News

PLEASE SUPPORT THIS SITE !!! donation-form-1108

News

Upcoming Seminar in Chandler, AZ!

CLE Credits Qualified in FLORIDA, CALIFORNIA, OHIO AND Several Other States

request-to-purchase-garfield-lawyers-workbook-v3

request-to-purchase-garfield-homeowners-workbooks-1

  1. California BKR Judge throws MERS out, sanctions lawyer: They were passing around the Deed Like it Was whiskey Bottle at a Frat Party

  2. california-district-court-magistrate-hots-nail-on-head-for-standing-by-mers-and-servicer

  3. federal-district-judge-opinion-exactly-on-point-regarding-double-liability-of-borrower-separation-of-mortgage-and-note
  4. federal-courts-provide-foreclosure-victim-a-stay-from-eviction-la-homeowner-refuses-to-yield-claiming-unlawful-foreclosure
  5. BEWARE of tricky attempts to “verify” debt: from-gator-bradshaw-new-pretender-lender-tactic-beware-of-attempts-to-get-borrowers-to-verify-non-existent-obligation
  6. the-mortgage-debt-relief-act-of-2007-generally-allows-taxpayers-to-exclude-income-from-the-discharge-of-debt-on-their-principal-residence-debt-reduced-through-mortgage-restructuring-as-well-as-mortg
  7. state-district-judge-kathleen-mc-donald-o%E2%80%99malley-dismissed-32-more-foreclosures-for-lack-of-%E2%80%9Cdocumentation%E2%80%9D
  8. ca-judge-requires-original-notes
  9. those-18-billion-in-bonuses-were-earned-from-hidden-profits-the-joke-is-on-us
  10. california-code-notary-must-not-have-an-interest-in-the-document-being-signed
  11. studies-conducted-suggested-readings
  12. provident-bank-v-silverman-super-duper-explanation-of-ucc-transferres-holders-and-holders-in-due-course-and-perfecting-title-to-note-or-mortgage

  13. TRO GRANTED: excellent-mers-analysis-illegal-scheme-to-avoidevade-state-law-taxes-fees-fines-penalties
  14. superb-complaint-piercing-the-heart-of-deutsch-bank%E2%80%99s-authority-to-collect-money-file-suit-seeking-recovery-of-property-and-money-through-receiver-and-damages-against-the-lawyers-who-filed-t
  15. california-bankruptcy-discharge-of-mortgage-indebtedness-bank-did-not-rely-on-the-debtors-representations-concerning-their-income-or-that-its-reliance-was-not-reasonable-based-on-an-objective-standa
  16. excellent-article-sumarizing-many-areas-of-foreclosure-litigation
  17. its-good-to-win-take-note-pro-se-litigants-still-winning
  18. RESCISSION ON REFI’S MIGHT ONLY APPLY TO EXCESS AMOUNT: rescission
  19. standing-versus-necessary-and-indispensable-parties-florida-2d-dca-holds-that-fact-that-mortgagee-mers-lacked-the-beneficial-interest-in-note-did-not-deprive-it-of-standing-to-sue-azize
  20. cases-dismissed-for-lack-of-standing-1
  21. appraisal-fraud-description-and-new-rules
  22. fdic-halts-indymac-foreclosures
  23. irregularities-in-recording-and-delays-in-recording-open-up-new-channels-of-attack-on-mortgages-and-notes
  24. boyco-decision-ohio-multiple-foreclosures-dismissed-in-federal-court
  25. roseruling20071115-2-federal-district-court-citing-boyco-federal-decision-dismissing-for-standing
  26. King’s County Decision New York
  27. kings-county-case-lenders-affidavit-must-be-on-personal-knowledge
  28. making-pro-se-litigants-more-savvy1
  29. option-one-withdraws-foreclosure
  30. deutsch-texas-arbitration-m-stay-for-arbitration-and-to-limit-discovery
  31. FDIC STATEMENT RE UNRECORDED DOCUMENT SCHEMES: 5000-4300.html
  32. 561 PAGE REPORTS BY WORLDCOM BKR AUDITOR DOCUMENTS PREDATORY LENDING PRACTICES AND POTENTIAL LIABILITY FOR NEW CENTURY ACCOUNTING FIRM KPMG newcentury01_0327
  33. 20081020-countrywide-stipulated-judgment-and-injunction

56 Responses

  1. September 2014: NEWS FLASH from Consumer Rights Defenders, National litigation team’s Newsdesk, September 1, 2014. HAPPY LABOR DAY!!!

    This past week in a federal case our team has worked on in Urbana, Illinois, in the matter of Riddle v. Deutsche Bank, Mr. Riddle will be filing a Notice of Appeal with the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the ruling of the federal judge who dismissed nearly 10 defendants [only 4 actually appeared] in a foreclosure fraud and judicial corruption case involving the bank [DB], its attorneys, its process server, the court and its sitting judge all who allowed a judgment to be entered without a proper summons being issued and then they all covered this up and proceeded without legal jurisdiction to act. The case involves the defendants arguments that the case is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The federal court did not recognize the “fraud” exceptions we cited nor allowed the matter to proceed against the non-appearing defendants, all we will urge is clearly reversible error. We hope you will follow this case along with us as it rambles through the appellate court in Chicago.

    For help with your home issues call Steve or Sara at Consumer Rights Defenders M-F 9 – 4 at 818.453.3585.

  2. BOA GETS 9 Billion in Penalties:

    From Consumer Rights Defenders News Desk, Aug 21, 2014
    BOA HIT WITH 9 BILLION DOLLAR PENALTY FOR CHEATING AND LYING….call us today for more details at 818-453-3585, ask for Steve…..
    FROM the National Law Journal:
    In the largest-ever settlement between the U.S. government and a single company, Bank of America Corp. on Thursday agreed to pay $16.6 billion in penalties and consumer relief for selling toxic mortgage-backed securities.
    The bank “knowingly, routinely, falsely, and fraudulently marked and sold these loans as sound and reliable investments,” said Attorney General Eric Holder at a news conference at the U.S. Department of Justice headquarters. “Worse still, on multiple occasions—when confronted with concerns about their reckless practices—bankers at these institutions continued to mislead investors about their own standards and to securitize loans with fundamental credit, compliance, and legal defects.”
    The settlement resolves charges by DOJ, six states, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
    Bank of America will pay $9.65 billion in cash and provide $7 billion in consumer relief. According to the bank, the cash portion consists of a $5.02 billion civil monetary penalty and $4.63 billion in compensatory remediation payments. (Read the statement of facts here.)
    “I want to be very clear: the size and scope of this multibillion-dollar agreement go far beyond the ‘cost of doing business,'” Holder said at a press conference at Main Justice. “This outcome does not preclude any criminal charges against the bank or its employees. Nor was it inevitable, over these last few weeks, that this case would be resolved out of court.”
    Associate Attorney General Tony West reiterated points he has made in past announcements concerning financial institution abuses: No institution is too big or too powerful to escape enforcement, and the deal doesn’t preclude other criminal and civil investigations against bank employees that might be ongoing.
    “Civil tools can be pretty effective. One of the reasons they’re so effective is because the lower burden of proof. A lot of times they’re more effective because we can move on them quickly,” West said. “It’s very intentional that we carve out criminal liability and the liability of individuals under these settlements.”

    The civil penalty of $5 billion is the largest in history, West said.

    In a statement, Bank of America Chief Executive Officer Brian Moynihan said: “We believe this settlement, which resolves significant remaining mortgage-related exposures, is in the best interests of our shareholders, and allows us to continue to focus on the future.”
    Bank of America has not commented on outside counsel advising the company, but turned to Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom partner Charles Smith in the SEC case, according to the agency, as well as Amy Greer, a partner at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. Skadden is counsel for Bank of America in a pending case the Department of Justice brought in the Western District of North Carolina.
    As part of the settlement, Bank of America agreed to pay $245 million to settle two SEC cases, the agency said.
    “Requiring an admission of wrongdoing as part of Bank of America’s agreement to resolve the SEC charges filed today provides an additional level of accountability for its violation of the federal securities laws,” said Rhea Kemble Dignam, regional director of the SEC’s Atlanta office.
    Holder and West called on Congress to extend the tax relief coverage of the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007. West said that “until it’s extended, consumers will be on the hook for paying the taxes on any consumer relief they receive.”

    Read more: http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202667568446/Bank-of-America-to-Pay-166B-to-Settle-Fraud-Claims#ixzz3B49dXXD8

  3. Consumer Rights Defenders, legal team says:

    Now it the best time to sue you lender. We can help you pro se or even if you have counsel. If your case has been DISMISSED with prejudice by the trial court after a demurrer or 12(b)(6) motion, don’t forget, you can APPEAL. Our new appellate team can assist you if you call today. 818.453.3585 and ask for Sara Stephens, J.D.
    Rated No. 1 in Customer Satisfaction nationwide for foreclosure defense.
    We Blog for you at CRDefenders.com

  4. From our own web blog at CRDefenders.com read this from the offices of Consumer Rights Defenders, Inc., 818.453.3585;

    LAWYERS ARE LYING ABOUT ENDORSEMENTS ON NOTES:IN FLORIDA [New Laws in California also, recently have kicked in to help stop foreclosures - call us today to get started]

    SUMMARY JUDGMENT DENIED IN FLORIDA TODAY ON USBANK SECURITIZATION CASE
    APRIL 2, 2013

    “A Volusia County, Florida Circuit Judge has this morning denied a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by USBank as the claimed trustee of a securitized mortgage loan trust which closed in 2005. Counsel for USBank argued that the “note was endorsed in blank”, which was a falsity as there is no endorsement on the Note at all, and the “Allonge” filed by the Plaintiff after the suit was filed was on a separate sheet of paper and was undated, unnotarized, unwitnessed, and was signed by “Lydian Data Services” of Boca Raton, Florida (a company which was acquired by another company in 2009) with no evidence of authority for Lydian to sign anything for anyone.

    The MERS “Assignment” attempted to transfer the loan to the securitized mortgage loan trust years after the trust closed, and was signed by known robo-signer Herman John Kennerty, who testified under oath that he signs between 50 and 150 documents per day and only checks the date of the document. The relevant portion of the deposition was filed with the Court as part of the homeowner’s opposition to the summary judgment motion. Mr. Kennerty set forth no facts in his Affidavit as to the “Allonge” or how USBank came into any interest in the Note. There was also no evidence that USBank had any interest in the Note when the case was filed.

    The attorney for USBank also claimed that “The Plaintiff filed opposition to the borrower’s affirmative defenses”, which was also a false statement, as there was no summary judgment evidence filed to negate any of the homeowers’s affirmative defenses. The law in Florida requires admissible evidence to legally refute all of the homeowner’s affirmative defenses.”

    Call us today to enjoin your foreclosure. Offices in Virginia, Dallas, and California with attorneys and paralegals standing by. Rated 5 stars for customer satisfaction. A part of the National Foreclosure Injunction Network.

  5. From the weblog of Consumer Rights Defenders [818.453.3585] with a caveat to investigate this story on your own. The banks are starting to feel the pain of their corruption. Call us today for help!
    ______________ READ THIS__________________

    UNPRECEDENTED CIVIL JURY VERDICT FINDS MAJOR U.S. BANK GUILTY OF FRAUD BANK BREACHED MORTGAGE AGREEMENT IN CASE BROUGHT BY U.S. GOVT. FRAUD INVESTIGATOR

    Jan 30, 2013 – Washington, DC: In October 2012, an historic civil jury verdict in the District of Columbia found that OneWest Bank, which also does business as IndyMac Mortgage Services, violated DC’s consumer protection law by breaching its contract and committing fraud against the plaintiff, Ross Yerger (“the customer”) – a Special Agent with the United States Secret Service. Actual damages were awarded and accompanied by punitive damages and attorney fees. This is the highest level at which any such case has been decided against a financial institution in favor of victory for the plaintiff.
    This case is also being considered by the United States Attorney’s Office for additional action and has already been considered similar in nature to the current Bank of America lawsuit filed by the U.S. Government. The case citation is Yerger v. OneWest Bank, No. 2011 CA 000706 in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia. JR Howell, Esq. of JRH Legal Strategies represented the customer.
    In August of 2009, OneWest Bank, solicited the customer into joining its “Equity Accelerator Program.” Under that program, OneWest promised to debit the homeowner’s mortgage payment in two bi-monthly installments every month for the remainder of the loan. OneWest said that the program would result in over $170,000.00 in interest savings and a gain of nearly $70,000.00 of equity in ten years. OneWest Bank’s promises were reduced to a written agreement.
    The program was not executed as promised. The bank never debited any money from the customer’s account. However, the bank consistently charged the customer hundreds of dollars in late fees. The customer repeatedly cured the bank’s failures by making the mortgage payment manually, including the fees that were charged because the bank failed to make the debits. Each time he made these payments, he was told the debits would continue under the program as agreed. But that never happened.
    Several months later, the customer was threatened with foreclosure. The bank’s lawyers told the customer to pay $9,878.22 to stop the foreclosure in August of 2010. The customer immediately paid this amount, but three weeks later the customer received that payment back from the bank, which said it was refusing to accept the payment. The foreclosure was scheduled for October 21, 2010.
    The bank’s lawyers then demanded over $16,000.00 a few weeks later, otherwise it was going to sell the customer’s home in a foreclosure sale. The customer came up with the money. At trial, several thousands of the dollars were labeled as miscellaneous fees and remained unexplained. Hundreds of dollars were never applied to the customer’s account and remained unaccounted for at trial. A witness for the bank was unable to explain why the customer was charged several thousand dollars in unspecified fees and what the bank did with hundreds of dollars of the customer’s money.
    A few days later, the customer was sent a mortgage statement rife with accounting errors, saying that the customer was a month behind on his mortgage-even though the bank told him that the $16,000.00 payment would bring him current. Even though the bank’s lawyers told him the accounting error was fixed, the following month he was sent a mortgage statement demanded three times his regular mortgage payment. OneWest Bank refused to accept the amount of the regular monthly mortgage payment and demanded the customer pay the full amount that they insisted. In deposition, the witness for the bank confessed that these statements were mistakes. But at trial, the witness recanted this statement and restated that the November 2010 statement was accurate. Neither the bank, nor an independent auditor completed an audit of the customer’s account.
    The lawsuit began in January of 2011. When the summons was served on the bank, the customer’s legal counsel sent a letter with the complaint, explaining that there was no need for litigation to fix this issue and that the parties could negotiate their differences amicably. There was no response to the letter. Instead, OneWest Bank forced the customer to undergo two years of protracted litigation, as well as surveillance on the residence by the bank’s contractors and other harassment.
    ______________________________
    We are also support litigation at “consumerrightsdefenders.wordpress.com”
    Call for your free consultation immediately. Ask for Steve or Sara

  6. Fortunately, Carol and Alan, the friendly Canadians who own and operate Balamku (and
    live on the premises) have provided a very deliberate anecdote to both the generic
    beach resort and the cruise ships’ environmental implications.
    For example, for sightseeing, the ideal time to see the spot is
    from December to February. South India is the hub of temples of different Gods and
    Goddess.

  7. WARNING ABOUT JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT: Some of our friends in Calif are complaining about the disturbing trend in state courts and some federal court in which judges are not taking their defenses seriously especially in after-foreclosure situations. The problem is trying to challenge the sale after the fact. Most of these issues arise too late to avoid an unlawful detainer case in which the issues of title generally cannot be decided. A separate case is needed to challenge the power of the seller of your home to “sell at auction.” We can help all, nationwide.

    Get your cases ready early and don’t let the banks foreclose! Call Consumer Rights Defenders for assistance you can afford. We have referrals and attorneys and their staff to get you started. 818.453.3585 M-F 9:00-4:00 PST. Ask for Sara, Steve. Email is CR.Defenders@yahoo.com.
    God Bless Neil for his hard work.
    Consumer Rights Defenders a network supporter of Living Lies Weblog.

  8. You can’t win without litigation. We are now also on wordpress [consumerrightsdefenders] and Facebook [Consumer Rights Defenders].
    Attorneys, paralegals and experts here to help you litigate and get the banks to the settlement table. 818.453.3585. Affordable foreclosure help.
    Ask for Steve or Sara

  9. Checking out “Ph.D MARC J. SEIFER HANDWRITING EXPERT on ANDREW HARMON SIGNATUR” on Foreclosure Hamlet: http://ning.it/kCAdcT

  10. HSBC halts US foreclosures over paperwork errors

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704506004576174310385013144.html

    As the OCC, FRB, FDIC, etc make their rounds of annual Bank examinations (OCC is primary regulator of National Banks, FRB of commercial and foreign bank branches, FDIC of retail banks, etc), one of the core reviews is a Bank’s Operational Risk Management practices. Operational Risk encompasses: Legal risk (yes, all these wronged foreclosure Defendants that will counter sue for fraud. Legal Risk also includes reputational risk- the damage to the Bank’s brand as it affects that little Goodwill Asset account in a Bank’s Balance sheet – ie how much the name/brand Wells Fargo, BoA, JPMChase is valued at. OpRisk further includes Operations Risk (errors, omissions, fraudulent transactions), Human Resources Risk (employee/officer malfeasanse), Business Continuity and IT Risk -systems crashing because some hacker is trying to get all this loan information :), it also includes Credit and Market Risk.

    The reason Operational Risk is so crucial to a Bank is because based on scorecards and data about the risks above, models are used to compute Capital Reserves a Bank must hold in order to protect itself from all these risks, lawsuits and all. Basel II/III is the guideline for Risk Capital that must be set aside.

    The regulators (OCC, FRB, FDIC) have a planned quarterly schedule for the year that spells out when a Bank will be examined by that regulator and the bank is notified about 6 weeks in advance of the upcoming visit through a First Day Letter that announces the date, the scope and requests information needed for when they arrive.

    As the article indicates, the regulators may sanction fines for the mismanagement of the mortgage backed securities business, but their all mighty power resides in the fact that their examination can result in downgrading a Bank’s rating which roughly translates into a Bank having to charge more for loan and thus, becoming less competitive.

    In conclusion, a Bank’s Operational Risk Officer, usually reporting to the Chief Risk Officer is all ears when it comes to the substantiated FACTS (not libelous discussion) concerning Bank officer misconduct and bank process brake down. The other interested party is the head of a Bank’s Audit Committee or Chief Auditor.

    The Dodd Frank Act passed last summer set very strict guidelines going forward and its compliance is also examined by the regulators and internally through a Bank’s Operational Risk Committee.

  11. RECENT RULING BY THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT–On May 7, 2010, the Texas Supreme Court decided a case in which it ruled that forfeiture of one’s interest in a contract is required when one fraudulent induces another party into a contract.
    Texas Supreme Court Justice Paul Green wrote, “[T]he remedy of forfeiture is necessary to such abuses of trust, regardless of proof of actual damages.” Furthermore, he wrote that “a fiduciary who breaches his duty should not be insulated from forfeiture if the party whom he fraudulently induced into contract is ignorant about the fraud, or fails to suffer harm.”
    This case involves a private business buy-out contract between two parties (Larry Snodgrass and Mark Swinnea) that involved fraud in the induction of the contractual agreement.
    Since the state of Texas views mortgages/Deeds of Trust as private contracts that do not require judicial foreclosure, then couldn’t this ruling be applied to homeowners who were fraudulently induced into their mortgages/Deeds of Trust?

  12. I just wanted to say hi to everyone as I am new here. I look forward to speaking with the forum. As for me, I am a http://www.bocapersonalinjuryattorney.com – boca raton personal injury attorney and would be willing to help any locals out in need of some legal advice.

  13. I have been studying the UCC regarding notes and I may be onto an honorable exchange of valuable consideration.
    If the mortgage compnay leaves with the real HOUSE the individual MUST leave with the real NOTE.
    If the mortgage company wants to hand over a “picture” of the NOTE, the individual can offer a “picture” of the house as an even exchange.
    If the m.c. says pictures are not acceptable then they are agreeing a picture of the NOTE is not acceptable.
    Real for real, picture for picture.
    The basis to deny accepting a picture would counter their claim for offering a picture and make their case frivolous.

  14. Mortgage giants USA own $100-plus billion of junk
    June 16th, 2009, 3:00 am · 6 Comments · posted by Mathew Padilla
    I meant to post earlier this interesting item from National Mortgage News:

    Two-thirds of the AAA-rated private-label MBS purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been downgraded to “junk,” the GSEs’ regulator told a congressional panel, and only a small portion is still rated AAA. Federal Housing Finance Agency director James Lockhart told a House Financial Services subcommittee the two government sponsored enterprises have $171.3 billion in PLS backed by alt-A, subprime and other mortgages in their investment portfolios. Only 3% remain AAA and not on downward watch, Mr. Lockhart said. Another 11% remain AAA-rated but are on downgrade watch as of May 28. Meanwhile, 68% of the private label-MBS has been downgraded below investment grade, which is sometimes referred to as “junk” bonds. An additional 17% has been downgraded but remain investment grade, according to FHFA. “There is no doubt [the credit rating agencies] failed” in rating these securities,” Mr. Lockhart said at the June 4 hearing. “We need to reform the rating agencies and we need to get them back to rating and not consulting and getting fees for structuring bonds,” he said. Impairments on the MBS resulted in Fannie recognizing $6 billion in losses in the first quarter and Freddie recognizing $7 billion in losses.”

    Lockhart may be correct about the rating agencies, but why were Fannie and Freddie buying so many securities packaged by Wall Street banks?

    The defense I have often heard is that the GSEs thought buying subprime securities helped low-income buyers afford housing. But isn’t that the purpose of FHA? Besides which it was unnecessary — there was plenty of investor demand for anything AAA.

    And to explain the headline, the GSEs are in federal receivership

  15. Real Estate Agent Takes On Banks Over Short Sales

    Banks say the right thing in public but often don’t follow through

    June 3, 2009

    In markets where home places have fallen drastically, “short sales” are among the few ways for homeowners to get out of their homes, short of foreclosure. In a short sale, however, the lender has to agree to accept payment that is less than for the entire loan amount. It’s not something most banks are eager to do.

    San Diego real estate agent Bob Hamzey has encountered his share of short sale horror stories as he has tried to sell homes whose values seemingly dropped by the day. He cheered when the Obama Administration rolled out its Foreclosures Alternative Program, which is designed to streamline the short sale process for distressed homeowners by setting service standards for banks and mortgage companies.

    While the program promises to make life easier for homeowners and the realtors helping them, Hamzey claims that big banks have already found ways to circumvent the rules for their own gain and are gaming the system.

    “The banks have been transferring their equity lines of credit in the middle of the short sale process to affiliate companies,” said Hamzey. “These affiliates are not under the auspices of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency or obliged to follow the rules set up under the president’s new program. In essence, they are almost free to be as uncooperative as they please.”

    Hamzey claims that by not signing off on the short sale package, the affiliate companies may force the first mortgage to foreclose. He maintains that large banks would prefer a foreclosure to a short sale, even though they may end up losing money in either case.

    “In front of the camera, bank executives smile and explain how they are cooperating with the government and working with distressed homeowners,” said Hamzey. “In the back rooms, they transfer their assets to affiliate companies that practically operate free of government regulations.”

    Hamzey says he is on a mission to spread the word about big bank abuse of the FAP program and is asking his fellow agents to send him their personal stories of getting caught up in short sale abuse.

    Hamzey said he intends to send these stories to federal regulators in an effort to encourage the Obama administration to develop a system that is fair and responsible for the people they were designed to help.

    Read more: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/06/short_sales.html#ixzz0HV3cIIMh&B

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Is it possible Geithner, Obama, and Congress just don’t “get it”?

    Allan
    BeMoved@AOL.com

  16. Question: One of the articles listed on this site stated that federally backed loans cannot be assigned. The homeowner I am helping has a Fannie Mae loan. The assignment of mortgage from MERS to Suntrust would count as an assignment of a federally backed loan, right? What is the remedy?

  17. I’m helping a friend whose home has already been foreclosed upon. They filed a motion to dismiss but have to show the court that they have meritorious claims. Suntrust filed the suit without attaching the note although it did file an assignment of mortgage from MERS to Suntrust (signed by a Suntrust employee, natch). The default judgment was granted on 12/11/08, and the lawyer filed the original note and mortgage on 12/11/08. One of the defenses I am suggesting the homeowner raise is making Suntrust that they have ownership of the note, not merely possession. How would homeowners accomplish this?

    Also, for those of you interested in which Florida courts require notes when filing, go to the Florida Supreme Court site and click on Emergency Foreclosure news. It will take you to the list of administrative orders listed by judicial district. There are several courts that require the note when filing.

  18. is there a generic version for a document or documents that can force the lender to produce the note. This would be a big help to me any comments would be appreciated.

  19. Hi all it’s me again! Just wanted to update ya’ll on our “Note” situation. As I posted at the top of this page, Our Bankruptcy Judge ordered Saxon’s attorney’s to prove they have the original note, and gave them until the 16th of March. Well, it appears they may be sweating profusiously over this “Note” “thing” as they have requested more time. Our Bankruptcy Attorney say’s we have the upper hand right now, so I will keep you posted as to the outcome. Meanwhile, ABC 7 News contacted me yesterday, and Michael Finney will be coming to our home on March 25th to interview us on this “Note” strategy! Never been on t.v. and can’t say that I really want to be but if it helps spread the word to as many victims as possible, then I’ll do it! ? I won’t like it, but I’ll do it! LOL
    IF ANYONE WHO READS THIS LIVES IN SAN JOSE, CA. BAY AREA, AND NEEDS A BANKRUPTCY ATTORNEY, CONTACT

    MARC VOISENAT AT :

    510-272-9787 OFFICE
    510-610-6800 CELL

    HIS OFFICE IS ACTUALLY IN OAKLAND, CA. BUT HE COME’S TO SAN JOSE COURTS AS WELL.
    I’M NOT SURE IF HE HANDLES CASES OTHER THAN BANKRUPTCY BUT YOU CAN ASK HIM AS HE IS CURRENTLY CHALLENGING THE NOTE IN OUR CASE. AND CALIF. BEING A NON-JUDICIAL STATE, IT TOOK SOME FANCY FOOT WORK TO FINALLY GET OUR MATTER HEARD! BUT IT CAN BE DONE!
    IT’S OKAY TO SAY I REFERRED YOU, THE GOAL HERE IS TO GET AS MANY OF YOU VICTIMS INTO THE COURTS TO CHALLENGE THE NOTES TO YOUR MORTGAGES AS POSSIBLE! WE MUST FIGHT BACK AND STOP THEM FROM TAKING OUR HOMES ESPECIALLY IF THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS TO DO SO!

    AND IF YOU NEED MORE LINKS TO MORE CONSUMER RESOURCES, COPY & PASTE THIS LINK, IT’S FREE!!

    http://amazingdreamcatchers.com/id207.htmlD

    GOOD LUCK EVERYONE! AND DON’T GIVE UP THE FIGHT!
    DEBRA

  20. Hi everyone! Here’s a bit of information that may be of some help to Californian’s regarding the “Note” strategy! I’ve been fighting our case for 2 yrs. now, escaped foreclosure 3 times by filing chap 13 which converted to chap 7 which the house actually sold under bankruptcy protection and then changed to “Invalid Sale”
    Now, before you go out and file bankruptcy, try to fight your case without going that route. We only did it to buy time.
    After 2 yrs of gathering info on New Century Mortgage, it became more and more clear that they most likely did not have the note to this mortgage since they were caught up in ripping off investors and ALL SORTS OF OTHER VIOLATIONS ACROSS THE COUNTRY! I actually found the most useful information from an attorney who responded to my post right here on Neil’s website and he’s been sort of “walking us through” the process. He’s located in Florida, but the first bit of info he gave me to pass on to our Bankruptcy Att. is this: “Have the BK att file an amended schedule listing the property as “UNsecured” this will force the servicer, lender, whoever’s handling the loan to come forward to prove it’s secured by producing the Note! This tactic is typically for anyone who has already filed bankruptcy I imagine.
    Another bit of valuable info from this attorney is this:
    “It’s not strictly about possession – it’s about how they got it. Federally backed loans can’t be trasferred by law – look at the bottom of the mortgage and see if it is written on fannie mae or freddie mac paper – that’d be federally backed loans.
    If it was transferred along the way, then the pooling and servicing agreement must be pulled up from the SEC website. You have to use the original lender and the date of the loan to find which trust it went into. These pooling and servicing agreements describe how transfers are to be effected and they never have the assignments that permit it.”

    Well thanks to this attorney’s wonderful advice,
    first we sent a written request to Deutsche Bank to provide us with a copy of the Note for our own inspection. They sent a copy of the “adjustable rate note” which I guess was not good enough for our att. He then filed a restraining order last Tuesday, and we appeared in court on Wed, Feb 25, 09 The most recent sale date was scheduled for March 2, this Monday, here’s what happened in court………..
    (clarification, this is actually my elderly in-laws house/mortgage/case that I’ve been fighting for)
    In court:

    The Judge asked our lawyer “have you ever done a case like this?” the lawyer replied, “no your Honor” the Judge said, “neither have I, have a seat counsel, we’re going to be here a while” The Judge then proceeded to look thru his law books.
    He then contacted Saxon Mortgage Company’s Attorney’s via land line and there in the court room had Saxon’s Attorney’s on speaker phone. As the Judge read the new mortgage laws to the Attorney’s while on speaker phone, Saxon’s attorney’s tried to request that the sale go forth and take place on March 2, but the Judge wasn’t having that! In fact, well, let’s just say he really gave it to them good! Reprimanding them for not offering a loan modification, questioning why this elderly couple qualified for a $930,000 loan on a fixed income in the first place, and among many other issue’s, gave them until the 16th of March to produce the original Note! Can you believe the phone went dead! Saxon’s attorney’s actually hung up on the Judge! The Judge then stated that this is the first case in California to challenge the Note in Bankruptcy court.
    This my friends could end up being the “open door” for many of you to get your cases into court as this is finally getting to our Judges here in California and they seem to be leaning more on the borrowers side due to this recent mortgage crisis. So DON’T GIVE UP! YOU CAN’T WIN IF YOU DON’T FIGHT! AND IF YOU DON’T WIN, YOUR NOT LOSING ANYMORE THAN WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE ANYWAY! SO FIGHT FOR YOUR HOME, FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS!
    Good Luck to you all!
    Debra

  21. Have you called your Loan servicer of late?they are all answering out of India.

    They got the TARP and employed people in other countries to do the work,my tax money.

    Question becomes, “if the jobs are shipped out, how are they pretending we are to pay the mortgage bill?.

  22. DJ Furey: Never too late. If they don’t own it, they have no right to demand collection, no authority to foreclose. It is theft.

  23. my daugther was 21 when she got her mortgate, now in foreclosure, a motion for judgement has been filed and is set for a hearing, is it to late to do a request for production of the original note?

  24. Still no attorneys in Indiana. Iwas thinking about running a “Want Add”. Does anyone have any suggestions of what to put into the add? Thank you all,

  25. Homecomings? But I did have 2 mortgages with Greenpoint, 1 with Countrywide, and another with Wamu.
    Thanks,

  26. Here is a link I stumbled upon while browsing for “news”. It’s an Administrative Order from the Chief Judge of Pinellas County Florida, requiring in the initial filing of any foreclosure action the original note along with other customary documents.

    http://www.jud6.org/LegalCommunity/LegalPractice/AOSAndRules/aos/aos2008/2008-081.htm

  27. I am facing foreclosure in Missouri, you have a link “Foreclosure Defense: Missouri Procedure PARTIALLY Explained”…what is the significance of “PARTIALLY” ? It appears Missouri to be an exception to other states, is that the case and why?

    Also, I plan on watching the pod cast tonight at 7:00 Eastern Time, will the link be on your homepage?

    Thank you for your time and your humanity.

  28. T29H,

    They have no standing – so use Discovery – it will suit you well to flush out the imperfected chain of title.

  29. The Plaintiff in this case is the Trustee for the Trust. In the complaint there is a copy of the original Note. The complaint for foreclosure states it has the Mortgage and Note. However, according to SEC docs, it had to have been assigned several times. The Note in the Complaint only shows original lender – no assignments.The only assignment known is that in Dec. ’08 MERS as Nominee assigned said Mortgage to the Trustee via a notarized document and filed this with the county. There is nothing showing this is attached to the real Note. All that has been shown in the complaint was a copy of the original Note with no assignments. They must not have recorded any assignments properly. What is the standing of the Plaintiff in FL?

  30. Can a National Bank do a residential property foreclosure? home is in California

  31. Florida Atty’s/Pro Se Litigants – FYI – Don’t assume Judges are versed in Foreclosure Law. Most cases become default judgments. Provide Judges case law on Fourth DCA Ruling (State Street vs Harley Lord) – Plaintiff must have ORIGINAL NOTE or they can’t foreclose. Also if they want re-establish “lost note” use Fl Statute 673.3091 (2) in the Order to Compel. If they can’t re-establish get sanctions to bar evidence of note. This will cripple there case – then close the deal with Quiet Title & Title Insurance.

  32. Hey ppl, i’ve readily obtainable livinglies.wordpress.com when i searched google
    for a admissible and salutary forum, and i bald to loiter here)
    if you deem my english bad… so be it, i’m valid learning

  33. If possible one should try to have the loan ‘originator’ or the title company produce any ‘intructions to closing agent’ or any documents titled ‘Letter to Closing Agent’ even if the originator pretended to be the lender. I must have accidentally been given a copy of this when I demanded copies of my closing docs after the refi. This is how I think I have found the ‘real’ lender, who is now denying everything…Deutsche Bank/Bankers Trust. This was a HOME123/New Century mortgage refi. This ‘Letter to Closing Agent’ states this: You are hereby notified that Bankers Trust, as agent for certain lenders and a certain lessor(in such capacity, the ‘Agent’) has a security interest in the deed of trust or mortgage note and all other supporting documents for the above referenced loan. Deutsche Bank was the real lender who provided the funding for the loan and I suspect is the direct pipeline to the investors!!

  34. I have a mortgage that has been sold at least twice. We fell behind two years ago while I was laid off. During that time we spent everything we had to keep going. It did not last long. I have been working with the VA for the past two years to get the situation resolved. They said they were working on a “refunding”. The lady never gave me a good explaination of what that term meant. We have had four different appraisals done in that time frame. As of January 6th 2009 the VA says that they cannot do anything for me because the house is only worth 134,000.00 and the loan is for 144,000.00 through Citigroup now. They will not move on their price to be able to refund the loan. I was given till the 13th of Feb. to respond to the court. I received a letter from their lawyer yesterday that the court proceedings had already taken place and that the house was being put up for a sheriff’s sale. What can I do. This is all so confusing to me. I have been trying to do what they have been telling me for two years and now this is where I am at.

  35. Roy Oppenheim, a residential foreclosure attorney and a partner at Oppenheim Pilelsky, is exposing a defect in Florida foreclosures proceeding by demanding that banks and lenders show proof of true mortgage ownership.

    This is a way for Oppenheim to help homeowners who are facing the threat foreclosure. In Florida, one in every 10 homeowners are delinquent or in some form of foreclosure, with 95 percent of foreclosures not represented by a counsel.

    According to Oppenheim, this defect in the foreclosure process may be the reason why an increasing number of homeowners have prematurely or unnecessarily lose their properties. His firm, along with the Florida Bar and other law firms, is working to expose this defect to help reduce the number of foreclosed homes in South Florida.

    Oppenheim said that most often, banks and mortgage lenders cannot show proof of true mortgage ownership. He pointed out that homeowners of distressed properties have the fundamental right to demand for banks and mortgage lenders to show proof of ownership of the property of which they are attempting to foreclose.

    He added that most of the time, banks and mortgage lenders cannot show proof of ownership because they have lost their documents, sold the mortgage loans or converted them into investments. Banks that cannot show the necessary documents could no longer establish ownership of a property, according to Oppenheim.

    However, despite the absence or lack of proof of true ownership, banks are successfully filing foreclosures on homes in South Florida. This is because, according to Oppenheim, distressed homeowners cannot afford to hire a lawyer to represent them in court.

    Because of the overwhelming number of filings, the judicial system in Florida lacks the capacity to mandate lenders and banks to prove ownership.

    Oppenheim warns of a possible rebellion if distressed borrowers find out that banks and mortgage lenders have violated their right for due process.
    Author Resource:- Leticia Carvalho has been educated in the finer points of the foreclosures market over 5 years. Read about the following article Attorney Oppenheim Exposes a Defect in Florida’s Foreclosure Process by Leticia Carvalho on FindForeclosureProperties.com – Your online source of foreclosure properties.

  36. Good morning and better 2009 Neil.

    I sent the QWR back in November to the bank, their attorney, SEC, FTC, and to where the payments were supposed to be sent to the bank in California, where it was returned.

    Both the SEC and the FTC replied stating that there is nothing that they can do since it is not what they do.

    The bank did send a letter stating that my “loan status had changed” which I was very happy about since now they wanted to negotiate….so I thought.

    The initial lawsuit filing stated that the lender did not have the note and then later on that it was “found”. Recently the bank’s attorney sent a response stating that JPMorgan Chase verified the following info about the loan with Wamu: Original mortgagee/creditors, date note/mortgage excecuted, recorded in, unpaid balance. They included the loan payment history, payoff figures, reinstatement figures, copy of the note, and mortgage.

    That wamu was the servicing agent since inception of loan and that as of date of default the loan was not sold, transferred and/or assigned and remained with wamu.

    Now they will be resetting the sale of the property. Please assist me in understanding this to getting this stopped as soon as possible since I apparently have followed the process. Thank you

  37. go on the attack pressing for answers

  38. What is next step after I have properly rescinded the mortgage under TILA.
    I have filed affirmative defenses, motion to compel production etc so it is stalled for a while.

  39. What is bumburbia?

  40. Can I file a law suit on equity swap mortgage schemes – when it comes to high cost loans (adjustable rate mortgages)?

  41. excellent wording

  42. Neil, how are you. We are getting a few Lawyers calling and expert referrals from your site. Thanks – how can we return the favor? Perhaps some of our latest findings could assist your readers. My focus at the moment is bringing down the institutional FSB Bank to show the real Defendant and where to hold accountability. The securities structure with its “shells” insulate the FSB, who is the heart and sole of each exotic securitization. I said it over and over. Securities senior sub hybrid programs don’t and banks are insane to particpate in times of an economic collapse – so does that make them lawful?

    REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT OF A FEDERAL CHARTERED BANK [NLS draft from a pending mass action suit]-Impairment of Certain Loans –
    Plaintiff alleges that in times of an economic crisis and financial collapse, transparency and a complete understanding for exposure exists. Financial institutions and structure can no longer be concealed. This is necessary for determining accountability. With regards to risk management for complex financial instruments Plaintiff alleges CDOs backed by subprime mortgages are examples of inherent undisclosed risk. The triple A ratings for super-senior tranches dragged in banks and also the regulators. It created a false sense of security, notwithstanding the inherent risk of the underlying collateral.

    These hidden factors were major driving forces to keep the market alive. Defendant’s exposure was masked in off-balance sheet vehicles in ways that clouded the full extent of exposure for senior
    [Summary of pleading] – 3

    Management, the Board of Directors, regulators and the public were all duped through years 2004 – 2006 especially. Defendant is an example of where a senior bank’s management, who thought they had avoided subprime risk by deliberately choosing to avoid originating such loans in the bank. Plaintiff’s contention is verifiable and will show Defendant lacked transparency under the “Lender Bank structure or “Shells”. Regulators determined after the fact that the investment banks had purchased subprime loans elsewhere to structure them into CDOs. Plaintiff claims the problem was further compounded where the Bank FSB structured the CDOs for sale to third parties but wound up holding large positions that no one wanted to buy. The Bank is the appropriate “Defendant” and is shown to have caused the current mortgage industry collapse with other bank relationships where it had agreed with to collectively reinvest because their triple A character supposedly made them so “safe.” That resulted in Defendant later holding huge concentrations, which caused even larger write downs and losses. Plaintiffs “shells” suffer disparity for the Banks FSB to avoid accountability. It was the bank FSB hidden source of loan production in 2004 – 2006 and holdings origination platform that is the source of a determinable market share of toxic and fraudulent whole loan receivables now in default and at the hands of the Defendant servicers.

    The FSB Bank is the thrust for mandate to escalate wrongful foreclosures. Plaintiff alleges there is no work out strategy in effect that will benefit the trustor outside of foreclosure and bringing the loan current. The Defendants must show an extraordinary level of government consideration regarding foreclosures and its non transparent complex instruments causing it to inaccurately rely on triple A ratings; Disclosures to date and for the years in question are inaccurate and Plaintiff believes that far too little transparency was available to show real risk aggregation. Plaintiff will show where too much reliance on triple A ratings; not enough transparency and risk aggregation; and too much tolerance for concentrations.
    Maher Soliman
    http://www.borrowerhotline.com

  43. Great news Lisa. Please keep us posted. Thanks

  44. how do i request representation from your site? I’ve actually been before the judge in our county here in florida to fight my foreclosure without an attorney, the judge was obviously on my side, my case is good, but he did say “Ms Lucas were going to postpone this and you need to be back here with an attorney because there are so many issues involved” Now i need a lawyer.

  45. Here is where we are now; HSBC BANK N/A would not prove ownership of the note in our foreclosure. We have open cases with the OCC, CAG, Florida state of financial Regulations , Board of Governors of the Federal Revenue System, Federal Trade Commission, Florida Bar Association etc… this is an outrage with the issues now being presented to our Federal System and we will not stop. It does semm that IF the attorneys had knowingly filed suit without proof of the note there may also be action taken there. This is an ongoing problem and why the Country is in the situation it is in… They are taking homes that they do not own.

  46. Nick, how did you make out in court. If you lost, go file a lis pendens on the property and force them to sue you judicially; this way, now you can defend yourself. just my opinion.

  47. Hi Neil,

    Hershel suggested, that since the fraudulent banking scheme is procedural such that there would be no argument as to the process. One might immeddiately upon presentation of the facts in the complaint, move for summary judgment and avoid courts time and costs.

    What are your thoughts?

    Sherryl

  48. Neil I need a lawyer I go to court Nov 5,2008 in oakland Ca . I will call you and fax the form. If you have time you can look up my case RG07353134. I need help I have a good case .

  49. Neil Who is liabable when an independant broker submits fraudulent information to a lender without the knowledge of the borrower. The lender approves the loan. It turned out the broker forged the borrowers signature on most of the loan docs, including the deed of trust. We are now in civil court and lender is claiming that they are not liable due to it being the broker that committed fraud. It turned out that the broker did not even have a license, and the company is now in bankruptsy. Argent Mortgage Company (lender) statss in their own”Broker Code of Conduct that they only work with reputable licensed brokers.” This is an invalid loan and deed of trust. If the deed of trust is invalid then this means they cannot use it as a security instrament and would need to do a judicial foreclosure as opposed to a non judicial foreclosure, Is this correct?

  50. Does anyone knowns, how FL Statute 701.02 (4) applies to a non-recorded aasigment of mortgage and note? Thank you.

  51. Dear Neil; Good News, Pro Bono: I have been contacted by a local law firm that is contemplating within the next several weeks to motion the Lehman Bankruptcy Courts to Appoint a Borrowers Committee for all borrowers who are otherwise unrepresentative in the Lehman Bankruptcy! This is very good news! The law firm will be representing our interest Pro Bono in a limited capacity. If they are successful in convincing the courts that the borrows committee in fact is needed, as it is, then at least homeowners with these onerous loans will have a fund established in their benefit to allow borrowers to collect against upon winning their claims. There is even a possibility that if….this goes well, the firm may be interested in representing borrowers claims, again, this is “IF” with no promises made here. The law firm will be paid by the trustee for Lehman. Most people do not know they have what is known as a Lehman Loan and I will cite just a few lenders that had their paper/loan securitized by the behemoth that are but is not limited to AURORA LOAN SERVICES, HSBC, CITIMORTGAGE INC., WELLS FARGO, WMC MORTGAGE CORP, PROVIDENT BANK, GREEN POINT MORTGAGE, NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE. I have a comprehensive list of who the lenders are and anyone is free to contact me at timcotten@mris.com. Also, I am putting together a prospective list for this law firm of borrowers who want to be represented by the Consumer Borrower Committee. I am hopeful that any of your readers who believes Lehman may be the originator or, if you have anyone of the lenders just cited, please call me at 410-257-5283 or email me at timcotten@mris.com. Lehman’s bankruptcy case has been posted http://www.epiqbankruptcysolutions.com, and you can view it for free. Also, do not delay in getting a letter of objection in the courts regarding transfers or sales of notes subject to TILA claims as they MUST contain an order stipulating the transfer to be contingent up 11 U.S.C. §363(o). We are very concerned about the sale of LEHMAN core assets as this is just going to be an underhanded attempt to dump “bad paper” and to escape liabilities so, though we are not lawyers and are not providing anyone here with ANY legal advise, we want everyone here to know that we are sending off a motion to block all transfers within the Lehman case unless they contain the Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-8, 119 Stat. 23 (2005), 11 U.S.C. §363(o) forcing the new acquirer of said loans to take them contingent this provision and all consumer TILA claims. Thanks Neil and keep up the great blog! Tim 410-257-5283.

  52. Neil,

    Just a quick update and some food for thought. In my case I was able to get representation from one of the attorneys found here on the site and it i a Godsend- Thank You.

    Now a thought that I havent seen, two actually

    The FCRA Federal Credit Reporting Act is the athority governing the reporting of and information related to credit. If say Well’s fargo does a note, sells it off it no longer owns it and sues under a “Trustee, Nominee Etc” how then can they continue to report the debt under there own name. Would there then be any defense as to “which is it then, do you( Wells ) own it or does this trust”.? One on hand it seems to me the Lis Pendens has a defense, or on the other hand a claim could be made against the ledner for reporting a account they had long since been paid on.

    The other thought I had was in Fla at least there is a Fair and Deceptive Trade Pratice set of laws that mirror the FTC laws. Seems to me there may be claims and releif available under these statutes as well. Particularly interesting is that it is this set of laws that AG Bill McCollum is going after Country wide
    Again just a couple thoughts

  53. Are HELOC’s also in the category securitized transactions?

    HSBC has lots of HELOC’s all over the place and I understand that they do continue doing the servicing of these HELOC’s but they have sold them to investment pools as well.

    How should one go about finding out if the happen to fall into the same category of the other loans where the notes were split , lost, hidden or destroyed?

    Many people got their refinance loans split into two 80 % first and a 20% HELOC with a predetermined maximum balance, initial and maximum interest rate. I did get both loans at the table.

    Regular and ordinary 2nd trusts obtained in the boom years also fall into these categories as well?.

  54. Mr Garfield are there any cases to be referenced whereby the action(s) did result in not just dismissal without prejudice but actually quieted the suit and in fact the note was declared paid and satisfaction conveyed?
    Truly it is a fascinating premise and follows a solid course of reason as it relates to complex securities/derivitives.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,467 other followers

%d bloggers like this: