good
    faith. I don?t know if greatest practices have emerged round issues
    like that, but I am sure that your job is clearly identified as a good game.

    Each girls and boys really feel the influence of just a moment’s pleasure,
    for the remainder of their lives.

  4. Robert,

    In Ca, you wiill not get anywhere with this argument. CA judges will not allow it, at least until the Homeowner Bill of Rights takes effect Jan 1.

    Right now, 2923.5 is the best argument.

  5. what attorneys or per se litigants have used this method in California ? Especially the Sacramento area and has anyone gotten a TRO to stop a sale based on a complaint of this nature ?

  6. I disagree.

    A broken chain can lead to cancellation of the mortgage or deed of trust. As a matter of fact, a complete chain can lead to cancellation of the mortgage or deed of trust. However, in order to truly understand how to do it, one must first have a general understanding of the following:

    1. Money
    2. The Lending Process of Commercial Banks
    3. The Definition of “Loan”
    4. The Definition of “Debt”
    5. U.C.C. Article 3 (Negotiable Instruments)
    6. U.C.C. Article 9 (Secured Transactions)
    7. P.S.A. Language
    8. The Securitization Process
    9. How to Formulate Proper Allegations

    Once understood, one will come to the conclusion that the home owner is not a maker of a note within the meaning of UCC § 3-412, therefore it is non-negotiable and it does not evidence a promise to pay a monetary obligation within the meaning of UCC § 9-102(a) (65), so it’s unenforceable.

  7. The navy said they are insulted by Obamas remark….!

  8. Obamas warning……the four horsemen will not be arriving on horses & carrying bayonets…….!

  9. The truth is ……. the judges are fraudclosing for the benefit of themselves & their criminal investor friends at the FED…….The judges know the banksters don’t have the legal right to take anything from you nor does the FED ….These judges are committing treason & what they are creating here in America is complete communism……They should know there is no loyalty with these Communists & in the end…..THE DAY WILL COME ….and the just judge will judge them…..and THE RIGHTEOUS WILL BE BLESSED…. & the sinners will wish they were dead……

  10. The TRUTH IS……THE BANKS NEVER HAD ANY RIGHTS BECAUSE OF THE ORIGINATION FRAUD……AND THEY STILL DONT……IT WAS ALL AN ILLUSION FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE FED INVESTORS……THEY ARE SICK PERVERTS…!

  11. No carie….its not CONgress who are allowing these sick perverts to have their way with us…..It is WE THE PEOPLE who are allowing our own sodomy by these sodomites…! They are using our forged signatures & counterfeit securities to convert us into their own personal ATM MACHINES……! They are sickos…..don’t make yourself their human sacrifice for the benefit of these greedy sinners…..don’t re sign…!

  12. Beware…..the sodomites are in the courtrooms……they want to have a sick orgy with you & their quadrillion dollars in unsustainable debt fraud….. and they want to use your signature as their human sacrifice…..! Don’t sign or agree to any of their sick perversions……they want to convert you into their own personal ATM MACHINE……BEWARE….THEY ARE SICK PERVERTED ATM SALESMAN !

  13. The point is, javagold, they don’t have a secured interest in ANY part of your home—yet Congress is letting them have the whole thing!

  14. if you put in a new basement, then you should be abler to take that with you….if you put in new windows you should be able to take them with you, if you put in new garage doors, you should be able to take them with you, etc….etc….etc…..

  15. Wouldnt it be Ilegal to sell something you never had in the first place? Isnt that the problem we have now?

  16. @Carie… Here is a Question for You! Banks are disposing of servicing rights (true-the ones they can prove at least). What is going to happen to the ones they can not prove they ever had a right to service, even before they lied and claimed ownership/slandering Title?

  17. @javagold

    You had said this:

    Javagold, on October 22, 2012 at 2:52 pm said:

    Carrie,
    if what you (annonymous) is posting is true (and i believe it is)……..then please answer me this, because i dont understand for a minute, WHY DIDNT THE BANKS APPROVE EVERYONE FOR HAMP/HARP ?….when my eyes were still closed to the fraud and i just needed hardship help, why wouldn’t they have “helped me”, have gotten my signature on a new note, I would have been paying the past 2 years and most importantly would still have been oblivious to the fraud…..

    if i was criminal and had a chance to make my theft go away on a do-over, i would sure as hell make sure i got the new deal done ….

    HERE IS WHY:

    “…Banks have disposed of collection rights, or are in the process of doing so.

    People are really dealing with distressed debt buyers, who are tougher than even the banks.

    Only goal for them is — profit.”

    @javagold—the distressed (junk) DEBT BUYERS don’t want to “modify”—because their profits would be less…money is everything—people are nothing. This is the state of the world we are dealing with.

  18. @Jan van Eck …. :)

  19. “…The notes are not NEW notes, the notes are not notes at all, HARP/HAMP tries to get borrowers to sign to modify the debt — as if it was a valid mortgage with a valid note.

    HARP/HAMP is a continuation of the Fraud — not the original source.

    The subprime refinances (and new purchases) were already modifications of default debt — but, no one was ever told.

    HARP/HAMP just allows borrowers to modify the default debt — AGAIN.

    BUT THE DIDNT TRY TO GET BORROWERS TO SIGN AND MODIFY THE DEBT (ATLEAST NOT MOST HOMEOWNERS) ????????

  20. The “break in chain of title” is not properly described as a “civil theft,” but as a “criminal theft,” a larceny, although admittedly in actual practice nobody is going to do anything about it. The difference is that if you describe it as a “theft by conversion” then you can obtain as a remedy, either twice or three times the value of the property converted (depends on the State, of course). In my view, in many cases, suing for “conversion,” even if you still have possession of the home and the adverse has effectively seized the title by filing transfers on the Land Records, is much more profitable. Getting whacked for treble damages on a conversion count takes the fun out of stealing houses. Banksters beware: I will whack you every single time on a conversion count. usually attracts attorney fees also (a nice touch).

  21. Neil—you sounded great until this sentence:

    “…Nobody paid for anything because the whole scheme was funded by investor-lenders ignorant of how their money was actually being used…”

    Security investors are NEVER a lender, NEVER a creditor—you know that, Neil.

    The article is finally getting close to what ANONYMOUS has been saying all along—the note is not a note…because:

    “…The notes are not NEW notes, the notes are not notes at all, HARP/HAMP tries to get borrowers to sign to modify the debt — as if it was a valid mortgage with a valid note.

    HARP/HAMP is a continuation of the Fraud — not the original source.

    The subprime refinances (and new purchases) were already modifications of default debt — but, no one was ever told.

    HARP/HAMP just allows borrowers to modify the default debt — AGAIN.

    Refer to the TARP Oversight Panel November 2010 report — footnote 35 — “Without the note, a mortgage is unenforceable, while without the mortgage, a note is simply an unsecured debt obligation, no different from credit card debt.”

    Mortgages were not validly discharged/cancelled by a subprime refinance.

    The mortgage, as GSE charge-off, remains with the subprime refinance only serving as modification to the (false) default debt.

    Were the subprime refinances presented as a valid mortgage to the borrowers??? YES.

    But, this was FALSE and fraudulent.

    They were NOT valid mortgages, as the mortgage remained intact — only by servicer advance —not by the borrower refinance.

    And, the servicer “modifies” the original “note”, by the subprime refinance, on behalf of an unidentified creditor/”investor” – mortgage remains.

    Borrower remains in default status with GSE.

    Does a valid UCC negotiable note exist by
    the subprime refinance??

    NO.

    Of course not, the prior mortgage was never validly discharged, and although the servicer advances, the borrower is NOT recorded as paying.

    In effect, the actual borrower on the subprime refinance is —- THE SERVICER — (on behalf of the actual JUNK debt buyer creditor/”Investor”).

    HARP/HAMP just continues to “modify” the false default — HAH — if you are LUCKY (not really LUCKY).

    Yes– Corridor Agreements exist — and are buried reference in Registration Statements (S-3), and Prospectus.

    Possibly not even referred to at all. And, certainly not filed as viewable with the SEC. .

    Correspondent brokers and bankers, YES, made a bundle on the deals — irrelevant to the borrower — except they paid for in the form of higher interest rates on the modified JUNK debt — called a subprime refinance. .

    All subprime loans (falsely called refinances) were sold to one of the big banks.

    Only the big banks had contracts with GSEs.

    The banks then securitized (passed-through cash flows — that is all securitization is) — to security investors.

    (SECURITY INVESTORS ARE NOT THE LENDERS, NEIL)

    The very structure of the REMIC subprime was to provide credit enhancement to generate AAA ratings.

    But, the Prospectus said otherwise, the Prospectus clearly states how the certificates to “risky” loan contained in the REMIC are sold TO THE SECURITY UNDERWRITERS — who do NOT report financial statements to the IRS — their parent corporation does.

    Further, securitization must involve removable of receivables from the corporation’s balance sheet.

    By transferring the pass-through to off-balance sheets, the corporation was able to avoid reporting that the loans they “securitized” were not actually loans with valid receivables, in fact, they were COLLECTION RIGHTS to DEFAULT DEBT, by which the corporation could only report the cash received as income — not receivables.

    BINGO — invalid securitizations — and, that is why the subprime REMICs collapsed…”

    AND SO WENT THE ECONOMY…

    WAKE UP.

  22. As we stand the banks have inserted themselves into the mortgage process as though they were lenders, traded the loans, sold the loans and bought insurance all payable to themselves. The money came from you and me in our managed funds for retirement and pensions, and the announcement of slashed benefits will come after the election.

  23. @garyinca, The pension and retirement investment funds. Re-read todays articles and comments from Neil.

  24. …..”Which brings us to the second break in the chain. “for value received” is so commonplace, nobody reads it or pays any attention to it. But the fact is that the payee on the note never loaned the money nor purchased the loan.”

    This begs the question…’who paid the the seller of the home I purchased for which I received a Grant Deed and where did this money come from?

  25. Javagold,

    Not an attorney by a long shot but my thoughts are that you put the “bank/servicer” whoever is attempting to foreclose in the hot seat and getting them to “prove” their case. In non-judicial states the burden of proof falls on the homeowner because the banks can go outside the judicial system to sell the home and you have to sue them to stop. Suing the bank puts the burden of proof on you my friend.

    If you could “prove” the parties were misidentified you’d put a huge hole in their story. If you could show that the loan was table funded and the party identified on the docts is not correct well then the bank has some explaining to do.

    Honestly, best case scenario if you have a competent attorney you would get the house. Realistically, I think the bank would cut a good loan MOD at that point and are you willing to roll the dice on a “free house”? Personally, I’m not with the amount of cases the homeowners lose.

    Worst Case-The judge doesn’t care because after all the deadbeat homeowner is still in default and owes somebody somewhere something. Who cares if the parties aren’t correct. This is the biggest pitfall I see. The homeowner can’t prove he is not in “default” and the judges don’t care if you are not in default to the correct party, they really don’t.

    If I would have started my lawsuit prior to stopping payment to the servicer I think I would be in a much better position because you take this course of action away from the bank. When you go to court and tell the judge I am current and show bank statements with payments but you are disputing the servicer/bank right to payments…well then that is a different ball game. If you have left your paper trail of QWR, FOIA requests, and Debt Validation Letter, along the way etc…you would have a good shot at a QT case in my opinion.

    Just my 2 cents. Good luck.

  26. so what are the results of DENY and DISCOVER…….best case scenario ?? ….worst case scenario ????

  27. Seee….. I told you with 100% Certainty my Mortgage Payments were going to the Right Party! Yep! Right Back into My Retirement NestEgg! Never asked for more than what I had worked for. And I’m Not a Lier! I was just settin on the sideline waiting for gavel to fall .. just like everyone else here. Many Blessings to You All!

  28. *Splat*

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 3,524 other followers

%d bloggers like this: