Bankruptcy Lawyers: it starts in the schedules — admission of secured debt is deadly

I was traveling and re listening to an older lecture given by 2 Bankruptcy judges generally held in high esteem. The largest point was that naming a party as the creditor and checking the right boxes showing they are secured basically ends the discussion on the motion to lift stay and restricts your options to either filing an adversary lawsuit attached to the administrative bankruptcy petition or filing an action in state court which is where you will be if you don’t follow this same simple direction. If you file schedules attached to your petition for bankruptcy relief, as you are required to do, these are basically the same as sworn affidavits. They will be used against you in any contested hearing.

So the judge lifts the stay and then often mistakenly enters additional language in the order ending the issue of whom is the real lender. After all, that is who you were making the payments to, right, so they must be a creditor. And this is all about a mortgage foreclosure so they must, in addition to being a creditor, they must be a secured creditor. And if the collateral is worth less than the claim, there is not much else to talk about it is simple to these Judges because nobody has shown them differently and one of the Judges is retired now. By definition when the Bankruptcy Judge says in the order who is the creditor, he or she has gone beyond their jurisdiction and due process because there was no evidentiary hearing.

This all results from a combination of technology (garbage in, garbage out), inexperience with securitized mortgages, laziness and failure to do the research to determine what is the truth and what is not. If you are a bankruptcy practitioner who uses one of the desktop bankruptcy programs, then the questions, boxes, and fill-ins are intuitively placed in the schedule that your client swears to. No problem unless the schedules are wrong. And they are wrong where the debt runs from the Petitioner to the REMIC trust beneficiaries and is unsecured by any mortgage that the homeowner borrower petitioner ever signed or meant to sign.

The first point is that the amount if the debt is unknown and we now this for a fact because there are multiple offsets for Third party payment (like Servicer advances) that must be examined one by one. It could be zero, it could be there is money due to the borrower, it could be more or less what is being demanded by the Servicer or trustee. Another thing we know is that neither the Servicer or trustee is likely to know the amount of their claim. So send out a QWR to all addresses for the Servicer and the REMIC trustee.

If you get several different payment histories it is a fair bet they came off of different records, different systems and require the records custodian to authenticate each Servicer’ rendition, of beginning balance, ending balance and every transaction in between. The creditor who filed a proof of claim has the burden of showing a color able right to enforce the mortgage. That can only come from the pooling and servicing agreement. The parties to the PSA are the REMIC Trust, the REMIC Trust beneficiaries and the broker dealer who sold the bonds issued by the REMIC trust.

But if there is no trust or the REMIC trust never actually acquired the subject loan, then the appointed Servicer in the PSA draws no power from a PSA for a nonexistent or empty trust (at least empty of the subject loan.) it is not the Servicer by right, it has become the Servicer by its intervention into the contractual right between the borrower homeowner and the lender (the REMIC trust beneficiaries). The “apparent authority” of the Servicer will only take it so far.

And every transactions means that as a Servicer they were paying or passing on the borrower’s payments . Where are those records — missing. Does the corporate representative know about those payments? Who was the creditor paid. When did the payments from Servicer start and when did they stop — or are they still on-going right up to and including trial, foreclosure sale auction and final disposition of proceeds from an REO sale.

So from the perspective of the Petitioner he might have made payments to an entity that claimed to be the Servicer and those payments are due back not the bankruptcy estate. OOPS but that is what happens when a company arrogated unto itself the powers of a Servicer for loans that are claimed to be in a trust — where the trust doesn’t own the loan, note or mortgage (deed of trust). Thus the Servicer would be owed zero but you would show them in the unsecured column, unliquidated and disputed. This could have a substantial income on the amount of the claim, whether part or all of it is secured.

But no matter, if you fail to take a history from the client, get the closing documents, title and securitization report together with loan level analysis, you are going to do a disservice to your client. We provide litigation support and analysis to give you the data to make an informed decision, fight the POC, MLS, turnover of rents, etc. Then you might avoid the dreaded call of calling your insurance carrier who will probably tell you neither paid for nor received a tail on your claims made policy.

LAWYERS: Go to http://www.livingliesstore.com and start journey toward the light.

About these ads

209 Responses

  1. CHECK THIS OUT. KAMALA HARRIS -AG OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA- MAKES BIG ARRESTS INCLUDING TWO ATTORNEYS –
    FILINGS OF FALSE COURT DOCUMENTS AND FALSE DOCUMENTS FOR RECORDING!

    WHY ARE THE BANKS GETTING AWAY WITH IT?

  2. Christine, the sweet kind one

    doesn’t want to see any fight left in us.

  3. Tony,

    Tnharry came by too. He had the same thing to say. Except that, 5 ago, we all had the miguided belief that people needed help andf we could offer it.
    They don’t want help. They want group therapy. “Hi. I’m John. I’m in foreclosure.” Chorus: “Hi John.”
    We all got burnt, sometimes by the same ones. In the end, they all lose. But they stick around…

  4. Wow I’ve been gone for a long time and I see the same lies are alive and well. People please stop…breath a research on your own. Again people on here do not know what they are talking about.

    Lets just say that you use the adversary to “beat out” the banks. Yes the trustee could step in and “try” to sell your assets but you do have a trump card to stop this. Its called dismissal of your bankruptcy. Remember your bankruptcy if you file it is voluntary not involuntary. You can dismiss it at anytime. The trustee or the judge can’t do anything.

    The 4th circuit has case law long standing on this and has been largely followed in the rest of the circuits. Without any other cases stating different. The only thing the bankruptcy court can do is say next time you file you only have a automatic stay for only 30 days and if you want it longer you must file a hearing to get it extended.

    With the Stern ruling and also the recent Detroit bankruptcy ruling people should know better than type what they are typing. Bankruptcy was never about discharging just the personal. The jurisdiction of bankruptcy “court” is very limited in nature. It is an article I court that can not rule on property issues. It can rule on equity issues meaning the value of the estate but not just purely an issue of property rights. It is outside the article I court jurisdiction.

    The meaning in rem comes from the ruling of discharge that the bankruptcy gives this is the reason why they used to file a person’s bankruptcy in the news paper for 3 weeks to let the “whole world” know that there claim is about to be discharged.

    Just as the judge stated in the Detroit bankruptcy ruling “the states can not interfere in contracts, but the federal government can.” Bankruptcy does just this in that it changes the nature of the contract that was between the bank and you. If some how the bank was allowed to keep a “lien” against property that would be a violation of the bankruptcy acts. Reason why is because no creditor can receive special preference. You can not have a claim discharge, then secretly saved to recoup after bankruptcy discharge without the rest of the creditors able to share in this asset. Read Ex Parte Foster by Justice Story, he explains the whole meaning of the bankruptcy acts. Including what the meaning of the saving clause is in bankruptcy.

    If people would just read Long v Bullard you would see that the word “in rem” never even is said in the case once. They talk about a fieri facias, mesne process.That’s it, no in rem because no one of that time dared to use in rem in such a light. It could be easily crushed by any lawyer of that time.So they used justice Gray’s ruling in Bradford v Rice to explain there ruling.

    A year later In Re Boyton from the supreme court wrote about how bullard ruling can not be in banruptcy. Read this hidden diamond and you will be amazed at this ruling.

    Just because courts use bullard as the holy grail does not mean it is used correctly. For over hundreds of years African’s living in America were treated under Jim Crow or the “separate but equal” doctrine. This was later proven this was not true and “All men are created equal” means anyone including African’s living in America. What we the people need to do is start challenging the status quo on these cases that do not mean what the try to make them seem to be for there benefit.

  5. Iwantmynpv, … its called fracking, 4state with contaminated water aquifers and water supply now . Also Brought to you by deregulation.

  6. Hehehe… Too funny. Another certifiable one is imploding. The next one won’t be too long behind.

    Nature has a way of cleaning up.

  7. SORRY GUYS, I HAVE HACKERS ON MY COMPUTER. i KNOW WHERE THEY ARE FROM – ASTORIA fEDERAL s & l but I CAN’T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. They have joined my computer, home phone and cell phone after Astoria’s win for a Winstar lawsuit with the government of 427 million was reversed because someone noticed WHAT i WAS SAYING ABOUT WHO STOLE MY TWO CONDOS.

  8. I MATILYN LANE DID not SAY that MICHICAN STUFF SOME HACKERS PUT INTO THE COMPUTER. —the judges are ruling on illegal debts and loans
    (ultra vires contracts)

  9. all
    The Post below about MICHIGAN AT 11 03 pm

    IS NOT MY POST
    =========================

  10. Iwantmynpv,

    “The problem with Americans? We believe we are the epicenter of the universe, when in actuality, we are losing ground in our own solar system, eventually destined to go the way of many other great empires”

    Music to my ears. You can say it and get by with it: you’re a guy. Hyenas get their back up when I do it. Know why? For the same exact reasons women who suffered excrutiating pain as kids being excised do it to their own daughters to make them “marriable”. Never mind that 25% die horrendous death with infection and have to be cut during child birth, to be resewn afterwards with absolutely no anesthesia and antiseptics. Men don’t care. Women do: if it was done to them, it will be done to their daughters.

    Same mentality. Same results.

  11. MICHIGAN LAWS
    OREGON LAWS AND FORMS
    Wisconsin Law
    Homeowners
    Attorneys’ Network
    Foreclosure Defense and Offense: The Evolving Mortgage Audit Process
    The Evolving Mortgage Audit Process
    GTC|HONORS REGISTRATION FORM
    Attorneys
    Attorney Network Expands to Over 150 Lawyers in 37 States
    The Evolving Mortgage Audit and Analysis Process
    LAWYER-CLIENT JOB FAIR BY TELECONFERENCE — ***SPREAD THE WORD***
    Find a Lawyer that “Gets It”
    60 minutes AHMSI appraisal fraud assignment attorney general auction fraud bailout Bank of America bankruptcy BOA borrower borrowers Chris Koster countrywide credit bid credit bids credit crisis credit default swaps creditor default disclosure discovery DocX Indictment Eviction evidence Federal reserve Florida foreclosure foreclosure defense foreclosure fraud foreclosure offense foreclosures FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT forgery fraud Goldman Sachs HERS housing housing market housing prices insurance investors lender Lender Liability lenders linda green LOAN MODIFICATION lost note LPS MERS Missouri modification Mortgage mortgage fruad mortgage meltdown mortgages note Obama predatory lending principal reduction quiet title REMIC rescission RESPA RICO Robo-Signing securitization settlement strategic default TILA TILA audit trustee Wall Street WEISBAND Wells Fargo

    Rocket Dockets Undermine Faith In Judicial System
    Posted on January 13, 2014 by Neil Garfield
    Having now personally participated in the “expedited” processes that are now invoked in many states, it has become apparent that they are all deficient. Citizens who find themselves in the court system are fast losing faith that it is a rubber stamping system if they are accused of anything, and an obstacle to justice if they are seeking compensation for damages sustained as a result of breach of duty or obligation. My main observation is that in the civil dockets, equal protection is intentionally thrown out the window. If the opposing parties are on equal footing on a socio-economic scale, they might have a better chance of being “heard”, which is the essence of due process; but if there is a disparity in their perceived position in our society, they are more likely to see undue process — which is to say there is a presumption of guilt of the person on the lower scale and a presumption that the larger, higher party is more credible.
    The credibility of banks and their attorneys ought to be greeted with a healthy dose of skepticism from the start. They have been accused of the most heinous economic crimes of their own doing and accessory to the crimes of others, found guilty in many cases by administrative agencies, and yet are treated with deference by judges in contested actions. So far they have paid collectively around $200 Billion in fines and settlements for conduct that is illegal, improper and outside the bounds of anything that could be called accepted industry standards. And that total represents what we know about. The amount of private settlements with the real parties to mortgage loans — homeowners and investors — is presumably much higher, but sealed under confidentiality.
    The result of all this is that the banks are getting exactly what they want — keeping their ill-gotten gains and getting still more money called “profit” with their payments of fines, damages and penalties being pennies on the dollar. And they get an added bonus. Homeowners could avoid foreclosure if they raised the right defenses in the right way. But they are still giving up and leaving their keys on the kitchen counter. So far 15 Million people have been displaced by the foreclosure process. The very people who should be an army of revolt in the Courts are so intimidated by their opposition and what they see happening in the courts that they give up their largest investment, their lifestyle, their neighborhood because they are demoralized by a rigged legal system.
    The rigging comes from the starting position that the origination and acquisition of loans actually occurred and therefore, no matter how you cut it, the homeowner is a borrower and the bank that sued them or put their home up for sale is accordingly entitled to do so, because the borrower stopped paying “the debt”. And in most cases that is true, the record of payments shows that the borrower was making payments to some Servicer and then stopped. The conclusion is that foreclosure is inevitable and that due process is due in name only and not in substance — even where the creditor named as such in the foreclosure process is receiving and accepting full payments from third parties, which is to say that homes are foreclosed and sold without any default on the books of the creditor.
    My review of thousands of closings leads me to an avoidable, inescapable conclusion that the premise behind rocket dockets is untrue and can never be proven otherwise. The “debt” was the product of absolute fraud deserving of punitive damages and I intend to push that point until I get it — hopefully in a verdict instead of the thousands of sealed settlements I know about. The fraud started with theft of pension fund money by the investment banks and conversion of pension fund assets (the note and mortgage or deed of trust) by the investment banks.
    The money loaned to homeowners was not originated or acquired by a REMIC trust. It came from stolen money — money that was never deposited into the trust account of the REMIC trust). The homeowner was further fraudulently induced to sign documents that converted investor money and documents to the broker dealers (investment banks). The property was never encumbered by a valid mortgage or the encumbrance became unenforceable when the loan was supposedly “acquired” in a fictitious transaction. The missing or late assignment of the “debt” was fictitious (note there was no debt because none of the parties had ever loaned any money nor paid any value to acquire it — but the real debt still existed without documentation and without any collateral). But the pile of paper, ever growing, is taken by judges to mean that the greater “weight” of the pile of meaningless documents creates a presumption in favor of the fraudulent allegations of the co-conspirators.
    The answer is simple. The real debt was created by the lending of real money by a real lender to a real borrower. That is what the laws says and that is what common sense will tell you. THAT loan really happened, but because of the interference of the banks and servicers, the money of the lender investor (pension fund) and the paperwork documenting the transaction were hijacked. And that is why investors are getting settlements, agencies are getting verdicts, and the banks are continuing to pay hundreds of billions of dollars to protect TRILLIONS of dollars in ill-gotten gains.
    Back in 2007 I proposed a way of settling this with amnesty for all and a share of the risk of loss by everyone. I will soon write about the doctrine of ASSUMPTION OF RISK which is a way of apportioning the real risks at the time of the defective mortgage originations and acquisitions. It is like the old doctrine of comparative negligence and it is good law aimed at a just result.
    Assumption of Risk is an affirmative defense that arises by operation of law. It is based upon facts that show that the projected loss of the Plaintiff occurred, at least in part, because they impliedly agreed to assume the risk of loss upon certain events. For example, if the household income was $50,000 at the time was originated, then by most standards the maximum total payment of PITI should have been between $15,000 and $20,000 per year (or around $1250-$1600 per month). Any loan calling for payments above that level triggers the Assumption of Risk defense to the extent that the payment exceeds the level set by industry standards. The simple reality is that the “lender” (whether real or fictitious) accepted the probability that the loan would default at the moment the payment reset to an amount that was known to be impossible.
    So if you look at those “pick a payment” or teaser payment loans, you can see how this would apply. The initial payment might have been $500 per month, but the payment eventually resets to $4,000 per month. Since the payment resets to an amount equal to the entire household income, it is impossible for the loan to succeed. And in fact the the new rules that went into effect this month from the Consumer Financial Protection Board are considered to be merely “back to basics” where such a loan would never be allowed. If we use Assumption of Risk as an affirmative defense, then the “blame” gets shared. A jury or judge would decide the comparative risks assumed or agreed by the parties regardless of what was in the written agreements. In this case the decision might be that the maximum payment to be assessed against the homeowner would be $1,600. The other $2,400 per month supposedly due under the note would be offset. The offset might result in the reformation or modification of the loan.
    There are dozens of ways and hundreds of case scenarios in which assumption of risk could be used. Of course this would mean taking cases off the rocket docket and putting them into general civil or complex litigation dockets.
    Spread the word
    Like this:
    RelatedBack to HOLDER and HOLDER IN DUE COURSE
    In “CASES”The Devil Is In the Details: Summary of Issues
    In “CASES”New Bank Strategy: There was no securitization — IRS AMNESTY FOR REMICs
    In “CASES”
    Filed under: CDO, CORRUPTION, evidence, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, GARFIELD KELLEY AND WHITE, investment banking, Investor, MBS TRUSTEE, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Pleading, securities fraud, Servicer, TRUST BENEFICIARIES, trustee Tagged: | assumption of risk, due process, EQUAL PROTECTION, foreclosure defenses, pick a payment loans, rocket docket, teaser loans, undue process
    « Bankruptcy Lawyers: it starts in the schedules — admission of secured debt is deadly
    67 Responses
    marilyn lane, on January 13, 2014 at 10:31 pm said:
    A MAN and all
    At 10:30 this morning on another LL PAGE
    jerry, on January 13, 2014 at 10:30 am said:
    Look where the state of Florida invested the judicial retirement funds can you say MBS (Mortgage Backed Securities) now you know why the courts are acting the way they are CTA(covering there asses)
    if this being the case we have to check all the states and see where the judges pensions are invested and we might be able to do an impeachment petition as a whole nation,

  12. ..mpv

    Know your enemy thats why I KEEP MY EYE ON CHRISTINE’S ATTITUDE AND WORDS.

  13. @tnharry – BTW, at first impression tnharry is correct, exemption laws do NOT protect you from losing property if you’ve voluntarily pledged the property as security for a loan and you don’t make the payments. But if you challenge the lien by challenging the lien holder, and they don’t show up for the hearing, the claim may go to ‘abandoned claim’ status, and after the SOL to reconsider the ruling, allows the exemption to kick in as an unsecured liability to which the exemption applies.

  14. Elex
    The truth of the issue is the judges are ruling on illegal debts (ultra vires debts) and loans. There is not a bank charter any where that allows them to lend their credit. A banks business is to lend their money. Credit and cash are completely opposite. I have brought this up numerous times., show me the law that allows a bank to lend their credit.

  15. Iwantmynpv

    In the second world world against all odds we fought our enemy ‘s
    and won. We can do it again without military equipment and closer to home to save our country.

  16. @tnharry wrote – “you add additional facts 4 days later and I’m the shyster?!? homestead exemptions vary widely, from unlimited to as little as $5k, and the trustees can and will contest the use and applicability of the exemptions. and by the way, your hypothetical mentioned merely listing the debt as unsecured. that doesn’t accomplish a free house. nor does the creditor withdrawing their motion for relief without prejudice as suggested by the other commenter. go ahead though – spread faulty information and advice while at the same time saying you “don’t know bankruptcy law”.
    Who’s the more dangerous shyster?”

    Answer: the one who spreads more darkness and ignorance. Knowing that something worked that tnharry didn’t understand, he chose to change the ‘result’ instead of offering how the result may have been produced.

    As for exemptions in CA, the following link could be helpful (certainly more helpful than tnharry) – http://www.legalconsumer.com/bankruptcy/bankruptcy-law.php?ST=CA

    Yes, this is a 1-in-1000 case and a fluke, and if my friend’s house, including appreciation, remained under $175k and income under $35k, then obviously the court trustee couldn’t “evict” her, as tnharry put it.

    But tnharry helped to make a good point for anyone who is considering defending their home as a pro se. You have to expect tactics like tnharry is using here every day. A lot of what opposing counsel ‘offers’ is a bluff to maximize attorney fees (or ego) by sending costly rabbits down black holes while evading the truth of the issue.

  17. Swearing allegiance to a flag is the equivalent of me swearing allegiance to my balls (which I do occasionally). It is a private preference and does nothing to change the reality.

    These united states have fallen to central control – simply because we allow these forms of government to exist.

    The problem with Americans? We believe we are the epicenter of the universe, when in actuality, we are losing ground in our own solar system, eventually destined to go the way of many other great empires

    All roads lead to Washington, and they are already eating off the final bits of fat from the kill!

  18. @elex – you add additional facts 4 days later and I’m the shyster?!? homestead exemptions vary widely, from unlimited to as little as $5k, and the trustees can and will contest the use and applicability of the exemptions. and by the way, your hypothetical mentioned merely listing the debt as unsecured. that doesn’t accomplish a free house. nor does the creditor withdrawing their motion for relief without prejudice as suggested by the other commenter.

    go ahead though – spread faulty information and advice while at the same time saying you “don’t know bankruptcy law”.

    who’s the more dangerous shyster?

  19. @tnharry – A shyster is well known by their lies of omission. You omitted that you failed to consider the effect of homestead exemption in a BK action that allowed my friend to win the home back free and clear in part because the homestead exemption was greater than the purchase price.

    So is there any particular reason anyone should listen to your short-sighted and inept comments in this forum?

  20. The Law Firm signed the HUD as POA for the Trustee.

    The Trustee … Disagrees with his statement. The Trustee also contends she closed her dads trust years ago (right after the (apparent) sale of this property to us). Imagine That?

  21. I will give you a clue ….
    At our closing the Trustee/ Daughter of the Deceased issued the Trustees Deed in the Law Firms Name (who represented her dads trust) and my husbands name.

  22. I’ll give you 3 guesses who the Grantee is ….. :)

  23. UKG.. if that’s the case .. “there is no harm because you still have possession….”

    Then they shouldn’t have any problem filing the Warranty Deed you Signed (as Grantors) to be filed ….. Right?

  24. Tnharry, anything is a possible before coffee. lol
    Seriously though … My need to be informed conflicts with my need to be sane. To many people here looking for something for nothing.

    Anyone who believes they are getting something for Free .. has lost their cotton pickin mind.

    P.S. .. I didn’t like the way my attorney won on standing yrs back … because it didn’t address the issues at hand.
    I still don’t … but procedure is procedure. And I play by the Rules.

  25. KC, we’re going to need you to pledge allegiance to the United States and to Neil/livinglies. While you’re at it, you should probably swear that you will keep an open mind to any and all conspiracy theories and promise to accept terrible legal advise without questioning it.

  26. Good Grief!! Its to early for your BS ML!! I need Coffee …. If it weren’t for coffee, I’d probably be serving 25 to life.

  27. Christine
    There is no way fifteen million people can have their
    homes and life savings stolen and you can say it is a better world.

    EVERY person who bought s home with their hard earned labor deserves their home back and or restitution and damages and after that other countrys could share in our knowledge to make a good life for their people.

    Anything less shows you dislike for the victims.
    How many times have you told the people of the UNITED STATES ‘you lost it cause your dumb’

    i wish the whole world to have success of building a nation giving to so many on their soil.

    Again have you ever pledged allegiance to the United States of America.

  28. Cities nationwide and countries worldwide are taking back their sovereignty and she blames me for it! Deal with it instead of hating the entire world for being happy that things are changing for the better. If you insist on being miserable and spewing, be my guest: in the end, you’ll croak just the same.

  29. Christine
    Have you ever sworn allegiance to America

  30. Christine’s mode of operation is _let me give you all some information and when one turns to read it is a good time for her to stab you in the back.

  31. Watch her work on undermining this great country. She is an inflammatory subversive. We are not going to deal with it
    christine we like our fore fathers are going to fight for this great country.

  32. Christine
    what you doing in this country when you hate it so much?

  33. Christine is real excited in trying to destroy our wonderful COUNTRY
    and out property rights that make us the envy of the world.

    I remember when I first noticed Christine exploiting and pushing information that America is finished. by saying America is done with.

    SOME judges are on her side, but they are waking up

    GOD bless this WONDERFUL NATION. The tides are turning= fight on.

  34. Deal with it or don’t: your choice. It’s happening worldwide whether you like it or not.

  35. The Chief Judge of ever state has the responsibility in every state that their judges follow the law of the land and the US CONSTITUTION for the people of their state.

    That is where our court and judges were able to be led astray for this
    nation and not all the politics from all over the world.

  36. christines selfishness surfaces again when she speaks as eminent domain soooo good, since that might only benefit those still in their homes, not anyone who has already lost their home to fraud.

  37. Boy Oh Boy, this is getting sooo exciting!!!

    It started with BRIC in 2006, become BRICS in 2010: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, transacting in local currencies. In 2011, VISTA came about: VietNam, Indonesia, South Africa (already BRICS member), Turkey and Argentina, and we saw how recently Argentina seriously roughened up WS: not the sign of a weak fighter, on the contrary.

    In June 2012, Japan-China agreement was signed outside of the petrobuck. And Keshe happened all at once between October and December 2011.

    Please, meet MINT.

    “The term caught on and has been common parlance for a decade now. And now O’Neill, though no longer with Goldman, has a new one: the MINT countries. MINT? This term refers to Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey (already VISTA member, with Argentina leading in a hell of a fight against WS), and O’Neill’s premise is that these will be the next economic powerhouses.”

    Now, the funny thing is… O’Neill, a former Goldman, talks about MINT in those terms: “After The BRICS Are The MINTs, But Can You Make Any Money From Them?”

    O’Neill likes money. A lot. Can’t stop seeing the writings on the walls but… he so much wants money…! The answer is not just “No” but ‘Hell No!”. O’Neill finds every reason in the book to discredit MINT, as evidenced by this oh-so-one-sided-article:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/chriswright/2014/01/06/after-the-brics-the-mints-catchy-acronym-but-can-you-make-any-money-from-it/

    America-as-a-Goldman-Sachs-colony is done making money from everyone. The peaceful revolution is marching on. Banks are out. Oil is not far behind. O’Neill can analyze why it can’t work until he gets red in the face. the reality is what it is: people come first for 90% of human beings on this earth, regardless what religion they are. Any war erupting on this planet from now on won’t come from BRICS, VISTA, or MINT.

    It will be banks and oil.

    In the meantime, Eminent Domain is getting so much traction and gaining so much ground in this country, we’re going to be home free in no time!

    Personally, I love it. Stay in the house and give hell to banks. They are on their way out in a big way!

  38. Assumption #1.
    The only communication the other side is having with the judge or the court is on the day of the hearings.

    The clerk of the court can provide notice of all hearings regarding the case, including ex parte hearings.

    ex parte hearing. Hearings in which the court or tribunal hears only one side of the controversy.

    Probably happening when one side is explaining why they are bringing the claim without evidence of standing, or evidence of purchase of the instrument, or any other relevant evidence.

    Remedy is definitely outside the court. Motu Proprio. No immunity.

    Is the new future the judges and lawyers becoming the new surety, to satisfy the payments and performance of the interrupted commerce? I summon the judges and lawyers and offer them the mercy of the court of Divine Justice and the court of Conscience. It is written, so shall it be done.

    Do you think they can navigate a court they have never been in and don’t know the rules? What they’ve done to us, let it be done to them. It is so Ordered.

    Got my popcorn.

    Mercy. In old English practice, the arbitrament of the king or judge in punishing offenses not directly censured by law. So, “to be in mercy” signifies to be amerced or fined for bringing or defending an unjust suit, or to be liable to punishment in the discretion of the court.

    In criminal law, the discretion of a judge, within the limites prescribed by law, to remit altogether the punishment to which a convicted person is liable, or to mitigate the severity of his sentence; as when a jury recommends the prisoner to the mercy of the court.

    Trespass Unwanted, Corporeal, Creator, Life, Free, Independent, State, People, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  39. You All Should Enjoy this …

    The Servicer Survival Guide…. 2012-2013 Edition

    http://www.fishingforsolutions.com/files/Servicers%20Survival%20Guide.pdf

  40. Mandelman is so right, I expect we’ll start seeing a lot of this going on within a few months: eminent domain. The one thing WS and NWO are terrified of: property rights, taxes and income going back to where they belong: communities.

    It starts with ED. It moves on to local banks, direct contracts between investors and borrowers and… before you know it, NWO is completely done and over with! Neighbors meeting each others, people deciding together on how to improve their communities, towns taking back education, infrastructures, you name it. It’s actually the way it was supposed to be all along: human scale on a big planet. Individual responsibility toward each others. And don’t try to get elected to Congress and sign laws unless you know me per-so-nal-ly and you know my needs.

    Eminent domain: the best-ever way to take money out of politics.

    http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2014/01/our-housing-markets-recovery-is-eminent-get-it/

  41. The parties to the PSA are the REMIC Trust, the REMIC Trust beneficiaries and the broker dealer who sold the bonds issued by the REMIC trust.

    http://www.alston.com/Files/Publication/94d73e69-1d90-4357-ae25-56e43c20a17b/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/6e513286-604a-41f4-9d2b-5713fecd83da/12-146%20Tax%20Concerns%20Foreclosures.pdf

  42. When Neil did his post on servicer advances and referenced a part. case, don’t know if he mentioned this, so I’ll throw it in. The case was from 2007 before the real sh&t hit the fan; FC’s weren’t rampant yet (I think). The former loan servicer, one of the litigants, held legal title to 30 properties on which it had foreclosed. The loans were all allegedly securitized. (MERS wasn’t mentioned, so maybe, probably, not on the loans – I didn’t go look). The point is that the servicer took title, not the trusts. I answer the “why” with because the trusts can’t own real estate. imo – fwiw. But I don’t see “how” that’s legit. The loans at issue in the case, btw, don’t appear to be agency loans (most likely read non-conforming loans and so no guarantee out of FNMA or FHA or VA) and were insured (or something the h was) by MBIA and some other outfit (3 trusts involved). The case, unfortunately, doesn’t answer the getting-really-old question: if the payments were insured, so no default, why was there foreclosure? I couldn’t tell if MBIA or the other insurance co had any rights of subrogation. If any insurance co. has rights of subrogation, what the insurance co. pays out is a LOAN, not insurance – to me.

  43. My comment below is to be viewed In the light of this heading re the secured v unsecured debt when doing BK schedual. I got out of bk for my own reasons but i did get so far as blocking them when i challenged their motion to lift stay. Soon as i voluntarily got out of bk court yeah you guessed it / ” sold at auction” ( despite having my suit filed in district court ) followed by a ” pack your stuff and get out of your hOme.”

  44. Re pecuniary interest and injury – theres the thing ” must state a claim upon which relief can be granted ” being stating your case with particularity – sufficient to ask the court under the rules to do its job, whether it does is whether the rules and law are followed by the court and mistakes happen :-/ and if not followed you must raise hell appeal your case. So re ” where did my payments go and who is claiming tax exemption thereto is my beef, well partly. I am injured to say the least And sure i would love to know where my payments went AnD who had the right to demand a payoff, now let me ask you this if a trustees deed upon sale states the bal due is one amount and the 1099a is 90 k short then can the trustees deed upon sale be relied upon when 1099a says the lender is ( servicer ???) debt collector, and the amount of debt owed is a different amount, so then who is the guy ” trustee for” AND buyer at ” auction” and just cant get the numbers right ? So back to the 90 k in mortgage payments to ??? The real party in interest – doubt it, based on my evidence presented. Im dissecting the trustee this and the trustee that, the fact that a trustee for a certain trust never purchases real estate they are to handle the the cash flow and distribute accordingly to the MBS beneficiaries right, so i ask who posed as who in 2 different courts wearing 2 different hats but not the lender according to my 1099a.
    The facts are becoming known by my own discovery- and it is admissible
    I give you my example because im huge on the principles of equal oppertunity and my belief that truth will prevail at the end if the day. we are all trying to have our voice heard in court despite many variances of where we place the blame and causes of action. I know this may sound old fashioned to some ears but we must push hard for a fair hearing and right to a trial and let the triers of fact decide. This is a human civil right. Hence this is becoming known as a crime against humanity.

    Not an attorney. Not legal advice. Just lay opinion.

  45. Usedkarguy thank you for your comment. I have no animosity towards Tnharry. I think he is on the wrong side of history

  46. not “injury” in fact, I said fraud. There is no “injury” according to the judge, because we are still in possession. It is interference with prospective econonomic advantage, and that, my friend, is hard to plead.

  47. wow – the sentiment has gotten more angry since I’ve been gone. good luck with all that animosity e.tolle. you might be surprised at how well i’m sleeping…i’ll stay quiet again and you can take some of that absolutely terrible advice that started this comment thread instead of listening to someone who actually knows.

  48. The problem with Ginnie Mae loan and there are not Notes then what is supposed to be is the only argument is that there was in fact a blank Note. You cannot come to court not having a Note plus not having proof of purchase, claiming ownership! how that work? Your Honor, I have not the Note and I can prove I purchase and what date this was done, but I did it….I promise?

    They have to have the Notes with Ginnie Mae pools because they got nothing else to secure the loan to these phony securities.

  49. A-Man,

    I don’t know where YOUR payments went or are going but I sure as hell did everything I needed to do to find out where mine are. And that, I will! That’s what courts are for.

  50. and A-MAN, I got a guy with a perfect case of “where did my payments go and who do I owe?” with a WaMu/Chase cluster. I hear ya!

  51. A-MAN,nobody is getting their notes returned. There are no “notes”. Only copies. Part of the problem but not nearly the whole biscuit to defending a home.
    why the animosity for attorneys chiming in? a guy shares an opinion, and he is obviously well qualified, even in the “devil’s advocate” tense, and you cry “plant”.
    They don’t need to fiddle around here. The banks already have the congress entertaining the thought of a national registry system to ex-post-fact fix the fraud, literally.

  52. KC
    What we have are Judges like Alice Schlesinger that refuse to follow the law of the land of the Constitution. All the prove and records do no good when they refuse to follow their oath to the Constitution.

  53. Take your records to your accountant, if your records are conflicting and/or incomplete… I advise you to hire an attorney and get discovery.

    What do you think we have … A bag of Fairy Dust?

  54. <—– Is feeling childish today. Consider this your Warning!

    Aman .. Answer: That's for us to know and you to find out.

    Just saying … you have your records not us.

  55. Where did my payments go? where did my downpayment go? Where are my future payments going?

    Answer that KC and the Sunshine band. Or Tnharry? or Christine? I wonder why I mention the three names in one breath.

    May G-d continue to give Neil Garfield and company Courage health and Strength.

  56. Enforce the Contract?

  57. Misrepresented it as a Mortgage.. as an enforceable contract.
    Concealment of Risks
    Concealed the fact that the Mortgage was unenforceable

    Reliance ….. upon their representations

  58. “misrepresentation”, ” concealment” .. and “reliance”

  59. significant, not serious

    Trespass Unwanted

  60. The remedy was never in the courts.
    Judges have an interest in protecting the instruments they put into the market, in my opinion. There’s also an interest in the proceeds from the Cesti Que trust for each case that comes before them.

    But greedy people don’t follow rules. We can sit here every day and see something else that was not done or was done deceptively to steal property. As far as that comment where people purchasing foreclosures are protected, that’s great as long as they move out of property that was stolen. Give them their money back and tell them the property has a prior claim and ownership. Yes they are protected but they can’t get enriched off the theft of someone who had prime real estate in a prime location.

    Accounting is a really big deal, and what’s on the shadow books got there from what’s on the public books.

    They are so greedy, I wouldn’t put it past them to take those mortgage claims, claim the tranches are bad and the economy will collapse, get paid for their assets, and then turn around and sell the very bonds, collateral, instruments, they were bailed out from.

    I imagine that in say 2007, they were paid for all instruments they claimed were bad and in default within some window, and now those same instruments with those same origination dates are floating around in someone else’s ownership and they claim a loss and want to take the home over the instrument, and if they take the home, do they remove the instrument from their books or do they keep it active as an asset hoping for some future payout if there were a future bail out? I just don’t put my imagination past these people and their greed.

    After all they’ve paid out, it’s not enough for what they’ve done to impoverish the world. This time with the SEC, and some CFO or board signing off on these assets as being good, I’m hoping someone get’sa wardrobe of horizontal strips and long term reservations at the gray bar motel.

    reuter’s article

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/08/us-banks-mortgageprobe-idUSBREA0705Y20140108

    Banks face new probe over mortgage bond trades post 2008: WSJ
    Wed Jan 8, 2014 12:24am EST

    “whether banks made “significant misrepresentations” about some of those assets”

    They didn’t state fraud, deceit, conceal, but they did state “serious misrepresentation”.

    ==============================
    Black’s Law 2nd Edition pg 236 under the definition of Conceal

    The terms “misrepresentation” and concealment” have a known and definite meaning in the law of insurance. Misrepresentation is the statement of something as fact which is untrue in fact, and which the assured states, knowing it to be not true, with an intent to deceive the underwriter, or which he states positively as true, without knowing it to be true, and which has a tendency to mislead, such fact in either case being material to the risk. Concealment is the designed and intentional withholding of any fact material to the risk, which the assured, in honesty and good faith, ought to communicate
    to the underwriter ; mere silence on the part of the assured, especially as to some matter of fact which he does not consider it important for the underwriter to know, is not to be considered
    as such concealment. If the fact so untruly stated or purposely suppressed is not material, that is, if the knowledge or ignorance of it
    would not naturally influence the judgment of the underwriter in making the contract, or in estimating the degree and character of the risk, or in fixing the rate of the premium, it is not a “misrepresentation” or “concealment,” within the clause of the conditions annexed to policies. Daniels v. Insurance Co., 12 Cush. (Mass.) 416, 59 Am. Dec. 192.

    MISREPRESENTATION. An intentional false statement respecting a matter of fact, made by one of the parties to a contract, which is material to the contract and Influential in producing it. Wise v. Fuller,
    29 N. J. Eq. 262.
    False or fraudulent misrepresention is a representation contrary to the fact, made by a person with a knowledge of its falsehood,
    and being the cause of the other party’s entering into the contract 6 Clark & F. 232.
    ‘Negligent misrepresentation is a false representation
    made by a person who has no reasonable grounds for believing it to be true, though he does not know that it is untrue, or even believes it to be true. L E. 4 H. L 79.
    Innocent misrepresentation is where the person making the representation had reasonable grounds for believing it to be true.
    L R. 2 Q. B. 580.
    ==============================

    The bank knows what’s on it’s books, so no innocent nor negligent misrepresentation is considered especially when signing off to the SEC any information about the assets.

    I love it when Inspector Generals get involved.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  61. UKG… you cant sue for Injury in a BK court.

  62. ML.. you need to work on your reading comprehension to.
    Aman.. are you Stripes fka Ivent the Insolvent? The Signs are there!

    Charles, RE: ” It all about the Contract/Note and Title, as both must be attacked and has been and the victories are because of “No Standing”!”

    Correct … but what is the Injury .. to the borrower to bring standing to sue for damages?

    I see a lot of losses on both sides for failing to state a claim. Injury!

    Good Morning Everyone!

  63. @iwantmynpv, I think the Government taking this second bite at the apple because critics of the Obama Administration Justice Dept, as in Sen Warren have written and ask for information as to what was done to homeowners as far as illegal acts, and what monies the US Government is owed.

    This new $50 billion settlement is not only addressing securities and but wrongful foreclosure and I would think that these banks will not only handle the bad securities but hopefully the loans that have claimed wrongful foreclosure.

    The only banks are mostly all those who took TARP and now SIGTARP looks to expand it look into modifications and monies given to review these files. Just look at the IFR and the first deadline of Apr 2012 there were only like 100,000 or less request for a review and by the 3rd deadline there were less than 220,000 request and because of a push in Nov that final total was around 500,000 request. However most people did not claim a wrongful foreclosure and I would assume that as little as 50,000 of less sited a reason to the IFR or one of the agencies or bankruptcy court claims of the home being brought because the homes traditional are not dealt with by the bankruptcy court and are handled outside of it.

    So now not only the banks but the government got the cover of this settlement to simply claim an economical reason to settled a 100,000 or even less claims of wrongful foreclosures, and and put the matter behind them. As they now have a way to not admit fault and just chalk it up to the settlement.

    They divide everybody as they pay and attorney and homeowners who after 5yrs have not a clue and continue with the Russian Mob or some other International entity funding the loans. I believe there are only around the 100,000 or so files they actually have to deal with as the rest of the world is clueless.

    It all about the Contract/Note and Title, as both must be attacked and has been and the victories are because of “No Standing”!

  64. Group therapy for the incurable. The next step is heavy medication. After that, we’re talking Bellevue.

    And people wonder why they built Fema camps? Not enough Bellevues to accommodate the exploding population nationwide!

  65. E. Tolle very well put. TnHary you are on the wrong side of history. But you are very useful to this website. It will probably be a family member that will take care of Tnharry. Or maybe we will have a retake of the Nuremberg trials. Because we are fighting the same Nazi’s Deutche bank etc……

    Regarding the dissent. Tnharry it is in Los Angeles County and if you read Attorney talk. The dissenting Judge was giving a stern warning to the other judges and was covering his A@@ because he knows that the tide has turned.

    E.Tolle we need Tnharry Know thy enemy.

    NEVER AGAIN

  66. well said E.Tolle.
    KC you said my attitude was what that made THE judge rule aqainst me . Every judge takes an oath to obey the Constitution and the laws of the land. Why would any of us settle for anything less.

  67. @ tnharry, you need to work on covering over the disingenuous attitude you’ve copped here for years. Long ago on LL, you might have gotten away with pretending not to know of the immensity of the crime spree conducted in broad daylight by your cronies. Those days are long gone. Anything you bring to the table here has to be weighed against the millions of fraudulent acts perped by attorneys like yourself across the country, all the while assisting these banks in high crimes.

    If I were you, and thank God that’s not the case, I’d start to worry about the possibility of retribution down the road, and it might turn out to be not a very long road at that. There’s always the chance that one of these days, the light of justice will flicker back on and shine bright on all of the blatant fraud that cheap suited attorneys across America have been filing by the millions, in order to boot folks from their homes from coast to coast and serve their masters in high finance.

    I trust that at some point in the not too distant future, you’ll be searching your rear view mirror every time you move about, always fearful that someone will recognize you for what you are, a banker minion. Your stance has always been about the borrower not having their act together, or being infinitely stupid when trying to operate in your world of jurisprudence. We’ll see how you fare in a world determined to right the wrongs you aided and abetted in the last decade. I see pitchforks in your future, but I don’t see you farming.

    The textbook definition of disingenuous is, “Withholding information: withholding or not taking account of known information.” That sums up nicely the credo of bank foreclosure attorneys. The earth will be a much better place when that entire profession is shown to be the sickness that it is, and purged for all time.

  68. @ Charles Reed

    Charles Reed hit the nail on the head – and you guys simply glanced over it.

    The Trustee / Custodian is required to file a Report that identifies each loan received and attest to the completion of the collateral package – i.e. note, mortgage, riders, title etc.. each naming the trustee as the beneficiary on behalf of the certificate holders.

    This is always done between the Depositor and the Trustee!!!

  69. it is hard to know on the internet who are victims of foreclosure fraud
    and who are the plants when so many AREN’T IDENTIFIED BY THEIR WHOLE TRUE NAME AND ONLY BY INITIALS, NICKNAMES, PSEUDO NAMES ETC.

  70. ….failure to act in a timely fashion

  71. harry, good to see you back. yes, the inmates are running the asylum. Anybody worth their salt is busy working and trying to form a proper pleading. in the Ch13, we’ve had the J rule that the debtor can’t contest the endorsement by the non-officer on the note appearing in BK after foreclosure note was unendorsed. even better, three assignments of mortgage don’t constitute forgery? how about a HAMP constitutes a “settlement”? How about the HAMP was never returned to the borrower, but a countersigned copy appeared in BK? How about a VACATED JUDGMENT (default judgment at that, after 9 months of litigation) constitutes adjudication of Debtors fraud claims, when the fraud claims are the result of conduct of the attorneys involved that is/was ongoing in the BK?
    BOB, I sent you a lady looking for help in Jersey. maybe you know someone. we were also speaking about assignment of claims during BK. The assignments purported to be the original assignments to the trust, as well as the late appearing endorsement on the note. These are obvious proof of a preferential transfer.

    Counselors (you too, van Eck): does a HAMP agreement that re=affirms the original note and mortgage made out to the named payee/\originator eliminate the holder in due course defense of the foreclosing Trustee? would it therefore eliminate the transfer to the trust? I know you want to say “no” because the servicer is modifying, allegedly on behalf of the investor, but this eliminates any “ARMS=LENGTH” aspects of the transaction, especially in light of the onerous charges to the investors and the servicers’ failure to act ?
    Looking forward to your opinions.

  72. What are you talking about TnHarry? Are you a Thug? You are boring me.

  73. Aman, you need to work on reading comprehension. You’re sticking it to me and my team with a dissent?!? If you agree with the dissent, that means your side lost….

  74. Is it possible …The Plenders closed on WH lines of credit – AWL ( their Creditor)?

    Then.. Charged off those lines of credit -after they sold their interest forward to a 3rd party?

  75. The FC are QT actions. Washing Assets

    But when you are a homeowner trying to defend your title ….. you go at it from the other end of the track.

    I’m still waiting to see endorsments from lender to one or the other …. of the two parties claiming to have purchased it from them and laying claim to my title.

    What goes around Comes Around and Karma Bites

  76. There is in existence a certain written instrument “PPM” which purports to be the beneficial interest held in a PRIVATE PLACEMENT MEMORANDUM (“PPM”) Said document that is binding amongst the successors parties in the formation of certain Limited Partnerships, formed as a Limited Liability Corporation or “LLC”
    The parties under the PPM form amongst themselves the understanding and contents of the party’s right to claims to the Family title for the estate located at ………………………….
    .
    Plaintiff is informed and believes as fact, and thereon alleges as fact that, at all times herein mentioned, each of the defendants sued herein was the agent and employee of each of the remaining defendants and was at all times acting within the purpose, and scope of such agency and employment.

    A true and correct copy of the said written instrument is attached hereto…

  77. re: agency

    “Under Pennsylvania law, because the Hawthornes are
    asserting an agency relationship, they have “the burden of
    proving it by a fair preponderance of the evidence.”
    Volunteer Fire Co. of New Buffalo v. Hilltop Oil Co.
    , 602 A.2d 1348, 1351 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992). “The basic elements of agency are ‘the manifestation by the principal that the agent shall act for him, the AGENT’S ACCEPTANCE OF THE UNDERTAKING and the understanding of the parties that the principal is to be in control of the undertaking.’” Scott v. Purcell, 415 A.2d 56, 60 (Pa. 1980)
    (quoting the Restatement (Second) of Agency § 1, Comment b.”

    This is agency in general. However, agency when it comes to real property can’t be demonstrated by intent. It requires a writing.
    I found this case looking for the relationship between a broker and a lender. In this case, Countrywide staunchly maintained that the broker was an independent contractor, not an agent and thus, the broker’s acts had nada implication to CW. (broker double-crossed buyer and didn’t close loan because CW didn’t approve and wouldn’t fund – buyer lost house to another buyer). I’m pointing to CW swearing the broker is not its agent as step one in getting at who is the lender when CW funds the broker’s loans.
    (and where is MERS’ “acceptance of the undertaking” to be found?? It’s certainly not in the dot.

  78. Neil, et al – please read this (from 2001)!

  79. Thanks KC
    I already had it in my computer

  80. KC, sure like to know what that says, because I don’t. In English?

  81. If I over paid you and you owed me a refund …. would you sue me for overpayment? Probably Not.

  82. The Estate … the party with subornation rights .
    The Estate… the Warrantor with Salvage rights.

  83. I’m pretty sure this is what MS is referring to ….. RESPA reg X sec 8.

    Violation of this ….
    Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”), 12 U.S.C. §1833a. 2

    Led to this ……..
    loss of its investment by congressional enactment under the Troubled Assets Relief Program “TARP” for charging off and writing down the outstanding balance against purchaser and all other defendants and or indispensable parties to claims that include the purchasers and registrant against the titleholder and consumer household

  84. Ouch JG! You are so HOT, your burning some Biskets!

    The lender is the seller 80
    The lender is the largest single investor 20
    The lender is the servicer

    The servicer is claiming the wrong amount due… the creditor

  85. Oh my goodness another loss for the tnharry fan club in California

    http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2014/01/10/holmes-v-hsbc-judge-rubin-lays-it-out-again-in-ca-court-of-appeal-dissention/

    tnharry where did my payments go? where did my down payment go? and where are my future payments gonna go?

    NEVER AGAIN.

  86. This one SO FAR is the most instructive re: lender, correspondent, broker (who’s the lender?)”

    http://mtgprofessor.com/a%20-%20type%20of%20loan%20provider/what_is_a_correspondent_lender.htm

  87. Here’s some basic info re: correspondents v brokers:

    http://qna.mortgagenewsdaily.com/questions/what-is-a-correspondent-lender

  88. hman – the first one re RFC was from 2006. This is from 2011:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/02/ally-idUSN1E7A105620111102

  89. Here somebody who gets it.

    http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=7694723

    Where did my down payment go?
    Where have my payments gone?
    Where will my future payments go?

    NEVER AGAIN.

  90. Today my Hero and mentor Passed away Ariel Sharon. KC read the Arik Sharon Doctrine.

    NEVER AGAIN.

  91. KC

    I’m not planning to file papers at the US SUPREME COURT AGAIN.
    If anything now that millions have been effected the HIGH Court on their own should save our Constitution

    .

  92. Oh .. Look at the Time. Christine gets home about now. ML, I will leave your last comment for Christine.

    Have a Good Day!

  93. KC

    I did not go in with any attitude. I went in with the law of the Constitution. and I DID NOT ACQUIRE THIS ATTITUDE till I experienced JUDGES who refused to obey their oath to the Constitution.

  94. Yeah.. let me get right on that for you ML. LOL!

    Scroll back yourself and find it … I will give you a Clue… Its a case used to Win the case I posted. Look for Case Law.

  95. KC

    TELL ME WHERE I can see that case?
    MY CASE AT THE US SUPREME COURT was not just to save my two condos but a correct decision by the Court pursuant to the US Constitution would have saved all our homes.

    The US Supreme Court ruled the Bank could ask the Solister General of the US FOR GUIDANCE

    THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE BANK THAT ANSWERED WERE Mullooly Jeffrey Rooney & Flynn. They are gone from the bank. The bank had the smarts to know they were corrupt attorneys and their new attorneys stated in front Alice Schlesinger its indemnify indemnify indemnify . and in walks Fidelity and David Fiveson sham company who brought more fraud in.

  96. A-man… can you refer me the Law or Case law of this….. Doctrine you refer to as Show Me the Note?

  97. I will NOT go into this again ML and Aman!

    STOP attacking all the Judges! Aman.. ask ML what happened when she went in with your attitude ..

    Study the Play Book! And Play by the Rules!
    If you don’t know the rules or don’t have time to learn them …

    Hire an Attorney! Hire an Accountant!

    There is no such thing as a Free Ride!

  98. @all
    MY case MARILYN LANE v. Astoria Federal S & L went all the way to the US SUPREME COURT AND WAS DOCKETED THERE SO THE US SUPREME COURT UNDERSTANDS THIS ISSUE

    BUT THE BANK HAD THE POWER TO HAVE IT DISMISSED.

    that too was 1997- I was at the front of the line.

  99. ML… listen to BOAna vs Kuchta again …

    Constitutional Rights …. What Article?

  100. It is time to save taxpayers dollars and recuse a judge that does not adhere to “Produce the Note” doctrine. Chris Christie is my inspiration. Everything that we have done for the last 4 to 5 years all boils down to a simple cheap solution. Produce the Note. Standing is another way of saying Produce the Note.

    NEVER AGAIN
    I am just voicing my opinion. Anybody who thinks I am an Attorney well. aint to bright.

  101. KC , 007 and all
    it was in BANKRUPTCY learned that I LEARNED of writing off a fraudulent creditor that led me To filed a petition in Federal Court
    in 1997
    accepted by the HON. LOUIS LB STANTON PURSUANT TO ART 1 PARA 10 cL 1 OF THE US Constitution

  102. In the recent decisions I posted here.. A WIN! … someone made a small comment about an allegation of the money trail in the pleadings..80/20

    Did anyone catch that?

  103. KC
    The extent of the fraud gets clearer as all the dots connect.
    Chief JUDGE JONATHAN LIPPMAN of NYS RULED the Appellate Courts decision was not constitutional but the judges BULLIED Lippman and made him impotent to act and do the right thing for the people of NYS by the court refusing to make a final decision.

  104. @KC at 8;25
    Just as Ohio AG Marc Dann argued about void judgments and court jurisdiction my case against Astoria Federal S & L proved that Astoria auctioned off my two properties with void ab initio judgments pursuant to US SUPREME court case ELLIOT V Piersol. The constitutional law of this land.

    The Bank’s new Attorneys admitted it was the corrupt debt collector attorneys that did that and they were gone and it is indemnify indemnify indemnify but it was Fidelity Title’s attorney and David K FIVESONS sham title company he called Coronet Title that wouldnt indemnfy and instead paid a bribe to judge Alice Schlesinger. tp allow their clients to stay in my two condos with foged deeds.

  105. Yes 007 it does! :) ….

  106. KC in part if you are referring to my post does it fit with MS arguments yes, but research it…line of reasoning of equitable subordination supports so much and more.

  107. I’m pretty sure this is what MS is referring to ….. RESPA reg X sec 8.

    Violation of this ….
    Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”), 12 U.S.C. §1833a. 2

    Led to this ……..
    loss of its investment by congressional enactment under the Troubled Assets Relief Program “TARP” for charging off and writing down the outstanding balance against purchaser and all other defendants and or indispensable parties to claims that include the purchasers and registrant against the titleholder and consumer household

  108. Neil mentions the basics in this article. Here is something that does or should have traction if anyone is considering BK. “Equitable Subordination” is a great advesary hearing strategy for BK that could potentially nail the case against creditor and seal interest to collect as a unsecured position with the BK trustee. I think it fits our causes like a kid glove! We would have done this out of the gate 5 years ago, went to 4 BK attorneys and no one could wrap their brain around it-many hadn’t even heard of it. So we ended up fighting in civil court. Please do yourselves a favor and read up on/research equitable subordination if you are seeking BK which we all will most likely end up doing at some stage. My sister a non practicing BK attorney suggested the costly appeoach and she is dead on. Downside is that any adversary hearing in BK is not cheap to pull off.

  109. all
    Why don’t we all take advantage of the horrible thing google did to all their G mail holders, they can let people you don’t know send you e mails.etc etc. and send a message to people you don’t know etc etc =make lemonade from a lemon
    We can send awareness of foreclosure fraud to millions of people

  110. I can tell you this for a fact … people who applied and qualified for loans they never accepted… have loans out there.

    That why folks who didn’t sign got threatened. Better yet.. I know of two cases where the wanna be new lender fc’ed because the borrower kept making their payments to the current lender after declining and refusing to sign the refi paperwork.

  111. JG, I honestly don’t know about the seasoning time, I suspect they back dated that to .. maybe to the app date?

  112. In 2011 MERS filed an assignment of the note and mortgage together to CWHL.

    But in 2008 CWHL (who is not the lender on the note or mortgage) filed LP on deed and JN attesting they got the note from 1st adv mort and the mortgage assignment from MERS.

    hahahaha

  113. YES JG!! Motion for SJ, not a motion to dismiss!

  114. I don’t know, KC. I was just speculating, so while I’m at it, I’ll speculate – again – that that was part and parcel of their illegally getting around the seasoning requirements for loans to be securitized. Prior to secn, RFC, for example, required at least two months seasoning (2 months’ payments BY THE BORROWER before they would buy loans, was my understanding. They weren’t into first payment defaults, even if it triggers a buy-back….didn’t want the hassle.

  115. I Cured the default … then Demanded the Payoff and Title.
    I had the title ins policy all ready to go … pending the clouds being removed.

    SHHH!

  116. When the Opposition’s Evidence is Evidence Against Him (thanks, A.L.):
    Bankster tendered a note and dot and assgt of the dot with a 2013 date. The court found, l & s, that this was prima facie evidence the dot had not previously been transferred to the bankster. The court, based on this finding, granted the borrower’s mtn for SJ, which is an adjudication on the merits (res judicata) unlike a mtn to dismiss.

  117. 20% held by lender/investor/servicer, (largest stock holder) the other 80% sliced and diced and sold into trusts. Funds used to prepay interest on loan term of bond, usually 5yr. (short title?) to get AAA ratings.

    But I’m just guessing… Hopefully MS will correct me again. :)

  118. You really do have to watch these guys (but then we knew that). In one case I was reading, the bankster said (wondered when I’d see this) that the recent “MERS” assgt was simply a memorialization of an event, an assgt which took place years earlier (to a trust, of course). If MERS assigned the dot years earlier, it had nothing to assign currently No one mentioned this that I could see. Luckily the court threw out the lack-of-personal-knowledge-bs-declaration of some grunt re: the years earlier event (assgt). Guess they thought they had to try this ploy since courts have widely if not everywhere tossed back-dated assgts. Those guys are stinking up the planet. They should go live somewhere they’d be more comfortable…..(or at least the rest of us would be).

  119. The 1st time it was uninsurable slander to title ….. mistake?
    The 2nd time was uninsurable Criminal Slander to title…Choice!!!

    Beyond a Wild Deed …… an Unmarketable, Uninsurable Title. …

    I tendered, Heck Yes I had a Right to defend My Title!!

  120. Every one who has been here more than a couple months knows I don’t want to do this, buuuuut……whn may mean that the 20% of an 80/20 was actually either unfunded or somehow liquidated (got cash) and that moolah was used to make the five year payouts on the 80% loan which was (at least theoretically) sold to trusts and or converted to 5 year pay-out-MBS’s. Something like that. (Actually, the borrower would also be making payments on both the 80 and the 20). I can’t even speculate any further, except to say I don’t think seconds, the 20%’ers, would have been headed to “securitiztion”. Also, the spread on those funds (the 20% second) was likely gigantic = borrower charged waay the heck over lender’s cost of funds – yes, money is bought and sold). Then they rigged libor in the second crime of the century, right behind the whole deal, and NO one in jail!!! I’m honestly not saying that fwiw to rile anyone – it’s just un be liev able.

  121. also from KC’s case at 11:47:

    In any event, Illinois law, to the extent there is much of it on this point, appears to recognize an obligor’s right to attack an assignment as void or invalid under certain circumstances. See id. The Court is also inclined to believe that the right to bring a quiet title action – a right that Elesh, as title holder to the property, clearly enjoys – implies the ability to challenge the validity of instruments that constitute clouds on title.

    An action to quiet title in property is an equitable proceeding in which a party seeks to remove a cloud on his title to the property. A cloud on title is the semblance of title, either legal or equitable, appearing in some legal form but which is, in fact, unfounded or which it would be inequitable to enforce. Various forms of documents which appeared valid on their face have been held to constitute clouds on title [including subsequent deeds, recorded mortgages, and forged deeds].

    Gambino v. Boulevard Mortg. Corp., 398 Ill. App. 3d 21, 52, 922 N.E.2d 380, 410 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Deutsche Bank’s assignment, which it has recorded, arguably constitutes a cloud on Elesh’s title, thus enabling him to challenge it or at least seek its removal via a quiet title action. For these reasons, the Court declines to dismiss Count 5.”

    So now there are two reasons to attack an assgt: 1) it’s void because it’s’ late’ and trust law says it’s void and 2) it may well be a cloud on title which title the homeowner has a right to defend (his title – all of it).imo. Anything which constitutes an impairment to” fee simple absolute title” is a cloud technically – I think – even a legitimate dot or its legit asst. A utility easement is a cloud on title, although it’s generally harmless (x you may not build over it and like that). But an illegitmate assgt is more than a cloud imo. It’s an unlawful attempt to claim an interest in the property; it’s probably slander of title, warranting not only dismissal of any action pursuant to the bogus recordation, but damages (which one prob has to demonstrate if alleging).

  122. OK gang it coming and you need to throw your hat for now in on the security instrument not being titled correctly when placed in these securities as I am not buying alone that underwriting has taken a main lead they are telling the public, when the other party has a duty review what they are taking in also.

    So they are wanting us to believe that all these issues are that the leader in the industry did not review the files they were purchasing.

    Here what I am seeing that been working is that the bank cannot prove that the Note was delivered prior to them talking action, because these clown never dated them, which is all these transfers . If you got a loan that was transferred and the Notes not dated as to when it was signed I believe these folks are done in every case!

    They are not paying $50 billion in a settlement while not even going to trial because the receiver 6yrs later failed to review the loan being placed into their securities!

  123. Strolling Down Memory Lane …

    Oh the closings I didn’t get paid for because they didn’t close …

    My Big Mouth ….. Always gets me into trouble.

    Those HUD Title Fees … 850.00 attorney fees when there was NO attorney representing either party on refi’s and heloc. …What Title Abstracts? Bait and Switch. Flat out Lies turned Extortion and Threats to the borrowers if they didn’t sign.
    My all time Favorite Requests offering Double and Triple Pay … Back Dating Docs.

    Did you buy a lenders title policy?

    Everybody shares the same bed behind the curtain.


    Then I got sent to QT (quiet time).

    Does that make me Bad?

    I really should be quiet now …

    Many Blessings to All!

  124. Thanks Mike, I am familiar with the case.
    It makes me sick to my stomach how fast they steamrolled folks in non-judicial states.

    By allowing the Wrong Party to FC .. they trashed our land title system.

    Coll Sec 1st…… Right!!

    MS …. Unjust Enrichment, … Dirty Hands?

  125. Hud’s Reg X

    Sec. 3500.14 Prohibition against kickbacks and unearned fees.

    (a) Section 8 violation. Any violation of this section is a violation of section 8 of RESPA (12 U.S.C. 2607) and is subject to enforcement as such under Sec. 3500.19.

    (b) No referral fees. No person shall give and no person shall accept any fee, kickback or other thing of value pursuant to any agreement or understanding, oral or otherwise, that business incident to or part of a settlement service involving a federally related mortgage loan shall be referred to any person. Any referral of a settlement service is not a compensable service, except as set forth in Sec. 3500.14(g)(1). A business entity (whether or not in an affiliate relationship) may not pay any other business entity or the employees of any other business entity for the referral of settlement service business.

    (c) No split of charges except for actual services performed. No person shall give and no person shall accept any portion, split, or percentage of any charge made or received for the rendering of a settlement service in connection with a transaction involving a federally related mortgage loan other than for services actually performed. A charge by a person for which no or nominal services are performed or for which duplicative fees are charged is an unearned fee and violates this section. The source of the payment does not determine whether or not a service is compensable. Nor may the prohibitions of this part be avoided by creating an arrangement wherein the purchaser of services splits the fee.

    (d) Thing of value. This term is broadly defined in section 3(2) of RESPA (12 U.S.C. 2602(2)). It includes, without limitation, monies, things, discounts, salaries, commissions, fees, duplicate payments of a charge, stock, dividends, distributions of partnership profits, franchise royalties, credits representing monies that may be paid at a future date, the opportunity to participate in a money-making program, retained or increased earnings, increased equity in a parent or subsidiary entity, special bank deposits or accounts, special or unusual banking terms, services of all types at special or free rates, sales or rentals at special prices or rates, lease or rental payments based in whole or in part on the amount of business referred, trips and payment of another person’s expenses, or reduction in credit against an existing obligation. The term “payment” is used throughout Secs. 3500.14 and 3500.15 as synonymous with the giving or receiving any “thing of value” and does not require transfer of money.

    (e) Agreement or understanding. An agreement or understanding for the referral of business incident to or part of a settlement service need not be written or verbalized but may be established by a practice, pattern or course of conduct. When a thing of value is received repeatedly and is connected in any way with the volume or value of the business referred, the receipt of the thing of value is evidence that it is made pursuant to an agreement or understanding for the referral of business.

    (f) Referral.
    (1) A referral includes any oral or written action directed to a person which has the effect of affirmatively influencing the selection by any person of a provider of a settlement service or business incident to or part of a settlement service when such person will pay for such settlement service or business incident thereto or pay a charge attributable in whole or in part to such settlement service or business.
    (2) A referral also occurs whenever a person paying for a settlement service or business incident thereto is required to use (see Sec. 3500.2, “required use”) a particular provider of a settlement service or business incident thereto.

    (g) Fees, salaries, compensation, or other payments. (1) Section 8 of RESPA permits:
    (i) A payment to an attorney at law for services actually rendered;
    (ii) A payment by a title company to its duly appointed agent for services actually performed in the issuance of a policy of title insurance;
    (iii) A payment by a lender to its duly appointed agent or contractor for services actually performed in the origination, processing, or funding of a loan;
    (iv) A payment to any person of a bona fide salary or compensation or other payment for goods or facilities actually furnished or for services actually performed;
    (v) A payment pursuant to cooperative brokerage and referral arrangements or agreements between real estate agents and real estate brokers. (The statutory exemption restated in this paragraph refers only to fee divisions within real estate brokerage arrangements when all parties are acting in a real estate brokerage capacity, and has no applicability to any fee arrangements between real estate brokers and mortgage brokers or between mortgage brokers.);
    (vi) Normal promotional and educational activities that are not conditioned on the referral of business and that do not involve the defraying of expenses that otherwise would be incurred by persons in a position to refer settlement services or business incident thereto; or
    (vii) An employer’s payment to its own employees for any referral activities.

    (2) The Department may investigate high prices to see if they are the result of a referral fee or a split of a fee. If the payment of a thing of value bears no reasonable relationship to the market value of the goods or services provided, then the excess is not for services or goods actually performed or provided. These facts may be used as evidence of a violation of section 8 and may serve as a basis for a RESPA investigation. High prices standing alone are not proof of a RESPA violation. The value of a referral (i.e., the value of any additional business obtained thereby) is not to be taken into account in determining whether the payment exceeds the reasonable value of such goods, facilities or services. The fact that the transfer of the thing of value does not result in an increase in any charge made by the person giving the thing of value is irrelevant in determining whether the act is prohibited.

    (3) Multiple services. When a person in a position to refer settlement service business, such as an attorney, mortgage lender, real estate broker or agent, or developer or builder, receives a payment for providing additional settlement services as part of a real estate transaction, such payment must be for services that are actual, necessary and distinct from the primary services provided by such person. For example, for an attorney of the buyer or seller to receive compensation as a title agent, the attorney must perform core title agent services (for which liability arises) separate from attorney services, including the evaluation of the title search to determine the insurability of the title, the clearance of underwriting objections, the actual issuance of the policy or policies on behalf of the title insurance company, and, where customary, issuance of the title commitment, and the conducting of the title search and closing.

    (h) Recordkeeping. Any documents provided pursuant to this section shall be retained for five (5) years from the date of execution.

    (i) Appendix B of this part. Illustrations in appendix B of this part demonstrate some of the requirements of this section.

  126. J. RUBIN lays it out again in CA Court of Appeal dissention filed today!

    See HOLMES v. HSBC, et al:

    http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B236394.PDF

  127. TODAY!

    Effective dates

    These rules are effective January 10, 2014.

    Breakdown of the documents’ contents

    Mortgage servicing under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Regulation X)

  128. I’m Good MS, Thank You!

    Be fair … I’m a NSA National Signing Agent & Title Abstractor .. not an Escrow Closing Agent.

    I’m learning how they monopolized the market.

    I better go back and take a peek at reg X ..
    I didn’t associate it when I learned of their structure.

  129. JG
    Its an affiliated business arrangement if its a linked transaction . I sold arms length as a whole loan sale . These sales are linked transactions from time of acceptance.

    registerclaims@live.com

  130. KC, on January 10, 2014 at 6:01 pm said:-They were trying to hide the tier 2 YSPs in the table funded loans. This underdisclosed the APR,

    Sorry – astute comment …but the YSP does NOT exist in an affiliated business arrangement …..Its an illegal referral and violation of RESPA Reg. X Sec. 8. You might want to read it and share your comments (as a closing agent…how are you ) registerclaims@live.com

  131. JG I sold over half a billion to GMAC RFC and servicing agent Homecoming’s using Citifinacial as my working line. Your an amazing outsider with an insider edge …..

    Flow – Loan must be approved by investors PTF

  132. They were trying to hide the tier 2 YSPs in the table funded loans. This underdisclosed the APR, …..

  133. hman – what some of that means is that RFC bought loans which were funded (closed) or bought loans they funded themselves at the table.
    Or if RFC didn’t fund the loan itself, it could have been Homecomings which did (as a correspondent of rfc). Homecomings would have had brokers in its stable and could accept loans processed by those brokers pursuant to its contract with rfc. Either rfc or homecomings underwrote the loan. HC prob had that authority by agreement with RFC.
    Flow means as loans are made as opposed to buying, say, 5 million closed loans at a time. The instruction to close as an RFC makes me think HC underwrote the file and did so purusant to an RFC loan program because it was headed to RFC. I’ve already said I don’t know what diff it being an RFC loan would make to the closing docs.
    RFC traditionally bought loans which exceeded fnma / fhlmc loan limits and also the agencies’ guidelines. They bought riskier loans and had riskier loan guidelines. They were probably first with what I consider junk loans – certain arms with unlimited or higher-than the -agencies’ adjustments (no annual limit on increase in rate, no life-time limit on increase in rate), teaser rates, “more liberal” underwriting guidelines, and so on. They may have introduced the “self-insuring” loan. I don’t know. Again, that means no private mtg insurance co had to approve the loan (because in all likelihood, no pmi co. would insure). Other lenders got around the “no pmi co. would insure this loan” by writing loans over 80% (which is the trigger for pmi) by making high ltv’s as a first (80.00% generally) and putting the rest in a second they then self insured (or didn’t) because they were selling the turkeys.

  134. Table funding is not illegal.
    However they still must comply with TILA, RESPA, REG Z and such….

  135. By Golly JG, you’ve got it! I like to keep it Simple & Honest. I Play by the Rules they Wrote! *snickers*

    But let me tell you … the accounting is da’ bomb! Keep Going ….

  136. hman – I don’t think table funding IS illegal. Whether or not table funding makes someone other than the payee the lender (and there’s no evidence this is “illegal” per se), I don’t know. It might mean there’s no meeting of the minds, for instance, but that’s not “illegal”, at least not necessarily, even if problematic in the formation of a deal (don’t want to use the word ‘contract’ because I still think a note may not BE a contract). I have repeatedly, for what my request is worth, asked NG to look into those broker / lender and correspondent / lender contracts.

  137. I’m not going to argue with you Aman. I have never proclaimed to be an attorney, I never give legal advise. I told you to get an attorney in your own jurisdiction.

    What I do is talk out loud to much …
    What I did was WIN! Twice!

    But Hey … to each their own path. Good Luck and Best Wishes!

  138. from KC’s case at 11:47

    “Plaintiff, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as trustee of Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2005 HE-3, has filed this suit to foreclose defendant’s mortgage. Defendant contends that plaintiff lacks standing to pursue this suit and asks the Court to dismiss it.

    **Because defendant attacks the factual basis of plaintiff’s standing, rather than the sufficiency of its jurisdictional allegations, the Court can consider matters outside of the pleadings in deciding this motion.**

    See Apex Digital, Inc. v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 572 F.3d 440, 444 (7th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff, which has the burden of proof on this issue, has constitutional standing to pursue this suit only if it suffered a “concrete and particularized” injury that is traceable to defendant’s conduct and is likely to be redressed by a decision in its favor in this case.* Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992).”

    To me, that means first of all that Deutsche (the trust really) must have suffered injury and secondly that the injury Deutsche suffered will be “redressed”, satisfied mol, by a ruling against the homeowner. I’d say the reason the court refers to “constitutional” standing v prudential is because the constitution of our country only grants the aulthority to courts to hear cases of real controversy. The measure of controversy is a (legally cognizable) injury. If I paint my house striped, though one doesn’t like it and it may well deflate one’s property value, if there is no law or CC&R’s prohibitting my act, one is out of luck (generally).
    If I got my hands on your note and go after you IN COURT, the court has no jurisdiction to rule in favor of my enforcement since I’ve suffered no injury and there’s no controversy (and that’s not even considering “security first”, i.e., I need the coll instrument because my first act to enforce has to be against the property, the collateral.) If I paid someone for the note, and you won’t pay, that’s different. imo.
    Looks to me like this case is saying the burden is on Deutsche (for the trust) to demonstrate injury.
    Lujan, cited in the case, seems to be cited quite a bit in cases, but I haven’t read it. It’s all over online.

  139. KC who died and made you an Attorney? Giving legal advise. like I said the Judge will be happy to be recused if I need too. remember I have nothing to loose and the judge and his/her friends have a salary and pension to loose.

  140. Some state lawmakers want to tighten rules for felons to get state jobs

    Fri, 01/10/2014 – 2:24pm | Tim Ditman

    A group of Republican Illinois lawmakers is looking to stop people with multiple criminal convictions or ties to gangs from getting a state job.

    The comments come in reaction to a recent Chicago Sun-Times report that revealed that a state prison official had over 20 arrests and ties to gang activity.

    State Representative John Anthony said that type of situation could allow gangs to infiltrate the state.

    Excuse Me … They Already Did! OOOPS!

  141. I do not advise stop paying taxes, under law they can steal your home if you owe re taxes and/or income taxes. We are getting there ..but there is a right way and a wrong way ..

  142. I say its about time we pay law makers min wage! Let their constituents determine if they’ve earned a bonus.

    We need to take the Money out of Politics!!

  143. Thugs on Drugs ..
    Paid by and drugs supplied by….
    The Big Guy Mobster Club!

  144. I suspect finding out about the house being on the land was a bonus? Or at least you thought so…?

    If they locked up that house without an inspection and locked someone in (dead or alive) ..

    Their is a Crime and a Price to Pay!
    Lets see how they like being locked in.

    I have Big One (PM) here in Illinois and My Shit List … so does our AG with evidence in hand and charges filed!

    These people they hire are THUGS!!

  145. Yes, it is KC and they never owned the mobile home and evicted the guy living in it. Someone bought it at a tax sale…

    And yes, I called 911. It was unreal, surreal…at least 15 people, detectives, uniforms, EMT’s, forensics, coroner…crime scene tape, crazy.

    They never mentioned the house, found out a couple of weeks ago with survey it “definitely” belonged to the property. Yet, the property management people used the same padlocks for the mobile and the house, stickers on windows and new door locks, HAH?

    Would you sue them? We are looking into it!

    The truth…sickening to think someone would unknowingly not inspect the property or the worst case, know and cover it up to sell it…

  146. Poppy, I’m just sickened to my stomach. I said a Prayer for the deceased and for You. I just couldn’t imagine walking in and finding that …

    Is this by chance the fc you wanted to buy for the land, the one that had the abandoned mobile home on it (without warranty to title)?

  147. Do you have any way of making contact with a family member of the deceased? They need to Sue!!!!!!! Maybe via public birth records or something…

    I’d sue HSBC and JD’s as Agents 1-100 to.

  148. Did you contact the Sheriffs Dept? I would just die.. walking into that! So Tragic!!! I’d guess there is a Property Inspection Company you better get a lawsuit filed against for your losses before they go BK to.

  149. A-Man its not me you have to convince, its the Judge and they only way you are going to do that is by using Procedure and Case Law.
    If what you are saying here is your plan … you are in for an Awakening.

    Let Us Know How that Works Out for You.
    I don’t mean to sound disrespectful but you are setting yourself up for A Big Disappointment. You Need an Attorney who Practices Law in Your Jurisdiction! State Laws Vary!

  150. yes, creepy…my son and I found the body…surreal! What can we do with it now? The smell…no body noticed and locked the guy in there? WHAT? I couldn’t get the smell of me…

    This is what these guys are selling…HSBC II is the servicer…

  151. OMG Poppy! No Way!!

  152. Answer …. They Needed to Wash The Titles and Their Dirty Hands to Cover Up the Fraud!

    They got caught with their hand in the Cookie Jar!!

  153. Now ask yourself why BAC and others Refused Payments.

    ~~~~~~~

    Gene Johnson of Fresno complained about his three year old effort to find out who owns his mortgage. “We put $100,000 down on the home and we made payments for a year. I want to know if the money I paid went to the real person who loaned us the money.”

    Johnson says after his lender went bankrupt, his mortgage payments were not accepted by a series of supposedly new lenders who then tried to foreclose on his home in a gated community in North Clovis. “The banks have created this Ponzi scheme and now they are stealing people’s homes right out from under them.”

    The U.S. Attorney’s office is looking into Johnsons claim. U.S. Attorney Ben Wagner says mortgage fraud is rampant. “The thing about mortgage fraud is it can involve people on all sides of the transaction.”

    Wagner says there are cases where mortgage brokers and lenders along with real estate agents have inflated prices to get bigger commissions. He says in some cases buyers and sellers have lied to take equity out of properties, homebuilders have used straw buyers to move their projects. Assistant U.S. Attorney General Tony West says the most common fraud right now involves loan modifications.

    “That is the typical loan modification scam people who are asked to pay an upfront fee and then never hear from them again and before they know it their home his foreclosed.” West said.

    The U.S. Attorney’s office and the FBI say investigations are underway locally, and prosecutions are expected to follow.

    http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=7694723

  154. Anyone care to take a bite of this?

    Bought a foreclosure home for 88 year old relative, lock boxes and padlocks on doors. House in disrepair, no formal inspection requested…went to property after closing on 12/31/2013 and found deceased, decomposed body in bedroom. No apparent point of entry, no key….body locked-padlocked in house for approximately 4 weeks…

    Anyone heard of this? Liability? Property management has bank authorization, from my sources…in SC

  155. KC appeals cost money and a waste of taxpayers money. It is cheaper and the right thing to do. Hire an attorney

  156. LOL Scott .. I get It! I really do!

    But I like my title Free and Clear of All Liens and I plan to keep it that way.
    I have title Ins covering claims before the purchase and I warranted the title free and clear when I put it into and Irrevocable Trust

    I also promised to defend it!

    And I am doing just that ……. :)

  157. Why in tarnations would you go after the Judge and ask him to recuse him/her self? Why take on that battle?. Just Appeal It … Just don’t wait as long as the Kuchtas did. The legislators have taken care of that … did you hear that part?

    Hire An Attorney!

  158. I applaud everybody’s effort to legally fight these absolute goons that do every illegal/underhanded thing they can.

    Fight fire with fire, hit them hard and make it loud and clear.

    Here is one (1) vote for burying their houses in liens. I don’t mean 1 or 2 – to the moon. Stack those bad boys to rafters.

    See if that changes their seething-thieving-lying-special-ed tone a click.

    Make it a Great Day.

  159. If you don’t have the Right to bring a Claim, you can not invoke the jurisdiction of the court, you lack standing.

    If you don’t understand ALL the elements needed/ required by law to bring standing”…..they are going to bury you with so much legal paperwork … that you will have about the same chances of winning as a snowball has surviving in hell.

    Hire an Attorney!

  160. http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=7694723

    It all boils done to who owns the note and how the chain of title. the rest is nonesense and a waste of time.

    KC watch the Bank of America vs Kuchta. My street smarts tell me the Judges want no part of this. Actually they would probably thank you for recuseing them. Also the case wouldnt be present if they would ask to produce the note from the beginning. This case is about undoing not asking “Produce the Note” from the begining.

    I dont believe the Judges are corrupt What I do believe is they are afraid. I dont know exactly what.

    Oh know I hear helecopters again.

  161. A-Man … there is a lot more to it than just Show me the Note.
    “Lack of Standing” … If You are making the Claim…YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT!

    The Judge is going to throw you out on your ears.

  162. Produce the Note or give the judge an option to recuse self so that we can save tax payers money and not delay the inevitable. Lack of Standing.

    This is just street smart advise. And anybody who thinks I’m an attorney well……………

  163. While all the attorney have successfully kept you crawling around in that rabbit hole as to were the money came from, now the bank are going to buy back and settled all these illegal foreclosures, taking attorneys out the money who are still trying to figure out how the money you borrowed arrived at the table….As the judge ask you did you borrow the money and where you behind on the payment as agreed?

    So if you borrowed monies for whatever reason what the reason you did not pay that money back? So whether the loan amount arrived at the table allegedly another party other than the originator, why now if the amount of the payment & term did not changed, does where the monies came from? How did where the monies came from hurt the borrower if the monies were clean!

    What part of the contract said that a lender had to modify a loan? Other than bring current the loan which is a part of the Note allows you to bring the loan current.

    My point is you must attack the contract, titles as to who got “Standing” and that just how these investors are winning and the fact that the underwriting was defective!

  164. Christine, I went back and checked my email.. I couldn’t find the copy of your appeal. Did you send it to me ?

  165. Read the mortgage/dot!!! Borrower covenants the title free and clear of all liens and encumbs except those of record.

    Meaning the borrowers Promises to defend the title against all claims against the title ( for the lender ).

    I’d say that gives you the right to challenge an assignment!
    After all… you are defending it for the lender as promised… Right?

    TeeHeeHeehee ….

  166. Can someone please state the TILA provision that states “table funding” is illegal? I noticed my HUD-1, Note & DOT all state the broker as the “lender”. However, provision in the underwriting document instruct the broker to close as a RFC SFR loan. “Residential Funding”. The hud 1 also is signed & dated a week before the “funding” date.

    The first loan servicer was Homecomings Financial which was a subsidary of GMAC-Residential Funding. This link states “. In many cases the correspondents funded the loans using warehouse lending facilities provided by RFC.89 RFC also acquired loans from
    brokers who are originators that sell unfunded loans.90 Unfunded loans would typically be
    acquired by RFC subsidiary Homecomings Financial which would fund the loan.91 RFC
    typically acquired loans in two ways: (1) through bulk or group loan transactions; or (2) (2) on a
    continuous loan-by-loan flow basis.92 These transactions were entered into with three channels
    of clients:
    • Correspondent—This channel was comprised of smaller to mid-size
    correspondents that typically committed loans to RFC on a flow or bulk basis.93
    GMAC Mortgage was considered a correspondent client.94
    • Institutional—This channel consisted of larger companies that typically committed
    loans to RFC on a bulk basis.95
    • Broker or Wholesale—This channel was essentially Homecomings Financial, an
    RFC subsidiary that worked with brokers to fund loans.96″

    http://www.chadbourne.com/files/upload/Examiner's%20Report%20–%20Section%208.pdf

    I’ve looked at Respa & it seems as though Table funding was ok in certain instances. I do not know if the broker used a warehouse line or not but my belief is that the loan was unfunded when the docts were signed & recorded. Also, it was a cash out refi. Funds were not received until the “funding” date & the old mortgage was not paid until the funding date.

    I have read that table funding violates TILA but this is vague & hope that someone here can identify exactly what provision it violates. My thought is that in addition to the loan being unsecured that my TILA provision has not expired because the “real” lender has yet to be identified. Equitable tolling can not take place yet.

  167. Financials
    Wall Street predicts $50 billion bill to settle US mortgage suits

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/101325555

  168. Millionaires’ Club: For First Time, Most Lawmakers are Worth $1 Million-Plus

    by Communications on January 9, 2014 1:50 PM

    https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/01/millionaires-club-for-first-time-most-lawmakers-are-worth-1-million-plus.html

  169. Not surprisingly, the US are dragging their feet on financial disclosure, as usual… Too many fingers in the pot, starting with Congress and the musical chairs players.

    In U.S., efforts to fight offshore secrecy hit snags
    By Sasha Chavkin January 6, 2014, 10:45 am

    2013 was a year of broad reforms in the global battle against offshore tax evasion. Tax havens from Switzerland to the Caribbean agreed to stricter disclosure rules, while industrialized nations pledged a new regime for automatic exchange of tax data.

    But as ICIJ reported in November, there’s been little change in one critical area: the disclosure of what’s known as “beneficial ownership,” which reveals the flesh-and-blood individuals who control and profit from offshore companies and trusts.

    Financial crime sleuths ask a simple question when they encounter a company involved in shady activities: “Who benefits?” But given the layers of secrecy built into the offshore world, it’s often a hard question to answer.

    The United States, as the world’s largest economy and home of leading secrecy jurisdictions such as Delaware and Nevada, is a central battleground in the struggle over ownership transparency. Despite promises by the Obama Administration to crack down on financial secrecy, it has made few commitments toward revealing the true owners of secretive U.S. companies, and delayed for years in carrying out the pledges that it did make.

    The most concrete measure that the U.S. has promised is a rule that will require American banks and other financial institutions to collect accurate ownership information from their clients. In March 2012, the Treasury Department issued a notice that it would propose a regulation to “establish a categorical requirement for financial institutions to identify beneficial ownership of their accountholders.”

    Since the notice went out in 2012, the Treasury has yet to draft a rule.

    http://www.icij.org/blog/2014/01/us-efforts-fight-offshore-secrecy-hit-snags

    Long article from the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists worth reading in its entirety. Amazing how many people have stated that the US would be the last country to come clean. They appear to have been right.

  170. write me cbrightlife@aol.com

  171. Good for you. I’d love to read it. What’s the case name/cite?

  172. Hello TN,

    In case you didn’t read it, I won on the appeal. Federal court, I attacked, never went the securitization route and stuck with the true and tried. It works.

  173. Ok A Man. Refute one thing I said in the chapter 7 discussin then.

  174. everyone is at a huge disadvantage unless your state a law against banks lending “credit”.
    judges are fighting to block the truth 99% of the time. very few honest jurists.

  175. the debt is “in personam”
    the lien is against “the res”.
    two different things. the case should be made for “unclean hands” as the result of the ongoing fraud committed in producing further assignments and copies of notes differing than those used in the foreclosure.
    Harry is right, too much misinformation.

  176. tnharry is good for our cause. When he comes out we know the banksters are scared and we learn their infintile arguements.

    http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2014/01/08/email-bank-of-america-employs-20-full-time-social-media-spies-watches-anarchists-and-occupy-protesters/

    oops I hear black op helecopters again.

  177. Marc Dann argues Foreclosure Case before Ohio Supreme Court

    Marc Kovac – Vindy.com | Edited for relevance by MSFraud

    January 9, 2014

    On Wednesday, former Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann, who focuses his Cleveland law practice on foreclosure and related issues, presented oral argument before the state’s high court, arguing on behalf of homeowners who say they were wrongfully subjected to foreclosure proceedings. The homeowners claim their Medina County property was foreclosed by Bank of America, despite the fact that Bank of America was not the mortgage holder at the time of the filing.

    The case, Bank of America v. Kuchta, could have implications in thousands of foreclosure cases.

    “This is more than a question of paperwork — by rushing to foreclose before filing the necessary paperwork, a bank is forgoing opportunities to work with the homeowner to prevent the foreclosure,” Dann said in an earlier released statement concerning the case. “It’s imperative that lower courts follow the Ohio Supreme Court ruling that protects homeowners from entities rushing foreclosures, causing unnecessary harm and expense to the homeowner as well as the community, which suffers from decreased safety, property values and a lower quality of life with each new foreclosure.”

    “Somebody who doesn’t have a complaint against you shouldn’t be able to sue you,” he said.

    Legal counsel for Bank of America countered that the property owners did not follow the proper legal procedures to appeal the foreclosure. Bank of America was assigned the mortgage a little more than a week after the foreclosure filing was submitted.

    Justices asked Dann about the impact of the ruling, with potentially “tens of thousands” of default mortgages on the books.

    “I can just envision thousands of default judgments in foreclosure cases being combed through by attorneys looking for that connection between the standing of the plaintiff and the holder of the note,” said Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor.

    Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger added, “We’ve seen this happen in the criminal side. Do you want us to go to the same situation, saying that if a person doesn’t have standing to sue and anything a court does after that is void and subject to collateral attack at anytime?” (See answer below.)

    Dann said state law protects owners who purchased foreclosed properties, but the high court decision could pave the way for those facing wrongful foreclosures to seek restitution from lenders or to remain in their homes.

    “People who have a job, who have recovered from whatever infirmity that caused them to fall behind on their mortgage and want to get back on track, this would be a life-saver for people like that who could then have a chance to keep the ball alive in court, bring everybody back to the table,” he said. “I’m not looking for chaos, but the fact is the constitution really does protect you.”

    He added that he hopes the Supreme Court will provide guidance to judges dealing with foreclosure cases to ensure the actions have been brought legally.

    Public Office?

    Dann called his law practice a “godsend,” helping consumers dealing with foreclosures, debt issues and financial distress.

    “For me, as much as I loved being attorney general — and I did — I get to go to court, I get to argue cases, I’m enjoying the relationships with the clients,” he said. “I’ve been very fortunate to find a career after politics that honestly is much more fulfilling and a lot less stressful.”

    “I love being part of the public debate,” he said. “I think there are lots of different ways to contribute including running for office, but I assume that’s something … I don’t ever want to do again.”

    He added, “Unless the state of politics in this country and in this state dramatically changes, I would have no interest, and I would encourage my children not to have an interest in it, either.”

    Answer appearing on Legally Speaking Ohio by John R. What the law says:

    Out of state decisions can be used to “influence” another states judiciary… but they are not binding. I’m pulling the below out of an Ohio pleading, but there are references to decisions from other states and the Fed. … Good Luck!

    “a judgment rendered by a court lacking subject matter jurisdiction is void ab initio. Consequently, the authority to vacate a void judgment is not derived from Civ. R. 60(B), but rather constitutes an inherent power possessed by Ohio courts. See Staff Notes to Civ. R. 60(B); Lincoln Tavern, Inc. v. Snader (1956), 165 Ohio St. 61, 59 O.O. 74, 133 N.E.2d 606, paragraph one of the syllabus; Westmoreland v. Valley Homes Corp. (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 291, 294, 71 O.O. 2d 262, 264, 328 N.E.2d 406, 409.” PATTON v. DIEMER No. 86-1867. 35 Ohio St. 3d 68 (1988)

    2 Void judgments are those rendered by a court which lacked jurisdiction, either of the subject matter or the parties, Wahl v. Round Valley Bank 38 Ariz. 411, 300 P. 955 (1931); Tube City Mining & Milling Co. v. Otterson, 16 Ariz. 305, 146 P. 203 (1914); and Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 2d 278 (1940).

    3 A void judgment which includes judgment entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or an order procured by fraud, can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court, Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 ( C.A. 7 Ill. 1999).

    4 Void judgment under federal law is one in which rendering court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over dispute or jurisdiction over parties, or acted in manner inconsistent with due process of law or otherwise acted unconstitutionally in entering judgment, U.S.C.A. Const. Amed. 5, Hays v. Louisiana Dock Co., 452 n.e.2D 1383 (Ill. App. 5 Dist. 1983).

    5 A “void judgment” as we all know, grounds no rights, forms no defense to actions taken there under, and is vulnerable to any manner of collateral attack (thus here, by ). No statute of limitations or repose runs on its holdings, the matters thought to be settled thereby are not res judicata, and years later, when the memories may have grown dim and rights long been regarded as vested, any disgruntled litigant may reopen the old wound and once more probe its depths. And it is then as though trial and adjudication had never been. 10/13/58 FRITTS v. KRUGH. SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN, 92 N.W.2d 604, 354 Mich. 97. On certiorari this Court may not review questions of fact. Brown v. Blanchard, 39 Mich 790. It is not at liberty to determine disputed facts (Hyde v. Nelson, 11 Mich 353), nor to review the weight of the evidence. Linn v. Roberts, 15 Mich 443; Lynch v. People, 16 Mich 472. Certiorari is an appropriate remedy to get rid of a void judgment, one which there is no evidence to sustain. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. Hunt, 39 Mich 469. Emphasis mine

    Void judgment is one entered by court without jurisdiction to enter such judgment, State v. Blankenship 675 N.E. 2d 1303, (Ohio App. 9 Dist. 1996

  178. Ha Ha Ha … It hurts to much at my age to laugh this hard!

    Keep up the Good Work!

  179. Thank you. The lps spying is going well. I also do part time assassination work for Wells Fargo and have a blackmail operation going for Ocwen.

  180. Your Honor, Yes, butt supposedly … you know .. it was because we kept two sets of books.
    They were going to die anyway.

    The End Result is the Same, .. Right?

  181. Oh wait .. I found yours, but not mine. HMM

    Can you imagine in any other context? “Your honor we don’t have the murder weapon, but please convict and we’ll get it to you later.” Or, “Your Honor, we don’t have the death certificate, but grant us judgment in this estate and we’ll get you a death certificate later.”

  182. Oh Boy… Christine you and I must be talking to much… it appears some of our comments from the last post disappeared.

    Should We take that as they didn’t like our comments? I’m insulted.

  183. ~~Waves Hello to TnHarry~~ 5yrs ago you were accused of being a LPS spy… how is that going for you? LOL!
    I Hope All is Well With You and Your Family!

    Good Evening Christine, I Hope You Had a Good Day!

  184. Report: A third of Illinois homes ‘deeply underwater’

    Thu, 01/09/2014 – 10:46am | The Associated Press

    CHICAGO (AP) — A new report says almost one-third of Illinois homes are “deeply underwater” meaning that they’re worth at least 25 percent less than what’s owed on the loans.

    The report released Thursday by Irvine, Calif.-based RealtyTrac says that represents almost 775,000 Illinois homes. The report is based on data from December.

    Only Nevada and Florida fare worse, with 38 percent and 34 percent of homes deeply underwater, respectively.

    But the report has some good news.

    Nationally, the percentage of deeply underwater homes is falling.

    RealtyTrac says rising home prices are providing some relief. It also says that the number of homes with at least 50 percent equity grew during the fourth quarter.

    Twelve percent of Illinois homes meet that threshold and are considered equity rich.

  185. Prepare for the next big settlement of which you won’t see a dime.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-07/jpmorgan-fails-to-throw-out-california-debt-collection-case.html

    JPMorgan Fails to Dismiss California Debt Collection Case By Edvard Pettersson Jan 8, 2014 12:01 AM ET

    JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) lost a bid to throw out a lawsuit by the California attorney general alleging that the largest U.S. bank by assets illegally tried to collect debt from about 100,000 credit-card borrowers.

    California Attorney General Kamala Harris sued New York-based JPMorgan in May, alleging that the bank’s Chase unit engaged in “wide-spread and illegal robo-signing” and other unlawful practices against credit-card borrowers. Chase used the judicial system as a mill to obtain default judgments, according to the attorney general.

    “At nearly every stage of the collection process, defendants cut corners in the name of speed, cost savings, and their own convenience, providing only the thinnest veneer of legitimacy to their lawsuits,” according to the attorney general’s complaint.

    Both Schrader and Eskandari declined to comment on the judge’s ruling after yesterday’s hearing.

    The state seeks civil penalties of $2,500 for each violation of California law and an additional $2,500 for each violation against a senior citizen or a disabled person.

    Mississippi filed a similar complaint in December, alleging that as credit-card lending and delinquencies rose with the recession, the bank pushed for faster collections “and accuracy took a back seat.”

    The case is People v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., BC508466, California Superior Court (Los Angeles County).

  186. Wow! The IRS are going to make a killing in Nevada, with the tax penalty and all… What a great country!

    Nevada Leads The Nation In Underwater Mortgages
    2014-01-09 — cbslocal.com

    `The real estate information company RealtyTrac reports that across the country 19% of homeowners owe more than their properties are worth, but that in Nevada, the number is twice that: 38-percent.”

  187. Let the record reflect that you keep paying the salaries of those with the authority and power to screw you and that, rather than take your money out of the banks in which they are heavily invested, you keep supporting that entire system. There is something very mind-boggling about the rational adopted by people who justify slaving day in, day out, in dead-end jobs to manufacture big, huge whips that they, in turn, physically hand out to their tormentors… to better be tortured with.

    That’s ok though: the new and improved healthcare will make sure that you cannot afford treatment for those self-inflected wounds. Better learn to lick them…

    http://prospect.org/article/government-guide-screwing-poor-homeowners

    The Government Guide to Screwing Poor Homeowners
    David Dayen
    January 8, 2014

    The expiration of federal mortgage-debt forgiveness at the end of last year means that struggling homeowners now owe unbearable amounts in taxes.

    The December 28th expiration of extended unemployment benefits, which cut off payments to 1.3 million recipients—and will cut off 3.6 million more over the next year—has dealt a painful body blow to the most vulnerable members of our society. Rolling back unemployment insurance to a maximum of 26 weeks when the average duration of unemployment is still 36 weeks puts millions of families’ lives in jeopardy.

    Another recently expired provision could cause comparable damage to the same population, but it has yet to trigger similarly urgent attention from lawmakers. The end of the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act, which lapsed December 31, means that any type of debt forgiveness on a mortgage will result in a giant tax bill—one that a stressed homeowner cannot usually afford. Even homeowners entitled to compensation for past abuse by the mortgage-lending industry would be subject to unfavorable tax treatment. This will lead to more economically debilitating foreclosures and weaken the housing market. Despite bipartisan support for an extension, it’s anybody’s guess whether Congress will get around to helping out struggling homeowners.

    The Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act dates back to 2007. When the housing bubble collapsed, millions of homeowners fell into a Great Recession-induced crisis of lost wages and plummeting property values. Principal reductions—cuts to the unpaid balance of a home loan—have been proven time and again to be the most effective method for a homeowner to avoid foreclosure. But there was a problem: For tax purposes, the IRS treats forms of debt relief like principal reduction as gross income. So a $100,000 principal reduction for a family making $50,000 a year would force them to pay taxes as if they earned $150,000, saddling them with a federal tax bill (according to this calculator) of $32,493, or over two-thirds of their annual income. Struggling homeowners don’t typically have bags of cash lying around to pay off tax bills.

    In 2007, Congress passed the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act, exempting mortgage debt forgiveness from taxation. The law was extended twice as the foreclosure crisis lingered. It made it into the 2012 “fiscal cliff” deal at the last minute, extending relief through the end of 2013. But it expired last week, putting homeowners on the hook…

  188. @dulpeck – there is no precedential or estoppel effect of withdrawing a motion for relief from stay. if they lost on the merits, maybe you could do something with it. a withdrawal without prejudice doesn’t give you anything though

  189. Not only is there significant caselaw out there that you can’t strip a lien in a chapter 7 proceeding (that caselaw goes more to equity discussions, but the premise is there), but even if you did file an adversary to have the property deemed to be free and clear and were successful, the next step would be that the chapter 7 trustee would have you evicted. in a chapter 7 case, all of the assets of the debtor are “owned” and administered by the trustee to pay the debts of the creditors.

    and that’s just one reason why all of this discussion is ridiculous – let’s say you manage to pull a genie out of a bottle and win – all you’ve done is created a giant unencumbered asset that will be sold to satisfy the creditors, the biggest of whom is the mortgage company you think that you just “stuck it to”

    i’m honestly not trying to be rude, but Neil tells you about 1% of the story and these things start spinning in wildly wrong directions. I don’t know if it’s done to sell more of his products or what, but it leads to some fantastically bad information floating around

  190. Alex, opposing counsel did not oppose. They withdrew their lift stay motion on the hearing day and went away. The trustee however kept the case open for twenty two months before finally abandoning the case. And as you rightly stated it was a chapter 7.

  191. @tnharry – I stated I don’t know BK law, I’m just trying to work with principles here. Are you saying that a homeowner needs to specifically file a motion for adversary claim as well as classify the asset as unsecured? (We’re talking Chapt 7 here, BTW)

  192. @elex – stop spreading such blatantly wrong info. people might believe you one of these days. by your hypothetical, the debtor merely has to schedule the claim as unsecured, and then by some bizarre burden shifting procedure it become the affirmative duty of the secured party to contest that classification by the debtor?!? perhaps if the debtor filed an adversary claim, but even then he has to have some basis in law and fact (however thin it may be) to support the position.

    why don’t you try what you’re suggesting and let everyone know how it goes.

    i swear, i go away for months at a time and return to find the same old disinformation, misinformation, and nonsense

  193. @dulpeck – If ‘lien’ was stated as unsecured, and opposing counsel does not challenge with a non-dispositive action, doesn’t the claim then become abandoned? I haven’t delved into BK law, but per Neil’s post, schedules are like admissions, and lender admitted to an abandoned claim by not challenging unsecured status of asset.

  194. the debt isn’t zero – the bankruptcy discharges the debtor’s personal liability on the debt only. bankruptcy doesn’t zero out the debts, it cancels the liability for the debt of the individual. the debt still exists and the lien still is enforceable against the collateral, be it a car, boat, tv or house.

  195. @tnharry – speaking of riddles, if the security follows the note, and the debt of the note is discharged, how does the ‘lien’ survive? If the house is sold, and the debt is zero, doesn’t the homeowner receive all the proceeds (less costs of sale)? And who gets the title? If debt = zero, beneficiary = 0, how does trustee convey title to a zero?

  196. I can’t tell if “Produce the Note or face recuse. Your Honor you are delaying the inevetable and wasting tax payers money” is some sort of riddle or not…

  197. Produce the Note or face recuse. Your Honor you are delaying the inevetable and wasting tax payers money

  198. What about if the lien was rescinded prior to listing same as unsecured in chapter and subsequently discharged?

  199. There’s case law which says the bk schedule is not dispositive, is not an “admission”.

  200. @elex – the debtor listing as u/s and the discharge are not dispositive on the issue of the lien. the debtor has no personal liability for the underlying debt bu the lien survives and may be enforced against the property, just not the debtor.

  201. Just heard of a case of sneaky tactics by homeowner who filed Ch 13 Bk, joined the lender, then filed to convert to Ch 7 and listed property as unsecured. Lender’s attorney snoozed when the boat left the dock, and debt was discharged and BK dismissed. Lender then sold ‘debt’ to another lender who is attempting to collect. Homeowner is confused because original trustee did not reconvey the DOT or file satisfaction of loan as result of abandoned claim. Where does the homeowner go from here?

  202. If these professional were not so late to the game and having people admit to alleged defaulting account the the parties making the claims have no right to claim a debt due.

    From day one here I have said that the servicer/lender did not own these debt of at least Ginnie Mae pooled loans. However after 5yrs of this crisis I do see a shift in the wind, that some are getting it, that these banks don’t own a single thing, but are using a blank endorse documents that are not even legally still Notes because the debt been permanently separated from its Note!

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 3,563 other followers

%d bloggers like this: