Find a Lawyer that “Gets It”

ATTORNEY NETWORK CLICK HERE:

Lawyers That Get It – 0310

WWW.LIVINGLIES-STORE.COM

          Over 150 Lawyers in Network Now

                               covering 37 States

Lawyers to check out: No Guarantees, but we have information that these attorneys are knowledgeable in the defense of foreclosure cases and capable litigators who can defend the property and perhaps even gain the advantage through quiet title or other tactics and strategies discussed here. Many of them have been to one of our Lawyers Workshops and/or have a copy of our Lawyers Workshop Handbook,  but you need to talk with them directly as it always important that your lawyers understands what your objectives are and the facts surrounding your particular set of circumstances. Bear in mind that Lawyers have families to feed and mortgages to pay so you should expect to pay for professional service.  How different lawyers approach a case and their fees or billing approach is up to them.

Competent local counsel is important as they are familiar with state and local laws and procedures and various idiosyncracies unique to the local forum. We will and do collaborate with them on some cases with regard to assisting with a forensic review, legal discovery research and overall claims assessment and case strategy. Remember the old saying:

A good lawyer knows the law and a great lawyer knows the Judge.

PLEASE SUPPORT THIS SITE !!!

events-coming-up-for-garfield-continuum-and-garfield-handbooks

* Reserve Workshop Seat for Early Bird discount on Registration
* Mention Garfield’s Foreclosure Defense Group when reserving rooms to get special Group Rate
* Book flights early 14 day advance is usually much cheaper
Note: If you are planning to attend it would be wise to book now. Experience has shown us that sometimes a large number of lawyers show up at these workshops intending to register at the door. We don’t want you driving two hours only to find out we don’t have a seat for you.

PURCHASE ATTORNEY WORKBOOKS: 

WWW.LIVINGLIES-STORE.COM

What Lawyers Are Saying About Neil Garfield’s Seminars

CLE CREDITS APPROVED BY FLORIDA BAR, CALIFORNIA BAR, OHIO SUPREME COURT and Other Jurisdictions

lawyers-workshop-sneak-preview

What Lawyers Are Saying About Neil Garfield’s Seminars

attorney-fees-you-cant-have-it-both-ways-and-neither-can-the-they

263 Responses

  1. EXTRA EXTRA: Woman in California Beats a New York Bank.
    November 2014 NEWS DESK SPECIAL EDITION from
    Consumer Rights Defenders……

    BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON in the case of Bank of New York Mellon, a trust, v. Janeece F., GIVES UP. AS THEIR CASE GOES SOUTH….BANK FILES A DISMISSAL IN A JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE CASE IN SUPERIOR COURT ON OCTOBER 27, 2014 in Sonoma County.

    Our “woman of the year” has finally beat BONY M and its lawyers and they gave up. After nearly 2 years of hard core litigating, Janeece finally prevailed in one huge battle against BONY Mellon who was sanctioned money for discovery abuses, lost two trial dates, failed to take plaintiff’s expert’s deposition [Neil Garfield was her expert] and all done by Janeece with NO ATTORNEY. She did have our staff helping at Consumer Rights Defenders. We can help you too.

    If you want more information about this tremendous victory, call Steve or Sara at Consumer Rights Defenders at 818.453.3585.
    We are here to help you win your battle, since 2007.

  2. If you have been trying to access our personal website at CRDefenders.com …well, it was hacked and down temporarily. Go to Facebook and find Consumer Rights Defenders to find us and call if we can be of assistance. We shall never quit blogging and supporting the fight to save American’s homes.
    We are still at 818.453.3585
    M-F 9-4:30 PT. Call for free consultation.

    Steve Nelson
    Sara Stephens
    Consumer Rights Defenders
    America’s No. 1 Foreclosure Litigation Specialists in America
    Rated 5 stars for customer satisfaction

  3. October 1, NEWS DESK of Consumer Rights Defenders:
    Call us at 818.453.3585 about suing for credit damage based on this decision just out…..
    Oct 1 (Reuters) – Wells Fargo Bank and Citigroup’s mortgage unit must face claims that they violated federal law by falsely notifying credit reporting agencies that thousands of homeowners went through bankruptcies or foreclosures, a federal judge has ruled.

    In an order on Monday, U.S. District Judge Janis Sammartino said consumers had offered enough facts to support their claims that Wells and CitiMortgage Inc gave inaccurate information to a credit reporting agency, hurting consumers’ ability to get new loans.

    Mark Rodgers, a spokesman for Citi, denied the allegations and said the case is without merit. A spokesman for Wells did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Filed last year, the lawsuit said the mistakes were made after mortgage customers of Citi and Wells sold their homes in a short sale, an alternative to foreclosure. In a short sale, a home is sold for less than the amount owed on the mortgage, with the bank agreeing to accept the proceeds to settle the loan.

    Instead of reporting the transactions as short sales, the banks reported them as foreclosures or bankruptcies and failed to correct the reports when they were disputed, the lawsuit said.

    According to the lawsuit, the mistakes occurred because Citi and Wells used the wrong codes when they submitted information about short sales to credit reporting agency Experian to update borrowers’ credit reports.

    The lawsuit also named Experian as a defendant, saying it failed to assure the accuracy of information about short sales and did not properly investigate when borrowers complained. A spokesman for Experian did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    The lawsuit, which seeks class action status, was filed on behalf of Alpine, California resident John Shaw and other consumers nationwide whose short sales were incorrectly reported by Wells or Citi as foreclosures or bankruptcies. It seeks damages for violations of the U.S. Fair Credit Reporting Act, passed in 1970 to insure the accuracy of information reported to credit bureaus.

    The case is Shaw v Experian Information Solutions Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, No 13-cv-1295 (Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh, Bernard Orr)

  4. From Consumer Rights Defenders SEPTEMBER, 2014 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.

  5. Bank of America to Pay $16.6B to Settle Fraud Claims
    Jenna Greene and Todd Ruger, The National Law Journal
    August 21, 2014 | 1 Comments
    FROM THE NEWS DESK AT CONSUMER RIGHTS DEFENDERS call us today at 818.453.3585 for litigation assistance.

    Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. on Thursday announced Bank of America will pay $16.6 billion to resolve mortgage fraud claims, the largest-ever government deal with a single entity.
    Photo: Todd Ruger/NLJ
    Updated: 11:49 a.m.
    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.

    Read more: http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202667568446/Bank-of-America-to-Pay-166B-to-Settle-Fraud-Claims#ixzz3B4IeJNi0

  6. 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

  7. Consumer Rights Defenders announces from July 20, to September 30, 2014 all new customers are entitled to a 50% discount on your first filed paper. Now you can afford to win the battle AND THE WAR.
    Call us at 818.453.3585 ask for Steve or Sara about this new program
    America’s No. 1 pro se litigation organization.

  8. Here is the full Release from the Oregon Supreme Court from the below blog for your reading.

    http://www.ojd.state.or.us/SCA/WebMediaRel.nsf/Files/2013-06-06_Media_Release.pdf/$File/2013-06-06_Media_Release.pdf

    Steve and Sara
    Consumer Rights Defenders
    818.453.3585

  9. From Consumer Rights Defenders NEWS DESK….America’s No. 1 litigation support services organization.

    OREGON HOMEOWNERS…MERS dealt a blow by Oregon Supreme Court in responding to USDC certified questions of law. This settles the question of MERS being a falsely named “beneficiary” with rights under a promissory note. IT IS NOT – under the Oregon Trust Deeds Act.

    Please read the following short news release issued by the Oregon Supreme Court that we located. Note the SC’s responses to the 4 questions asked by Oregon’s USDC to resolve MERS issues.

    If you need assistance, call us today at 818.453.3585 for a free consultation.

  10. NEWS ALERT UPDATE for California Homeowners fighting their banks:
    Bank lawyers have been telling courts to dismiss cases if homeowners don’t “tender” offer to pay the Note. This is NOT the law. Read this and if you need help, call us at Consumer Rights Defenders, 818.453.3585, immediately.

    “[A] tender may not be required where it would be inequitable to do so.”  (4 Miller & Starr, supra, § 9:154, at pp. 508-509, fn. 86.)  “Similarly, when the person making the claim has a counter-claim or set-off against the beneficiary, ․ it is deemed that they offset each other, and if the offset is equal to or greater than the amount due, a tender is not required․  Also, if the action attacks the validity of the underlying debt, a tender is not required since it would constitute an affirmative of the debt.”  (Id. at p. 512, fns. omitted.) – See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1390008.html#sthash.Miqsm2cJ.dpuf

  11. Foreclosure Fraud Update:
    from Consumer Rights Defenders – National News Desk – April 2014:

    FANNIE MAE [FM] LIES AGAIN ABOUT ITS NOTE OWNERSHIP.

    If your owner of the loan says they own the note, we recommend a securitization audit be done and you sue immediately.
    In a matter ongoing in LA Superior Court this month a commercial owner was deceived by FM and its lawyers who said “Yes, FM owns the Note rights,” then when pressed about proof, they would NOT show any documents supporting the position. The huge law firm representing FM then filed more false documents claiming the same in a related BK case! This is fraud people, and the attorneys helped in this fraud. This was an AV rated firm!

    Don’t trust lenders or their agents or attorneys. Have your audit done and get the proof you need to show the court. Then you can easily have a suit made ready for fraud, etc., with our assistance. We can also help with your BK adversary proceedings. Our legal department has powerful strategies to help homeowners nationwide.

    CRD is here for you M-Sat 9-4 PT with offices in Va/Md, Texas and the West Coast in So. Calif. Call us for free information at 818.453.3585 and ask for Steve or Sara. Our email is SNCR.Defenders@yahoo.com if you can’t get through to a representative by phone. Rated 5 stars in customer satisfaction.

  12. Foreclosure Fraud Update from Consumer Rights Defenders –
    National News Desk – April 2014:

    FANNIE MAE [FM] LIES AGAIN ABOUT ITS NOTE OWNERSHIP.

    If your owner of the loan says they own the note, we recommend a securitization audit be done and you sue immediately.
    In a matter ongoing in LA Superior Court this month a commercial owner was deceived by FM and its lawyers who said “Yes, FM owns the Note rights,” then when pressed about proof, they would NOT show any documents supporting the position. The huge law firm representing FM then filed more false documents claiming the same in a related BK case! This is fraud people, and the attorneys helped in this fraud. This was an AV rated firm!

    Don’t trust lenders or their agents or attorneys. Have your audit done and get the proof you need to show the court. Then you can easily have a suit made ready for fraud, etc., with our assistance. We can also help with your BK adversary proceedings. Our legal department has powerful strategies to help homeowners nationwide.

    CRD is here for you M-Sat 9-4 PT with offices in Va/Md, Texas and the West Coast in So. Calif. Call us for free information at 818.453.3585 and ask for Steve or Sara. Our email is SNCR.Defenders@yahoo.com if you can’t get through to a representative by phone. Rated 5 stars in customer satisfaction.

  13. APRIL 2014 NEWS FLASH….from
    CONSUMER RIGHTS DEFENDERS:

    Congratulations to Ms. Janeece F. is our NEW client of the year and is pounding Bank of NY Mellon in her case in Northern California.

    Congrats to Janeece F. from Northern Calif who was just awarded almost $1000 in sanctions against BONY Mellon for its refusal to produce documents and other sins of omission that was a scheme hatched by their cheesy attorneys in San Francisco. Janeece has been receiving assistance from CRD for over 18 months in her state court case. She was sued for a judicial foreclosure, then she filed a cross complaint against BOA, BONYM, MERS, et al. She is even doing her own depositions of the bungling bank’s big shots, with our help of course…and so can you!!!
    Her case is not unlike yours if you get serious. You don’t need a lawyer for much of your litigation if you have us to assist. Eventually you will want one, but for now, affordability is key. If you are ready to litigate and save your home, then,give us a call at 818.453.3585 today. Ask for Steve or Sara. Helping folks nationwide save their homes and rated No. 1 in Customer Satisfaction.
    Our website is CRDefenders.com and see our blog about Laura G a single mom of three who BOA tried to cheat, who we helped to get a $52,000 reduction in her Note last year….drop by and say Hi, we’d love to hear from you.

    God Bless Neil and America in this war for justice!!!

  14. APRIL 2014 NEW FLASH….from CONSUMER RIGHTS DEFENDERS:

    Congratulations to Ms. Janeece F. is our NEW client of the year and is pounding Bank of NY Mellon in her case in Northern California.

    Congrats to Janeece F. from Northern Calif who was just awarded almost $1000 in sanctions against BONY Mellon for its refusal to produce documents and other sins of omission that was a scheme hatched by their cheesy attorneys in San Francisco. Janeece has been receiving assistance from CRD for over 18 months in her state court case. She was sued for a judicial foreclosure, then she filed a cross complaint against BOA, BONYM, MERS, et al. She is even doing her own depositions of the bungling bank’s big shots, with our help of course…and so can you!!!
    Her case is not unlike yours if you get serious. You don’t need a lawyer for much of your litigation if you have us to assist. Eventually you will want one, but for now, affordability is key. If you are ready to litigate and save your home, then,give us a call at 818.453.3585 today. Ask for Steve or Sara. Helping folks nationwide save their homes and rated No. 1 in Customer Satisfaction.
    Our website is CRDefenders.com and see our blog about Laura G a single mom of three who BOA tried to cheat, who we helped to get a $52,000 reduction in her Note last year….drop by and say Hi, we’d love to hear from you.

    God Bless Neil and America in this war for justice!!!

  15. Consumer Rights Defenders, Inc., NEWS DESK for readers:
    Call us today for affordable assistance; 818.453.3585 ask for Steve or Sara in the Legal Dept.
    NOW READ THIS WE JUST RECEIVED …

    Democracy Now Discusses Wells Fargo Foreclosure Document Fabrication Manual

    Posted on March 22, 2014 by Yves Smith

    “It’s good to see that a lawsuit providing critical new evidence of systematic foreclosure abuses is getting the attention it warrants. Democracy Now interviewed Linda Tirelli, who filed a Wells Fargo “Foreclosure Attorney Procedure Manual” in a recent case in New York. This document sets forth in considerable detail how attorneys and other staff members should fabricate documents in the event that they are unable to muster up solid evidence that the bank has standing to foreclose. This manual is a smoking gun for foreclosure defense attorneys opposing Wells. Many judges have been reluctant to side with delinquent borrowers and assume that any bank error are mere sloppiness. This manual shows that the bank has institutionalized its practices for deceiving the court.

    One particularly encouraging bit of news: Tirelli said that when her story hit the news, she got calls and e-mails from both New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s office and that of Superintendent of Financial Services, Benjamin Lawsky. The rivalry between the two agencies greatly increases the odds that Wells will be subject to a proctological examination.”

    CRD IS AMERICA’S NO. 1 PRO SE LITIGATION SUPPORT ORGANIZATION RATED 5 STARS FOR CUSTOMER SATISFACTION.

  16. If you have a TRO motion you must follow the rules of court to get it granted.

    FROM CRD’s HOTPOINT DESK: BAnkruptcy alternative: “THE TRO.”

    If your TRO stopping foreclosure is denied the first time…DONT GIVE UP. Recently, a case we assisted on had a TRO hearing in California in which the court would not grant the TRO request. The grounds was that the court believed she did not properly NOTICE the hearing which is a requirement. She re-noticed that hearing, went back in and got the TRO.

    POINT made: BE DILIGENT and DONT GIVE UP. One attorney we know had to appear on a TRO 3X before he get the relief for the client. If you don’t get the restraining order the first time out…re-file and re-notice the bank by phone, fax and if you have time, mail too. File your proof of services and 24 hour noticed TIMELY.

    We are here to help with this complex process at 818.453.3585.
    Consumer Rights Defenders, America’s No 1 rated pro se Litigation Support Organization now with in house attorneys to help with your appearances on an as needed basis. Ask for Steve or Sara.

  17. Consumer Rights Defenders Monthly Update: Reach out to us at 818.453.3585 ask for Steve or Sara. Free consultation.
    America’s No. 1 Foreclosure Litigation Support Company – Rated 5 stars for Customer satisfaction. We assist in all 50 states.

    Here is a case blurb on “STANDING” in a loss by the Bank of NY from the Supreme Court of New Mexico. This may help in your case.
    **********************************
    We granted review recurring procedural and substantive issues in home mortgage foreclosure actions. We hold that the Bank of New York did not establish its lawful standing in this case to file a home mortgage foreclosure action.

    We also hold that a borrower’s ability to repay a home mortgage loan is one of the “borrower’s circumstances” that lenders and courts must consider in determining compliance with the New Mexico Home Loan Protection Act, … which prohibits home mortgage refinancing that does not provide a reasonable, tangible net benefit to the borrower. Finally, we hold that the HLPA is not preempted by federal law. We reverse the Court of Appeals and district court and remand to the district court with instructions to vacate its foreclosure judgment and to dismiss the Bank of New York’s foreclosure action for lack of standing.

    IF THE BANK CAN’T SHOW THEY OWN THE NOTE, THEY CANNOT FORECLOSE!!! Call us today to see if this case can help your matter.

  18. Consumer Rights Defenders NEWS RELEASE MAR, 2014:
    GLASKI case Revisited [Our website is CRDefenders.com]
    From our Legal Department [we are at 818.453.3585]
    Let CRD help get your matter ready to go.

    **********************************
    The California “Glaski” decision stands for the simple proposition that if an entity wants to collect on a debt in California (or foreclose on a mortgage), that entity must own the debt. Further, if such an entity is claiming ownership by way of an assignment, that assignment must be valid. A bank’s assignment of a promissory note to a Mortgage-Backed Security Trust (a “Securitized Trust”) is generally referred to as “securitization.” Pursuant to the New York law under which the Securitized Trust was created and Federal Securities Law, the transfer of Mr. Glaski’s note was required to occur within 90 days of the closing date of the Securitized Trust commonly referred to as the “90 day Rule.” If this securitization occurs beyond the 90-days, it is considered void at its inception.
    Therefore, because the Securitized Trust did not own Mr. Glaski’s note, it could not legally foreclose, and hence, the foreclosure was wrongful. The California Court of Appeals agreed. And while Glaski is viewed as an outlier in Federal Courts, “The Court’s decision to deny the banks’ request for depublication of Glaski affirms that it is the law of the land in California, and we have been granted the right to sue in California Superior Court,” says Foondos.
    It is estimated that 70-80% of all California homeowners who financed a home between 2003 and 2008 had their note securitized. “Accordingly, in light of the Glaski decision, approximately 1.3 million homes may have been wrongfully foreclosed upon and have grounds to sue their original lender for damages,” explained our in house attorney expert on appeals.

    Its time to get your wrongful foreclosure case in the works.
    Call us today especially you Calif residents. 818.453.3585

  19. From America’s Highest Rated Litigation Support Team at
    Consumer Rights Defenders, 818.453.3585. 2014 News Shout Out:

    We are proud to announce we have helped our friends obtain our 100th Restraining Order stopping foreclosure!!! Read this from Jan F. in No. Calif. about the 3 cases we are helping with:

    ” Without CRD I never could have battled the bank. They are diligent, affordable and really know this stuff. Thank God, Neil has these people on his site!”

    Call is today at 818.453.3585 for a free consultation and how to get your matter started.

  20. From Consumer Rights Defenders at 818.453.3585, here M-F to help our friends and homeowners nationwide litigate against the banks.

    Weekly Tip: Remember to let the court know BOA is now a convicted felon and other banks were found civally liable for fraud and punitive damages when you sue your bank!

    Remember this huge victory from earlier this year vs. ONE WEST
    Bandits.

    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.

  21. Consumer Rights Defenders: WE ARE MAKING PROGRESS….
    The judges are reading about the convictions last week of BOA and CHASE and taking it seriously. Our client today had a federal BK judge order Chase to file its Answer to his Adversary Complaint or he would find them in CONTEMPT!

    Call us for information at 818.453.3585 ask for Steve or Sara or for Spanish…Emily.

    Things are changing!
    Americas No. 1 Pro Se Litigation support organization.

  22. FROM OUR NEWS DESK AT Consumer Rights Defenders [CRDefenders.com] LITIGATION UPDATE:
    from Steve Nelson, J.D., Executive Director – 818.453.3585
    ____________

    August 1, 2013 GLASKI V. BOA Changes the Tide again!!!!!

    The California Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District has issued a 29-page opinion which reversed the trial court’s grant of Bank of America’s demurrer (Motion to Dismiss) as to certain claims made by the homeowner, including his claims for Wrongful Foreclosure, Quiet Title, Declaratory Relief, Cancellation of Instruments, and Unfair Business Practices under CA’s Business and Professions Code sec. 17200. The decision was issued yesterday (July 31, 2013), and is styled Glaski v. Bank of America et al, No. F064556.

    The decision has been stamped “Not to be Published”. However, we have been advised that papers are being filed to cause the Opinion to become a published decision, and the Opinion relies on numerous published decisions in reaching its result.

    The Complaint alleged that the mortgage loan had not been properly transferred to the WaMu securitized trust, which closed in December of 2005. The alleged transfer (by assignment) was not until June 15, 2009. The homeowner alleged that the non-judicial foreclosure was wrongful because it was initiated by a nonholder of the DOT which failed to comply with the trust documents as to when the loan had to be transferred to the trust, and thus the purported transfer by JPMorgan Chase to the WaMu securitized trust in 2009 was void, resulting in the foreclosure being void as well. The Court rejected decisions from other states which do not permit a borrower to challenge an assignment because the borrower is not a party thereto or is not a third-party beneficiary thereof.

    The Court noted that the Trust was governed by NY trust law, and joined courts that have read the NY statute as to conveyances to a trust “literally”. The Court cited the recent NY decision of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Erbobo, 39 Misc.3d 120A, 2013 WL 1831799, which held that acceptance of the note and mortgage by the (securitization) trustee after the date the trust closed would be void, as any transfer to the trust in contravention of the trust documents is void. The Court further noted that a Texas Bankruptcy Court, relying on Erbobo, held that assignment of the homeowner’s note after the “start up day” (of the trust) is void ab initio, and thus none of the homeowners’ claims were dismissed. (In Re Saldivar, Bankr.S.D.Tex. June 5, 2013, No. 11-10689).

    This reasoning was adopted by the United States Congress back in November of 2010 in its Congressional Oversight Report on Foreclosures, which cited NY trust law and similarly found that any purported transfer of a mortgage loan into the trust after the trust closing date in violation of the trust documents was void, resulting in no such transfer ever having occurred.

    The Court concluded that the homeowner’s “factual allegations regarding post-closing date attempts to transfer his deed of trust into the WaMu Securitized Trust are sufficient to state a basis for concluding the attempted transfers were void. As a result, Glaski has stated a cognizable claim for wrongful foreclosure under the theory that the entity invoking the power of sale (i.e. Bank of America in its capacity as trustee for the WaMu Securitized Trust) was not the holder of the Glaski deed of trust.”

    The Court also distinguished the Gomes decision, which the trial court relied upon in sustaining BOA’s demurrer, distinguishing Gomes through its citation to Naranjo v. SBMC Mortgage (S.D. Cal. Jul. 24,

    2012, No. 11-CV-2229-L(WVG) 2012 l 3030370). The Court further held that the “tender” requirement is not applicable where the foreclosure is void, which is what the homeowner alleged.

    The Court thus held, in reversing the trial court, that the homeowner stated claims for wrongful foreclosure, quiet title, declaratory relief, cancellation of instruments, and unfair business practices.
    This is a monumental decision which clarifies many of the misconceptions that courts in other states are under, in addition to setting the record straight, as NY case law already has, that noncompliance with the PSA results in a void foreclosure.

    Let us help you today. Call Steve or Sara at 818.453.3585 for a free consultation. Things are changing for homeowners.

    Consumer Rights Defenders – America’s No. 1 Pro Se Litigation Support Team

  23. Exciting News: Consumer Rights Defenders Legal dept. announces the opening of our aggressive Appeals Department which can give homeowners a greater scope of protection against foreclosure and eviction cases.

    Call us for details and a free consultation at 818.453.3585 M-F 9 to 4. When the trial courts err, we know how to get a good outcome with powerful strategies used by only the biggest firms. We are here to help the homeowner in need. With offices in Calif, Virginia, Texas, Florida and branch offices country wide.

  24. NEWS FLASH 10-9-13 —Spokane, Washington from our news team at the Superior Court…..

    Consumer Rights Defenders clients scored a big win today when a judge granted their Temporary Restraining Order stopping a bank from selling the home of Tim Algaier, Debra Eddy v. CMG Mortgage, Inc, case no. 13204181-7. This is just the beginning for the downfall of the banks that think they can continue to violate state law then take homes. The preliminary injunction will be heard in about a month. We will be there to assist and report the outcome to Neil’s faithful.
    Our website is CRDefenders.com for more.

    Consumer Rights Defenders helps another homeowner to victory. You can be one of the lucky ones if you call today 818.453.3585.
    We don’t just get it…we DO it….ask for Steve, Sara or Emily.
    Americas No. 1 pro se litigation support office in America.

  25. NOTICE TO HOMEOWNERS—Victories in Court!!! From Consumer Rights Defenders.Legal Dept.:

    Please go to our website at CRDefenders.com and hit the blog tab and see the amazing results we helped Laura G obtain vs. BOA. They took nearly $14,000 from her to bring her “current” only to proceeded with a foreclosure! The settlement just reached included a forgiveness of nearly $50,000+ and reduced monthly payments. THIS IS WHAT WE DO TO HELP HOMEOWNERS WHEN MOST LAWYERS DON’T HAVE A CLUE WHAT TO DO. We use our own!

    Call us today for free consultation and pricing for our assistance at 818.453.3585, ask for Steve Nelson or Sara Stephens. Don’t wait one more day.

    Also, WARNING: be sure the Notice of Defaults you receive comply with your state’s foreclosure laws. If they don’t you can get a TRO to enjoin the sale. Let us help. 818.453.3585. 9-5 M-F for you.

  26. The legal department at Consumer Rights Defenders says: READ THIS…
    We can help you in California and Nationwide: Here is some California law showing what to do if your Restraining Order against the bank is denied: Call us today at 818.453.3585 ask for Steve or Sara.
    ========================
    Except in a limited civil case (see infra, §§1004, 1005), an order “granting or dissolving an injunction, or refusing to grant or dissolve an injunction” is appealable. (C.C.P. 904.1(a)(6).)

    The term “injunction” has generally been broadly interpreted to include not only preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders, but also permanent injunctions. (See Meehan v. Hopps (1955) 45 C.2d 213, 215, 288 P.2d 267, supra, §106; Laam v. McLaren (1915) 28 C.A. 632, 634, 153 P. 985; Luitwieler v. Superior Court (1921) 54 C.A. 528, 530, 202 P. 165; Brydon v. Hermosa Beach (1928) 93 C.A. 615, 620, 270 P. 255 [``the intent of the statute is that all orders granting or refusing injunctions, whether temporary or permanent or provisional pending appeal, shall be appealable'']; Western Electroplating Co. v. Henness (1959) 172 C.A.2d 278, 283, 341 P.2d 718; Bailey v. Fosca Oil Co. (1962) 211 C.A.2d 307, 309, 27 C.R. 454 [order was interpreted as injunction to make it appealable]; In re Glacier General Ins. Co. (1991) 234 C.A.3d 1549, 1553, 286 C.R. 262 [appeal from order[*pg.250] denying dissolution of injunction]; Natomas Union School Dist. v. Grant Joint Union High School Dist. (1993) 14 C.A.4th 350, 355, footnote 2, 17 C.R.2d 547, citing the text; In re Cassandra B. (2004) 125 C.A.4th 199, 208, 22 C.R.3d 686 [restraining order issued in juvenile dependency proceeding is directly appealable to same extent as restraining order granted in civil action].)

    However, if a permanent injunction is later granted, an appeal from the order granting or refusing to dissolve the preliminary injunction will be dismissed as moot. (Peoples Ditch Co. v. Foothill Irr. Dist. (1930) 103 C.A. 321, 325, 284 P. 514; see People v. Gordon (1951) 105 C.A.2d 711, 725, 234 P.2d 287 [same holding where appeal was taken from temporary restraining order after preliminary injunction was granted and appeal was taken therefrom]; infra, §753; cf. American Ins. Co. v. Gernand (1968) 262 C.A.2d 300, 305, 68 C.R. 810, citing the text [failure to appeal from preliminary injunction did not preclude appeal from later permanent injunction].)

    You can file your immediate appeal and get a writ to stop the court from denying the TRO/Preliminary injunction to stop foreclosure from the court of appeals…..We can help you. 818.453.3585.

  27. Consumer Rights Defenders Legal Department says: READ THIS…
    We can help you in California and Nationwide: Here is some California law showing what to do if your Restraining Order against the bank is denied: Call us today at 818.453.3585 ask for Steve or Sara.
    ========================
    Except in a limited civil case (see infra, §§1004, 1005), an order “granting or dissolving an injunction, or refusing to grant or dissolve an injunction” is appealable. (C.C.P. 904.1(a)(6).)

    The term “injunction” has generally been broadly interpreted to include not only preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders, but also permanent injunctions. (See Meehan v. Hopps (1955) 45 C.2d 213, 215, 288 P.2d 267, supra, §106; Laam v. McLaren (1915) 28 C.A. 632, 634, 153 P. 985; Luitwieler v. Superior Court (1921) 54 C.A. 528, 530, 202 P. 165; Brydon v. Hermosa Beach (1928) 93 C.A. 615, 620, 270 P. 255 [``the intent of the statute is that all orders granting or refusing injunctions, whether temporary or permanent or provisional pending appeal, shall be appealable'']; Western Electroplating Co. v. Henness (1959) 172 C.A.2d 278, 283, 341 P.2d 718; Bailey v. Fosca Oil Co. (1962) 211 C.A.2d 307, 309, 27 C.R. 454 [order was interpreted as injunction to make it appealable]; In re Glacier General Ins. Co. (1991) 234 C.A.3d 1549, 1553, 286 C.R. 262 [appeal from order[*pg.250] denying dissolution of injunction]; Natomas Union School Dist. v. Grant Joint Union High School Dist. (1993) 14 C.A.4th 350, 355, footnote 2, 17 C.R.2d 547, citing the text; In re Cassandra B. (2004) 125 C.A.4th 199, 208, 22 C.R.3d 686 [restraining order issued in juvenile dependency proceeding is directly appealable to same extent as restraining order granted in civil action].)

    However, if a permanent injunction is later granted, an appeal from the order granting or refusing to dissolve the preliminary injunction will be dismissed as moot. (Peoples Ditch Co. v. Foothill Irr. Dist. (1930) 103 C.A. 321, 325, 284 P. 514; see People v. Gordon (1951) 105 C.A.2d 711, 725, 234 P.2d 287 [same holding where appeal was taken from temporary restraining order after preliminary injunction was granted and appeal was taken therefrom]; infra, §753; cf. American Ins. Co. v. Gernand (1968) 262 C.A.2d 300, 305, 68 C.R. 810, citing the text [failure to appeal from preliminary injunction did not preclude appeal from later permanent injunction].)

    You can file your immediate appeal and get a writ to stop the court from denying the TRO/Preliminary injunction to stop foreclosure from the court of appeals…..We can help you. 818.453.3585.

  28. We can assist your search in all States except (Va., WI, AZ, NV)… Send us an email:

    lowecommunityresourcepartners@live.com

    Best to you all.

    Dan Moss

  29. Need an attorney in the state of Tennessee who gets it, two unsuccessful attempted foreclosures, and now being sued by pretender lender for breach of contract.

  30. FEDERAL COURT IN CALIF STOPS FORECLOSURE DUE TO VIOLATIONS OF CALIF’S NEWEST 2013 LAWS in the SINGH case April, 2013!!! But you can’t do it without professional help.
    Consumer Rights Defenders can help you too. See our new webpage at CRDefenders.com detailing the new laws in Calif and call us today so you can get your foreclosure stopped by suing your bankers. 818.453.3585 ask for Steve or Sara.

  31. From our legal team…California Consumer Protection laws…Statutes of Limitations: 818.453.3585…Consumer Rights Defenders,

    CONSUMER PROTECTION ACTIONS – Limitations

    1. [4:1301] Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Ca Civil § 1790 et seq.)–4 years

    2. [4:1302] California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Ca Civil § 1750 et seq.)–3 years
    a. [4:1303] Discovery rule

    3. [4:1310] Fair Debt Collection Practices Acts (Ca Civil § 1788; 15 USCA § 1692)–1 year

    4. [4:1311] Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Acts (Ca Civil § 1785.1 et seq.; 15 USCA § 1681 et seq.)

    5. [4:1312] Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Acts (Ca Civil § 1786 et seq.; 15 USCA § 1681d)

    6. Other Consumer Credit Protection Statutes
    a. [4:1320] Unexplained credit denials (Ca Civil § 1787.3 (e))–2 years
    b. [4:1321] Credit discrimination against women (Ca Civil § 1812.35)–2 years
    c. [4:1322] Disclosures in vehicle leases (Ca Civil § 2985.7 et seq.)–1 year
    d. [4:1323] Truth in Lending Act (TLA)
    (1) [4:1323.1] Accrual
    (2) [4:1323.2] Compare–rescission
    e. [4:1324] Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
    (1) [4:1324.1] California statutes
    f. [4:1325] Song-Beverly Credit Card Act (Ca Civil § 1747 et seq.)
    g. [4:1326] Rees-Levering Motor Vehicle Sales and Finance Act

    Call us today to see if you can still bring your action. 818.453.3585

  32. Consumer Rights finds new case in Washington defeating MERS Foreclosures…from our Website at CRDefenders.com
    Call us to get your case started….818.453.3585
    _________________________

    Tuesday, March 05, 2013

    foreclosure robosigning violated Washington Consumer Protection Act

    Klem v. Washington Mutual Bank, No. 87105 (Wash. 2013)

    This story of foreclosure misbehavior raises a number of questions, including (1) how many people did this happen to who simply weren’t represented? (2) How many consumer protection cases can we expect out of the mortgage debacle?

    Dorothy Halstien owned a home worth somewhere between $235,000 and $320,000 (WaMu’s assessment). She developed dementia while owing about $75,000 to WaMu from an initial $73,000 mortgage. Given the cost of her care and her limited Social Security income, her guardian didn’t have the funds to pay her mortgage. Getting permission to sell the house to provide more funds for Halstien’s care was complicated—her daughter was living there rent-free, and various agency approvals and notices to hard-to-find family members, along with a cleanup of the property and removal of abandoned animals and vehicles, were also necessary. Still, the court-appointed guardian eventually got ready to sell the house, but not before Halstien defaulted.

    Background: a deed of trust is a form of a mortgage, a three-party transaction in which a borrower conveys land to a trustee, who holds title in trust for a lender as security for a loan to the borrower. If the deed of trust contains a power of sale (which it will), the trustee can usually foreclose without judicial supervision. Quality was the trustee here.

    Quality posted a notice of default on Halstien’s home in October 2007, demanding $1,372.20 to bring the note current. Halstien’s account didn’t have enough money to pay; Puget Sound Guardians advanced this amount, but it was too late: the foreclosure was already in motion (although apparently Puget Sound Guardians never got its money back either).

    So, shortly after the notice of default, a notice of trustee sale was executed by Seth Ott for Quality. The notice was dated and supposedly notarized on November 26, 2007, but not actually signed that day. The sale was set for February 29, 2008. This false document was part of a policy of Quality robosigning. “There was considerable evidence that falsifying notarizations was a common practice, and one that Quality employees had been trained to do. … [D]ocuments were falsely dated and notarized to expedite foreclosures and thereby keep their clients, the lenders, beneficiaries, and other participants in the secondary market for mortgage debt happy with their work.” Had the document been properly dated, the foreclosure sale would have been postponed by at least one week.

    Through much of January and February, Halstien’s guardian worked to postpone the foreclosure sale. Indeed, the guardian had a signed purchase and sale agreement from a buyer willing to pay $235,000 for the house, closing at the end of March—after the scheduled foreclosure sale, but well within the statutory 120-day window for a trustee to hold a foreclosure sale. In Washington, the trustee has discretion to postpone sales, but here Quality declined to consider exercising its discretion and allowed WaMu to make all decisions. Indeed, it had a secret agreement with WaMu that it wouldn’t postpone any foreclosures unless WaMu told it to do so. Its contract stated “Your office is not authorized to postpone a sale without authorization from Fidelity [which played a servicing role] or Washington Mutual.”” Its witness testified that he couldn’t recall Quality postponing a sale without WaMu’s permission. (The court noted that the secret agreement with WaMu “is, at least, in tension with Quality’s fiduciary duty to both sides and its duty to act impartially.”)

    Only problem: WaMu wan’t making any decisions, just ignoring the guardian’s numerous requests. In a depressingly standard display of incompetence, WaMu told the guardian to send copies of the guardianship documents and a completed purchase and sale agreement—then, over the next few days, told them to send the same documents to WaMu offices in Seattle, Washington; southern California; and Miami, Florida. The guardian faxed copies to various offices on five different days, and contacted Quality or WaMu over 20 times trying to get the sale postponed. The bank never communicated any decision to the guardian. However, given past experience and the purchase and sale agreement in hand, a witness for Puget Sound Guardians testified that it was “very possible” that, with a week’s more time, it could have made the sale happen.

    But instead, on the first day it could legally do so, Quality sold Halstien’s home for $83,087.67, one dollar more than she owed, including fees and costs. The buyers resold the house for $235,000 shortly afterward. And the sale amount isn’t even challenged. The court doesn’t note this, but check out the size of the “fees and costs” added to her debt, representing 10% of the amount despite the short time between default and foreclosure. The court does mention that, to date, Quality hasn’t bothered to remit the $1 to her estate (since Halstien died during all this).

    Quality argued that any cause of action was barred by the guardian’s failure to seek an injunction to enjoin the sale, but the record indicated that it would have been impossible to do so “due to the time frame, the need for court approval, and the lack of assets in the guardianship estate.” The trial judge nonetheless dismissed some claims on that ground, but allowed others to proceed. A jury found that Quality was negligent, that it violated the Washington Concumer Protection Act, and that it breached its contractual obligations. The court of appeals reversed on the second and third grounds; the state supreme court reinstated the WCPA verdict and didn’t reach the contractual issue.

    At trial, the heart of the plaintiff’s case was the theory that Quality’s secret deference to the lender and falsification of notarized documents were unfair and deceptive practices, and that the trustee was negligent in failing to delay the sale. An expert on Washington’s deed of trust act testified that it was common for trustees to postpone sales to allow debtors to pay off defaults, and that on these facts the trustee should “absolutely” have postponed the sale. For Quality, Ott testified that he didn’t take into account that the house was worth more than the debt when conducting a foreclosure. When asked why, he said “My job was to process the foreclosure … according to the state statutes.” That is: he counted the days, prepared the forms, saw that they were filed, and nothing more. Also, before 2009, he would “sometimes” “incorrectly” date documents, and testified that he’d been trained to do that. He also testified that he’d never read Washington’s deed of trust statutes. A juror, quite reasonably, asked, “If you never read the statute, how did you know you were following it, following Washington law?” Ott responded that he relied on his training. He also testified that he wouldn’t postpone a sale unless the lender asked, but he knew he had authority to do so.

    While finding for Quality on claims of negligent misrepresentation and failure to make an accommodation, the jury found for the trustee on negligence, WCPA violations, and breach of contract. On negligence, it found both sides 50% at fault. The damages on all three claims were the same: the difference between the foreclosure sale price and $235,000. The judge entered judgment for the full $151,912, since the 50% reduction only applied to the negligence claim. She declined to issue an injunction against Quality in part because she believed (hope springs eternal?) that “the threat of endless litigation was sufficient to prevent Quality from continuing its unfair or deceptive practices.”

    On appeal, the court of appeals found that the evidence was insufficient on the breach of contract and WCPA claims. It mostly argued that the guardian waived its claims by not seeking a presale injunction, but it abandoned that argument on appeal. The Supreme Court still wanted to make clear that the argument was a loser: waiver is an equitable doctrine, and there were many reasons why it was unavailable here, among them that the guardian was unaware of the false notarization or the secret agreement with WaMu not to postpone foreclosure sales without WaMu’s permission, along with the special delays under which guardians must operate in order to get judicial permission to proceed.

    Which brings us to the state supreme court and its reinstatement of the WCPA claim. The elements are an “(1) unfair or deceptive act or practice; (2) occurring in trade or commerce; (3) public interest impact; (4) injury to plaintiff in his or her business or property; (5) causation.” The guardian argued that Quality’s falsification of notarized documents and practice of deferring to the lender qualified as unfair/deceptive acts or practices.

    Quality’s arguments on the merits were: (1) The falsely dated and notarized notice of sale was harmless because Halstien got the full, albeit minimum, statutory period to avoid foreclosure. (2) The falsely notarized documents couldn’t harm anyone, and thus the public interest requirement wasn’t met. (3) Deferring to the lender was, as a matter of law, not deceptive or unfair.

    The legislature need not specifically identify unfair or deceptive acts or practices for them to be actionable, given the broad intent of the law and the infinite capacity of humans to harm one another. The first element of a WCPA violation can be shown if an act or practice has the capacity to deceive a substantial portion of the public, or if it is a per se unfair trade practice, which occurs when there’s a violation of a statute declared by the legislature to regulate an unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce. But unfairness also counts, along with deceptiveness. Thus, the WCPA can be violated by “an unfair or deceptive act or practice not regulated by statute but in violation of public interest.” Though federal FTCA unfairness law provides a guide, this case didn’t provide the court cause to explore in detail how unfairness should be defined for WCPA purposes.

    The trustee’s failure to exercise its independent discretion to postpone a sale violated the WCPA. Because nonjudicial foreclosures provide fewer protections, “Washington courts have not shied away from protecting the rights of the parties.” The state supreme court has voided a foreclosure when the trustee was “well aware” of a pending legal action on the alleged debt, precluding satisfaction of the statutory prerequisites for a trustee sale. And even had that not been so, the trustee’s own actions consistently favoring the beneficiary and failing to inform the borrowers that their initial attempt to restrain the sale had failed, along with a grossly inadequate sale price, would have voided the sale. “The power to sell another person’s property, often the family home itself, is a tremendous power to vest in anyone’s hands.… [C]ommon law and equity requires that trustee to be evenhanded to both sides and to strictly follow the law.” Indeed, the deed of trust act must be construed in favor of borrowers because of the power given to lenders and the lack of judicial oversight.
    In practice, lenders and servicers appoint trustees and trustees have incentives to keep them happy and not much incentive to treat homeowners well. But a trustee isn’t just an agent for the lender; they have obligations to homeowners as well. “[N]either due process nor equity will countenance a system that permits the theft of a person’s property by a lender or its beneficiary under the guise of a statutory nonjudicial foreclosure.” A truste “owes a duty to act in good faith to exercise a fiduciary duty to act impartially to fairly respect the interests of both the lender and the debtor,” and if it fails, the sale may be voided, title quieted in the homeowner, and the trustee and the beneficiary may risk a WCPA claim.

    Further, the court suggested in a footnote, absent strong protections for borrowers, the nonjudicial foreclosure act could run afoul of the state constitutional prohibition on deprivation of property without due process of law, which might protect against more than the federal 14th Amendment; other self-help statutes for creditors are subject to constitutional limits. Another footnote noted that, if the trustee was a mere agent of the beneficiary, the beneficiary might also be liable for the trustee’s acts, though WaMu was in receivership and not a party to this particular lawsuit.

    Quality argued that it wasn’t unfair or deceptive to honor a beneficiary’s instructions not to postpone a sale without seeking its authorization, or to tell a borrow to contact the lender. Not so. The record supported the conclusion that Quality “abdicated its duty to act impartially toward both sides.” With the “incredible power” of a trustee in a nonjudicial foreclosure comes “an obligation to both sides to do more than merely follow an unread statute and the beneficiary’s directions. If the trustee acts only at the direction ofthe beneficiary, then the trustee is a mere agent of the beneficiary and a deed of trust no longer embodies a three party transaction.” Thus, the practice of deferring to the lender and failing to exercise independent discretion as an impartial third party with duties to both parties is unfair or deceptive under the CPA. “Quality failed to act in good faith to exercise its fiduciary duty to both sides and merely honored an agency relationship with one.”

    Separately, robosigning was also unfair or deceptive. At least from 2004-2007, Quality notaries “regularly” falsified the date of signing. Quality argued that these were immaterial because the owner received the minimum legally required notice. “This no-harm, no-foul argument again reveals a misunderstanding of Washington law and the purpose and importance of the notary’s acknowledgment under the law.”

    Notary lies are bad: “Local, interstate, and international transactions involving individuals, banks, and corporations proceed smoothly because all may rely upon the sanctity of the notary’s seal.” The legal system depends on the integrity of the seal. Though the legislature hasn’t called false notarization a per se unfair or deceptive act, it’s a crime in both Washington and California (where this one was signed, and over which a Washington court would have criminal jurisdiction when the harm occurred in Washington), “and allowing them to be deployed to validate false information strikes at the bedrock of our system.” As another case put it, title registration “hinges upon the integrity of the documents which comprise it…. [T]he corruption of that system may cause substantial economic loss to the parties involved.” Thus, “the act of false dating by a notary employee of the trustee in a nonjudicial foreclosure is an unfair or deceptive act or practice and satisfies the first three elements under the Washington CPA.”

    Quality argued that the falsely notarized documents didn’t cause harm. No. “[A] false notarization is a crime and undermines the integrity of our institutions upon which all must rely upon the faithful fulfillment of the notary’s oath.” However, the factual issue of whether the false notarization was a cause of the damages here was for the jury. The plaintiff submitted evidence that the purposes of the false notarization was to hurry up the date of sale to please the beneficiary. It also submitted evidence that, had the documents been accurate, the sale would have been delayed by at least one week, and that it was “very possible” that it could have closed its own sale in that time, and it could also have gained more time to persuade WaMu to respond.

    Hoewver, given the ruling on the trustee’s failure to fulfill its fiduciary duty to postpone the sale, there was sufficient evidence to sustain the WCPA verdict on that, and the court didn’t reach whether the robosigning caused the harm.

    The Supreme Court also ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction requiring Quality to follow Washington law relating to foreclosures and notarizing documents. The trial judge thought this was overly broad and unenforceable, and accepted Quality’s assurance that its false notarization had ceased; she also noted that the deed of trust act had been amended to impose further duties on trustees. The Supreme Court disagreed. Quality “has demonstrated little understanding or regard for Washington law,” but continued to operate in the state, so it remanded for an appropriate order.

    The plaintiff was also entitled to its attorneys’ fees.

    Summarizing, the court stated that it was holding “that the right to enjoin a foreclosure sale is an equitable remedy and the failure to enjoin a sale does not operate to waive claims based on the foreclosure process where it would be inequitable to do so. Where applicable, waiver only applies to actions to vacate the sale and not to damages actions.” (The first concurrence specifically calls this holding out as unnecessary, but as an explicitly designated holding it does send a message more general than the facts of the case—especially given the other holdings on robosigning as unfair and deceptive, and inherently harmful to the judicial process. Of course, expect servicers etc. to claim that no one was really harmed by these acts, even if they were per se unfair and deceptive; here there was unusually specific evidence of likely harm.)

    In addition, the court held “that it is an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the CPA for a trustee of a nonjudicial foreclosure to fail to exercise its authority to decide whether to delay a sale,” as is the practice of falsely notarizing a notice of sale.

    Two concurrences took the majority to task for dicta/deciding unnecessary things. Chief Judge Madsen contended that Quality never argued that only an act or practice the legislature has declared to be unfair is unfair for purposes of the CPA; instead, either a per se violation or “an unfair or deceptive act or practice that has the capacity to deceive a substantial part of the public” is actionable. (What of that “capacity to deceive”? Is that an element of unfairness under the concurrence’s view? In that case, the act or practice would seem deceptive, not unfair, and there wouldn’t be a pure unfairness route to a cause of action absent a legislative determination thereof.) The concurrence continued that courts could determine unfair or deceptive acts or practices, restating the “capacity to deceive” route, and objected to the addition of “an unfair or deceptive act or practice not regulated by statute but in violation of public interest” to the definitions of regulated acts. Rather, the concurrence seemed to say that actual deception is not required, only capacity to deceive (perhaps indicating that “unfair” means “has a capacity to deceive,” though that’s usually how “deceptive” is interpreted in consumer protection statutes). The concurrence believed that the public interest element was separate, in that not every violation of a law was a per se unfair trade practice, only those that are identified by the legislature as unfair or deceptive. The legislature intended that the WCPA “not be construed to prohibit acts or practices not injurious to the public interest.” Thus it was problematic to base a violation on violation of “public policy.”

    The legislature recently codified the public interest requirement by specifying that claimants could establish injury to the public interest by showing that an act or practice (1) violates a statute that incorporates the WCPA; (2) violates a statute that contains a specific legislative declaration of public interest impact; or (3) injured other persons or has or had the capacity to do so. The concurrence found it significant that capacity to injure isn’t the same thing as capacity to deceive; the former establishes the public interest element of a violation, whereas capacity to deceive is relevant to establishing the “unfair or deceptive” element in the absence of a per se violation. Thus, there was no need to suggest an amorphous “public interest” basis for a claim.

    The concurrence then challenged whether a trustee had a “fiduciary” duty, given that a 2008 amendment to the governing law rejected a “fiduciary” duty in the trustee but retained a duty to act impartially, replacing that in 2009 with a “duty of good faith.” The majority incongruously mashed “fiduciary” together with other standards, like the duty of good faith. The concurrence also didn’t agree with the “extensive dicta,” such as the discussion of whether failure to seek a presale injunction waives all claims and the majority’s questioning of the nonjudicial foreclosure act on state law due process grounds. However, this was a concurrence, because the Chief Justice believed that “Quality’s failure to exercise its own judgment on the matter of whether the sale should be postponed and its deferral to the beneficiary on this matter was an unfair or deceptive act or practice” (though why—how it had the capacity to deceive—wasn’t elaborated).

    Another concurrence specified that “the judiciary retains the power to determine that an act is unfair within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act” (emphasis added), while objecting to the raising of constitutional issues by footnote.
    ______________________________
    Call Consumer Rights Defenders, Inc. today and ask for Steve at 818.453.3585.

  33. Consumer Rights Defenders – America’s #1- pro se litigation team suggests you read up on the benefits of a Lis Pendens:
    Call us at 818.453.3585 to sue your lender and stop the sale, today.
    _________________________
    Here is this month’s legal selection unique to California homeowners
    :
    Nature of Lis Pendens:

    Proper recordation of a lis pendens (Ca Civ Pro| 405 et seq.) during litigation gives constructive notice to the ‘world’ of the pendency of an action affecting title to or possession of the described real property. [ Kirkeby v. Super.Ct. (Fascenelli) (2004) 33 Cal.4th 642, 647, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 805, 808; Park 100 Investment Group II v. Ryan (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 795, 807, 103 Cal.Rptr.3d 218, 226; Bailey v. Outdoor Media Group (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 778, 793, 66 Cal.Rptr.3d 322, 334]

    Until the litigation is concluded or the lis pendens expunged (removed), title to the property is clouded, preventing transfer of the real estate to bona fide purchasers and effectively preserving the priority of claims to and against the property. [Malcolm v. Super.Ct. (Green) (1981) 29 Cal.3d 518, 523, 174 Cal.Rptr. 694, 696, fn. 2; Castro v. Super.Ct. (California Savings) (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1015, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 865, 867, fn. 6]

    DID YOU READ…”preventing transfer…to a bona fide purchaser.” If the BFP is eliminated during the litigation, no sale is conclusive and the sale can be reversed.

    Call today and ask for Steve or Sara. 818.453.3585. 9-4 M-F PDT.

  34. From Consumer Rights Defenders….to our FLORIDA friends…here is a legislative article about foreclosures that we highly recommend. When you are ready in Florida to sue the bank or defend, call us at 818.453.3585 and ask for a free consultation with Sara or Steve.

    Here is your article for the month of May, 2013:

    http://www.flsenate.gov/PublishedContent/Session/2012/InterimReports/2012-130ju.pdf

  35. DEUTSCHE BANK INADVERTANTLY ADMITS THEY HAVE NO INTEREST IN FORECLOSED UPON PROPERTIES…from Consumer Rights Defenders legal team at 818.453.3585

    SEE NEXT TO THE LAST PARAGRAPH. If they tell the truth, they are admitting to not having ownership of the underlying Note [and DOT rights] sufficient to warrant a foreclosure. ALL Deutsche Bank affected borrowers should call us immediately to discuss their rights.
    **********************************************
    By Jessica Dye
    NEW YORK (Reuters) – A judge has denied Deutsche Bank AG’s bid to dismiss a lawsuit by the city of Los Angeles accusing it of letting hundreds of foreclosed properties fall into disrepair and illegally evicting low-income tenants, a representative for the city’s attorney said on Wednesday.
    Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle allowed the 2011 civil enforcement action to proceed, according to the city attorney’s office. The ruling was made during an April 8 hearing and a written decision was issued late on Tuesday, the city said.
    “This ruling will now allow our action to move forward to trial and ultimately to holding the bank accountable for its intolerable practice or perpetuating blight,” city attorney Carmen Trutanich said in a statement.
    During the housing boom and subsequent bust, Deutsche Bank subsidiaries acquired the title to more than 2,000 properties in Los Angeles, according to the city’s 2011 civil enforcement action.
    The city accused Deutsche Bank of becoming one of its largest “slumlords,” allowing vacant properties to turn into nuisances, neglecting to maintain occupied properties, and illegally evicting low-income tenants to clear the way for a potential sale.
    Los Angeles is one of many cities across the United States to grapple with the problem of blighted properties after a wave of foreclosures that followed the housing bust. It has passed a law requiring banks to fix the blighted homes they own, or pay a fine, but enforcing that has proven difficult.
    The city’s low-income areas are most affected, the city said. The blighted properties have led to decreased property value, increased crime rates and additional stress on city services, it argued in the 2011 complaint.
    A spokesman for Deutsche Bank, Duncan King, said in a statement that while the bank is “disappointed in this procedural decision allowing the case to proceed, we continue to believe the Los Angeles City Attorney has sued the wrong party and will continue to defend ourselves vigorously.”

    HERE IS THE ADMISSION >>>>>>

    Deutsche Bank said at the time the complaint was filed that third-party loan servicers are responsible for the properties. <<<<<<

    Los Angeles is seeking a court order compelling the bank to bring foreclosed properties up to code and halting illegal evictions. It is also seeking monetary damages that could potentially reach hundreds of millions of dollars, the city said.

    ***************************

    Call Consumer Rights Defenders today for help…at 818.453.3585. Ask for Steve or Sara.

  36. DEUTSCHE BANK INADVERTANTLY ADMITS THEY HAVE NO INTEREST IN FORECLOSE UPON PROPERTIES…from Consumer Rights Defenders legal team at 818.453.3585

    SEE NEXT TO THE LAST PARAGRAPH. If they tell the truth, they are admitting to not having ownership of the underlying Note [and DOT rights] sufficient to warrant a foreclosure. ALL Deutsche Bank affected borrowers should call us immediately to discuss their rights.
    **********************************************
    By Jessica Dye
    NEW YORK (Reuters) – A judge has denied Deutsche Bank AG’s bid to dismiss a lawsuit by the city of Los Angeles accusing it of letting hundreds of foreclosed properties fall into disrepair and illegally evicting low-income tenants, a representative for the city’s attorney said on Wednesday.
    Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle allowed the 2011 civil enforcement action to proceed, according to the city attorney’s office. The ruling was made during an April 8 hearing and a written decision was issued late on Tuesday, the city said.
    “This ruling will now allow our action to move forward to trial and ultimately to holding the bank accountable for its intolerable practice or perpetuating blight,” city attorney Carmen Trutanich said in a statement.
    During the housing boom and subsequent bust, Deutsche Bank subsidiaries acquired the title to more than 2,000 properties in Los Angeles, according to the city’s 2011 civil enforcement action.
    The city accused Deutsche Bank of becoming one of its largest “slumlords,” allowing vacant properties to turn into nuisances, neglecting to maintain occupied properties, and illegally evicting low-income tenants to clear the way for a potential sale.
    Los Angeles is one of many cities across the United States to grapple with the problem of blighted properties after a wave of foreclosures that followed the housing bust. It has passed a law requiring banks to fix the blighted homes they own, or pay a fine, but enforcing that has proven difficult.
    The city’s low-income areas are most affected, the city said. The blighted properties have led to decreased property value, increased crime rates and additional stress on city services, it argued in the 2011 complaint.
    A spokesman for Deutsche Bank, Duncan King, said in a statement that while the bank is “disappointed in this procedural decision allowing the case to proceed, we continue to believe the Los Angeles City Attorney has sued the wrong party and will continue to defend ourselves vigorously.”

    HERE IS THE ADMISSION >>>>>>

    Deutsche Bank said at the time the complaint was filed that third-party loan servicers are responsible for the properties. <<<<<<

    Los Angeles is seeking a court order compelling the bank to bring foreclosed properties up to code and halting illegal evictions. It is also seeking monetary damages that could potentially reach hundreds of millions of dollars, the city said.

    ***************************

    Call Consumer Rights Defenders today for help…at 818.453.3585. Ask for Steve or Sara.

  37. Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 12:37 PM
    Subject: MyTRO was granted against IndyMac last Friday to stop 4/30/13 foreclosure sale!!!

    Hi Everyone,

    I got my TRO granted last friday 4/19/2013 against IndyMack & OWB in Santa Clara County Superior Court!!! I was sweating bullets and shaking like a leaf and praying to God in the courtroom but thanks to Consumer Rights Defenders as a team WE DID IT!!! Please check these links and check them out they are great!!!

    http://crdefenders.com/2013/04/19/april-19-2013-tro-granted-in-santa-clara-county-superior-court/

    http://livinglies.wordpress.com/about/blogs-and-other-sites/

    Loree & CRD 1 and IndyMac 0 !!!

    Loree JM

  38. WHY DO I NEED A LIS PENDENS?

    From Consumer Rights Defenders, Inc., legal team. 818.453.3585
    Spring 2013 News letter to Consumer Homeowners.

    In Calif., and possibly your jurisdiction, you must file and record a lis pendens with the county recorder’s office if your complaint includes
    a Quiet Title cause of action. See below:
    Required in certain actions: There are some actions in which recordation of a lis pendens is required by statute, including:

    – actions to quiet title; [Ca Civ Pro § 761.010]

    – actions for partition; [Ca Civ Pro § 872.250]

    – eminent domain proceedings; [Ca Civ Pro §§ 1250.130, 1250.150]

    – claim to escheated property; [Ca Civ Pro §§ 1355, 1410]

    – action to declare building uninhabitable; [Ca Civ Pro § 405.7]

    – forfeiture proceedings. [Ca Fin § 5321(b); Ca Hlth & S § 11488.4; Ca Penal § 186.4]

    If you need litigation assistance, call us today at 818.453.3585. Free consultations. Let us help you stop illegal foreclosure sales.

    Visit our web page at CRDefenders.com soon!

  39. Restraining Order Granted in California this morning thanks to the litigation team at Consumer Rights Defenders.

    We are proud to announce that in the case of Loree J M v. IndyMac the court issued a TRO stopping a foreclosure sale. This was issued in Santa Clara County Superior Court. More as details develop.

    Call us at Consumer Rights Defenders for litigation assistance and for free consultation at 818.453.3585 immediately. Ask for Steve or Sara.
    Helping consumer homeowners nationwide.
    Website: CRDefenders.com

  40. Consumer Rights Defenders are Saving Homes (Florida)
    We are a consumer’s rights organization with lawyers and paralegals now opening offices in the Southeast including Florida. We get it and we affordably service in pro se homeowners wanting to save their homes by litigation and not modification which is generally useless. We have a combined 60 years of experience suing banks and understand the stress homeowners are under.

    Call us at our national headquarters and ask for Steve or Sara at 818.453.3585. Website is CRDefenders.com

    We are proudly a part of Neil’s Living Lies Web Blog and have dozens of articles on many topics related to your needs..
    Rated 5 star in customer satisfaction. We offer free consultations. We are not a lawyer referral service.
    Offices in Texas, Virginia/Maryland, California and newly opening in Florida.Spring 2013.

  41. This is very exciting news from our Florida News Network.

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

    ATTORNEYS 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.”

    Please, everyone….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.

  42. Another Florida Defense Team Victory!!!

    Green v JPMorgan Chase 5th DCA – Blank undated indorsement insufficient to establish standing at inception

    Civil Cases

    Won Loss
    9 *1 – Banks failed to notice SJ Hearing

    Pending
    8

    Appeals
    Won Lost
    1 0

    floridadefenseteam@comcast.net

  43. Foreclosure Appeals
    Summary Judgment
    Non-Final Orders
    631-317-0076

  44. Affordable Foreclosure Appeals
    Summary Judgments
    Non-Final Orders
    Most Florida Counties
    631-317-0076

  45. From Consumer Rights Defenders to our avid readers:
    Read this taken from our website at CRDefenders.com
    Contact us at 818.453.3585 M-F.
    ____________________________________________
    In California, the tort of wrongful foreclosure requires: (1) a legally owed duty to the Plaintiff by the foreclosing party (2) a breach of that duty (3) a causal connection between the breach of that duty and the injury the Plaintiff sustained, and (4) damages. California courts have further clarified this cause of action by stating: “We are inclined however, to believe that with respect to real property the Murphy case was articulating a rule that has been applied in other jurisdictions. That rule is that a trustee or mortgagee may be liable to the trustor or mortgagor for damages sustained where there has been an illegal, fraudulent or willfully oppressive sale of property under a power of sale contained in a mortgage or deed of trust. Munger v. Moore, 11 Cal. App. 3d 1, 7, 89 Cal. Rptr. 323, 326 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970)
    The court in Munger appears to be saying that if the foreclosure was illegal, fraudulent or willfully oppressive then that foreclosure was wrongful and the party foreclosed on may be entitled to damages. According to California statutory and case law several types of damages are available to victims of wrongful foreclosures.
    First, damages are measured by the value of the property at the time of the sale in excess of the mortgage lien against the property (i.e the equity in the property). Second, damages are available in the amount that is sufficient to compensate for all detriment proximately caused by the wrongful conduct. California Civil Code Section 3333. Third, the borrower may be able to obtain damages for emotional distress in a wrongful foreclosure action and if the borrower can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the servicer/trustee was guilty of fraud, oppression or malice punitive damages may be awarded. Where there is a wrongful foreclosure, the borrower may seek punitive damages. In Kachlon v. Markowitz (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 316, 345 [85 Cal.Rptr.3d 532, 554] the Court in acknowledging the right to seek punitive damages said:
    “The jury concluded that the nonjudicial foreclosures instituted by the Kachlons were wrongful, and that in pursuing the foreclosure proceedings Mordechai acted “intentionally, fraudulently and in conscious and callous disregard for the rights of the Markowitzes.” These findings are tantamount to the finding of malice….” (emphasis added).
    As such, it is clear in California, if the borrower can prove by clear and convincing
evidence that the servicer or trustee was guilty of fraud, oppression or malice in its wrongful conduct, punitive damages may be awarded.
    However, an action for the tort of wrongful foreclosure will lie if the trustor or mortgagor (borrower) can establish that at the time the power of sale was exercised or the foreclosure occurred, no breach of condition or failure of performance existed on the mortgagor’s or trustor’s part which would have authorized the foreclosure or exercise of the power of sale. See Munger v. Moore, 11 Cal.App.3d 1, 89 Cal.Rptr. 323 (Cal.App.1970). This seems to be an obstacle for many homeowners during this financial crisis. Many borrowers are behind on their payments and have fallen victim to predatory lending schemes or have stopped paying based on instructions from their lenders trying to qualify for loan modifications. But does default always mean the mere fact that you have fallen behind on your payments? This is an interesting issue we have discussed in other blogs the so-called “presentment” defense under the UCC.
    First, for a mortgage to be in default, the borrower, or maker of the promissory note, must have dishonored the note. Under UCC §3-502 a promissory note is not dishonored until the maker refuses to pay it when presentment thereof is made. “Presentment” is defined by the UCC as “a demand to pay the instrument made by a person entitled to enforce an instrument.” The UCC also requires that “Upon demand of the person to whom presentment is made, the person making presentment must 1) exhibit the instrument” [emphasis added] (UCC 3-501(B)(2)(a))
    Until the proper presentment is made the UCC requires that the “obligation is suspended to the same extent the obligation would be discharged if an amount of money equal to the amount of the instrument were taken, and the following rules apply: …2) In the case of a note, suspension of the obligation continues until dishonor of the note or until it is paid.” (UCC 3-310(b) & A.R.S. 47-3310(b)) Therefore, the borrower is not in default until the lender can exhibit the instrument, proving dishonor. Default is not simply missing payments. It also includes refusal to pay after presentment has been made. Default must also include an exhibit of the instrument. Thus, the lender in a wrongful foreclosure suit cannot claim the borrower is in default unless they can produce the original note and deed of trust.
    If true, this would produce additional problems for the lender/creditor. In fact, I recently reviewed one loan that has a UCC PRESENTMENT WAIVER (evidencing that this is an issue that at least one lender – in that case a reverse mortgage) has considered and apparently given credence to. According to California case law, the so-called lender would lose the right to foreclose on the security (real estate) if the obligation is unenforceable. Savings Bank v. Asbury (1897) 117 C 96, 48 P 1081; Trowbridge v. Love (1943) 58 CA 2d 746. As the theory goes, if the lender trying to foreclose on a property cannot prove default by producing the original note and deed of trust then they may not have the right to foreclose at all. IN FACT, IN SOME DEEDS OF TRUST (LIKE THIS ONE FOR A REVERSE MORTGAGE) THERE IS A SPECIFIC CLAUSE ASKING THAT THE BORROWER WAIVE THEIR “RIGHT” OF PRESENTMENT.
    In fact, a recent Massachusetts court ruling invalidated two foreclosure sales based on a failure to prove proper documentation (unbroken chain of mortgage from the originator to the trust) proving the “lender” (the securitized loan trust) had the legal right to foreclose. See Ibanez v. U.S. Bank a recent landmark case from the Massachusetts Supreme Court.
    DISCLAIMER: THIS IS ONLY A GENERAL LEGAL THEORY THAT WAS PRESENTED TO MY FIRM BY A 30 YEAR UCC LAW PROFESSOR FROM A MAJOR LAW SCHOOL. THE THEORY HAS NOT BEEN TESTED BY THIS AUTHOR AND YOU ARE ADVISED TO SEEK THE ADVISE OF COUNSEL BEFORE PURSUING THIS NOVEL THEORY.

    In summary, where the Defendants fail to follow statutory law (ex. where you have notary fraud in the chain of title NOTICE OF DEFAULT, NOTICE OF SALE, ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST, OR SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE – and where the notary refuses to produce their notary transaction logs for a given transaction following a written request for such proof of valid signatures, etc.) this type of fraud can be argued to violate the duties set by the California foreclosure laws such as Civil Code Section 2924, 2934, and 2932.5 which require duly recorded documents be notarized and recorded with the County Recorder. Where you have false and forged signatures by robo-signers, and a notary that does not verify a signing parties credentials, or signatures, and cannot produce a notary log, there may be a legal argument to be made that the resulting foreclosure sale was “fruit of the poisonous tree” as I like to say, and argue the sale was tainted with fraud, oppression, and breach of duties.

    And our lawyers add, don’t forget emotional distress in these suits.

  46. Consumer Rights Defenders can help you pro se homeowners with the litigation work that you will need from A-Z, starting with your complaint and then work through discovery which is the most important part of your case. You should hire counsel for depositions, court appearances and settlement conferences and in the unlikely event you need a trial. Affordable help for everyone. State and Federal courts.
    818.453.3585 M-F 9-4 PST, ask for Steve or Sara. Drop an email to us if you like to CR.Defenders@yahoo.com. Our webpage is CRDefenders.com

    In response to Jane Doe, this posting is a hoax posted by a pretender customer who wanted free services. We are not responsible for such postings nor condone such. We are here to serve the consumer.

  47. The 2013 California laws are powerful tools to stop foreclosures. Please drop by our webpage at CRDefenders.com . Go to Blog tab two to see the new codes that may help you.
    If you need foreclosure help, we are here M-F 9-4 PDT. Call us at 818.453.3585. Attorneys and their staff standing by with free consultations. Read our offers in the April/May Newsletter about free document reviews. Serving the homeowner with litigation support.

  48. Consumer Rights Defenders Response to “Jane Doe’s” tirade below and misquotes:
    We have been assisting consumers nationwide for over 6 years with a variety of matters and litigation is something our attorneys and our staff understands. I handle most of the intake calls and inquiries for the firm. The agitated and angry Ms. “DOE” who was losing her lawsuit to save her home [notably omitting her real name] is well recalled by our office. She wanted free legal services and when she was told after nearly 20 minutes that her litigation was in dire need of Discovery to prove the elements of the case, she became very angry and belligerent for reasons unknown. Sadly she is a victim of her own inability to litigate without help. We see this far to often.

    CRD has over 75 active matters and in 6 years has never been accused of any misdeeds by any “pretender” customers who want something for free. Sadly, this poor lady was pathetically uninformed about her own dilemma and could not afford any level of servicing from us. We wish her well.

    If you have any concerns about our three offices in California, Texas or Virginia/Maryland, call Steve Nelson directly at 818.453.3585 or drop by our webpage at CRDefenders. com where you can get the latest on the foreclosure climate and how you can best defend your home. We are here to help you.

  49. Why would my comment need moderation? I noticed that after posting it a not states, “awaiting moderation”

    I called Consumer Rights Defenders to ask for an attorney Referal. Basically, Steve will not refer any attorney unless you buy his discovery packages which are sold in segments starting at $600. There are many free resources for obtaining these forms for requesting discovery. His company may fill them out for you but I really do not think that his forms are anything unique. Many forensic auditor companies offer these forms for free when ordering the audit on your mortgage. All I can say is be was extremely rude and felt he is the only one out there that knows what is going on.

  50. I just had a very contentious conversation with Steve from Consumer rights defenders and was very disappointed. He is a paralegal that wants to sell discovery packages and states that any attorney who does not instigate discovery when hired can be on the hook for malpractice. I have been litigating my two cases both with attorneys and in pro per and have quite a bit of knowledge. He was very rude, kept talking over me, telling me to get to the pint. Tell me to stop talking and listen then ask me a question then talk over me again. What a nut! I think he swore at me before I hung up. Real nice guy…..

  51. READY TO SUE? Drop in and see how to CRDefenders.com and call today to Consumer Rights Defenders at 818.453.3585 and ask for Steve or Sara. We have staffers standing by to help right now. Attorneys, paralegals and expert witnesses are at your disposal.

  52. Ok I left a purchase order on the computer u can test with… And the small labels are in the machine… Label format #2. Thx

    Sent from my iPhone

  53. For those interested, Consumer Rights Defenders has its own blog and information site at If you have any litigation needs or need a free consultation, call us immediately at 818.453.3585. Attorneys, paralegals, experts standing by to assist you in your foreclosure battle. God Bless Neil for his work for you all.

  54. When we at Consumer Rights Defenders publish information we hope you will read and watch carefully and form you own opinions. The “settlements” with the banks are not what we thought they would be. We told you so. You need to sue them individually. Read this from Consumer Rights Defenders at 818.453.3585. Cut and paste this:

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/01/more-whistleblower-leaks-on-foreclosure-settlement-show-both-suppression-of-evidence-and-gross-incompetence.html

  55. FEBRUARY NEWS ON LITIGATED MATTERS FROM CONSUMER RIGHTS DEFENDERS. – 818.453.3585

    We are getting some strong results on our “lack of standing” arguments. [Bank may not own the right to enforce the note and thus, lack standing to defend]. Some astute judges are “getting it” at long last. Lenders have been having problems showing they own the note and rights to foreclose. Our clients are winning on such points, finally resulting in TRO’s being granted stopping foreclosures, especially in California.

    Secondly, recent rulings about MERS seem confusing. Some courts are saying MERS is sufficiently appointed to act as a “nominee” for the lender/beneficiary because they are listed in the Note or Deed of Trust as such and the borrower “signed” the document giving MERS such rights. Other courts disagree.

    Our attorneys give a new twist on this position in countering MERS…..

    Just how is a separate NON-SIGNING entity [MERS] able to bind or be bound to a designation by a lender [in the Note or DOT] without some form of acceptance and acknowledgement by MERS itself, generally missing from signed notes and DOTs?

    Example. :Homeowner A contracts with Gardner co. B to cut A’s lawn. B in his simple contract says, “I will give my duty to cut the lawn to Mr. C” an unknown person. Can Mr. C’s role be challenged as unenforceable since C never consented in writing to the contract? MERS stands as being in “C’s” shoes and never signs anything binding itself to act for beneficiary and generally is an unknown entity to most borrowers at the time the escrow docs are signed.

    We view this to be a failure of B’s delegation of duties to C by reason that the mere naming [nomination] of C by B was never accepted in writing by C [vis.,equal dignities doctrine, or other contractual theories] and A should not be bound to this term to have his lawn cut by an unknown 3d party. Why? C never accepted the delegation of duty. So, B must cut the lawn since A nor C never signed off in agreement to the nomination. Some Fed courts esp. BK courts take a similar position that MERS has no rights or powers to act. But the matter is far from settled universally.

    Listen all, being creative is very important since the state and federal courts are at loggerheads about what MERS can and can not do for beneficiaries. Use this argument if you like and let us know if it works.

    Consumer Rights Defenders is now taking litigation cases. Our attorneys and experts are standing by at 818.453.3585 to assist. We have a low cost document review program. Call for free consulataion and ask for Steve or Sara.

    Here is our Litigation Talley from last month, nationwide:
    4 TRO’s granted and foreclosures enjoined. 12 new suits filed.
    3 settlements with new loan arrangements including forebearances and forgivenesses and loans retooled at 3% fixed for 6 years.

  56. Consumer Rights Defenders’ website is here for you at “CRDefenders.com” and is the premier pro se foreclosure defense organization in the nation. Offices nationwide are taking calls now at 818.453.3585 and emails are quickly responded to at “CR.Defenders@yahoo.com” Let them help you today. Free consultations and ask about their 30 minute document review.

  57. Steve at Consumer Rights Defenders, on February 1, 2013 at 12:30 pm
    From Consumer Rights Defenders at 818.453.3585….investigate the accuracy of this article for yourself. Call is today for litigation support. ‘
    _______________________________________
    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.

  58. FDIC vs. Construction Lenders Jury Verdict: IndyMac Bankers Liable for $169 Million
    By Steve Nelson, J.D.: December 10, 2012

    Jurors awarded this $169M verdict (PDF) against three former IndyMac Bank executives for originating dubious construction and development loans. It happened last Friday in Los Angeles at the US District Court for the Central District of California.

    $169M Verdict Against Former Indyac Bank Executives

    In their original complaint, the FDIC alleged:
    That the former bank executives were too permissive in underwriting and originating a host of development and construction loans
    Their permissiveness was negligent
    And their permissiveness breached the fiduciary duty of care each executive owed to the bank before it failed
    The jurors agreed with the FDIC on the 21 loans that went to trial. The result: a verdict for the FDIC on every count—and, in one combination or another, against each former executive respectively—totaling about $169M in damages.

    Contact us at Consumer Rights Defenders at 818.453.3585 where our legal team of specialists and attorneys are standing by to help you stop your foreclosure, nationwide.

  59. From Attorney John R from Washington DC —– SETTLEMENTS ARE A FALSE HOPE FOR THE HOMEOWNER We follow this weblog and Garfield’s Living Lies regularly for the latest in current trends and information We are writing this to disclose a troubling trend of political deception about the real state of the housing crisis. As of 1-15-2013 the state of these so called “attorney general” or “Government settlements” is absolutely ineffective and impotent to stop the banks from continuing their tactics. These “settlements” are not benefiting the homeowner. Most only fatten the pockets of attorneys, the states and counties, but offer literally “scraps” to the homeowners. This is particularly true of the settlement crafted out by the California Attorney General Harris and many others similar. Our firm’s opinion is that the ONLY, repeat ONLY way to stop foreclosures and evictions and turn the tables is to sue the bank for a restraining order and for millions in damages in court. Most cannot afford our firm in the East Coast area. We highly recommend that desperate homeowners get some form of legal assistance from knowledgeable sources. Believe it when you read that the DC politicians are a bunch of beholden deceivers. Now Congress and the White House want to bail out the “bailed out” and will do nothing new or inventive to help the homeowner and their kids and families. It is downright pathetic. The courts are your only last resort, and from our research, the trend is changing to favor the homeowners more than ever now. If you can’t afford a big firm in your area that “get’s it” then try Consumer Rights Defenders who have specialized attorneys, paralegals and expert loan and securitization auditors on staff who can help you sue and get more than these politicians who brag, but offer little in real relief. Consumer Rights Defenders has helped us litigate for our clients and offers the exact same strategies for the in pro se [unrepresented] as we have for years. When you need an attorney for court appearances, they help you get one, as well. Sincerely, John R. Washington D.C. Attorney, J.D., MBA. Call us today at 818.453.3585 for immediately assistance, nationwide. We have offices in California, Texas, Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C. and soon in New York, New Jersey, Penn, Mass. and Georgia/So. Carolina to help homeowners just like you. Ask for Steve or Sara. Our success rate for Foreclosure stopping Restraining Orders is now over 90% nationwide.

  60. From Consumer Rights Defenders legal team: [call us at 818.453.3585]

    California court just reversed a trial court with a very precise basis stating that HUD servicing agreements must be complied with as a condition precedent. IF NOT, an injunction WILL lie for violating. This ruling should parallel the requirements of Civil Code sec. 2923.5 which has similar “contact” mandatory requirements. Finally, a ruling helping the homeowner to get his restraining order on this new ground!

    *****************************************
    PFEIFER v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS

    ALLEN PFEIFER et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,
    v.
    COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS et al., Defendants and Respondents.

    No. A133071.

    Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Two.
    Filed December 13, 2012.
    CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

    LAMBDEN, J.

    Allen Pfeifer (Allen) and Florence A. Pfeifer (Florence), a son and his mother (collectively, the Pfeifers), have a mortgage insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). They filed a third amended complaint against Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (Countrywide) and ReconTrust Company (Recon), after a nonjudicial foreclosure proceeding was commenced against their property. The trial court sustained a demurrer by Countrywide and Recon (collectively, the lenders) without leave to amend against the Pfeifers’ third amended complaint and then entered judgment in favor of the lenders.
    The Pfeifers appeal and challenge the trial court’s rulings that they did not have a cognizable legal claim against Recon under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA or the Act). They also challenge, among other things, the trial court’s denial of their requests for declaratory relief and for wrongful foreclosure based on the lenders’ failure to conduct a face-to-face interview as mandated by the servicing regulations of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
    We conclude that the deed of trust incorporates by reference the servicing requirements of HUD, including the face-to-face interview, and the lenders had to comply with the servicing terms prior to conducting a valid nonjudicial foreclosure. We also hold that tender is not required in the present situation, because the borrowers are seeking to enjoin a pending foreclosure sale based on the lenders’ failure to comply with the servicing requirements incorporated in the FHA deed in trust. Although we agree with those courts that refuse to permit any private right of action for failure to comply with the HUD regulations and the Pfeifers cannot seek damages based on their wrongful foreclosure action, we concur with those courts distinguishing an offensive action from a defensive action. Thus, we conclude that the servicing requirements are conditions precedent to the acceleration of the debt or to foreclosure. Consequently, the Pfeifers may seek to enjoin the lenders from proceeding with a nonjudicial foreclosure based on the lenders’ failure to perform an HUD servicing requirement.
    Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s judgment as to the Pfeifers’ request for injunctive relief based on their wrongful foreclosure claim and their request for declaratory relief. We, however, otherwise affirm the trial court’s judgment, including the lower court’s ruling that the Pfeifers do not have a claim for damages against Recon for violating the FDCPA, because Recon is not a debt collector under the statute.

  61. Recently our legal team here are Consumer Rights Defenders [818.453.3585] was asked the following important question:
    What impact does the recording of Assignment of Deed of Trust have BEFORE receiving Notice of Default, here in California [and in many other states]?
    ____________________
    My mortgage was discharged through Chapter 7 in February 2009. I stopped making payments to BofA in September 2010 because they declined to modify my loan. I’ve received two Intent to Accelerate letters, but I have not received my NOD.

    I noticed that an Assignment of Deed of Trust was recorded on 6/22/2011. What impact does this have, if any, on the foreclosure process in CA? Should I be concerned that the grantee is no longer BAC Home Loans and is now Bank of New York Mellon?

    Again, a NOD has not been recorded and I have not received anything from BofA or the new bank. I guess I don’t have a firm understanding of Assignment of Deed of Trust.

    Thanks in advance for your help!
    Ellen
    _______________________

    Note that a valid assignment requires more than just assignment of the Deed of Trust; the Note must also be assigned. (See Carpenter v. Longan (1872) 83 U.S. 271, 274.) As stated by the Supreme Court in Carpenter, “[t]he note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident”; “[a]n assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity.” (Id., see also Kelley v. Upshaw (1952) 39 Cal.2d 179, 192 [assignment of only the deed without a transfer of the promissory note is completely ineffective]; see also Restatement (3d) of Property (Mortgages) § 5.4[“[a] mortgage may be enforced only by, or in behalf of, a person who is entitled to enforce the obligation that the mortgage secures.”)

    Typically, an Assignment of Deed of Trust contains express language stating that the grant, assign and transfer is done “[t]ogether with the note or notes therein described or referred to, the money due and to become due thereon, with interest, and all rights accrued or to accrue under said Deed of Trust.”

    In a typical wrongful foreclosure case, the plaintiff does not deny the plaintiff was in default under the deed of trust. By signing the deed of trust, the plaintiff contractually acknowledged that in the event of default by plaintiff, foreclosure of the loan could result. If the deed of trust contains an express provision granting a power of sale, the beneficiary may pursue non-judicial foreclosure. (Moeller v. Lien (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 822, 830; Ung v. Koehler (2005) 135 Cal. App.4th 186, 192.)

    A claim that physical possession of the note is required is not actionable. (Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Hillery (2008) 2008 WL 5170180 (N.D. Cal. 2008), page 5, and In re Vargas (2008) 396 B.R. 511. BUT under new 2013 laws in Calif, if the NOD is defective in content, a TRO can and will be granted, see our other blog on point.

    When there is an assignment of the deed of trust, the assignee is granted the authority under California law to initiate the foreclosure process on behalf of the beneficiary and its successors and assigns. See Civil Code §§’s 2924(a)(1)&(4) (where a power of sale is conferred upon the mortgagee, trustee or any other person, the power shall not be exercised until the trustee, mortgagee, or beneficiary, or any of their authorized agents record a notice of default and notice of sale, etc.).

    Even if the assignment is not recorded, this does not mean that the assignment is invalid. There is no requirement under California law that an assignment must be recorded in order for an assignee beneficiary to foreclose. (Parcray v. Shea Mortgage (E.D. Cal. 2010) 2010 WL 1659369, page 11.) BUT, a lack of provable ownership of title [eg., via securitization] may be grounds to enjoin a foreclosure sale for lack of standing!

    The information presented here is general in nature and is not intended, nor should be construed, as legal advice.
    Call is today about your foreclosure issues for a free consultation with our attorneys and expert consultants at 818.453.3585.
    We offer assistance in all fifty states to serve our homeowner’s needs.

  62. Happy Holidays from us at Consumer Rights Defenders [818.453.3585] to our blogger “Friends… Fighting Foreclosures” We start with this simple reference for Californians needing some help. Check out the new laws kicking in in 2013:

    California’s Newly Enacted Homeowners Bill of Rights pursuant to California Civil Code sections, 2923.55, 2924.12, and 2924.17.
    Everyone now needs to request copies of the following:

    (i) A copy of the borrower’s promissory note or other evidence of indebtedness.

    (ii) A copy of the borrower’s deed of trust or mortgage.

    (iii) A copy of any assignment, if applicable, of the borrower’s mortgage or deed of trust required to demonstrate the right of the mortgage servicer to foreclose.

    (iv) A copy of the borrower’s payment history since the borrower was last less than 60 days past due.
    Couch the letter like this to your lender/servicer before you sue them:

    “This letter is being sent pursuant to my statutory obligation to “meet and confer” with you concerning the defects before bringing an action to enjoin any future foreclosure pursuant to Civil Code § 2924.12.

    Defendant’s are in violation of both the notice and standing requirements of California law, and the California newly enacted Homeowner Bill of Rights (“HBR”). In July 2012, Among other things, the HBR authorizes private civil suits to enjoin foreclosure by entities that record or file notices of default or other documents falsely claiming the right to foreclose. Civil Code § 2923.55 requires a servicer to provide borrowers with their note and certain other documents, if the borrowers request them.

    Civil Code § 2924.17 requires any notice of default, notice of sale, assignment of deed of trust, or substitution of trustee recorded on behalf of a servicer in connection with a foreclosure, or any declaration or affidavit filed in any court regarding a foreclosure, to be “accurate and complete and supported by competent and reliable evidence.” It further requires the servicer to ensure it has reviewed competent and reliable evidence to substantiate the borrower’s default and the right to foreclose. {They never have or will in our opinion}

    Civil Code § 2924.12 authorizes actions to enjoin foreclosures, or for damages after foreclosure, for breaches of §§ 2923.55 or 2924.17. This right of private action is “in addition to and independent of any other rights, remedies, or procedures under any other law. Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter, limit, or negate any other rights, remedies, or procedures provided by law.” Civil Code § 2924.12(h). Any Notice of Default, or Substitution of Trustee recorded on Plaintiffs’ real property based upon a fraudulent and forged Deed of Trust shall be considered a “Material Violation”, thus triggering the injunctive relief provisions of Civil Code § 2924.12 & § 2924.17(a) (b).

    Finish your letter with this sentence:

    I therefore demand that X Bank, N.A. provide me with the UNALTERED original Deed of Trust along with the ORIGINAL Note, Deed of Trust, Notice of Default, Notice of Trustee’s sale, all assignments and proof of the owner of the Note who has a right to enforce it.
    ______________________________

    Let us at Consumer Rights Defenders help you with your lawsuit. We have attorneys and paralegal experts standing by with help for you in all 50 states. We can also help with eviction defense. We have helped our clients obtain over 150 TROs stopping foreclosure sales and evictions and will help you if you simply call is at 818.453.3585 and ask for Sara or Steve or email us to “CR.DEFENDERS@yahoo.com ” Free consultations.
    Media requests must be by e-mail.

  63. *** Please Read this: THE TIDE IS CHANGING

    WE are pleased to announce that another of Consumer Rights Defenders clients just get another TRO in Calif against Wells Fargo stopping the foreclosure who has no evidence of compliance or “the Note.” Our success rate is now 93%. Attorneys available.
    Call us at 818.453.3585. Ask for Steve or Melissa and ask about our NEW offices in Dallas [ask for Nicole] and Virginia/Maryland [ask for Jasmine]. Affordable and highly recommended founding member of the National Foreclosure Defense Network. Free consultation. Also,we help with eviction problems post-foreclosure. CALL TODAY!!!!!

  64. Consumer Rights Defenders is now offering assistance for all homeowners wishing to participate or opt out of the 43 billion dollar suit we reference below. If you need litigation support or an attorney, call us immediately at 818.453.3585 and ask for Sara or Steve or email us at
    cr.defenders@yahoo.com Here is the big suit just filed:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/114420219/Banksters-Their-Attorneys-Panicking-Court-Documents-for-the-43-Trillion-Dollar-Lawsuit-%E2%80%93-Implicates-High-Level-Politicians-and-Banks-Officially-F

  65. any attorney group or practice located in MD

  66. The Mid Atlantic Office of Consumer Rights Defenders is now Open in Virginia. Please call us for immediate legal services at 818.453.3585 with attorneys and paralegals standing by to give free consultations.

  67. Hello Homeowners: Consumer Rights Defenders just opened its
    Mid-Atlantic office in the Virginia/Maryland area for our East Coast clients’ needs.
    Call us for more information about how we can help you save your home and forcing a settlement by suing your lender. 818.453.3585. Attorneys, paralegals and staff to help our friends nationwide! Ask for Steve or Jasmine.
    Our Dallas office is open for business for all in need in the Mid-West. Call us and ask for Steve or Nicole for immediate assistance.

    BLOG: For non-judicial foreclosure states: If you want to test the non-judicial nature of your state laws, attack the Deed of Trust clauses in a declaratory relief action by challenging the language that asserts the bank can foreclose upon default. If “default” is not well defined in the DOT, you may have great leverage to force a settlement favorable to you. Essentially what you do is to force the lenders into a “judicial” foreclosure that you file and control instead of waiting for the bank to record a NODefault or file a judicial action to permit a foreclosure. This is but one powerful tool used by our counsel to help homeowners in need.
    Call us today!

  68. Consumer Rights Defenders announces the opening of its Mid-Atlantic Coast offices in Tysons Corner, Virginia 22182 that will be servicing homeowners facing foreclosure and evictions in this region. We will be available from 8:00 to 6:00 M-F to serve your needs for litigation strategies, restraining orders, eviction protection and bankruptcy options. Our office number there is 1-866-425-9913, ask for our executive assistant, Jasmine.

    Our Dallas, Texas office is also now open, so call 214.809.1777 and ask for executive assistant, Nicole.

    If your matter requires in depth legal services our main office is available at 818.453.3585. Ask for our attorney or paralegals, Steve, Jackie or Sara for assistance for those residing in the Western U.S. Helping homeowners and tenants afford some real help with litigation strategies they can afford since 2004. Our team “get’s it.” God bless you all.

  69. Consumer Rights Defenders announces our opening of an office in Dallas, Texas for our homeowner borrowers needing help in the mid-west. The numbers of foreclosures are increasing again and if you need help call us today for assistance and ask for Steve, Nicole or Sara. We offer assistance in State or Federal venues. 818.453.3585
    M-F from 8:30 AM to 5 PM. All forms of in pro se and attorney assistance available with strategies that are changing the tide for the homeowners in distress.

    Shannon K. from San Antonio: We called CRD and our lawsuit was filed and we are well on our way to Discovery in our local court. They are amazing! Highly recommended.

    William and Haley in Mobile, Ala.: We just settled our 2 year long case and got a 3% note and forgiveness of the arrears, 7 years fixed! CRD helped us and got us an attorney to work out our settlement. Great work you guys.

    Jan from Sacramento, Ca.: I had 4 attorneys turn down helping me and went to CRD and their team. Within a week we were into the suit and we just had the bank’s first demurrer overrulled. We could not ask for better competence. They really get it!

  70. I have a huge, very complex case of wrongful foreclosure in West Michigan. I’ve been working on this for 23 mos. and have had it analyed, hand writting experts, affidavits from Register John O’Brien where 5 signers on my assignments (2 on one and 3 on the other) So many violations with proof, facts to back it up. I originally was going to try to defend myself (ourselves,I am married) but I need to make this first move. Our family has lost almost 2 years of living happily and I seriously cannot take it much longer. If anyone can reference an attorney in my state of MI, who is honest, has integrity, and has enough..(cough cough)..to take this on, it should be one of Muskegon County, Michigan’s biggest shake up in a very long time. PLEASE, Don’t be an idiot and fill my inbox with nonsence, I’m looking for someone who seriously wants to help me make one hell of a statement. greeneyes4224@gmail.com Thanks and God bless!

  71. I have a huge, very complex case of wrongful foreclosure. I’ve been working on this for 23 mos. and have had it analyed, hand writting experts, affidavits from Register John O’Brien where 5 signers on my assignments (2 on one and 3 on the other) So many violations with proof, facts to back it up. I originally was going to try to defend myself (ourselves,I am married) but I need to make this first move. Our family has lost almost 2 years of living happily and I seriously cannot take it much longer. If anyone can reference an attorney in my state of MI, who is honest, has integrity, and has enough..(cough cough)..to take this on, it should be one of Muskegon County, Michigan’s biggest shake up in a very long time. PLEASE, Don’t be an idiot and fill my inbox with nonsence, I’m looking for someone who seriously wants to help me make one hell of a statement. greeneyes4224@gmail.com Thanks and God bless!

  72. I need a foreclosure attorney to protect me from the Bank of America/Countrywide. I know full well that the Judges in this are not open to listening and need that attorney not to be afraid and to push as hard as we can even if it goes to the State Supreme Court.
    James 410-652-4356

  73. FLORIDA FORECLOSURE FIGHTER ATTORNEY DILLON GRAHAM IS SELECTED AS SUPER LAWYER 2012

    Once a year Super Lawyers invites attorneys in each state to nominate the top attorneys that they have observed in action, and this is the first step in the nomination process, putting attorneys on their radar for further research and evaluation. The research staff evaluates candidates on 12 indicators of peer recognition including: professional achievement, verdicts and settlements, transactions, representative clients, experience, honors and awards, special licenses and certifications, their position at their law firm, outstanding achievements and more. Dillon Graham Esq have been selected as Super Lawyer for 2012. Dillon attended April Charney and Max Gardner foreclosure defense seminars .

    For more information see the press release link below.

    http://www.prlog.org/11898310-dillon-graham-selected-as-2012-super-lawyer.html

    Contact him at dillon@grahamlegalpa.com or

    Graham Legal, P.A.
    Ponce Plaza, Suite 410
    814 Ponce de Leon Blvd.
    Coral Gables (Miami)
    Florida 33134

    (305) 445-9185 – Local
    (888) 611-9811 – Toll Free
    (305) 445-8015 – Fax

    Visit my scrib site http://www.scribd.com/winstons2311 to review many foreclosure defenses pleadings and discovery samples. Click on Collection link to see the pleadings, appeal briefs, case law.

    Visit http://www.foreclosureprose.com for more foreclosure defense info.

  74. The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.
    -Sun Tzu

    In Foreclosure ? We Offer Affordable Help So You Can Defeat The Bank and Keep Your Home

    Circuit Civil – Writs of Certiorari – Appeals

    “The Banks Have No Where To Hide”

    Florida Defense Team (631) 317-0076

  75. I am in desperate need of an attorney in Mississippi… Jackson or Harrison County… I have MANY foreclosures (wrongful), and I need an attorney that “gets it.” Please help.
    THanks,
    Rob
    robertrussell77@hotmail.com

  76. Atlanta Attorney that Gets It!

    Robert Thompson, Jr. Esq. is a fighter! He is currently going up against some of the largest Banking Institutions in our Nation! Call our Office at (404) 816 0500 to discuss your options. Whether it is an injunction, Quiet Title action, assistance in the loan modification process, or filing for wrongful foreclosure, Robert is the man!

    for more info and bio go to: http://www.thomlaw.net

    Thanks Garfield!!!

  77. Some information the general public should know about various remedies. Taken primarily from Calif sources, but may apply to your jurisdiction: [Does this sound like your situation?] We can help, see below.
    _______________________

    Unilateral rescission on basis of mistake, duress, fraud or undue influence: A contract is subject to unilateral rescission by a party whose consent to the contract (or the consent of another party jointly contracting with the rescinding party) was:

    · given by mistake; or

    · obtained through duress, fraud or undue influence exercised by or with the connivance of the party against whom rescission is sought or any other party to the contract jointly interested with the party against whom rescission is sought. [Ca Civil | 1689(b)(1); see Donovan v. RRL Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 261, 278, 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 807, 821; Sharabianlou v. Karp, supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at 1145, 105 Cal.Rptr.3d at 310–rescission is appropriate remedy where parties are mutually mistaken as to property’s condition; Schiavon v. Arnaudo Bros. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 374, 380, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 801, 805–deed obtained by use of undue influence may be rescinded; Reveles v. Toyota by the Bay (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1142, 67 Cal.Rptr.2d 543, 551 (disapproved on other grounds in Snukal v. Flightways Mfg., Inc. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 757, 775, 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 19, fn. 6)–party ‘induced by fraud or mistake to enter into a contract … may have the contract set aside and seek restitution of those benefits lost to him by the transaction’

    Therefore, the wrongful acts of third persons who are not parties to the contract may support an action for rescission if the party against whom the rescission is sought had knowledge of the wrongdoing before parting with consideration for the contract. [Leeper v. Beltrami (1959) 53 Cal.2d 195, 206, 1 Cal.Rptr. 12, 20; see also Jones v. Adams Fin’l Services (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 831, 836, 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 151, 154-155–Lender participated in fraud where Lender was present when false statements were made to Borrower and Lender not only did nothing to correct false statements but actually helped Borrower sign loan documents.

    Under the court’s broad equitable power, rescission may also lie against a contracting party who was entirely innocent of any wrongdoing but simply a ‘conduit’ through whom a third party’s fraud was perpetrated.///////
    ___________________________

    Consumer Rights Defenders 818.453.3585 call Sara to schedule a confidential consultation with a participating attorney.

    Serving homeowners against wrongful foreclosures nationwide.
    We are on Facebook at Consumer Rights Defenders.

  78. I have been defending myself in foreclosure of my homestead residence , unfortunately the Judge don’t even want to listing me at hearing granting rocket docket judgment against my house.I do desperate looking for attorney (WITH PROVEN RESULTS) to appeal in my case , I found couple fraudulent elements in this case .PLEASE REFERE me to mentioned Attorney ,PALM BEACH COUNTY , FLORIDA

  79. From Mike S, in Colorado who says: “I used Consumer Rights Defenders in my Colorado cases. I recommend them highly. They are competent, extremely knowledgeable and caring and really there for you all the way. They really helped us out.” 2-9-2012
    CRD, can help with the litigation work that you will need from A-Z, starting with your complaint and then work through discovery which is the most important part of your case. You should consider having counsel for depositions, court appearances and settlement conferences and in the unlikely event you need a trial. Most cases settle. We have referrals if you are concerned about what we can do for you.
    818.453.3585 M-F 9-4 PST, ask for Steve or Sara. Drop an email to us if you like to CR.Defenders@yahoo.com. CRD is now on Facebook and WordPress.
    Consumer Rights Defenders — Part of the Living Lies Web Network of Attorneys and litigation support.

  80. South Florida Foreclosure Defense Attorney who ‘Gets it”: Dillon Graham Esq. 305-445-9185

    Free initial consultation. Reasonable fees, payment plans available

    http://www.prlog.org/10871686-attorney-dillon-graham-named-as-florida-legal-elite.html

  81. Florida Pro Se Litigants – By the numbers

    10 (Months) Before a case is considered abandoned for lack of prosecution
    20 (Days) Answer your complaint before a default is entered
    22 (Section) Notice of Default and Transfer of Lender is a precondition to filing a foreclosure complaint
    57.105/1.510(g) (Sanctions) For filing an affidavit by a robo-signor and then withdrawing
    60 (Months) Statute of Limitations to enforce a mortgage (move them to amend their complaint to set the trap)
    65 (Dollars an Hour) What a Court Reporter Charges to keep the Judge in line and protect your appeal or writ of cert
    400 (Dollars) (temporary) filing fee to overturn a lower courts bad ruling
    1,900 (Dollars) What many Florida Courts Charge for a Counterclaim: Reason: Counterclaim Trial with Jury is heard before Summary Judgment thereby blocking lower courts from quick disposal

  82. BANK OF AMERICA LOANS….WE JUST HIRED A FORMER RETENTION EXPERT INSIDER WHO KNOWS THE SCAMS BOA HAS BEEN ENGAGED IN. LET US HELP YOU IF YOU HAVE CW/BOA NOTES

    Aggressive litigation is affordable at Consumer Rights Defenders. Call Steve or Sare at 818.453.3585. Attorneys are available to step in tor depositions and trial. Help you can afford. M-F 9-4 PST

  83. Consumer Rights Defenders: Attorneys and staff here to help you M-F from 9 – 4 PST. 818.453.3585. Don’t give up the fight we have stopped foreclosures and can help you. Ask for Sara or Steve.

  84. I had my mortgage foreclosed and discovered the robo signed assignments and brought it up at hearing.. the judge would not listen to me and issued the SJ. I found an attorney after who was fighting the SJ , he died before any defense could be presented. I hired a new atty who has done very little, taken NOT ONE pro active step. i cannot get the office to respond to emails or calls but they do keep debiting my monthly fee. Is there an atty in FL who will take this case on. I have a long affidavit attesting to fraud – help – I need an attorney to actively represent me.

  85. Marco,
    Call each atttorneys on this link and ask questions until you find one that gets it. Call Mark Stopa Matt Weidner, or Richard Shuster, Mike Wasylick or Peter Ticktin.

    http://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=39&gs_id=4l&xhr=t&q=foreclosure+defense+attorney+pan+handle&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=foreclosure+defense+attorney+pan+handle&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=2f530ebf24b03457&biw=1249&bih=568

  86. Any attorneys that get it in the Florida Panhandle?

    born2beach@gmail.com

  87. I have a bankruptcy attorney who needs attorneys who can be subcontracted the “Adversary” motions that challenge the foreclosure, attorneys who can challenge the standing of the mortgage servicer in Los Angeles bankruptcy court, attorneys who understand and can challenge the securitization and forensics, the robosigning.

    He has plenty of referral work for you, much more if you can do it on contingency.

  88. How to Find a Competent Foreclosure Defense Attorney

    If you can afford an attorney, it is advisable to hire one to defend your foreclosure. The big “if” of course is affordability. Having said that, we should keep in mind that all attorneys are not created equal. An incompetent attorney can cost you money and your case; there are enough of them to be wary. Here is some advice in finding a good foreclosure defense attorney.

    Once the initial foreclosure complaint is filed by the plaintiff, your name and address will become public record and will be available for mass mailing. You will certainly receive numerous solicitations from local attorneys. Armed with the solicitation letters, go to your county clerk web site and do a party search on some of the attorneys on your list. Some counties’ system allows you to do searches by parties; some systems do have that functionality. Once you’re able to pull a list of cases with the attorney as a defense counsel, check the docket entries. Has the attorney been fighting vigorously for his/her clients?
    By reviewing a few cases, you can determine how good an attorney is.
    Has he files any pre-answer motions?
    Has he filed any affirmative defenses and counter –claims?
    Was he persistent in his discovery method?
    What is his win/lose ratio?

    If you want more information beyond dockets review, go to the court house and request to see the files you’re interested in. Read the pleadings filed by the attorney. You can even make copies to take home. Once you feel comfortable with an attorney’s competence, then you should make the jump. There is no guaranty, but at least you made an educated guess
    Courtesy of http://www.foreclosureprose.com

  89. Kimberli- check your courthouse docs for the sale price/transfer tax, you said you ” short saled the house”, find out from the courthouse if the funds were wired, what the wire # is and backtrack. See who is listed as the new “owner” of record, and if they were a party with whom you dealt during your “short sale”. This will give you a start. Was MERS on your mortgage? Go the the Investor ID section of merscorp website, punch in the 18 digit MIN #, see at least who is/was listed as the investor.
    If the above doesn’t help, maybe an atty can get the term reduced from 56 years down to 50. That way you’ll have the debt retired before you hit 100. (just kidding)

  90. Neil,
    I had three loans on my home and completed a short sale. The first 2 were paid in full and the third Regions released the mortgage but not the note. They put me in a payment plan until I’m 105 years old! I’m 49 now. I can’t bankrupt this because my first position loan paid off was JP Morgan Chase and the Assignment of mortgage was fake so I still owe someone for the first mortgage as I paid off someone that didn’t own the loan. To make it more confusing a lady at Chase said Fannie Mae owned the loan and they are not even a party on the fake assignment. Do you offer any kind of service that could tell me
    if Regions owned the loan the day they put me in this long deficiency payment plan without a complete analysis as I have limited funds? Is it legal in Florida for a bank to lock you into a 56 year payment plan? Had Region’s gone to court and got a deficency judgement I think they could have tried to collect for 20 years only. I’m not going to make it to 105 years old with all this stress! :-) Please help
    Kimberliwilson@aol.com

  91. South Florida Foreclosure Defense Attorney who ‘Gets it”: Dillon Graham Esq. 305-445-9185
    Free initial consultation. Reasonable fees, payment plans available

    http://www.prlog.org/10871686-attorney-dillon-graham-named-as-florida-legal-elite.html

  92. I am dying to get a microphone in my hand, I think the NO WAY DAY concept is starting to sink in. The question was asked, what is their
    issue. Number one is, why the hell don’t you take the new stimulus
    {what a joke} and use it to stop the deterioration of the country by keeping citizens in their homes. Remember that word CITIZENS?
    This citizen is going to court, finally, on Wed Oct 19th at 11;00 a.m.
    This will not stop until we say No Way, you cannot rob our homes
    from us, you cannot put us out in the street, you cannot turn our citizens into third world country living, you cannot do this anymore.

  93. They can get it all they want. But the courts seem to turn a blind eye. The only thing they see is you want free house. WHo care about if the laws of California are broken,inproper chain of title, biforcated note and basic standing or non staning of the of the forclosing party. The court do not seem to. For the most case the courts fed and state alike just do not care. They wll not allow to get to discovery and without that factor in your case you might as well go stand in of a bulldoser because ultimatly it is over. DIssmised with predijust.

  94. Any one know a good lawyer in Riverside County that is passionate for this cause and does not just want a BK? I already filed BK 3 years ago due to a biz situation so want someone that gets it more than I do. I have been following this site since 2009.

  95. Anyone in the Tampa Bay area who has been “wrongfully foreclosed” on please reply to this post. Looking for others in the area.

  96. Countrywide Admits to Not Conveying Notes to Mortgage Securitization Trusts!
    Testimony in a New Jersey bankruptcy court case provides proof of the scenario we’ve depicted on this blog since September, namely, that subprime originators, starting sometime in the 2004-2005 timeframe, if not earlier, stopped conveying notes (the borrower IOU) to mortgage securitization trusts as stipulated in the pooling and servicing agreement.

    We’ve know all along the corruption ran deep. Why have the judges waited years to have their own integrity restoration when every last one of them understood from day one the issue is “standing” where there is little evidence of note ownership? It is absolutely inexplicable, but certainly troubles even the simple citizen who is being hammered by the foreclosure process. How do elected/appointed judges get away with this? A lack of public outcry and action, that’s why in a nutshell. Lawyers can only do so much….and if they hoot too loudly their regulatory agencies [the bar] tries to threaten their licenses claiming they are interfering with the administration of justice and being “disrespectful of the courts.” In California, media reports and insiders tell of the state bar refusing to take complaints about the lack of lawyers available to defend against the banks. The state bars nationwide seem not to care about protecting the public as they profess, but protecting the banks who are the offenders. Lawyers are frightened of their own regulatory agencies and have stopped representing folks in foreclosure defense matters.

    It has gotten ugly. Some suggested on this blog that all the judges siding with banks be complained about to state investigative commissions.They call these boards [in Calif, anyway] Commission on Judicial Performance.The commissions are funded by pubic tax dollars and MUST listen to your formal written complaints. Recall elections may not be available or do much good. Complaining to an oversight agency, may.

    Your home is all you have left and if the courts don’t care, the public must complain loudly. It may be the only last line of attack on corruption since most in pro se’s and litigants cannot afford to file expensive appeals. Sadly, it may be too late for some, but not for those yet to file their defensive actions in their local courts. Complain about the judges NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW! They have judicial canons that call for their discipline and removal if they do not.

  97. any foreclosure defense attorneys in Louisiana? I have forensic audit, irregularities regarding chain of title, allonges, signatures etc.
    would appreciate any help.

  98. Need a lawyer who gets it for Ohio (southern region)

    my email is dryprocincy@gmail.com

    Thank you,

    Jeff

  99. Gentlemen,
    If you don’t file a counterclaim for your client you have just removed the single best weapon in your arsenal. Nothing will crush your opponent’s case faster than staying their litigation while the possibility of their fraud will soon be displayed in front of a Jury. Lender friendly Judge? No worries – DCA’s have certiorari juridiction to injunct your case with 40+ years of case law. Stop telling your clients the best they can hope for is some added time and do your homework.

  100. We scored two major victories in St. Louis today:

    1. In our Fannie Mae case (the one with the video we posted), we got a judge to DENY their Motion for Summary Judgment on an Unlawful Detainer case. This seems like a no-brainer, since we have a video of the sale showing another entity buying it, but Missouri law is very strict on these, and most judges have been very conservative in their rulings. But we got a winner today, and I will be very interested to see what they do with this.

    2. We also stopped Boyd Law Group from foreclosing on a home in St. Louis. We used a TRO, and have an injunction hearing scheduled for August 31. I have phone conversations where they admit that the “client” is the one determining whether the sale goes on, robosigners (from 6-2011!) and a big problem with their note. This will be an interesting case, as I intend to ask for class certification to stop all such foreclosures.

    Please call me at 877-945-3952 and visit me at: http://www.foreclosurelawllc.com. Dale Wiley

  101. I urgently need for Foreclosure Defense attorney That gets it In Tallahassee Fla. plz help contact me atlz71@yahoo.com

  102. Why would the opposing lawyer call mine and say “she is off the mortgage note”.

    Background:
    Trying to enforce marriage settlement agreement.
    (1)
    She wants me to sell the house (at a loss of 50%).
    (2)
    I want her to pay (Appendix A) the funds due to me. (the money to be used to refiance the house).

    Clearly, her father, a real estate agent for over 20 years, knows that while you can remove a name from the mortgage, you can not remove a name from the promisary note without refinancing.

    So what game is her lawyer up to?

  103. If you want to see who’s side the California Department of Real Estate is on go here and digest this article purportedly attacking those trying to help those losing their homes including all attorneys who are involved by claiming the help is all fraud based and there really is little hope available. Go to:

    http://www.dre.ca.gov/pdf_docs/ca/ConsumeAlert_WarningreMassLitigation.pdf

    Clearly, the banks have “bought” this state agency who has done NOTHING for 4 years to help consumers. This is outrageous. This little passage has now scared off some prominent foreclosure defense lawyers who were agressively helping home owners.

    If you want to discuss your options for represented or pro per litigation against your lender for their possible misconduct, we are here to help with plans to fit your budget whether you are in default or not. Call us today.
    Consumer Rights Defenders
    818.453.3585 ask for Sara or Steve
    God Bless Neil Garfield and God Bless America

  104. WE HAVE THE “FIRST” WIN IN MICHIGAN:

    ‘Vacation of FORECLOSURE’…

    WE CAN HELP IN ANY STATE!!!

    We have a few more WINS due soon… We just had to cut the DEAD-WEIGHT of under-handed attorney’s (plural), we were working with. With that said, WE ARE COCKED, LOCKED and ready to ROCK. The Banks (BOA, USB, ABN, Fannie and MERs + a few more) already know what WE can do because, we’ve done it…

    LET US HELP YOU KEEP YOUR HOME and not dance around in Court for the next 2 years. We do not go for the quick fixes. We go for the BIG WINS.

    We are currently working Cases in:

    MICHIGAN
    ILLINOIS
    GEORGIA
    TEXAS
    NORTH CAROLINA
    FLORIDA
    WASHINGTON STATE
    NEW JERSEY
    ARKANSAS
    CALIFORNIA
    SOUTH CAROLINA
    ALABAMA
    OHIO
    WISCONCIN
    NEVADA…
    and

    NOW, We’re waiting for YOU… :)

    DID I MENTION THAT, WE HAVE WINS and great *NEW* team of Attorneys.

    Good night and May the Lord bless you, ALL.

    Shoot Dan an email @:

    lowecommunityresourcepartners@live.com

  105. Foreclosures should be made illegal, stopped now…..Mills shut down,
    lobbyists illegal. Homes renegotiated at the price they are worth and with a 3 or 4 per cent interest rate, If a buyer cannot do that,,,,,,,THEN
    AND ONLY THEN should homes be foreclosed and resold. Give the
    American public a chance. You want to help balance the budget, are
    the Senators and Congressman still in line for their pensions? Eliminate them, put them in the same position we are. We lost all our
    401k money on their schemes with these false triple A hedge funds.
    How come no one is in jail, or being prosecuted for RICO. The country is going to come to an end again. Just like it did when they needed the
    TARP money for their shorts. We have been scamed people and the
    problem is the only way to make money is to go along with it. I say no,
    L ets

  106. First, you get a lawyer that works for you and not the mills, this is so
    disgusting, If anyone out there has not seen the Documentary INSIDE JOB narrated by Matt Damons, you need to and quickly. It explains
    everything from start to finish and how they are continuing to make
    money by making the public feel they have not legal recourse. I am
    not moving, I will take this to the supreme court. How can you take a
    home away in bankruptcy before the stay is lifted. Well, Fannie Mae
    can, and has been doing it to all the people who think they have no
    recourse. When you see this movie, you will understand
    bank

  107. Hey thanks so much for all the info!!
    Please send over the list for Colorado!! I appreciate it!

  108. Mark Stopa Esq. – Who needs an Attorney or Co-Counsel for Trial ?

    Posted on June 21, 2011 by Mark Stopa
    I’ve been doing this foreclosure defense thing pretty hot and heavy for a few years now. As a result, I think I know the industry pretty well. Generally speaking, nothing really surprises me any more. I know what the banks are doing, I know what their lawyers are doing, and I know what other defense lawyers are doing. Perhaps most importantly, I know what other defense lawyers are NOT doing.

    There are a lot of lawyers dabbling in foreclosure defense who are unwilling or unable to go to trial in a foreclosure case. That’s not meant as an insult. In fact, I think many would admit their unwillingness/inability to go to trial. For a variety of reasons (the perception they can’t win, lack of trial experience, whatever), many lawyers handling foreclosure cases just don’t feel comfortable going to trial. In recent days, I’ve talked to a few different court personnel (judges, judicial assistants, and case managers) who have echoed this sentiment.

    Candidly, I’m disappointed with this. In my view, trial is an essential part of a foreclosure case. In fact, a lot of my strategy hinges on forcing the bank to go to trial. In its simplest form, that’s what foreclosure defense is – work to defeat the bank’s motion for summary judgment and force them to win the case at trial. Many times, as we’ve seen, banks don’t want to have to go to trial, so this creates leverage for a prospective resolution. Hence, fearing a trial means giving up leverage for a prospective resolution or, worse yet, creating an easier path for the bank to foreclose.

    So what’s my point here? Simple. I don’t want to pound on my own chest, but I am perfectly comfortable going to trial in a foreclosure case. I understand the evidentiary issues, I’m comfortable with the arguments, and I’m more than willing to do it. Yes, I realize I’m going to lose some foreclosure trials, perhaps (if the banks’ lawyers wisen up and learn how to try their cases) the majority of them. But the foreclosure system needs lawyers who are willing to try cases, particularly since, if you know what you’re doing, it’s entirely possible for homeowners to win at trial. So if you’re a lawyer who is unwilling/unable to take a case to trial, then feel free to talk to me about acting as co-counsel. Or if you’re a homeowner without an attorney staring at a trial date, don’t give up! I’ll be happy to go to trial on your behalf. And it’s probably less expensive than you think – since the arguments are similar from case to case, I won’t have to re-invent the wheel each time.

    So give me a call – you have nothing to lose, except your foreclosure case.

    (Hat tip to Matt Weidner, who discussed this concept with me recently and correctly noted the need for lawyers such as he and I to try cases.)

    Mark Stopa

    http://www.stayinmyhome.com

  109. South Florida experienced Foreclosure Defense Attorney D. Graham 305-445-9185.
    Free first consultation.

    Dillon Graham Esq. of Graham Legal has won the distinction of being listed in Florida Trend’s Florida Legal Elite 2010, a distinction only 1.8% of active and practicing lawyers in Florida achieve

    http://www.prlog.org/10871686-attorney-dillon-graham-named-as-florida-legal-elite.html

    http://www.foreclosurelawmiami.com/Attorney-Profile.aspx

  110. **** JUST IN ****
    ***** BREAKING NEWS *****

    Florida pulls plug on rocket-docket foreclosure courts

    http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/24/news/economy/florida_foreclosure/?section=money_latest

  111. I am looking for an attorney who works in the area of foreclosure defense. If you know of a good one please send me an email. Thanks! – - – - Mike
    mikegp44@cox.net

  112. Are you looking for an Attorney in Texas that is ready to stand up to the banks and fight for your rights!?!

    William Nolen & Associates, PLLC is a full-service firm fighting for homeowners against the “Pretender Lenders” in North Texas.

    CALL US TODAY AND WE’LL GET YOUR CASE HANDLED IMMEDIATELY!!!!

  113. MA-RI-CT HOMEOWNERS! FIND OUT ABOUT GEORGE BABCOCK RECLAIMING AMERICA ONE YARD AT A TIME. MA.& RI & CT.IF YOUR HOME HAS BEEN FORECLOSED ON CALL US WE WILL MAKE IT RIGHT FOR YOU. WE CAN HELP YOU RIGHT AWAY! NO FAMILY LEFT BEHIND! BUDGET PLANS FOR EVERYONE.WE CAN HELP YOU STAY IN YOUR HOME. THE BANKS MADE A LOT OF MISTAKES IN THE PAPERWORK AND WE OFFER TO FIND THEM.FREE CONSULTATION ON ANY LEGAL MATTER.CALL KIM THOMAS 401-352-5609 or 401-274-1905. WE CAN HELP THE LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE E.BABCOCK ………………………………………………………………………ESQUIRE. CHECK OUT OUR WEBSITE: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.babcocklawoffices.com%2F&h=911e4
    IF YOU HAVE A MERS WHICH STANDS FOR MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SERVICES WHICH WOULD BE IN MOST CASES ON THE 1ST PAGE OF YOUR MORTGAGE PARAGRAPH C. CALL KIM THOMAS OR GEORGE BABCOCK AT 401-724-1904 FOR A FREE CONSULTATION.OVER 500 CASES WITH EVERYONE IN THEIR HOME.

  114. Report of B O A fraud and corruption in So. Calif. Family in So.Ca was recently in modification consideration by BofA who tells them there will be NO foreclosure during this process. They were notified while still in the process last week, their home was sold. If this sounds like your problem, give us a confidential call at 818.453.3585 and ask for Sara or Steve M-F 9-4. We have filed dozens of actions to help those in need and we “get it.” We have lawyers, paralegals and experts to help you. Free consultations upon availability.

  115. Mark Stopa Esq. Florida “Gets It”

    Preparing for Trial In a Foreclosure Case

    Posted on May 11, 2011 by Mark Stopa http://www.stayinmyhome.com
    I have a trial tomorrow in a foreclosure case. It’s in Lee County, of course – the county where the judges prosecute cases by setting trials sua sponte. Right now, I’m earnestly preparing for trial, but I thought I’d take a break to discuss the two issues are paramount in virtually every foreclosure case/trial. Depending on the facts of a particular case, there may be other issues, of course, but these two issues are critical to a Plaintiff’s ability to win at trial and should, in my view, be vigorously defended in virtually every case:

    1. Introducing the Note into evidence.

    2. Proving the homeowner’s default in payments and the amount owed.

    Re. the former, we all know the Plaintiff must introduce the original Note into evidence, failing which a foreclosure judgment cannot lawfully be entered. The fact that a Note is “self-authenticating” makes this seem like a low hurdle – the Plaintiff’s attorney simply needs to hand the original Note to the judge and it will be admitted into evidence. Fortunately for homeowners, it’s not that simple.

    Under Fla. Stat. 673.3081, if a homeowner denies the authenticity of a Note or the signatures thereon in the pleadings, the Plaintiff must authenticate the Note, and its signatures, at trial. There is still a presumption the Note and all signatures are authentic, but by contesting authentication, a homeowner can force the bank to authenticate the Note at trial. This may be harder than you think. For instance, if I challenge the authenticity of a blank indorsement, the Plaintiff must put on testimony from someone who can swear, under oath, that he/she saw the indorsement executed or that he/she recognizes the signature and it is authentic. Similarly, if I challenge the authenticity of the Note, the Plaintiff must present a witness who can testify he/she saw the homeowner sign the Note or who recognizes the homeowner’s signature based on other documents. The way that Notes change hands between banks, neither of these things would be very easy, and I doubt the Plaintiffs’ lawyers will be prepared to deal with these evidentiary issues. In other words, it’s quite possibly that if the homeowner preserves these evidentiary objections at trial, the Plaintiff’s lawyers won’t be prepared for them and won’t even have the requisite witness(es) at trial to testify.

    Re. the second issue, testimony at trial must generally be based on personal knowledge. That means the Plaintiff must testify to events he/she has seen with his/her eyes or heard with his/her ears. This is virtually impossible to do with regard to proving a homeowner did not pay a mortgage payment or proving the amount owed, so the Plaintiff invariably must rely on documents to prove these facts. This is permissible, but only if the Plaintiff can introduce these documents under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.

    Again, this is harder than you think. The Plaintiff must show: (1) the documents are a memorandum, report, record, or data compilation; (2) made at or near the time of the event; (3) by or from information transmitted by a person with knowledge; (4) kept in the course of regularly conducted business activity; and (5) that it was the regular practice of that business to make such a record. All five elements must be satisfied or the documents cannot be used as evidence at trial.

    I’m not trying to teach anyone how to practice law. Rather, my point is that there are virtually always things that can be done to make it difficult for a bank to prevail in a foreclosure case; these are just two examples. So don’t give up – keep fighting foreclosure!

    Mark Stopa

    http://www.stayinmyhome.com

  116. The Law Office of William Nolen & Associates, PLLC is a full-service Law Firm handling Real Estate and Contract Law in North Texas.

    CALL US TODAY AND WE’LL GET YOUR CASE HANDLED IMMEDIATELY!!!!

  117. I’M SORRY, MEANT TO WRITE THAT BOTH COPIES CONTAIN THE SAME SERIAL NUMBERS BUT COMPLETELY DIFFERENT HANDWRITING. THE COPY WHICH APPEARS IN THE U.S. POSTLAL SYSTEMS DATA BASE DOES NOT MATCH THE COPY OF THE RECEIPT PROVIDED TO THE LOUISIANA OFFICE OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS WHICH THE TRUSTEE ATTY OFFERED AS PROOF OF ISSUANCE OF THE 30 DAY NOTICE OF DEFAULT. I MIGHT ADD THAT ALL THE ACCUSED SHARE A VERY CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH A LOCAL U.S. JUDGE WHICH LIVES IN OUR VERY SMALL LITTLE QUAINT SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI TOWN. THEIR ASSOCIATION WITH THIS US JUDGE, WE FEEL, IS WHAT HAS PROTECTED THEM THUS FAR FROM PROSECUTION.

  118. HAVE BEEN READING OVER THE SITE FOR LAWYERS THAT GET IT, BUT I GUESS NOT SURPRISINGLY, THERE ARE NO LAWYERS LISTED THAT GET IT IN MISSISSIPPI. HAVE STILL BEEN SEARCHING FOR AN ATTY IN MISSISSIPI TO REPRESENT ME IN A CRIMINAL FORECLOSURE CASE WHICH INVOLVES A U.S. POSTAL EMPLOYEE. ALL LAWYWERS CONTACTED HAVE TREATED MY PARTICULAR CASE AS NUCLEAR WASTE. NO ONE WANTS TO TACKLE A CASE WHICH INVOLVES CRIMINAL CHARGES FOR AN ATTY; A LOAN OFFICER AND A U.S. POSTAL EMPLOYEE. POSTAL EMPLOYEE SUPPLIED ATTY AND LOAN OFFC WITH A BACKDATED FRAUDULENT CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT WHICH CONTAINED MY FORGED SIGNATURE, FOR THE 30 DAY DEFAULT NOTICE. THIS WAS DONE TO DISGUISE RETALITATORY FORECLOSURE FOR MAKING A LOAN MOD REQUEST. ALL THIS CAN BE PROVEN AS TWO DIFFERENT COPIES OF THE SAME CERTIFIED RECEIPT,-BOTH CONTAINING THE SAME SERIAL NUMBERS BUT COMPLETELY DIFFERENT NUMBERS-. NEED A LAWYER TO REVIEW EVIDENCE AND FILE NECESSARY PAPERS ASAP.

  119. In Florida, it is illegal to charge upfront fee for Loan Modification work.

  120. http://www.mattweidnerlaw.com

    Foreclosure Fighter Gator Bradshaw Honored for Putting Up the Good Fight

    Please click on the link below and see how one of my colleagues has been recognized for his good work…. For all you who live in Central Florida and need excellent representation, please contact my friend and colleague Gator Bradshaw!

    http://www.ocala.com/article/20110430/ARTICLES/110439985

  121. @ Allan Hennessey

    I think it is great that such a company exists that wants to help people like me who are stuck in the middle of this forclosure/mortgage fraud. And I have come across several other companies or individuals who claim to want to help.

    However, after I went to the website you talk about and downloaded the info PDF, I learned that this company is not any better than any of the others out there that claim to want to help the homeowner, but in order to get that help the homeowner must pay a “fee” that ranges between a minimum of $2000.00 or a “fee” of $6000.00 for 100% of all they offer.

    While I believe the one should be paid for any work performed, I find it hard to believe that any of these people or companies ever actually pay out an amount even close to what they have taken from the homeowner. The company you list claims to be a “non profit” organization, but the fees they are charging are the same if not more that other companies who are “helping the homeowners” and readily admit they are a strictly “for profit” company.

    Lets do some math – say 100 homeowners pay any of these people/companies the $5000.00 fee. That means that person/company will be making $500,000.00 on just 100 familes/people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Doesn’t that seem a bit rediculous especially considering that most of these companies/people are not even attorneys and state they are not giving legal advise or any legal help? Really, $500,000.00 from just 100 distressed, scared, homeowners?

    Lets do some more math – since we all know 100′s of 1000′s of people are losing their homes, lets assume that this “not for profit” company is hired by 10,000 homeowners. Let’s see, at $5k a pop that would be $50,000,000.00, yes that is Fifty Million! How in the world can anyone claim that they are doing this for the “homeowners who need help” because they “care”? Are you serious? Seems like someone is just jumping on the “let’s see if we can get rich from these stupid homeowners” bandwagon.

    What a great business idea: Offer to help, while disclosing that any help given is not to be considered legal advise or help, while also disclosing that no guarantee’s on acutal outcome can be made to anyone as each homeowners situation is different, all the while charging $5000.00 or more each time, knowing that if the homeowner loses the home anyway, oh well, too bad for them, the business is perfectly safe and has no obligation to return any of the money since the “no guarantee” disclosure has been made, and honestly, it was a long shot to begin with.

    Can someone please tell me how this is any different that the securitized mortgage fraud that started all of this to begin with? I wouldn’t be surprised if these companies/people offering to help are owned and managed by the same exact brokers that signed us up with these nightmare mortgages to begin with. They really are getting us coming and going!

    SO, TO ALL OF YOU OUT THERE WHO WANT TO “HELP” FOR A LARGE UPFRONT FEE, LET ME INFORM YOU OF SOMETHING:

    HOMEOWNERS IN MY SITUATION DO NOT NEED TO BE GIVEN FALSE HOPE OVER AND OVER REGARDING GETTING HELP FROM PEOPLE WHO “CARE” AND “WANT TO HELP”. MANY OF US HAVE LOST OUR JOBS, ARE CLOSE TO LOSING OUR HOMES, CAN BARELY FEED OUR CHILDREN, LET ALONE PAY WHAT MANY THINK IS AN EXORBERANT AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR SOMETHING THAT MAY NOT BE OF ANY HELP AT ALL IN THE LONG RUN.

    YES, WE DO NEED HELP!! WE NEED REAL HELP FROM SOMEONE WHO IS WILLING TO ACCEPT LONG TERM PAYMENTS ON A FEE THAT IS ACTUALLY REASONABLE. IF WE ARE IN DANGER OF FORECLOSURE, WE ARE OBVIOUSLY HAVING PROBLEM MAKING MONTHLY HOUSE PAYMENTS. SO WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD ANY OF THE COMPANIES OR PEOPLE THINK THAT WE COULD ACTUALLY PAY SUCH HIGH FEES UP FRONT IF AT ALL?

    As far as I am concerned, these companies/people are no better than the people perpetrating this fraud to begin with. The only thing they are interested in is how much money can the make from us. Haven’t we paid enough already? Haven’t we?

    Is there anyone out there that with the knowledge that will help us that is willing to actually give us a viable option of being able to get that help at a price that we can pay? So far, I have contacted several people and/or compaines claiming they can help me, but it always ends the same way. “Our fee will be $5000.00″, at which point the feelings of hopelessness, fear, anger, and depression return. All the while thinking, if I only had access to $5000.00, I could start to sleep again.

    So please, stop giving us false hope and post the fees associated with the help you are offering at the same time you are posting the advertiesment for the business and services. At least that way, we know from the get go if it is something we can even consider looking into.

    I don’t think I can take one more time of “hey, maybe we can get help” only to find out the help is 100%unattainable beause we can’t afford the fee!

    Allan, I do not know if you are affiliated with the company you posted about and do not want to assume so. Please do not take what I have said personally if you are not affiliated with them in any way. If you are, then you may take it however you want, because your species of snake is no better that the one you are offering to help us with

  122. Any lawyer list here in Fontana, Rancho Cucamonga who knows about securization morgage ( residential)
    Fraud ,MERS

  123. Mike Ohio
    I heard Troy Doucet is a very good attorney in Ohio.
    He writes many books about foreclosure defense.
    http://www.troydoucet.com

  124. The Law Office of William Nolen & Associates, PLLC is a full-service Law Firm handling Real Estate and Contract Law in North Texas.

    CALL US TODAY AND WE’LL GET YOUR CASE HANDLED IMMEDIATELY!!!!

    http://www.williamnolenlaw.com

    817-939-8335

  125. I have a friend in St. Francois county in Missouri
    need a Attorney that gets it.

    please email them at

    Tab [aprincess6@hotmail.com]

  126. Group of many need lawyer that gets it in OHIO, Summit county and Stark County Ohio

  127. Does a lawyer out there know if there’s an action in the following scenario:

    Bankruptcy filed Dec 2007, finalized March 2008.
    NEVER late on mortgage payments and all were timely until house sold in July 2008, when we paid off the mortgage. After reviewing this website, I looked into that mortgage note and found it was a MERS loan. Our bankruptcy lawyer never mentioned possible TILA issues nor MERS to us, but now we are wondering if we have a case with our former “pretender lender” as it seems they probably weren’t entitled to receive our mortgage payments nor the big payoff when we finally sold our home.

    Does a lawyer out there have any advice for this situation?

    Can we file a suit and “claw back” some of the money paid to the “pretender lender”?

    We thought our (TD) bank was our lender so we paid them off when we sold the house. Also, we didn’t reaffirm the mortgage after the bankruptcy.

    I contacted the lawyer who represented us in the bankruptcy and he told me the case is closed since bankruptcy was settled in March 2008 or so,( though my wasn’t actually closed until 2009 because I asked for funds to be returned ($10k+) that were paid to creditors (credit cards) a month before ( on faulty advice from our lawyer), and the bankruptcy trustee “ate up” all of that money in his fees so we didn’t see any of the $10k+ that was “clawed back” and it delayed the closing of my case…the bankruptcy lawyer says there’s no way to revisit these issues (TILA, MERS, & Pretender Lender being paid off…is that true?

    The bank that we got the mortgage from reported us as being late in Dec 2007, though we never were late, but they have stated that because we filed bankruptcy they must report us as being late, even though all payments were received on time, which “dings” our credit scores. We are trying to rebuild and our scores our now in the 680 and 640 range but they should be higher as we were not ever late on the mortgage nor credit cards, but we filed on the brink of having to be late after exhausting retirement and other accounts.

    sorry for double post..put in wrong category earlier today…

  128. We get it in California. We have assisted dozens to get TRO on foreclosures and to sue the banks. We have attys and in pro per help at low rates for the consumer. We know all the tricks of the banks. ATTACK STANDING…it’s starting to work in State and Federal Court. Low cost help in pro per….you dont need a lawyer if your foreclosure documents are not proper to get relief. We also have BK assistance available if you need 911 stay order. Call 818.453.3585 ask for Sara or Steve Nelson or leave message. We get it. God Bless Neil and America!!!

  129. The court date for the fiasco that will or will not end
    the ownership of my home in foreclosure, wait they
    took it already. Before the stay was lifted the home
    was given back to Fannie Mae. I am going to be
    thrilled to the gills to see what they have to say it
    court, but wait …….they don’t show up, they call in.
    Does something seem out of whack here or is it
    just me. My new court date is the 23rd of March in
    the downtown Phoenix Court and for some reason
    I have a good feeling. I have two great attorneys,
    you know the kind that works for you and has your
    best interest at heart. This judge seems like she
    is particularly interested in how Indymac aka One
    West is going to describe this, what do you call it…..
    Oh Yeah, THEFT.. Pure and simple theft…. What I
    cannot understand is why Paulson, Dodd, and Frank are not in jail. Seriously. If anyone is following this and I do not end up in jail, because
    I intend to fight, I will write something here.

  130. South Florida Foreclosure Defense attorney who “gets it” : Dillon Graham Esq. 305-445-9185.

  131. We get it. The banks do not.
    DUKE LAW P.C.
    http://www.theforeclosurelawblog.com

  132. An attorney that gets in NY and NJ, Orange and Bergen Counties. Jeanne Tompkins, Esq. Washingtonville, NY 845-497-7265

  133. Are there any attorney’s that get it from Contra Costa County, CA? We live in the Brentwood/Byron area and are looking for an attorney for a possible Quiet
    Title suit.

  134. MA-RI-CT HOMEOWNERS! FIND OUT ABOUT GEORGE BABCOCK RECLAIMING AMERICA ONE YARD AT A TIME. MA.& RI & CT.IF YOUR HOME HAS BEEN FORECLOSED ON CALL US WE WILL MAKE IT RIGHT FOR YOU. WE CAN HELP YOU RIGHT AWAY! NO FAMILY LEFT BEHIND! BUDGET PLANS FOR EVERYONE.WE CAN HELP YOU STAY IN YOUR HOME. THE BANKS MADE A LOT OF MISTAKES IN THE PAPERWORK AND WE OFFER TO FIND THEM.FREE CONSULTATION ON ANY LEGAL MATTER.CALL KIM THOMAS 401-352-5609 or 401-274-1905. WE CAN HELP THE LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE E.BABCOCK ………………………………………………………………………ESQUIRE. CHECK OUT OUR WEBSITE: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.babcocklawoffices.com%2F&h=911e4
    IF YOU HAVE A MERS WHICH STANDS FOR MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SERVICES WHICH WOULD BE IN MOST CASES ON THE 1ST PAGE OF YOUR MORTGAGE PARAGRAPH C. CALL KIM THOMAS OR GEORGE BABCOCK AT 401-724-1904 AND GET RELIEF FROM YOUR PROBLEM!

  135. Need a MA lawyer to do “forensic” on mortgage. We never received Truth in Lending documents.

  136. Jeanette Bendetti, Live is not easy hen you are put in this postion. BUT… Yu need to have all your ducks in line when you get to court. I am not attoney. You need to check the chain of title at the recorders office. Know how does not have the right to to forclose. Meaning did the party that forcloused on on you realy have the note and deed in there posession at the the time the forclosure took place. If you were securized most likely they did not. DId thelender actuall y lender their money and take a risk or didi they only lender credits and talble fund the loan and name a mers type nomomie with no rights of ownership of your loan. There are very many curticail points your lawer should have covered with you and needs to reseach. If he is not going down this path before court tobe prepaered for court. they may not be your best representation. Your battle is ye to be wagded, it is not over, the judges wisdom will come form the fact you present and not from the wisdom of te judge. Educate the judege to the facts and documented proof. (research the docs) and follow the money. prove the unjust enrichment . this come s from your payments and the takeing of home by a parties who have no legal cliam to so. DO not lay down now prove your point. Make sure your Attorney is tracking or move on find one that can help.

  137. Well, my court date has been set……..March 10th @
    1:30 in the downtown Phoenix Court house. I have
    a good lawyer to help me and I am praying for the
    wisdom of the judge to give me the opportunity to
    stay in my home. If anyone wants to come and watch this spectacle I could use the backup emotional help. It might also help others see what
    happens when the stay on your home is lifted
    before your bankruptcy has been completed and
    your home is automatically given back to Fannie
    Mae. They now, on paper own my home, no stay
    lifted, they just took it. I have no home insurance
    and a real estate agent has already been assigned
    my home to sell by Fannie Mae. Good ole FDIC…..
    should stand for FINANCIAL DISTRUCTION INTENTIONAL CORRUPTION.

  138. There are only two attorneys listed for ones who get it in Colorado. Any updates?!! Any attorneys out of state of Colorado licensed to practice in Colorado? Have been looking for help since 2009 and been fighting pro se since then. I am taking my case to US Court now and need help. Thank you, thank you!

  139. Litigation Rx: Compulsory Counterclaims in a Foreclosure

    -MANADATORY JURY TRIAL ON COUNTERCLAIMS BEFORE SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING CAN BE HEARD (do you really think the pretend lender wants this to occur?
    -Takes the verdict out of rogue Judges hands
    -Promotes rocket judges to re-retire gracefully

    See: Dykes v. Trustbank Sav., F.S.B., 567 So.2d 958, 959 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) “Where the compulsory counterclaim entitles the counter-claimant to a jury trial on issues which are sufficiently similar or related to the issues made by the equitable claim that a determination by the first fact finder would necessarily bind the later one, such issues may not be tried nonjury by the court since to do so would deprive the counter-claimant of his constitutional right to trial by jury.”

  140. FIND OUT ABOUT GEORGE BABCOCK RECLAIMING AMERICA ONE YARD AT A TIME. MA.& RI & CT.IF YOUR HOME HAS BEEN FORECLOSED ON CALL US WE WILL MAKE IT RIGHT FOR YOU. WE CAN HELP YOU RIGHT AWAY! NO FAMILY LEFT BEHIND! BUDGET PLANS FOR EVERYONE.WE CAN HELP YOU STAY IN YOUR HOME. THE BANKS MADE A LOT OF MISTAKES IN THE PAPERWORK AND WE OFFER TO FIND THEM.FREE CONSULTATION ON ANY LEGAL MATTER.CALL KIM THOMAS 401-352-5609 or 401-274-1905. WE CAN HELP THE LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE E.BABCOCK ………………………………………………………………………ESQUIRE. CHECK OUT OUR WEBSITE: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.babcocklawoffices.com%2F&h=911e4
    IF YOU HAVE A MERS WHICH STANDS FOR MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SERVICES WHICH WOULD BE IN MOST CASES ON THE 1ST PAGE OF YOUR MORTGAGE PARAGRAPH C. CALL KIM THOMAS OR GEORGE BABCOCK AT 401-274-1905 AND GET RELIEVE FROM YOUR PROBLEM!

  141. Barbara J Gilbert, Esq
    2230 W Chapman #203
    Orange, Ca 92868
    949-854-1838

    28 years practicing law in California
    10 years as a real estate broker
    Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Diego

  142. Breaking News: Banks fail to produce notice of default

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/The-Next-RoboSigning-cnbc-2857229679.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=4&asset=&ccode=

    Note: While the “outside world” is just starting to “get it” this is nothing new for the readers of livinglies. As a matter of fact if your relying on just challenging the note being lost your doing yourself a disservice. Failure of the service to perform “conditions precendent” such as a NOD is grounds for dismissal of the lawsuit. Failure of a service not advising you that a loan was transferred within 30 days is also an equitable defense. Has your servicer sent you a Notice of Default or information that a loan was transferred each and everytime (RESPA 2605(b))?

  143. Our company, HomeLifeSolution, is an affiliate of K2 Law. K2Law is currently suing the six major lenders in all 50 states which include the following:

    Bank Of America / Countrywide
    Wells Fargo / Wachovia
    IndyMac / OneWest Bank
    CitiMortgage / Citibank
    GMAC
    Chase / Washington Mutual

    If your last refinance/purchase was written by one of these lenders(even though it’s serviced by another lender) or you refinanced with a different lender but is being serviced by one of the above mentioned lenders, you may qualify to enter into one of the existing lawsuits.

    If you owe more than your home is worth and your loan(title) was recorded by MERS…you are eligible to enter into the K2 Law Joinder Nationwide Lawsuit. K2 Law is a 5 AV rated law firm that is amongst the highest rated in the country. Currently there are over 1600 plaintiffs in the Ronald vs. Bank of America case and growing daily. The other five lenders have been served as of December 2010.

    Pay close attention to the fifteen minute presentation link below. This audio/video will communicate all of the litigation details and how to start immediate action.
    Click Here: http://www.screencast.com/t/2JvVQS4seY9

    To find out if your home was recorded by MERS, call today for a free consultation. This is every homeowners open window of opportunity to settle their mortgage debt through K2 Law’s Nationwide Lawsuit(s).

    Helping Homeowners By The Thousands,

    Sincerely,

    Artie Goldman
    Sr. Affiliate
    HomeLife Solutions
    678.235.4995 – Direct

  144. i need a lawyer here in wash state asap..tx!!!!
    Scott T
    206-851-9770

  145. desperately need help in MAJOR homestead foreclosure fraud case – florida attorneys representinglender, citimortgage are Shapiro& Fishman being investigated for mortgage fraud & truth inlending violations. Bottom line, I last filed motion to vacate based on fraud &for sanctions for the fraud amongother major issue but judge(retired who has no problem showing his extreme favoritism to firm) ignored everything I filed but gave them everything they asked for – even without notice or hearing in many cases – right now, I am waiting for “reconsideration” by court who is waiting for explanation from Shapiro with no time limit to respond. They held sale date while my husband was on life support from terrible accident & I have learned and advised courrt (what is being re-considered on my fraud motion) that citimortgagewas only the servicer on my loan but Shapiro attached fradulent copyof note to pleadings andi found out days before last hearing that fannie mae actually has ALWAYS been the true owner of my Note(which citi actually agrees and verifiesasdoes fannie mae) so my motion should have been grantedas the original Noteright in the court/clerk file actually DOES contain the endorsement by citi transferring interest to fannie mae unlike fradulent copy n pleadings that does not have such endorsement – also, shapiro attorney “swore” to judge/court knowingly falsly that fannie mae hadno interest and I was just trying to buy time. My husband is severely handicapped with traumatic brain injuries and this has been a nightmare. Also learned recently that Citi was fully compensated by PMI, government programs and investors etc and bought home at auction for $200 then assigned bid to fannie mae and paid them value forit (as though they never owned it) I can’t get anyone to help me and need appeal filed immediately to get this away from current judge who refused to recuse himself – just reviewing other cases not even close to as egregious as mine, many people were successful in recinding mortgage and getting their property back without payment due especially here since all interested parties were compensated already (but never disclosed to court) plus costs/fees/damages/emotional distress and punitive damages. I desperately need help immediately and can’t find a capable, qualified attorney anywherein Florida that understands what my rights are and is willing to immediately/aggressively pursue this matter as outlined above knowing clearly what my rights and entitlements are in this matter and am literally begging for any Florida attorney to please immediately contact me to discuss. I have a ton ov evidence and additional information – PLEASE!!!!!

  146. WE ABSOLUTELY GET IT! Call us for help in Calif at 818.453.3585 or send email.

  147. BOMBSHELL:10,000 GMAC FORECLOSURES DISMISSED IN MARYLAND DUE TO ROBO-SIGNER AFFIDAVITS

    In a major ruling Friday, a coalition of nonprofit defense lawyers and consumer protection advocates in Maryland successfully got over 10,000 foreclosure cases managed by GMAC Mortgage tossed out, because affidavits in the cases were signed by Jeffrey Stephan, the infamous GMAC “robo-signer” who attested to the authenticity of foreclosure documents without any knowledge about them, as well as signing other false statements. This was not the plan of GMAC and other banks caught using robo-signers last year. They hoped to undergo a pause in proceedings, run a quick “double-check” and then issue substitute documents in the same cases. That would have been a much more rapid solution for the banks and would have resulted in many more foreclosures. Now GMAC has to go back and basically file the entire case all over again, meaning they have to give notice of foreclosure to the borrower, engage the borrower in modification options, and basically run through the whole process from the beginning. They cannot use the shortcut solution, thanks to the class action suit filed. GMAC’s dismissal of every foreclosure in Maryland shows their doubts they would have won the class action.

  148. FALLOUT FROM FRIDAY’S 6-0 DECISION – US BANK v. IBANEZ CASE COMMENCES:
    —————————————————————-
    CLASS ACTION v. GMAC/US BANK WILL NOW MOVE FORWARD

    MASS AG PLANS TO STALL OR STOP FORECLOSURES

    MASS SUPREME COURT NOW AGREES TO REVIEW THE NEXT LAND COURT DECISION (JUSTICE KEITH C. LONG)

    MASS SEC OF STATE IS CALLING A SPECIAL TRIBUNAL TO CALM HOMEOWNERS

    INCREASE PRESSURE NOW ON MAJOR US LENDERS TO PROVE THEY OWN MORTGAGE

    A COALITION OF SEVEN MAJOR PUBLIC PENSION SYSTEMS HAS CALLED OUT BANK OF AMERICA, JP MORGAN CHASE AND WELLS FARGO TO IMMEDIATE EXAM FORECLOSURE PROCEDURES. THE COALITION LED BY NY COMPTROLLER JOHN C. LIU HAS STATED
    “THE BANK’S BOARDS CANNOT CONTINUE TO PRETEND THE FORECLOSURE MESS IS THE RESULT OF TECHNICAL GLITCHES AND PAPERWORK ERRORS. THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM IN THEIR PROCEDURES THAT ENDANGERS NOT JUST HOMEOWNERS BUT SHAREHOLDERS & LOCAL ECONOMIES….”

  149. South Florida experienced Foreclosure Defense Attorney D. Graham 305-445-9185.
    Free first consultation.

    http://www.foreclosurelawmiami.com/Attorney-Profile.aspx

  150. Are there any “Produce the Note” lawyers in San Jose, CA? There were not any in the list dated March 2010.

    There were some listed in San Francisco, but none in San Jose. Is there an update to the March list?

  151. If a family makes enough money to pay a mortgage
    on the the value of the home NOW, and still take
    care of the other expenses needed to live, THAT and that alone should be the factor taken into what
    a judge does about a Forclosure on a Family Home
    Family Home, maybe that is what is needed……..we
    need to call it what it is, a Family Home. Somehow
    it seems different doesn’ t it . Family Home…..Forclosed property. Say it, and use it in court. I don’t think the word family is used enough.
    A place to have your children do their homework,
    a place for families to have dinner together. A place
    to read to your child before bedtime. A place to be
    safe and sleep soundly at night. So many basics
    are gone with the sweep of the hand. I am going to
    court in January and I pray that I have a judge with
    Wisdom. You cannot pull a country or a state together with people petrified of what is going to happen next. Petrified is the word, you wake up and
    all you think of is how the hell to get through the day
    in one piece and wake up in your bed tomorrow. I
    don’t think that is what we are supposed to live like
    When you do not have control of the most basic thing, a roof over your head…………..well

  152. MA.& RI & CT.IF YOUR HOME HAS BEEN FORECLOSED ON CALL US WE WILL MAKE IT RIGHT FOR YOU. WE CAN HELP YOU RIGHT AWAY! NO FAMILY LEFT BEHIND! BUDGET PLANS FOR EVERYONE.WE CAN HELP YOU STAY IN YOUR HOME. THE BANKS MADE A LOT OF MISTAKES IN THE PAPERWORK AND WE OFFER TO FIND THEM.FREE CONSULTATION ON ANY LEGAL MATTER.CALL KIM THOMAS 401-352-5609 or 401-274-1905. WE CAN HELP THE LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE E.BABCOCK ………………………………………………………………………ESQUIRE. CHECK OUT OUR WEBSITE: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.babcocklawoffices.com%2F&h=911e4
    IF YOU HAVE A MERS WHICH STANDS FOR MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SERVICES WHICH WOULD BE IN MOST CASES ON THE 1ST PAGE OF YOUR MORTGAGE PARAGRAPH C. CALL KIM THOMAS OR GEORGE BABCOCK AT 401-274-1905 AND GET RELIEVE FROM YOUR PROBLEM!

  153. Florida Defense Team “Gets it” – Helping Homeowners Help themselves (772) 403-3897.
    State Courts. Bankruptcy Courts. Appellate Courts.
    Free initial consultation. No Retainer – Reasonable fees.

  154. We need a party called ” The Common Sense Party”
    something that represents the realty of what is going on in the day to day life of the people of this
    country. First, I am tired of saying Happy Holidays,
    MERRY CHRISTMAS to one and all, and if you are
    not Christian…..then simply send a wish to someone of your religion to make up for it. They can
    talk about taxes till they are blue in the face, but no
    one has any money and no one can afford to have
    more money taken out of their checks if they are lucky enough to have a job…….why is that so hard to
    understand. We need to get a hold of this southern
    border with Mexico problem. If you have the same
    bank being robbed everyday, you put someone in
    there with the ability and needed equipment to stop
    it. Seems simple to me, you don’t let it sit there and
    be emptied of all the cash and then say “What happened” What the states vote for and the people
    say they want should be respected. This is a very
    hot topic, but marijuara to cancer patients is like a
    prayer answered as far as pain is concerned. But,
    people take advantage and others suffer, this is
    sad. It makes you wonder where the kindness and
    caring for one another has gone. Maybe it left town
    with the integrity of the politicians. I am going to court sometime in January 2011 to try and save my
    home. I am praying the judge will give me the ability
    to deal with, on an equal and fair basis the new
    theives in charge of Indymac . Give me an opportunity to pay the same thing they would sell my home for, and not collect 80% on the original
    sale price and the deal it has concocted with the
    FDIC. Why is this so hard to understand. You are
    trying to get the country on its feet, but you cannot do
    it with a baseball bat to the knees.

  155. I appreciate the kindness for allowing my to post these e-mails, I am trying to recuperate from this brain surgery and my interest in the news and media has gone from big to enormous. It seems that in the middle of the night the days events have formed into total frustration and I have to get if out {so to speak} Thank you for a place to mentally recuperate every night.

  156. Neil, first I would like to thank you for posting one of
    my e-mails, I am trying to recuperate from this brain
    surgery and my interest in the news and media has
    gone from big to enormous. It seems that in the middle of the night the days events have formed into
    total frustration and I have to get if out {so to speak}
    Thank you for a place to mentally recuperate every
    night.

  157. Invincibility lies in the defence; the possibility of victory in the attack.
    - Sun Tzu

    A serious penalty for perjury: Florida Bar Journal – appeared in 1999 – but highly pertinent roadmap on how the Florida Courts rule on falsified affidavits.

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6367/is_2_73/ai_n28736484/?tag=content;col1

  158. House Republicans overhaul work week..Hmmmm, what I would like to do is put a
    camera on the top of the head of each member,
    both parties and watch what they hell they do every
    day. Four day work weeks have now become three
    day work weeks so they can spend more time at
    home with their constitutents. When is the last time
    you had lunch with your Senator. Just asking, but
    I would prefer they work 6 days a week, 10 hours a
    day with one hour off for lunch,,,,,,that they pay for.
    They can have a two week stint every six weeks back at home to take care of family and problems
    and this is more than the everyday American gets,
    if he can get a job. I would also like to take a look
    at these recess times. The don’t ask, don’t tell
    problem that now has everyone in Washington
    looking like they are working…….There are Senators
    that are gay, does this apply to them. Any soldier
    on the field has stood shoulder to shoulder with
    a gay soldier. Common Sense, move on…….JOBS,
    JOBS, JOBS, STOP FORECLOSURES. STOP
    FORECLOSURES, GET TO WORK, GET TO WORK.
    And these earmarks, I would love someone to come up with the figure that they cost us last year
    alone. This is like going to buy a car and they throw
    in a yacht.

  159. Washington, that’s what we call it…but, I think once
    you are there walking around with a feeling of power
    or the magnificence of the atmosphere, and the
    feeling you may actually be on television, someone
    may stop and ask your opinion……..but, there has to
    be a bridge they cross to get into Washington and
    in the middle of the bridge the sign says “Leave your common sense here, do not take with you into
    the Planet Washington. Be aware of your need to
    put together words that do not connect or make any
    sense. and put many of these words together so
    no one will understand you, but feel that it must be
    because they are not as smart as you are. That has
    got to be it. There is no common sense running
    around Planet Washington anywhere. We have a
    war on our border with Mexico, so we give them
    money to fight the Cartels. Does anyone think that
    any of that money goes to that fight or do you think,
    as I do, it goes to the Cartels. We are going to need
    the Military and I mean with all we have, in the next
    3 to 6 months because the Cartels are coming in
    to this country with drugs, damaging our children
    (14 year old who cuts off heads for the cartel] smuggling of people, all out gun fights in the streets and Planet Washington is fighting over tax
    cuts. TAX CUTS, of course leave them in place you
    idiots, no one outside of Planet Washington has
    any money. Look to the south and take care of this
    problem while we have a chance. This is not a
    small marijuana dealer, where is the common sense. When are we going to start investigations
    on this housing mess. People started this, put this
    in place, HELLO FRANK AND DODD. Any idiot with
    common sense would have seen the possible
    implications of giving a mortgage to someone with
    no job and bad credit. Oh, I forgot…….that bridge they left their common sense on. You see in Planet
    Washington, money is not considered the way you
    and I consider it…..there, it is just something you
    spend……..with maybe one sentence or a little fight
    and you win, or a middle of the night back room
    deal where everyone walks away a little richer, except you and I. Planet Washington, what do they
    send out here when they are done with them in there…….its like going into prison, they just get a
    little smarter. Wall Street, if anyone thinks the
    American Public is part of this horse race they are
    nuts, Initial offerings, penny stocks, day trading.
    I have an idea, go out tomorrow and try, just try to
    find something made in America……Maybe one week of not buying unless it is made in America
    would be the rude awakining we need……I call
    Macys to pay a bill and a rude woman in, you know
    I cannot even remember the country. because none
    of them are here, Common Sense, Build it here,
    make it here, sell it here, don’t buy it unless it is made here. Employ the people who work in the
    companies here……but I think we have to get that
    sign off the bridge on the way to Planet Washington
    first.

  160. Northern California_San Francisco Bay Area

    Chris Gardas
    Attorney At Law
    530 43rd Street
    Richmond, CA 94805
    Phone: (415) 407-4918 fax: (510) 778-1273
    chrisgardas@comcast.net

  161. GEORGIA RESIDENTS:
    I have an attorney in Georgia that is wanting to file a CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT against Bank of America & BAC. If you want more info e-mail me at sonya36767@yahoo.com

  162. Texas Lawyers,

    Still looking for an experienced attorney that “Gets It”, in the Texas area. Austin to San Antonio.

    Contact
    kds201011 at yah oo dot com

  163. ANYONE WHO HAS A MORTGAGE OWNED OR BOUGHT BY JP MORGAN CHASE:

    If you can not get a person on the phone at the bank or feel that you are getting the run around from every person you speak to at chase I have good news:

    CONTACT JP MORGAN CHASE CEO JAMIE DIMON DIRECTLY. HE TOLD CONGRESSMAN BARNY FRANK THAT IF PEOPLE ARE GETTING THE RUNAROUND TO “COME TO ME”

    HIS OFFICE’S DIRECT # IS (212) 270-1111

    Enjoy!

    Keep fighting the good fight Neil!

  164. ATTORNEY GENERAL TOM MILLER GETS IT!

    The problems aren’t just technical, and they aren’t just with robo-signing. For the banks to characterize the situation in such simplified terms “shows a certain type of arrogance [2],” said Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, the point man for a 50-state investigation into flawed foreclosure practices.

    http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/at-hearing-lawmakers-ask-experts-for-foreclosure-crisis-solutions

    For the banks to characterize the situation in such simplified terms “shows a certain type of arrogance [2],” said Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, the point man for a 50-state investigation into flawed foreclosure practices.

  165. Barbara J Gilbert, Esq.
    California licensed attorney 28 years
    California licensed real estate broker 10 years
    Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside Counties

    949-854-1838
    legallink1@gmail.com

  166. MA.& RI & CT.IF YOUR HOME HAS BEEN FORECLOSED ON CALL US WE WILL MAKE IT RIGHT FOR YOU. WE CAN HELP YOU RIGHT AWAY! NO FAMILY LEFT BEHIND! BUDGET PLANS FOR EVERYONE.WE CAN HELP YOU STAY IN YOUR HOME. THE BANKS MADE A LOT OF MISTAKES IN THE PAPERWORK AND WE OFFER TO FIND THEM.FREE CONSULTATION ON ANY LEGAL MATTER.CALL KIM THOMAS 401-352-5609 or 401-274-1905. WE CAN HELP THE LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE E.BABCOCK ………………………………………………………………………ESQUIRE. CHECK OUT OUR WEBSITE: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.babcocklawoffices.com%2F&h=911e4
    IF YOU HAVE A MERS WHICH STANDS FOR MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SERVICES WHICH WOULD BE IN MOST CASES ON THE 1ST PAGE OF YOUR MORTGAGE PARAGRAPH C. CALL KIM THOMAS OR GEORGE BABCOCK AT 401-274-1905 AND GET RELIEVE FROM YOUR PROBLEM!

  167. South Florida Foreclosure Defense Attorney who ‘Gets it”: Dillon Graham Esq. 305-445-9185
    Free initial consultation. Reasonable fees, payment plans available.

  168. MA.& RI & CT.IF YOUR HOME HAS BEEN FORECLOSED ON CALL US WE WILL MAKE IT RIGHT FOR YOU. WE CAN HELP YOU RIGHT AWAY! NO FAMILY LEFT BEHIND! BUDGET PLANS FOR EVERYONE.WE CAN HELP YOU STAY IN YOUR HOME. THE BANKS MADE A LOT OF MISTAKES IN THE PAPERWORK AND WE OFFER TO FIND THEM.FREE CONSULTATION ON ANY LEGAL MATTER.CALL KIM THOMAS 401-352-5609 or 401-274-1905. WE CAN HELP THE LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE E.BABCOCK ………………………………………………………………………ESQUIRE. CHECK OUT OUR WEBSITE: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.babcocklawoffices.com%2F&h=911e4
    IF YOU HAVE A MERS WHICH STANDS FOR MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SERVICES WHICH WOULD BE IN MOST CASES ON THE 1ST PAGE OF YOUR MORTGAGE PARAGRAPH C. CALL KIM THOMAS OR GEORGE BABCOCK AT 401-274-1905 AND GET RELIEVE FROM YOUR PROBLEM!

  169. I need an Attorney in Georgia. I want one who is knowledgeable about MERS.
    sonya36767@yahoo.com

  170. MA.& RI & CT.BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO GOOD PEOPLE! WE CAN HELP YOU RIGHT AWAY! NO FAMILY LEFT BEHIND! BUDGET PLANS FOR EVERYONE.WE CAN HELP YOU STAY IN YOUR HOME. POSSIBLY GET PRINCIPAL REDUCTION AND IN SOME CASES INTEREST RATE DEDUCTIONS. THE BANKS MADE A LOT OF MISTAKES IN THE PAPERWORK AND WE OFFER TO FIND THEM.FREE CONSULTATION ON ANY LEGAL MATTER.CALL KIM THOMAS 401-352-5609 or 401-274-1905. WE CAN HELP THE LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE E.BABCOCK ………………………………………………………………………ESQUIRE. CHECK OUT OUR WEBSITE: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.babcocklawoffices.com%2F&h=911e4
    IF YOU HAVE A MERS WHICH STANDS FOR MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SERVICES WHICH WOULD BE IN MOST CASES ON THE 1ST PAGE OF YOUR MORTGAGE PARAGRAPH C OR YOU HAVE A MORTGAGE WITH INDYMAC OR ONE WEST BANK CALL KIM THOMAS OR GEORGE BABCOCK AT 401-274-1905 AND GET RELIEVE FROM YOUR PROBLEM!

  171. I am looking for a lawyer in the East Bay area, the San Francisco Bay area, that gets it. Thanks so much.

  172. Grayson calls on Florida Chief Justice to halt “foreclosure mill” cases

    September 21, 2010

    http://floridaindependent.com/8411/grayson-calls-on-florida-chief-justice-to-halt-foreclosure-mill-cases

    Citing the reporting of Mother Jones and the New York Times, Congressman Alan Grayson has sent a letter calling on the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court to “abate” foreclosure cases involving three law firms currently under scrutiny from the Office of Attorney General Bill McCollum until the investigation is complete.

    “If the reports I am hearing are true, the illegal foreclosures taking place represent the largest seizure of private property ever attempted by banks and government entities,” Grayson wrote. “This is lawlessness.”

    The Attorney General’s investigation specifically names the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, Shapiro & Fishman, and the Law Offices of David J. Stern. Together, Grayson wrote, they account for nearly 80 percent of all foreclosure cases in Florida.

    In its press release announcing the investigation, McCollum’s office said that some firms representing banks would churn out foreclosure documents, which were often false or conflicting, and may in some cases have been produced by “affiliated companies outside the United States” – to move foreclosure cases through the courts en masse.

  173. List of Lawyers who gets it nationwide including CA

    http://livinglies.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/lawyers-that-get-it-0310.pdf

  174. I would like to ask for a lawyer referral to help me on my property at Burbank, California. Please recommend a good lawyer in Los Angeles California. Thank you.

  175. MA.& RI.BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO GOOD PEOPLE! WE CAN HELP YOU RIGHT AWAY! NO FAMILY LEFT BEHIND! BUDGET PLANS FOR EVERYONE.WE CAN HELP YOU STAY IN YOUR HOME. POSSIBLY GET PRINCIPAL REDUCTION AND IN SOME CASES INTEREST RATE DEDUCTIONS. THE BANKS MADE A LOT OF MISTAKES IN THE PAPERWORK AND WE OFFER TO FIND THEM.FREE CONSULTATION ON ANY LEGAL MATTER.CALL KIM THOMAS 401-352-5609 or 401-274-1905. WE CAN HELP THE LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE E.BABCOCK ………………………………………………………………………ESQUIRE. CHECK OUT OUR WEBSITE: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.babcocklawoffices.com%2F&h=911e4
    IF YOU HAVE A MERS WHICH STANDS FOR MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SERVICES WHICH WOULD BE IN MOST CASES ON THE 1ST PAGE OF YOUR MORTGAGE PARAGRAPH C OR YOU HAVE A MORTGAGE WITH INDYMAC OR ONE WEST BANK CALL KIM THOMAS OR GEORGE BABCOCK AT 401-274-1905 AND GET RELIEVE FROM YOUR PROBLEM!

  176. I think we should have a good old fashioned “no way”
    day. That’s it, we are not moving and you can take your foreclosures and put them someplace. Do they
    have enough people to put everyone out of their home
    if everyone says NO> I’m thinking judges, officers of the court, police, summons servers and every other
    living human in this country are just handing their homes over to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Is there a way to find out what their inventory is and inventory by each state. When will it end, it does not serve any
    logical purpose. Families and the middle class
    prosper when they have a place to lay their heads and
    come home to at night. How does any of this do any
    thing except make the rich richer. A HALT is needed
    on all foreclosures in America. The same way a fence
    is needed between the U.S. and Mexico. There is a
    better way to do this, a more humane and careful and
    legal way. Is this what America is now, a bunch of
    poor people who have no jobs and sit in the streets,
    while the foreclosure table is piled with money and
    everyone walks by and takes a scoop, except the
    family who is affected by this illegal and horrible
    adgenda. I am so tired of this fight, I just got home from a brain tumor operation and now have a blood
    clot in my head, have gone deaf and may go blind
    in one eye. And here comes the wonderful people
    at One West, by the way lady, get out of your home.
    I am tired of depending on integrity, Washington has
    finished that off. I am tired of trying to find a lawyer
    who is as sick of this as I am. When do we stand up
    and say NO MORE. We built this country, with hard
    work and blood shed on the battle field, Now, you
    can call Pakistan for your Discovery Bill. Am I the only
    one sitting here going, What the Hell is going on.

  177. I’d like to talk about Indymac and the rotten to the core,
    policy and sweet heart deal the FDIC made with a few
    of the richest men in the county. I will make this real
    simple…….Indymac goes under, the assets are sold
    to a new company called One West . One West is
    owned by men who could afford to and have the connections to start and make the deal with the FDIC.
    Why there is no congressional (what a joke) investigation………anyway. So, the FDIC says to One
    West, we are selling you the assets of Indymac and
    we want you to take these homes (which are the assets) and make a nice, new deal with the people of
    America who are out there and can afford to re-finance
    their homes at a logical price. You know, the price the
    home is worth. But, we will pay you 80% of the value
    on the homes you take back, and that 80% is based
    on (quess what) the original mortgage figure when
    times were good. One West is to absorb the first 20%
    of the loss. Now, giving a gun and a mask to a theif is
    one thing, but handing over an arsenal is quite another. So One West starts and pretty soon they have it down pat and become quite good and FAST
    at taking homes back. Not making or trying to make
    deals with homeowners, which was the purpose of
    the FDIC, You can’t write this crap, it can only be done
    by the FDIC, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who
    then take the homes back at another rapid pace and
    sit on them to distribute to real estate agents who apply for and are granted the RIGHT to sell the homes.
    Forget about bankruptcy, this company will sell your
    home before the stay has been lifted. A real estate
    agent will then start taping his card and large letter
    on your garage and tell you it is his job to sell your home. If you do not let them in to inventory your home,
    they send people out at night to take pictures of what
    is inside your home, while you are there in your bed.
    These characters sneak around your yard and click,
    click, you better not take that ceiling fan with you.
    They are taking back so many homes they don’t even
    bother to show up at a bankruptcy proceeding, they
    phone in. If you are not prepared, your home is gone.
    Now, my thought is this is illegal, Period….. If this is
    not Ricco I don’t know what is. Giving smart, rich
    men the right, the right , the right to take your home
    without trying to help you so they can collect 80%
    of the original value of the home. Who would try?
    The first year they made 1.56 Billion after taxes. Think
    about what that 1.56 Billion stands for…..how many
    families broken up, how many children without a home, how many family catastrophies, like suicide…..
    And to top it off, quess where some of these men
    worked before…YOU GOT IT, the FDIC. This should
    be pissed off moment for some people, I am still
    working on my pissed off year.

  178. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
    PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
    HSBC BANK, USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, CASE NO. 09-005190-CI-19 NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, BUT SOLEY AS TRUSTEE ON BEHALF OF GSAA HOME EQUITY TRUST 2005-12
    PLAINTIFF,
    v.
    KIMBERL Y BOLIN

    DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE/OBJECTION TO
    PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/
    MOTION TO ABATE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS

    COMES NOW, the Defendant KIMBERLY BOLIN, by and through undersigned counsel MATTHEW D. WEIDNER, and respectfully files this REQUEST FOR TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE, OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, and MOTION TO ABATE PROCEEDINGS, in the above-titled civil action, and as grounds therefore states:
    1. During the Summary Judgment hearing held on August 17, 2010 in this matter your undersigned counsel asserted that disputed questions of material fact existed in this case which precluded the entry of Summary Judgment. Your undersigned further asserted that this court should be aware of investigations into the practices of the law firms that are responsible for pursuing the majority of foreclosure cases on this court’s docket by the Florida Attorney General and that this court should be aware of allegations made against one of those firms in two separate lawsuits that are pending in Federal Court for the Southern District of Florida. Your undersigned respectfully asserts that the existence of these investigations and lawsuits creates serious issues of material fact that should preclude this court from proceeding in any case where the firms
    Matthew D. Weidner, PA
    1229 Central Avenue· St. Petersburg Fl, 33705
    727/894-3159
    identified herein have appeared. Moreover, your undersigned feels he has a specific duty, as a member of the Bar, to make sure this court is aware of these issues generally because they potentially impact a significant number of cases pending on this court’s docket and specifically with regard to this case because the nature of the alleged violations calls into question the veracity of the affidavits upon which Plaintiff relies in support of summary judgment in this case. The question presented by this motion is whether the existence of formal investigations by this state’s chief law enforcement officer regarding the authenticity and veracity of documents submitted in this case and others should cause this court to have second thoughts about proceeding with this case and all ofthe other thousands of cases that are currently pending before this court.
    2.
    As this court is aware, judgments entered by any court which are the product of fraud are either void or voidable and the judgment may be attacked pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 1.540(b) for allegations of fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party for up to one year after entry of that judgment.
    3.
    Moreover, judgments entered by this court when service ofprocess is improper may be challenged as void at any point in time and there is no limitations period to challenge such judgments. Shurman v. All. Mortgage & Inv. Corp., 795 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 2001); Shepheard v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams., 922 So.2d 340 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); see also Redfield Inv.
    A.V.V. v. Vill. Of Pinecret, 990 So.2d 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) Batchin v. Barnett Bank of Sw. Fla., 647 So.2d 211 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1994LM,L. Builders, IncLY. Reserve Developers, LLP, 769 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (citing Ramagli Realty Co. v. Craver, 121 So.2d 648 (Fla. 1960). Given the profound implications of judgments that are void based on improper service
    Matthew D. Weidner. PA
    1229 Central Avenue· St. Petersburg Fl, 33705
    727/894-3159

  179. WHAT DO I DO IF I AM SUED FOR FORECLOSURE IN FLORIDA ?
    ————————————————————————
    Found this on the Internet. For info only.

    1. Respond to the Complaint
    You have twenty days after service to respond to the Complaint. You can file a Motion for Time Extension to ask for another 20 days to file a response The response can be an Answer or a Motion to Dismiss. If justified, the initial response should be a motion to dismiss. The Motion to Dismiss delays the time for an Answer until the motion is denied. You will waive many issues if you omit them from the motion, so you should hire a lawyer to represent you if at all possible.

    2.Draft the Motion to Dismiss
    Consider: 1. Was service on you proper? (In your hand, or if at home in the hand of you or another adult resident) 2. Is a copy of the promissory note attached to the Complaint? 3. Does the plaintiff adequately show the plaintiff owns and holds the note? 4. If there is a count to re-establish a lost note, does the count say it was lost while in the possession of the plaintiff? Are the allegations generic or specific? 5. Does the Complaint show that the taxes on the note were paid? 6. Does the Complaint show that you signed the note or have an interest in the property (2d mortgage holder, tenant, etc) — being a spouse of the debtor is no reason to sue you. Serve the motion to dismiss. Send the original to the clerk of the court. (If possible, bring a copy of the original to the clerk of the court with the original motion and have the clerk time-stamp your copy to show it was on time).

    3. Wait until the judge rules on the motion
    Some circuits require that you send a copy of the motion to the judge with a blank order and envelopes. If there is such a requirement, do it. You do not have to do anything else until the motion is denied. Under the above procedure, this might happen without a hearing, or the judge might request a hearing. In the circuits that do not require notifying the judge about a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff will have to contact you, discuss the merits of the motion, and if you do not agree, either set it for hearing or Amend the Complaint. (If the Complaint is amended, go back to step 1, above). If the matter is set for hearing, attend the hearing and tell the judge why the Complaint is defective (not why you do or do not owe the money). If the Plaintiff has no Standing to foreclose(i.e does not own the notes or Plaintiff is not a Party of Interest etc ), the Judge still denies your Motion to Dismiss, you can consider go to Appeal. Remember to go to the hearing with a Court Reporter as you need certified transcript to go to Appeal Court.

    4. Answer the Complaint
    You should have a lawyer do this in order not to miss important issues. But consider: 1. Denying all the material facts alleged. 2. Adding Affirmative Defenses; consider these: A. The same issues detailed in the Motion to Dismiss considerations B. Predatory lending C. Illegal interest rates D. Waiver E. Violation of the Truth in Lending Act F. The Complaint fails to state a cause of action. G. The Complaint fails to state a cause of action because it does not show endorsement of the promissory note to the plaintiff. H. Plaintiff has failed to present the promissory note for payment as required by Fla. Stat. §§673.011, et. seq. I. Plaintiff is in violation of Florida Statute §57.011 because it is a non-resident of the State of Florida that has not posted a non-resident cost bond after a demand that it do so. J. Plaintiff is not the real party in interest

    5. The matter will be set for mandatory mediation
    The Florida Supreme Court has recently adopted rules requiring mandatory managed mediation in all residential foreclosure cases. You will be contacted by the organization responsible for the mediation. TAKE THE CALL. COMPLY WITH THE REQUEST TO CONTACT THE CREDIT COUNSELOR. PROVIDE THE REQUESTED INFORMATION. Attend the mediation when it is set.

    6. Attend mediation
    Consider these possibilities: If you want to leave the home, consider: 1. Giving a deed in lieu of foreclosure (be sure you get a guarantee of debt forgiveness) 2. Asking for move-out money (“Cash for Keys”) 3. A short sale (be sure you get a guarantee of debt forgiveness) 4. Setting a move-out date long into the future. If you want to stay in the home, consider: 1. Ask for a reduction in principal to the value of the home (A recent federal program may help facilitate this in part) 2. Asking about the HAMP program (if you qualify, the interest rate is reduced and the term extended so that the payments are reduced) 3. Asking about conventional refinancing to current rates Remember, you do not have to agree on anything. You can let the foreclosure take its course. Remember, the promissory note is negotiable paper, it may be able to be sold and then enforced against you if you do not get the original note back.

    7. If mediation is unsuccesful, send discovery to the plaintiff
    You need a lawyer to do this well. The discovery should be aimed at showing that you do not owe this plaintiff anything. Consider: 1. Interrogatories 2. Request to Produce 3. Request to Admit Be aggressive if you do not timely receive responses. File motions to compel and set them for hearing. The plaintiff’s lawyers are probably working on a flat fee and may leave you alone if you are difficult to deal with. Be sure to properly respond to the plaintiff’s discovery. (Request to Admit are deemed admitted if you do not timely respond).

    8. When the Motion for Summary Judgment is filed; Respond with an Affidavit
    A trial will be needed if any material allegations are at issue. These might include who owns the note, are you in default, as well as the legal defenses set forth above. But, the judge will only defenses presented in a timely, properly drafted and filed affidavit, Get a lawyer to help you do this. Avoid a Summary Judgment.

    8.If there is a trial, defend aggressively. Make sure you hire a court reporter for trial
    Raise all the issues stated above. Bring witnesses and documentary evidence. Concede nothing.

    10. If you lose
    Consider an appeal, but this is costly and does not delay the foreclosure without posting a bond. You can still redeem the property by paying the judgment until the clerk of the court issues the certificate of title. Consider refinancing. You can also file Bankruptcy to delay the sale and have your debts including the mortgage wipe out.

    Loading…

  180. PLEASE HELP ME. A server servered my 16 year old daughter foreclosure papers last night. These papers list my x husband as the borrower and primary defendent. The house was awarded to me in our divorce, however Wachovia never took his name off of the papers. They were notified, however told me that it would cost me 250.00 for them to change paperwork. Do I have a case in that the documents are incorrect.

  181. Could someone please send me an attorney in the MD/DC area who gets it! Need this information urgently.
    Thanks!

  182. FORECLOSURE DEFENSE 101 – RYAN CURTIS ESQ.
    ————————————————————————
    Download it at

    http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/foreclosuredefense.pdf

    This is 84 pages of material that can form the basis for powerful defense in your foreclosure case. Good thing it’s posted on the weekend so everyone can spend the weekend reading and absorbing the material.

    The package was prepared by my friend and Fellow Foreclosure Fighter Ryan Curtis. For those of you fighting to keep your homes and defend this country in the Middle and Northern parts of Florida, I encourage you to contact my friend Ryan using the contact information below.

    That really is one of the things that makes this fight so rewarding is the level of professionalism and selfless sharing that occurs among the many dedicated attorneys that are fighting to protect homeowners and defend our courts all across the state. Unlike so many other areas of the law where attorneys jealously protect their work so that other attorneys cannot benefit from the very real investment of time that is spent in researching and preparing the work, the attorneys that draft these motions and share the research that is posted on here share it generously so that the larger community benefits.

    We’re all in this together and if we somehow manage to make it through this mess we will have many good people (attorneys and layperson included) to thank for contributing to the fight!

  183. Hi,

    I’m in the state of California, a couple of months ago I was handed an Unlawful Detainer and I filed my answer within the 5 days.

    I had been in a loan modification for four months and making my payments when said loan company told me I did not qualify for the loan modification. That same day they stated the foreclosure process. Within a month my house was sold (Notice of Default was filed back in Nov of last year). The house ended up up as an REO going back to the loan company.

    Before I was handed the Unlawful Detainer I had gathered all the documents I had showing I was in a loan modification (letters from loan company letting me know that my workout plan payment was due soon, receipts of payments etc…) and took them all to my Congressman’s office for review. They have since forwarded my package onto the Security Exchange Office for further review. One thing I had never received was a package from the loan company stating the terms of the loan modification. I’m still waiting to hear back from the SEO.

    When I filed my answer to the Unlawful Detainer, I had included most of the same information I had gave my Congressman (and noted that I had given him all the information for an investigation for fraud) and had also noted that the Trustee’s Dead Upon Sale, was neither signed, notarized or if filed electronically it had no mark stating the document to be true.

    Since I filed my answer more then two months ago and within the 5 day window, I have not received anything from the courts. Nor have I heard from their attorney or the loan company. I have searched all over the web and can’t find this happening to anyone else.

    I have spoken to a couple of attorneys, they all have told me there’s really nothing they can do and that I will be given a court date.

    Thanks for any input.

    ER

  184. LOOKING FOR ATTNY TO WIN THIS MERS FORECLOSURE for me, AM IN KERN CO, CALIF.
    I have a mtg that I have just forced into foreclosure…. Is an 03 Refi, orig lender Greenpoint Mtg and MERS as Beni. NO transfer of titles from Grnpt to Countrywide to BofA have been recorded. Was a 7 yr balloon due Aug 1 2010. Orig agreed to extention per rider, then cancelled that within 72 yrs & put ‘stop pay’ on interest payment & doc prep fees as new DOT would list BofA as lender and did not want to lose my ‘advantage’.
    I can and am willing to file chptr 7, as BK courts seem to have slammed the door faster on MERS.
    DO I HAVE ANY TAKERS ?????
    Linda

  185. BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO GOOD PEOPLE! WE CAN HELP YOU RIGHT AWAY! NO FAMILY LEFT BEHIND! BUDGET PLANS FOR EVERYONE.WE CAN HELP YOU STAY IN YOUR HOME. POSSIBLY GET PRINCIPAL REDUCTION AND IN SOME CASES INTEREST RATE DEDUCTIONS. THE BANKS MADE A LOT OF MISTAKES IN THE PAPERWORK AND WE OFFER TO FIND THEM.FREE CONSULTATION ON ANY LEGAL MATTER.CALL KIM THOMAS 401-352-5609 or 401-274-1905. WE CAN HELP THE LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE E.BABCOCK ………………………………………………………………………ESQUIRE. CHECK OUT OUR WEBSITE: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.babcocklawoffices.com%2F&h=911e4
    IF YOU HAVE A MERS WHICH STANDS FOR MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SERVICES WHICH WOULD BE IN MOST CASES ON THE 1ST PAGE OF YOUR MORTGAGE PARAGRAPH C OR YOU HAVE A MORTGAGE WITH INDYMAC OR ONE WEST BANK CALL KIM THOMAS OR GEORGE BABCOCK AT 401-274-1905 AND GET RELIEVE FROM YOUR PROBLEM!

  186. NEWS RELEASE

    For Immediate Release

    August 10, 2010

    Contact: Sandi Copes

    Phone: 850.245.0150

    Sandi.Copes@myfloridalegal.com

    FLORIDA LAW FIRMS SUBPOENAED OVER FORECLOSURE FILING PRACTICES
    ——————————————————————

    TALLAHASSEE, FL – Attorney General Bill McCollum today announced his office has launched three new investigations into allegations of unfair and deceptive actions by Florida law firms handling foreclosure cases.

    The Attorney General’s Economic Crimes Division is investigating whether improper documentation may have been created and filed with Florida courts to speed up foreclosure processes, potentially without the knowledge or consent of the homeowners involved.

    The new investigations name The Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A.; Shapiro & Fishman, LLP; and the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A. The law firms were hired by loan servicers to begin foreclosure proceedings when consumers were in arrears on their mortgages.

    Because many mortgages have been bought and sold by different institutions multiple times, key paperwork involved in the process to obtain foreclosure judgments is often missing. On numerous occasions, allegedly fabricated documents have been presented to the courts in foreclosure actions to obtain final judgments against homeowners.

    Thousands of final judgments of foreclosure against Florida homeowners may have been the result of the allegedly improper actions of the law firms under investigation.

    The Attorney General’s Office is also investigating whether the law firms have created affiliated companies outside the United States where the allegedly false documents are being prepared and then submitted to the law firms for use.

    Subpoenas have been served on each of the law firms listed above, and the investigations are ongoing.

    For an official, downloadable photograph, please visit http://www.myfloridalegal.com/picture.html. Also, follow the Attorney General’s Office on Twitter! http://www.twitter.com/myfloridalegal

  187. MEMOS AND MOTIONS THAT MAY SHUT THE FORECLOSURE MILLS

    http://www.mattweidnerlaw.com/blog

    In honor of all the national reporting that’s starting to break about all the abuses that are being committed by the foreclosure mills and as part of the continued efforts to support all the good judges out there that really “get it” and who are doing the right thing, I want to share a treasure chest of motions that I have filed over the last several months.
    I hear the criticisms of our judges but truth be told, I’ve never had a bad experience in front of a foreclosure judge….when I did my job, prepared my case and had a court reporter present. And while I respect the efforts of homeowners who start the fight pro se, if you want to save your home, if you want the respect of the court and the opposing party, you must hire an experienced foreclosure defense attorney to fight this battle.

    I’m posting these Motions and memorandum primarily so that other attorneys from around the state will use them, develop them and argue the issues in front of judges. The issues contained within these documents are very important and frankly they require experienced and committed attorneys to make the arguments correctly. These documents and the issues presented are tools and like any tool they should only be used by operators who are trained to use them. Having said that I just hate seeing these coverage attorneys for the foreclosure mills wheeling in their boxes of hundreds of foreclosure cases and throwing this garbage into our courtrooms. I am appalled that the mills have joined forces and share the same coverage attorneys between all the mills. Where is the formal and specific authorization for that attorney to represent that client before the court?

    How can coverage attorneys represent to the court that, there are no issues of material fact in the hundreds of files that are in his wheelbarrow when those files have been prepped by another law firm? Why is that attorney not required to file a Notice of Appearance so the court knows what attorney is affirmatively representing to the court the veracity and authenticity of all the facts in his case?

    Special thanks to my intrepid law clerk Michael Fuino who is primarily responsible for all the excellent research and drafting contained within these memos and motions. Hats off to him! Enough of all of that, here go the goods.

    affidavitmotiontostrike

    affirmitivedefenses

    allongemtd

    answernotverifiednotnegotiableetc

    objecttofeememorandumfeeaffidavit

    http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/WW-Memo-6.9.10.pdf

    http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/MotionforReconsideration.pdf

    Get out there and keep up the fight…

    Note : Go to http://www.mattweidnerlaw.com/blog to download the pleadings.

    Matt, Thank you very much for sharing.

  188. BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO GOOD PEOPLE! WE CAN HELP! NO FAMILY LEFT BEHIND! BUDGET PLANS FOR EVERYONE.WE CAN HELP YOU STAY IN YOUR HOME. POSSIBLY GET PRINCIPAL REDUCTION AND IN SOME CASES INTEREST RATE DEDUCTIONS. THE BANKS MADE A LOT OF MISTAKES IN THE PAPERWORK AND WE OFFER TO FIND THEM.FREE CONSULTATION ON ANY LEGAL MATTER.CALL KIM THOMAS 401-352-5609 or 401-274-1905. WE CAN HELP THE LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE E.BABCOCK ………………………………………………………………………ESQUIRE. CHECK OUT OUR WEBSITE: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.babcocklawoffices.com%2F&h=911e4
    IF YOU HAVE A MERS WHICH STANDS FOR MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SERVICES WHICH WOULD BE IN MOST CASES ON THE 1ST PAGE OF YOUR MORTGAGE PARAGRAPH C OR YOU HAVE A MORTGAGE WITH INDYMAC OR ONE WEST BANK CALL KIM THOMAS OR GEORGE BABCOCK AT 401-274-1905 AND GET RELIEVE FROM YOUR PROBLEM!

  189. Urgently need lawyer for wrongful foreclosure action in Riverside County or nearby LA/Orange Co CA. . Home sold and bank is aggressively to evict – expect eviction notice in next 24 hrs – what do we need to do to fight the bank. Bank bought home at auction – 70% under water and $300K less than they wanted from us. Need lawyer who “gets it”!!!! We were in trial mod – all payments & docs paid and received by bank (Wells Fargo) a verbal extension of trial mod for next 2 months – processed 4th month payment – ready to send month 5 and bank wanted docs we had agreed to wait until after 5th month payment due to change in income source (now from 4 yr old business). This was a small portion of total income but needed to be documented over 2 to 3 months. Sent docs day before sale, bank told trustee not to sell and delay (by at least 2 reps) trustee sold anyway. Broke several laws during process. On phone with them from 4AM to 10AM per their instructions day of sale to stop foreclosure refuring to above reps) Our home sold for less than we have invested in it. Lender would not produce note when requested or give name of investor. Can someone help?

  190. How can you find if your loan has been securitized? Is there a website where you can look for a picticular loan # or company.

    If so provide the web information.

    Would the company to look for be the orignating lender Mortgageclose, the servicing lender GMAC, or Fanny MAE so called owner. if there web access to a site.

    Thanks for some help

  191. I’m trying to find a lawyer “who gets it” in New Mexico. Please help! Talked to several foreclosure lawyers, but they have no clue about e.g. mortgage assignment fraud: assignment was recorded 1 year after foreclosure complaint, but the lawyer said that the judge would consider that “an honest mistake”. Go figure.

  192. WE CAN HELP! NO FAMILY LEFT BEHIND! BUDGET PLANS FOR EVERYONE.WE CAN HELP YOU STAY IN YOUR HOME. POSSIBLY GET PRINCIPAL REDUCTION AND IN SOME CASES INTEREST RATE DEDUCTIONS. THE BANKS MADE A LOT OF MISTAKES IN THE PAPERWORK AND WE OFFER TO FIND THEM.FREE CONSULTATION ON ANY LEGAL MATTER.CALL KIM THOMAS 401-352-5609 or 401-274-1905. WE CAN HELP THE LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE E.BABCOCK ………………………………………………………………………ESQUIRE. CHECK OUT OUR WEBSITE: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.babcocklawoffices.com%2F&h=911e4
    IF YOU HAVE A MERS WHICH STANDS FOR MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SERVICES WHICH WOULD BE IN MOST CASES ON THE 1ST PAGE OF YOUR MORTGAGE PARAGRAPH C OR YOU HAVE A MORTGAGE WITH INDYMAC OR ONE WEST BANK CALL KIM THOMAS OR GEORGE BABCOCK AT 401-274-1905 AND GET RELIEVE FROM YOUR PROBLEM!

  193. Need an atty who gets it in nv!!! Atty for Ocwen gave us an affidavite of lost assignment?? Whats my next step?

  194. NO FAMILY LEFT BEHIND! BUDGET PLANS FOR EVERYONE.WE CAN HELP YOU STAY IN YOUR HOME. POSSIBLY GET PRINCIPAL REDUCTION AND IN SOME CASES INTEREST RATE DEDUCTIONS. THE BANKS MADE A LOT OF MISTAKES IN THE PAPERWORK AND WE OFFER TO FIND THEM.FREE CONSULTATION ON ANY LEGAL MATTER.CALL KIM THOMAS 401-352-5609 or 401-274-1905. WE CAN HELP THE LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE E.BABCOCK ………………………………………………………………………ESQUIRE. CHECK OUT OUR WEBSITE: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.babcocklawoffices.com%2F&h=911e4
    IF YOU HAVE A MERS WHICH STANDS FOR MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SERVICES WHICH WOULD BE IN MOST CASES ON THE 1ST PAGE OF YOUR MORTGAGE PARAGRAPH C OR YOU HAVE A MORTGAGE WITH INDYMAC OR ONE WEST BANK CALL KIM THOMAS OR GEORGE BABCOCK AT 401-274-1905 AND GET RELIEVE FROM YOUR PROBLEM!

  195. WHAT TO ASK YOUR PROSPECTIVE ATTORNEYS

    So you have decided to challenge your servicer as to whether they really have the right to collect anything from you and whether they have been turning over payments to the “proper party” (the real lender) and whether they have any information regarding the securitization of your loan, and an accounting for ALL money exchanged or paid in connection with your loan.

    You’ve decided to challenge the pretender lender on whether they really own your loan and whether they “represent” any other entity that might be the REAL LENDER. You want to know who the real lender is and whether they have any enforceable right to collect money, enforce the note or obligation, or enforce the mortgage or deed of trust.

    You have decided to hire an attorney, but like all fields, there are attorneys that are good at one thing and not so much on others. You want an attorney who is a crusader, who is not looking for a single silver bullet like “produce the note.” You want someone who believes in you and believes in your case. You want someone you can trust and whom you like. Big retainers mean big bills generally speaking unless they charge you a project fee that is all inclusive.

    Yes this is a lot of work to do, but hiring an attorney who is only halfheartedly representing you with the notion that you owe the money and anything he does for you is enough, even if it is a minor delay. Keep looking. Don’t expect the first one you meet to be THE ONE.

    And remember it is YOUR case, they didn’t screw you (the securitization players did that) and they don’t owe you anything. They spent a lot of time getting educated and trained to practice law and they are entitled to substantial fees compared with other jobs.

    Here are the the things you should want to know and to get CLEAR answers that are verifiable from any attorney you interview:

    1. What type of practice do they have?
    2. Have they litigated property matters before? How many times? With what results?
    3. Have they litigated mortgage issues including foreclosures? How many times? with what results?
    4. Do they have any specialization, certification or degrees in real property law, securities, contract law, Uniform Commercial Code, appraisals, real estate closings? What are those and when did they get it?
    5. Do they have a working knowledge and experience litigating in Federal Court (bankruptcy preferred), State Court, jury trials, non-jury trials. How many trials have they been lead counsel? What is their record of success?
    6. How would they rate themselves in proficiency in motion practice, discovery, trial, cross examination?
    7. Can you get references from other clients?
    8. Will they litigate to win or just delay the proceedings?
    9. What are their personal views regarding the foreclosure crisis? Is their attitude one of outrage as to what has been done to homeowners, the national and world economy or complacency with a wink at the Judge that this is a real obligation that the “borrower” owes but wants to get out of because of some procedural sleight of hand?
    10. What do they think of the financial bailout to Wall Street?
    12. Do they agree that the homeowners were targeted victims of a vast scheme to drain homeowners and investors of as much wealth as possible or do they think borrowers were the greedy ones trying to buy houses they couldn’t afford?
    13. What do they propose to do for you? Do they have experts with whom they maintain relationships? who are those experts? can you speak with them?
    14. How much do they charge and how do they charge (by the hour, monthly, contingency fee, costs, expenses). Don’t give a big amount of money upfront.
    Negotiate a payment plan if you can (i.e a monthly fee as long as you still in the house and the plan can be cancelled by you anytime without penalty)
    15. What is the total amount they expect that you will be charged for this litigation? (Ignorance would indicate they haven’t been doing this much or with much success).
    16. Will you be provided with copies of all correspondence and notes to file?
    17. Will you have telephone access tot he attorney? How often? For how long?
    18. Will this attorney be representing you and working your file or an associate? If an associate, you want to ask the same questions regarding the above.

    Listen carefully to the answers. Take notes. Go home and think it over even if it only for an hour. Don’t let “emergency” conditions dictate settling for an attorney who doesn’t understand securitized residential mortgages. It will only get worse that way.
    Go to the Court House, ask the clerk for many files of cases handled by your potential lawyer and read them so you can have a valuation of his work.

  196. NO FAMILY LEFT BEHIND! BUDGET PLANS FOR EVERYONE.WE CAN HELP YOU STAY IN YOUR HOME. POSSIBLY GET PRINCIPAL REDUCTION AND IN SOME CASES INTEREST RATE DEDUCTIONS. THE BANKS MADE A LOT OF MISTAKES IN THE PAPERWORK AND WE OFFER TO FIND THEM.FREE CONSULTATION ON ANY LEGAL MATTER.CALL KIM THOMAS 401-352-5609 or 401-274-1905. WE CAN HELP THE LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE E.BABCOCK ………………………………………………………………………ESQUIRE. CHECK OUT OUR WEBSITE: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.babcocklawoffices.com%2F&h=911e4
    IF YOU HAVE A MERS WHICH STANDS FOR MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SERVICES WHICH WOULD BE IN MOST CASES ON THE 1ST PAGE OF YOUR MORTGAGE PARAGRAPH C OR YOU HAVE A MORTGAGE WITH INDYMAC OR ONE WEST BANK CALL KIM THOMAS OR GEORGE BABCOCK AT 401-274-1905 AND GET RELIEVE FROM YOUR PROBLEM!See More

  197. See the Foreclosure Appeal argument on 15 July at this link.

    http://www.5dca.org/ArchivedOAs/2010/Aoa7-15-10.pdf

  198. Link to Neil Garfield’s List of Lawyers who gets it

    http://livinglies.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/lawyers-that-get-it-0310.pdf

  199. John von B.
    For CA , check out Jeff Barnes at http://www.foreclosuredefensenationwide.com

    Best wishes

  200. A Brilliant Appeal That Details The Differences Between Endorsement of Note and Assignment of Mortgage – Watch the Appeal live on July 15 – 9 am
    Along with Verizzo, BAC Funding, Frost and Regions, this case has the distinct possibility of changing the landscape for foreclosure defense not just in this state but nationwide. Indeed the eyes of the entire country are focused on this important case….and you have the opportunity to see it all go down live. I am profoundly grateful to the community of foreclosure defense advocates who are fighting to hold the practice of foreclosure law to the very highest levels of professionalism and practice. It is a tremendous honor to be part of this experience, and I am especially grateful to April Charney, Greg Clark, George Gingo, Randal Reder, Daniel Rock, Dominic Salfi, David Acosta and all the other committed advocates who have supported this effort.

    LOG ON HERE AT 9:00 AM THURSDAY MORNING, SELECT LIVE ORAL ARGUMENTS FOR A LIVE STREAMING VIDEO OF THE ARGUMENT

    Too many practitioners lose site of the fact that a foreclosure case is based on two separate and distinct documents, the Promissory Note or the agreement to repay an amount borrowed and the Mortgage which secures that promise against the piece of property. Both documents are separate and each has its own distinct set of rules that govern how they are exchanged between parties from closing of the loan transaction until a foreclosure is filed. These same distinct set of rules govern how the documents are presented and entered into evidence in the actual foreclosure case.

    Quite simply, one set of rules applies to the Note part of the foreclosure equation and an entirely different set applies to the mortgage component. Understanding these rules is a key component in drafting Motions to Dismiss and fighting Summary Judgment. Thanks to Foreclosure Fraud Fighter George Gingo for “sharing with the class”. For an excellent foreclosure defense attorney in the Brevard/321 area, contact George directly at ggingo@yahoo.com.

    Read the following appeal for an excellent discussion of these issues along with all relevant case law. taylorappeal

    http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/taylorappeal.pdf

  201. Thanks for all the Info Ann.
    However I am in California a NON-Judical state. SO I need Ca lawyer “WHO GETS IT”

  202. Here is the link to the web cast of Florida Appeal

    http://www.5dca.org/oralarguments.shtml

  203. FORCLOSURE DEFENSE ORAL ARGUMENT IN THE 5TH DCA OF FLORIDA – WATCH THE ARGURMENT LIVE

    July 15 at 9 AM

    This Thursday, July 15, 2010 at 9 AM the elder statesman of foreclosure and title law problems, Clearwater attorney Greg Clark and myself will be arguing a very important foreclosure defense case before the 5th District Court of Appeals in Volusia County, Taylor v. Deutsche Bank. Bookmark the 5th DCA site here and make plans to log in to watch the arguments LIVE!

    Click on this link for a list recent oral arguments and a very interesting foreclosure case, U.S. BANK v. BJELJAC, ET AL. to get a feel for how tough oral arguments are.

    Another very recent argument that came out of the 5th DCA, is SHEPHEARD v. DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST where the 5th DCA slammed attorneys for the foreclosure mills and ruled that the homeowner defendant was entitled to prevailing party attorney’s fees in that case. Click on the link above for case law and arguments and link below for the reported decision:

    SHEPHEARD v. DEUTSCHE BANK ..

    As we’ve seen from the string of appellate court opinions recently been released from circuits across the state, especially Riggs, Verizzo and BAC Funding, trial courts are now paying close attention to the details contained within the documents on the cases before them. The Taylor case illustrates several of the key issues that we all need to be concentrating on. FIRST MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE A COURT REPORTER AT ALL HEARINGS. You must have an accurate and clear record of every development in every case. Next, do not assume that the circuit court understands the unique and specific issues in your case, make sure your issues are clear, distinct and preserved for appeal if things do not go in your direction. Finally, the specific technical issues at play

    Taylor+Answer+Brief+Case

    Taylor-Appellants’ Opening Brief and Cases

  204. Florida Miami Foreclosure Defense Trial Lawyer
    D. Graham Esq. 305-445-9145. He is on Neil Garfield’s list of Lawyers Who Gets It. Free first consultation.

  205. Miami Foreclosure Defense Attorneys Win Case Against the Bank and Get Attorney Fees Awarded to them too

    By Hugo Alvarez Esq. on July 2, 2010 10:54 PM | Permalink
    Our firm recently prevailed in a contested foreclosure dispute after having litigated the case with the bank, and their lawyers, for three years. Not only did we win the case, but we were also awarded several thousands of dollars in attorney fees in doing so that the bank now has to pay our law firm.

    The Judge assigned to the case awarded our firm 100% of the attorney fees we requested, and found our attorney fees to be reasonable given the complexities and issues raised in this case. .

    This victory is also the latest trend in many homeowners actually winning their cases against the banks. Many judges are frustrated by the deliberately slow, and often times sloppy, pace of many banks that are attempting to foreclose. Indeed, the Florida Attorney General Office’s is currently investigating many law firms that actively file foreclosures on behalf of many Florida banks. The investigation centers on allegations of purported fraud.

    Moreover, the bank’s efforts to move foreclosures out of the court system, and into a bank friendly, and bank created, foreclosure process, was rejected by our legislators. Additionally, recent changes to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure that require banks to verify, under penalty of perjury, that the bank filing the lawsuit actually owns the mortgage, coupled with higher filing fees, and mandatory early mediation, all means that the banks have to be much more careful and precise when trying to foreclose on a property.

    If you are on the brink of foreclosure, and need to assess your legal rights, please contact our office today

  206. Fighting foreclosure lawsuit? Download this Foreclosure Defense Guide. It has many helpful info.

    http://ricardolaw.com/downloads/Defending-Your-Florida-Foreclosure-2009.pdf

    http://www.foreclosureprose.com

  207. Abby In Ca. How do I find Christine Garda in SF? I can not find a listing.

  208. John von B.

    try Christine Garda in San Francisco

  209. I need an attorney in Texas that is willing to help me untangle this mess that BOA created. I would like to save my home.

  210. Any attorneys that get it in N. Cal. I have made all the administrative moves to aviod forcloser and the bank has defalfualted in the validation of the debt. Looking for attorney who knows the end game to get the to reconise that fact and go away or be tacit.

  211. Happy Fourth of July everyone. Let us celebrate the independence of stopping the banks and wall street fat cats from taken peoples homes! Anyone in Rhode Island or Massuchusetts can call us for a free consultation and a budget plan for everyone.No family
    will be turned away for lack of funds. Call Kim Thomas
    at George E.Babcock Esquire at 401-274-1905 for a Lawyer that gets it. Over 300 MERS Cases pending.
    Stay in your Home!!!

  212. Needing an attorney licensed in Indiana to look into my case. House has gone through foreclosure and sheriff sale. Working with AG office regarding fraud, they have mentioned on three separate occasions within the past few weeks to retain an attorney to represent us. I would like to discuss my options as the bank did not follow the proper channels in leading to foreclosure in regards to an FHA loan and HAMP modification guidelines.
    Please contact me only if you are willing to take on a case against a huge bank. Some local attorneys feel they are too big to deal with, I want someone who is fearless.

    Thanks,
    JR

  213. JUDGMENT CAN BE SET ASIDE DUE TO FRAUD

    Florida Attorney D. Graham 305-445-9185

    Under Rule 1.540 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure a judgment can be set aside for various reasons including excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence and fraud on the court. The time limit is one year post judgment except when the judgment is void. Also the property owner can file an independent action and is not limited by Rule 1.540 time limits.

    Rule 1.540. Relief From Judgment, Decrees, or Orders

    (a) Clerical Mistakes. Clerical mistakes in judgments, decrees, or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time on its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders. During the pendency of an appeal such mistakes may be so corrected before the record on appeal is docketed in the appellate court, and thereafter while the appeal is pending may be so corrected with leave of the appellate court.

    (b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud; etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, decree, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial or rehearing; (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) that the judgment or decree is void; or (5) that the judgment or decree has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment or decree upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment or decree should have prospective application. The motion shall be filed within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than 1 year after the judgment, decree, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. A motion under this subdivision does not affect the finality of a judgment or decree or suspend its operation. This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, decree, order, or proceeding or to set aside a judgment or decree for fraud upon the court.

  214. Courtesy of Richard Shuster Esq.

    Three Rules For Defeating the Bank’s Motion For Summary Judgment in Foreclosure Cases

    One of the attorneys in our Miami office watched a sole practitioner foreclosure defense attorney ( at attorney who is NOT associated with this firm) go down in flames on a summary judgment hearing before a Miami judge. As a civil litigation firm that successfully handled well over one thousand summary judgment hearings in general civil and insurance cases, I wanted to explain for other foreclosure lawyers and for homeowners some important pointers for successfully defending a lender’s motion for summary judgment in a foreclosure case.

    Rule One: Always Bring a Court Reporter: In most (but by no means all) foreclosure cases if the bank wins their summary judgment motion then the bank wins their case and the Court will set a sale date in 30 to 90 cases. A foreclosure defense lawyer should consider the bank’s motion for summary judgment to be equivalent of a trial. If the motion is lost, the homeowner is unlikely to get a second chance. Since the summary judgment is a critical part of the case it is ESSENTIAL that the homeowner’s attorney bring a court reporter to the hearing. By having a court reporter there is a record of the proceedings. If the judge males an erroneous ruling either by disregarding applicable case law (controlling legal precedent) or disregarding evidence or lack of evidence then the homeowner will need a record of what happened in order to appeal the judge’s ruling.

    Some judges do not like presiding over foreclosure cases. Some judges fell that if the homeowner did not pay the mortgage then the bank should win. One judge in Southwest Florida even commented to the press the rapid processing of foreclosure cases was necessary so that real estate prices would stabilize. If there is no court reporter at the hearing the judge can rule against the homeowner and know that the homeowner will be unable to appeal. If a court reporter is present the judge knows that if he or she does not follow the law the judge may be reversed on appeal by a higher appellate Court. Most judges hate being reversed on an appeal. For a judge, being reversed means a higher Court writes an ruling saying the judge made a mistake. Rulings of Florida’s appellate Courts are published in the Florida Law Weekly and Florida Law Weekly Supplement which is mailed to every Court in the state and sent by subscription to most Florida law firms.

    Rule Two: Prepare: A lawyer can’t wing a summary judgment hearing. Meticulous preparation is required. The attorney should review the lender’s motion for summary judgment, analyze the case law cited in the motion, prepare a counter argument, anticipate the bank’s lawyer’s counter-attacks, and bring to Court three copies of each case they cite in opposition to the lender’s motion.

    Rule Three: Do not waive objections: In the hearing where a Miami sole practitioner lost the case, the lawyer asked the Court to continue the summary judgment hearing because the bank had not provided discovery responses. Florida appellate courts have consistently held that summary judgment motions should not be heard until discovery is complete. The Court refused the continue the summary judgment. The judge rejected the last minute oral request for a continuance and explained the homeowners lawyer that if the bank did not provide discovery responses then the homeowner’s lawyer should have filed a motion to compel. The judge also felt that a motion for continuance should have been in writing and served long before the summary judgment hearing. If the homeowners lawyer was counting on a continuance perhaps the did not prepare as hard for the hearing. The solo should have reviewed their file when they received the motion for summary judgment and prepared a motion to compel if discovery was still outstanding.

    I often wonder whether the foreclosure lawyers who change a “one time fixed fee” are able to spend adequate time to prepare and argue motions to compel. When clients go to the cheapest foreclosure lawyer, does that lawyer plan to bring a court reporter to the summary judgment hearing or even attend the hearing themselves. When homeowners interview prospective lawyers for foreclosure defense the homeowner should inquire about how the firm defends summary judgments and whether the price they are paying will include having a court reporter at the hearing.

    The foreclosure lawyers in the Miami, Plantation, and Melbourne offices of Shuster & Saben, begin preparing for summary judgment the moment we open the file. Our discovery is planned and drafted for the purpose of defeating the lender’s motion for summary judgment and winning cases for our clients. When lender’s do not provide the discovery we ask for we follow through with motion to compel. Most homeowners cannot successfully defeat summary judgment without an attorney. When hiring counsel the homeowner should act as soon as possible so that their lawyer has time to conduct discovery prior to the summary judgment hearing.

  215. If you want a winning attorney for Rhode Island & Massuchusetts Call George E.Babcock Law Offices &
    Ask for Kim Thomas at 401-274-1905 or 401-352-5609

  216. UTAH attorney who GETS IT

    Thomas Weber

    Weber & Schwendiman LLP
    75 East, 7200 South, Ste 149
    Midvale, UT 841047
    (801) 676-6523

  217. Can anyone tell me why the assignment does not have to be recorded here in IL? I cannot find code on that.

  218. HOMEOWNERS – SPREAD THE WORDS AROUND -
    GET YOUR HOMES BACK – HERE IS THE RULES -
    FORECLOSURE MILLS COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE COURT WITH FRADULENT DOCUMENTS
    ———————————————————————–
    Quote : from D. Graham Esq. 305-445-9185

    Under Rule 1.540 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure a judgment can be set aside for various reasons including excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence and fraud on the court. The time limit is one year post judgment except when the judgment is void. Also the property owner can file an independent action and is not limited by Rule 1.540 time limits.

    Rule 1.540. Relief From Judgment, Decrees, or Orders

    (a) Clerical Mistakes. Clerical mistakes in judgments, decrees, or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time on its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders. During the pendency of an appeal such mistakes may be so corrected before the record on appeal is docketed in the appellate court, and thereafter while the appeal is pending may be so corrected with leave of the appellate court.

    (b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud; etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, decree, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial or rehearing; (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) that the judgment or decree is void; or (5) that the judgment or decree has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment or decree upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment or decree should have prospective application. The motion shall be filed within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than 1 year after the judgment, decree, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. A motion under this subdivision does not affect the finality of a judgment or decree or suspend its operation. This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, decree, order, or proceeding or to set aside a judgment or decree for fraud upon the court.
    unquote

  219. Niel Garfield ‘s list of Lawyers who gets it:

    http://livinglies.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/lawyers-that-get-it-0310.pdf

    South Florida Lawyers who gets it:
    Dillon Graham Esq. Tel 305-445-9185

  220. See Matt Weidner’s Objection to Summary Judgment

    http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/mtd1.0701.pdf

  221. HOMEOWNERS – TAKE BACK YOUR HOME -THOUSANDS OF FORECLOSURE JUDGMENT ARE VOIDED – FRAUDULENT DOCUMENTS
    ——————————————————————–
    From http://www.mattweidnerlaw.com
    A constant theme I hammer on in this blog is that this wave of foreclosures is making a mess of our judicial system. In a perceived need to rush through the foreclosure “crisis“, (a crisis created by the parties who are demanding an unreasonable share of scare judicial resources), the lenders and their Millionaire Foreclosure Mills are ignoring long-established rules of professional ethics. They’re ignoring basic rules of evidence and case law. They’re engaged in a pattern and practice presenting at best questionable evidence and more likely of systematically lying to judges all across this country by adopting practices to create evidence which is not legitimate. They can apparently just ignore the rules and laws of the Supreme Court of Florida.

    The Millionaire Mills Cannot Ignore the Title Insurance Claims That Will Start Rolling in Based on The Issues Contained Within This Post.

    Our elected judges have been given an impossible task as thousands and thousands of cases are dumped on their laps but they’re given no additional support to move things along or to ensure the job is being done correctly. It pains me to see the additional pressures being placed on their staff as they scramble to meet the onslaught. Who benefits from all this?

    THE FAT CAT BANKERS AND THE MILLIONAIRE FORECLOSURE MILLS- My courts have become something that resembles a sloppy fast food restaurant all so that the Millionaire Foreclosure Mill attorneys can buy themselves a few more Ferraris, (apparently that’s the car of choice).My underfunded and underpaid court staffs drop everything to scheduled telephone hearings, sort through missing and misfiled paperwork, manage the Mill’s foreclosure docket as part of a concerted effort to move the docket through for the mills. The files that are being pushed through are a disaster. Lurking within many of these files are title problems and legal claims that will be getting sorted out for years to come. Some of these problems are only potential problems…..litigating them and proving them out will take years and frankly they may not be litigated at all. Other claims (such as those from third party creditors) will be deemed to questionable to carry out so they will be ignored.

    THERE IS ONE CATEGORY OF CLAIMS THAT CANNOT BE IGNORED-

    THOUSANDS OF FORECLOSURES THAT HAVE BEEN PUSHED THROUGH BY THE MILLS AFTER THE COURT HAS ALREADY DISMISSED THE CASE!

    I attach here the Motion I filed which details the issue. I’ve been sitting on it for a while, continuing to do research, meeting with other attorneys and discussing the issues with different title insurance underwriters. NOT A SINGLE ATTORNEY HAS DISPUTED THE FACTS CONTAINED WITHIN THE MEMO. We’re arguing over what the impact of this issue is, but one thing is certain.

    THERE IS A MASSIVE HEAP OF FORECLOSURE JUDGMENTS AND FAILED TITLES TO REAL PROPERTY IN PINELLAS COUNTY IN PARTICULAR

    I don’t know what’s happening in other counties, but the court docket in Pinellas is full of these sorts of cases. I am searching for the cases now, and encourage any of you pro-se people and attorneys out there who are researching dockets to pay real attention to this one and forward examples to me. Keep in mind that this problem was caused by the Plaintiff’s firms themselves. They jammed these cases through. They created Affidavits in Support of Summary Judgment where they swore to the Court that there were no issues of law or fact that prevented the court from entering judgment. They were either careless, reckless or thought they could just get away with it. They cannot and here are just some of the consequences of this problem:

    ■Thousands of people who think the lost their homes have not lost their homes. (They are still the equitable/legal title owners of the property,)
    ■The Final Judgment of Foreclosure that granted the foreclosure sale is not Final, it’s Void. (That means is has no force or effect.)
    ■Second mortgage holders or lienholders who thought they were wiped out through the foreclosure are now attached to the subject property. (Some will take higher priority based on fraud and problems with the first.)
    ■Property owners who think they own a home they bought REO or at a foreclosure sale, are holding worthless title. (Get read for big claims on the title insurors.
    ■Thousands of “active” cases that are sitting on the Pinellas County foreclosure docket are dead, they’re dismissed. The court can take no further action on them. Show the docket cleared, move on to new cases.
    ■The Pinellas County Courts will receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in new filing fees if the Plaintiffs do in fact re-file their cases in order to correct the problems they’ve caused.
    ■Many of the questionable “legal” strategies employed by the Plaintff’s firms in the beginning of the wave are going to be re-examined and found improper.
    ■Much of the improper evidence and questionable documents that were submitted in the early stages of the wave will be examined (for the first time) and appropriate action can be taken to sanction the improper conduct evidenced by the introduction of such evidence.
    Attorneys and advocates, examine your cases. All of you other people out there, particularly you bright legal scholars….pick this Motion apart and please post any critiques of this Motion here publicly. The Motion is posted here below…..please read it and let me know what you think….the tide has definitely turned…..

  222. Northern Cali Lawyer that gets it???? Help please???

  223. Is there a list of Lawyer’s the “get it” somewhere on this site? I can’t seem to locate the list.

    I need a lawyer fast. I’m in California. My bank just called to inform me that I was declined for a modification. This is the second time they decline me. They also mentioned that I could be up for foreclosure review.

    Facts:

    Note: Countrywide
    DOT: MERS
    SERVICER: BAC
    Fannie Mae supposedly owns the loan, according to their online tool.

  224. Oops !! My mistake. I mean Florida Foreclosure Defense Lawyers

    Excellent South Florida Foreclosure Defense Lawyer:
    Dillon Graham Esq. Tel 305-445-9185

    Central Florida : Matt Weidner Esq; 727-894-3159

  225. An excellent South Florida Foreclosure Lawyer:
    Dillon Graham Esq. Tel 305-445-9185

    Central Florida : Matt Weidner Esq; 727-894-3159

  226. Need help researching BankUnited–BankUnited, FSB is on the mortgage–it’s of course bankrupt and in receivership at FDIC–newly formed rich investors buy assets and call it BankUnited so nobody knows it’s a different bank–but, what happens in a foreclosure with bank in FDIC receivership?–also, any information on BankUnited will be helpful–they don’t give out the trusts where the mortgages are located.

  227. Oops! I forgot to mention that my note is with the original lender Countrywide who I’m guessing sold the loan to Fannie Mae.

    ______

    “I’m in California. Evidently, Fannie Mae owns my loan, BAC is my servicer, and MERS is on the DOT. Do I have a defense if Fannie Mae tries to foreclose on me? I don’t know how to apply everything I read here to a Fannie Mae loan.”

  228. I’m in California. Evidently, Fannie Mae owns my loan, BAC is my servicer, and MERS is on the DOT. Do I have a defense if Fannie Mae tries to foreclose on me? I don’t know how to apply everything I read here to a Fannie Mae loan.

  229. Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum Launches Investigations into Florida Default Law Group and Docx, LLC a/k/a Lender Processing Services
    Foreclosure Fraud | April 29, 2010 at 9:45 AM | Tags:

    Great Work Foreclosure Fighters!

    Be sure to share this information with EVERYONE you know.

    Challenge Everything!

    As of this morning, April 29, 2010 the Florida Attorney General Economics Crime Division launched an Official Investigation into the practices of the Florida Default Law Group and Docx, LLC a/k/a Lender Processing Services.

    Florida Default Law Group, PL Case Number L10-3-1095

    Case Number: L10-3-1095
    Subject of investigation: Florida Default Law Group, PL
    Subject’s address: 9119 Corporate Lake Drive, Suite 300, Tampa, Florida 33634
    Subject’s business: Law Firm, Foreclosures
    Allegation or issue being investigated:
    Appears to be fabricating and/or presenting false and misleading documents in foreclosure cases. These documents have been presented in court before judges as actual assignments of mortgages and have later been shown to be legally inadequate and/or insufficient. Presenting faulty bank paperwork due to the mortgage crisis and thousands of foreclosures per month. This firm is one of the largest foreclosure firms in the State. This firm appears to be one of Docx, LLC a/k/a Lender Processing Services’ clients, who this office is also investigating.
    AG unit handling case: Economic Crimes Division in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida

    View contact information for Ft. Lauderdale by clicking here.
    I wonder if the investigations had to do with any of the issues below?

    Foreclosure Fraud of the Week – Two “Original” Wet Ink Notes Submitted in the Same Case by the Florida Default Law Group and JPMorgan Chase

    Scandalous – Substantiated Allegations of Foreclosure Fraud That Implicates the Florida Attorney General’s Office and The Florida Default Law Group

    The Whole Country is BOGUS – Fabricated Mortgage Assignments All Over the Country

    Docx Fabrications & Forgeries – Comparing Signatures & Titles on Mortgage Documents

    Foreclosure Fraud – Guide to Looking Up Public Records for Fraud

    Whatever the case may be, I am sure these investigations will bring out more than we already know.

    If you have any incriminating evidence on ANY of the foreclosure mills in Florida email me @ foreclosurefraud@gmail.com and I will make sure it gets to the appropriate authorities…

    4closureFraud
    1-561-880-LIES
    Florida Foreclosure Defense

  230. More video of Homeowners Rally in Tallahasse 21 April 2010

    http://www.weartv.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/wear_vid_7949.shtml

  231. Free on line booklet about How to Hire Lawyer. This booklet is a MUST READ if you intend to hire a Lawyer.

    e-mail me at ocean11@the-beach.net

  232. Rally Update.

    Florida Homeowners won . The bad bill SB 2270 was not voted. Thank you very much for your support.
    See video of the Rally in Tallahassee at:

    http://www.neighborvision.com/

  233. My lawyer gets it! A fierce advocate. Atty Ernest Fenton. http://www.thestopforeclosureattorney.com. (708) 991-7268
    Chicago and the surrounding areas. He’s beginning to expand into Northern Indiana too.

  234. I am going to the Rally in Tallahassee with my 4 neighbors on 21 April. If you can’t go, e-mail me your foreclosure story, I will hand it to the Senators for you. It will be like you’re there, your concern will be heard.
    My e-mail is ocean11@the-beach.net

  235. FLORIDA HOMEOWNERS TO RALLY AT THE CAPITAL THIS WEEK
    ————————————————————————-
    Foreclosure Fraud | April 17, 2010
    For all of you who can not attend the Historic Rally in Tally, and still want to be part of the event, below is a press release that can be sent by email, fax, or phone to all of the media outlets in Florida.

    Please Help us Spread the Word!
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    HOMEOWNERS TO RALLY AT THE CAPITOL THIS WEEK

    TALLAHASSEE – Almost overnight homeowners from around Florida have organized and are set to voice their concerns directly with lawmakers this coming week in Tallahassee.

    It began with a group of Florida consumer attorneys looking to meet with legislators to persuade them into rejecting a proposed and profoundly bad anti-consumer law threatening to put the entire foreclosure process in the hands of mortgage companies without any involvement by the courts. Homeowners and consumer advocates learned about the effort and have organized to oppose any new laws that threaten Florida consumers.

    Lawmakers immediately began receiving calls from consumers around Florida voicing their opposition to the pending legislation, known as House Bill 1523 and Senate Bill 2270. The opposition was completely effective as legislators responded by listening and siding with consumers. The proposed law has been defeated for now thanks in large part to the collective efforts of consumers, advocates and attorneys who represent homeowners in foreclosure in Florida courts every day.

    “It restores faith in our legislative process when lawmakers listen and respond favorably to homeowners voicing their concerns during this economic crisis”, says Matt Weidner, an attorney from Pinellas County who represents homeowners in foreclosure.

    On the heels of this victory on Wednesday, April 21st hundreds of homeowners, consumers and other advocates from all across the State of Florida are driving, flying, taking busses (maybe even a horse or two) into Tallahassee with a powerful message: DO NOT TAKE AWAY VALUABLE CONSUMER PROTECTIONS. WE WANT TO WORK TOGETHER TO SOLVE THE CURRENT CRISIS. Leaders from both houses have graciously agreed to meet with their voters and with the group of consumer attorneys.

    Chip Parker, a Jacksonville attorney who represents homeowners in foreclosure, encourages everyone who cares about Florida’s economic recovery to support this effort. “This isn’t about just laws that relate to foreclosure, it’s about preserving a balance that protects families during economic times like these. This is the worst time to be considering any laws that take away important consumer protections and that favor the banks”.

    The attorneys also oppose the new laws because the changes would negatively impact the courts, judges and their staff because the changes would eliminate nearly 25% of the judiciary budget. This would make worse what is already a difficult situation for judges and their staff currently buried under thousands of foreclosure cases. “We need to ensure our courts are properly funded so that every litigant can have their day in court” says Weidner. Consumer advocates share this view in large part because they see how little time is currently devoted to hearing cases due to the high case loads.

    The rally is scheduled to begin at 9:00am in Tallahassee at the steps of the Capitol and is open to attendance by all. Check the following websites for caravan and contact information!

    http://www.4closurefraud.org

    http://www.lawyersforhomeowners.com

    http://www.foreclosurehamlet.org

    4closureFraud
    1-561-880-LIES

  236. THE FLORDA HB 1523 is dead at this time at the House Level. We are watching similar Senate Bill 2270. Will keep you informed.
    I have high hope that the bill will be dead to at Senate committe. Rally in Tally is being planned next week if it is necessary,

  237. Hi

    I need a great attorney in the South Jersey area.(Atlantic City, NJ)

    I want to fight and keep my home. American Home Mortgage Servcing Co. (AHMSI) will not provide me with the true lenders name or send me a copy of my note. They are dragging there feet on my loan modification… I need some help with these voultures… Thanks

    Joe Moon
    609-385-6636

  238. Suppose FL becomes a nonjudicial state. I understand that many uninformed homeowners can get booted without much delay. But what about those of us who are informed and who already have counsel? What is the strategy for us should the law pass and get signed by Crist?

  239. Call-Fax-Email to Legislators- Says No to HB 1523 Non Judicial statute-House of Reps meets 12 April
    ———————————————
    From http://www.mattweidnerlaw.com

    Florida Attorneys who are Fighting for Homeowner’s Rights Will Rally on Tallahassee, Wednesday, April 21, 2010, by the Florida Bankers are trying to beat us to the punch by pushing their anti-consumer legislation through before we can get up there to stop it.

    On Monday, April 12, 2010, the Florida House of Representatives, Criminal & Civil Justice Policy Council will meet beginning at 1:00 p.m.

    One of the bills that will be discussed in this meeting is House Bill 1523, absurdly titled, the Homeowner Relief & Housing Recovery Act.

    It just offends me how they think they can paint a pig and try to make it a rose. It offends me that bankers can convince our elected leaders to use such blatantly misleading titles to legislation in a concerted effort to fool consumers.

    This bill represents a concerted effort by Florida Bankers and other anti-consumer groups to strip citizens of their right to have foreclosure cases heard by judges.

    Please click on this link and contact each of the legislators who sit on this committee. Call, email, fax and tell them you are OPPOSED TO ALL EFFORTS TO TURN FLORIDA INTO A NON-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE STATE.

    Tell them you’re sick and tired of the fraud and deceit used by bankers and their friends on Wall Street and remind them that they work for you, The People of the State of Florida!

    Follow this link for a copy of the House Agenda.

    More information later…please start sending your email and faxes this weekend so they know where we stand early Monday morning!

    It really is scary what this country is turning into….please help to stop this….make those calls and send those emails.

    Share

  240. Attention Attorneys , Advocates, Homeowners:
    >http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2010/04/lawyers-for-homeowners-rights-rally-in-tallahassee/

    >The Florida Legislature is in session until April 30th. There are a variety of bills pending in the legislature which threaten to dramatically change the practice of consumer law and would eliminate homeowner and consumer rights.
    >The bankers, the foreclosure mills and other wrongdoers are lobbying Tallahassee hard and they absolutely will get some kind of legislation passed….if every one of us doesn’t act now to do something about it.
    >Subject to confirmation of the date, we will have a rally on the Capital. The date is tentatively set for Wednesday April 21, but it may be April 19 or 20 if those days would be more effective given committee schedules and other considerations.
    >Please mark your calendars now and please put forth this extra effort of service to our profession, our courts and to the citizens of the State of Florida. As attorneys, we took an oath to defend the Constitution, the citizens and our courts. These are all under attack and we are all duty bound and obligated to rise up and defend them.
    >In Tallahassee, we will meet with our local representatives and with the leadership of both houses. Our message is clear and distinct….
    >
    >We must preserve and restore the dignity of the courts and ensure consumers and homeowners continue to have access to a fair and properly funded judiciary.
    >We cannot allow the continued breakdown of law and lack of respect for courts that currently exists in courts across the State of Florida.
    >We cannot allow the unethical foreclosure mills and zombie lenders to continue to infect our courts with the cancer they are spreading in courts across the State of Florida
    >We owe this duty to our courts. We owe this duty to our judges who are overwhelmed, overburdened and facing impossible pressures from all sides and we owe this duty to the citizens of the State of Florida–whether they are represented by counsel or not.
    >Please mark your calenders and begin making plans now. We will be chartering buses from major areas and more details will be forthcoming! We expect that consumers and other pro-se advocacy groups will rally behind this cause as part of a major grass-roots effort. There are brave and principled leaders in Tallahassee who share our concerns and we need to take our message of support to them.
    >MARK YOUR CALENDERS AND PLAN TO JOIN US IN TALLAHASSEE!
    >
    >

  241. Is there any lawyer who gets it in Santa Clara County, Northern California?? Or at least in the bay area? Trustee sale in 2 weeks.

  242. Where is the list of “Lawyers that Get It”??

  243. Please post a list of Lawyers that are located in the Oceanside area of Southern California.

    The courts gave blocked my attempts to bring the “lender” abd the “trustee” to task on their fraud anr theft.

    They stole my house and put my wife and I on the street to starve and die.

  244. FORECLOSURE FRAUD FIGHTER WEAPON – MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL
    ———————————————————————
    IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
    IN AND FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA

    THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
    FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS
    TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS
    CWALT, INC., ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST
    2006-18CB, MORTGAGE PASSTHROUGH
    CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-18CB,

    Plaintiff,
    Case No. .

    xxxxx

    Defendants.
    __________________________________________/
    MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL

    Defendants, xxxxx by and through their undersigned counsel, move this Court for entry of an Order disqualifying the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson from (“Watson”) from representing Plaintiff in this case, and would show:
    1. Plaintiff has initiated this lawsuit for mortgage foreclosure, yet TAKACS never signed a Note and Mortgage with Plaintiff. The Note and Mortgage upon which this lawsuit is based reflect that they were entered in favor of Defendant, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. (“MERS”), not Plaintiff. As such, it is axiomatic that Plaintiff’s standing to bring this lawsuit is predicated on an alleged Assignment of Mortgage from MERS to it.
    2. Florida’s appellate courts have, for lack of a better term, begun “cracking down” on banks vis a vis these Assignments of Mortgage. To illustrate, on February 12, 2010, the Second District reversed a summary judgment of foreclosure where the plaintiff bank did not show a proper assignment of mortgage. See BAC Funding Consortium, Inc. v. Jacques, Case No. 2D08-3553 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). This ruling comes on the heels of the Florida Supreme Court’s recent rule change requiring that all mortgage foreclosure lawsuits be executed under oath. Suffice it to say that Florida courts are increasingly concerned about Assignments of Mortgage and ensuring that the correct bank has filed suit for foreclosure.
    3. In the case at bar, the Official Records of Sarasota County, Florida reflect that an Assignment of Mortgage, purporting to transfer the instant Mortgage from MERS to Plaintiff, was recorded on December 31, 2009 (“the Assignment”). A copy of the Assignment is attached as Exhibit “A.”
    4. The legitimacy of the Assignment is very much in question. Quite frankly, it seems clear the Assignment was not executed by MERS in the ordinary course of business, as required, but was fraudulently executed by Plaintiff and Watson in a fraudulent attempt to “push through” this mortgage foreclosure case.
    5. TAKACS and the undersigned realize that is a serious allegation. As such, they invite this Court to take a look at Exhibit “A” hereto. Even an initial, cursory review of the Assignment calls into question its legitimacy. First, it was not executed until December 31, 2009 (after Watson had already filed this lawsuit). Second, the Assignment was “prepared by” and to be “returned to” Watson. Third, the notary block indicates that the Assignment was executed in Broward County, Florida, which is where (as the Assignment reflects), Watson’s office is located, not where the assignor conducts business. If an agent of MERS signed this Assignment, as required and as purported, it strains logic to understand why its agent would sign in Broward County, Florida, where the assignee’s attorney conducts business, rather than in Virginia, where MERS conducts business. Finally, but perhaps most troubling, the Assignment reflects that it was executed by Caryn A. Graham, purportedly as Assistant Secretary of MERS, yet a simple internet search reveals that Caryn Graham is an attorney of Watson, assignee’s attorney.
    6. These facts, viewed in conjunction with one another, raise serious questions. For example, if the Assignment was a legitimate business transaction, and Plaintiff actually obtained an assignment of the instant Note and Mortgage from MERS, then why did Watson, Plaintiff’s counsel in this case, prepare the Assignment? And sign it as the assignor? Shortly after this suit was filed? If this was a legitimate assignment, why was it signed by Plaintiff’s own lawyer rather than an agent of MERS?
    7. Depending on the response interposed to this motion, more discovery on these issues may be necessary. At this point, though, the answer to these questions seems clear. It seems Plaintiff retained Watson to file this foreclosure case and that, upon being retained, Shapiro realized that no Assignment of Mortgage had ever been executed or recorded. As such, Watson drafted the Assignment and caused Caryn Graham, one of Watson’s own lawyers, to sign it (purportedly as Vice President of MERS), in an attempt to “push through” this mortgage foreclosure case.# In other words, it seems that Plaintiff and Watson have created, executed, and recorded a fraudulent assignment and are relying on that Assignment as the basis for standing to sue TAKACS in this case.
    8. Plaintiff and Watson may not agree with these facts. At this point, though, the issue is not whether TAKACS can unequivocally prove that the Assignment is fraudulent. Said issue is for another day, i.e. a hearing on a motion for sanctions for fraud on this Court. Rather, the issue at bar is whether Watson should be permitted to remain as Plaintiff’s counsel in this case. For the reasons set forth herein, Watson should be disqualified.
    9. Rule 4-1.7(a), R.Reg.Fla.Bar, provides:
    A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client will be directly adverse to the interests of another client, unless: (1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not adversely affect the lawyer’s responsibilities to and relationship with the other client; and (2) each client consults after consultation.

    10. Rule 4-1.7(b), R.Reg.Fla.Bar, provides:
    A lawyer shall not represent a client if the lawyer’s exercise of professional judgment in the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client or to a third person or by the lawyer’s own interests, unless: (1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected; and (2) the client consents after consultation.

    11. Shapiro’s conflict of interest is obvious. As the pleadings reflect, Watson is acting as counsel for Plaintiff against Defendant, MERS. Incredibly, Watson is Plaintiff’s counsel in this case even though it has already acted as counsel for Defendant, MERS, in this very case! It is fundamental that the same law firm cannot represent a plaintiff and a defendant in the same case.
    12. Watson may dispute its representation of MERS, but there is no other explanation for why Watson’s own attorneys prepared the Assignment and executed it on behalf of MERS. In other words, if Watson was not representing MERS in this case, then why did it prepare the Assignment and sign it for MERS? Notably, Watson is counsel of record for MERS in many other, active cases before this Court. As such, Watson’s status as counsel for Defendant, MERS is not reasonably in dispute.
    13. The problems do not end there. After Watson represented MERS vis a vis the Assignment and filed suit against MERS in this case (on behalf of Plaintiff, its other client), Watson moved for and obtained a Clerk’s default against MERS, its own client. As such, Watson represented MERS in the transaction at issue in this case but sued MERS on behalf of a different client, then obtained a default against MERS on behalf of a different client.
    14. Watson’s conflict is not only a textbook violation of Rule 4-1.7, it calls into serious question the fair administration of justice. To illustrate, TAKACS fear that MERS may institute legal proceedings against them in the future. After all, what is to stop MERS from taking the position, at some point in the future, that it is the owner and holder of the Note and Mortgage? Where would that leave TAKACS? Or the then-owner of the subject property? Or the title insurance company that writes title insurance based on the title that is derived from a foreclosure on the subject property (if a foreclosure is allowed)?
    15. Under a myriad of Florida cases, the conflict of interest by which Watson is operating, coupled with the affect that conflict is having on the administration of justice, requires its disqualification as counsel. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. K.A.W., 575 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 1991); Koulisis v. Rivers, 730 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Campbell v. American Pioneer Savings Bank, 565 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
    16. The Campbell decision is particularly apt, as it required disqualification of attorney who represented a defendant regarding her interest in property and later tried to represent the plaintiff who sued for mortgage foreclosure on that property. 565 So. 2d 417.
    17. To the extent Watson disagrees with the facts set forth herein, this Court cannot simply accept Watson’s version of events as true. Rather, in that event, an evidentiary hearing is required. See School Bd. of Broward County v. Polera Building Corp., 722 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
    18. TAKACS have not encountered many Florida cases that evaluate a motion to disqualify counsel on facts like those herein. After all, only in recent years have banks and their lawyers begun drafting assignments in mass quantities in an attempt to “push through” foreclosure suits. Other jurisdictions, however, have begun catching on to these unseemly tactics. One New York court, for example, after discussing problems with an assignment of mortgage similar to those set forth above, ruled:
    Even if [plaintiff] is able to cure the assignment defect, plaintiff’s counsel then has to address the conflict of interest that exists with his representation of both the assignor of the instant mortgage, MERS as nominee for HSBC Mortgage, and the assignee of the instant mortgage, HSBC. …

    HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Vazquez, 2009 N.Y. Slip. Op. 51814 (2009); see also Bank of N.Y. v. Mulligan, 2008 N.Y. Slip. Op. 31501 (2008) (“The Court is concerned that [the person who signed the assignment] may be engaged in a subterfuge, wearing various corporate hats…”); Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Castellanos, 2008 N.Y. Slip. Op. 50033 (2008) (“If he is a Vice President of both the assignor and the assignee, this would create a conflict of interest and render the July 21, 2006 assignment void.”); HSBC Bank, N.A. v. Cherry, 2007 N.Y. Slip. Op. 52378 (2007) (“The Court is concerned that there may be fraud on the part of HSBC, or at least malfeasance. Before granting an application for an order of reference, the Court requires an affidavit from [the person who signed the assignment] describing his employment history for the past three years.”).
    19. As if Watson’s conflict of interest is not bad enough, the problems do not end there. The propriety of the Assignment is a huge issue in this case. It will be a feature at trial and pre-trial discovery. The obvious problem is that testimony and discovery concerning this Assignment is not possible without involving Watson. After all, Watson prepared the Assignment, executed the Assignment, and is a necessary witness regarding its propriety. That is unfortunate, but that is the situation that Watson created when it prepared the Assignment and puts its name and address in place of MERS on the Assignment.
    20. The situation here is similar to that presented to the First District in Live and Let Live, Inc. v. Carlsberg Mobile Home Props., Ltd., 388 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). In that case, plaintiff’s attorney was the escrow agent for the real estate transaction upon which the lawsuit was based. What he knew or was told at closing was relevant at trial. Id. Deeming him a “central figure in the lawsuit,” the First District required his disqualification. Id. In so ruling, the court cited ethical considerations promulgated by the Florida Supreme Court in In Re Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, 235 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 1970), including DR 5-102, which provides:
    (A) If, after undertaking employment in contemplated or pending litigation, a lawyer learns or it is obvious that he or a lawyer in his firm ought to be called as a witness on behalf of his client, he shall withdraw from the conduct of the trial and his firm, if any, shall not continue representation in the trial. (B) If, after undertaking employment in contemplated or pending litigation, a lawyer learns or it is obvious that he or a lawyer in his firm ought to be called as a witness other than on behalf of his client, he may continue the representation until it is apparent that his testimony is or may be prejudicial to his client.

    21. The situation here is analogous. Watson will be a central figure at trial. There is no way to litigate this case without Watson’s testimony regarding the circumstances in which the Assignment was entered.
    22. Watson may not like this outcome, but it put itself in this position. This is not one of those cases where a party wants to call opposing counsel on an immaterial issue just to generate a disqualification. Watson chose to represent MERS and Plaintiff in the same case, draft the Assignment, and execute the Assignment, all before TAKACS ever knew about this lawsuit. Watson chose to make itself a central figure in this case. It must now reap the consequences.
    23. Notably, this case is still in its early stages. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss has yet to be heard. As such, there is no reason that Plaintiff cannot procure a different attorney (who lacks a conflict of interest and will not have to testify). Other parties should not be prejudiced by Watson’s conflict where a different attorney can be procured.
    24. In light of the foregoing, the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson have an irreconcilable conflict of interest, having represented both Plaintiff and Defendant on the matters at issue in this case. As such, Watson should be disqualified. Additionally or alternatively, because Watson is a “central figure” in this litigation, the case cannot proceed with it acting as counsel.
    WHEREFORE TAKACS respectfully request an Order disqualifying Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson from acting as counsel for Plaintiff in this cause.
    VERIFICATION
    Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing document and that the facts stated in it are true.
    ____________________________________
    Defendant

    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via U.S. Mail to Rebecca Nilsen, Esq, Law Offices of Marshall Watson, 1800 N.W. 49th Street, Suite 120, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 on this 2nd day of March, 2010.

    /s/ Mark P. Stopa______________
    Mark P. Stopa, Esquire
    FBN: 550507
    STOPA LAW FIRM
    2202 N. West Shore Blvd.
    Suite 200
    Tampa, FL 33607
    Telephone: (813) 639-7634
    ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS

    If the laws of evidence, rules of courts, case law and statutory law were upheld and applied in foreclosure cases–particularly when the loan has been sold and securitized–it would be virtually impossible for lenders to prevail in their mortgage foreclosure actions.
    One of the fundamental problems is the party that owns or holds the note has no right to collect any payment on that note because he has sold the right to collect the payments on that note to investors. The note holder has no idea whether the investors are receiving their payments because the function of collecting the payments is handled by a third party, the loan servicer.
    From a purely legal and technical perspective, the servicer probably has no idea who actually owns the note and probably has no admissable knowledge regarding who has a right to collect the payments on the note. Securitized mortgages were bundled into billion dollar piles of obligations. Every month dutiful homeowners make their payments to servicers. The servicers aggregate each months’ worth of mortgage payments, then dole the payments from homeowners out to the investment pools that purchased into that pool.

  245. Judges Pensions Foreclosing on Homes
    I TOLD YOU SO!!!!

  246. Call Dillon Graham Esq. at 305-445-9185 for legal advice. He is one of the best and affordable Foreclosure Defense Attorney in Miami and West Palm Beach .

  247. I have to respond by tomorrow (3/25/10) to a Civil Summon Action. My lender is Chase. Summon serviced on 3/5/10).

    I need assistance to respond and representation.

    Property located in West Palm Beach, Florida (zip 33404).

    IVAN

  248. You have to wonder with the health care bill being passed, who’s health is this bill caring for? The Federal gov has and still is allowing and promoting a Tyrannical Tournament with Crooked creditors all competing to rack up the highest score of insidious obligations and outright invasive occupation of our Constitutional securites, assets most valuble to us stolen to be used as poker chips and never returned or compensated for. within 90 days after obamacare is signed americans not covered by “approved” health insurance coverage will begin being penalized with monetary fines around the amount of $1,000 per person. Coverage is mandatory after 3 months from now but any benefit from this law to have the option to choose a plan you like won’t kick in until 2014(maybe). Now that obama has raped us with a thermometer that flows with the comfort of the “economy”, do you think he’s gonna fix the foreclosure crisis? NOPE, I bet you guys the next thing he’s gonna try to shove down our throats is that involuntary servitude civilian military force(aka gestapo) he was promoting while running for residence–I mean president. this program would require ages 18-25 mandatory active servitude for who knows how long. he says “teens-early twenties have too much time on thier hands and need to be doing something constructive, something that the public benefits from”(like puting you and congress out of office?). HEY GeNIUS the youth would be pursuing optimistic goals and working on projects of beneficial construction for a better society if you would provide the means necessary to accomplish these tasks like improving better access to a college education at a lower cost and absent your rigged student predatory loan reform, especially when the advance in modern technology should make the access to all beneficial education logically free with the elimination of textbook publications and other expenses. If knowledge is power and you want society to improve in a productive civilized manner, forcing citizens to serve in a civilian army against thier will instead of of forcing educational institutions to open up free access to resources for intellectual development because of the 3 overgrown branches of government’s greedy desire for monetary power to control the public is a recipe for disaster and lacks any ounce of reasonable common sense.

  249. CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST BANK OF AMERICA
    ——————————————————————-
    Bank of America Home Loans
    Date Filed: March 22, 2010
    Court: U.S. District Court
    Location: Seattle
    Ticker Symbol: BAC
    Washington homeowners sued Bank of America claiming the lending giant is intentionally withholding government funds intended to save homeowners from foreclosure. Hagens Berman represents plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit. Attorneys are interested to speak with other eligible home owners who were intentionally deferred or wrongfully declined a permanent mortgage adjustment per the Home Assistance Modification Program (HAMP).

    The case, filed in U.S. District Court, claims that Bank of America systematically slows or thwarts Washington homeowners’ access to Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds by ignoring homeowners’ requests to make reasonable mortgage adjustments or other alternative solutions that would prevent homes from being foreclosed.

    Bank of America accepted more than $25 billion in government bailout money financed by taxpayer dollars earmarked to help struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure. One in eight mortgages in the United State is currently in foreclosure or default.

    Bank of America, like other TARP-funded financial institutions, is obligated to offer alternatives to foreclosure and permanently reduce mortgage payments for eligible borrowers struck by financial hardship but, according to the lawsuit, hasn’t lived up to its obligation.

    Bank of America services more than 1 million mortgages that qualify for financial relief, but have granted only 12,761 of them permanent modification, reported the U.S. Treasury Department.

    According to the TARP regulations, banks must gather information from the homeowner, and offer a revised three-month payment plan for the borrower. If the homeowner makes all three payments under the trial plan, and provides the necessary documentation, the lender must offer a permanent modification.

    Bank of America continues to ignore TARP regulations and instead creates more financial pressure on homeowners, the court filing states.

    The lawsuit charges that Bank of America intentionally postpones homeowners’ requests to modify mortgages, depriving borrowers of federal bailout funds that could save them from foreclosure. The bank ends up reaping the financial benefits provided by taxpayer dollars financing TARP-funds and also collects higher fees and interest rates associated with stressed home loans.

    If you received an inadequate response from Bank of America for a home loan modification request after April 13, 2009, you are encouraged to join the suit.

    Please visit: http://www.hbsslaw.com for more info.

    About Hagens Berman

    Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP is a consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices in San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles, and Phoenix. Since 1993, HBSS continues to successfully fight for consumer rights in large, complex litigation. More about the law firm and its successes can be found at http://www.hbsslaw.com.

    4closureFraud

  250. Sorry for my mistake. The website correct address is http://www.mattweidnerlaw.com.

  251. Free foreclosure information & pleadings at http://www.gingolaw.com and http://www.mattweidner.com

  252. CENTRAL FLORIDA ATTORNEY WHO “GETS IT”

    George Gingo, Esquire
    3239 N. Hwy. 1
    P.O. Box 838
    Mims, Florida 32754
    Office: (321) 264-9624
    Fax: (866) 311-9573

  253. Richard,
    For South Florida attorneys who “gets it,” call :
    - Dillon Graham Esq. 305-445-9185
    - Thomas Ice Esq 561-793-5658
    - Matt Weidner Esq. 727-894-3159
    - Carol Asbury Esq. 954-677-8888
    - Kevin LaMontagne Esq. 561-732-0100

    Para Legal : Mike 813-936-1471

  254. YOU CAN HELP TO STOP FRAUDULENT DOCUMENTS AND WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE

    Type up a summary of mortgage fraud, fraudulents assignments , consumer laws violations. Collect all info , case laws around the country about those frauds and how people are losing homes to fraudulents foreclosure judgments.

    1. Email them to ALL your local , US Congressmen, Senators asking them to investigate these frauds.

    2. Find the e-mail of the Chief Judges in your counties. E-mail him all these information so he can be aware of bad judges and wrongful judgments in his section.
    4. Email them to the Lawyer Bar Association so they can be aware of bad lawyers who file wrongful foreclosure lawsuit. Florida courts are now sanction lawyers who files foreclosures with bogus documents.

    5. Contact your local newspaper or television , looking for Real Estate Investigative Reporter. E-mail him/her all info you have on how people are losing homes to fraudulents foreclosure judgments. Ask him/her to do an investigation. Tell them they may win the Putlizer award for their investigation as it is helping REAL people saving their homes.

    4. Find a good attorney who can file class action against Foreclosure Mills for fabricating fraudulents document to file wrongful foreclosure.

  255. THE WHOLE COUNTRY IS BOGUS – FABRICATED MORTGAGE ASSIGNMENTS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY
    Thank you http://www.4foreclosurefraud.org

    For the past year and a half, I have been examining the public records of Florida, analyzing all of the fraudulent documents that have been entered into the system since the housing crisis began. I have found employees of lenders assigning mortgages to their employer, I have found companies assigning mortgages to themselves, by themselves. I have seen many variations of financial institutions employees’ signatures on hundreds, if not thousands of documents. I have seen people that are officers of too many banks, and I have been unable to verify the existance of certain notaries who sign millions of these documents.

    Now, we are seeing BOGUS assignments all over the Florida public records. At first I though it was some kind of joke. Well it is, and the joke is on all of us. Doesn’t anyone look at these papers before filing them? Do the courts even care they are allowing peoples homes to be taken away by some BOGUS document?

    This is much more than a clerical error. It is outright blatant fraud.

    How massive is it?

    Well, in just a few hours of perusing the public records of this country, we were able to come up with these BOGUS DocX assignments from multiple counties of multiple states. While we were at it, we found some Bogus Satisfactions of Mortgage as well. To top it off, not only do the assignments say they are bogus, most of the signatures do not match from one to the next.

    Some counties and states do not have their records online and some counties and states require you to pay leaving them inaccessible at the moment.

    Below are examples of what was found in just a few hours of research. Just imagine what would be found if official audits were performed.

    States Examined; Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Illinois, Michigan, and Nevada.

    Yes, these are on the extreme end of the fraud spectrum, but what if all of those “official” looking assignments were just as bogus as these?

    One of the most infamous “vice presidents”, Erica Johnson-Seck, who signed thousands of these “official” assignments, confesses the role she (and others?) played in the creation of similar documents in her deposition that is posted here … (takes a moment to load)

    To top it all off, the Florida Bankers Association now wants to change Florida to a NON Judicial state with the bill in the link below that I urge all to understand.

    The Florida Consumer Protection and Homeowner Credit Rehabilitation Act

    Anyway, you decide…

    Where are the damn Feds…

    4closureFraud
    http://www.4closureFraud.org

  256. Are there any lawyers in Orlando, FL who get it?
    I need one

    Ken

  257. Still looking for a Lawyer Who Gets it in Kansas City, KS. The lawyer could be in the Missouri side of the state line, just needs to be able to practice law in Kansas. We want to keep our house. We also just found out that the interest on the loan was figured wrong. I don’t know if that helps or not. Please someone contact me.

  258. Yeash found some scary facts about Lawyers and bar associations

    http://www.healthfreedom.info/BAR%20Association.htm

    & some VERY eye opening insight about the “Debt” we owe on our Mortgages and Promissory Notes

    http://privateaudio.homestead.com/WHERE_DOES_THE_FRAUD_BEGIN.pdf

    Good read

  259. Is there a list of attorneys in orlando area?

  260. Hello:

    Could you please send me a list of the attorneys that get it in south Florida?

    Thanks

  261. I need a lawyer who gets it, my loan was an Indymac
    Loan, at the end of one month with no mortgage
    payment the phone calls are unbelievable. I want
    to know where my loan is and who do I really owe and
    why someone like Paulson is not in jail. How is this
    legal, this is not legal ………this should fall under
    punative damages done to the public as a whole based on the illegal dealings and irresponsible actions of the government and Wall Street. All of this
    fall-out and the repercussions that have resulted from
    their irresponsible actions have ruined the country, and they still walk away with the money. HOW?

  262. Re-post
    From Neil Garfield
    WHAT TO ASK YOUR PROSPECTIVE ATTORNEYS.

    So you have decided to challenge your servicer as to whether they really have the right to collect anything from you and whether they have been turning over payments to the “proper party” (the real lender) and whether they have any information regarding the securitization of your loan, and an accounting for ALL money exchanged or paid in connection with your loan.

    You’ve decided to challenge the pretender lender on whether they really own your loan and whether they “represent” any other entity that might be the REAL LENDER. You want to know who the real lender is and whether they have any enforceable right to collect money, enforce the note or obligation, or enforce the mortgage or deed of trust.

    You have decided to hire an attorney, but like all fields, there are attorneys that are good at one thing and not so much on others. You want an attorney who is a crusader, who is not looking for a single silver bullet like “produce the note.” You want someone who believes in you and believes in your case. You want someone you can trust and whom you like. Big retainers mean big bills generally speaking unless they charge you a project fee that is all inclusive.

    Yes this is a lot of work to do, but hiring an attorney who is only halfheartedly representing you with the notion that you owe the money and anything he does for you is enough, even if it is a minor delay. Keep looking. Don’t expect the first one you meet to be THE ONE.

    And remember it is YOUR case, they didn’t screw you (the securitization players did that) and they don’t owe you anything. They spent a lot of time getting educated and trained to practice law and they are entitled to substantial fees compared with other jobs.

    Here are the the things you should want to know and to get CLEAR answers that are verifiable from any attorney you interview:

    What type of practice do they have?
    Have they litigated property matters before? How many times? With what results?
    Have they litigated mortgage issues including foreclosures? How many times? with what results?
    Do they have any specialization, certification or degrees in real property law, securities, contract law, Uniform Commercial Code, appraisals, real estate closings? What are those and when did they get it?
    Do they have a working knowledge and experience litigating in Federal Court (bankruptcy preferred), State Court, jury trials, non-jury trials. How many trials have they been lead counsel? What is their record of success?
    How would they rate themselves in proficiency in motion practice, discovery, trial, cross examination?
    Can you get references from other clients?
    Will they litigate to win or just delay the proceedings?
    What are their personal views regarding the foreclosure crisis? Is their attitude one of outrage as to what has been done to homeowners, the national and world economy or complacency with a wink at the Judge that this is a real obligation that the “borrower” owes but wants to get out of because of some procedural sleight of hand?
    What do they think of the financial bailout to Wall Street?
    Do they agree that the homeowners were targeted victims of a vast scheme to drain homeowners and investors of as much wealth as possible or do they think borrowers were the greedy ones trying to buy houses they couldn’t afford?
    What do they propose to do for you? Do they have experts with whom they maintain relationships? who are those experts? can you speak with them?
    How much do they charge and how do they charge (by the hour, monthly, contingency fee, costs, expenses).
    What is the total amount they expect that you will be charged for this litigation? (Ignorance would indicate they haven’t been doing this much or with much success).
    Will you be provided with copies of all correspondence and notes to file?
    Will you have telephone access tot he attorney? How often? For how long?
    Will this attorney be representing you and working your file or an associate? If an associate, you want to ask the same questions regarding the above.
    Listen carefully to the answers. Take notes. Go home and think it over even if it only for an hour. Don’t let “emergency” conditions dictate settling for an attorney who doesn’t understand securitized residential mortgages. It will only get worse that way.

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 3,518 other followers

%d bloggers like this: