Homeowners « Livinglies’s Weblog

1,873 Responses

Mary T pro se Florida, on January 8th, 2010 at 8:15 am Said:

RE: Melissa Bell

To the other Mary… email me, we can exhange copies of the assignment to compare.

Mary T Pro Se Hillsborough Cty, Fl
waterlilys @aol.com
Mary T pro se Florida, on January 8th, 2010 at 8:13 am Said:

Melissa Bell notary Texas

I too am suspicious of my Mortgage Assignment to the Plaintiff. There is no corp seal or a resolution.Its supposed to be signed by a V.P., it is not. It post dates the Lis Pendens.

Original Lender: Counrtywide Home Loans
Mers nominee for Countrywide
Assignment to Bank of New York Mellon TRUSTEE(Cert. Holders Countrywide Warehouse Lending (CWL)asset backed…)

MERS
name of officer: Denise Bailey*
title of officer: Asst Secretary

Witness Melissa Bell, Norman Francisco
County: Harris
State: Texas

Notary: Brenda McKinzy

*Note:
Denise Bailey is a VP for Litton Loan Servicing (LinkedIn)

Melissa Bell is also a Notary, has done so on Litton documents… question is, does she work for Litton, or Mers… and if its Litton I thought the Notary is supposed to be a noninterested party.???
Abby in CA, on January 8th, 2010 at 3:52 am Said:

Mary–hi…if you go back and read thru some of my prior posts you will see that I have been dealing with New Century and Steve Nagy’s forged signature (that stamp signature is very different than the squiggle which is on my Corp Deed of Assignment). By the way,
who is the notary on the Steve Nagy doc?

Why don’t you email me at carra2009@gmail.com

If you can scan your Nagy doc, that would help.

I also can tell you about how I am fighting New Century up in their Delaware Bankruptcy case.

It is important for you to note the date of any deed assignments on your doc, esp the one signed by Nagy.

If it was signed/notarized after NCM declared bankruptcy on 4/2/2007….then they probably were forged and have the same issue as I am presenting to the judge.

Try to go back and read some of my earlier posts.

I might have a lead on a Florida attorney for you.
Lisa E., on January 7th, 2010 at 10:00 pm Said:

Attn: Mary!

OH NO! Not Steve Nagy! AGAIN? Mr. Nagy, really, Shame on you!

Mary, I draw your attention to the most revealing ForeclosureFraud Guide , in which you will find about 2/3rds of the way through some interesting comparisons of the illustrious Mr. Nagy’s signature.

Good luck to us all.

Lisa E
ForeclosureHamlet.org
mary, on January 7th, 2010 at 9:10 pm Said:

Does anyone have any information on Marti Noriega of Litton Loan servicing, signing as VP for Mers on assignment of Mortgage, DOT?? Note rubber stamped with Steve Nagy, blank (totally)

What about Melissa Bell, a notary from Texas, on assignment, whom has backround employment with Bank Of America, SVP payment processing, NC Commercial Bank and CBass ???

I believe my docs have been fabricated, to put in mildly and want to know if anyone has dealt with these people.

My refi was done in January 2007 was predatory from the jump and BOA, as Trustee is trying to foreclose. They have not produced or answered discovery, have been ordered, due in a few days. If New Century Mortgage Corp., was shut down and filed for Bankruptcy in April 2007, how can they assign mortgage without permission from the bankruptcy trustee?? Maybe they left out assets? Could my loan be illegal from the start? I need a lawyer that gets it in Central Florida.

But would love answers from anyone on the above questions or input.

Thanks so much.
Mary
vickieb, on January 7th, 2010 at 4:28 pm Said:

They are hard nosed because that is the way they have been since the very beginning, The agent said they wanted the house two weeks after the sale. I guess they can do that. I don’t know. Everything is getting a lot more difficult. Everyone says there is stuff you can do but honestly it seems I’m the one that keeps hitting the brick wall of everyone hardnosed. No one has any interest. Yes – I will admit I was stupid and dumb. Perhaps I could have done something sooner. So it is all my fault. But no matter who I asked for help no one would,. And that’s the truth. So anyway, thank you all for letting me vent and unload. I feel a little better and have a clearer head. I am emailing and faxing my hands off in between doing the job I actually get paid to do. It’s difficult to keep my head held high and a smile on my face. I’m trying but it really isn’t working towards that positive attitude thing. I’m trying — I really am. I am praying for a miracle as well.
Abby in CA, on January 7th, 2010 at 4:27 pm Said:

VickieB-one more idea. If you have any realtor friends, ask them to call up the Realtor (cash for keys guy) and pose as the realtor for an interested buyer. Your realtor friend may be able to get some update on what is up and if your house has already been sold to somebody else.

It may turn out that yes, you may have to move and maybe the house has already been sold to somebody else.

Maybe no lawyers will take your case.

You can always file a lawsuit after you move and represent yourself, although I do not know the implications since you signed cash for keys.

But, if your refi’s etc. involved fraud, predatory lending, TILA violations etc…you may have a case.

I am not an attorney, nor offering legal services. The above is my opinion.
Abby in CA, on January 7th, 2010 at 4:22 pm Said:

Vickieb–this is summary of PA foreclosure process–

I do not know at which point you were at when you did the cash for keys. Cash for keys must be a contract so I am surmising that it abrupts the foreclosure process, but I could be wrong.

Did you house get to the auction point? Was it already auctioned? Have you gone to county recorder to see if there is any recording on Trustee’s Deed (sale)?

Foreclosure Laws in Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania foreclosure laws require that all foreclosure proceedings are carried out through judicial means. All in all, the entire Pennsylvania foreclosure process takes roughly 10 months to complete. This does not include the pre-foreclosure period.
Before a foreclosure can even begin a homeowner must be at least 60 days late on their payments. Generally, lenders are required to send the homeowner two notices of default informing them of the amount they owe and of the fact that if they do not pay, a foreclosure will be imminent. Sometimes these notices will also carry information on a homeowner’s options for avoiding a foreclosure. After this point, the homeowner has anywhere from 2 to 4 months to find a solution and pay off their debt.

If this period passes without payment of the default amount, then the lender can file a suit against the homeowner for the amount owed. Once this occurs, the homeowner must be notified, either in person or by mail or other contact. Once the homeowner has been notified, they have one month to address the situation with the lender or settle the debt, After that point, the court will issue an order for the homeowner’s property to be sold as a means of collecting the debt owed the lender.
The borrower still has the power to avoid a foreclosure by paying off the full amount owed on the loan up until one hour before the sale takes place.
In order to correctly advertise the Notice of Sale, the county Sheriff will post a Notice of Sale on the property in question at least 30 days before the sale is scheduled to take place. The Sheriff must also issue the homeowner a copy of the Notice of Sale. The Notice of Sale must also be published at least once a week for 3 consecutive weeks leading up to the sale in a general public newspaper, as well as a local legal newspaper.
The foreclosure sale is conducted as a public auction where anyone, including the lender, may bid on the property. The auction takes place anywhere from 1-2 months after the court order has been issued, and is presided over by the county Sheriff. The property is awarded to the highest bidder, and the Sheriff is then responsible for transferring ownership to the high bidder through requisite paperwork. The sale may be postponed for up to 100 days, but any further postponements must be approved by the court.

The original homeowner receives no right to redemption period after the auction takes place.
Abby in CA, on January 7th, 2010 at 4:13 pm Said:

VickieB–

There is always something you can do. Don’t be disheartened. Not second guessing, but since you signed cash for keys, that was probably the point you should have negotiated longer stay for rent.

I cannot imagine why they are being so hard nosed and not allowing you to rent a bit longer.

Did you call the opposing attorney?
vickieb, on January 7th, 2010 at 1:41 pm Said:

Thanks for the advice — signed up pending approval. I just wanted to say I have never and will never say that my husband and I are blameless in this situation. But I have consistently begged for help for so long that I just can’t believe no one really cares. WOW what a worldly eye opening. What if they already have the house sold and my son won’t be able to get it. That would stink. This whole situation is so hopeless and the attorney really doesn’t understand why we are still trying to work it out. My home for 22 years. Yes, I screwed up but they took a 2000 arreage and made it into 55,0000. Every bankruptcy, every forebearance was all done to keep my house. I knew the amounts were ridiculous but I kept hoping I would find someone honest enough to refinance me. No one would touch us once they found out Ocwen was our servicer. We are honest and work hard. I remember an earlier post where the woman committed suicide. I can really relate to that.

Thanks for letting me vent.
Joe, on January 7th, 2010 at 1:16 pm Said:

Jan. 7, 2010, 1:52 p.m. EST

N.Y. Fed told AIG to limit details of payments to banks
By Alistair Barr, MarketWatch
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — The Federal Reserve Bank of New York told American International Group to withhold details from the public about more than $62 billion the insurer paid to banks at the height of the 2008 financial crisis, according to e-mails disclosed Thursday by congressman Darrell Issa.

AIG (NYSE:AIG) said in a draft of a regulatory filing that it paid banks including Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS) and Societe Generale (PARIS:FR:GLE) 100 cents on the dollar for credit-default swaps they bought from the insurer’s derivatives unit AIG Financial Products.

AM Report: Seeking a housing recoveryGains in home sales have been driven by government stimulus, leading some to wonder if the nascent housing recovery needs federal assistance to sustain, Nick Timiraos reports.
The swaps were sold as protection against defaults on complex mortgage-related vehicles known as collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs. As the housing meltdown grew into a full-blown financial crisis, AIG was forced to post billions of dollars in collateral on these contracts, pushing it to the brink of collapse.

The insurer was saved by the government, which committed more than $100 billion in taxpayer money to the bailout. A lot of that money was quickly transferred to major banks that were counterparties on the CDO-linked derivatives. The bailout has been among the most controversial of the financial crisis because the banks were paid 100 cents on the dollar during a period when many similar obligations were being settled at large discounts.

The e-mails disclosed Thursday suggest that the New York Fed, then led by current Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was concerned that the decision to pay 100 cents on the dollar would be controversial.

“The AIGFP counterparties received 100 percent of the par value of the Multi-Sector CDOs sold and the related CDS have been terminated,” AIG wrote in a December draft of a Securities and Exchange Commission filing.

The New York Fed crossed out the reference, according to e-mails disclosed Thursday by Rep. Issa, R-Calif., ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

“The outstanding question is why the FRBNY didn’t fight for a better deal for the American taxpayer,” Issa said in a statement Thursday. “Clearly, the New York Fed wanted to suppress details and limit disclosure of the counterparty deal from the American people — the only question is why?”

“If AIG’s securities lawyers determine that AIG is legally obligated to make a particular filing or disclosure, then that is what AIG must do,” Federal Reserve Bank of New York General Counsel Thomas Baxter said in a statement.

It was “appropriate” for the New York Fed to weigh in on AIG’s disclosures because Maiden Lane III, a New York Fed entity, was an integral part of the transactions that settled the insurer’s CDS obligations, Baxter added.

Still, “the final decision rested with AIG’s securities counsel,” Baxter said.

AIG spokeswoman Christina Pretto declined to comment.

Other major AIG counterparties that got big payments include Bank of America Corp. (NYSE:BAC) , Merrill Lynch and Deutsche Bank AG (NYSE:DB) . Read about who got what.
Foreclosure Fraud, on January 7th, 2010 at 1:14 pm Said:

vickieb,

Are you a member of Lisa’s site Foreclosure Hamlet? Either way, head over there and join in the chat and we will see what we can figure out as group to help you. Members pop in and out all day. Hope to see you there. We have been accomplishing amazing things by working as a team.

4closureFraud
vickieb, on January 7th, 2010 at 12:30 pm Said:

Well, my son is pre-approved for a mortgage but I can’t get the people who foreclosed (rendered judgement according to attorney) to give us even until the end of this month. I know I signed a cash for keys (under duress now because of the holidays). The real estate rep said they wanted us out in two weeks. I didn’t think they could do that. I thought the process took 90 days from beginning to end — we live in PA. I know we don’t have a leg to stand on but why they want us out so fast amazes me unless there was a deal in the making all along. Sorry I am just upset. I have exhausted all options. We have more snow coming and with the past snow and the blizzard and the house we were going to rent the owner’s father passed away during the holidays and he’s not prepared. They just don’t care — I want to drive my car off a cliff. My son is so close and I am really afraid to tip my hand. Attorneys move so slow. What to do????? No one wants the case and says we don’t have a case. I know — everyone has problems. But to the individual the problems they have are the worst. Sorry again. If I play the game and a sheriff shows up I don’t think I can handle it. Is there any hope left or is the only hope leaving this world?
Arpad, on January 7th, 2010 at 12:18 pm Said:

Hi Everyone!
I have a question, the fact that Freddie Mac is the owner of my mortgage, but Aurora loan service( claiming to be a holder of the note, that they lost) is suing me advantages for me in my defense?
Abby in CA, on January 5th, 2010 at 11:49 pm Said:

Florida Folks–one has to begin to wonder if the retirement offerings for your judges included investments in MBS etc.

Somebody in another state learned that multiple MBS offerings had been invested in by judges!!

Could be a backlash against the homeowners—the judges may see their retirements dwindling and are blaming us when they should be recusing themselves.

You all should poke around to see what you can find out.
Abby in CA, on January 5th, 2010 at 11:45 pm Said:

On THE BRINK

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/05/2010 19:37 -0500

Debt Ceiling TARP

On December 24, the Senate passed a vote by a razor thin margin (with not a vote to spare) to raise the Federal debt ceiling from $12,104 billion to $12,394 billion. The actual debt ceiling increase took effect on December 28. And as the chart below shows, the Treasury’s cash flow projections were spot on: 3 days later, and the debt subject to limit surged to $12,254, a jump of over $200 billion in 2 days, and a whopping $150 billion over the old debt ceiling. Three days is all the buffer the administration’s reckless spending spree has afforded this country to avoid bankruptcy. Had one more Democratic vote dissented from the stopgap measure, the US would now be in technical default. There is just $140 billion left before the revised debt ceiling is breached. We hope for the country’s sake that Bill refunding in January is massive, because as we already pointed out, on January 7th we expect another ~$130 of new Treasuries to be announced for auction by January 15th. And then there are two more weeks in January… Which is why the Treasury better be using that TARP money to pay down all it can, because if the general population understands how close this nation was to the fiscal brink, many more answers may be demanded out of the ruling party as to how it could allow things to get so out of hand.
Jeff, on January 5th, 2010 at 11:23 pm Said:

NY Judge does it again “FAT CAT BANKERS”

Judge Slashes ‘Fat Cat’ Bank’s Bill for Subpoenaed Documents
Mark Fass

New York Law Journal

December 28, 2009

del.icio.us DiggRedditFacebookGoogle BookmarksNewsvineLinkedInMixxStumbleuponTwitter
PrintShareEmailReprints & PermissionsPost a Comment A Brooklyn judge has rejected a bank’s request for $9,112 in costs for producing subpoenaed documents, calling the claim an example of the excess and greed among “fat cat bankers on Wall Street.”

JPMorgan Chase, a non-party in an action to confirm an arbitration award, sought 25 cents per page and $25 per hour for producing 18,248 pages of subpoenaed documents demanded by the petitioner.

In a blistering 11-page decision, Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Arthur Schack granted JPMorgan Chase only $1,250.27, or about one-seventh of the amount the bank requested.

The judge quoted a recent interview of President Barack Obama on “60 Minutes” in which the president suggested that the greed of “fat cat bankers” played a role in the present recession.

“Clearly, Chase’s arbitrary $25.00 per hour … fee for the unsubstantiated 182 hours of research by person or persons unknown only helps to unjustly enrich ‘a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street,’” Justice Schack wrote in Matter of Arbitration of Klein v. Persaud, 8007/09. “This Court is not a collection vehicle to further enrich already rich bankers.”

Schack called the bank’s CEO, James S. Dimon, the “fattest cat” at JPMorgan Chase, citing Dimon’s compensation of nearly $20 million in 2008.

Petitioner Abraham Klein initiated the underlying action to confirm a multimillion-dollar arbitration award against Christine Persaud and Caring Home Care Agency.

In July, Schack asked non-party JPMorgan Chase to submit an affirmation regarding its production expenses.

The bank claimed it provided Klein 18,248 pages of documents and requested $9,112 — $4,550 for locating and retrieving the documents and $4,562 for printing them.

In opposing JPMorgan Chase’s request, Klein called the bank’s demand “flawed and disingenuous.” He argued that the bank sought to be “rewarded for ignoring court orders” and reimbursed for pages it never produced. Klein also claimed that JPMorgan Chase flooded his attorneys with “thousands” of documents they never requested.

JPMorgan Chase denied those allegations.

“Chase produced approximately 12,000 pages by [the] deadline set by the Court … The 12,000 pages are responsive to petitioner’s unequivocal and explicit demand for all documents for that account,” the bank contended in court papers. “Chase has also produced more than 6,000 pages of documents for the other four accounts listed in the June 12th subpoena.”

Schack sided with Klein.

First, the judge reduced the bank’s hourly fee from $25 to $6.55 — the minimum wage in Indiana, where the judge believed the work may have been done, at the time the documents were produced.

“[T]he Court … is guided by the principal that ‘[o]rdinarily, the retrieval and evaluation of documents should be done by the lowest-level person consistent with accurate and reliable identification of the material called for,’” Schack wrote.

The 182 hours worked by JPMorgan Chase employees therefore came to $1,192, not $4,562, the judge concluded.

In order to determine the compensation rate per page the bank copied, the judge “examined” the Web sites of “three major stationary suppliers” and determined that a case of Hammermill Copy Plus Paper, containing 10 reams (i.e., 5,000 sheets) lists for $44.99, or a little less than a penny per page.

Schack therefore awarded JPMorgan Chase one cent per page for paper, plus an additional two cents for “toner, copier maintenance and electricity.”

The judge also noted that of the 18,248 pages that JPMorgan Chase produced, the bank placed 16,317 pages online, as opposed to printing them. For those pages, the bank only deserved compensation for labor and not supplies, the judge wrote, calling the bank’s claim “disingenuous.”

At three cents per page for only 1,939 pages, instead of 25 cents per page for 18,248, the bank deserved $58.17, not $4,562, Schack concluded.

The judge ordered Klein to pay JPMorgan Chase a total of $1,250.27.

Michelle E. Tarson of Simmons, Jannace & Stagg represented Chase. The firm did not return calls for comment.

Paulino J. Salazar and Mendel Zilberberg of Mendel Zilberberg & Associates in Brooklyn represented Klein.
Abby in CA, on January 5th, 2010 at 10:20 pm Said:

Mary pro se in Florida–always remember to say to those judges …I am entitled to my due process……

those words…’due process’….also, my due process rights are being violated….
Lisa E., on January 5th, 2010 at 9:31 pm Said:

Ah Mary,

It’s good to see your update. I’ve been searching frantically for your email address all day!

I see this same dismissive attitude almost every week. We can be 100% right and still lose (the motion, the house, the case).

Judicial fatigue, inertia, disinterest, burn-out, lethargy, and perhaps some other motivating factors to maintain the status quo are challenges to be accepted realistically and met head on.

Non-judicial states have seemingly insurmountable hurdles too.

Mary, you are right about Judge Silver. I have an interesting ruling by him that I’ll have to revisit now that you reminded me. I’m happy to send it to you.

I ask everyone here, what is the legal meaning of a Judge’s “Boilerplate” eructations?

Lisa E
ForeclosureHamlet.org
Mary pro se Florida, on January 5th, 2010 at 7:30 pm Said:

My day in court.

I did my homework, I knew the background of the judge, how he was a stickler on the law… good!… that was the basis of my argument!

The bailiff told us “Judge Silver, nice man, you’ll like him.”(yeah!)

We’re in the hearing room, another case went first. Judge was just like I expected a stickler on the law, and even read their motion already!

Now its our turn. “Sorry, this case is not on my docket, some mistake has been made.” UGH!!! (13th district has a vacancy as one of the judges has gone to appellate court) So we were rushed to another division, told we were considered a “no show”, but they found a judge to work us in.

New hearing room, (not a courtroom but the judges desk and a perpendicular table) and an unknown to us – Judge Padgett. A real Florida good ole boy. I started my statement to argue Motion to Dismiss, halfway thru he interrupts and says:

“BOILERPLATE.”

‘”I have 80 foreclosure cases on Thursday, my 19 yr old son can do them.”

He asked the Plaintiff something and after that response Judge says:

“Boilerplate.”

I asked if I could continue my comments, he gave me a look like “why?”

He said “this is a case about a contract, a broken contract, its as simple as that”

I said “Well, I can simplify my argument to one sentence, the Plaintiff did not own the title or mortgage when this Lis Pendens was filed, which is against Fl case law”

His body language conveyed “so what” … but what he said was:

“BOILERPLATE”

Again! at this point I was boiling! I said “Well, if we’re going to ignore the case law, I guess I don’t need to continue”

“Motion Denied.”

He left the room shaking his head. I guess I totally wasted his time.

If you are in Hillsborough Cnty Fl, avoid this judge at all costs, he is one of those Rocket Docket Judges we have in Fl.

Actually from the kind assistance of Florida Defense Team, I knew going in not to expect much from a Motion to Dismiss. So I wasn’t surprised, I just never thought the judge wouldn’t even consider my arguments. Thing is, I felt I had a smidgen of a chance with Judge Silver. Ah well….

The Plaintiffs Atty did tell me to expect another motion, with us having to answer that, … so all is not lost. Another day another motion to work with!

I wish I could have afforded a court reporter as was suggested.

… and thank you Lisa for your support, it was greatly appreciated.
marcus, on January 5th, 2010 at 4:33 pm Said:

S. Fla. foreclosures up 29% in 2009
Source:South Florida Business Journal

Foreclosure activity in South Florida was up 29 percent, year-over-year, in 2009 – to 97,000 actions taken, according to brokerage and real estate research firm Condo Vultures.

In 2008, there were 76,000 foreclosure actions taken, more than double the 32,000 foreclosure filings for 2007.

Peter Zalewski, managing principal of Bal Harbour-based Condo Vultures, said foreclosure activity tapered off toward the end of the year because banks were more willing to work with mortgage holders to find alternatives to foreclosure.

“The newfound willingness of lenders to suddenly work with borrowers to modify mortgages or approve short sales has undoubtedly had an effect on the number of foreclosure filings in South Florida,” he said.

President Barack Obama’s $75 billion Making Home Affordable program has been criticized because it has only been able to help a small fraction of homeowners most vulnerable to foreclosure. Many homeowners trying to participate in the program have complained about the slow vetting of applications, constantly changing rules and bank reticence to granting modifications. The program also falls short because, even if a modification is achieved, the principal on the mortgage remains unchanged, which potentially keeps mortgage holders in homes with debt much greater than the home’s market value.

How the next year will play out in terms of policy and impact is unclear, but banks are more inclined these days to shrink inventory, Zalewski said.

“It’s easier and less expensive to move the product in a short sale than to go through the foreclosure process,” he said.

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
Ace, on January 5th, 2010 at 1:29 pm Said:

VickieB,

Do not get confused. You should go and/or call the registry and ask as many questions as you can. The people are there for us and mostly are very helpful. Build your case.

Abby I do not trust these clerks to do anything for us. But to get the rental thing going forward I have to agree. After that, continue calling “THEM” if you wish but learn how to write QWR’s and send them to all the required parties. Use ‘Certified Return Receipt Requested’ from USPS for all of your correspondence. Create a chain of these letters, every month regardless of whether they respond or not. Nothing “someone says” can be used for a case. It will be considered hearsay I believe? I haven’t received one response in 15 months. Isn’t it amazing that they don’t even follow their own rules?

Go backwards on LLies and review as much as all your family can handle. There is a lot of information that can help you here. Again, print the important material. Have these copies separate from everything.

Consider folders for,
1 – All Existing Mortgage Documents, (separate by company to remove any possible confusion if you have that many of them)
2 – All New Written Correspondence (from you to them)
2a- Co. ABC, 2b- Co. XYZ…
3 – All New Written Correspondence (from them to you)
3a- same as above, 3b…
4 – All Registry of Deeds Files
5 – Find a Legal Coach (Att’y Gen’l?) look on PA Gov’t. website
6 – All your important LLies documents
7 – Go to the bookstore and find the law shelves. NOLO is for Pro Se, Pro per. $40

Tomorrow, keep your head held high, you need not to worry. Bury yourself in your work.

“Our main business is not to see what lies dimly at a distance, but to do what lies clearly at hand” Thomas Carlyle 1795-1881
floridadefensteam, on January 5th, 2010 at 9:42 am Said:

TRUSTS + NON RESIDENT COST BOND = BIG PROBLEM FOR MILLS

Is Mortgage Held in a trust? Pin them down in Discovery to answer if they’re complying with State Law. Compel if need be. Admission will be damning. Avoidance will be telling. A Motion to Dismiss for failure to file a Non Resident Cost Bond (FS 57.011) gives them 20 days to do so. Plaintiffs attorneys no doubt will become a surety on behalf of there client. Sun Tzu says not so fast. Obtain a copy of the cost bond and file motion for sanctions: Under Florida law an attorney cannot become a surety on any bond of his client in any judicial proceeding. Section 454.20, Florida Statutes; Rule 2.060(f), Florida Rules of Judicial Administration. For good measure here is the Florida Bar ethics opinion:

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:sJHq5U0Gm_sJ:www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBETOpin.nsf/ca2dcdaa853ef7b885256728004f87db/e6c63e9c1307ff3285256b2f006cb926%3FOpenDocument+non+resident+cost+bond+florida+57.011&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Here is the State Law (Florida) on Trusts:
(State law requires trust companies to register, maintain notice of offices and officers, pay registration fees and make deposits of funds in proportion to the volume of trust business in the state.

Link: http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:HJ_e1CQpeF4J:mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/%3Fp%3D221+foreclosure+florida+trust+registration+register&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Linda, on January 5th, 2010 at 8:03 am Said:

Mary pro se–be –TAKE A COURT REPORTER to the hearing.
Mary pro se Florida, on January 5th, 2010 at 7:07 am Said:

This is what we plan to say to the judge in the hearing today along with my points in the Motion to Dismiss:

Your Honor, if I understand correctly, this hearing, in this location is a bit less formal than a courtroom. Would the court allow remarks before I start my arguments, of less than 2 min? I timed it.

In recent years people in our situation, those taken advantage by predatory lenders, are ridiculed for being stupid, and reckless. And because the sub-prime mortgage foreclosures have become so widespread, people like us are blamed for the terrible economic crisis the country is in. I feel the need to counter that assumption, at another time maybe the court might allow a statement about how we were made victim of a list of predatory tactics that brought us here today.

Aside from that I wanted to say, when I was growing up, my dad was Asst. Clerk of the Court, 14th Circuit Court in Connecticut. Even as a child of 10, I used to go in court at first just to see what my father did, then later just to listen to what happened in the courtroom. I became fascinated and awed by the power of the court, the lawyers but mostly the law. I never thought I would be a defendant in a situation such as this.

In preparing for this hearing, I’ve come a cross, more than once, comments on foreclosure suits in Florida expressing the same sentiment:

Circuit Court Judges favor the plaintiff

but I also found this quote by a Circuit Court Judge which said in essence:

“I believe in the sacred obligation of the court to do what’s fair and right to enforce our laws and to do justice always”

I am here today not to test this, nor am saying this to curry favor. On the contrary, I am here today because I have faith in the system. All I expect is fairness in enforcing our laws. Which is the basis for my arguments today.

My arguments for Motion to Dismiss are based on these basic facts that I want to point out:

1. In regard to the Notice of Lis Pendens, it was dated Dec.1st, 2008
(witnessed and sealed by the court Dec. 8, 2008).

2. Assignment of Mortgage to the Plaintiff notarized Dec.11th, 2008.
The filing of in court was not until Mar 2009.

The Lis pendens predates any Assignment to these Plaintiffs who therefore were not the party of interest, have not been shown to be authorized in this action, did not own, nor hold the mortgage and note when this suit was filed. Standing requires prosecuting party to have sufficient stake in the outcome and the real party of interest be recognized in the law to bring claim. The plaintiffs have not meet any of these criteria.

When exhibits are inconsistent with allegations of material fact as to who is the real party of interest is, such allegations cancel each other out.

The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to proceed. Subject matter jurisdiction has never been established on the record. If I understand correctly the jurisdictional question can be raised at any time and can never be time-barred.

As the Plaintiffs attys “The law offices of Daniel C Consuegra” are one of the “Foreclosure Mills” mentioned in the Tampa Tribune, they filed 43 foreclosure suits in one month alone, Feb 2008 which is well before the peak currently burdening the circuit court. Therefore I suggest they cant claim it was a mistake or a misstep. It would seem to be, if I may be so bold, as to be an affront on the court not to follow basic law regarding filing of lis pendens and may even constitute fraud upon the court.

Judge Olsen in Fort Lauderdale in Oct 2008 said that foreclosure mills “have engaged in a systemic process of churning out unrefined and unexamined forms pleadings instead of filing carefully considered legal papers.”

When is conduct sufficiently egregious to distinguish it from arguable forgetfulness or misconduct? How much bad conduct is enough? Does one evidence of misconduct in reference to a fact central to the case suffice? What about a lack of chain of title evidence which makes it difficult for the opposing party to ferret out the true facts but in the end, fail to succeed only because of the diligence and perseverance of the opposing litigant or because the offending council despite being willful was inept?

The court may ask, “do you owe money on your mortgage”. my answer would be “I may owe money to someone but who?” My main concern is that another entity, ie Litton Loan Servicing is making belligerent frightening phone calls to our home threatening foreclosure. I am afraid if the Plaintiff is able to proceed without proving chain of evidence as to who owns the note/mortgage and judgment is made against us, we may be pray to yet another foreclosure suit.

Without having a judicial determination of who actually is entitled to title of proceeds of sale, the homeowner can be left without the security and still be liable for claims on the obligation. This isnt just merely a procedural error, it has greater consequence.

Wherefore: Defendants ask that this action be dismissed for lack of subject matter, jurisdiction, and we ask dismissal with prejudice.
_______________
Wish me luck
steve sinacola, on January 5th, 2010 at 1:00 am Said:

Any thoughts on the Florida Poison Pill Motion?? Seems to be based on the SPV not being registered in the State of Florida…..it runs contrary to the “no silver bullet” notion, I have no idea what the required registraton the SPV does not have, but would like to know if the same would apply in Michigan.

x_http://documentaryclearinghouse.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=18&Itemid=19
Ken Dost, on January 4th, 2010 at 6:19 pm Said:

QUICK QUESTION……I HOPE A FAIRLY EASY ONE.

We were in foreclosure for several consecutive months 10/08-3/09. From that time on we have not been in default even though technically we are. We have received no statements or anything.

The new Oregon laws pertaining to foreclosure requires them to send a new default notice out and we begin the process again….

My question though is that the beneficiary was labeled as Ownit Mortgage, and they have long since been out of business…..How can I use this to my advantage? Can I sue them and ask for summary judgment based on the false assignment, or can I use it as a prima facia?

What is the best way to proceed.

thanks
vickieb, on January 4th, 2010 at 5:25 pm Said:

So I went to an attorney today. This is what they said. It wasn’t a foreclosure it was a juidgement. When I asked if I could see the note the attorney said it doesn’t matter . When I asked to have an audit of my mortgage he said he wouldn’t matter. He said if I asked to open the sheriff sale he said the judge would know I was just trying to buy time. However, he did agree to call the other attorney and see what he could do. He also said he would talk to the real estate agent. The only thing good he did was not charge us. So I’m no further ahead then I was before.
Lisa E, on January 4th, 2010 at 3:01 pm Said:

Mary Pro Se Florida.

Hello. I will keep you in my thoughts tonight as you do the last preparations for your hearing. Did you contact FLdefenseTeam? They may be able to help even at this late hour.

Good luck Mary. We are all behind you.

Lisa
Deontos, on January 4th, 2010 at 9:19 am Said:

THE NEWS THAT NEEDS TO BE KNOWN IS NOT ALWAYS UPBEAT.

“Life is a Journey” so the expression goes. Each experience
has lessons of great value even if steeped in adversity.
Economic misfortunes are inherently DEPRESSING.
I think the greatest salve to our common distress is
knowing, “We Are Not Alone”, and that there are others
here that will instantly reach out with a helping hand
or at least a momentary kind ear.

We should count ourselves more fortunate than the MANY
who never find this refuge in the midst of their adversities.

————————————-

FORECLOSURE NOTICE LEADS TO SUICIDE OF ‘NICE LADY’
By Frank Juliano, Staff Writer
Sunday, January 3, 2010

MILFORD — A lot of people say “Over my dead body.” Vincenza Garcia meant it.

Rather than comply with a foreclosure notice and allow a marshal to evict her from the home she loved at 55 Earle St., Garcia took her own life on Oct. 1. And, in the eyes of her attorney, her story is emblematic of the devastation the foreclosure epidemic has inflicted on so many once-proud homeowners.

Garcia, who had won the city’s Freedom Lawn contest last summer for her beautifully landscaped yard, loved the small house near Point Beach she had owned since 1996.

She was “a nice lady who was always working on her garden,” said neighbor Phil Vetro. “Every time I’d see her, she’d be out there working.”

But when the introductory “teaser” rate on her newly refinanced mortgage expired, Garcia, who lived alone and was by all accounts a private person, fell hopelessly behind. There were opportunities to dig out from under, or to at least delay, foreclosure as 2009 wore on, but she represented herself and failed to navigate the complex system.

And so, aware that the marshal and a moving crew would be at the tidy gray ranch house before 8 a.m., the 56 year-old woman made her final preparations.

According to an 18-page incident report by the Milford police department, Garcia wrote e-mails to her sister and to her lawyer at 2 a.m., telling them to expect a call in the morning.

She wrote several letters to family and friends, including one in which she enclosed 37 Lotto tickets and wrote “Have fun!” on the envelope.

These were left on the kitchen table, along with a list of her family members and her lawyer, with their phone numbers and a Federal Express package that was found to contain an old black and white photo and two invitations to President George W. Bush’s inauguration.

Garcia then filled the first 11 pages of a notebook with messages of love for her family and her last wishes and left that on the nightstand in her bedroom.

The woman put her four cats in the bathroom and closed the door, taping to it a list of their names and her veterinarian’s phone number.

And then, according to the police report, she apparently put some music on her stereo, laid down on her bed and fired a single .22-caliber bullet into her head.

When Marshal Neil Longobardi arrived at about 7:30 a.m. he found the sliding door to the deck unlocked, and a note taped to it with names and phone numbers. Eerie “Halloween” music was playing, the marshal said, and there were letters and the package on the table. He called police.

Garcia’s brother, who is the executor of her estate and lives on Long Island, did not return phone calls for this story.

West Haven attorney Stephen Small said that Garcia ought to be the human face of the foreclosure crisis. The Milford woman finally hired Small in late August, after the foreclosure had been filed. His appearance notice is the last entry in her thick file in New Haven Superior Court.

“I’ve seen many, many desperate people in her situation,” Small said. Vincenza Garcia is someone “who didn’t reach out,” her lawyer said, and failed to understand the predatory nature of the loan she agreed to.

Across the country there are tales of how job losses and home foreclosures have driven some to take their lives.

“For the first time in all the years I’ve done this, I’m hearing things mentioned like, `He lost his job. She lost her house. We’re in foreclosure,’ ” veteran Minnesota medical examiner Dr. Janis Amatuzio told The Star Tribune in December.

In Gaithersburg, Md., four clients of the nonprofit Family Services Inc., which counsels people going through foreclosures, attempted to commit suicide this year, according to The Gazette, a local newspaper.

Experts say that it’s always hard to draw explicit conclusions in cases that are likely to involve a host of complex facts. Nonetheless, in Connecticut, suicides were up in 2009 from the year before, according to statistics from the state Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. Garcia’s was one of 320 self-inflicted deaths this year, compared to 282 in 2008.

The biggest jump was among her age group, 51 to 60 year olds. They accounted for 71 of the suicides reported in Connecticut this year, compared to 52 in 2008, state figures show.

In Garcia’s case, she had no idea of the vulnerable situation she was putting herself into when she agreed to her refinance her home with a sizable, variable-rate mortgage in 2006.

The New York native, divorced since the 1970s, took out a $281,000 mortgage in June, 2006, from Sand Canyon Corp., which had formerly been known as Option One Mortgage Co.

The loan was packaged by Merrill Lynch Corp. as part of its “Investors’ Trust Asset-Backed Certificates,” but when that company fell on hard times, LaSalle Bank, of West Hartford, was made the trustee of the loan.

When the 6.99 initial interest rate — nearly 2 points higher than was available from other lenders — rose to 9.1 percent in June, 2008, Garcia missed a $2,300 monthly payment, and with late fees, liens and other charges, and never caught up.

“It’s a machine,” Small said of the mortgage refinancing industry. “These people appraise your house for what they need, and the goal is to get the commission. They are kids in boiler rooms all over the country, who send a notary to your house with the papers.

“They’ll tell you not to pay your mortgage that month because the new loan will be in effect by the end of it,” Small said. “But these people are not your friends and they are not there to explain the paperwork.

“They are there to get you to sign, and by the time you realize that it is a variable rate you have no choice but to sign because you’re already behind,” he said.

The workout sheet in Garcia’s court file shows that the fair market value of her home was $285,000 but her unpaid debt had climbed to $299,570. She had a negative equity of $14,000 in the property.

But Garcia made mistakes too, the biggest of which was not having someone review the loan during the three days she had to pull out of it, Small said.

Then she represented herself at two court mediation hearings, in February and March, at which, according to the file, Garcia admitted that she was in default without offering a modification plan.
Foreclosure Fraud, on January 4th, 2010 at 7:16 am Said:

4closureFraud Featured on the Market Ticker! again!!

This is the second time Karl has featured me in one of his posts. Last time it was the Foreclosure Fraud Guide which hit the net like wildfire.

Now it is my post on HAFA – Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives

He has a TON of readers so it is going to be an interesting day!

You can read the post here…
“HAFA” – Foreclosure Warning Dead Ahead!
4closureFraud
vickieb, on January 3rd, 2010 at 1:52 pm Said:

What is theWhat is the difference between a loan modification and a forebearance. What we signed was a loan modification — or so I thought. But on the last statement they said it was a forebearance. Maybe I’m pulling at straws here but ….. They are not the same are they?
fference b
angry & and not taking it, on January 3rd, 2010 at 12:52 pm Said:

Mary pro se Florida

i have the same ..Signed by” Denise Baily Asst Secretary/Title officer ”
fremont2mers assign of dot- 2008
Denise Baily Asst Secretary signing for – litton loan -as agent for mers
email me freak4u at comcast dot net
Ace, on January 3rd, 2010 at 10:34 am Said:

VickieB,

Do not get confused. You should go and/or call the registry and ask as many questions as you can. The people are there for us and mostly are very helpful. Build your case.

Abby I do not trust these clerks to do anything for us. But to get the rental thing going forward I have to agree. After that, continue calling “THEM” if you wish but learn how to write QWR’s and send them to all the required parties. Use ‘Certified Return Receipt Requested’ from USPS for all of your correspondence. Create a chain of these letters, every month regardless of whether they respond or not. Nothing “someone says” can be used for a case. It will be considered hearsay I believe? I haven’t received one response in 15 months. Isn’t it amazing that they don’t even follow their own rules?

Go backwards on LLies and review as much as all your family can handle. There is a lot of information that can help you here. Again, print the important material. Have these copies separate from everything.

Consider folders for,
1 – All Existing Mortgage Documents, (separate by company to remove any possible confusion if you have that many of them)
2 – All New Written Correspondence (from you to them)
2a- Co. ABC, 2b- Co. XYZ…
3 – All New Written Correspondence (from them to you)
3a- same as above, 3b…
4 – All Registry of Deeds Files
5 – Find a Legal Coach (Att’y Gen’l?) look on PA Gov’t. website they may have a hotline number.
6 – All your important LLies documents
7 – Go to the bookstore and find the law shelves. NOLO is for Pro Se, Pro per. $40

Tomorrow, all of us, keep your head held high, you need not to worry. Bury yourself in your work.

“Our main business is not to see what lies dimly at a distance, but to do what lies clearly at hand” Thomas Carlyle 1795-1881
Thomas S., on January 3rd, 2010 at 10:09 am Said:

Law firm gorges on home defaults

Staff file photo by JAY NOLAN
Florida Default and Wells Fargo “have engaged in the systematic process of churning out unrefined and unexamined form pleadings, instead of producing and filing carefully considered legal papers,” a bankruptcy judge wrote.

By MICHAEL SASSO

msasso@tampatrib.com

Published: January 3, 2010

Related Links

Florida Default Law Group
TAMPA – If there’s one industry that’s not feeling the economy’s sting these days, it’s the business of filing foreclosure lawsuits.

Recently, mortgage servicing companies have been filing about 2,000 initial foreclosure documents every month in Hillsborough County Circuit Court. To handle the overwhelming caseload, an army of lawyers, paralegals and clerks at big foreclosure law firms have streamlined the art of separating homeowners from their homes.

Few are as large or as efficient as Tampa-based Florida Default Law Group, which processes at least 300 new foreclosure suits a month in Hillsborough County, court documents show.

By forging relationships with mortgage companies and focusing on volume, Florida Default Law Group offers to foreclose on a home at the bare-bones price of $1,200, about half the typical cost.

In the streamlining, distressed homeowners such as 75-year-old Janice Winemiller of Sarasota sometimes get hurt. Florida Default Law Group charged her more than $4,000 for delivery of legal documents, according to her nonprofit legal aid lawyer. The firm couldn’t substantiate the fees.

Dubbed foreclosure mills by some in the industry, these companies have turned the job into a factorylike process. Speed is the key to their success.

“The only way their business model works is if they don’t lay eyes on the lawsuit,” said Jim Kowalski, a Jacksonville lawyer who has litigated against Florida Default Law Group.

Four firms, 1,049 filings

Few areas of the legal field are so dominated by a handful of players as foreclosure law. Florida Default Law Group is one of four foreclosure mills operating in Florida that appear to be winning the lion’s share of business from lenders or their representatives. Along with Florida Default, other big firms include the law offices of David J. Stern in Plantation, the law offices of Marshall C. Watson in Fort Lauderdale and Shapiro & Fishman in Boca Raton.

The Tribune looked at 1,994 initial foreclosure documents filed in October to see which firms were handling the most foreclosures.

Combined, those four industry heavyweights filed 1,049 foreclosure cases in October, or 53 percent of all new foreclosures filed in Hillsborough County that month. Florida Default filed 323 new foreclosure cases in October, second only to the 352 cases filed by David J. Stern. Florida Default operates in Florida’s 66 other counties, the firm’s managing partner testified in a court deposition.

To handle the workload, foreclosure mills have developed a common model: use lower-paid paralegals and support staff for much of the routine legwork, and hire young lawyers to sign off on the lawsuits and handle complications.

It’s unclear how big Florida Default has gotten. Founder Michael Echevarria, 52, did not return several calls and e-mails from the Tribune.

According to Martindale-Hubbell, an information service for lawyers, Florida Default Law Group has at least 32 lawyers. Its offices take up the bulk of a three-story building in an office park near the Veterans Expressway and Anderson Road, and it has an office in Miami.

Jeffery Hakanson was a lawyer at Echevarria’s former law firm in the late 1990s, then known as Echevarria and Associates. It wasn’t as large as Florida Default Law Group, but even then it was using an assembly-line model to handle foreclosures.

Generally, there were six to 10 paralegals and support staff for every lawyer. One group handled the title documents, another group prepared the foreclosure lawsuit, another was responsible for the delivery of legal documents to the affected parties and so on, he said.

Its clients aren’t banks, which long ago pooled their mortgages into securities and sold them to investors. Instead, Florida Default’s clients are the mortgage servicing companies that collect monthly mortgage payments from homeowners and, when necessary, foreclose on them. Often, major banks own the mortgage servicers.

Why these companies like dealing with mills is simple: With their efficient structures, they can underbid other law firms on foreclosures, which otherwise might cost thousands of dollars apiece.

“It’s machinery,” said Hakanson, who practices real estate and bankruptcy law with a different firm in the Bay area. “We thought it was huge (in the 1990s) when we got 200 files a month, and now these firms are doing 1,000 or 1,500 a month.”

On the back burner

The foreclosure factory begins to sputter, though, when foreclosure cases break from the routine, critics say.

Attorneys who defend homeowners against foreclosures say they have trouble contacting Florida Default lawyers.

“They’re just extremely nonresponsive in the bankruptcy arena,” said Patrick Smith, a Tampa bankruptcy lawyer who occasionally deals with Florida Default. “I don’t think they’re structured to put too much time into any one case.”

In Sarasota County, Lee Haworth, chief judge in the state’s 12th Judicial Circuit, got fed up when his fellow judges had to wait weeks for a returned call from a foreclosure firm, he said.

Haworth started noticing a trend: Foreclosure law firms would start a foreclosure lawsuit against a homeowner but push it to the back burner if complications arose. Meanwhile, the stalled cases began to languish in Sarasota and Bradenton courts. Foreclosure mills seemed to think pursuing such cases was too much trouble for the $1,200 fee, he said.

Haworth is trying to clear up the backlog. Florida Default is one of the major players in Sarasota County, but the judge would not speak about specific foreclosure mills.

John Olson, a U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge in Fort Lauderdale, had no problem taking Florida Default and a big client, Wells Fargo, to task. After the firm made errors in up to 50 cases in court, Olson called out the firm in October 2008 in a strongly worded opinion.

Florida Default made the errors when an employee pulled information from the wrong computer screen, according to court documents.

Florida Default and Wells Fargo “have engaged in the systematic process of churning out unrefined and unexamined form pleadings, instead of producing and filing carefully considered legal papers,” Olson wrote.

Winemiller, the Sarasota retiree, faced foreclosure this year when she fell behind on her mortgage payments. She was negotiating to pay off her mortgage with Wells Fargo with a reverse mortgage, but the process got delayed. Wells Fargo filed for foreclosure in April.

What upset her was Florida Default’s $4,004 charge for process service. Her case required the delivery of numerous documents to her family and the family of a friend with whom she owned the house. But when pressed to explain the fees, Florida Default could substantiate about $3,200 in charges, said her lawyer, Elizabeth Boyle of Gulfcoast Legal Services.

“It took setting a court hearing and getting to the eve of the hearing to get (Florida Default) to address the request for an accounting,” Boyle said.

Florida Default eventually refunded Winemiller about $1,500, Winemiller said.

Despite the critics, Hakanson, who formerly worked at Echevarria and Associates, called Echevarria a shrewd businessman who built relationships with mortgage servicing companies years before the mortgage crisis. Now his firm is a leader in a booming business.

And despite drawing the scorn of homeowners’ attorneys and some judges, Hakanson insisted Echevarria is a humble, giving person, rather than a diehard capitalist.

He chalks up some of the criticism of Florida Default to the overwhelming caseload facing foreclosure lawyers and the impersonal nature of the work. When you’re dealing with so many distressed homeowners, it’s sometimes easier to avoid picking up the phone when one of them calls, he said.

“It’s a reality of real estate lending in America,” Hakanson said. “It’s a natural culmination of the lending practices.”

Reporter Michael Sasso can be reached at (813) 259-7865
Linda, on January 3rd, 2010 at 7:54 am Said:

Any ideas on insurance fraud against the servicers?–I received a letter that a new company would be the servicer on our mortgage, then the insurance policy was changed and that new servicer is listed as mortgagee on our insurance policy –we are still paying the insurance–(BTW, this house is in foreclosure with another servicer listed on the complaint)–and closing papers have a different mortgagee listed than the one on our papers and the servicer asked to backdate a different servicer for mortgagee. I know, confusing, and makes me wonder if that wouldn’t be insurance fraud–they don’t own the house, but listed as mortgagees on insurance policies. Thanks, just wondering is this might be an avenue to pursue.
expert.witness, on January 3rd, 2010 at 7:02 am Said:

CAUSES OF ACTION
# 1 WAIVER AND ESTOPPEL
Unethical and Deceptive practices employing delays with enforcing the Beneficiaries rights!

Obvious avoidance is evident from long delays where the rights of the parties are seen to benefit one over the other by employing timing. Borrowers allowed to miss six or more payments due lender remain hopeful under an implied understanding. Avoidance turns to acceleration and surprise borrowers at time of sale (of their property) and entitles Counsel to establish a claim of bad faith business practices.

I don’t need to go to law school to tell you the who, what, when, where and why for determining “bad faith” business practices. Read the courts comments and see for yourself why judges scoff and won’t let stand the claims of typos and sad faith business practices.

Where good faith is circumvented, a legal practitioner must should evidence the point in time any delays by a lender imply forbearance and the offer will outweigh the immediate benefits for enforcing ones rights.

One concern is where the alleged security holder establishes a condition precedent for a more favorable subsequent outcome brought in part by unfair timing. Not by any means a coincidence with third party shared opportunities and delays required for satisfaction for lender claims by counter parties.

The timing of foreclosure can often occur after a prolonged lender absence.

YOU ALWAYS TALLWAYS ENFORCE YOUR RIGHT AS AN OBLIGATION UNDER A BLUE SKY OR SHELVE. That versus resume your rights in a foreclosure sale.

Here we look at a condition subsequent to emerge as more favorable to a condition precedent.

Secretary of the Treasury commences with the enforcement of the Economic Assets Recovery Act which mandates a favorable approach towards endorsement of the pretender lender in a recovery.

Recovery delays last year suddenly accelerated with passage of pro lender legislation creating obstacles for a legal right to counsel and for fees earned for affirmative defenses in California.

WAIVER AND ESTOPPEL cause a lost note to the parties to become of greater consequence when it reappears late in the game. Lost is something misunderstood to a layperson and unemployed clients who emerge as an “expert witness”.

The time delays and lost note become more compelling to a practitioner. The note becomes lost while the recording of assignment evidencing a lawful transfer establishes a breach according to the indenture.

The assignment must record for valuable consideration and it does not – till time of a proposed reversion or trustee sale.

The delayed sales we see are not a trustee or sheriff’s sale conveyance but a credit bid from an amount outstanding due by the obligor for lines of credit in default. Now I am convinced (as I was in 2007) it’s the FDIC that mandates this lender bad boy effort to steal a meal and home.

YOUR FORECLOSURE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A BORROWERS OBLIGATION (versus the obligees debt owed the government) AND UNDER FAS 140 PERMIT A HOME TO BE STOLEN IN FORCLOSURE. NO WAY SAN JOSE!

Aside from the fact the beneficial interest is not misplaced or destroyed is the reality supporting the timeliness of filing which lender use to benefit their interest lost to the seller by timing the recovery?

DELAYS ARE CALCULATED FOR PREFERENTIAL JUDICIAL CONSIDERATION AND BRING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL LENDER ITS UNINTELIGIABLE HOLDER IN DUE COURSE RIGHTS OF THE ORGINAL ASSET.

This deceptive and clandestine method work solely in coordination with other interested parties.

As for delays, the lack of action is saying one thing but does another,” intending to gain advantage of timing and favor of the court. Plaintiff should be held by to what was first said or expressed as a remedy enforceable by law.

M.Soliman
Expert.Witness
Mail to: Expert.Witness @live.com
Abby in CA, on January 2nd, 2010 at 12:06 pm Said:

When quite a bit of our personal data or information shows up in documents filed at the SEC by the financial firms involved in the securitization of our mortgage loans, one has to wonder if we have any causes of actions from the GLBA. I know my credit score is posted out there, along with LTV, zip code, loan number etc.

I don’t think the originator even complied with giving me opt-in or opt-out!!

Financial Privacy

The Gramm-Leach Bliley Act

The Financial Modernization Act of 1999, also known as the “Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act” or GLB Act, includes provisions to protect consumers’ personal financial information held by financial institutions. There are three principal parts to the privacy requirements: the Financial Privacy Rule, Safeguards Rule and pretexting provisions.

The GLB Act gives authority to eight federal agencies and the states to administer and enforce the Financial Privacy Rule and the Safeguards Rule. These two regulations apply to “financial institutions,” which include not only banks, securities firms, and insurance companies, but also companies providing many other types of financial products and services to consumers. Among these services are lending, brokering or servicing any type of consumer loan, transferring or safeguarding money, preparing individual tax returns, providing financial advice or credit counseling, providing residential real estate settlement services, collecting consumer debts and an array of other activities. Such non-traditional “financial institutions” are regulated by the FTC. For more information on the types of financial activities covered, click here.

The Financial Privacy Rule governs the collection and disclosure of customers’ personal financial information by financial institutions. It also applies to companies, whether or not they are financial institutions, who receive such information. For a summary overview of the Financial Privacy Rule, see In Brief: The Financial Privacy Requirements of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

The Safeguards Rule requires all financial institutions to design, implement and maintain safeguards to protect customer information. The Safeguards Rule applies not only to financial institutions that collect information from their own customers, but also to financial institutions “such as credit reporting agencies” that receive customer information from other financial institutions.

The Pretexting provisions of the GLB Act protect consumers from individuals and companies that obtain their personal financial information under false pretenses, a practice known as “pretexting.”
Abby in CA, on January 2nd, 2010 at 10:35 am Said:

vickieb
don’t waste time…get certified copies of all those recordings. probaby 2 or 3 sets would not hurt. you may need them for court or attorney.

also….work it…contact the REAgent again….say you really want to work something out and pay rent a couple more months.

contact Ocwen by phone….ask to speak to a supervisor if you get no place with initial person

pin one or the other down on ability to rent a few more months

also, and I cannot recall all your details….I think you should also contact the opposing attorney who did the case to evict you….they may be able to help facilitate the extension to rent

Once you get your recordings..study them. More than likely the names you see on them are involved with the securities trusts set up for the investors who bought into the pool of mortgages yours was contained in.

If you see any names that say things like….as trustee for asset backed blah blah…that probably is the name of the trust.

read my prior or other posts on here to find out how to look up at the SEC website (Securities and Exchange Commission) the information on those securities trusts….but DO THIS ONLY after you have your rent extension done…..

again—-you are not alone and should not feel sad—-millions of people are going through this with more to come

many go to work every single day with this foreclosure situation blazing in their brains….

stay focused on getting your house back…not on the sadness or perceived failure….get MAD…

Disclaimer-I am not an attorney OR a therapist and I am NOT offering legal advice or professional services
The post is my opinion
vickieb, on January 2nd, 2010 at 9:05 am Said:

Okay so I did as suggested. The real estate agent got back to me and said this was not his decision but Ocwen’s. On Thursday I received a letter from Ocwen saying that I need to contact the real estate agent with any questions. Who is who here?

My son had a meeting with a real estate attorney that I am hoping my husband and I can go to on Monday. I looked up everything on the county registry to get a chain of who had my mortgage when. I am so confused. There are companies there that I never knew had my mortgage. And looking at my payment history on line (at least from the time Ocwen got my mortgage) there are late fees listed for the same dates and suspense accounts and I’m not sure what else.

Understand, we are not saying we are not wrong in this also. But they took something that was being worked out (although not in writing — lesson learned) that was 3 months behind and created a massive arrearage with no hope of ever catching up. Reading about them online it’s amazing that they are allowed to still be in business. Anyway thank for the advice and support. I’m frightened because they have beaten me and I’m not so sure any of this is going to work.

I have no desire to not pay what I owe. I just want to start fresh with a clean credit report. Is there any way my son could find a way to purchase this place? In their letter they said that if wanted my son and I could. But with a foreclosure on my credit report who would do that? We have about 60,0000+ income with both our salaries,. I don’t count my husband because his business is up and down. Any advice?

Thanks again guys — if I may ask please keep the supportive emails coming. I am trying not to cry and trying really hard not to get severely depressed. It’s really hard. And then I have to go to my job on Monday and act like my life is perfect. Too difficult
Dan Edstrom, on January 1st, 2010 at 7:35 pm Said:

Sherri,
Shoot me an email.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Sherri Hill, on January 1st, 2010 at 7:28 pm Said:

Sherri Hill, on January 1st, 2010 at 7:26 pm Said:
Hi,
Let me add one more thing, The NOD recorded on 06/03/08, Old Republic as Trustee. They were not
executed as trustee until July 15th, 2008 and were
not effected (recorded) until 01/08/09. Placer Title
was trustee of record at the time. Old Republic filed
the NOD 42 days before they were in the capacity to
do so. More to that as we mailed a QWR to the original
lender NC, The indenture trustee DB, The servicer
who purchased the rights from NC in bankruptcy
Carrington, The letter to the closing claiming their
stake Banker’s Trust, and all the other defendants
and does. rescinding the loan before sale. NC
said Carringtonowned the note, Carrington said DB,
owned the note, but respectfully declined to accept
the rescission (not timely) DB never said a thing, we
only heard from them for the foreclosure and UD.
Attorney of record for Deutsche Bank who purports
their ownership decared Carrington as the NEW
OWNER when he mailed the 3/60 day notice to quit,
at that time he was attorney for the other owner
one attempted mortgage assignment out of all these
owners.
Thanks again sherri
Sherri Hill, on January 1st, 2010 at 7:05 pm Said:

Hi Everyone,
Can anyone point me in the direction of where to
find fictitious business registration publications for the
(theif) National Banks, and do they have to file a statement of compliance when they file for a UD?
This would be Deutsche Bank National Tust Company
Indenture Trustee for New Century Home Equity Loan
Trust Series 2006-2. And since we have newly discovered evidence, can we still file an emergency motion to vacate on the grounds of fraud, fraud upon the court by an adverse attorney, who also maintains Fast Eviction Services and is on probation with the state bar, (I’m sure you can probably guess the type of case) and forgery of the assignment since we have uncovered Hazelle Weissinger who assigned the mortgage as VP for NC and on the same day also signed a substitution of trustee as VP for DB. Hazelle is VP of Old Republic Default Management, the substituted trustee that conducted the foreclosure.
Thats one better than Judge Schack, !! We have already filed one motion to vacate but did not know these facts at that time. Anybody,?? can Iwe do another motion? We already have an unlimited filed for nine causes of action, but were only at case management stage. DB did a credit bid of 90,000 less than owed. The judge is one that don’t get it or gets more than we know! Your guess is as good as mine, he does have the court file in front of him every hearing, he won’t hear our side and pretty much don’t give a damn what DB does. ?? POS forged, New REO managers for DB have emerged, only the fabricated new reo manager is employed by DB’ s attorney, process server who purportedly served the summons and complaint is not a PS and the declaration of due diligence stated he attempted service 3 times in three days and is about 7 or 8 hours away from me. For $60.00 he stayed here three days to serve a person not of our nationality and well known in the 23 years of living there ,on a street that contains six houses, not much happens here without everyone knowing, and this bullshit declaration was not signed. Under penalty of perjury I declare, NO, wait a minute I don’t guess I do. [$*_?#”!(^% (and more of that to them). Were mad as hell living in a motel just a few blocks away where our house that sits empty.
Thanks Sherri
steve sinacola, on January 1st, 2010 at 5:25 pm Said:

Let me correct myself. I am suggesting to file a formal complaint, or some sort of whistleblower action, with the tax authorities.. As for myself, I am going to start blowin this whistle as soon as them revenuers get back Monday morning.

I’ll use the link Dan posted and discover the means to make the whistle as shrill as possible.
steve sinacola, on January 1st, 2010 at 4:55 pm Said:

Dan

thanks for the link. I am suggesting we send it to the Treasury Tax collectors. Its kinda evident the “state leaders” with few exceptions, are clueless, on multiple levels. The tax collectors already have the authority to start an investigation, or better yet, collections.
Dan Edstrom, on January 1st, 2010 at 3:00 pm Said:

Steve,
See the following:

This was originally on livinglies but I cannot seem to locate it:

X_http://mariokenny.wordpress.com/category/an-open-letter-to-dean-martin-arizona-state-treasurer/

(many of us, myself included, have sent a modified copy of the above to our state leaders)

X_http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/states-commence-the-inevitable-tobacco-litigation-against-banks-arizona-leading/

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
steve sinacola, on January 1st, 2010 at 2:37 pm Said:

It occurs to me that in a securitized loan the mortgage is sold, or transferred, at least 2 times in order to create a “bankruptcy remote” security. That fact in beyond dispute. It also occurs to me that most states have a Transfer Tax, that is due when real property title changes hands. That fact is also beyond dispute. It seems that a compliant, or something similiar, can be filed in each states respective treasury in this regard. Considering most State Treasuries are empty, this idea should appeal to a tax collector.

I think “the movement” of ours needs to start a battle on another front.

Any thoughts???
floridadefenseteam, on January 1st, 2010 at 1:32 pm Said:

Mary Pro Se, (Florida)

Email us at floridadefenseteam@comcast.net.
Mary pro se Florida, on January 1st, 2010 at 10:46 am Said:

Please some could some leagle eagle read this, I am pro se going to court on Tues Jan 5th hearing for my Motion to Dismiss.

Any thoughts here? The so called Assignment of Mortg:

1. genterated on local Fl atty’s letterhead
2. MERS as nominee for Countrywide (Orig lender) assignment to the Bank of New York Mellon (Plaintif in my Lis Pendens and trustee for asset backed etc)
3. Signatures and Notary took place in Texas… my mortgage is for property in Hillsborough Cnty, Florida.
4.Signed by Denise Baily Asst Secretary/Title officer (of what? not mentioned) … Bank of NY? MERS? Countrywide?
5.Found Denise Baily of Litton Loan Services as defendants there on the docket of another forclosure court case in Maryland.
6. Litton is my servicer, who is ALSO threatening me about foreclosure.
7. Date signed and notarized Dec 11, 2008**
8. Lis Pendens Summons sealed in court Dec 8, 2008, dated by Plaintiff lawfirm Dec 1, 2008.

Questions
Shouldnt the person signing be from Bank of New York (trustee/Plaintff) and not Litton the Servicer ?

Should the signing take place in Hillsborough County Fl where the property is, not in Tx where Countrywide is?

Dont the dates prove the Lis Pendens invalid DEC 1, took place before the so called assignment Dec 11?

please help
zurenarrh, on December 31st, 2009 at 11:17 pm Said:

Deontos,
Your post re: UPDATE ON JANE’S STORY is my situation exactly, especially this part of your post:

“The crooks trying to take your home, in this case Bank of America, MERS and their attorneys are using fraud and sleight of hand by recording an assignment of your mortgage shortly before they file a lawsuit against your or notice up a trustee’s sale.”

That’s exactly what MERS did–they filed and recorded an assignment to BAC Home Loans Servicing 36 days before the scheduled sale. However, Fannie Mae says THEY own the note–I knew this from the Fannie Mae Online Loan Lookup Tool. Thanks primarily to Living Lies, I knew that situation was a Charlie Foxtrot.

Since I’m in the non-judicial state of Mississippi, I sued them. I was granted a 10-day restraining order, which covered the date of the sale, so there was no foreclosure.

BAC has moved to have the case tried in federal court; we moved to have it remanded to state court. Currently, the case is stayed while the federal judge decides what to do. The case will have been with the federal court for 3 months as of the beginning of January; I’m told this is an unusually long period of time to wait for a decision on a remand.

Meanwhile, I haven’t been getting a monthly bill from BAC, and it’s clear from their motions that they know they don’t have a case. They try to make issues out of things which aren’t issues we raised, for one thing, and for another, they always simply say that our argument has no merit without providing any case law to explain why. However, when they try to argue issues we’re not challenging them on, they have all kinds of citations to case law. At one point, they even said “If we’re not the real party in interest, then this whole matter should be dismissed!” No joke!

We’ll see what happens in 2010, but rest assured, we’re not backing down.
Ace, on December 31st, 2009 at 5:58 pm Said:

I am wondering if “THEY” have “Breached a Written Contract” through securitization with my mortgage? How to prove this?

I am still reading my law book and came across that phrase.

My case up til now was simply “Cloud of Title”. Has that just changed?

Any comments? TY all
Ace, on December 31st, 2009 at 5:36 pm Said:

VickieB,

I do not know PA law but, you may want to look at your local registry of deeds to see who is on file with any mortgage related documents. Get copies of all these documents. If you find a COMPLAINT, (Again MA law not PA) listed there, then that is the party who is/has foreclosed. Prove that Ocwen/whoever is listed there for yourself.

Second, I have been reading for enjoyment for the first time in my life. And a very good book to read is “How to Stop Worrying and Enjoy Life” by Dale Carnegie. 15 million copies can’t be bad reading. It’s been around for 66 years. I am still trying to finish it myself and it has done wonders. I can sleep better now knowing I have educated myself to fight this fight, In a Court of law not on a battlefield.

I have been in my home for 15 years, and fighting for 1.25 now. Stand tall and educate yourself. There is power in knowledge. Re-read my 1st post and just don’t give up.

Have faith in all your convictions and do not give up this fight. People have called me crazy, won’t talk to me about this subject and some even laughed. My dad was one non-believer and he now believes in me and you know that means the world to me. Took a year to get there but THEY will see one day that you were right too. We will all help you as best we can but, you must help yourself 1st.

PSsssssst – Spread the word to anyone who will listen. Try to get back and/or keep your home. Tell anyone who will listen to go to LLies.
H Gosh, on December 31st, 2009 at 1:16 pm Said:

Vickieb: OK, now you are starting to get help. Abby has given you good solid advice. Here are some other issues you need to address: Have you ever requested an accounting of your loan? If not, DO IT NOW!! If you are not sure what to ask for, post back. Second, educate yourself about OCWEN – they are what is know as a “predatory loan servicer”. Then, post back with questions. You can also educate yourself about “mortgage servicing fraud”. One of my heroes on this topic is Nye Lavelle, who posts here frequently. Since Mortgage Servicing Fraud is different (although the prime vehicle through which the pretender lenders operate) than what is posted here, I suggest you google “Mortgage Servicing Fraud” and visit the site that pops up, and read everything there – it goes back to 2003, so there is a lot of reading to do. Good luck, keep up the fight, you are not wrong, and remember you have friends who will help you.
Abby in CA, on December 31st, 2009 at 12:58 pm Said:

vickieb

do not feel less or that somebody might think you are ‘trash’…..you are definately NOT ….

millions of millions of homeowners are going through this foreclosure mess and most do not even know they can fight it, in many cases.

everyone from therapists, police officers, lawyer (yes them too), executives etc….are going through this or will soon be going through this all

most people just do not know what to do, especially when the mods don’t work

it seems, and I have absolutely no in depth knowledge of your situation, that once you signed cash for keys…that is the deal to be.

consider this–that after the move you might want to look into a lawsuit against Ocwen et. al. for whatever facts apply to your situation, such as fraud.
you might want to talk to your local legal aide society to see if there is any legal help for you.

Our sheriff out here says that he sees people move back into their homes even after being evicted.
In some cases the ‘Ocwen’s of the world have to pay for all the moving expenses.

If you have a local law school, call up there and see if any law students might help with writing legal complaint and other legal docs.

Be sure to let our President know via a letter about what happened to you.

One more idea—-call that realtor—ask if you pay him ‘rent’ can you stay in house for 2-3 more months??? They might take the deal…cause it is guaranteed income to them…..and house may indeed stand empty for months!!

If you can get couple more months…might get you time to file lawsuit…..you have to hussle now….don’t just sit there ticking down days to Jan. 13th.

1. negotiate with realtor guy (2-3 more months if you pay some rent)
2. contact local legal aide society (ask any pro bono lawyers or other legal assistance)
3. contact nearby law school
4. keep your chin up and head held high!!
5 consider filing lawsuit yourself if you find no legal resources. in america, you can represent yourself in court as a pro se.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and not offering legal advice or legal services, only my opinion and support

22 years is a long time to own your home & it is worth fighting for

If you are negotiating with that realtor–do not mention any of your potential plans, such as filing a lawsuit etc…just stick to the topic of negotiating rent and 2-3 more months…

Good Luck
vickieb, on December 31st, 2009 at 8:09 am Said:

As a footnote — the ironic thing is that the house is only worth about 120,000. It won’t make them rich. It’s not in that kind of area. So the house will stand empty. Makes sense to me – Not.
As a footnote The iron
vickieb, on December 31st, 2009 at 7:22 am Said:

In answer to H Goshen

the house In response to H Goshen. The house is in Bucks County and yes, the sale was held on Nov. 13th. The person who showed up was a real estate agent who said he was asked to act on behalf of Ocwen. He offered me a cash for keys which we took after they gave us an additional 30 days to get out. Instead of Dec. 13 they extended it to Jan. 13. I had a brief glimmer of hope when I read that the Sheriff actually has to come to your house. I asked an attorney, they read the form and said sorry “you’re screwed”. The company dotted their “I’s” and crossed their “T’s”. I was on the phone with a mortgage broker and my son spoke with him as well. The gentleman recommended a blitz compaign of representatives senators news agencies etc. I did that just cause I have nothing to lose. This company took a 2,000 arrearage back 13 years ago and made it into a debt of over 60,000. I have declared so many Chap 13’s and signed so many forebearance agreements. Most of which were in the amounts of 1900 up to 2800 a month. All lbecause they would not honor the prior mortgage companies agreement. I was stupid and still am because I did not get it in writing. So now we’re screwed. My son’s financee thinks we’re retards her parents probably think we are trash. No one believes me. I am not under any circumstances saying we are not to blame also. But every plan they gave us set us up to fail. I just want to die. I am so ashamed of letting my family down and everyone I know. We have lived here for 22 years and I have fought for this house for so long I can’t believe their words to me have finally come to pass “We WILL get your house and we will succeed. “ Well, they did. It them 13 years but they finally got it. No one will help and no one cares. Thanks for letting me unload and HAPPY NEW YEAR>
Lisa E., on December 31st, 2009 at 4:18 am Said:

Anyone having worsening issues with posting to this site?

It’s frustrating to repeatedly work on a post, trying to communicate, and to watch all efforts go up in smoke. Maybe it’s just the increased traffic? That would be a good thing! Bring ‘em on!

Lesson Learned: ALWAYS COPY your posts before clicking “Submit Comment”.

Oh, well. I guess you all are going to have to imagine in your heads the beautifully constructed post I just created only to watch it evaporate.

WAAAA WAAAA

Lisa E
ALLAN (proposing Obama fire the generals and replace them with these five WOMEN) CLICK HERE....CLICK HERE TO VIEW UTube, on December 30th, 2009 at 10:59 pm Said:

JOE COSTELLO

Roosevelt Institute Braintruster,

NewDeal2.0

Posted: December 30, 2009 01:50 PM

FEMINOMICS: TOP FIVE HEROES OF FINANCIAL REFORM

From an economic standpoint, will 2010 be the year of the woman? As part of the Roosevelt Institute’s ongoing ‘Feminomics’ series, running on the New Deal 2.0 blog, I was asked to reflect on women’s changing roles in the economy. Here’s my take on how the New Deal advanced the cause of women’s equality.

In case you haven’t heard, WOMEN ARE LEADING THE CHARGE ON FINANCIAL REFORM. In the spirit of celebrating their contributions, I’ve put together a list of the top five heroes of 2009, in the hopes that their work will inspire us in the coming year. So, channeling my best Wayne Newton (and I could pull this off if I shaved my goatee and took off the top 3/4 of my mustache), “This one’s for the ladies: ”

1) First, I’ll start with YVES SMITH, who I came across end of last summer. She has 25 years in financial services, worked for, amongst others, Goldman, McKinsey, and Sumitomo, and is also a graduate of Harvard and Harvard Business School. Her must-read blog is NAKED CAPITALISM. She has shown great knowledge and greater courage — and from my experience, these two traits are too rare together. Her writing is exceptional, and if you want a good overview of the financial mess and what’s gone on over the past year and half, I highly recommend paging through her blog’s archive. The president should replace Geithner with her. TIME WE HAD OUR FIRST WOMAN TREASURY SECRETARY.

2) Next, ELIZABETH WARREN. Either mistakenly, which I believe is the case, or purposefully, in which case I’d have to reevaluate my opinion of Harry Reid, Warren was appointed by Reid to head the Congressional Oversight Panel for all the money being handed to the banks. Warren is Professor of Law at Harvard and wrote the excellent book THE TWO-INCOME TRAP: WHY MIDDLE-CLASS MOTHERS AND FATHERS ARE GOING BROKE. So, she documented the great underbelly of WALL STREET’S DEBT BUBBLE – PARTICULARLY ITS DESTRUCTION OF A BIG CHUNK OF WORKING AMERICA. I don’t know if Reid thought he was getting some doddering academic when he appointed her, but instead he got a strong and energetic public advocate. There’s been a pretty hard effort to discredit Ms. Warren, and Yves Smith takes a look at the hatchet job done by NPR here. I’ve been nothing but impressed when I’ve heard her talk, and strongly second the motion by William Greider to GIVE HER SUBPOENA POWERS.

3) In October 2007, working for Oppenheimer, MEREDITH WHITNEY wrote a report calling Citi the pile junk it is. Amazingly, she was pretty much the only one in the whole industry to do so. Since then, Whitney has been straight at the big banks, holding nothing back on what bad shape they’re in. She’s the Anti-Geithner. In the middle of latest pop in the stock market, which has gotten the banks $50 billion in new capital over the past couple months, Whitney appeared on CNBC and called the banks’ profits “manufactured” by the government, and stated things would begin heading south again. She’s an eagle above the weasels scurrying below on Wall Street.

4) GRETCHEN MORGENSON writes for the NYT business section. In the last year and half, she has written far and away some of the BEST coverage of the financial crisis in the mainstream media. Most importantly, she put Mr. Blankfein at the meeting with Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke when the bailout of AIG was decided to the advantage of Goldman for at least 14 billion. Again, if you want to read some good things on the last year and half, scroll through her articles in the Times’ archive (The Nation did an ok piece on her, but unfortunately, it suffers from the author’s “objective journalism” disease).

5) Finally, I’d throw in SHEILA BAIR, who was appointed head of the FDIC by none other than George W. Bush. Ms. Bair has frequently tangled with the boys in the government, taking on Paulson, Bernanke, Geithner, and Summers. She’s stated repeatedly the banking crisis is not over, tried to slow the foreclosure tsunami, and most recently stated again CITI IS A PILE OF CRAP and needs to be placed into receivership.

THESE WOMEN ARE INSPIRING! Citizens all, helping to breathe life into this old republic.

This post originally appeared on New Deal 2.0.

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

Used to be said, “if you want something done, give it to a busy person.” It’s become patently clear that free-range women are those busy persons most likely to get things done,,,,,,and, no gender has better demonstrated they are keener stake-holders in the general welfare and vitality of community and commonwealth.

“I’ve reached the age where competence is a turn-on.” ~Billy Joel

“I would rather trust a woman’s instinct than a man’s reason.” ~Stanley Baldwin

“Do you not know I am a woman? when I think, I must speak.” ~William Shakespeare, As You Like It

To paraphrase Ralph Nader, “Only The Women Can Save Us.”

HAPPY NEW YEAR, ALL!!!

ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
H Gosh, on December 30th, 2009 at 8:43 pm Said:

Vickieb: First take a deep breath. Now, more information is needed. In what County in PA is the home? Was there a court hearing where the Judge granted the foreclosure? Did you attend the hearing? Who was the “guy” that came to your house? What type of paper did you sign? Who told you the “paper you signed was legal”? Has the Sheriff conducted a sale of the property?

If you can provide these answers, people may be able to offer some information to you.
erlinda, on December 29th, 2009 at 11:16 pm Said:

neil,
can you answer my question or the bloggers of this website. i finally identified who the owner of my structured loan was in one of my properties. my questions is the trust of my securitized loan was made and entered on july 31, 2007, and my loan was closed on june 4, 2007, one month after acquiring my mortgages. the assignment and assumption agreement dated july 31, 2007 says that the assignor is DB Structured Product, Inc. and the assignee is ACE Securities Corp. but since i can’t find my loan number in the agreement, i assume the attorneys of secured creditor is insisting that the secured creditor is hsbc bank national trust as trustee for DALT ———— ? , but in reality the assignee is the Ace Securities Corp. or the depositor, then i could finally rebut that the investor who put up the money is Ace. since neil says that the assignment and assumption agreement was made out prior to original lender looking for their victims which in this case i will call it “wet funding” which the original lender get a wharehouse line of credit from the wall st investment banker then look for their next victims (the borrowers) then lenders will let the loan broker know about the loan parameter to meet the pooling agreement guidelines. but on my case, the trust was created after i closed my loan on june 4 2007. so, my opinion is even prior to or after the trust was created my loan is under ” dry funding” because it was bought after i closed my loan. ” dry funding ” is a loan made by the original lender using their own money and then sell it to the wall street banker investment. neil in other words before or after the loan were purchased, it is still a “fraud” because the deed of trust that were signed by borrowers were which original lender was the lender on record were slander by this wall street bankers investment with intent to purposely design this structures asset to fail. i understand what Neil said all loans that were securitized has been paid off by the wall street banker investment , and these banker investment underwrites a certificate to sell it to the investors with the AAA plus rating and divide it into classes or tranches/portion where the investors could buy a classes of certificate depending if the certificate the investors acquired are senior or lower tranches . this will defined how much investors get on their investment. for the meantime the CDO ( credit default obligation) were created by the issuing entity and sold it to unsuspecting investors promising a good return but the truth is the issuing entity will buy a credit default swap like an insurance kind that if the CDO will fail, they will get 100 % of the CDO asset amount. sample CDO is worth 100M, the will pay 10% premium amount of 100M which is 10M investment for the premium for three years, if the CDO fail within the 3 period, then the issuing entity will get 100M of the amount of insured asset , if they CDO asset did not collapse within the time period then the in suing entity will only lost the premium money of 10%. in other words i will insured my spouse for 100k and i will pay premium every month but there is provision that i will not get any thing if my spouse committed suicide within 3 year of his insured life, then if something happen after 3 year then i will collect the 100k from his life insurance. so simple , so the one one who bought the CDO lost and the winner is the one who sold the junk certificate because they bought a credit default swap. correct me if i am wrong this is just the way i understand it. any thought from you my friends?
marcus, on December 29th, 2009 at 8:11 pm Said:

Hello,
I would like to know if anyone has successfully revoked their power of attorney for their deed of trust. A lady named Karen Tappert is promoting the technique. I am trying to find case law supporting one right to revoke the POA of the deed of trust based on fraud.
Any info will be appreciated.

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
Deontos, on December 29th, 2009 at 3:05 pm Said:

OK.This is a youtube video about an academic service that allows free access to **PRINTABLE** PACER files. Access is free now, but if you want to PRINT a copy it is 8 cents per page. (Hope video embeds correctly when posted.)
vickieb, on December 29th, 2009 at 11:57 am Said:

Can anyone give me help with Ocwen. I live in PA they foreclosed and evidently the paperwork I signed due to fear of being evicted on Christmas Day is legal even though I was told a Sheriff has to serve papers. They foreclosed on the 13th of Nov (fri) and the guy was at my house on the 16th of Nov (mon). Any chance someone can help me stay or find a way for me to repurchase my home with the help of my son?
steve sinacola, on December 28th, 2009 at 8:25 pm Said:

Anatomy of a Government-Abetted Fraud
from iamfacingforeclosure.com

OneWest Bank and its Sweetheart Deal

OneWest Bank was created on Mar 19, 2009 from the assets of Indymac Bank. It was created solely for the purpose of absorbing Indymac Bank. The principle owners of OneWest Bank include Michael Dell and George Soros. (George was a major supporter of Barack Obama and is also notorious for knocking the UK out of the Euro Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1992 by shorting the Pound).

When OneWest took over Indymac, the FDIC and OneWest executed a “Shared-Loss Agreement” covering the sale. This Agreement covered the terms of what the FDIC would reimburse OneWest for any losses from foreclosure on a property. It is at this point that the details get very confusing, so I shall try to simplify the terms. Some of the major details are:

OneWest would purchase all first mortgages at 70% of the current balance.
OneWest would purchase Line of Equity Loans at 58% of the current balance.
In the event of foreclosure, the FDIC would cover from 80%-95% of losses, using the original loan amount, and not the current balance.
How does this translate to the “Real World”? Let us take a hypothetical situation. A homeowner has just lost his home in default. OneWest sells the property. Here are the details of the transaction:

The original loan amount was $500,000. Missed payments and other foreclosure costs bring the amount up to $550,000. At 70%, OneWest bought the loan for $385,000
The home is located in Stockton, CA, so its current value is likely about $185,000 and OneWest sells the home for that amount. Total loss for OneWest is $200,000. But this is not how FDIC determines the loss.
‘FDIC takes the $500,000 and subtracts the $185,000 Purchase Price. Total loss according to the FDIC is $315,000. If the FDIC is covering “ONLY” 80% of the loss, then the FDIC would reimburse OneWest to the tune of $252,000.
Add the $252,000 to the Purchase Price of $185,000, and you have One West recovering $437,000 for an “investment” of $385,000. Therefore, OneWest makes $52,000 in additional income above the actual Purchase Price loan amount after the FDIC reimbursement.
At this point, it becomes readily apparent why OneWest Bank has no intention of conducting loan modifications. Any modification means that OneWest would lose out on all this additional profit.

Note: It is not readily apparent as to whether this agreement applies to loans that IndyMac made and Securitized but still Services today. However, I believe that the Agreement does apply to Securitized loans. In that event, OneWest would make even more money through foreclosure because OneWest would keep the “excess” and not pay it to the investor!

Pooling And Servicing Agreement
When OneWest has been asked about why loan modifications are not being done, they are responding that their Pooling and Servicing Agreements do not allow for loan modifications. Sheila Bair, head of the FDIC has also stated the same. This sounds like a plausible explanation, since few people understand the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. But…

Parties Involved
Here is the”dirty little secret” regarding Indymac and the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. The parties involved in the Agreement are:

The Sponsor for the Trust was…………Indymac
The Seller for the Trust was……………Indymac
The Depositor for the Trust was………..you guessed it………….Indymac
The Issuing Entity for the Trust was……………….(drumroll)……………….Indymac
The Master Servicer for the Trust was……..once again………Indymac
In other words, Indymac was the only party involved in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement other than the Ratings Agency who rated these loans as `AAA’ products.

To make matters worse, Indymac wrote the Agreement in order to protect itself from liability for these garbage loans. By creating separate Indymac Corporations — which the Depositor, Sponsor, and other entities were — Indymac created a bankruptcy-remote vehicle that could not come back to them in terms of liability. However, they did not count on certain MBS securities and portfolio loans coming back to bite them and force them under.

Now, the questions become:

If Indymac was responsible for Securitization at every step in the Process, and was responsible for writing the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, can they be held accountable for the loans that they are foreclosing on?
Since Indymac was the Issuing Entity, can they actually modify loans, but refuse to do so because they can make money for OneWest Bank by refusing to do so?
Does Indymac have to “buy back” the loan from the Indymac Trust in order to do a loan modification?
These are questions that I have no answer for. All I know is that at every step of the way, Indymac was involved in the process, and have taken steps to protect themselves from liability for loans that should never have been made.

Loan Modifications
As referred to earlier, the Agreement covers all aspects of the Securitization Process. With respect to Loan Modifications, the Agreement for Indymac INDA Mortgage Loan Trust 2007 – AR5, states on Page S-67:

Certain Modifications and Refinancings

The Servicer may modify any Mortgage Loan at the request of the related mortgagor, provided that the Servicer purchases the Mortgage Loan from the issuing entity immediately preceding the modification.

Page S-12 states the same “policy”:

The servicer is permitted to modify any mortgage loan in lieu of refinancing at the request of the related mortgagor, provided that the servicer purchases the mortgage loan from the issuing entity immediately preceding the modification. In addition, under limited circumstances, the servicer will repurchase certain mortgage loans that experience an early payment default (default in the first three months following origination). See “Servicing of the Mortgage Loans—Certain Modifications and Refinancings” and “Risk Factors—Risks Related To Newly Originated Mortgage Loans and Servicer’s Repurchase Obligation Related to Early Payment Default” in this prospectus supplement.

These sections would appear to suggest that the only way that OneWest could modify the loan would be as a result of buying the loan back from the Issuing Trust. However, there may be an out. Page S-12 also states:

Required Repurchases, Substitutions or Purchases of Mortgage Loans

The seller will make certain representations and warranties relating to the mortgage loans pursuant to the pooling and servicing agreement. If with respect to any mortgage loan any of the representations and warranties are breached in any material respect as of the date made, or an uncured material document defect exists, the seller will be obligated to repurchase or substitute for the mortgage loan as further described in this prospectus supplement under “Description of the Certificates—Representations and Warranties Relating to Mortgage Loans” and “—Delivery of Mortgage Loan Documents .”

The above section may be the key for litigating attorneys to fight Indymac. If fraud or other issues can be raised that will show a violation of the Representations and Warranties, then this could potentially force Indymac to modify the loan.

HAMP
At this point, it becomes important to note that Indymac/OneWest signed aboard with the HAMP program in August 2009. Even though they became a part of the program, they are still refusing to do most loan modifications. Instead, they persist in foreclosing on almost all properties. And even when they say that they are attempting to do loan modifications, they are fulfilling all necessary requirements so that they can foreclose the second that they “decide” the homeowner does not meet HAMP requirements, — which, since they can make more money by foreclosing on the property, meets the HAMP requirements for doing what is in the best interests of the “investor”.

Why did Indymac even sign up for HAMP, if they have no intention of executing loan modifications? Clearly, just for appearances.

One Final Question
It now becomes incumbent upon me to ask one final question. The Shared-Loss Agreement states the following:

2.1 Shared-Loss Arrangement.

(a) Loss Mitigation and Consideration of Alternatives. For each Shared-Loss Loan in default or for which a default is reasonably foreseeable, the Purchaser shall undertake, or shall use reasonable best efforts to cause third-party servicers to undertake, reasonable and customary loss mitigation efforts in compliance with the Guidelines and Customary Servicing Procedures. The Purchaser shall document its consideration of foreclosure, loan restructuring (if available), charge-off and short-sale (if a short-sale is a viable option and is proposed to the Purchaser) alternatives and shall select the alternative that is reasonably estimated by the Purchaser to result in the least Loss. The Purchaser shall retain all analyses of the considered alternatives and servicing records and allow the Receiver to inspect them upon reasonable notice.

Such agreements are usually considered to be interpreted to the benefit of the homeowner, as with HAMP and other programs. In legalese, it is called “Intent”.

What was the “Intent” of the Shared-Loss Agreement? Was the intent to provide OneWest Bank solely with a profitable incentive to take over Indymac Bank? If so, then OneWest has been truly successful in every manner.

Or was the intent to offer to OneWest Bank a way to be compensated for losses for foreclosures, but with the primary goal to assist homeowners in trouble? If this was the intent, then OneWest has failed miserably in its actions. And if so, could OneWest be actionable by the Federal Government for fraud?

In fact the true “Intent” was to limit losses to the Treasury Department. Each and every loan modification done would save the Treasury, and the tax payer, from 80-95 cents on every dollar.

Since, technically, One West would get 5-20 cents of any savings, it should have been an incentive to use foreclosure alternatives. But the reality is that the quick turnaround on foreclosure seems to give OneWest a better return. As a result, OneWest appears to simply ignore the intent and just foreclose (as far as I can tell).

So, OneWest’s failure to modify loans may actually amount to fraud on the Treasury and US taxpayers.

Conclusion
I have presented the story of Indymac/OneWest and what is happening today. But the story does not end with OneWest. There are over 50 different lenders and servicers who have Shared-Loss Agreements executed with the FDIC. Each Agreement offers essentially the same terms. Though other Lenders do not appear to be acting as flagrantly as OneWest, they are all still engaging in the same actions.

What is the solution for this problem?

For homeowners individually, the most successes are being achieved by borrowers who are getting knowledgeable attorneys who will not just threaten litigation, but are also willing to act and file the necessary lawsuits. That tends to bring OneWest Bank to the table.
For the country as a whole, and homeowners in mass, the problem must be brought to the attention of your local Congress Critters. You must hold their feet to the fire. They must know that if they do not respond to what OneWest and other lenders are doing, then they are subject to being voted out of their nice and cushy Congressional Offices.
Will this be easy? No way. After all, the lenders have the money and the ears of Congress. But if we do not draw the line here, then in 10-15 years, the Banks will devise another plan to “loot” the economy, as they do every 10-15 years.
Dan Edstrom, on December 28th, 2009 at 7:42 pm Said:

Abby,
Yes I will tell you. All parties at closing had full knowledge that your loan would be securitized and that all of these fees would be paid. Except of course you and any other borrowers present at your closing. The parties created these “deals” every month or every couple of months. It was not a mistake or an oversight. It was FRAUD – knowing and with intent. It means the loans were completely fraudulent and you have massive amts of fees paid “outside” of closing. Find a way to get the trust thrown into receivership and have the profits and ALL assignments disgorged. The Trustee in your bankruptcy (for the originator) has the power to do this.

More to come.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Abby in CA, on December 28th, 2009 at 6:48 pm Said:

regarding all those additional (hidden from borrower) fees (listed in the Pooling and Servicing Agreements for securitized loans), such as Trust Oversight Management Fee, Securties Trustee Fees, Servicier Fees, etc.——-they are typically pulled out of the borrower’s (homeowner) interest portion of the monthly payment. After everyone else has been paid their fees, then the residual money goes to the investor. Thus, any wonder why the borrower’s ended up paying such high interest on subprime, predatory lending mortgage loans? Any comments on what this might mean for TILA violations?

This from an attorney:

The PSA fees are not typically treated as finance charges, since they are not added to the homeowner’s payment, but paid from the homeowner’s interest payment (and interest is already included in the finance charge).
steve sinacola, on December 28th, 2009 at 6:47 pm Said:

Mortgage insurer may be “getting it”

By Andrew Frye

Dec. 23 (Bloomberg) — MGIC Investment Corp., the biggest U.S. mortgage insurer, dropped the most in almost two months after being sued by Bank of America Corp.’s Countrywide unit in a dispute over claims.

MGIC fell 60 cents, or 9.4 percent, to $5.76 at 4:02 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The Milwaukee, Wisconsin-based company, which disclosed the suit yesterday in a regulatory filing, has declined about 75 percent in the past two years as it posted nine straight quarterly losses.

Bank of America, the biggest U.S. lender, said in a Dec. 17 complaint that MGIC, led by Chief Executive Officer Curt Culver, denied millions of dollars of valid claims for defaulted mortgages by relying on an “unreasonable” interpretation of its policies. MGIC said it intends to defend itself against the bank’s allegations.
marcus, on December 28th, 2009 at 2:50 pm Said:

Link to Florida Supreme Court Order

x_http://assets.bizjournals.com/cms_media/southflorida/pdf/Fla.%20S.C.%20report%20.pdf

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
marcus, on December 28th, 2009 at 2:45 pm Said:

Fla. Supreme Court Requires Mediation in Foreclosures
Source:South Florida Business Journal
by Susan R. Miller

Plagued by an ever-increasing number of foreclosure cases, Florida judges now have guidance on how to deal with them through a statewide mediation program.

Florida’s Chief Justice Peggy Quince signed an order designed to alleviate the backlog.
It adopts recommendations by the court’s Task Force on Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Cases that was created earlier this year.

Foreclosure filings in Florida trial courts are expected to hit 456,000 statewide by the close of the year.

“The crisis continues unabated,” the order notes.

Among the recommendations, foreclosures of a homeowner’s primary residence must be referred to mediation. It refers only to those actions filed after today’s order and there are some provisions for the homeowner to opt out.

Only mediators certified by the Florida Supreme Court will be referred cases. The task force developed training standards for mediators, which the state’s high court adopted.

The mediation has to be scheduled no sooner than two months and no later than four months after a foreclosure is filed and borrowers will be referred to a HUD-certified foreclosure counselor.

The task force noted that borrowers are less likely to default again if they’ve been through foreclosure counseling.

Florida’s CFO, Alex Sink praised the court’s order.

“Requiring a uniform mediation program is an important step to improve communication between homeowners and their lenders, something vitally important as we work to provide real relief to struggling residents,” she said in a news release.

Homeowners facing foreclosure will not have to pay for the cost of the program.

“Requiring borrowers to pay a portion of mediation up front would operate as a barrier to this court’s goal of efficiently managing these cases to avoid waste of judicial and party resources,” the court order states.

Those costs are paid for by the lender, but are recoverable in the final judgment of foreclosure. The court has determined that the total fee for mediation can’t exceed $750.

The order also directs that a reporting system to collect data on the number of foreclosure cases statewide be implemented to determine how many are settled, adjourned or end in impasse.

In August, Roy Oppenheim, a Weston attorney who handles foreclosures, said the task force’s recommendation for mediation will help many people who otherwise might lose their homes.

“In those counties where there is mediation, as much as 75 percent of foreclosures that go into mediation get settled and people end up not

losing their homes,” Oppenheim said in a video on YouTube. “Now you are not going to get goofy outcomes because one county has mediation and one county does not.”

He noted that mediation “forces banks to bring someone who has the ability to make a decision to the table.”

Another significant part of the order requires lenders to prove they hold the note.

“Plaintiff’s counsel is not permitted to respond to the certification with ‘unknown,’ ‘unsure,’ ‘not applicable,’ or similar nonresponsive statements,” the order states.

Oppenheim said in the video that the recommendation is significant because the task force found it to be a form of unfair practice.

“It’s what we call legal fiction. Legal fiction is a nice way of saying a lie,” he said.

Though Oppenheim is out of the country, Geoff Sherman, an associate with his firm, said they hope today’s order will allow the foreclosure process to move more efficiently.

“It’s a great idea and we are looking forward to assisting our clients in trying to get some sort of resolution toward these matters,” he said.

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
Abby in CA, on December 28th, 2009 at 1:55 pm Said:

New Century or Home123 victims.

Hopefully you have obtained copies of your recorded documents from your respective county recorder’s office.

If your Mortgage Assignment or Corporate Deed of Assignment was signed (forged or not) by any VP or other representative of New Century or Home123 after their bankruptcy was filed in Delaware on April 2, 2007, then you should notify the Trustee of that Bankruptcy, Alan Jacobs, that you believe he has a duty to notify the appropriate US Attorney of matters which relate to the occurrence of any action which may constitute a crime.

Alan Jacobs
U.S. Trustee
United States Trustee
844 King Street, Room 2207
Lockbox #35
Wilmington, DE 19899-0035
302-573-6491 FAX 302-573-6497

Fundamentally, unless the bankruptcy trustee or the judge in their bankruptcy approved the transfer/sale of your property to another entity after their bankruptcy was filed, it could be a violation of law.

Here is some verbage to review and you can cut and paste into your letter to the BKR Trustee Jacobs. The fax number works.
Dear Mr. Jacobs:

You are duty bound to report a crime per:

United States Trustee, 28 U.S.C. § 586(a)(3)(F)
The United States Trustee has the duty of “notifying the appropriate United
States attorney of matters which relate to the occurrence of any action
which may constitute a crime under the laws of the United States and, on
the request of the United States attorney, assisting the United States
attorney in carrying out prosecutions based on such action.” It is
noteworthy that this section encompasses any crime, not just bankruptcy
crimes, and imposes a duty to assist, as well as to report evidence of
crimes.

And

Illegal “Financial Transactions,” 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)
This section prohibits a person from conducting financial transactions with
either: (1) the intent to promote a “specified unlawful activity” (which
includes 18 U.S.C. § 152, but not the new § 157); or (2) the knowledge that
the transaction is designed (a) to conceal or disguise the nature, location,
source, ownership, or control of the proceeds of a specified unlawful
activity or (b) to avoid a federal or state reporting requirement.
Financial transactions are defined to include any use of interstate or foreign
commerce to move money or monetary instruments, or involves the transfer
of title of real property or vehicle, vessel, or aircraft, or uses a financial
institution.
A defendant who, while in bankruptcy, files false schedules concealing real property and thereafter transfers that property to another would violate this law.

This refers to the New Century TRS Holdings Chapter 11 Bankruptcy (1-07-bk-10416 KJC).

I also faxed a copy of my Corp. Deed of Assignment to show how it was signed 49+ days after New Century and Home123 declared bankruptcy in Delaware.

Tell him you want an immediate investigation!

You can also send a copy to Eric Holder, US Attorney General in Washington DC.
ALLAN (introducing THE BOSTONIAN OF THE YEAR) ......CLICK HERE TO VIEW UTube, on December 28th, 2009 at 12:48 am Said:

BOSTONIAN OF THE YEAR

The Watchdog: Elizabeth Warren

It seemed as if the banks and other firms got a $700 billion bonanza and the American taxpayer got the shaft. But along came this straight-shooting Harvard professor to oversee the bailout, someone who pledged to look out for the middle class and brought a sense of sanity to the economic crisis. For this we give her our top honors this year.

By Charles P. Pierce | December 20, 2009 A.D.

There are many ways to become our Bostonian of the Year. You could be one of the nation’s preeminent bankruptcy scholars, and a tenured professor of law at Harvard University, and a talking head for Frontline specials and Michael Moore’s latest documentary, and a leading voice decrying the human cost of the current economic morass, and the chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel monitoring the Troubled Assets Relief Program, the TARP that covers a multitude of financial sins. The panel keeps an eye on how the nation’s banks have spent the taxpayer money shoveled into them in the fall of 2008, as well as the destination of the rest of the $700 billion allocated by the government when the economy seemed on the verge of swallowing itself whole. This can set you at odds with secretaries of the Treasury, various ambitious legislators, and laissez-faire economic fundamentalists. Elizabeth Warren has done all that, and has done as much to earn the title Bostonian of the Year as has anyone who was born and raised in Oklahoma. But she has one even more essentially Bostonian accomplishment on her considerable resume — she once shut up basketball fans in Philadelphia.

One night about two decades ago, she and her husband, Bruce Mann, who also teaches at Harvard Law, were attending a game between the 76ers and Warren’s beloved Houston Rockets. (Warren taught at the University of Houston when Hakeem Olajuwon played for a Cougars team memorably dubbed “Phi Slama Jama” for its dunking prowess.) “So Elizabeth is up, cheering, yelling at the ref,” Mann recalls. “And the crowd around is getting kind of, well, restive. They’re saying, ‘Hey, lady, you’re not from around here, are you?’ ” Finally, one of the burlier gentlemen in Warren’s section inquired why she was so passionate about the Rockets. Warren explained her background in Houston. He then determined to quiz her on her bona fides.

Who was the coach of that team, he asked her.

Guy V. Lewis, she answered.

What was his trademark, he asked her.

He carried around a checkered towel, she answered.

(Warren was being kind here. Lewis’s most conspicuous trademark was his staggering incompetence in big games.)

Satisfied, the man sat down and Warren went back to being loud. Gradually, the crowd began to get audibly impatient with her again. Suddenly, the large gentleman stood up and addressed his colleagues.

“Leave the lady alone,” he told them. “She’s got history.”

You can understand that moment when Warren, 60, talks about the political heat inherent in the position she now holds. The great cause of her life has been defending middle-class Americans against what she calls the “tricks and traps” the nation’s financial institutions devise to separate those citizens from their money. She was talking about the dangers of the subprime mortgage binge long before the bubble finally popped. She is equally scornful of how the credit card companies bury their real brigandage under a blizzard of sub-paragraphs and dependent clauses. And ever since last November, when Senate majority leader Harry Reid persuaded her to take charge of the Congressional Oversight Panel, and even though she is aware that the panel does not have any real enforcement powers, Warren has become a burr under the saddle of official Washington — plain-spoken, invariably polite, intolerant of business-school persiflage (“That’s a word we don’t use enough!” she exclaims), and utterly contemptuous of conventional wisdom. These are not qualities that endear you to the courtier set inside the Beltway. Warren got in the face of then Treasury secretary Henry Paulson and stayed there to the point where Paulson’s staff began sniping at her in the newspapers. She gently — but relentlessly — prodded Paulson’s successor, Timothy Geithner, until Geithner dragged himself before the panel to testify.

“We are an experiment here,” she says. “The secretary of the Treasury raced in and said the economy’s on fire. Congress was in the position of having to react rapidly and without much specificity. At the same time, they didn’t want to write a blank check to Treasury, so they hooked oversight to it. The secretary of the Treasury has enormous discretion, but there will be a group appointed to keep evaluating what Treasury is doing, and that group will be required to put out a report every 30 days. We’re supposed to keep planting flags in the ground. You have to prove what you said. I don’t want happy-face conclusions. I want the truth.”

They also are not qualities guaranteed to make you friends among the Masters of the Universe in the financial services industry or among the legislators whom they may have sublet. Her advocacy of a financial product safety commission, a federal watchdog agency to regulate predatory lending, drew howls from small-government conservatives. “That agency is the game-changer,” she argues. “This is the chance to level the playing field between middle-class families and huge financial institutions by making those products work again, by making them as simple as toasters.”

In short, she has been accused of exceeding her mandate, mostly by people who would rather she not have a mandate at all. She has been called an ideologue — mostly, it should be said, by other ideologues. Warren, simply, could not care less. “They were tired of me before I started,” Warren says with a laugh. “I am not looking for jobs with these guys. My job is not to get out there and kowtow to these guys so they’ll be nice to me. I figure this is the one time I will have a true public-service job. I’m going to do everything I can to execute this job the way it ought to be done. If there’s some politician, Republican or Democrat, who has a problem with that, I just don’t care.

“I have no future in this, and I have lifetime tenure [at the Harvard Law School]. What are you going to do to me?”

Perhaps the most dissonant criticism leveled against Warren is that she simply is another Harvard elitist come down from the mount to lecture the rest of us on the way the country should be run. On the wall of her office, framed, is a Pennsylvania newspaper advertisement from August 23, 1882, announcing that Sheriff Joseph Frankenfield would be auctioning off a farm that day, a property owned by folks on whom the bank had foreclosed a mortgage. Gradually, almost imperceptibly, a gentle twang enters Warren’s voice when she talks about this ad. “If you don’t talk about families,” she says, “then it’s easy to disembody subprime mortgages and asset securitization and unemployment rates without remembering that every one of those numbers is a million families.” This is what the guy meant in the basketball arena some 20 years back. The lady has history.

In Norman, Oklahoma, it was the last house on the last road on the far edge of town. Behind it were wheat fields that extended to Texas, or to the Pacific, or to Oz, as best as you could tell from standing in the yard. Elizabeth Warren grew up there, a caboose of a child with three much older brothers. “One was huge and the other two were mean,” she recalls. “I was 30 before I realized, you know, that I probably was an accident. These things just suddenly hit you one day.” Eventually, her father wound up as a maintenance man in an apartment building and her mother did catalog sales for Sears.

Warren was something of a local prodigy, a state champion debater who graduated from high school at 16. One day, having saved up her baby-sitting money, she went to the local convenience store and took out money orders totaling $50 to apply to two colleges — George Washington University and Northwestern — to which she thought she was most likely to get a debate scholarship. She enrolled in the former but left after two years, when, at 19, she married Jim Warren, an engineer with NASA whom she’d been dating since she was 13. He was in Houston, working on the Apollo program, and Elizabeth transferred to the University of Houston to finish her degree. Eventually Jim’s work took them to New Jersey, where he was working on the country’s antiballistic missile program. Spurred by some of the people who had been on the debating team with her, Elizabeth enrolled in law school at Rutgers University. In 1976, she had a JD and new baby and few prospects.

“I graduated law school nine months pregnant and didn’t take a job,” she says. “This was 1976, and I’m thinking that I stepped off the track. So I’m at home, and I thought, ‘I’ll just take the bar exam. What’s the worst that can happen?’ So I took the bar exam and thought, ‘Well, shoot, I’ll just hang out a shingle.’ ” (In this, Warren is being quite literal. The shingle now hangs in her Harvard office, beneath the foreclosure notice from 1882.) She did real estate closings and lawsuits arising from automobile accidents. (Her talent for drawing up a will has yet to be fully tested, because, as far as she knows, nobody for whom she drew up a will has died.) In time, Rutgers asked her to teach a class part time, and Warren found herself a calling. By then, her husband’s job had vanished because the United States had bargained away the ABM system by treaty with the Soviet Union. They moved back to Houston and divorced in 1978. (She met Mann a year later.)

She taught in the law school at the University of Houston and, subsequently, at the universities of Texas and Pennsylvania before landing at Harvard in 1995. But Warren stumbled upon her specialty at her first full-time teaching job in Houston. In 1979, a new code of bankruptcy law went into effect, and Warren shared its details with the students in her first bankruptcy class the next year. Her interest was piqued. “I taught it like a Final Jeopardy question,” she recalls. “If this is the answer, what must have been the problem that people thought this fixed?” She teamed up with another law professor and a sociologist, and the three of them went into the field to study what was happening in the nation’s bankruptcy courts.

“I get this clever idea,” she says. “I’m going to expose these sleazy debtors who are exploiting the bankruptcy system and their poor, hapless creditors and enriching themselves as far as the law allows by going through bankruptcy court. I go out with these other two folks and we start collecting data about the families who are filing for bankruptcy. We end up doing this big study, and it ends up as a book [AS WE FORGIVE OUR DEBTORS]. And it completely turns me around. I knew what I was going to find before I went out there, and I discovered that it doesn’t work that way.”

Warren continued her study of the effect of the macroeconomic financial system on American families. Another book, THE FRAGILE MIDDLE CLASS, examined why most families in bankruptcy would be considered to be middle class by any conventional social indicator, and reported that most of them ended up in dire financial straits due to medical problems, job loss, or the breakup of the family. This led to THE TWO-INCOME TRAP, which she coauthored with her daughter, Amelia. (She also has a son, Alexander.) “It really was about what happened to the middle class over a generation,” she explains. “From the 1970s to the early 2000s, there was a hollowing out of the middle class.”

Over the past two years, in its near-collapse, the financial services industry began to smack not a little of the rigged wheel, and its impact on the lives of American families — particularly as seen through the prism of the subprime mortgage fiasco — appeared to be dire. The issues on which Warren made her career exploded into the national consciousness. She became a sought-after expert, debuting as a pundit — a word that makes her roll her eyes and moan — on the Dr. Phil show. And she minced no words.

“More and more middle-class families realized that what they were experiencing was not unique to themselves, that there were larger social trends,” she says. “And I also think there comes a point where people get tired of hearing the same old stuff from the kind of media machine the financial services industry has been pumping out.

“The thing about the Masters of the Universe syndrome is that it plays on ‘What I’m doing is so obscure that you’ll never get it. You’re too dumb.’ This really became relevant when we hit the financial crisis a year ago.”

Then, one day, while Warren was barbecuing with students, Harry Reid called and asked her to take on the TARP oversight job. “I’ve really been talking about the same set of issues for a long time, but I was under the radar, and that was OK with me,” she says, the twang thickening just a bit, as though her voice had been aged in oak. “I don’t know, but I think part of it was that the world changed. What was a boring and obscure issue suddenly moved front and center.” And, when it did, she was there, with her history and all that, looking faceless forces squarely in the eye, speaking plainly to persiflage, and, in her own amiable way, drowning out the faint, distant voice of Sheriff Frankenfield’s auctioneer.

Charles P. Pierce is a staff writer for The Globe Magazine. E-mail him at cpierce@globe.com.

© Copyright 2009 A.D. The New York Times Company

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

Professor ELIZABETH WARREN has long been a heroine of mine, especially when she takes on ‘the good old boys.’ She shares my sense of outrage (aimed at Paulson & Geithner) and my concern about the impact of our financial and bankruptcy systems on families. What is it about Brooksley Born, Sheila Bair, and Elizabeth Warren that they call on us to ‘do the right thing,’ but most important, ‘get the job done.’

I have often visited her Cambridge office (back before Obama took office) to encourage her to read http://www.LivingLies.WordPress.com. That was BEFORE she got the call.

ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
Ace, on December 27th, 2009 at 8:29 pm Said:

WITHOUT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE YOU HAVE A LACK OF STANDING

I am not a lawyer. This is my experience and any advice forthwith is simply that, ADVICE. Mostly obtained from this site, elders and friends. All of these people have many more years of experience in life than I, and therefore, I regard their views and advice to be of the utmost importance to me.

I am a 43 y.o., Self-Employed Craftsman, who bought my home in Oct. of 1994 from the FDIC. It was a leftover from the S&L housing crisis of the 80’s. Kind of odd that I find myself here I think. The Registry of Deeds shows a Mortgage Discharge for when I purchased it from the FDIC as receiver, but no new Mortgage Assignment. Not sure if this concerns me yet.

In 2005 I refinanced with South Shore Mortgage Corp. of NY which was working for Argent Mortgage Corp. a subsidiary of Ameriquest. The Registry of Deeds shows a Mortgage Assignment for Argent, but no Mortgage Discharge when I refinanced with Countrywide in 2007. I am very concerned with this.

The Registry of Deeds does show a Mortgage Assignment for Countrywide and a Mortgage Discharge from Countrywide. I am very concerned with this as well.

On August 28th 2008, just as the market was crashing, I succumbed to a hereditary disease that prevented me from moving around very well for close to 8 months. This will linger for the rest of my life, but Please No Pity; I am a better person because of it. This resulted in my loss of employment and a need for assistance from my ‘Lender’. At that time the ‘Lender’ was Countrywide, or so I thought. I began making calls to ask for assistance and found myself waiting for excuses.

First the clerks at Countrywide were saying wait for TARP to go through, then the Bush plan, a vain attempt at a modification, (Monthly payments actually increased, and in a recent modification that I have seen, your rights under bankruptcy protection would be surrendered), then the new President, the Obama plans 1 & 2… and I am still here after 16 months. Waiting. Why?

“Because I can”. What do I mean?

I started calling and requesting assistance from my ‘Lender’ immediately upon my injury. After a few months into this I stumbled upon this site. I had no idea what this was, nor do I remember how I found it. At first, as a layman, I was overwhelmed. Looking up Latin phrases, MA State law…I was so confused, so many questions, yet had all the time to investigate this site. How could this possibly help me I asked myself?

Then a very dear friend, my best friend now, a WWII vet, and his lovely companion, suggested that I try to get an education. Try to find a better way to be employed without further damage to my body. “It’s all I know” I said to him. He suggested otherwise.

I went to my local community college, signed up and passed my entrance exam with high praise from the administrator of the test, went to the finance office and was told I was the most eligible student for assistance, but there is no assistance available. Sorry. Try again in 09’. I will not personally take any type of loan for anything for a long, long time.

I went home discouraged. Despondent. I continued to research this site and found myself asking myself and then, Countrywide, who is the “Actual Noteholder?” and lo and behold, they said nothing. Just calls from more clerks.

As 08’ became 09’, I started to realize that I was educating myself. I was learning about all of this. Around this time, I believe I changed my mindset. I can’t afford a lawyer. What I have saved is for the real Noteholder, if they actually exist, not a lawyer.

Then I see the words Pro Se.

Bank of America arrives on the scene about this time, by buying Countrywide, as the latest to claim the “Servicing” of my mortgage. The Registry of Deeds does not show a Mortgage Assignment for Boa. I am very concerned about this, which leads me to believe I have a ‘Clouded Title’.

I have been sending Certified Mail; Return Receipt Requests for information for 1 year + now. 18 letters in all to date, some are duplicates to multiple addresses. My father suggested this early on as a way to keep a record of the requests for assistance which became requests for information. QWR’s. (It say’s so in the mort. docs you have that this a way for you/me to receive important information from your ‘Lender’) This has been suggested here in regards to modifications and, I believe, should be used for all correspondence with your purported ‘Lender’. Forevermore.

Other than the one lame duck modification offer I received in Dec.08’, which I denied, I have not received any other written response. None. Clerks call without leaving messages now. No auto-dialer calls either anymore. I tried to record some clerks and they refused to consent. MA is a two party consent state.

In early March 09’, I started looking online for any sort of help I could find. I called 200+ places in MA. Got 21 possible hits. Only one turned out to be true help. The MA State Attorney Generals’ Hotline. I left a message and 3 long weeks later I got a call. What a feeling that was once I realized who was on the line. A retired lawyer doing pro-bono work for the above mentioned agency was calling me back. He has assisted me ever since. He found nothing in my mortgage docs that could help me. He helped me with a QWR in response to BoA’s ‘Notice of Intent to Foreclose’ that basically says, “I would like to request a modification, again, under certain terms, but, Without Empirical Evidence you have a lack of standing to modify or foreclose.” That was Sept.09’. I have not received anything in writing to date.

During this whole period, 16 months & counting now, with the education I have received from this site, my close friends and family, I have become engrossed in this. I have a new found passion for education and the truth. I have never posted. I’ve only watched and read.

Neil etal, have provided something amazing here. I have poured over this site reading some things two or more times. I copy the most important aspects into my pc and then print them and re-read them and hi-lite all the important things. Educating myself.

I have copies of the entire important mortgage related doc’s that Are on File at the Registry of Deeds. I have spoken with the employees there in person and on the phone. They have explained to me, in a very professional manner that before any foreclosure can occur in MA, a non-judicial state, a Complaint needs to be filed there. CMPLT is what to look for. I look at the registry files online everyday. It has to be done everyday or you will miss it and fall behind. Losing precious time is only going to hurt your cause.

I recently bought the NOLO 6th Edition “Represent Yourself in Court”, a must buy for any ProSe. I am reading this book and, again hi-liting all the important things. My thought is to try to legally clear a ‘Cloud of Title”.

MA state laws were not adhered to as to informing me, the homeowner who the actual ‘Noteholder’ was/is, and proper registration of certain required documents at the Registry of Deeds.

With all this education, I am doing all I can to defend my rights and not be tricked out of my home by what appear to be common thieves.

Again, ‘Because I Can’. Educate yourself to protect yourself.

A short time ago I read on this site a question, “What are you doing to help in this mess”, or something to that effect. The writer should contact me.

I have driven to homes that I find in the newspaper foreclosures. No one was there. The homes were empty.

I called a local family through the same process. I spoke to one of the owners and suggested this website. She explained to me that they were in a trial modification. I still suggested this site. She asked, “What has it done for you”? I simply stated, “I am still in my home after this long a fight and still going.”

I have friends who are watching to see how I make out before they request another modification. (They didn’t sign either.) I will talk to anyone who will listen. Some do, some don’t. Some are ignorant, some say I am crazy, some come around and yet others don’t.
My life’s most important educator/objector did. Dad

I have explained what I have been doing to save my own home. Maybe someone will see this and it will help them somehow or maybe someone who reads this wants to help me. I am ‘HOPING’ there are. No pun intended. I could use it.

If anyone wants to know more you can email me and I will answer any questions you may have.

Now I know that I have definitely done something other than help and educate myself. Thank you for listening.

Mymortgagemess@yahoo.com
Holli G, on December 27th, 2009 at 1:06 pm Said:

can someone please HELP …I am not in foreclosure yet and dont want to get there..my loan servicer is ONEWEST/Indymac my origional creditor was Quicken loans in 2006 . I have been denied a modification by OneWest .I applied in March 09 had never been late ,I did not make my Nov or Dec pymnt .I was contacted by Onewest and told I was approved for a trial Mod also emailed apoproval after not recieveing docs I called they said it was a system error and NO MOD which after reading all these horror stories i think im glad BUT i want to rersolve this before foreclosure .,
after reading all these posts and more info on the web about servicers not actually owning the note ,im confused what direction to go in ..I believe there is an answer but do I need to wait until its too late or can I file something now regarding FRAUD ??? HELP PLEASE I am i California
Abby in CA, on December 27th, 2009 at 1:02 pm Said:

and Cal Western Reconveyance is a wholly owned subsidiary of Prommis Solutions

http://prommis.com/
Dan Edstrom, on December 27th, 2009 at 12:20 pm Said:

I have tried to post this numerous times, let’s see if it works this time …

It turns out Dolan Media is foreclosing on me.

NDEx West, LLC is owned by National Default Exchange. National Default Exchange was owned by Barrett

X_http://investor.dolanmedia.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=211849&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1180105&highlight=

They make lots of money. 50,000 files processed in Q3 2009 with $23.6 Million in revenue. And that is just one default processing firm handling California, Texas and Georgia.

X_http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTk4MTZ8Q2hpbGRJRD0tMXxUeXBlPTM=&t=1

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom @ hotmail.com
rena, on December 27th, 2009 at 10:47 am Said:

Once again Gretchen Morgenson tells it like it is! This article was only published on Dec.23,09 and already has 531 comments a lot of them from Wall Street Insiders. She is great, she has 3 more great articles she published this month as well links below.
Here is the link to this article if you want:
Banks Bundled Bad Debt, Bet Against It and Won
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/business/24trading.html?pagewanted=1
and the other 3:
What Iceberg? Just Glide to the Next Boardroom
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/27/business/economy/27gret.html
Get Ready, Get Set, Point Fingers
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/business/13gret.html
Why Treasury Needs a Plan B for Mortgages
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/business/economy/06gret.html

NOW IF ONLY WE COULD TEACH CONGRESS TO READ!!!!!

Banks Bundled Bad Debt, Bet Against It and Won
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON and LOUISE STORY
Published: December 23, 2009
In late October 2007, as the financial markets were starting to come unglued, a Goldman Sachs trader, Jonathan M. Egol, received very good news. At 37, he was named a managing director at the firm.
Right, William P. O’Donnell/The New York Times
One former Goldman salesman wrote a novel about the crisis. A Deutsche Bank trader passed out T-shirts for investors hoping to profit on a housing bust.

Profits in a Crisis
Statement by Goldman Sachs
Add to Portfolio
Goldman Sachs Group

Left, Treasury Department; Kevin Wolf/Associated Press
Lewis Sachs, left, who oversaw C.D.O.’s before becoming a Treasury adviser, and John Paulson, whose company profited as the housing market collapsed.

Mr. Egol, a Princeton graduate, had risen to prominence inside the bank by creating mortgage-related securities, named Abacus, that were at first intended to protect Goldman from investment losses if the housing market collapsed. As the market soured, Goldman created even more of these securities, enabling it to pocket huge profits.
Goldman’s own clients who bought them, however, were less fortunate.
Pension funds and insurance companies lost billions of dollars on securities that they believed were solid investments, according to former Goldman employees with direct knowledge of the deals who asked not to be identified because they have confidentiality agreements with the firm.
Goldman was not the only firm that peddled these complex securities — known as synthetic collateralized debt obligations, or C.D.O.’s — and then made financial bets against them, called selling short in Wall Street parlance. Others that created similar securities and then bet they would fail, according to Wall Street traders, include Deutsche Bank and Morgan Stanley, as well as smaller firms like Tricadia Inc., an investment company whose parent firm was overseen by Lewis A. Sachs, who this year became a special counselor to Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner.
How these disastrously performing securities were devised is now the subject of scrutiny by investigators in Congress, at the Securities and Exchange Commission and at the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Wall Street’s self-regulatory organization, according to people briefed on the investigations. Those involved with the inquiries declined to comment.
While the investigations are in the early phases, authorities appear to be looking at whether securities laws or rules of fair dealing were violated by firms that created and sold these mortgage-linked debt instruments and then bet against the clients who purchased them, people briefed on the matter say.
One focus of the inquiry is whether the firms creating the securities purposely helped to select especially risky mortgage-linked assets that would be most likely to crater, setting their clients up to lose billions of dollars if the housing market imploded.
Some securities packaged by Goldman and Tricadia ended up being so vulnerable that they soured within months of being created.
Goldman and other Wall Street firms maintain there is nothing improper about synthetic C.D.O.’s, saying that they typically employ many trading techniques to hedge investments and protect against losses. They add that many prudent investors often do the same. Goldman used these securities initially to offset any potential losses stemming from its positive bets on mortgage securities.
But Goldman and other firms eventually used the C.D.O.’s to place unusually large negative bets that were not mainly for hedging purposes, and investors and industry experts say that put the firms at odds with their own clients’ interests.
“The simultaneous selling of securities to customers and shorting them because they believed they were going to default is the most cynical use of credit information that I have ever seen,” said Sylvain R. Raynes, an expert in structured finance at R & R Consulting in New York. “When you buy protection against an event that you have a hand in causing, you are buying fire insurance on someone else’s house and then committing arson.”
Investment banks were not alone in reaping rich rewards by placing trades against synthetic C.D.O.’s. Some hedge funds also benefited, including Paulson & Company, according to former Goldman workers and people at other banks familiar with that firm’s trading.
Michael DuVally, a Goldman Sachs spokesman, declined to make Mr. Egol available for comment. But Mr. DuVally said many of the C.D.O.’s created by Wall Street were made to satisfy client demand for such products, which the clients thought would produce profits because they had an optimistic view of the housing market. In addition, he said that clients knew Goldman might be betting against mortgages linked to the securities, and that the buyers of synthetic mortgage C.D.O.’s were large, sophisticated investors, he said.
The creation and sale of synthetic C.D.O.’s helped make the financial crisis worse than it might otherwise have been, effectively multiplying losses by providing more securities to bet against. Some $8 billion in these securities remain on the books at American International Group, the giant insurer rescued by the government in September 2008.
From 2005 through 2007, at least $108 billion in these securities was issued, according to Dealogic, a financial data firm. And the actual volume was much higher because synthetic C.D.O.’s and other customized trades are unregulated and often not reported to any financial exchange or market.
Goldman Saw It Coming
Before the financial crisis, many investors — large American and European banks, pension funds, insurance companies and even some hedge funds — failed to recognize that overextended borrowers would default on their mortgages, and they kept increasing their investments in mortgage-related securities. As the mortgage market collapsed, they suffered steep losses.
A handful of investors and Wall Street traders, however, anticipated the crisis. In 2006, Wall Street had introduced a new index, called the ABX, that became a way to invest in the direction of mortgage securities. The index allowed traders to bet on or against pools of mortgages with different risk characteristics, just as stock indexes enable traders to bet on whether the overall stock market, or technology stocks or bank stocks, will go up or down.

Multimedia

Goldman, among others on Wall Street, has said since the collapse that it made big money by using the ABX to bet against the housing market. Worried about a housing bubble, top Goldman executives decided in December 2006 to change the firm’s overall stance on the mortgage market, from positive to negative, though it did not disclose that publicly.
Even before then, however, pockets of the investment bank had also started using C.D.O.’s to place bets against mortgage securities, in some cases to hedge the firm’s mortgage investments, as protection against a fall in housing prices and an increase in defaults.
Mr. Egol was a prime mover behind these securities. Beginning in 2004, with housing prices soaring and the mortgage mania in full swing, Mr. Egol began creating the deals known as Abacus. From 2004 to 2008, Goldman issued 25 Abacus deals, according to Bloomberg, with a total value of $10.9 billion.
Abacus allowed investors to bet for or against the mortgage securities that were linked to the deal. The C.D.O.’s didn’t contain actual mortgages. Instead, they consisted of credit-default swaps, a type of insurance that pays out when a borrower defaults. These swaps made it much easier to place large bets on mortgage failures.
Rather than persuading his customers to make negative bets on Abacus, Mr. Egol kept most of these wagers for his firm, said five former Goldman employees who spoke on the condition of anonymity. On occasion, he allowed some hedge funds to take some of the short trades.
Mr. Egol and Fabrice Tourre, a French trader at Goldman, were aggressive from the start in trying to make the assets in Abacus deals look better than they were, according to notes taken by a Wall Street investor during a phone call with Mr. Tourre and another Goldman employee in May 2005.
On the call, the two traders noted that they were trying to persuade analysts at Moody’s Investors Service, a credit rating agency, to assign a higher rating to one part of an Abacus C.D.O. but were having trouble, according to the investor’s notes, which were provided by a colleague who asked for anonymity because he was not authorized to release them. Goldman declined to discuss the selection of the assets in the C.D.O.’s, but a spokesman said investors could have rejected the C.D.O. if they did not like the assets.
Goldman’s bets against the performances of the Abacus C.D.O.’s were not worth much in 2005 and 2006, but they soared in value in 2007 and 2008 when the mortgage market collapsed. The trades gave Mr. Egol a higher profile at the bank, and he was among a group promoted to managing director on Oct. 24, 2007.
“Egol and Fabrice were way ahead of their time,” said one of the former Goldman workers. “They saw the writing on the wall in this market as early as 2005.” By creating the Abacus C.D.O.’s, they helped protect Goldman against losses that others would suffer.
As early as the summer of 2006, Goldman’s sales desk began marketing short bets using the ABX index to hedge funds like Paulson & Company, Magnetar and Soros Fund Management, which invests for the billionaire George Soros. John Paulson, the founder of Paulson & Company, also would later take some of the shorts from the Abacus deals, helping him profit when mortgage bonds collapsed. He declined to comment.
A Deal Gone Bad, for Some
The woeful performance of some C.D.O.’s issued by Goldman made them ideal for betting against. As of September 2007, for example, just five months after Goldman had sold a new Abacus C.D.O., the ratings on 84 percent of the mortgages underlying it had been downgraded, indicating growing concerns about borrowers’ ability to repay the loans, according to research from UBS, the big Swiss bank. Of more than 500 C.D.O.’s analyzed by UBS, only two were worse than the Abacus deal.
Goldman created other mortgage-linked C.D.O.’s that performed poorly, too. One, in October 2006, was a $800 million C.D.O. known as Hudson Mezzanine. It included credit insurance on mortgage and subprime mortgage bonds that were in the ABX index; Hudson buyers would make money if the housing market stayed healthy — but lose money if it collapsed. Goldman kept a significant amount of the financial bets against securities in Hudson, so it would profit if they failed, according to three of the former Goldman employees.
A Goldman salesman involved in Hudson said the deal was one of the earliest in which outside investors raised questions about Goldman’s incentives. “Here we are selling this, but we think the market is going the other way,” he said.
A hedge fund investor in Hudson, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that because Goldman was betting against the deal, he wondered whether the bank built Hudson with “bonds they really think are going to get into trouble.”

Multimedia

Indeed, Hudson investors suffered large losses. In March 2008, just 18 months after Goldman created that C.D.O., so many borrowers had defaulted that holders of the security paid out about $310 million to Goldman and others who had bet against it, according to correspondence sent to Hudson investors.
The Goldman salesman said that C.D.O. buyers were not misled because they were advised that Goldman was placing large bets against the securities. “We were very open with all the risks that we thought we sold. When you’re facing a tidal wave of people who want to invest, it’s hard to stop them,” he said. The salesman added that investors could have placed bets against Abacus and similar C.D.O.’s if they had wanted to.
A Goldman spokesman said the firm’s negative bets didn’t keep it from suffering losses on its mortgage assets, taking $1.7 billion in write-downs on them in 2008; but he would not say how much the bank had since earned on its short positions, which former Goldman workers say will be far more lucrative over time. For instance, Goldman profited to the tune of $1.5 billion from one series of mortgage-related trades by Mr. Egol with Wall Street rival Morgan Stanley, which had to book a steep loss, according to people at both firms.
Tetsuya Ishikawa, a salesman on several Abacus and Hudson deals, left Goldman and later published a novel, “How I Caused the Credit Crunch.” In it, he wrote that bankers deserted their clients who had bought mortgage bonds when that market collapsed: “We had moved on to hurting others in our quest for self-preservation.” Mr. Ishikawa, who now works for another financial firm in London, declined to comment on his work at Goldman.
Profits From a Collapse
Just as synthetic C.D.O.’s began growing rapidly, some Wall Street banks pushed for technical modifications governing how they worked in ways that made it possible for C.D.O.’s to expand even faster, and also tilted the playing field in favor of banks and hedge funds that bet against C.D.O.’s, according to investors.
In early 2005, a group of prominent traders met at Deutsche Bank’s office in New York and drew up a new system, called Pay as You Go. This meant the insurance for those betting against mortgages would pay out more quickly. The traders then went to the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, the group that governs trading in derivatives like C.D.O.’s. The new system was presented as a fait accompli, and adopted.
Other changes also increased the likelihood that investors would suffer losses if the mortgage market tanked. Previously, investors took losses only in certain dire “credit events,” as when the mortgages associated with the C.D.O. defaulted or their issuers went bankrupt.
But the new rules meant that C.D.O. holders would have to make payments to short sellers under less onerous outcomes, or “triggers,” like a ratings downgrade on a bond. This meant that anyone who bet against a C.D.O. could collect on the bet more easily.
“In the early deals you see none of these triggers,” said one investor who asked for anonymity to preserve relationships. “These things were built in to provide the dealers with a big payoff when something bad happened.”
Banks also set up ever more complex deals that favored those betting against C.D.O.’s. Morgan Stanley established a series of C.D.O.’s named after United States presidents (Buchanan and Jackson) with an unusual feature: short-sellers could lock in very cheap bets against mortgages, even beyond the life of the mortgage bonds. It was akin to allowing someone paying a low insurance premium for coverage on one automobile to pay the same on another one even if premiums over all had increased because of high accident rates.
At Goldman, Mr. Egol structured some Abacus deals in a way that enabled those betting on a mortgage-market collapse to multiply the value of their bets, to as much as six or seven times the face value of those C.D.O.’s. When the mortgage market tumbled, this meant bigger profits for Goldman and other short sellers — and bigger losses for other investors.
Selling Bad Debt
Other Wall Street firms also created risky mortgage-related securities that they bet against.
At Deutsche Bank, the point man on betting against the mortgage market was Greg Lippmann, a trader. Mr. Lippmann made his pitch to select hedge fund clients, arguing they should short the mortgage market. He sometimes distributed a T-shirt that read “I’m Short Your House!!!” in black and red letters.

Multimedia

Graphic
Profits in a Crisis

Deutsche, which declined to comment, at the same time was selling synthetic C.D.O.’s to its clients, and those deals created more short-selling opportunities for traders like Mr. Lippmann.
Among the most aggressive C.D.O. creators was Tricadia, a management company that was a unit of Mariner Investment Group. Until he became a senior adviser to the Treasury secretary early this year, Lewis Sachs was Mariner’s vice chairman. Mr. Sachs oversaw about 20 portfolios there, including Tricadia, and its documents also show that Mr. Sachs sat atop the firm’s C.D.O. management committee.
From 2003 to 2007, Tricadia issued 14 mortgage-linked C.D.O.’s, which it called TABS. Even when the market was starting to implode, Tricadia continued to create TABS deals in early 2007 to sell to investors. The deal documents referring to conflicts of interest stated that affiliates and clients of Tricadia might place bets against the types of securities in the TABS deal.
Even so, the sales material also boasted that the mortgages linked to C.D.O.’s had historically low default rates, citing a “recently completed” study by Standard & Poor’s ratings agency — though fine print indicated that the date of the study was September 2002, almost five years earlier.
At a financial symposium in New York in September 2006, Michael Barnes, the co-head of Tricadia, described how a hedge fund could put on a negative mortgage bet by shorting assets to C.D.O. investors, according to his presentation, which was reviewed by The New York Times.
Mr. Barnes declined to comment. James E. McKee, general counsel at Tricadia, said, “Tricadia has never shorted assets into the TABS deals, and Tricadia has always acted in the best interests of its clients and investors.”
Mr. Sachs, through a spokesman at the Treasury Department, declined to comment.
Like investors in some of Goldman’s Abacus deals, buyers of some TABS experienced heavy losses. By the end of 2007, UBS research showed that two TABS deals were the eighth- and ninth-worst performing C.D.O.’s. Both had been downgraded on at least 75 percent of their associated assets within a year of being issued.
Tricadia’s hedge fund did far better, earning roughly a 50 percent return in 2007 and similar profits in 2008, in part from the short bets.
Karen Agan, on December 26th, 2009 at 1:23 pm Said:

Do I have any Rights? The vacant unit next to mine, pipes bursted 2 weeks ago. Flooded and damaged my home. No help from the Hoa in knowing the units owner, and or bank if it is in foreclosue. I’m trying to save my home with BOA, and now I have to pay a $500.00 dedutable to fix my place, now knowing that it could be mortgage payment, and now the value of my place just tanked. No one has been in that vacant unit to begin cleaning it up. Who would want to live next to a place that now is becoming a mess of mold. And now why do I even want to keep my own place. Why do I have to pay for something that is not my fault?
usedkarguy, on December 25th, 2009 at 1:29 pm Said:

Hey, Dan! I don’t think “Ira” is doing Christmas this year. (YUK, YUK!) Happy Hanukkah, Ira! Merry Christmas Folks!
ALLAN (with news that Miami Dade Clerk of Courts is moving foreclosure auctions out of the courthouse to the Internet to reduce the 10 month foreclosure auction backlog), on December 25th, 2009 at 12:50 pm Said:

In an effort to reduce their 10 month backlog of foreclosure auctions and save 25,000 man hours and $750,000, Miami Dade Clerk of Courts, on its home page, http://www.miami-dadeclerk.com/dadecoc/ announced it is going high tech partnering with http://www.realauction.com.

The foreclosure auction website http://www.MiamiDade.Realforeclose.com was launched Pearl Harbor Day and has its first online auction scheduled for January 11, 2010.

This is expected to free up court personnel, bring efficiency to foreclosures, and reduce costs. The 10 MONTH backlog is expected to be reduced to 6 WEEKS, tops!

Just think what that’ll do for those egregiously vile ‘rocket dockets,’ freeing court personnel up to make sure Plaintiffs are fully playing by the rules. Just in time for 2010, when foreclosures are expected to be off the charts.

ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
ALLAN (with a valuable RESEARCH TOOL tip for you avid advanced fellow researchers), on December 25th, 2009 at 12:16 pm Said:

Ever try to keep several GOOGLE tabs going at once, but had to toggle between tabs? No more. Now you can easily make side-by-side comparisons.

Go to http://www.GoogleGoogleGoogleGoogle.com.

ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
deontos, on December 25th, 2009 at 10:46 am Said:

Ken,

That article is an “artful pleading” designed to disguise a stinking mound
of CRAP and FRAUD.

We must collectively examine everything these people put out in their propaganda pieces. THEY LEAVE CLUES. Forget their garbage rationalizations and outright lies.

I use the “Great Google” with keywords from articles like this to learn who, what, where and how. Homeowners have been BLINDSIDED disastrously
by bunch of psychopathic greedy banksters and their money blinded Esq’s.
We have to learn from any source we can their strategies and mindsets. We must learn from THEIR successes and their failures how to obtain JUSTICE based on truth and fairness to all “real parties of interest”.

I commend YOU for bringing this article up, although reading it sickens me because of all the blinding hypocrisy and arrogance. I hope all garner some substantial helpful knowledge from it.
Ken Dost, on December 25th, 2009 at 2:57 am Said:

THIS IS AN ARTICLE THAT I CAME ACROSS THAT REALLY DEMONSTRATES THE UPHILL BATTLE THAT WE FACE….ACTUALLY THE ARTICLE REALLY PISSES ME OFF…WHAT GETS ME ABOUT ALL OF THIS IS THAT THERE IS CLEAR CUT FRAUD ON SO MANY LAYERS YET IT SEEMS TO COME DOWN TO AN ADHESION TO CONTRACT….TOO THAT PEOPLE ARE UNEMPLOYED BECAUSE OF WHAT THOSE BASTARDS DID……ANYHOW TAKE A READ OF THIS ARTICLE

Full Text:COPYRIGHT 2009 Mortgage Bankers Association of America

If you want to change the foreclosure process these days, you may have to take a number and get in line. Across the nation, state lawmakers, attorneys general, municipal officeholders, local attorneys and even borrowers are attempting to rewrite the rules governing what happens when a mortgage borrower fails to make his or her payments. * The result of all this has been a quagmire of competing legislation, increased compliance and holding costs for lenders, and a caseload that’s clogging court systems across the country. All of that, and yet there’s been no significant reduction in foreclosures. * While responsible lenders understand that some borrowers have unfair loans, what’s happening in the legislative and enforcement arenas goes beyond that notion, says Andrew L. Sandler, co-chair and partner of BuckleySandler LLP, a Washington, D.C., law firm. * “That notion is being translated into the notion that all borrowers have a right to be able to stay in their homes,” Sandler says, “without sufficient regard to what the [borrower's financial] problem is, whether it’s in that borrower’s long-term interest to maintain homeownership or whether the borrower was complicit in obtaining a loan under fraudulent circumstances. * Fueled by outrage over the very real problem that some people were placed in unaffordable loans, legislators are coming up with solutions that, in some cases, allow borrowers to simply stop making payments. * Public acceptance of the idea that people do not have to meet their financial obligations is highly problematic for the future of an industry built upon the idea that a borrower’s willingness to repay can be accurately measured.

State stalemates

Given the political climate, it’s not surprising that state legislatures have taken up the issue of foreclosure with the same zeal they exhibited for anti-predatory-lending laws in past sessions.

“The states, in a very haphazard way, have come up with a variety of moratoriums that were really motivated as much by the political impact of taking action as by due consideration of what would happen by suspending foreclosures in their state,” says Gerald Alt, president of LOGS Network, a Northbrook, Illinois–based default- and foreclosure-management company.

California, North Carolina, Ohio, New York and other states have told lenders they can’t start a foreclosure for some set period of time, or in some cases until they have sent out specific notices or exhausted reasonable efforts to do a workout, says Alt.

Other states are obligating servicers and lenders to attend mediation sessions, says Nanci Weissgold, a partner with law firm K&L Gates, LLP in Washington, D.C.

While every state is different, mediation laws typically require lenders to notify the court system that a foreclosure complaint has been filed and then delay foreclosure until the mediation process has been conducted. “A lot of times, mediation is run by the court system,” Weiss-gold says. “Some states are using retired judges, and there could be a huge backlog–so the timing is critical.”

A New Jersey anti-foreclosure bill amended in July says high-risk borrowers, including those who failed to make payments during the three-month loan-mod trial period under the Making Home Affordable (MHA) program, are entitled to an additional six months of forbearance–during which they do not have to make payments. Borrowers can also ask to be placed in the court system’s Foreclosure Mediation Program.

California’s anti-foreclosure law defines how servicers should contact delinquent borrowers. Washington state looked to California as a model and passed a similar bill, Weissgold says.

The result of many state legislative efforts has been an extended time frame for foreclosures. This has brought increased holding costs and–in markets where property values are declining–lower eventual sale prices.

While home retention is a major public policy goal and it is the driving force behind this type of legislation, unfortunately some of these laws may have the perverse incentive to delay serious loan-modification discussions, Weissgold says.

“What they’re doing is just delaying the inevitable for borrowers,” says attorney Joshua Mandell, an associate at the Los Angeles law firm of Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP.

“The reality is, there are many homeowners in homes today who probably are not financially able to make even modified mortgage payments. The legislation is pushing those foreclosures down the road, and courts are clogged up with these challenges,” Mandell says.

Moratoriums would work a lot better if the legislatures that create them also funded debt counseling and budgeting education for troubled borrowers, Alt suggests.

“The moratoriums were well-intentioned but maybe not so well-executed, because they don’t include a component to help analyze the underlying financial condition of the borrower and find a solution,” he says.

Moratoriums can be a temporary respite for borrowers with too much consumer debt, but they don’t stop interest from accruing on credit-card and auto debt. And unless home prices rise while the lender forbears, a moratorium won’t help underwater borrowers in troubled real estate markets whose homes are worth less than their outstanding mortgage amount.

Contrary counties

Smaller legislative bodies have also started telling lenders how to deal with foreclosures. Counties in Florida have mandated mediation before foreclosure, and a rogue sheriff in Detroit’s Wade County last winter refused to do foreclosure sales for a period of time.

Sheriff Warren Evans said that the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) pre-empted Michigan foreclosure laws and allowed him to stop the sales. “I cannot in clear conscience allow any more families to lose their homes through foreclosure sales until I’m satisfied they have been afforded every option they are entitled to under the law to avoid foreclosure,” Evans told The Associated Press.

Even municipal attorneys are looking to score political points by filing foreclosure-related lawsuits against lenders. Their legal strategy is akin to what state attorneys general did to tobacco companies, lead-based paint manufacturers and gun makers.

In Cleveland, Ohio; Birmingham, Alabama; and Baltimore, municipal attorneys are alleging that the practices of various lenders led to foreclosures that caused a dramatic drop in the value of entire neighborhoods, and therefore the lenders that made those loans should be considered a public nuisance.

The suits, which are soon to be filed in Atlanta and Memphis, Tennessee, as well, have a class-action-like effect, explains Richard Gottlieb, director of the financial institutions group at law firm Dykema Gossett PLLC, Chicago.

The idea that home loans can be classified as a public nuisance, in much the same way as tobacco, lead-based paint and guns, was a tough sell in Cleveland, where the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio dismissed the city’s case.

The Birmingham case is similar to the Cleveland case. The Baltimore suit, which alleges that one lender engaged in discriminatory practices against African Americans that resulted in foreclosure activities, will look familiar to the lawyers defending claims like these elsewhere.

Among the defenses offered by the lender in the Baltimore case is the fact that the city itself foreclosed on homes in the same neighborhood when homeowners were delinquent on water or property tax bills.

“Baltimore has repeatedly foreclosed on the very same citizens it now casts as victims,” Gottlieb says.

Consumer counselors

In terms of sheer numbers, there’s probably nothing that tops the volume of cases being filed by individual borrowers seeking to stop foreclosure. That figure has at least doubled since 2008, and there are significantly more cases being filed today than there were five years ago, according to Fred Rivera, partner and co-chair of the financial services litigation group at Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle.

“At times I’m getting up to half a dozen cases a month,” he reports. “And over the last year, we’ve handled scores of these cases in a half-dozen states–California, Massachusetts, Washington and the District of Columbia.”

Local bar associations and non-profits have played a role in the expansion of individual litigation. In Washington state, the bar association conducted foreclosure-prevention clinics, training lawyers how to look at loan documents and find grounds to stop or delay foreclosures, he says.

Rivera says the attorneys he has faced off against tend to fall into one of three categories. One set treats foreclosure cases like personal injury cases, and sees them as a means to collect damages and attorney fees.

A second set of attorneys see the court system as an avenue for getting the loan servicer to agree to a workout. Loan Modification Advisory Corporation (LMAC), Longwood, Florida, owners of http://www.savemyloantoday.com, is one such firm. It works for attorneys whose clients experience financial hardships from job loss, death, divorce or medical expenses.

“Forensic loan auditing continues to be a great tool for our business,” says LMAC President Jim Boghos. “What we’re looking for in an audit are violations of state and federal consumer-protection laws. We then attempt to circumvent the often understaffed or non-empowered loss-mitigation department and attempt to move the case to a supervisor status, elevated department or, in some cases, go straight into the legal department.”

With more egregious violations, the consumer could file suit and make a claim of full loan rescission with interest payments dating back for a specific period of time, Boghos says.

“The lender knows this, but until a lawsuit is actually filed, it merely puts the lender on notice that they are vulnerable,” Boghos says. “The bottom line is that we’re trying to put the borrower into a healthier loan and we will exhaust any and all resources to do so. A ‘healthy loan’ usually means paying escrow and repaying principal.”

While LMAC finds errors in about 90 percent of the files it reviews, many of these errors are fairly minor infractions that, taken alone, do not create strong legal cases, Boghos says. The top three errors found are Truth in Lending Act (TILA) violations, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) HUD-1 form errors and problems with option adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs).

“Option ARMs are often fraught with errors,” Boghos says. “The calculations are usually off due to careless and improper forecasting and the fact that they were originated in a wild and wooly time.” Many option ARMs had TILA violations automatically built in because the lender disclosed the payment would stay the same for 12 months and yet the payment changed monthly, he adds.

By contrast, LMAC’s weakest cases are typically those where an appraiser was pushed to give an inflated appraisal, but the rest of the overall origination process and documentation was solid, he adds.

Rivera disputes Boghos’ claims that forensically audited loan cases end up being resolved in the legal department. “Going the litigation route without trying to modify first throws up another gate they [the borrowers] have to go through,” Rivera says. “And the legal department will send them to the same loan-modification department they would have gone to in the first place.”

Boghos answers that LMAC does try to modify first. “But in some cases the lender won’t play ball, so we get aggressive to try and force the lender’s hand with a demand for restructure as opposed to a request for modification,” he says.

“Again, we only deploy this tactic when the lender is dragging its heels, refuses to lower principal or decides that it isn’t going to give the homeowner a modification at all. This is when we get aggressive for our clients,” Boghos says.

But if a plaintiff/borrower lacks the income to qualify for even the most generous modification programs, the legal department won’t agree to a deal that the borrower can’t uphold, Rivera says.

“Lenders and servicers desire to do a loan mod–when it’s a good idea,” Rivera says.

Fighting back

These days, the lenders and servicers Rivera represents are taking a more aggressive approach to borrower lawsuits that attempt to stop or delay foreclosure. Mortgage banking clients that used to delay foreclosure proceedings until litigation was completed these days are fighting temporary restraining orders.

“They’re fed up with frivolous litigation that’s been filed, and they’re prepared to defend themselves early on and not allow these restraining orders to remain in place,” he says.

Among the defensive tactics that have led to success are statute-of-limitations arguments. “These loans are several years old, so payments were made on a timely basis and there were no issues,” Rivera explains. “Six years down the road, a lawyer gets a hold of it and attempts to make these claims.”

He’s had mixed success at the early stages of these cases. “Most judges are pre-wired to grant a borrower’s motion for the stay of the foreclosure,” Rivera says. But once the evidence is examined, his clients typically prevail.

As part of the defense, Rivera and his clients take a second look at the origination applications of litigating borrowers. “When there’s evidence of mortgage fraud or similar misconduct by the borrower and we’re able to bring that to the attention of the judge, we can successfully defend a motion for a temporary restraining order,” he says.

In one of Rivera’s recent cases, a borrower who had claimed to be an owner-occupant at origination turned out to be an investor. That fact helped Rivera win the case, and his lender client revoked a loan modification it had offered to the borrower.

The third category of cases Rivera sees are filed by lawyers who clearly have no idea what they’re doing. “They may have read an article or gone to a seminar and they file a case and don’t know what their end game is,” Rivera says.

Produce the indictment

In some cases, the end game may be a simple one: generating fees. In California, Attorney General Edmund Brown Jr. is suing attorney Mitchell Roth of M.W. Roth PLC, Sherman Oaks, California, and foreclosure “consultant” Paul Noe Jr., president of United First Inc., a Nevada corporation, charging them with conning 2,000 homeowners into paying exorbitant fees for “phony lawsuits” attempting to stop foreclosures.

“Noe and Roth ripped off homeowners desperate for help by charging unconscionable fees for phony lawsuits,” Brown said in a press release about the lawsuit. “Instead of aggressively pursuing the lawsuits, Noe and Roth strung them along so they could continue to rake in fees,” Brown charged.

Mandell was assigned one of Roth’s cases, which argued that a foreclosure was invalid because the lender was required to have the inked or original promissory note before filing against the borrower.

“That’s the gist of the theory, and it’s spawned a lot of litigation where borrowers are trying to force the lender to produce the original note and simultaneously delay foreclosure proceedings that have already started,” Mandell says.

In California, a non-judicial state, foreclosures are highly structured and regulated. “There are a lot of statutes that specifically describe what can be done and what’s required to be done during the foreclosure process,” Mandell explains. “At no point is there a requirement that the lender or its agent produce a copy of the original promissory note or provide proof they have the original promissory note before foreclosure.”

Similar suits filed in other states, referred to as “produce-the-note” cases, have never resulted in the elimination of the borrower’s mortgage debts, Brown adds.

Not all the produce-the-note litigation is being filed by attorneys. Thanks to the Internet, individuals are filing similar lawsuits on their own behalf without an attorney, Mandell says. “In California, the courts have seen a huge uptick in the number of filings made by plaintiffs without counsel and specifically with trying to avoid foreclosure,” he adds.

Of course, lenders know that rescission isn’t usually a viable option for a financially troubled borrower. “I have only one matter where the plaintiff appears genuinely interested in rescission,” Mandell says. “Otherwise, it’s clear they want a modification–and you don’t need the attorney to do that. We provide a loan-modification application to the plaintiff, and if they qualify it’s expected they’ll dismiss the complaint.”

How popular is filing anti-foreclosure cases? Here’s one measure: There are enough lawyers working the niche in Florida that someone started a trade association for them–the Florida Foreclosure Defense Bar Association, based in Boca Raton.

Fortunately for the lenders being sued, quantity doesn’t always lead to quality. “Many lawyers find this to be a boom time to set aside foreclosure,” says Michael Agoglia, a partner at Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco. “And they know public opinion is in their favor. They’re riding that tide and trying to take advantage of it. They bring cases on a technicality, and many times they’re wrong.”

Wacky actions

Still, the current environment is one in which mortgage bankers cannot afford to take any cases for granted, no matter how outlandish the case may sound.

Take, for instance, the class-action claims that shareholders of Reston, Virginia-based MERSCORP Inc. are part of a grand conspiracy and that assignments of deeds of trust in about two dozen states with non-judicial foreclosures should be invalidated. MERS is, of course, prepared to provide a vigorous response to the case, Agoglia says.

The plaintiffs in that case allege that MERS conspired to mask unsavory originations and predatory lending via hidden assignments. If that argument has you shaking your head, you’re not alone.

“This is the type of far-fetched theory lawyers have come up with to take advantage of a ripe political and judicial environment to challenge mortgage bankers,” Agoglia says. “Those claims, in my judgment, are very, very weak. It’s a steep uphill challenge on class certification or, more immediately, to have a nationwide injunction [against foreclosures involving loans registered with MERS].”

If the class action were accepted, such a sweeping decision would immediately mobilize industry and government officials to prevent it from going into effect, he adds. “The theories they’re pursuing are born of the current political climate and little else,” he says.

Eventual enforcement

The trend toward micro-management of the foreclosure process via legislation is relatively recent, so in many cases the implementing rules are still being translated into regulation and enforcement actions. “These legislative efforts have come in the last year and a half, and there’s lag time and a period of compliance and investigation, and then enforcement follows,” Agoglia says.

Meanwhile, lenders and servicers are waiting to see exactly how all these jurisdictions will enforce their new laws.

“Everyone is waiting to see what’s happening, as opposed to definitively saying, ‘This is what’s supposed to take place,’” says Dana Jenkins-Krind, director of legal reviews and remedies for Lenders Compliance Group, Long Beach, New York.

“It seems like there’s always something new to give to the lender as a compliance person. It’s more laws and more difficult laws, and they’re not as definite as they used to be,” says Jenkins-Krind. And while they wait for clarification and an end to the country’s economic woes, and for the legal industry to move on to the next “hot” issue, lenders and servicers will continue to do what they’ve always done: They’ll seek out ways to keep borrowers in their homes whenever possible. But when they can’t work out the borrower’s problems, they’ll move as swiftly as legally possible to liquidate the asset and recoup their losses.
ALLAN (let's educate one WSJ journalist whosurprise, surprise, just `doesn't get it), on December 25th, 2009 at 12:59 am Said:

* The Wall Street Journal

* DECEMBER 24, 2009

Foreclosure Challenges Raise Questions About Judicial Role

By AMIR EFRATI

A group of state and federal judges presiding over foreclosures are wiping away borrowers’ mortgage debt, invalidating foreclosure sales and even barring some foreclosures outright.

The decisions in recent months by a handful of judges in states including Massachusetts, New York and Texas mark a new phase in the judiciary’s battle to stem the rising tide of foreclosures by punishing mortgage companies for paperwork mistakes and alleged mistreatment of borrowers.

The number of judges taking such action remains small, and most foreclosures go through without a challenge.

But the growing number of rulings against lenders’ claims is raising questions among some legal experts about judges’ impartiality.

“The question is whether judges are changing the rules in the middle of the game…just because there is a financial crisis,” says Todd Zywicki, a law professor at George Mason University and a critic of policy initiatives aimed at curtailing lenders’ ability to foreclose.

As early as 18 months ago, several judges in California, New York, Ohio and elsewhere would dismiss foreclosure cases if they could find reason to do so. But those judges often allowed the mortgage companies to refile their foreclosure claims after attesting to their ownership of the mortgage in the county in which the homeowner lives.

Now, after the country has been mired in a housing crisis for more than two years, more judges are calling these companies on their paperwork glitches, and in some cases going much further in their efforts to help homeowners.
[Hardship]

It makes sense for judges to demand that mortgage companies follow the rules to the letter if they want to win foreclosure cases in court, says Raymond Brescia, an assistant professor at Albany Law School who has written about the role of the courts in the financial crisis. “I don’t think that’s a crazy idea,” he says. “To expect plaintiffs to prove their case is what the judicial system is founded on.”

But if judges decide to help borrowers in ways that overlook the merits of individual cases, Mr. Brescia adds, that would “undermine the integrity of the judiciary, and that’s not going to help anybody.” Instead, he says, it might trigger a backlash from legislators or regulators to rein in activist jurists.

At the heart of some of the court rulings is what became a common practice among mortgage companies: filing a foreclosure claim without showing proof that they actually own the mortgage and have the right to foreclose. This occurs in part because mortgages change hands multiple times after the original loan is made, but the mortgage documents and the contracts between borrowers and lenders are never altered to reflect those changes. Years later, it can be difficult to verify who is the owner of the mortgage.

That played a key role in a ruling in October by Keith Long, a state-court judge in Massachusetts. He invalidated two foreclosure sales that had occurred more than two years ago. The judge affirmed his own prior ruling that said units of U.S. Bancorp and Wells Fargo & Co. never had the right to sell the homes.

Judge Long ruled that even though the companies physically held the relevant mortgage documents, the mortgages were never legally assigned to them and recorded with the state.

“They’re selling something they don’t own,” says attorney Paul Collier, who began representing the borrowers in the case last year.

Walter H. Porr, a lawyer for the companies, which are appealing the ruling, says his clients “operated in what had been an accepted industry fashion for the better part of 15 or 20 years.” He adds: “We owned those mortgages.”

In October, a federal bankruptcy judge in White Plains, N.Y., rejected a claim by a mortgage company that the debtor owed $460,000. The judge, Robert D. Drain, said the company, PHH Mortgage Corp., couldn’t prove it owned the debt.

A spokeswoman for PHH, which is appealing, said the company is trying to resolve the case.

And in a prominent case in New York’s Suffolk County on Long Island, Jeffrey Spinner, a state-court judge, canceled $292,000 in mortgage debt after he ruled the borrowers were mistreated by IndyMac Bank.

The judge said in a November ruling that the bank displayed “harsh, repugnant, shocking and repulsive” behavior by making no attempt to negotiate a settlement with Diane Yano-Horoski after she and her husband fell behind on payments, despite a state law requiring the company to try.

OneWest Bank, which purchased the debt from IndyMac, plans to appeal. In a statement, it said the ruling, “if allowed to stand, has sweeping and dangerous implications.”

At least one judge has been admonished for appearing to favor borrowers. In September, a Florida state appeals court ruled that a lower-court judge, Valerie Manno Schurr, erred in routinely delaying foreclosure sales by several months. Her reasoning put concern for the homeowners ahead of the law, the appeals court said.

Judge Manno Schurr didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Write to Amir Efrati at amir.efrati@wsj.com
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A15

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Amir Efrati seems to have the Cliff Notes or Dummies version of what’s going on in foreclosure nation. Judges who are branded ‘activist’ are actually standing up for judicial integrity, warding off interlopers with their false claims.

Mr. Efrati naively believes that the adversarial system of justice should remain superficially impartial. How is a judge supposedly favoring a borrower, showing bias or partiality when securitized mortgages are involved that were designed to obfuscate, and the foreclosing party has no right of redress as it fraudulently avails itself of a remedy meant only for an injured party?

God save us from a backlash where legislators further muzzle judges as they did in rejecting cramdowns. One can expect Wall Street to further stack the deck against borrowers and judges that want to do justice. That backlash ought be met with a counter-backlash with decent people taking to the streets by the millions.

NEIL, it’s time to open a third tab or prong in your strategic foreclosure defense attack, and if you have space, set yet another for the fourth estate. Make this third tab for JUDGES. Remind judges that foreclosure is chiefly a remedy in equity, and that if in their rocket dockets they myopically see foreclosure as altogether a breach of contract, then have them drill down and have them require every ‘i’ be dotted and ‘t’ crossed along the entire chain. Used to be a Plaintiff used to have to prove EVERY ELEMENT of their case in order to prevail. Now, expediency requires overburdened court systems and overworked judges to DISPENSE WITH JUSTICE.

Let’s praise and support LOUDLY those independent judges who have a conscience and can see that rocket dockets are not about rendering justice. Instead, they are about corrupting due process, and lopsiding equities. Let’s hold up to encomium and national acclaim those exemplary judges who do not go along to get along with the values of the propertied class – their social equals who have very little understanding of life at the cadastral level. Let’s broadcast especially the feats of those judges that sua sponte come down on the side of doing justice.

These ‘activist’ gatekeepers of doing the right and honorable thing mirror the passionate call of Shakespeare’s Portia, when she reminds Shylock in The Merchant of Venice, that he can have his pound of flesh (contract) but that he better not draw blood (equity) in enforcing this remedy. Forfeiting the contractual pound of flesh ought not require the counterparty to forfeit his life.

Let’s do a massive outreach to independent judges and rail against legislators who’ll try muzzle them.

ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
Christmas Day
12:59 A.M.
Dan Edstrom, on December 24th, 2009 at 8:18 pm Said:

Ira,

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

If you have found your SEC filings, somewhere in there you will find a statement that goes something like this:

MERS is acting solely as the nominee for the Originator and MERS has NO interest in any property.

These quotes are from my Pooling and Servicing agreement:

One:
MOM Loan: With respect to any Mortgage Loan, MERS acting as the mortgagee of such Mortgage Loan, solely as nominee for the originator of such Mortgage Loan and its successors and assigns, at the origination thereof.

Two:
The Depositor shall promptly cause to be recorded in the appropriate public office for real property records the Assignment referred to in clause (iii) of Section 2.01(b), except (a) in states where, in an Opinion of Counsel acceptable to the Master Servicer, such recording is not required to protect the Trustee’s interests in the Mortgage Loan or (b) if MERS is identified on the Mortgage or on a properly recorded assignment of the Mortgage, as applicable, as the mortgagee of record solely as nominee for Residential Funding and its successors and assigns. If any Assignment is lost or returned unrecorded to the Depositor because of any defect therein, the Depositor shall prepare a substitute Assignment or cure such defect, as the case may be, and cause such Assignment to be recorded in accordance with this paragraph. The Depositor shall promptly deliver or cause to be delivered to the Trustee or the respective Custodian such Mortgage or Assignment, as applicable (or copy thereof as permitted by Section 2.01(b)), with evidence of recording indicated thereon upon receipt thereof from the public recording office or from the related Subservicer or Seller.

Three:
The Master Servicer further is authorized and empowered by the Trustee, on behalf of the Certificateholders and the Trustee, in its own name or in the name of the Subservicer, when the Master Servicer or the Subservicer, as the case may be, believes it is appropriate in its best judgment to register any Mortgage Loan on the MERS(R) System, or cause the removal from the registration of any Mortgage Loan on the MERS(R) System, to execute and deliver, on behalf of the Trustee and the Certificateholders or any of them, any and all instruments of assignment and other comparable instruments with respect to such assignment or re-recording of a Mortgage in the name of MERS, solely as nominee for the Trustee and its successors and assigns.

These are from my prospectus:

One:
The mortgages or assignments of mortgage for some of the mortgage loans have been or may be recorded in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., or MERS, solely as nominee for the originator and its successors and assigns.

Two:
The recording of mortgages in the name of MERS is a relatively new practice in the mortgage lending industry. Public recording officers and others in the mortgage industry may have limited, if any, experience with lenders seeking to foreclose mortgages, assignments of which are registered with MERS. Accordingly, delays and additional costs in commencing, prosecuting and completing foreclosure proceedings and conducting foreclosure sales of the mortgaged properties could result. Those delays and additional costs could in turn delay the distribution of liquidation proceeds to certificateholders and increase the amount of losses on the mortgage loans.

Three:
The original mortgages for some of the mortgage loans have been, or in the future may be, at the sole discretion of the master servicer, recorded in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., or MERS, solely as nominee for the originator and its successors and assigns, and subsequent assignments of those mortgages have been, or in the future may be, at the sole discretion of the master servicer, registered electronically through the MERS(R) System. In some other cases, the original mortgage was recorded in the name of the originator of the mortgage loan, record ownership was later assigned to MERS, solely as nominee for the owner of the mortgage loan, and subsequent assignments of the mortgage were, or in the future may be, at the sole discretion of the master servicer, registered electronically through the MERS(R) System. With respect to each of these mortgage loans, MERS serves as mortgagee of record on the mortgage solely as a nominee in an administrative capacity on behalf of the trustee, and does not have any interest in the mortgage loan. As of the cut-off date, approximately 99.9% of the cut-off date principal balance of the mortgage loans were recorded in the name of MERS.

Four:
If stated in the accompanying prospectus supplement, and in accordance with the rules of membership of Merscorp, Inc. and/or Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. or, MERS, assignments of the mortgages for the mortgage loans in the related trust will be registered electronically through Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., or MERS (Registered Trademark) System. For mortgage loans registered through the MERS (Registered Trademark) System, MERS shall serve as mortgagee of record solely as a nominee in an administrative capacity on behalf of the trustee and shall not have any interest in any of those mortgage loans.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Ira, on December 24th, 2009 at 7:31 pm Said:

Something fishy this way comes?

I recently found an “Assignment of Mortgage” (AOM) and “Satisfaction of Mortgage” in county records from MERS, both allegedly signed by employees of MERS. MERS has never been named as the ‘mortgagee’ and ‘noteholder’ on any of our documents, but only as a beneficiary the first time we refinanced in 2003. On its website under ‘Foreclosures’, even MERS admits:

“Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) is a proper party that can lawfully foreclose as the mortgagee and note-holder of a mortgage loan.”

On the MERS AOM to WMC Mortgage, it states it is a COPY, is to be returned to WMC Mortgage, is missing the printed name under the alleged signature of a Witness, gives an address in Michigan yet is purported to be notarized in New York, is signed by an ‘Assistant Secretary’ whose name is handwritten on the document (not typed)’, is dated January 13, 2003 yet wasn’t recorded in county records until April 29, 2005.

On the the MERS ‘Satisfaction of Mortgage’ document, it states all of the following:

RECORDING REQUESTED BY / RETURN TO:
Peelle Management Corporation
P.O. Box 30014
Reno, NV 89520-9827

THIS CORPORATION HAS NO CORPORATE SEAL (not sure if this is referring to MERS or Peelle)

Purports to be notarized in Santa Clara County, California.

Prepared by: E. N. Harrison, Peelle Management Corporation, 4690 Longley Lane, Suite #8, Reno, NV 89502, LN # 1710195 Investor LN # 15924152 P.I.F.: 12/07/05

** Prepared by E. N. Harrison but he did not sign anywhere on the document

REPLY TO: 4closuremess@gmail.com
Ira, on December 24th, 2009 at 7:31 pm Said:

Something fishy this way comes?

I recently found an “Assignment of Mortgage” (AOM) and “Satisfaction of Mortgage” in county records from MERS, both allegedly signed by employees of MERS. MERS has never been named as the ‘mortgagee’ and ‘noteholder’ on any of our documents, but only as a beneficiary the first time we refinanced in 2003. On its website under ‘Foreclosures’, even MERS admits:

“Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) is a proper party that can lawfully foreclose as the mortgagee and note-holder of a mortgage loan.”

On the MERS AOM to WMC Mortgage, it states it is a COPY, is to be returned to WMC Mortgage, is missing the printed name under the alleged signature of a Witness, gives an address in Michigan yet is purported to be notarized in New York, is signed by an ‘Assistant Secretary’ whose name is handwritten on the document (not typed)’, is dated January 13, 2003 yet wasn’t recorded in county records until April 29, 2005.

On the the MERS ‘Satisfaction of Mortgage’ document, it states all of the following:

RECORDING REQUESTED BY / RETURN TO:
Peelle Management Corporation
P.O. Box 30014
Reno, NV 89520-9827

THIS CORPORATION HAS NO CORPORATE SEAL (not sure if this is referring to MERS or Peelle)

Purports to be notarized in Santa Clara County, California.

Prepared by: E. N. Harrison, Peelle Management Corporation, 4690 Longley Lane, Suite #8, Reno, NV 89502, LN # 1710195 Investor LN # 15924152 P.I.F.: 12/07/05

** Prepared by E. N. Harrison but he did not sign anywhere on the document
marcus, on December 24th, 2009 at 9:05 am Said:

Banks Bundled Bad Debt, Bet Against It and Won
NYTimes 12/23/09

In late October 2007, as the financial markets were starting to come unglued, a Goldman Sachs trader, Jonathan M. Egol, received very good news. At 37, he was named a managing director at the firm.

Mr. Egol, a Princeton graduate, had risen to prominence inside the bank by creating mortgage-related securities, named Abacus, that were at first intended to protect Goldman from investment losses if the housing market collapsed. As the market soured, Goldman created even more of these securities, enabling it to pocket huge profits.

Goldman’s own clients who bought them, however, were less fortunate.

Pension funds and insurance companies lost billions of dollars on securities that they believed were solid investments, according to former Goldman employees with direct knowledge of the deals who asked not to be identified because they have confidentiality agreements with the firm.

Goldman was not the only firm that peddled these complex securities — known as synthetic collateralized debt obligations, or C.D.O.’s — and then made financial bets against them, called selling short in Wall Street parlance. Others that created similar securities and then bet they would fail, according to Wall Street traders, include Deutsche Bank and Morgan Stanley, as well as smaller firms like Tricadia Inc., an investment company whose parent firm was overseen by Lewis A. Sachs, who this year became a special counselor to Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner.

How these disastrously performing securities were devised is now the subject of scrutiny by investigators in Congress, at the Securities and Exchange Commission and at the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Wall Street’s self-regulatory organization, according to people briefed on the investigations. Those involved with the inquiries declined to comment.

While the investigations are in the early phases, authorities appear to be looking at whether securities laws or rules of fair dealing were violated by firms that created and sold these mortgage-linked debt instruments and then bet against the clients who purchased them, people briefed on the matter say.

X_http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/business/24trading.html?_r=1&th=&adxnnl=1&emc=th&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1261670626-5zW1ZuD5tMc0LTV/MG1xKg
expertwitness, on December 23rd, 2009 at 9:23 pm Said:

Loan Mod Fraud

The article and thought processes needs to be better developed. Not quite there. Guessing at the lenders strategy is a double loser. If you’re wrong the homeowner errs and there’s no brass ring for the purveyor of gospel.

Look, I will beg, plead and steal to get a Gender Bender, or pretender lender to leave me be. But a lender who is registered as the depositor is the party charged with selling the loan. Their interest is in fact in the security and its is real …it’s just not the security you and I would consider under a deed of trust.

Get the party who claims to be a lender to write you, call you telegraph – whatever. Make a fax request of a client as mentioned and Party Over! It’s a lender dilemma and a bigger problem. It’s called recognition and a violation of GAAP under gain on sale or accrual accounting. The loss of control over the asset sold renders the entire trust composition to self destruct. These mods are unenforceable as to a controlling interest and considered a serious looming condition precedent upon transfer.

In short the lender cannot talk to you or make any contact with you subject to having to restate earnings and classify assets. The case to be made is nothing can be offered by the seller other than attempts to collect back payments they covered for you.

So actually, the seller must keep you away from the trust whereby the trust can offer you anything you want. It’s the seller /lender who loses insurance proceeds, must post 150 percent against the loan mod and then must replace the loan in a down market.

Anyway, what these people call a pretend lend loan mod, if true, is really a novation and that’s the kiss of death for the lender.

If you only knew what they are really doing to you in a trustees sale.

M.Soliman
expert.witness@live.com.
Abby in CA, on December 23rd, 2009 at 2:24 pm Said:

ALERT FLORIDIANS & OTHER STATES
see my earlier post from a day or so ago regarding
notary in California and recordings for New Century or Home123 victims.

MORE INFO: as we examine the Florida recordings with the California notary and the use of a single ‘witness’, we have also learned that if the California notary must attach a ‘proof of execution certificate.’ We are not seeing that ‘proof of execution’ certificate on some of the recordings we examined from Florida, such as Assignment of Mortgage.

Also, make sure you pursue the identity of the so called ‘witness’ who signed the recorded docs.

It is my opinion that New Century and Home123 ran some sort of ‘forgery factory’.

Again–all California notaries have to take a thumprint of anyone notarizing a property related document. The thumbprints are kept in the notarial journal.

Anyone can pay a small feed and request a copy of the page in the notarial journal with the thumbprint.

If the notary has gone out of business, the notarial journal is supposed to reside at the county recorder’s office in the county the notary is commissioned in.

Example, Andres Rojas, a California notary with commission 1523525 was commissioned in Orange County California. He was used extensively by New Century Mortgage and Home123 for notarial services. He even notarized hundreds and hundreds of Florida ‘Assignment of Mortgage’ docs….he never left California and the Florida docs are recorded in Florida….but there could be significant & illegal
aspects of the recordings.

Aside from the fact that he notarized a certain VP from Home123 and New Century and the VPs signature is different on different recordings between California and Florida and even between various counties within the state.

See my earlier email on steps you should take.
Sherri Hill, on December 23rd, 2009 at 1:24 pm Said:

Hi, how is everyone?

It’s interesting that there are so many different
fraudulent signtures on these recorded documents, that are used to steal our homes. My original lender
New Century used the name Hazelle Weissinger as
vice president assigning the note to Deutsche Bank,
which already had an interest in the mortgage, the note and all other documents in the loan file as Banker’s Trust, pursuant a letter to the closing agent.
As if they (Deutsche Trust) didn’t have enough interest in the mortgage, the note and all other
documents in the loan file, they had to throw the mortgage into a pool and sell it to investors creating
New Century Home Equity Loan Trust Series 2006-2
adding Deutsche Bank, Lehman Brother’s, Credit
Suisse, J.P. Morgan Chase, citibank to name a few.
To add more fuel to the fire, New century
in their Chapter 11 sold the servicing rights and platform to carrington Mortgage, which doesn’t have
access to accountants to calculate a true balance of
whats owed. (I gave up a long time ago trying to figure
out who to pay).
Next we have a recorded assignment of the
deed of trust to Deutsche Bank, who along with Deutsche Trust already has an interest in the mortgage loan, the note and all other documents in the loan file. The vice president of Deutsche Bank
substitutes the trustee on the same day the deed of
trust is assigned. These were endorsed on 02/12/07
and recorded on 03/07/07 and some how Hazelle Weissinger must have resigned her position as vice
president of New Century and was then employed as vice president of Deutsche Bank since both the assignment and substitution were signed by her.
Only thing is, she don’t work for either of them.
This being new found evidence because they failed to mail a copy of the assignment at the same time they mailed the substitution and notice of trustee sale, (because of a temporary layoff we went into default in November 06 that we cured in March 07
while New Century was under cease and desist orders) Deutsche Bank foreclosed in Jan. and their fast eviction attorney filed an unlawful detainer in June.
Attorney For Deutsche Bank John Bouzane
fabricated people and court documents. His fake
process server Mike Penalber’s declaration of due
diligence wasn’t signed. N. Greulich has three very
different signatures. Mac Johnson is purportedly a
REO Regional Manager Of Deutsche Bank. Mac J is
employed by John Bouzane. Because we were late
finding out about Hazelle and already filed a motion
to set aside the judgment (denied) and late finding
out about the liar of due process John Bouzane and
are in appeal and already evicted (as of Nov 24th)
someone give me another course of action please?
Sherri Hill
Deontos, on December 23rd, 2009 at 8:41 am Said:

UPDATE ON JANE’S FORECLOSURE STORY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtwaZSPJIuY&feature=player_embedded

PAY ATTENTION, FOLKS! THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE!

The crooks trying to take your home, in this case Bank of America, MERS and their attorneys are using fraud and sleight of hand by recording an assignment of your mortgage shortly before they file a lawsuit against your or notice up a trustee’s sale.

They do it this way because it’s the only way they can show they have standing to foreclose. MERS never owns the note, and because it’s just a database, they never assign the mortgage until they foreclose on the property.

Why is this wrong? Because it completely circumvents the proper laws that govern how to document the chain of assignment and ownership.

These laws have existed for decades in this country. Before the lending industry created MERS and the securitization scheme, the owner of the Note would properly record the chain of ownership at the county recorder’s office where the property is located. That’s important, because as we’ve explained plenty of times, MERS’ entire operation is ILLEGAL.

Most homeowners just roll over and let them take their homes because they’ve never figured out how to put the pieces together.

I’m telling you that this is what’s going on, it’s fraud, and if you don’t do something about it, these crooks who LIED to you about your home loans will take your house because most people have no idea how bad the fraud is. Even the judge doesn’t have a clue about what’s really going on unless you explain it to the court.

If you’re in a judicial foreclosure state, fighting back is much easier to do. The plaintiff has already sued you, so there’s a legal action already open.

If you’re served, file an answer within thirty days and raise these issues. People are getting their foreclosures dismissed across the country because of this fraud.

Most judges don’t know anything about what’s really going on. If you keep it simple, hopefully the judge will get it. During the foreclosure proceedings, ask the judge to make the plaintiff explain what they did and how the mortgage got assigned to MERS in the first place.

So, attend all your court hearings, stick to the real issues, which are:

1) that the real lender isn’t a party to the lawsuit,

2) an assignment executed by someone who is not even employed by the entity trying to foreclose just a week before the foreclosure sale is initiated isn’t enough to prove standing to foreclose,

3) you know you owe someone some money, but you believe that the person who you owe the money to isn’t the party who is attempting to foreclose,

4) you want to make sure that the proper party that you owe the money to doesn’t sue you later after the plaintiff forecloses.

Note: Do not tell the judge you’re trying to get your home free and clear! This just makes you look like you’re trying to scheme the system, and will distract everyone from the real issue: that the Plaintiff is the party who is lying and that you want to make sure that the party foreclosing is the party who you actually owe the debt to.
Hopefully, the judge will get it. I say hopefully because this isn’t always the case.

However, in many cases, the foreclosure will be stalled because the plaintiff’s attorney’s office will not be able to explain to the court how the mortgage got assigned to the servicer or MERS in the first place.
If they did explain it, they would essentially be admitting that they participated in a massive scheme to defraud Americans by securitizing their home loans.

If the foreclosure is dismissed, they cannot take your home.
In some cases, the foreclosure sale is never re-filed and the borrowers continue to live in their homes without making a mortgage payment.

Depending on your state’s laws, after a certain period of time, the homeowner can file a quiet title action. For example, in Florida, after five years, the borrower can file a quiet title action.

A quiet title action is basically a lawsuit that asks a judge to “quiet title” to wipe away the mortgage debt, leaving the homeowner to own their home free and clear.

I don’t know what the statutes say in various states, but it will be interesting to see how this all unfolds.

This is how homeowners are winning their homes free and clear.

I’m telling you that this is what’s going on, it’s fraud, and if you don’t do something about it, these crooks who LIED to you about your home loans will take your house because most people have no idea how bad the fraud is. Even the judge doesn’t have a clue about what’s really going on unless you explain it to the court.

If you’re in a judicial foreclosure state, fighting back is much easier to do. The plaintiff has already sued you, so there’s a legal action already open.
Deontos, on December 22nd, 2009 at 9:25 pm Said:

FROM FORECLOSURE FRAUD TWITTER FEED

Corporate America pays price for arrogance in taking family’s home
John L. Smith

A stone against a giant. David dropped Goliath with a well-placed rock. But in corporate America, the best most little guys can hope for is putting a knot on the giant’s noggin and escaping with a little cash.

That, in short, is what Gerald and Katrina Thitchener and their children have to show for their courtroom victory over mortgage lending behemoth Countrywide Home Loans.

Friday’s jury verdict was swift and in a better world would have sent a message to all big, arrogant corporations: “Clean up your act.”

The couple won $922,690 to compensate them for having their home wrongly foreclosed and sold.

They were awarded $2.5 million in punitive damages after a jury found the obvious: The arrogant giant failed to apologize for accidentally selling off their condominium and destroying their personal property.

It was hardball from the start.

Why?

Big corporations know hardball works because most little guys can’t go the distance.

When I first reported the Thitcheners’ plight in January 2004, they were struggling to keep their case alive after hiring attorneys Terry Coffing and Terry Moore.

Gerald was a former Air Force F-16 mechanic who moved to Tucson after his Air National Guard unit was activated. Katrina followed with the couple’s children and left the condo near Nellis Air Force Base locked and partially filled with their possessions.

In a screw-up Countrywide only later admitted partial responsibility for, the Thitcheners’ unit was mistakenly foreclosed and sold. Their personal items, including photos and Katrina’s wedding dress, were thrown out.

Most of the material facts in the case were settled prior to trial. Damning depositions revealed that the company’s mistakes cost the Thitcheners dearly.

But it’s what followed that should anger everyone in the valley. Instead of owning up, the company lawyered up.

It was asinine, but it’s also the way of corporate America.

No doubt the Thitcheners’ attorneys salivated at the obvious jury appeal of the story of an Air Force mechanic getting pushed around by a large corporation, but then the facts endorsed the assessment. Among many: The Thitcheners continued to make their mortgage payments from Arizona and to pay the condo’s light bill. They’d abandoned nothing; they’d merely relocated.

Countrywide denied its blunder was “willful and deliberate” and shouldn’t be punished for merely taking away a family’s home and belongings. That’s arrogance personified.

On Friday, a jury agreed.

While appeals are possible, Countrywide would be wise to let this debacle fade.

The company wouldn’t even admit the family lost anything of real value. Admittedly, family photos and a wedding dress are hard to put a price on, but they’re even harder to replace.

Ask yourself this: What are your family photos worth? And how about all those other items of sentimental and personal value?

Better yet, what do you suppose Countrywide’s CEO would have done if someone had swiped his home?

The manhunt would be on.

Ask yourself what you would be tempted to do to a person who, while you were off on military duty, stole your house and sold it?

The Thitcheners will get a majority of the nearly $3.5 million they were awarded from a company that in 2004 netted $2.2 billion.

The award must look like a fortune to the Thitcheners, who had trouble paying their monthly bills; but to the giant it’s a veritable write-off.

It’s naive to think the judgment will teach a large corporation a lesson in customer relations. Such decisions usually don’t make life better for other victimized families. On the contrary. A lawyer is probably already drafting additional “hold harmless” language to make it even tougher to litigate future mistakes.

Instead of improving training, there will be checks cut in the name of tort reform. It’s easier for some companies to change definitions than admit mistakes.

That $3.5 million won’t change the world, but it will buy a nice new house for the Thitcheners with plenty left over.

A stone against a giant.

Hey, Goliath, how’s that head feel now?

John L. Smith’s column appears Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. E-mail him at Smith@reviewjournal.com or call 383-0295.

4closureFraud
Lisa E., on December 22nd, 2009 at 8:25 pm Said:

http://blip.tv/file/1868597

Wow!

Lisa E
Lisa E, on December 22nd, 2009 at 10:45 am Said:

I have many lawsuit affidavits from Florida foreclosure cases where they attest to being Assistant Secretaries at Chase Home Finance.

There are also, filed with all the FL county clerks, mortgage assignments which are signed by the above as VPs and/or Assistant Secretaries of a variety of different financial institutes and also MERS.

I think they are all signed & notarized in Franklin, OH.

Dan, let’s collaborate on this and make a file!

Lisa E
ForeclosureHamlet.org
Dan Edstrom, on December 22nd, 2009 at 10:03 am Said:

Nye Lavalle has great info on Ocwen and Scott Anderson:

X_http://www.scribd.com/doc/13625520/PMIOcwenAndersonReport

He probably has lots more. In fact a simple search on Google brought all of this Ocwen information to light (for me).

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Dan Edstrom, on December 22nd, 2009 at 9:19 am Said:

Ocwen Loans – Attention!

According to a lawsuit filed by Ocwen against MERS, Scott Anderson, a VP, is the only person authorized to sign as a MERS representative. If you have an Ocwen loan and an assignment was done that was NOT signed by Scott Anderson, you should investigate this issue further. If Scott Anderson signed your document as a MERS rep, you should check the signature with other documents to see if there are any “issues”.

Specifically Joseph DeRinaldi is NOT been designated as a “certifying officer”.

X_http://www.msfraud.org/LAW/Lounge/ocwenvmersshutoutdisputecomplaint.pdf

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Thomas S., on December 22nd, 2009 at 6:54 am Said:

.Serious U.S. mortgage delinquencies up 20 percent

By Kim Dixon Kim Dixon – Mon Dec 21, 11:24 am ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Serious delinquencies among U.S. prime mortgages rose nearly 20 percent in the third quarter from the prior quarter, as the percentage of current and performing mortgages fell for the sixth consecutive quarter, banking regulators said on Monday.

The report by the Office of Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision, which are part of the Treasury Department, covered about two-thirds of all U.S. mortgages.

It found 3.6 percent of prime mortgages — those made to the most credit-worthy borrowers — were seriously delinquent in the third quarter. That was more than double the year-ago quarter and up nearly 20 percent from the 2009 second quarter.

The report defined “serious delinquencies” as those loans 60 days or more past due and loans to delinquent bankrupt borrowers.

Big U.S. banks and thrifts carried out 2.4 million home loan modifications, trial period plans or payment plans in the quarter, spurred mostly by a government plan offered by President Barack Obama, according to the report.

Most came from the government’s Home Affordable Modification Program. Mortgage servicers carried out 274,000 trial plans in the third quarter, up 240 percent from the second quarter when the plan was launched.

But only 1 percent of those had been converted to permanent modifications as of September 30, 2009, the report said.

A major cause of this disconnect is that loan servicers are finding that many borrowers who initially appear to qualify for the program do not, according to the report.

The Treasury Department has been pressuring lenders and mortgage servicers to do more to ease the harm from rising foreclosures.

Loan modifications made outside the new aid program fell in the third quarter by nearly 8 percent, the report said.

(Reporting by Kim Dixon, editing by Matthew Lewis)
Dan Edstrom, on December 22nd, 2009 at 6:11 am Said:

I have a bunch of New Century recordings from two counties in CA (El Dorado and Placer). Signers are Beth Cottrell, Stacy Spohn, Christina Trowbridge, Jeff Szymendera, Frank Mercado Jr, Tom Croft, Diana Noriega, Bill Koch, G Hernandez, Carrie Stone, Steve Nagy, Ryan Phillips, etc. In most cases I have multiple documents for each of these alleged signers.

I also have a bunch of assignments for Mortgage Lenders Network in El Dorado County and Placer County (both in CA) and also from around Las Vegas, NV.

If anyone has a Mortgage Lenders Network originated loan please contact me immediately.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Abby in CA, on December 22nd, 2009 at 1:43 am Said:

ALERT!! Especially Floridians and Californians

Anyone who has recordings(docs) done by Home123 or New Century Mortgage, should examine closely and take note.

It has become apparent that most, if not all, recordings such as Corporate Deeds of Assignment were notarized by California notaries.

Thus, they’d have to comply with California laws and it appears that the California notaries used a ’subscribing witness’ on the Florida recordings ‘Assignment of Mortgage’ and the notary also used the California All-Purpose Acknowlegement form.

The subscribing witness cannot be used on deeds & this may make these assignments voidable.

Here is the California law.
Note: A proof of execution by a subscribing witness cannot be used in conjunction with any quitclaim deed, grant deed (other than a trustee’s deed or deed of reconveyance), mortgage, deed of trust, or security agreement. (Government Code section 27287 and Civil Code section 1195(b)).

Additionally, you should check for forgeries by New Century or Home123 signers. For instance Home123 VP Stephen L. Nagy has a different signature in Florida as he does in California.

If you are not sure about your recording and the subscribing witness laws, then please send a certified copy of the document (obtain from your county recorder) and a letter to:

Debra Bowen
California Secretary of State
1500 11th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

She is in charge of notaries in the State of California

I’d also advise you to file a complaint with the FBI and your local county DA.

As to the relevance of any fraudulent documents and your property or foreclosure action, consult a competent attorney.

IMHO–the recording irregularites, forgeries and illegal notarizations could be widespread and have implications for thousands of homeowners across the USA, whether dealing with foreclosure or not.

ONE MORE THING–in California the notary has to take prints in their journal of anything recorded that has to do with property.

I believe that one can ask for a copy of the notarial journal page (with the fingerprint) and there will be a small fee to obtain it.

This could also help prove the forgeries on the documents.
Lisa E., on December 21st, 2009 at 8:16 pm Said:

Yeah, the snow………you know…………snow.

Of much MUCH MUCH greater importance than human beings being thrown out of the only homes they have…basically tossed out INTO THAT DAMN SNOW!

Sorry. I’ll not give advance notice again!

That’s the second time illegal evictions and property confiscation by the millions has been “pre-empted” by a much lesser issue.

BUT, on a lighter note, ABBY…………….I laughed out loud at that video you linked here! THANK YOU!

Happy Holidays to us all.

Lisa E
ForeclosureHamlet.org
Thomas S., on December 21st, 2009 at 7:31 pm Said:

L.Fitzgerald,
Thanks , I don’t know if you noticed it ,but that article was written and published 4-1-2008. I saw that yesterday when I googled the name Michael Sasso after I didn’t find the article in the paper. Maybe I’m
missing something here.

Thomas S.
Foreclosure Fraud, on December 21st, 2009 at 7:23 pm Said:

LF & Thomas,

The article in the Tribune was NOT published. The one that LF linked to is from April of 2008.

Yes, the powers that be may be too great to let it be published, but we do not believe that it was the case this time, yet…

According to Sasso, it was suppose to run front page but the NE blizzard took precedent..

You know how it goes… Snow storms are much more newsworthy than foreclosure tsunamis…

4closureFraud
L.Fitzgerald, on December 21st, 2009 at 6:51 pm Said:

To Thomas ..

The article in the Tampa news paper was published ..click the link below ..

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/apr/01/bz-law-firms-cash-in-on-foreclosures/

LF
Thomas S., on December 21st, 2009 at 2:32 pm Said:

Lisa E,
I picked up a Tampa Tribune yesterday hoping to see the article written by M.Sasso ,but it must not have been published.
I guess the powers that be are too great to let it be published.

Thomas / Lea @Clearwater Bch.
marcus, on December 21st, 2009 at 12:56 pm Said:

New RESPA Rules Start Jan. 1
The government hopes that the revamped Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act, which takes effect Jan. 1, will make it easier for home buyers to understand what’s going on at closing.

While some industry professionals are enthusiastic, others are dubious that these new regulations will really clear the fog.

“I think the net result is that it will cost consumers more because it will discourage shopping,” said Hank Shulroff, senior vice president at Attorneys’ Title Guaranty Fund. “The early disclosures are more transparent, but in the end the consumer is going to have less information about what it is they actually purchased, especially as it relates to title services.”

Jeri Lynn Fox, president of the Illinois Association of Mortgage Professionals, finds the new procedures more, rather than less, confusing. “Whenever you have confused consumers, isn’t that when the opportunity for them to be taken advantage of comes up?” she asks.

Source: Chicago Tribune, Mary Ellen Podmolik (12/18/2009)

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
Ira Shaver, on December 21st, 2009 at 12:43 pm Said:

ALLAN,

Yes, the comments about the Nevada USDC ruling are from Bob Hurt. I posted the message here in hopes that it might be of assistance to someone, and I simply failed to also copy Bob’s name or to give him credit for the comments. It was an oversight…not intentional. I would encourage everyone to subscribe to Bob’s Google group to stay informed on vital issues of law.

All the Best,

Ira
Abby in CA, on December 21st, 2009 at 12:08 pm Said:

FOR FUN- Santa CLaus Bailout Hearings
Don, on December 21st, 2009 at 11:44 am Said:

I hope she gets the best attorney and goes after everything including the kitchen sink. That is outrageous. She needs to file a police report too!.
Dan Edstrom, on December 21st, 2009 at 11:42 am Said:

Abby,
That is the best description of securitization I have seen yet.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Dan Edstrom, on December 21st, 2009 at 11:40 am Said:

Oops sorry, here is $5,000. We took everything you had and kept what we wanted and sold the rest. Oh well. 1156, 1157, what’s the difference.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Foreclosure Fraud, on December 21st, 2009 at 11:26 am Said:

“Trashed Out” Las Vegas Woman Victim of Foreclosure Mistake
December 21, 2009

LAS VEGAS – A Las Vegas woman says she is the victim of a horrible mistake that has left her with an empty condominium and lots of questions.

Nilly Mauck lived in her condominium for two years and said she never had problem until this week when a series of strange events eventually lead to a company coming into her home and throwing away everything she owned.

As Mauck walks around her dark and now empty condo she can’t help but remember how things use to look. Every room in the home is empty and Mauck says the reason for it is a mistake of address numbers. Her address is 1157 which is close to 1156 a condo that is in foreclosure. A few weeks ago the foreclosed home was suppose to get locks changed but Mauck says that’s not what happened.

“I came home to pick up something and there was a note on my door from the Brenkus Team of Keller and Williams Realty stating that they accidentally re-keyed the wrong door,” she said.

It was a problem Mauck thought was fixed until she came home to find a man going into her home. Mauck says everything in her home was missing.

She says she later learned her home had been “trashed out” a process done to foreclosures where everything left inside is thrown away. Mauck says she contacted the Brenkus Team.

Mauck is now staying with friends because she doesn’t want to go back to her condo. “I do not feel secure because I know someone has access to my door.”

“I said give me $100,000 to $200,000 to replace my things because it will take time and that is being generous and they said okay that is too much she called me that day and told me they were only willing to give me $5,000.”

“My clothes, my wedding dress, baby pictures, wedding photos, my dishes, my towels, my jewelry, anything you could possibly have in your house.”I kept asking them where did you take my things because I was ready to go and dumpster dive, and they had no answer for me.”

8 News Now attempted to contact the Brenkus Team about this story and they told said legal council has advised them not to make a statement at this time. 8 News Now also tried to contact the cleaning company involved and they also want to wait to respond until after they contact their attorney.

4closureFraud
ALLAN (with a THANK YOU to Abby & clarification request of Ira Shaver), on December 21st, 2009 at 11:16 am Said:

Abby, thanks for producing that bankruptcy fraud manual. May prove very useful in the humongous case on which I am working.

Ira, I subscribe to Clearwater FL activist Attorney Bob Hurt’s daily contributions to Lawmen, a Google group. He sent me the very same article you cite “Lawmen: 3434] Nevada USDC affirms Bankruptcy ruling that MERS can’t foreclose, but will it matter?” but with remarks your posting, perhaps mistakenly, attributes to you. I thought those were Bob Hurt’s sentiments. Please clear up my confusion.

HAPPY WINTER SOLSTICE, ALL!
Beginning tonight, the nights will get shorter and the days longer! YAY!

ALLAN (snowed in in a Cambridge winter wonderland)
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
Abby in CA, on December 21st, 2009 at 10:47 am Said:

US Bankruptcy Trustee Manual on Fraud & Abuse Enforcement see pg 65 RE: Ponzi

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24379022/U-S-Trustee-Manual-Bankruptcy-Fraud-Abuse-Enforcement-Program
Ira Shaver, on December 21st, 2009 at 9:33 am Said:

Judge upholds rule on foreclosure

See the below story of a ruling by Las Vegas NV USDC judge Kent Dawson. He upheld a bankruptcy court ruling that MERS could not foreclose because it had no beneficial interest in the note. Various commenter on the article seemed to think this amounted to good news, but Herb Sandler (maybe THE Herb Sandler of World Savings fame) said it would not matter, and foreclosures would continue apace because lenders have a lot of money to hire lawyers. He wrote correctly. It won’t matter at all.

If the lender, trustee, MERS, etc., show up with the original note, so what? The SEC filings prove the scheme to securitize the note and put ownership of the note in the hands of investors who have no clue about the borrowers’ identities. Even if it holds the note, the trust has beneficial interest only if it buys back the note from the certificate holders (the actual owners of the note).

Borrowers must hammer claimants in court, demanding that they prove not only possession , but also present ownership of the note. Borrowers seeking bankruptcy protection must insist that the actual owners file B10 forms (www.uscourts.gov/bankform/formb10new.pdf), which they signed under penalties of perjury, to support their claims. Those who don’t really have the beneficial interest will thereby subject themselves to perjury charges on such claims. At the bottom, the form bears this warning:”Penalty for presenting fraudulent claim: Fine of up to $500,000 or imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both. 18 U.S.C. §§ 152 and 3571.”

Securitization of debts and bets regarding debtor defaults amount to nothing more or less than a scam – a scheme to defraud. Perhaps Congress will someday outlaw them or require that a fair share of the proceeds go to the borrower. Why? All of the money that changes hands in those transactions comes from the signature of the borrower on that note. If borrowers actually knew how much money lenders make from securitizations, credit default swaps, and mortgage insurance payouts, borrowers might start pressuring Congress to give borrowers a fair share of the proceeds.

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

By JOHN G. EDWARDS
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL

Judge rules Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems can’t foreclose on home

Homeowners struggling to avoid foreclosure got some good news Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge Kent Dawson upheld a bankruptcy court ruling that makes it harder for lenders to foreclose on home mortgages.

The case, which was heard by a panel of federal judges in November, concerned whether Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., or MERS, could foreclose on residences on behalf of lenders. The electronic system records the ownership of residential mortgages for the mortgage banking industry.

Dawson said the company could not foreclose on a home because it did not provide evidence that it held the note on the residence and didn’t show that it was an agent of the lender.

About half of all U.S. mortgages “whose loans have been securitized, sliced and diced are now held by (MERS),” according to a blog posted by securities analyst Barry Ritholtz.

The case started in bankruptcy court two years ago.

MERS asked bankruptcy Judge Linda Riegle for permission to start foreclosure proceedings against a property owned by Lisa Marie Chong. Bankruptcy trustee Lenard Schwartzer objected, saying the electronic system was not a “real party in interest” in the mortgage loan.

Like many mortgages, Chong’s loan had been securitized, meaning it had been pooled or packaged into a security held by investors.

MERS was unable to show that it had possession of the note. The bankruptcy judge ruled in Schwartzer’s favor. The decision was appealed to federal court.

In his decision Tuesday, Dawson said the registration system does not lose money when borrowers fail to make payments on home mortgages.

Dawson ruled that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems must at least provide evidence that it was a representative of the mortgage loan holder, which it failed to do.

“Since MERS provided no evidence that it was the agent or nominee for the current owner of the beneficial interest in the note, it has failed to meet its burden of establishing that it is a real party in interest with standing,” Dawson said, affirming the bankruptcy court ruling.

Real estate attorney Tisha Black-Chernine said the ruling is good news for struggling borrowers and home-owners.

“It will have a dramatic effect on lenders being able to foreclose,” she said.

Because the decision makes it more difficult to foreclose, she hopes lenders will be more willing to negotiate with homeowners struggling to meet mortgage payments by approving short sales or making other concessions.

In a short sale, a lender agrees to let a homeowner sell his home for less than is owed. This is particularly helpful, because many homeowners owe far more than their homes are worth since home prices have fallen.

Houses sold in short sales typically go for 30 percent more than homes sold after foreclosure, Black-Chernine said.

Appraisers looking at the short sale price will use it in determining the market value. Thus, avoiding foreclosure results in higher market values for other houses, she said.

“It should help buoy home prices,” Black-Chernine said.

Bill Uffelman, chief executive officer of the Nevada Bankers Association, a trade group, predicted that most foreclosures will be able to proceed because the real mortgage owners and notes will be able to be identified in most cases. However, he said many homeowners facing foreclosure may be able to stay in their homes longer because of the delay.

“In the end in 99.9 percent of the cases, ownership of the note will be proved,” he said.

Although the decision is believed to be the first of its kind in Nevada, the Kansas Supreme Court made a similar finding in a similar case.

An attorney for the electronic system did not return a call for comment on whether it will appeal.

Contact reporter John G. Edwards at jedwards@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0420.
ALLAN (with a provocative timely report from AMERICANS FOR FINANCIAL REFORM), on December 21st, 2009 at 12:17 am Said:

GO TO: http://www.ourfinancialsecurity.org/

WALL STREET BONUSES COULD FUND AN ECONOMIC RECOVERY FOR MILLIONS OF AMERICANS

Submitted by admin on December 17, 2009 – 2:41 pm

Despite unleashing havoc on the global economy, Wall Street is on track to pay out an all-time record in bonuses and compensation this year. The nation’s six largest banks alone – Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and Morgan Stanley – are on pace to give their bankers a staggering $150 billion payday.[1]

Click here to vote on how you would spend the $150 billion

Click here for information about protests about big bank bonuses in your area

The massive windfall for bankers comes straight out of taxpayers’ pockets. Yet while bankers use taxpayer assistance to enrich themselves instead of jumpstarting the economy by lending, federal, state, and local governments struggle to find the resources to clean up the banks’ mess, protect services, and create jobs.

If even a fraction of the big banks’ $150 billion in bonuses, benefits, and compensation (“bonus and compensation”) were used to fund important policy priorities, we could bring about a real economic recovery in this country:

$142 billion could fill the total budget gap for all 50 states for FY 2010;

$40 billion (just 27% of the total bonus and compensation pool set aside by top six banks) could finance a federal jobs initiative to create 1,000,000 jobs in early childhood education, in-homes services for the elderly and people with disabilities, and other community services through a federal jobs initiative;

$10 billion – about half of what Goldman will dole out to its bankers this year –could fund an increase to Head Start that would create 330,000 new jobs and better prepare children for school;

The full $150 billion could extend unemployment coverage for each of the 15,700,000 unemployed workers in the United States by seven months or buy individual health insurance plans for more than two-thirds of the nation’s uninsured, changing the lives of 31 million people in the process.
Bubble Bursts, But Bonuses Still Inflated

Bankers justified their massive paychecks by pointing to the outsize returns many investors received during the credit boom. But even after crashing the economy, bankers are still finding ways to lavish themselves with compensation. The bankers at the nation’s six largest banks – Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and Morgan Stanley – are on pace to take home $150 billion in bonuses, benefits, and compensation in 2009, 19% more than their high during the peak of the financial boom in 2007.

2009 Projected Bonuses & Comp. 2007 Bonuses & Comp. Total bailout funds received*
Goldman Sachs $22.3 billion $20.2 billion $63.6 billion
JPMorgan Chase $29.1 billion $22.7 billion $94.7 billion
Bank of America $32.2 billion $18.8 billion $199.0 billion
Wells Fargo $26.3 billion $13.4 billion $36.9 billion
Citigroup $25.0 billion $34.4 billion $341.1 billion
Morgan Stanley $14.5 billion $16.6 billion $25.0 billion

This massive windfall for bankers comes straight out of taxpayers’ pockets. After taking nearly $17.8 trillion in bailouts to stay afloat, banks and other financial firms are still relying on taxpayer-funded programs to generate their profits. Along with the now-publicized TARP investments, debt guarantees, AIG payments, and emergency lending programs, big banks are also benefitting from a Federal Reserve commitment to pump $1.25 trillion into the market for mortgage-backed securities, which has fueled a speculative trading boom that is currently propping up bank earnings.

Banker Pay Could Fund National, State, and Local Priorities

Instead of ramping up risk-taking and lavishing bankers with excessive bonuses and compensation, the banks could be contributing to a real economic recovery. The top six banks are on pace to pay $150 billion in bonuses and compensation this year, which translates to $577 million every day or $72 million every hour. Even a small portion of the bankers’ total bonuses and compensation – just days or hours of pay, in some cases – could make a huge impact at the national, state, and local levels.

Provide relief to unemployed Americans

Less than half of the of the bonuses and compensation at the top six banks could fund the 14-week extension of unemployment benefits just signed into law by President Obama, providing relief to 15,700,000 unemployed residents of the United States.

Just 17 days of bonuses and compensation at the top six banks could fund the 14-week extension of unemployment benefits for all 2,200,700 unemployed residents of California.

In Illinois, 19 days of big bank bonuses and compensation could pay for an even longer extension of unemployment benefits – a full year – for each of the 674,700 unemployed residents of Illinois

A mere 6 days of bankers pay could fund the year-long extension of unemployment benefits in Oregon, providing long-term assistance to the 211,500 unemployed residents of Oregon.

The bonus and compensation pool created by the big banks could fund 10 months of severance at full pay for the 5,452,000 laid off workers in the United States.

5.3% of that $150 billion bonus and compensation pool could fund a full-year severance package at full pay for the 249,000 laid off workers in Ohio.

Just 3% of bonuses and compensation at the top six banks could fund a year-long severance package at full pay for each of the 105,900 workers laid off in Massachusetts in the past year.

In the Washington, D.C. metro area, 1 % of the big bank bonuses and compensation – the equivalent of just 3 days of work for bankers at the top six banks – could fund the one-year, full-pay severance package for the region’s 37,000 laid off workers.

Award bonuses to every American worker

The top six banks’ bonuses and compensation could fund a $1,000 bonus for all 138,275,000 working Americans.

Provide health care for the uninsured

The bonuses and compensation at the big banks could fund health insurance coverage for 2 out of 3 uninsured Americans changing the lives of over 31million people.

In New York, just 8.5% of the $150 billion set aside by the top six banks could fund health insurance coverage for each of the 2,634,000 uninsured people in the state.

A mere 7 days of bonuses and compensation at the top six banks could fund health insurance coverage for each of the 764,000 residents of Washington who are currently uninsured

Another 7 days of bonuses and compensation at the top six banks could fund health insurance coverage for the 746,000 currently uninsured residents of Indiana.

A single day of bonuses and compensation at the top six banks could make health insurance more affordable for 88,785 laid-off workers by extending the federal government’s subsidy of COBRA premiums for nine additional months. Forty-four days of big bank bonuses and compensation – or 17% of their total compensation and bonus pool – could fund the entire $25 billion cost of an extension, benefitting an estimated 7 million laid-off workers and children.

Provide relief to families facing foreclosure

Just 23% of the big banks’ bonuses and compensation could prevent or postpone every foreclosure projected for the United States in 2009-2012 by providing mortgage payment assistance to 9,000,000 families.

7.2% of what the six banks are setting aside for pay – the equivalent of just 19 days of bankers’ bonuses and compensation – could prevent or postpone every foreclosure projected for California in 2009-2012 by providing mortgage payment assistance to 1,888,716 families.

A single day of the big banks’ bonuses and compensation could prevent or postpone 89% of the foreclosures projected for Massachusetts in 2009-2012 by providing mortgage payment assistance to 107,977 families.

In Illinois, just 6% of what JPMorgan Chase alone is expected to dole out in bonuses and compensation — $1.7 billion – could prevent or postpone each of the 384,490 foreclosures projected for Illinois in 2009-2012.

A small percentage of the bonuses and compensation at the big six banks could even help buy back homes which have already been foreclosed on.

A mere 9% of the bonuses and compensation at the top six banks could buy back each of the 113,570 homes in Ohio in foreclosure in 2008 or each of the over 50,000 homes in New York lost to foreclosure during the same period.

Just 4% of the bonuses and compensation at the top six banks could buy back each of the 45,937 homes in Indiana lost to foreclosure in 2008.

Another 3% of the top six banks’ bonuses and compensation could buy back each of the 18,001 homes in Oregon in foreclosure in 2008.

Award college scholarships for all American students

The bonuses and compensation pool at the top six banks could fund a free public education and a $2,774 cost of living award for each of the 15 million students in the United States.

Just 9% of the $150 billion set aside by the top six banks for bonuses and compensation could fully cover the cost of an in-state public education for each of the 2,257,000 college students in California.

3% of the bonus and compensation of the big banks could pay the cost of an in-state public education for the 421,000 college students in Massachusetts.
7% of the bonuses and compensation of a single bank – Bank of America – could cover the cost of an in-state public education for each of the 321,000 college students in Washington.

Increase Social Security benefits for America’s seniors

Just 6 days of bankers’ bonuses and compensation could fund a 5.8% cost-of-living adjustment in 2010 for each of the 51 million Social Security recipients in the United States, providing relief to seniors after the Social Security Administration announcned there would be no COLA for the first time since 1975.

The top six banks could fund could fund the COLA increase for each of the 2,021,874 Social Security recipients in Ohio in 2010 with just 2 hours of bankers’ bonuses and compensation.

In Illinois, 8 hours of bonuses and compensation at Bank of America alone could fund a COLA increase for each of the 1,948,578 Social Security recipients in the state.

A mere 22 minutes of Goldman Sachs bonuses and compensation could fund a 2010 cost-of-living adjustment for each of the 71,468 Social Security recipients in DC.

The $150 billion in bonuses and compensation at the top six banks could be used to increase every single Social Security recipient’s monthly benefit check by $245 (nearly $3,000 annually). That would be a 23% increase!

Provide state and local budget relief:

The bonus and compensation pool at the top six banks is roughly equivalent to the budget deficit of all state governments. Instead of lavishing millions on bonuses for the very rich, small percentages of the bankers’ pay could go a long way to filling huge holes in state crises and providing valuable and needed services to families.

Just 6 days of bonuses and compensation at Bank of America alone (or 2.2% of the $32.2 billion Bank of America is setting aside for bonuses and compensation) could restore over $700 million in cuts to California community colleges.

A mere 1.4% of the bonuses and compensation at JPMorgan Chase could restore the $405 million New York City was forced to cut from its Department of Education budget.

3 hours of bonuses and compensation at Bank of America could fund the rehiring of 338 DC public schools employees, including 229 teachers, who were laid off in as the result of $40 million budget in budget cuts.

Another 3 hours of bonuses and compensation – this time at JPMorgan Chase – could have prevented $38 million of cuts in mental health and developmental disability programs and grants in Illinois.

[1] The $150 billion figure is an estimate. The top six banks set aside $112 billion for bonuses, benefits, and compensation in the first three quarters of 2009, or $37.3 billion every quarter. At this rate, their total compensation pool for all four quarters will total approximately $150 billion for the year.

* Bailout calculation includes funds received under the TARP program and other government sponsored or funded financial assistance mechanisms.

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

Out of habit, I tend to hold my own conspiracy theories up to criticism or to the feedback of those I trust, but here, somehow, I feel there truly is a huge ’stealth’ transfer of wealth underway from the soon to be ‘have nots’ to the ‘haves’, except it ain’t ’stealth’. It’s all being accomplished in plain sight, right out in the open, and feels a bit like requiring those who are about to meet their demise dig their own graves. All done with the impunity of knowing those who are supposed to impose checks and balances for the health of the system, are giving the predator bankers the green light.

While our government is coddling the big banks and going easy on them all in the interest of maintaining economic stability, million of lives are being ruined needlessly. Who’s manning the switch on the vision thing that is allowing this to continue unabated?

Let the world know we are Americans who are for real financial reform. This heartless plunder must stop! Why does it feel so like the land grabs that go hand in hand with ethnic cleansing (or witch trials), except packaged in the legitimizing process of law, where too often justice takes a back seat to power and influence? Where are the Portias of the world when we so need them to balance upholding authentic contract with doing equity?As Portia in Act IV, Scene 1, addressed Shylock, the merchant of Venice:

“The quality of mercy is not strained.
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown.
His scepter shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings.
But mercy is above this sceptered sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings;
It is an attribute of God himself;
And earthly power doth then show like God’s
When mercy seasons justice.”

The Merchant of Venice,
~ William Shakespeare

GO TO: http://www.castroller.com/podcasts/BillMoyersJournal/1375428

ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
Ira, on December 20th, 2009 at 7:49 pm Said:

Something fishy this way comes?

I recently found an “Assignment of Mortgage” (AOM) and “Satisfaction of Mortgage” in county records from MERS, both allegedly signed by employees of MERS. MERS has never been named as the ‘mortgagee’ and ‘noteholder’ on any of our documents, but only as a beneficiary the first time we refinanced in 2003. On its website under ‘Foreclosures’, even MERS admits:

“Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) is a proper party that can lawfully foreclose as the mortgagee and note-holder of a mortgage loan.”

On the MERS AOM to WMC Mortgage, it states it is a COPY, is to be returned to WMC Mortgage, is missing the printed name under the alleged signature of a Witness, gives an address in Michigan yet is purported to be notarized in New York, is signed by an ‘Assistant Secretary whose name is handwritten on the document (not typed)’, is dated January 13, 2003 yet wasn’t recorded in county records until April 29, 2005.

On the the MERS ‘Satisfaction of Mortgage’ document, it states all of the following:

RECORDING REQUESTED BY / RETURN TO:
Peelle Management Corporation
P.O. Box 30014
Reno, NV 89520-9827

THIS CORPORATION HAS NO CORPORATE SEAL (not sure if this is referring to MERS or Peelle)

Purports to be notarized in Santa Clara County, California.

Prepared by: E. N. Harrison, Peelle Management Corporation, 4690 Longley Lane, Suite #8, Reno, NV 89502, LN # 1710195 Investor LN # 15924152 P.I.F.: 12/07/05

** Prepared by E. N. Harrison but he did not sign anywhere on the document.
Foreclosure Fraud, on December 20th, 2009 at 3:00 pm Said:

Sounds like fun. I’m in! I wonder what the prizes will be?

Fabricated Notes to properties?
Forged Assignments for mortgages?
False Affidavits for fees?

Maybe even someone’s house!

Game On!
Good Luck!

4closureFraud
usedkarguy, on December 20th, 2009 at 2:33 pm Said:

Thanks, Baby Doll!

I love you guys, every single one of you!

Merry Christmas!
Lisa E., on December 20th, 2009 at 2:22 pm Said:

In case anyone wants a little break from the enormity of the tragedies that have hit us all hard; individually and collectively:

Come on over for the first episode of a new extreme reality game show.

FORECLOSURE OF THE WEEK

Where a foreclosure is picked at random from the public records and we go back to try to figure out what in the heck happened! This ain’t no CandyLand Game!

http://www.foreclosurehamlet.org/profiles/blogs/122009-its-foreclosure-of-the?xg_source=activity

Lisa E.
Dan Edstrom, on December 20th, 2009 at 8:29 am Said:

I have previously reported how identity theft in California is a felony. Here is some information on Federal laws:

X_http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/microsites/idtheft/

X_http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/websites/idtheft.html

Quotes from the 2nd link:

“Identity theft and identity fraud are terms used to refer to all types of crime in which someone wrongfully obtains and uses another person’s personal data in some way that involves fraud or deception, typically for economic gain.”

“The Department of Justice prosecutes cases of identity theft and fraud under a variety of federal statutes. In the fall of 1998, for example, Congress passed the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act . This legislation created a new offense of identity theft, which prohibits knowingly transfer[ring] or us[ing], without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law.

18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7). This offense, in most circumstances, carries a maximum term of 15 years’ imprisonment, a fine, and criminal forfeiture of any personal property used or intended to be used to commit the offense.

Schemes to commit identity theft or fraud may also involve violations of other statutes such as identification fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1028), credit card fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1029), computer fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1030), mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341), wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), or financial institution fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344). Each of these federal offenses are felonies that carry substantial penalties in some cases, as high as 30 years’ imprisonment, fines, and criminal forfeiture.

Federal prosecutors work with federal investigative agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Secret Service, and the United States Postal Inspection Service to prosecute identity theft and fraud cases.”

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Dan Edstrom, on December 19th, 2009 at 9:26 pm Said:

Maybe it is time to revisit this case – especially if you are in bankruptcy. It has to do with pledging notes and who has the real copies. It is kind of old though (1980) … This seems to be a variation of the games played in securitization. What do you think?

625 F.2d 281
6 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 1385, 29 UCC Rep.Serv. 639
In re STAFF MORTGAGE & INVESTMENT CORPORATION, dba Sondo
Diagnostic Corporation, and dba Century
Seventy-Two Corporation.
Robert E. GREINER et al., Plaintiffs,
and
Port Arthur, Annette Shoemake, Sigurd M. Jensen, Stinne T.
Jensen, Johnny Jensen, Doroth Veverka, Ray Healey
and Ella A. Healey, Plaintiffs/Appellants,
v.
C. Douglas WILKE, etc., Defendants/Appellees.
No. 78-2755.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 4, 1980.
Decided Aug. 11, 1980.
Isaac M. Pachulski, Stutman, Treister & Glatt, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiffs/appellants.
John J. Wilson, Hill, Farrer & Burrill, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants/appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before PECK,* ANDERSON and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges.
J. BLAINE ANDERSON, Circuit Judge:
1
Appellants appeal the district court’s affirmance of the judgment entered by the bankruptcy court. We affirm.
FACTS
2
The factual circumstances of this appeal are nearly the same as an earlier case, In re Staff Mortgage & Investment Corp., 550 F.2d 1228 (9th Cir. 1977) (Huffman v. Wikle ), involving the same bankrupt. Therefore, the facts will not be set forth in detail.
3
As a part of its business activity, the bankrupt, Staff Mortgage & Investment Corporation (Staff), would borrow money and execute its note to evidence the loan. To secure its loan, Staff would pledge one or more promissory notes secured by trust deeds which it had in its inventory. The promissory notes and trust deeds were assigned to the lenders. To effectuate the assignments, documents entitled “Collateral Assignment of Note” and “Corporation Assignment of Deed of Trust” were attached to the respective instruments. The “Corporation Assignment of Deed of Trust” was then recorded in the county wherein the real property covered by trust deed was located. The documents, except Staff’s note to evidence the loan, remained in the possession and control of Staff.
4
Appellants are persons who had loaned money to Staff under the above-described procedures. When Staff went into bankruptcy, appellants sought to have the promissory notes and trust deeds turned over to them. The trustee in bankruptcy refused, and the appellants filed a “Complaint for Declaratory Relief” in bankruptcy court. They sought a declaration that (1) they held security interests in the promissory notes and trust deeds; (2) their security interests were superior to the trustee’s interests in the notes and trust deeds; and (3) the trustee was required to assign the interest in the notes and trust deeds to the appellants.
5
The bankruptcy court determined that notes secured by the deeds of trust were unperfected security interests under the California Uniform Commercial Code § 9304(1). Thus the appellants’ security interests in the notes secured by the deeds of trust were subordinate to the rights of the appellee trustee in bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court essentially relied upon the previously-decided case of Huffman v. Wikle.
6
On appeal, the district court affirmed, stating that Huffman v. Wikle constituted the law of the case. The district court also stated that were it free to make a de novo ruling, it would not change the result.
DISCUSSION
Law of the Case
7
The district court stated that this court’s prior decision in Huffman v. Wikle constituted the “law of the case” and that it was bound by that decision. The district court was correct that Huffman was a relevant prior precedent; however, Huffman should have been followed under the doctrine of stare decisis and not the law of the case.
8
The law of the case concerns the continued application of a rule of law previously determined in that same case. Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Port of Seattle, 106 F.2d 777, 781 (9th Cir. 1939). If a court determines, in litigation between P and D, that the applicable rule of law is that certain security interests are instruments, and they were not perfected, then this ruling is the “law of the case” for the P and D litigation. See, 1B Moore’s Federal Practice P .401 (2d Ed. 1974).
9
In litigation involving a bankrupt, a decision in one proceeding does not necessarily prevent the institution of a new proceeding involving the same issues. As stated by the court in In re Peer Manor Bldg. Corporation, 143 F.2d 769 (7th Cir. 1944):
10
“An involved debtor may successfully resist an attempt by its creditors to reorganize it under (Chapter X of the Bankruptcy Act). The next day it may be subject to another petition seeking the same purpose. The petitioners, as here, may not be the same creditors. The debtor’s situation may have changed. The evidence may not be the same. The relief sought in the new petition may be appropriate in the second application and yet the denial of relief in the first proceeding may also have been proper upon the showing made.”
11
The present situation is similar. Both proceedings involved the same bankrupt and trustee in bankruptcy. The issues raised regarding security interests in notes secured by trust deeds were nearly identical. However, the proceedings were commenced by different plaintiffs, and the notes and trust deeds, while similar, were not the same. The separate proceedings did not constitute the same case; thus, the doctrine of the law of the case was not applicable. We, nevertheless, affirm as the district court stated it would have reached the same decision upon a de novo review, and the decision in Huffman controls the disposition of this case.
Nature of the Security Interest
12
In Huffman, this court determined that (1) the collaterals, notes secured by deeds of trust, used to secure Staff’s promissory notes to the plaintiff were “instruments” under the California Commercial Code; (2) the failure of the plaintiffs to take possession of the collaterals caused the security interests to be unperfected under California Commercial Code § 9304(1); and (3) thus the trustee in bankruptcy took the collaterals free and clear of the plaintiffs’ claims.
13
Appellants do not contend that the facts in this case are different in any relevant sense. Rather, they argue that Huffman was erroneously decided and should not be applied here. Appellants argue that the collateral packages of notes secured by trust deeds were general intangibles and not instruments as concluded in Huffman. They also contend that they should have been deemed to have constructively possessed the collaterals because (1) the recordation of the assignments of the trust deeds provided constructive notice of the assignment to all persons; and (2) the assignments executed by Staff were firmly stapled to the collateral notes and trust deeds.
14
In Huffman, we reversed the district court’s determination that the plaintiff had constructive possession of the collaterals. The district court “placed reliance on the fact that the . . . collateral notes and trust deeds had been recorded in the county where the land was located. The court felt that this ’served as notice to all interested parties.’ ” Id. at 1230. However, we rejected that reasoning, stating that such notice was not the type of notice intended or provided by the California Commercial Code. Even the additional fact raised by appellants that the assignments were stapled to the collaterals does not change the result. Perfection of a security interest in an instrument can only occur with the actual possession of the instrument by the secured party or by an agent or bailee on his behalf. Id. at 1230; In re Bruce Farley Corporation, 612 F.2d 1197, 1199-1200 (9th Cir. 1980). Had the legislature intended to allow perfection by methods proposed by appellants, they could have done so.
15
By holding in Huffman that the collateral packages of notes secured by trust deeds were instruments, we implicitly decided that the collaterals were not general intangibles.1 The district court’s discussion2 (unpublished) of the issue provides ample bases for rejecting the appellant’s characterization of the collaterals as general intangibles and we adopt its reasoning and conclusion.3
CONCLUSION
The decision of the district court is
16
AFFIRMED.
*
The Honorable John W. Peck, Senior Circuit Judge, Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting by designation
1
The issue of whether the collaterals were general intangibles and not instruments was presented and considered in the petition for rehearing. The petition was summarily denied
2
The district court stated that:
“Uniform Commercial Code Comment 3 to § 9105 of the Code reads in part as follows:
” ‘The term (“instrument”) as defined in paragraph (1)(i) includes not only negotiable instruments and investment securities but also any other intangibles evidenced by writings which are in ordinary course of business transferred by delivery. . . .
” ‘The fact that an instrument is secured by collateral, whether the collateral be other instruments, documents, goods, accounts or general intangibles, does not change the character of the principal obligation as an instrument or convert the combination of instrument and collateral into a separate Code classification of personal property. The single qualification to this principle is that an instrument which is secured by chattel paper is itself part of the chattel paper, while also retaining its identity as an instrument.’ (Emphasis added)
“The California District Court of Appeal described the attributes of a deed of trust in Domarad v. Fisher & Burke, Inc., supra :
” ‘(A) deed of trust is a mere incident of the debt it secures and . . . an assignment of the debt “carries with it the security.” (Citations omitted); . . . a deed of trust is inseparable from the debt and always abides with the debt, and it has no market or ascertainable value, apart from the obligation it secures (citations omitted); and . . . a deed of trust has no assignable quality independent of the debt, it may not be assigned or transferred apart from the debt, and an attempt to assign the deed of trust without a transfer of the debt is without effect. (Citations omitted).’ ”
“270 Cal.App.2d (543) at 553-54 (76 Cal.Rptr. 529) (footnote omitted). It is clear, therefore, that the collateral notes which were secured by the deeds of trust were the primary security for the promissory notes issued by the bankrupt to appellants, because the deeds of trust had no value and were not assignable apart from those collateral notes. Those collateral notes clearly fall within the definition of instruments in § 9105 of the Code, and the fact that they were themselves secured by the trust deeds brings them squarely within the emphasized portion of Comment 3, quoted supra.
“Any remaining doubts as to the propriety of characterizing the collateral package as an instrument are set to rest by Uniform Commercial Code Comment 4 to § 9102 of the Code. That Comment contains a hypothetical which is instructive in its terminology.
” ‘The owner of Blackacre borrows $10,000 from his neighbor, and secures his note by a mortgage on Blackacre. This Article is not applicable to the creation of the real estate mortgage. Nor is it applicable to the sale of the note by the mortgagee, even though the mortgage continues to secure the note. However, when the mortgagee pledges the note to secure his own obligation to X, this Article applies to the security interest thus created, which is a security interest in an instrument even though the instrument is secured by a real estate mortgage. . . . ‘ (Emphasis added).
“The Comments to the Code thus expressly negate the idea that the collateral package herein may be characterized as general intangibles. See also Uniform Commercial Code Comment to Code § 9106 and Uniform Commercial Code Comment 1 to Code § 9305 for discussion of what constitutes general intangibles.”
(Record at 513-515).
3
In Rucker v. State Exchange Bank, 355 So.2d 171 (Fla.App. 1978), a collateral package of a note secured by a real estate mortgage was also considered. The court there ruled that the assignment of the real estate mortgage along with the note did not bring the real estate mortgage under the coverage of Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. The court also determined that the recordation of the assignment of the mortgage gave constructive notice of the assignee’s interest in the mortgage
While Rucker may be contrary authority, we are not convinced that it is the law in California. In any event, a three-member panel may not overrule a prior precedent. Absent a decision by an en banc panel of this court, or a decision by the Supreme Court of California that is contrary to Huffman, we are bound to follow that decision.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Lisa E., on December 19th, 2009 at 9:24 pm Said:

UKG: Two words for you.

Duct Tape.

_____________
usedkarguy, on December 19th, 2009 at 9:03 pm Said:

Well said, Dan. And you can’t get around “holder in due course” with these trustee relationships. At least, I couldn’t. I think I screwed up. Anyway, I should have a better chance in the BK system. I will have an attorney this time. I know who, I just can’t afford him. Hell, I can’t afford shoestrings!
Dan Edstrom, on December 19th, 2009 at 8:51 pm Said:

Ken,
Sure I can give you input on it. There are two aspects to the “conveyance” of the loans from the depositor to the Trust. My pooling and servicing agreement is similar to yours but says it differently. Mine says something like “Even though we said we sold the loans for tax purposes, for accounting purposes we used seller financing”. Actually I found about 3 different instances in various place describing what they did (check your Pooling and Servicing agreement, Assignment and Assumption agreement and the Prospectus). Here is what my interpretation of this is:

A full and normal sale would mean they did a normal assignment of the loan WITHOUT RECOURSE. This means they received full value in return for giving the trust full rights. But this is typically NOT what actually happens. They actually do BOTH, without recourse and with recourse. For tax purposes (for reporting to the IRS), the transfer is a SALE. For accounting purposes, they PLEDGE the note – meaning they promise to transfer it at some point in the future at such a time as they receive full payment. When they pledge they agree to buy it back again at some future point under certain conditions (kind of like a money back guarantee). With a true sale it is usually as is and you are on your own. It is of course more complicated then this – after all they don’t call it financial engineering for nothing. Why do they do all of this? Here is what happens (this is my opinion from my limited knowledge):
Once the Seller has acquired the loan from the originator, they “pledge” the loan into securitization. That is they “promise” to transfer the loan at some point to the depositor, and the depositor “promises” to transfer the loan at some point in the future to the Trust. The trust collects the principal and interest payments and transfer them to the “holders of certificates”. All the trust truly needs is the payments. They “need” the loans as collateral to make the certificate holders think there is something of value behind the certificates, but the collateral (the pool of mortgages) would just be sitting idle in the trust if they transferred them in. These are financial engineers so they use every piece they can. Why does the seller (and/or depositor) need the loan if the payments go to the trust? That one is extremely easy to understand – they use it as collateral to borrow money from other banks. Think about it. The pool my loan is in was worth about $500,000,000.00 at inception. If they transferred all of these loans into the trust, that $500,000,000.00 would be doing absolutely nothing but sitting there. They put this on their balance sheet as an asset and borrower money from another bank. Now $500,000,000.00 is a lot of money, but my “deal” was one of 5 done in 2005 by my originator and GMAC-RFC. If the value was approx. the same in all 5 that turns out to be $2.5 Billion dollars. If they borrowed 80%, that would give them $2.0 Billion dollars in extra money they did NOT have. So think about it. The investors who purchased certificates from the Trust paid for the money that went to the mortgage loans at closing. As “passive” middlemen with NO money invested (they are using other peoples money), they get $2.0 Billion dollars to spend and invest however they want.

Anyway, I am far away from your original question. So NONE of the trusts actually have any loans in them – that is until about 50 to 55 days BEFORE the foreclosure sale. That is when they “assign” the loan (allegedly for real) into the Trust so that they can foreclose on it. That is why the assignments are all happening AFTER foreclosure is initiated. The problem with this is that it violates FAS 140-3 and probably other accounting standards. The only way the can truly transfer title is through an open market transaction. They are using the foreclosure sale as an open market transaction.

So, who actually owns your loan? Well, here it goes, here is what I think happened in my case. The originator “closed” my loan and sold it to an affiliate (a banking entity). The affiliate sold it to GMAC-RFC (the sponser and seller). GMAC-RFC actually provided the warehouse line of credit to the originator. GMAC-RFC receives their warehouse credit line from GMAC-ResCap (Residential Capital). GMAC-ResCap receives their warehouse line of credit from GMAC Bank F.S.B. (now Ally Bank F.S.B.). GMAC-RFC pledged the loan to the depositor (RASC – Residential Asset Securities Corporation). RASC pledged the loan to the trust and put the title in the name of the Trustee. The trustee putatively has legal title but the true owner is the Trust. Who owns the trust? The pooling and servicing agreements says that each certificate issued by the trust represents and ownership interest in the Trust such that all certificates together make up 100% ownership. Is that clear enough? Here is a rundown of all parties that have an interest in my property:

– The master servicer, sponser and seller (GMAC-RFC)
– GMAC-ResCap
– A Federal Savings Bank (Ally Bank FKA GMAC Bank)
– the Depositor (RASC)
– the Trust (RASC Series 2005-EMX4)
– the Trustee (US Bank N.A.)
– the successor master servicer (US Bank N.A.)
– the custodian? (Wells Fargo Bank N.A.)
– each investor who purchased certificates issued by the trust (parties unknown)
– The master servicer (GMAC-RFC)
– the sub-servicer (Wells Fargo Bank N.A.)

The sub-servicer is in the above list because according to the Pooling and Servicing agreement if I don’t make my payment they have to advance the funds for me. If the sub-servicer doesn’t advance the funds for me the master servicer has to advance the funds. If the master servicer doesn’t make my payment the successor master servicer has to make them. Read your pooling and servicing agreement – check the section under Advances.

The main purpose of securitization is so that the investors receive their payments every month no matter what.

Again let me reiterate that they do not call them financial engineers for nothing. These guys are very good at what they do. So good that it looks to me like they are going to destroy our country. We are actually paying them (government bailouts, TARP, etc) for their losses incurred when they borrowed money against the loans that they really didn’t own. And they are going to get most every borrowers house AND they are going to suck every last bit of money from many, many people.

Shoot me an email and I can send you a couple of the monthy certificateholder statements created by my master servicer and sent to the bondholders and the ratings agencies. I can also send you my reverse engineering of my loan and securitization.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice. These are my opinions and this is for informational and educational purposes only.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Lisa E., on December 19th, 2009 at 8:35 pm Said:

Ken Dost,

One more thing:

As far as case law for Oregon…check your local paper and/or google for some foreclosure defense attorneys.

Then, on Monday, call the local file room clerk of your local courthouse. Ask him/her how to search for those (pick 4 or 5) attorneys’ case files and how you could view his/her files for their work regarding foreclosure defense.

That’s how you’ll find your Oregon Case Law; by reading files of cases involved in current litigation and reading how both sides are comporting themselves on the battlefield.

You’ll also quickly grasp which attorneys understand the underlying issues and which ones need to brush up on their knowledge base.

Hope this helps a little during this very stressful and difficult time.

Lisa E.
Lisa E., on December 19th, 2009 at 8:28 pm Said:

Ken Dost:

First of all, it’s really slow here on the weekends, somewhat due to the heavier mod/approval required before posts are viewable.

Second, here’s a link: http://foreclosurehelp.oregon.gov/

Third: it appears that Oregon is both a judicial and a non-judicial state. What that means is that you will most likely have to file a suit against the entity that is trying to foreclose upon your home (most likely the loan servicer, but not assuredly). Talk to others here from CA or other non-judicial states for tactical suggestions based on how they are handling their own non-judicial anti-foreclosure fight.

Fourth: the info you posted from a Pooling and Servicing Agreement has to be gently entered into a court case. As much as we’d like to hang our hats (and homes) on the “protective” verbiage in a P&S Agreement, it’s far from simple to do so. You need to have a court case and a judge. Then you need to slowly, gently, politely educate the judge as to the issues behind securitized mortgages and the illegality of foreclosures for all mortgages registered in a Mortgage Backed Security. Then you need to have that P&S entered into “evidence”. Then, and really from what I’ve seen and understand, ONLY THEN can you rely on the “contract law” within the security agreement of a P&S.

Fourth: there are many non-judicial participants here who might have suggestions that are a little faster and/or easier than the approach above.

Fifth: I am not an attorney and may be totally off base in all of the above. This is not legal advice.

Good luck to you as you carry on the fight for your home.

Lisa E
ForeclosureHamlet.org
Ken Dost, on December 19th, 2009 at 7:49 pm Said:

ANYONE…..SOMEONE ….PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT MY POST EARLIER TODAY AND YESTERDAY AND PLEASE GIVE SOME INPUT

ALSO

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY GOOD CASE LAW FOR OREGON
Lisa E., on December 19th, 2009 at 6:57 pm Said:

Radio Show NPR This American Life start listening at minute 19 for a better understanding of a Credit Default Swap.

Helps explain why a mortgage is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars more in default (foreclosure) as opposed to the modified loan.

http://audio.thisamericanlife.org/player/CPRadio_player.php?podcast=http://www.thisamericanlife.org/xmlfeeds/365.xml&proxyloc=http://audio.thisamericanlife.org/player/customproxy.php

Lisa E
ForeclosureHamlet.org
Ken Dost, on December 19th, 2009 at 6:09 pm Said:

I found this in my pooling and service agreement. Can I get some input and thoughts on the following:

With respect to any Mortgage Loan that is not a Co-op Loan, none of the
Depositor, the Master Servicer, the Servicer, the Securities Administrator or
the Trustee shall be obligated to cause to be recorded the Assignment of
Mortgage referred to in this Section 2.01. With respect to any Co-op Loan, none
of the Depositor, the Servicer or the Trustee shall be obligated to cause to be
filed the Form UCC-3 referred to in this Section 2.01. In the event that any
Assignment of Mortgage referred to in this Section 2.01 is not recorded or is
improperly recorded, the Servicer and the Trustee shall have no liability for
any failure to receive or act on notices related to such Assignment of Mortgage.

The ownership of each Mortgage Note, the Mortgage and the contents of the
related Mortgage File is vested in the Trustee on behalf of the
Certificateholders. None of the Depositor, the Master Servicer, the Servicer or
the Securities Administrator shall take any action inconsistent with such
ownership and shall not claim any ownership interest therein. The Depositor, the
Master Servicer, the Servicer and Securities Administrator shall respond to any
third party inquiries with respect to ownership of the Mortgage Loans by stating
that such ownership is held by the Trustee on behalf of the Certificateholders.
Mortgage documents relating to the Mortgage Loans not delivered to the Trustee
are and shall be held in trust by the Servicer, for the benefit of the Trustee
as the owner thereof, and the Servicer’s possession of the contents of each
Mortgage File so retained is for the sole purpose of servicing the related
Mortgage Loan, and such retention and possession by the Servicer is in a
custodial capacity only. The Depositor agrees to take no action inconsistent
with the Trustee’s ownership of the Mortgage Loans, to promptly indicate to all
inquiring parties that the Mortgage Loans have been sold and to claim no
ownership interest in the Mortgage Loans.

It is the intention of this Agreement that the conveyance of the
Depositor’s right, title and interest in and to the Trust Fund pursuant to this
Agreement shall constitute a purchase and sale and not a loan. If a conveyance
of Mortgage Loans from the Seller to the Depositor is characterized as a pledge
and not a sale, then the Depositor shall be deemed to have transferred to the
Trustee all of the Depositor’s right, title and interest in, to and under the
obligations of the Seller deemed to be secured by said pledge; and it is the
intention of this Agreement that the Depositor shall also be deemed to have
granted to the Trustee a first priority security interest in all of the
Depositor’s right, title, and interest in, to and under the obligations of the
Seller to the Depositor deemed to be secured by said pledge and that the Trustee
shall be deemed to be an independent custodian for purposes of perfection of the
security interest granted to the Depositor. If the conveyance of the Mortgage
Loans from the Depositor to the Trustee is characterized as a pledge, it is the
intention of this Agreement that this Agreement shall constitute a security
agreement under applicable law, and that the Depositor shall be deemed to have
granted to the Trustee a first priority security interest

-55-

in all of the Depositor’s right, title and interest in, to and under the
Mortgage Loans, all payments of principal of or interest on such Mortgage Loans,
all other rights relating to and payments made in respect of the Trust Fund, and
all proceeds of any thereof. If the trust created by this Agreement terminates
prior to the satisfaction of the claims of any Person in any Certificates, the
security interest created hereby shall continue in full force and effect and the
Trustee shall be deemed to be the collateral agent for the benefit of such
Person.
Lisa E., on December 19th, 2009 at 9:47 am Said:

Sunday 12/20/09: I expect to see an article in the Tampa Tribune by journalist Michael Sasso on FDLG and their “questionable” tactics.

Please everyone go to that article tomorrow and make a comment.

Educate. Link to LivingLies. Negate the “deadbeat borrower” stigma. Thank the journalist for pursuing this timely topic.

Let’s make a presence!

Lisa E
ForeclosureHamlet.org
ForeclosureHamlet @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)
Lisa E., on December 19th, 2009 at 6:02 am Said:

Judges who are completely resistant to hearing matters of law and rule with a bias: research MOTION FOR RECUSAL (your state) or RECUSAL OF JUDGE (your state)

Warnings:

1) It may not work (many attorneys are often unsuccessful with this tactic) and now you have a biased AND angry judge and

2) The grass is not always greener in another courtroom.

3) In many states, the actual judge whom you are asking to be recused makes the decision whether to have him/herself removed.

4) ALWAYS have a court reporter for ALL hearings in front of that judge so a record is created for appeal (and/or to back up one’s complaint to the state’s Attorney General against the fraudulent Plaintiff)

5) Study. Study. Study. Go in front of that judge as fully armed with knowledge as possible. Know your state’s Statutes, case law, rules of civil procedure. GO TO THE COURTHOUSE every chance you can (if your foreclosure court is open to the public…if not, go to the closest county that is). Observe. Take notes. Find out the best foreclosure defense attorney in that court & get yourself to the file room and ask a million polite questions on how to look up that attorney’s cases. Pay for copies of that attorney’s filings. Go watch that attorney in action. Go watch the attorneys for the fraudulent illegal forecloser in action.

6) If it’s within your belief system: Pray.

7) Before speaking to the judge: ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS take a deep breath to get yourself under control, address the judge as “Your Honor” and remember that you are working not only for your own home but for the thousands of homeowners also in your community who will end up with this same judge.

Good Luck to us all!

Lisa E
ForeclosureHamlet.org
Foreclosure Hamlet @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)

***I am not an attorney. This is survival (not legal) advice.***
erlinda, on December 18th, 2009 at 10:00 pm Said:

neil,

how would you a deal with a JUDGE THAT WON’T LISTEN TO YOUR ARGUMENT? IT SEEMS THIS JUDGE ACT LIKE AN ATTORNEY FOR THE CREDITOR. the judge is so prejudice towards a pro se like me. any help or suggestion how i could tackle this crook judge? i don’t trust lawyers , i was already misrepresented by two incompetent attorneys. i think my next move is to complaint this judge, i can’t prosper doing my reorganization in chapter 11 plan effectively. where could i file a complaint about this judge? need help from the readers of this blog. dan , can you just explain this thing to them , i just email you the reasons. thank you.
Deontos, on December 18th, 2009 at 6:17 pm Said:

Note to self: When you see that “poster” who goes by the moniker Foreclosure Fraud…….. Uhhhh say thank you.

Good work FF!!
Lisa E., on December 18th, 2009 at 5:55 pm Said:

Florida Statute & Case Law Study Group is officially open for business.

Come join in!

http://www.foreclosurehamlet.org/forum/topics/florida-statutes-case-law

Lisa E.
ForeclosureHamlet.org
Lisa E., on December 18th, 2009 at 5:37 pm Said:

Note to self: DO NOT PISS OFF MR. FORECLOSURE FRAUD.
Foreclosure Fraud, on December 18th, 2009 at 3:46 pm Said:

So I pulled Bernanke’s mortgage…

From Effective Demand Blog

“First and foremost, before yesterday I didn’t care one iota about Bernanke’s mortgage. But when he said this publicly my interest was piqued:

Do you have a mortgage?
Oh, yes, we refinanced.

Oh, perfect. When?
About 5%. A couple of months ago.

Good time.
Yes. We had to do it because we had an adjustable rate mortgage and it exploded, so we had to.

So, did you get a fixed rate at 5%? I think this might be the most valuable piece of information.
(Laughter.) Thirty years fixed rate at a little over 5%.
Needless to say when the guy in charge of monetary policy says he has a exploding ARM it is news so I checked out the public records. While the details are certainly not juicy it leads me down another path of thought which I will get to.

Bernanke bought in May 2004 for $839,000. He had a 5/1 ARM for $671,200 at 4.125% that adjusted to 12 month Libor in June of each year after his fixed period ended. To calculate his rate you take 12 month Libor on that date and add 2.250%, it can’t adjust more than 2% in any one year due to restrictions on the note. He also had a purchase money second $83,900 but for some reason I can’t find the interest rate on that one, nor do I see an ARM rider for it so it could very well be fixed. Both notes indicate they are amortizing loans.

So what does this all mean? Well according to the terms I see for Bernanke’s first and the little information on historic LIBOR I can find… his rate actually went down. So if his rate went down on his first and his second is fixed (an assumption on my part since I see no ARM rider on the second) then ask yourself why refinance now? You would only do so if you expect rates to rise in the future or you don’t think fixed rates will ever be this good again. Winter time is a low demand time for mortgages so rates drop to encourage activity, also the Fed is ending it’s MBS purchases so rates are expected to rise.

Based on his actions I think Bernanke does not expect rates to get better than this at the very least. One can’t read how much worse he might think rates might get based on his refinance but he clearly fixed his rates now so the risk for lower rates in the future based on his personal financial decision is low. I was a little doubtful that the Fed would actually end their MBS purchases since the housing market is only this “good” due to the artificially low rates caused by those purchases. But now I am much more convinced that the Fed will at least let the MBS portion of the market to stand on its own two feet in the near future. They could always jump back in if rates jump higher than they want.”

“Effective Demand’s information raises several questions: Why did Bernanke refi? What did he mean by “explode”, and was his home underwater when he refinanced since he bought in 2004 and apparently borrowed 90% LTV with only 10% down?”
Calculated Risk

4closureFraud
Steve, on December 18th, 2009 at 1:27 pm Said:

Abby!!! has anyone suggested a “Forensic Mortgage Audit” Endless Fraud Detection has been having GREAT success with issues like yours. I have had “personal” experience with these lawyers that “get it”. from my experience there couldn’t be anything farther from the truth. THEY DO NOT GET IT!!! Endless Fraud Detection DOES!!! They have 2 radio shows. They had one of their clients on the show last night and this client of theirs has his mortgage co against the ropes, and they are going down for the count. his note was rescinded. That means he got his house and is going to court soon to sue them for the return of ALL of his money!!! Go to the Endless Fraud Detection website and talk to them. I really think they can help.

Good luck

Steve
Abby in CA, on December 18th, 2009 at 11:02 am Said:

Attorneys–what would it mean to all the New Century & Home123 victims to have had their documents, signed, forged and notarized in Mexico and not the USA proper??

Anyone??

The notary stamps used were primarily for California notaries. They seem to notarize for states across the USA.

I really want to know about Mexico though.
Deontos, on December 18th, 2009 at 10:49 am Said:

MERRY CHRISTMAS, HAPPY NEW YEAR ….. now get out!

Dec. 18, 2009, 9:36 a.m. EST
Citigroup, Fannie and Freddie suspend evictions for holidays

By Ronald D. Orol, MarketWatch

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Citigroup Inc. have announced that they will suspend evictions during the holidays.

Freddie Mac (NYSE:FRE) and Fannie Mae (NYSE:FNM) said they have ordered mortgage servicers and foreclosure attorneys to suspend evictions for occupied single-family homes owned by the government-controlled companies between Dec. 19 and Jan. 3, 2010. Foreclosure processes will continue, however.

Tenants living in foreclosed properties backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgages will also not be subject to evictions during the holiday time frame, according to Fannie Mae.

Also Thursday, Citigroup said it will suspend foreclosures and evictions for 30 days, until Jan. 17, for roughly 4,000 borrowers.

The lender said the suspension, which applies only to borrowers who have loans with Citigroup (NYSE:C) , will start Friday.

“We hope that with this suspension we can make the holidays a little less stressful for our customers who are going through a very difficult time,” CitiMortgage President Sanjiv Das said in a statement. “And we will continue to look for meaningful ways to assist our customers experiencing hardship.”

Citigroup expects the national suspension will affect about 2,000 borrowers scheduled for foreclosure sales as well as another 2,000 that were to receive foreclosure notifications in the next 30 days.

According to a Treasury Department report, Citigroup has started 103,478 three-month temporary modifications under an Obama administration program, yet it has only made 271 of those permanent as of the end of November.
Abby in CA, on December 18th, 2009 at 10:48 am Said:

Don—yes I did and I filed an AP, but the debtor’s attorney is trying to dismiss my AP. I cannot seem to get a hearing on the matter, even my judicial notice, because I keep getting told that the judge does not have to have a hearing…he can just dismiss at whim.

I’m fighting hard and about ready to contact the justice department.
Dan Edstrom, on December 18th, 2009 at 9:41 am Said:

Abby,
I pulled some records on New Century in my county in California. I have a document signed by Diana Noriega as A.V.P Trailing Documentation. It has a New Century corporate stamp (stamp dated 8/3/1995)and the assignment is dated 3/19/2004. The notary was Erika Reyes. Recording Requested by has New Century and it is crossed out. Below that is an address for Wells Fargo Bank. Diana’s signature appears to be a D and an N kind of overwriting eachother. Erika’s commission is #1455401 and it expires 12/9/2007. I can scan and send it if you want a copy.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Don, on December 18th, 2009 at 9:40 am Said:

Abby – Did you file a claim with the Bankruptcy Trustee?
Abby in CA, on December 18th, 2009 at 9:20 am Said:

ALL New Century or HOME123 victims—check your recorded docs!! ATTORNEYS TOO!!!

Also, if anyone is at a point of doing discovery or depositions–this woman was in charge of New Century Records Management etc. in Mexico and she would be a good person to get information from.

The VP from New Century who signed (forged) my Corp Deed of Assignment was in charge of ‘Records Management’.

My suspicion is that this woman was in charge of mass signings & forgings and notarizing down in Mexico and not in the USA.

This is her information pulled from the internet.

She also claims to have communicated with staff in Mexico in Spanish and to have assisted with the closing of New Century as a company,

Believe you me–New Century is still in chapter 11 bankrupcty in Delaware and may come out as a re-organized business.

Please let me know if you find out facts or evidence from this woman.

Diana Noriega
AVP/Operations Manager at New Century Mortgage

New Century Mortgage
Public Company; 5001-10,000 employees; NEW; Financial Services industry
November 1997 – December 2007 (10 years 2 months)
• Responsible for Managing the various Records Management departments & Auditing Dept in Monterrey, Mexico
• Responsible for training and supporting Asst. Manager & Supervisors
• Knowledge of mortgage operations & post closing documentation
• Interviewed and hired staff
• Maintained Policy & Procedures for departments
• Maintained appropriate department reporting and data
• Maintained staffing metrics and engagement
• Performed personnel annual performance reviews
• Assessed, planed, prioritized and coordinated dept functions and activities
• Balanced organization, staff and customer’s interests
• Responsible in resolving issues and complaints from staff members and customers
• Communicated with Senior Management & Wall Street Investors
• Communicated with staff, internal and external clients
• Communicated in Spanish with staff in Monterrey, Mexico
• Assisted in the closing of Corporation
• Managed and Audited the closing of all Post Closing Operations
Sheri Hill, on December 18th, 2009 at 6:02 am Said:

Hi Everyone,

Maybe I came in at a good time, I notice a mention of Attorney and fast eviction specialist John Bouzane, having to do with Flores, read further and you’ll hear more about his practices.

In March 2006 we got a refi with New Century, the original pretender lender we had to sign loan dos on the 15th and 17th of March due to the date wrong on date on
some of them, a mistake on their part. the docs between these two signings were switched (bait and switch) to include a balloon note. We didn’t get a copy of the docs at closing, instead they later mailed them along with a blank Notice of Right to Cancel, tolling the right to rescind to three years. Banker’s Trust (aka Deutsche Bank who purchased BTC in 1998) who pursuant a letter (contained in the loan docs) to the closing agent indicates Banker’s Trust has an interest in mortgage,the note, loan ect. The loan was put into a pooling and servicing agreement with Deutsche Bank (aka Banker’s Trust) as the Indenture Trustee
(custodian or note registrar) and sold to investors pursuant the prospectus filed with the SEC to take effect June 29, 2006.
We went into default in Nov. 06 while My Husband a
journeyman carpenter was on a temporary layoff, that we were able to cure March 23, 07. We received a notice of sale and sub of trustee recorded 03/07/07, what we didn’t receive was a notice of assignment. Deutsche Bank accepted an assignment of a non performing loan in
default with a possibility of claims.
This is new to us, because we didn’t get the notice of assignment and found it ourselves, the vice pres of New Century that assigned the deed of trust to Deutsche Bank is the same vice pres. of Deutsche Bank that substituted the trustee, signed on the same date 02/07/07, and notarized by the same notary. This person has never worked for either company but now works for the foreclosing trustee, who really is not the trustee because the date that the sub trustee was executed on July 15, 2008 and effected (recorded) on January 08, 2009. The Nod was recorded June 03, 08, 42 days earlier. Copies of notarized declarations indicates that the trustee was not yet a trustee when the notice of default was recorded, so the sale is void. The assignment is VOID, (if you don’t own it you can’t sell it).The Sale is VOID (wrong trustee) . We also rescinded the loan. (nobody owned it) The sale is VOID
New Century went into bankruptcy and sold the servicing rights and platform to Carrington Mortgage, we received a notice of joint assignment from New Century and Carrington to take effect July 01, 2007. In an effort to possibly get lower payments because the adjustable rate payments were to high, we only ended up with higher payments. Carrington could not figure out what we owed, Our statements would show payments not made as being credited and two weeks later it would be different. they insisted us sign modification papers without an explanation of there contents, so not knowing who to pay or how much and by examining the loan docs we found numerous violations of federal and state law. They were also very rude and indifferent to us. The purported beneficiary Deutsche Bank and the purported trustee Old Republic Default managment foreclosed on Jan 28, 2009 after we rescinded the loan that everyone ignored and initiated an unlawful detaineron June 08, 09 that we were unable to defend because of their fast eviction Attorney who has fabricated people and names on declarations, claiming one to be an REO Regional manager for Deutsche Bank and a fake process server that purportedly served the Summons and Complaint and filed a POS with an unsigned declaration of due diligence. We have a 9 cause of action (pro se) civil case against them and we also have 3 different signatures for the same person purported to deliver docs and filed as POS. We were evicted on Nov.24 and are now in appeal, but no hearing until April, I really don’t know which is the best way to go about this new evidence and getting our house back the quickest.
If your out there Soliman, Abby, Neil, Lisa someboby, I have been an avid reader for about 2 years with a lot of help from you guys. HELP?
Sherri Hill
Jeff, on December 17th, 2009 at 10:47 pm Said:

EXACTLY WHAT NEIL AND OTHERS ARE SAYING

MODIFICATIONS DON’T EXIST

Homeowners often rejected under Obama’s loan plan
——————————————————————————–
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Facebook
Add us to your iPhone or G1 More on this Story
Story | Long-time jobless become new faces of foreclosure crisis
Story | What rebound? Foreclosures rise as jobs and income drop
Graphic | Few homeowners get help

MCT

View larger image
Comments (11)
|
Recommend (4)
By Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — Ten months after the Obama administration began pressing lenders to do more to prevent foreclosures, many struggling homeowners are holding up their end of the bargain but still find themselves rejected, and some are even having their homes sold out from under them without notice.

These borrowers, rich and poor, completed trial modifications of their distressed mortgage, and made all the payments, only to learn, often indirectly, that they won’t get help after all.

How many is hard to tell. Lenders participating in the administration’s Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP, still don’t provide the government with information about who’s rejected and why.

To date, more than 759,000 trial loan modifications have been started, but just 31,382 have been converted to permanent new loans. That’s averages out to 4 percent, far below the 75 percent conversion rate President Barack Obama has said he seeks.

In the fine print of the form homeowners fill out to apply for Obama’s program, which lowers monthly payments for three months while the lender decides whether to provide permanent relief, borrowers must waive important notification rights.

This clause allows banks to reject borrowers without any written notification and move straight to auctioning off their homes without any warning.

That’s what happened to Evangelina Flores, the owner of a modest 902 square-foot home in Fontana, Calif. She completed a three-month trial modification, and made the last of the agreed upon monthly payments of $1,134.60 on Nov. 1. Her lawyer said that in late November, Central Mortgage Company told her that it would void her adjustable-rate mortgage, which had risen to a monthly sum above $2,000, and replace it with a fixed-rate mortgage.

“The information they had given us is that she had qualified and that she would be getting her notice of modification in the first week of December,” said George Bosch, the legal administrator for the law firm of Edward Lopez and Rick Gaxiola, which is handling Flores’ case for free.

Flores, 58, a self-employed child care worker, wired her December payment to Central Mortgage Company on Nov. 30, thinking that her prayers had been answered. A day later, there was a loud, aggressive knock on her door.

Thinking a relative was playing a prank, she opened her front door to find two strangers handing her an eviction notice.

“They arrived real demanding, saying that they were the owners,” recalled Flores. “I have high blood pressure, and I felt awful.”

Court documents show that her house had been sold that very morning to a recently created company, Shark Investments. The men told Flores she had to be out within three days. The eviction notice had a scribbled signature, and under the signature was the name of attorney John Bouzane.

A representative in his office denied that Bouzane’s law firm was involved in Flores’ eviction, and said the eviction notice was obtained from Bouzane’s Web site, http://www.fastevictionservice.com.

Why would a lawyer provide for free a document that gives the impression that his law firm is behind an eviction?

“We hope to get the eviction business,” said the woman, who didn’t identify herself.

Flores bought her home in 2006 for $352,000. Records show that it has a current fair-market value of $99,000. The new owner bought it for $78,000 at an auction Flores didn’t even know about.

“I had my dream, but now I feel awful,” said Flores, who remains in the house while her lawyers fight her eviction. “I still can’t believe it.”

How could Flores go so quickly from getting government help to having her home owned by Shark Investment? The answer is in the fine print of standard HAMP documents.

The Aug. 25 cover letter from Central Mortgage Company, the servicer that collects Flores’ mortgage payments, offered Flores a trial modification with this comforting language:

“If you do not qualify for a loan modification, we will work with you to explore other options available to help you keep your home or ease your transition into a new home.”

CMC is owned by Arkansas regional Arvest Bank, itself controlled by Jim Walton, the youngest son of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton.

A glance past CMC’s hopeful promise finds a different story in the fine print of HAMP document, which contains standardized language drafted by the Obama Treasury Department and is used uniformly by lenders.

The document warns that foreclosure “may be immediately resumed from the point at which it was suspended if this plan terminates, and no new notice of default, notice of intent to accelerate, notice of acceleration, or similar notice will be necessary to continue the foreclosure action, all rights to such notices being hereby waived to the extent permitted by applicable law.”

This means that even when a borrower makes all the trial payments, a lender can put the house up for auction if it decides that the homeowner doesn’t qualify — assuming that foreclosure proceedings had been started before the trial period — without telling the homeowner.

Until now, lenders haven’t even had to notify borrowers in writing that they’d been rejected for permanent modifications.

In January, 11 months after Obama’s plan was announced, homeowners will begin receiving written rejection notices, and the Treasury Department finally will begin receiving data on rejection rates and reasons for rejections.

The controversial clause notwithstanding, the handling of Flores’ loan raises questions.

“Foreclosure actions may not be initiated or restarted until the borrower has failed the trial period and the borrower has been considered and found ineligible for other available foreclosure prevention options,” said Meg Reilly, a Treasury spokeswoman. “Servicers who continue with foreclosure sales are considered non-compliant.”

CMC officials declined to comment and hung up when they learned that a reporter was listening in with permission from Flores’ legal team. Arvest officials also declined comment.

McClatchy did hear from Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance agency seized by the Bush administration in September 2008. Freddie owns Flores’ loan, and spokesman Brad German insisted that Flores was reviewed three times for loan modification.

“In each instance, there was a lack of documentation verifying that she had the income required for a permanent modification,” German said.

That response is ironic, said Michael Calhoun, the president of the Center for Responsible Lending, a nonpartisan group in Durham, N.C., that works on behalf of borrowers.

“These lenders gave loans with no documentation and charged them a penalty interest rate for doing so. And now when the people ask for help, they are using extravagant demands for documentation to give them the back of their hand and continue to foreclosure,” Calhoun said.

German said that Flores was sent a letter on Nov. 24, which would have arrived several days later, given the Thanksgiving holiday, informing her that she’d been rejected for a permanent modification. Flores and her attorney said she never got a letter, and neither Freddie Mac nor CMC provided proof of that letter.

Exactly one week after the letter supposedly was sent, Flores’ home was sold to Shark Investments. That company was formed on Aug. 19, according to records on the California Secretary of State’s Web site. Shark Investments, apparently an unsuspecting beneficiary of Flores’ woes, has no phone listing. The Riverside, Calif., address on the company’s filing as a limited liability company traces to a five-bedroom, four-bath house with a swimming pool.

German didn’t comment on whether Flores received sufficient notice under Freddie Mac rules, or how the home could move to sale so quickly.

Flores’ legal team, which specializes in foreclosure prevention, thinks that lenders and servicers are gaming Obama’s housing effort.

“It seems servicers are giving people false hopes by sending them a plan, and they are using the program as a collection method, getting people to pay them with no intention of modifying the loan,” said Bosch. “I believe they are using this as a tool to suck people dry.”

Dashed hopes aren’t exclusive to the working poor such as Flores.

David Smith owns a beautiful home in San Clemente, Calif., the location of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library. Smith purchased his five bedroom home four years ago for $1.3 million. Today, the real estate Web site Zillow.com estimates the value of Smith’s home at $981,000, slightly below the $1 million he still owes on it.

Smith said he went from “making a lot of money to making hardly any” as the national and California economies plunged into deep recession. He’s a salesman serving the hard-hit residential and commercial construction sector. On top of his hardship, Smith’s mortgage exceeds the limits for the HAMP plan.

In late August, Smith signed and returned paperwork in a prepaid FedEx envelope to Bank of America that said it had received the contract needed to modify the adjustable-rate mortgage he originally took out with the disgraced lender Countrywide Financial, which Bank of America bought last year.

The modification agreement shows that Bank of America agreed to give Smith a 3.375 percent mortgage rate through September 2014, and everything Smith paid between now and through 2019 would count as paying off interest. He’d begin paying principal and interest in October 2019, with the loan maturing in 2037.

The deal favors the lender, but Smith, 55, jumped on it because it kept him in the home.

Armed with what he thought was “a permanent modification,” Smith returned a notarized copy of the agreement and made subsequent payments on time.

In return, he got a surprising notice from Bank of America saying that his house would be auctioned off on Dec. 18.

“It looks like they’re trying to sell this out from underneath me,” Smith said. “My wife cries all the time.”

After a Dec. 16 call from McClatchy asking why Bank of America wasn’t honoring its own modification, the lender backed off.

“The case has been returned to a workout status and a Home Retention Division associate will be contacting Mr. Smith for further discussions,” said Rick Simon, a Bank of America spokesman. “The scheduled foreclosure sale will be postponed for at least 30 days to allow for review of the account in hope of completing a home retention solution for Mr. Smith.”

The Center for Responsible Lending says such problems are common.

“Everyone acknowledges that the system is not working well,” Calhoun said.
steve sinacola, on December 17th, 2009 at 10:05 pm Said:

there is a host of “Decaratories” that seem to be useful…especially in non judicial to get the pretenders and mocking modifiers into court

http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/declaratory-relief/

Declaratory relief refers to a judgment of a court which determines the rights of parties without ordering anything be done or awarding damages. By seeking a declaratory judgment, the party making the request is seeking for an official declaration of the status of a matter in controversy. Optimally, the resolution of the rights of the parties involved will prevent further litigation. For example, a party to a contract may seek the legal interpretation of a contract to determine the parties’ rights, or an insured may seek a determination of insurance coverage under a policy.
Dan Edstrom, on December 17th, 2009 at 9:57 pm Said:

Pay attention everyone. Darryl seems to be on to something GOOD!!!

Definition: declaratory judgment

–noun Law. a judgment that merely decides the rights of parties in a given transaction, situation, or dispute but does not order any action or award damages.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Darryl-CA, on December 17th, 2009 at 6:21 pm Said:

Mr. Garfield,

My name is Darryl Evans, I am not an attorney but I know how to stop foreclosures by proving through simple litigation (Complaint for Declaratory Relief) that ANY alleged securitized loan is non-existant.

It is urgent that I speak to you.

562-556-2080
daltoids@aol.com

By the way I live in Long Beach California
Abby in CA, on December 17th, 2009 at 5:21 pm Said:

Article about 79.9% interest rate on a credit card:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/17/799-percent-interest-cred_n_396191.html
Bob, on December 17th, 2009 at 10:57 am Said:

Alan,

I see your kit for sale for $97. Is this all there is to it? All the tools/documents for $97?

The tools and information necessary to Fight against Foreclosure, and protect your property including Step-by-step instructions on:

* Where to start?
* What to Expect?
* Judicial Vs. Non-Judicial
* How much time do I have?
* What about the Bailout?
* What about MERS? (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems)
* How much will Stopping my Foreclosure cost?
* Can I do this without an attorney?
* What to look for in your Loan Documents
* How to demand documents from the mortgage company
* Do I have a Predatory Loan?
* How to get a Forensic Loan Audit: Why do I need that?
* Am I a victim of Deceptive Lending Practices?
* What if the Broker lied about my income on the application?
* What about the Truth in Lending Act?
* Federal Vs. State

How to interview an attorney to discover if they understand foreclosure defense concepts
How to STOP FORECLOSURE on YOUR HOME IMMEDIATELY! and

How about learning How to Demand the Lender negotiate with you to KEEP YOU in YOUR home!

Are there any upsell’s to this information?

What has been reported back as the success rate using your information and step-by-step instructions?

You know the old saying, “You get what you pay for”, but maybe you just gifting consumers with your generosity and charging a nominal fee?

Anyone else used Alan’s info and had success?
Allan Hennessey, on December 17th, 2009 at 10:21 am Said:

Hey Folks!

Just wanted to chime in really quickly and give thanks for the congratulations in my case of successfully defending my home.

I have been flooded with calls, and am making my way through all the messages to get back to each one… If I miss you, please try to reach me again. I am currently understaffed, and we are doing the best we can.

If you have issues with any attorney not getting the job done whether you found them on this site or others… there is a saying…

“If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself.”

Attorneys allegiance is sworn to the court first, client second.

Even with the preponderance of information on this site and others, many attorneys “still dont get it”. Many never will. I have personally spoken to hundreds of attorneys in the past two years from all across the country. I dont know of a single one that really truly “gets it.”

The deeper you dig, the more you find out… The fact is… you cannot expect a court to fix this for you. You must be the one to fix it, then get the court to recognize the correction, and dismiss the case(in judicial states). It is important to note, that all public employees, have a vested interest in their pension and retirement funds. These funds are heavily vested in the financial sector. Can anyone say conflict of interest? I know of someone that uses a motion for recusal, bringing judicial notice of this fact into court cases, getting dismissal after dismissal.

It is very difficult for someone uneducated in law, to navigate these turbulent waters, but in my opinion, a homeowner has a better chance fighting PRO SE, without an attorney than with one. You just need the support and help from the educated folks that are willing to help. Also, get a blacks law dictionary, and look up terms.

CORRECTING THE PUBLIC RECORD:

Folks, I cannot sufficiently explain here how to do this. We have a tool that is effective at this. Many people have issues with getting documents recorded. We have a tool for that as well. These tools have been carefully developed and since I am only a contributor to these documents I cannot freely disperse them.

I can only explain like this: If your car registration had an error on it… what would you do? GET IT CORRECTED! If someone you work with has an incorrect address or phone number what do you do? GET IT CORRECTED!

Since the documents YOU originally signed (mortgage/deed of trust) are incorrect, GET IT CORRECTED! File a corrected version. There is a bit more to it in the documents we use (notice of revocation of power of attorney, notice to cease and desist, etc.) This is not an area where you want to try and reinvent the wheel folks.

One more thing… regarding FORENSIC LOAN AUDITS… This is not an area where you want to find the most inexpensive service. Many audits will verify TILA calculations and say “thank you for your business”. There are many components to a loan that you need to know the facts about… there are other elements that are only crucial if you are seeking treble damages in a Tort or other similarly styled suit.

IF YOU JUST WANT TO SAVE YOUR HOUSE, GET AN AUDIT DONE THROUGH FEDERAL TRUSTEE SERVICES FOR ONLY $500. It will reveal what you need to know to stop your foreclosure.

Even if you have already lost your home, IT IS NEVER OVER!

FRAUD VITIATES ALL TRANSACTIONS, AND ACCOUNTING BUSINESS NEVER CLOSES, ALWAYS OPEN LIKE 7-11.

If you have MERS named ANYWHERE in your documents, THAT IS FRAUD. If your loan was securitized, THAT IS FRAUD. If you owe more than your home is worth, THAT IS FRAUD. If your broker stated your income higher than reality, THAT IS FRAUD.

Fighting for your home is a bit like playing the game “chicken”. Two cars speeding toward each other on a one lane road…Whoever swerves away first loses. Commit now to a head on collision with the bank, and let them know… I AM NOT MOVING! I WILL NOT SWERVE! THIS IS MY HOUSE!

HAPPY HOLIDAYS, GOD BLESS, AND GOOD LUCK EVERYONE!

Allan Hennessey
800-552-9313 Ext 111
Ed, on December 17th, 2009 at 8:51 am Said:

Ira…I would check out this Florida Attorney

http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/
Ira Shaver, on December 17th, 2009 at 8:00 am Said:

We want to have a complete forensic loan audit done. The cheapest service we’ve found so far is:

http://www.ml-compliance.com

Has anyone else used this service?

There are missing recorded Assignment of Mortgage in the County records, and there is no AOM whatsoever to US Bank National As Trustee (the same outfit that tried to foreclose on us in 2007/2008). We expect to be served with another foreclosure suit just after first of the year.
Abby in CA, on December 17th, 2009 at 7:54 am Said:

Ira–have you considered filing in federal court….do you have any elements of fraud, TILA violations, predatory lending, usury etc…..you can file in federal court.

I am not an attorney and not offering legal advice or any services.

The above is my opnion.

Pro Se-means people can represent themselves in court.
Ira Shaver, on December 17th, 2009 at 7:43 am Said:

I reached out to a local Florida attorney on the so-called Lawyers that “Get It” list for foreclosure assistance, and this is the response I get:

“The only judge hearing foreclosure cases in Osceola County is Judge Stroker. He generally will not consider any technical argument in a case, including Federal issues. I do not think I would have to time to get involved in your case. We are focusing primarily on bankruptcy cases and must be selective on the Foreclosure defense cases we undertake. I previously had an office in Kissimmee, but closed it earlier in the year. I prefer going into a case where the forum increases the odds of success.”

So what does this mean? You’re screwed if your case is in Osceola County because there’s only one judge who hears the cases and he’s going to rule against you no matter how legally sound and solid your argument??? The first time we were sued by the Pretender Lender, this judge handled our case and trampled all over our due process rights, ignoring us at every turn, denying our multiple requests for discovery, and – after giving the Pretender Lender one full year to produce the alleged original Note and Mortgage, ruled against us. Now we’re looking at facing another foreclosure suit and we have to deal with this judicial tyrant again? Unbelievable!!! And the attorneys are automatically throwing their hands up in resignation because they don’t want to have to deal with this judge. So what is a homeowner to do???
Luis, on December 17th, 2009 at 7:37 am Said:

Is there a way to block an assignment ?

Right now the plaintiff wants to re-establish the note, but he has not come up with any documentation to prove they are the holder of such note. Now, they have assigned the note to somebody else.

Could this be blocked somehow?

They should not be able to do an assignment until after the note has been re-established.
Abby in CA, on December 17th, 2009 at 7:09 am Said:

should anyone want to email the editor of Time about the horrendous selection of Person of the Year Bernanke or how awful the illustration is

letters@time.com
Lisa E., on December 17th, 2009 at 4:25 am Said:

Luis,

These “Stealth Plaintiffs” in the judicial state of Florida wish that they could simply say, “Oh, darn! I lost the note. Judge, let’s overlook that little glitch and turn over this ridiculous, delay-tactic-employing Defendant’s home to me.”

G-D help us! It works like a charm 90% of the time due to acomplete lack of answer, defense, or response to the foreclosure lawsuit.

The prevailing thought in Foreclosure Mill world is, “Hey, it sure is worth a shot! Almost assuredly, we’ll get our grubby hands on that house and toss that family out on the streets.”

In your case though, you can remind the Stealth Plaintiff that there is that pesky Florida Statute § 673.3091, which does provide for re-establishment of a lost note BUT only under strict requirements.

673.3091 Enforcement of lost, destroyed, or stolen instrument.–

(1) A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if:

(a) The person seeking to enforce the instrument was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred, or has directly or indirectly acquired ownership of the instrument from a person who was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred;

(b) The loss of possession was not the result of a transfer by the person or a lawful seizure; and

(c) The person cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process.

(2) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (1) must prove the terms of the instrument and the person’s right to enforce the instrument. If that proof is made, s. 673.3081 applies to the case as if the person seeking enforcement had produced the instrument. The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument. Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means.

Lisa E.
ForeclosureHamlet @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)

Disclaimer: I’m not an attorney. This is not legal advice.
ALLAN (introducing LEWIE RANIERI the man who coined 'securitization', pioneered MBSs and now wants to make amends for inventing " the biggest floating craps game of all time") OBAMA & CONGRESS TAKE NOTICE!!!, on December 17th, 2009 at 1:18 am Said:

FROM: http://money.cnn.com.

LEWIE RANIERI WANTS TO FIX THE MORTGAGE MESS

Lounging in his giant conference room in an otherwise bland office suite near Long Island’s Nassau Coliseum, Lewis Ranieri cultivates the image of a worldly philosopher. The 62-year-old financier prides himself on being a big thinker who conjures elegant solutions to epic problems.

And the evidence of his searching intellect is spread all over this room, which doubles as a sort of museum for his collection of precious relics. Framed mid-19th-century letters from poets Robert Browning and Alfred, Lord Tennyson, hang on the walls, three Remington statues rest on pedestals, and a marble bust of Benjamin Franklin sits in the corner.

But the most space by far is devoted to the figure Ranieri calls his greatest hero — Abraham Lincoln. On display are a dozen items of rare Lincoln memorabilia, including a bronze likeness of the Great Emancipator, his handwritten letter naming Gen. Ulysses S. Grant as the commander of the Union army, and even a debt-collection notice to Lincoln from a Charleston cotton merchant.

Okay, it’s a stretch to connect the earthy Brooklyn-born private equity investor and powerboat enthusiast to the giant who freed the slaves. Still, Ranieri clearly draws inspiration from his idol. And in his own way he’s trying to do his patriotic duty. THE PROBLEM THAT RANIERI IS NOW ADDRESSING IS THE NO. 1 ROADBLOCK TO AMERICA’S ECONOMIC RECOVERY: THE MORTGAGE CRISIS.

To solve it, Ranieri is combining what he describes as a Lincolnesque dedication to helping the little guy with a technical expertise honed handling home loans “since the beginning of the world.”

“Lincoln spent nights concocting ways to pardon soldiers and perform good deeds for widows,” intones Ranieri, clad this day in pink shirt and chinos, with a BlackBerry holstered to his hip. “I’m willing to do what the banks and government won’t — the manual labor to help struggling homeowners. It’s cathartic for me.”

Many readers, especially younger ones, may not remember Ranieri. Put simply, “Lewie” (as he has long been known to friends and colleagues) WAS ARGUABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT FIGURE IN THE CREATION OF THE MODERN MORTGAGE INDUSTRY THAT HE NOW SEEKS TO REPAIR.

At Salomon Brothers in the 1980s, Ranieri virtually invented mortgage-backed securities, the innovation that more than any other led to the explosive growth in homeownership by expanding the pool of money available for lending to buyers. As the head of the mortgage desk, Ranieri assembled a storied band of overweight, uncouth traders whose exploits were immortalized in Michael Lewis’s book “LIAR’S POKER.”

Since his Salomon days, Ranieri has largely shunned the limelight while pursuing a variety of ventures in the mortgage business. At least until recently, when America’s real-estate-based prosperity crumbled and he went from being venerated as a legendary pioneer to being vilified for fathering the multitrillion-dollar market that went stark raving mad and sank the economy along with it.

Now Ranieri is championing an inventive solution for fixing the mess he’s accused of enabling in the first place. Ranieri has raised $825 million from 31 foundations and corporate and public pension funds, including the South Carolina Retirement Systems, to form the Selene Residential Mortgage Opportunity Fund.

Selene’s mission is simple: to buy delinquent mortgages at a deep discount, work with homeowners to get them paying again, and resell the now stable loans for profit. To get homeowners to do their part, Ranieri is taking the radical step of substantially lowering their mortgage balances.

For the Rodriguez family of Chicago, for example, that meant cutting the value of their loan by $160,000. To Ranieri, THIS WILLINGNESS TO SLASH THE LOAN BALANCE ITSELF RATHER THAN JUST TEMPORARILY LOWER INTEREST PAYMENTS IS THE BIG IDEA, THE ESSENTIAL SOLUTION THE BANKS AND GOVERNMENT ARE MISSING. He sees his approach as a model for stemming the tide of foreclosures that is plaguing the housing market.

It’s not just theory. Ranieri is also doing the “manual labor,” enlisting a handpicked team of workout specialists who bill themselves as “servicers with a soul” and behave more like sunny salespeople than bill collectors.

The members of his team act as credit counselors, advising spendthrift borrowers to sell a second car or to change the weekly dinners at Outback Steakhouse to monthly. SELENE WILL EVEN PAY OFF THEIR CREDIT CARD BALANCES OR FIX THE GARAGE IF IT HELPS THEM PAY THE MORTGAGE AND KEEP THEIR HOUSE.

Ranieri claims that part of his motive for forming Selene is to atone for launching the securitization juggernaut that spun out of control. “I do feel guilty,” he confesses. “I wasn’t out to invent the biggest floating craps game of all time, but that’s what happened.”

It wasn’t the concept of securitization that created the problem, argues Ranieri. Rather, he blames Wall Street for blatantly misusing his brainchild to construct an immense bazaar for “affordability products” that homeowners really couldn’t afford, including loans with low so-called teaser rates that became onerous when they reset.

“This isn’t checkers,” he says. “These are real people losing their homes. I feel a responsibility for dealing with it in a way that’s up close and personal.”

The venture isn’t all log-cabin idealism, of course. Ranieri loves a buck, and he’s found a vehicle to generate strong returns for himself and his investors. He also doesn’t harbor any illusions that his relatively small fund alone can make an impact on the vast U.S. real estate market. But what counts is the effectiveness of his formula, and whether that formula could prove a template for America’s lenders to forestall the dangerous wave in foreclosures. Right now, Ranieri’s method appears to be working. In fact, IT COULD BE THE BEST SOLUTION YET FOR KEEPING MILLIONS OF STRAPPED HOMEOWNERS IN THEIR HOUSES.

A NEW SOLUTION FOR AN HISTORIC RECESSION

Why is Ranieri’s approach so promising? The answer is that it addresses head-on both of the major reasons why millions of Americans are defaulting on their home loans. The first is that they simply can’t afford the payments, generally because the family borrowed too much and then suffered a big loss of income in today’s withering recession.

But that’s only half the story. The second reason for the surge in defaults is that a large and fast-growing slice of America’s homeowners are stuck with “upside down” mortgages that are far higher than the value of their homes.

What makes this housing crisis so different from past shocks is the enormous price declines that pushed down the value of houses by as much as 40% and 50% in bubble markets from Florida to Nevada to California. Those staggering drops have left about one mortgage in four “underwater,” according to First American CoreLogic. In Nevada, Florida, and Arizona, the average underwater house is worth 30% to 40% less than the mortgage balance. Faced with such long odds against ever breaking even on their investment, many homeowners simply walk away.

That phenomenon is adding immensely to the historic scope of the foreclosure problem. Today an astounding 4.2 million home loans — one out of every 12 in America — are either delinquent or in the process of foreclosure, according to Moody’s Economy.com. That’s three times the total from three years ago, and the highest number since comparable data became widely available starting in 1979.

MOST LOAN MODIFICATIONS DON’T ADDRESS THIS ISSUE OF NEGATIVE EQUITY. As a result, they fail to keep people in their houses for more than a few months. The programs — including those for most large banks, and for loans guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac or owned by the FDIC — typically lower interest rates for a few years so that homeowners can afford the payments temporarily.

But the default rates on these modifications are now averaging around 50% after six to nine months, demonstrating that the one-track approach of lowering payments isn’t a durable solution.

“The redefaults on loans that are modified without lowering principal will just keep growing,” says Edward Pinto, chief credit officer with Fannie Mae in the late ’80s and now an industry consultant. “The only way to slow foreclosures is to tackle the negative-equity issue.”

Ranieri believes, with good reason, that borrowers will keep paying only if their restructured mortgages both are affordable and give the borrower a new equity cushion. “Positive equity is the most important factor in getting people to pay again,” says Ranieri. “If they’re far upside down, they think their house will never be worth more than their mortgage, so they act like renters. They’re not about to enrich the bank by fixing the boiler.”

The tonic of positive equity plus Selene’s personal touch produces remarkable results. According to Ranieri, just 7% of Selene’s restructured loans redefault by the six-month mark, a crucial yardstick to determine if they’ll keep paying. So far Selene has invested about half its $825 million war chest, and Fortune estimates that it is delivering a consistent return of between 10% and 12% — good numbers in a world where 10-year Treasuries yield 3.4%.

Small wonder that other investors are jumping into the game. Hedge fund Fortress Investment Group and famed distressed-assets buyer Wilbur Ross are among those on Wall Street who have recently begun buying mortgages cheap and writing down principal.

“If you give them equity, borrowers will start paying again and defend their houses, not damage them,” says CEO Jeff Kaplan of National Asset Direct, a company whose affiliates have so far acquired more than $200 million in delinquent home loans.

From college drop-out to creating securitization

Wall Street has seldom seen a more unlikely success story than Lewie Ranieri’s, or one more full of Rabelaisian excess. Ranieri grew up in a three-story building in Brooklyn; his grandfather’s bakery occupied the street level, and Ranieri, his brother, and seven cousins squeezed into the top-floor apartment.

After his father, a Navy scientist, died from handling toxic chemicals, Ranieri went to work at his uncle’s Italian restaurant in Great Neck, Long Island. The commute was so long that Ranieri, at age 15, enrolled in the Great Neck high school. Ranieri cooked lasagna and gnocchi until the early morning hours, then rushed home to an apartment he shared with his co-chefs from Italy and Argentina, returning to Brooklyn, and his mother, only on weekends.

At age 18, Ranieri dropped out of college to work full-time in the Salomon Bros. mailroom. Over time Ranieri rose from designing computer systems to pioneering “securitization,” a term he actually coined.

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

Isn’t this the OBVIOUS solution to get us out of the worsening foreclosure crisis? HELP THOSE WHO ARE ‘UNDERWATER’! Listen up WASHINGTON and WALL STREET!!! Here’s somebody making money off it, AND he ‘knows’ the business!.

ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
Deontos, on December 17th, 2009 at 1:00 am Said:

FDIC OKs Delay of FAS 166, 167 Effect on Capital
By DIANA GOLOBAY
December 16, 2009 9:58 AM CST

The board of directors at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. on Wednesday finalized a new capital rule that addresses industry concerns raised by Financial Accounting Standards (FAS) 166 and 167. FAS 166 and 167, which take effect in January, will require financial institutions to bring certain securitized assets onto balance sheets.

The industry for months has said these accounting changes will adversely affect institutions’ ability to securitize, as risk-based capital requirements would force these firms to allocate a substantial amount of capital essentially overnight. In her monthly Kitchen Sink column for the January issue of HousingWire magazine, Linda Lowell gives a review of regulatory issues raised by 166 and 167 and other unforeseen consequences of the rule change.

In it, Lowell comments: “The proposed rule also would expand regulators’ authority to require banks to include in risk based capital (RBC), commensurate with the actual risk relationship, the assets of SPEs and VIEs that they sponsored but do not have to consolidate under GAAP.”

“Clearly regulators are certain that FAS 167 might not return a securitization to its sponsor’s balance sheet,” Lowell adds. “They also recognized that future securitizations could specifically be designed to evade consolidation.” The FDIC answered the industry’s calls for capital relief Wednesday with the final rule, which provides an optional delay and phase-in for up to one year for the effect on risk-based capital and the allowance for lease and loan losses related to assets affected by FAS 166 and 167.

Lowell notes that proposed RBC rules asked for industry feedback on the possibility of capital relief in the form of phasing in the requirements. Given the magnitude of potential new capital needed, commenters requested a six month moratorium on application of the rule followed by a three-year phase in period.

“I believe this rule moves in the right direction and will reduce the likelihood of a recurrence of some of the problems we have experienced in the financial and securitization markets,” said FDIC chairman Sheila Bair in a statement.

“The capital relief we are offering banks for the transition period should ease the impact of this accounting change on banks’ regulatory capital requirements, and enable banks to maintain consumer lending and credit availability as they adjust their business practices to the new accounting rules.” The final rule — designed to “better align regulatory capital requirements with the actual risks of certain exposures” — also eliminates the risk-based capital exemption for asset-backed commercial paper assets, the FDIC said in a statement. FDIC said the transitional relief does not apply to the leverage ratio or to assets in conduits to which a bank provides implicit support.

The final rule comes after the FDIC on Tuesday approved an advance notice of proposed rule-making regarding safe harbor protection of institutions’ assets being transferred for securitization.
hilary g, on December 16th, 2009 at 8:59 pm Said:

Mr. Dost,
I am praying for you and your wife, even as I tread a path similar to yours. Do not let the anger eat you alive, tamp it like coals in a fireplace and use it for energy in the fight. I hope an attorney comes forward to help you, but be very careful as they can be as bad or worse than the banksters.
Luis, on December 16th, 2009 at 6:46 pm Said:

Is this a joke??

Plaintiff failed to respond to request for production of documents, then failed to respond to order to compel production, then, in proceedings where I asked for sanctions and dismissal, the judge gave plaintiff 15 days to produce (I have been trying to get plaintiff to produce for almost a year) and ordered plaintiff to show up at next hearing (Plaintiff has failed to show up at the previous hearings and for some reason it has not resulted in automatic default. I know that If I don’t show up, then It would be automatic default).

Here is the plaintiff’s response to the request to produce:

“1. Plaintiff does not have the original Note and has sought re-establishment of the same in its complaint.”
Ken Dost, on December 16th, 2009 at 5:08 pm Said:

I am preparing a pro se lawsuit in the state of Oregon to not only win clear title to my home, but to also recover damages as well. I realize and recognize it repeated often within this site to make it simple and not to present oneself in a manner that a judge may perceive the person in trying to pull a fast one and evade the obligation debt. Certainly, this is a risk, one I am willing to assume due to the circumstances that led us into a subprime loan. I am undecided as to whether I am going to include this within my lawsuit, or whether even I can. As I am in a position in which I am unable to rub 2 nickels together to make a dollar, my road to justice is pro se. Legal aid is unavailable us, because although I am currently unemployed, my wife thankfully is not. I have great respect and trust for the people that participate on this site, therefore I welcome any and all comments and advice.

Late in 2001 my wife and I decided to refinance and consolidate our first mortgage of $240,000, held by WAMU with a $45,000 second that was held by US Bank. Our decision to move forward with US Bank has proved many times over, as being not a good one. To fully put to paper, or to blog as the case may be is an exhaustive and frustrating exercise and to the degree of anger I still feel for US Bank is not healthy for my blood pressure. However, should somebody recognize a viable course of action and offer advice, I will certainly expound on the details.

US Bank misled us for weeks making untrue and false assertions as to status of loan processing. Promises were repeatedly made verbally but never followed through in a manner which documented many of those promises. First, there were difficulties retaining an appraiser that held the extended qualifications and license to perform an appraisal on properties deemed as an ‘estate’, which in our case was not the house per se, rather its resting on a 5 acre parcel. That was understandable, but the report retreated behind the curtain and into the shadows, all the while the gatekeeper, loan officer, keep us entertained and keeping us on the hook, which we foolishly did trusting her words as truth.

That last month she instructed us not pay the mortgage to Wamu for one reason or other was not necessary because of rollover into the new or some bullshit that we stupidly chose heed that advice. Her assurances did not come to fruition and we rolled past the 30 day late mark, yet she still insisted not to worry. The morning of closing, we received a call and for the first time discovered the truth that was being concealed us all along.

The first item was a new condition before final approval, and included actions that were unreasonable and ludicrous. Apparently, US Bank had ordered a field review, which is not uncommon but equally was unbeknownst and undisclosed to us. He changed the comps to homes that were not even in the area and as we later discovered made notation that the current dirt floored daylight basement would be boost value 100k should it have a slab.

This was the condition that was brought to the table at the last possible second, months after we began, what was told us was would be a 30-45 day refinance period. Of course there was no way that we were going to comply with what they referred to as a ‘deferred maintenance’ item. Although, I designed the house and made us of the existing grade so that there could be future expansion, it was nonetheless not represented as such on the plans and therefore not permitted. This was an unreasonable demand and we were forced to walk away.

More disturbing though was their concealment of material facts that nullified a decision that was ours to make, choosing to make it for us instead. US Bank determined us a risk because of my being self-employed even though I had been for 7 years and consistent in my earnings, all well documented and included with the loan apps. They sent it out of house and shopped it finally settling on Greenpoint, this none of which we were made aware prior to this morning. The gatekeeper told us that US Bank policy is to what is necessary to keep people on the hook, encouragement to lie.

This is covers but only a fraction of what happened and what we were to discover. The climate at that time, economically, politically, socially, and judicially was not at all receptive to our claims of righting serious injustices. The state of Oregon and all its associated agencies excused themselves from action, deferring us to the OCC because US Bank is a federally regulated bank. They were as useless as two tits on a bull, and were completely unsympathetic our complaint and noncompliant with their own protocol in the handling of our complaint, admittedly so. That admission was later, of course denied during a Senatorial inquiry that was made on our behalf.

Suddenly, we found our nice settled world collapsing in a shit storm around us, just beginning to realize the full impact of our misplaced trust in US Bank. The question of culpability is one to this day I demand to have answers to, because the ones I have are not at all ethically or morally correct. We could find no bank willing to lend to us given just that one 30 day late pay on the Wamu mortgage, does not matter the circumstances or who had what conversation with whom, it is material fact of being late.
My idealistic virginity in truth and justice was shattered and I came to learn that screwing the little guy by hijacking the free market enterprise system by stuffing the Congrassholes pockets and instituting bureaucratic and market controls …….is the American Way.

I am not one to give up and kept after US Bank, not one attorney would lift a finger in aid to us, some arrogantly admonishing us for even having the nerve and others fearful of going up against them, the easing of which was what we did not have: money.

That late pay again bit us in the ass, as we discovered as our vehicle leases reached expiration a couple of months afterwards. The relationship with the leasing agent was great, contacting us month prior and setting up what vehicles we wished as our next leases. The niceties of turning in the keys of one vehicle, spending a few minutes signing off on a new lease, and being on our way in the matter of an hour is gone. At that point, in that space of time and for the next determinable months to come, whatever that time frame may be, we were not creditworthy.

This is the hook and crook crap that consumer credit reporting and lending colludes on that begins the process of entrapping the good people of America into a life of debt slavery. People do not put their lives on hold while their credit heals, life has to proceed and life for most people, demands that they have vehicles. In our case, we were forced to sacrifice for vehicles of lesser quality, and as infuriating as that is, worse is the advantage by which lenders take to capitalize on your bad credit mark in the interest rate they get away with.

It may appear that I am getting off topic here, but I am really not, it sets up a larger picture that no one is talking about in this whole subprime mess. Well I am, because this is one more devious evil that slithers its way along the ground, seeking out those it can take to its underbelly. We could not qualify for new vehicles because the interest we were hit with was 23% for my wife’s and 28% for mine…..a fucking outrage and as it ended up we were now maxed out on our debt to income ratio.

My most disliked personality types are those that call such consumer actions that stretch debt to income ratios to the max as being irresponsible, or what is one that drives me nuts the most……Oh yea, people living beyond their means. Father, slap the crap out of them for they have not a clue of what they speak of. They are the enablers perpetuating the financial sectors illusion of age old stigmas associated with debt, ideals that have long since faded with the advent and creation of consumer credit.
To move this along faster, we ended up finally striking a deal with the President of Consumer Finance of US Bank, after nearly a year of bitching to anyone or anybody who would listen. I think they became nervous that sooner or later someone would take notice that I was not a rambling lunatic and look into their operations. They offered up what I have to admit was a fantastic deal of a mortgage, although it did little for providing relief, given what they had caused. The acceptance though was conditional upon placing our signatures on a composed waiver that in essence says that we terminate all action now and in the future against them, including shutting my mouth…..which I will never do.
At closing, we signed but added some text of our, the reaction of which was not at all well received. You see, we are in Oregon and Chucky Moore, the President of Consumer Finance that I had mentioned above is located in Ohio, and he had specific instructions for the title company. Closing was to commence only after we signed the waiver, which she was instructed to fax directly to his home the minute we left the building after completed. It was a evening close, wrapping up well after 9 in the evening here, midnight back there. Picture some wealthy asshole in a red cashmere robe sitting in his posh home office, fire blazing and smoking a stogie, all eyes fixated on his fax machine….ring ring ….hurry up and ring…….
Apparently, we was a bit perturbed upon its receipt and was screaming up a storm threatening all sorts of actions against Ticor Title, demanding that the gal handling our close be fired. We ended up signing a clean copy, but no one can tell me that we did not have this guy very nervous and certainly something to hide that concerned him deeply.
Part of the deal in that close was to disburse funds to the insurance premium which just happened to be due around within a few days of closing. They failed to make that payment, and only did so after I was informed a month later that the obligation had not met. A few months later our home was invaded and removed from it was a very expensive acoustic guitar and an amplifier, to which we made claim on. As it came upon the next year and a new premium due, we received a letter from State Farm informing us that were not to be renewed and cancelled from the policy, but that the open claim would still be settled.
I was astonished that US Bank refused to come forward in our defense, as a matter they ignored our requests and were completely unresponsive. State Farm would not accept our explanation by itself and stood firm by their decision. 6 years we had paid into State Farm and was never late with this one exception and never a claim but the one that was still open. The state of Oregon claimed no regulatory authority over the insurance companies in matters of this nature, giving insurance companies free reign to set people up.
Similar to consumer credit reporting, the damage is far reaching and life altering. To be terminated from an insurance company results in higher premiums when going elsewhere, but having any claims that are under one year old makes a person uninsurable. The irony here is that to remove or make attempts to remove an open claim subjects ME to charges of fraud, can you believe that.
You all know what is coming next………forced in place insurance… 488 per month, courtesy of our friends over at US Bank. If this is not an obvious setup for foreclosure in which actionable claims are unable to stick, than I do not know what is. It was not long before we found ourselves in huge trouble, unable to meet those extra costs and having many payments sitting in suspense, the insurance and penalties being drawn from first. This goes beyond despicable as far as I am concerned.
Fortunately, we accepted by the states insurance plan named Oregon Fair Plan in which premiums are in line with conventional insurances, but in coverage lacks personal items and possessions. Unfortunately, the maximum coverage is 300,000 and our principal amount was 315,000, and US Bank declined to accept the difference. It was at this point that we learned of subprime lending and the only way that we would be able to retain our home from the clutches of US Bank was to refinance and get the hell out of there.
I did not like it, and did not want it, but what do you do lay down and die and accept the fact that you have screwed, glued and tattooed. A person can only fight for so long, but I was damned if I was going to accept losing everything to those bastards. Subprime, at least as it was pitched to me was a means by which to find our way back into prime. We had already been raped several times over, a little numb by now it, what is the harm of going 3 years with interest only, if it provides the means to a good end. Then again, a good end should have been brought about a long time prior, given triggers that provided effective consumer protection.
We financed 315,000 with US Bank with a conventional loan memorialized 11/2003 and the payout amount to escape them in 5/2005 cost us 329,000. Go ahead tell me there is nothing wrong with that….once again raped.
The interesting part of all of this is that it was originally set at 323,000 but the day after we closed with the subprime, US Bank came back with this additional amount, collecting the balance for the remainder of the forced in place policy, plus penalties and fees for essentially cancelling it by refinancing. Unbelievable.
We did not have 6 grand to pay out, and we were not really taking any money out of the refinancing, because everyone else was taking and taking, only increasing what we owe. US Bank refused to release the title until they received all the monies they felt due, holding an already done deal hostage, which set off a series of events that left me scratching my head.
Spartan Mortgage, the broker, drew up a security agreement for a loan in the amount of 6,600 cut to a check from Killion Enterprises dba Spartan Mortgage. After signing the agreement we got into his Jaguar and drove to the local US Bank branch to cash it and have it wired back to Ohio for immediate posting thereby releasing the title. We then waited a few days to have all the paperwork redrawn again to include an additional 6,600 dollars, but ended up agreeing to rounding up an additional 5,000 to a total of 350,000 dollars. In the final step we had to go to the title company and resign all the documents again, and not even thinking about any of it at the time, signed many of the documents in blank.
So people, here is the deal……I have formulated the basis for my case based on the wonderful work that Neil has done here, but I want to go further, I have to go further…..damages and all. We have endured 8 years of banking abuse and treachery. We have compromised ourselves in ways that under ordinary circumstances we would never have done. We have had our credit destroyed, my 25 career in Architecture came to abrupt end during one week in August 2007. People think that the collapse came a year later, wrong…..The first to feel the pinches in down economies is the design and development community, and it is the last to recover.
I am, for all practical purposes reaching the end of my limit, relegated to a person I know no longer know, one that has spent the last two years researching and understanding how corrupted this country is and one that sees very little future ahead. I have 3 things that I need to achieve, that I have to achieve because nothing else can be taken from me. I am not so concerned the home itself, because it has become my prison, but it is my stand.
1. My home, free and clear
2. Credit restoration
3. Damages
There are issues of MER’s and standing which I have well in hand, but there is aspects as I laid out here that go beyond and prior to the subprime. Neil is correct in saying that there is a field that attorneys are ignoring, one which can yield large judgments and in turn large fees. I can not find an attorney in the state of Oregon that gives the MERs argument any weight, yet alone what lay beyond…….I HAVE A CASE IN WHICH I AM SEEKING A LAWYER, ONE THAT TAKES IT ON MERIT FOR FUTURE FEES UPON WINNING……

503-543-3642
Lisa E, on December 16th, 2009 at 3:57 pm Said:

Considering it came down to Ben Bernanke and R.J. Arnold (founder & CEO of MERS)………..

I’m STILL SHOCKED!

Nah……….could it be that the choice was influenced (or fixed even) by “outside influences”?

I formally dissent and declare: The Person of the Year is our very own Neil Garfield!

We’ll have to work tirelessly to assure that next year will yield a most opposite result.

Lisa E
ForeclosureHamlet @ gmail . org (remove spaces to email)
Foreclosure Fraud, on December 16th, 2009 at 1:16 pm Said:

Ron Paul: “Ben Bernanke is the most powerful man in the world because he controls the supply of money, which is the dollar, which is the reserve currency of the world. He can create a trillion dollar in secret without any monitoring by the Congress. So there’s no transparency and I think he is more powerful than the President.

The big question is, has he used that power for good, or for evil? And of course, my side of the argument is, the system is evil, and the chairman, whether it’s Greenspan or Bernanke, they can do no good. They cause our troubles, they cause the inflation, they cause the bubbles. And therefore the bust, the correction, is always their fault.”

4closureFraud
Foreclosure Fraud, on December 16th, 2009 at 12:09 pm Said:

Here’s the cover…

http://bit.ly/Time-Cover-Bernanke

4closureFraud
Abby in CA, on December 16th, 2009 at 11:53 am Said:

I’m Going to Vomit!! Bernanke and the cover is ugly and makes him look like the ‘God of Money’….ewwwww

Steve Jobs should have been the only one considered for that cover!!
Deontos, on December 16th, 2009 at 11:48 am Said:

ForeclosureFraud

I CAN’T BELIEVE THEY GAVE
“Man Of The Year” TO BERNANKE.

I told the selection committee
REPEATEDLY that YOU were
the OBVIOUS choice.

I don’t think they are listening to
any of us.
Foreclosure Fraud, on December 16th, 2009 at 11:40 am Said:

Now I have seen everything…

Time’s Person of the Year

4closureFraud
Jeff, on December 15th, 2009 at 3:31 pm Said:

Goldman faces lawsuit over anticipated bonuses
NEW YORK
Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:20pm EST
NEW YORK (Reuters) – Goldman Sachs Group Inc is being sued by an institutional investor who claims the firm is preparing to pay out improper bonuses.

The lawsuit, filed with the New York Supreme Court by the Security Police and Fire Professionals of America Retirement Fund, names chief executive Lloyd Blankfein and other executives and board members as defendants.

Goldman has faced a maelstrom of criticism for setting aside billions for year-end payouts soon after the firm paid back its $10 billion taxpayer bailout.

Goldman is accused in the lawsuit of “blindly” rewarding executives “for corporate performance that has absolutely nothing to do with the skill of the company’s employees.” The lawsuit states that Goldman is estimated to issue payouts in excess of $22 billion.

Goldman spokesman Lucas van Praag said the lawsuit is “completely without merit.”

Wall Street’s dominant firm, which repaid its federal bailout of $10 billion in June, announced last week that its top 30 executives would forgo cash bonuses and receive them entirely in restricted stock.

The lawsuit seeks to recover “billions in compensation” that Goldman has paid or plans to pay employees
marcus, on December 15th, 2009 at 1:38 pm Said:

Hello “Help”,
You may be getting to Deposition too soon. Have you gotten answer to your Interrogatories and gotten all the documents in discovery? Deposition should be your last step in the discovery phase.
At what stage of the lawsuit are you in now?

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
marcus, on December 15th, 2009 at 1:35 pm Said:

Judge considers Restricting Wells Fargo Lawsuit
Source: AP

BALTIMORE – Dec. 15, 2009 – A federal judge suggested Monday that he might restrict the scope of a first-of-its kind lawsuit filed by the city of Baltimore against mortgage giant Wells Fargo Bank N.A.

The city accuses Wells Fargo of engaging in illegal “reverse redlining” – targeting black neighborhoods for bad loans that resulted in mass foreclosures. The resulting drain on city services cost tens of millions of dollars, the lawsuit alleges.

Lawyers for Wells Fargo filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in September, arguing that the city lacked standing to file the complaint. Baltimore was the first municipality to sue a lender in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis. Similar lawsuits were later filed in Cleveland and Birmingham, Ala., but federal judges have dismissed those complaints.

During a hearing Monday on the motion to dismiss, U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz described the condition of Baltimore’s impoverished, predominantly black neighborhoods as “shocking, disturbing, despicable.” But he suggested it was implausible to hold Wells Fargo responsible for “the deterioration of the inner city.”

Baltimore has an estimated 30,000 vacant properties, but attorneys for the city have found about 150 homes that were vacant as a result of foreclosures by Wells Fargo. Motz said he would consider limiting the damages sought by the city to the costs of dealing with those properties.

“The general damages, I have problems with,” Motz said. “If in fact the case needs to be cut down, I’ll cut it down.”

Motz did not indicate when he would rule on the motion.

John P. Relman, an attorney for the city, said it was the city’s burden to show the widespread drain on property tax revenues caused by Wells Fargo’s “illegal activity” and that it would be inappropriate to limit the lawsuit at this stage.

“If they did something illegal, which reverse redlining is,” Relman said, “it’s plausible that they are responsible for the consequences of their conduct.”

To bolster its claims, the city has submitted sworn statements from two former Wells Fargo loan officers, who said bank employees targeted predominantly black ZIP codes for subprime loans that were referred to as “ghetto loans.” The lawsuits filed against lenders by other cities did not offer such specific evidence, Relman said.

Wells Fargo attorney Andrew L. Sandler said Wells Fargo would prove at trial “that these disgruntled ex-employees offered false evidence.” But the lawsuit should be thrown out even under the assumption that the employees’ statements are true, he said.

The city’s attorneys are “trying to take a set of problems that the city of Baltimore needs to deal with and blame them on one particular lender,” Sandler said.
Foreclosure Fraud, on December 15th, 2009 at 11:46 am Said:

It’s about damn time to hear this sort of thing on mainstream TV.

Dylan Ratigan Reams Ed Perlmutter about derivatives and windfall state support to the banks.

http://bit.ly/6qnoF2

4closureFraud
Remembering Economist Paul Samuelson « Livinglies’s Weblog, on December 15th, 2009 at 11:12 am Said:

[...] Remembering Economist Paul Samuelson Posted on December 15, 2009 by livinglies Submitted on 2009/12/15 at 1:14am [...]
help, on December 15th, 2009 at 10:20 am Said:

DEOPOSITIONS- I jsut priced a days of depositions, wow $1400 for a court reporter.

Any suggestions on how to not have a court reporter and save money for depositions? this foreclosure is in floirda?
angry & NOT TAKING IT!, on December 15th, 2009 at 9:59 am Said:

Allan Hennessey

if you supply a brief explanation re ” correcting public records”
it will be a huge service here for all.
i have left a few messages for you@ your # but to no avail..
thank you !
Jeff, on December 15th, 2009 at 9:14 am Said:

WCBS NEWS LAST NIGHT NEW YORK

Bankruptcy Becoming Full Mortgage Refund For Some

Comments Dec 14, 2009 8:34 pm US/Eastern Bankruptcy Becoming Full Mortgage Refund For Some
Bank Foreclosure Filings Often Missing Paperwork Or Including Fraudulent Claims; Mortgages Getting Thrown Out Reporting
Kirstin Cole NEW YORK (CBS) ― Click to enlarge1 of 1
AP

Close

With skyrocketing foreclosure rates across the nation, homeowners have felt powerless to stop big banks from taking over. Many are turning to bankruptcy to try to save their homes.

Those dreaded legal proceedings are leading to free homes for some.

“We were terrified,” homeowner Siwanna Green said. “We didn’t know what to do.”

Green is talking about the day last spring that she found out her 3-bedroom Harlem apartment was going into foreclosure – not from the bank, but from a notice in fine print in the newspaper.

“I tried to negotiate with the bank, and they wouldn’t give me any information,” Green said. “I keep hearing my apartment is going to be sold, and they kept saying, ‘call back, call back.’”

It’s the story of many families, but this one may have a nearly fairytale ending since the Greens could get their apartment for free. After being forced into bankruptcy, Green’s lawyer David Shaev dug through reams of paperwork to find the bank that says they own the Green home doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on.

“They cant prove they have ownership of the mortgage or the note, and they’re filing basically are bogus claims,” Shaev said.

These cases are far from isolated. Just a handful of attorneys are finding these foreclosure filings are either missing paperwork or fraudulent, meaning the bank doesn’t have claim to the home and the mortgage just disappears.

Judges are now ruling that those mortgages be written off. A Patchogue family had their nearly $300,000 mortgage wiped out, and a Cortlandt Manor homeowner just had her $460,000 mortgage thrown out.

In a scathing court hearing the judge declared the mortgage company had a “lack of evidence” to prove they owned the home.

“The judges are very aware and catching on that the documents presented by these banks are not valid,” Shaev said.

Shaev and fellow attorneys estimate there could be $1.1 trillion worth of similar mortgage mix-ups.

“If you want to take my client’s house away, you better at least prove you have the right to,” Shaev said.

A lack of that proof could lead to a very Merry Christmas for some.

While these homeowners can live in their houses free and clear, selling it is another matter since the title is in question. Those battles are currently being fought in court as well
ALLAN (with a sad farewell to Nobel economist Paul Samuelson a giant in financial engineering), on December 15th, 2009 at 1:14 am Said:

IN MEMORIAM — December 13, 2009
Remembering Economist Paul Samuelson

By: Murrey Jacobson

Update: You can read economics correspondent Paul Solman’s reflections on Samuelson’s life and work here on Making Sen$e.

The world lost one of the giants in modern economics Sunday when Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson died at his home in Belmont, Mass., at the age of 94.

Samuelson became the first American to win a Nobel Prize in economics in 1970 for his pivotal work in bringing mathematical analysis to economics. But Samuelson was known for much more than that: A well-known liberal, Samuelson was an economist who was influential in both the academic world and the real world. He advised and influenced Democrats, including President John F. Kennedy; he helped spread the ideas of Keynesian economics and the notion of government spending and tax cuts when required; his textbook was read by millions of college students; and it could be argued that along with Milton Friedman and John Kenneth Galbraith, he was one of the most influential economists of his generation.

He once told an interviewer that he aimed to make economics “enjoyable and understandable.” That was true of his seminal textbook, which has sold more than 4 million copies. And it was true of his wide-ranging work over eight decades, his theories analyzing everything from the fluctuation of markets and of business cycles to the impact of trade to the idea of public goods — goods or services that could only be provided by the government or a collective action.

In awarding him the Nobel in 1970, the committee wrote, “More than any other contemporary economist, he has contributed to raising the general analytical and methodological level in economic science…He has in fact simply rewritten considerable parts of economic theory.”

His mathematical analysis had a huge impact. Robert Lucas, the Nobel Prize winning economist at the University of Chicago, put it this way in his memoir, “I came to the position that mathematical analysis is not one of many ways of doing economic theory: It is the only way. Economic theory is mathematical analysis. Everything else is just pictures and talk.”

Our economics correspondent Paul Solman knew Samuelson and interviewed him at MIT many times over the years. When I spoke with Paul earlier today, he recalled how Samuelson continued to work in recent years and how he “was still so sharp, sharp as a tack” when they talked this year.

Paul will provide his own remembrance of Samuelson on his Making Sen$e site tomorrow. For the moment, his most recent interview with Samuelson last year is well worth your time and gives you some feeling for the intellectual vitality that Samuelson displayed well into his nineties. They discussed what led to the financial crisis of 2008.

More tributes will continue in the days ahead, but here’s a small sampling of statements made today:

Larry Summers, the head of President Obama’s National Economic Council and a nephew of Samuelson’s, said: “Above all else, Paul Samuelson was a scholar. He used to proudly remark that he had never spent a full week in Washington. But through his research, teaching, and writing he had more impact on the economic life of this country and the world than any government economic official and many presidents. We will not see his likes again.”

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke studied at MIT and was once a student of Samuelson’s. He called him a “path-breaking and prolific economic theorist and one of the greatest teachers that economics has ever known.”

And Paul Krugman, who won the Nobel in 2008, wrote on his blog today: “Its hard to convey the full extent of Samuelson’s greatness. Most economists would love to have written even one seminal paper – a paper that fundamentally changes the way people think about some issue. Samuelson wrote dozens.”

Both Chairman Bernanke and Krugman gave one other tribute: They both noted that they keep Samuelson’s textbook in their offices. Krugman even posted a picture of it.

This is all just a small summary of the man’s accomplishments. The New York Times has a much fuller appreciation of Samuelson up on its Web site, which is worth a look.

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

Samuelson was deeply aware he, as a kind of Doctor Frankenstein, may have helped create financial engineering monsters on Wall Street in the form of derivatives, credit default swaps and the like. He traces Wall Street’s current demise to excesses that began with the 1980s.

ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
Deontos, on December 14th, 2009 at 10:11 pm Said:

Don’t read this unless you are BORED and have some spare time.
—————————————————————————————

How To Make The World’s Easiest $1 Billion

With all the banks paying back the TARP money, some
folks are assuming that the great Wall Street bailout is
finally coming to an end.
But of course it isn’t!

Taxpayers are still guaranteeing all big bank bonds (Too Big To
Fail) and subsidizing huge bank earnings and bonuses with
absurdly low interest rates.

But instead of bellyaching about it, you might as well just smile
and cash in. After all, that’s what Wall Street’s doing.
So here’s how to make the world’s easiest $1 billion:

STEP 1: Form a bank.

STEP 2: Round up a bunch of unemployed friends to be “bankers.”

STEP 3: Raise $1 billion of equity. (This is the only tricky step. And it’s not that tricky. See below.*)

STEP 4: Borrow $9 billion from the Fed at an annual cost of 0.25%.

STEP 5: Buy $10 billion of 30-year Treasuries paying 4.45%

STEP 6: Sit back and watch the cash flow in.

At this spread, you should be earning at least 4% per year on your $10 billion of capital, or $400 million. Sure,
there’s some risk that the Fed will grow a backbone and raise short rates, but there’s not much risk. (They have an
economy to fix and banks to secretly recapitalize). And in any event, if the Fed raises short rates, making your $1
billion will just take a bit longer. (And if they REALLY raise rates, causing you to actually lose money, it will be
someone else’s problem.)

You’ll have made $400 million in a single year! So pay yourself a fat salary for all your hard work. And pay your
“bankers” fat salaries for all their hard work (But don’t worry–your bankers won’t actually have to do anything. You’ll
just need one of them to borrow the money from the Fed and buy the Treasuries, which he will be able to do
part-time.) At the end of the year, celebrate. It’s bonus time!

Don’t be greedy. Pay yourself and your bankers the industry-standard compensation ratio of 50% of revenue. Your
revenue was $400 million, so that creates a $200 million bonus pool. Pay each of your unemployed friends bankers,say, $1 million. And give yourself the rest for being such a smart entrepreneur and creating all the jobs and value.

Now, you’ve already made at least $150 million, so it doesn’t really matter what happens next. But you’re in this for
the world’s easiest $1 billion, right?

So proceed to Step 7.

STEP 7: Go public. After bonuses, your bank will be earning about $200 million a year, your capital ratio will be
super-strong (10% equity-to-debt!), and your balance sheet will be clean as a whistle (all risk-free Treasuries!). So
you ought to be able to persuade investors to pay you at least 20-times earnings, or a valuation of $4 billion. Sell
25% of the company for $1 billion.

STEP 8: Use your $1 billion of new equity to borrow another $9 billion at 0.25% from the Fed. Buy another $9 billion of Treasuries. Collect another $400 million a year. Pay yourself and your team bonuses that are twice as large as last year’s. You deserve it! And you’re now about $500 million to the good.

STEP 9: Wait for your stock
to double or triple, which won’t take long given your amazing growth trajectory and clean balance sheet. When your market cap hits $10 billion, sell another 10% of the company for $1 billion. Now you’re really ready to grow.

STEP 10: If you want to get fancy and get nice profiles written about you in business magazines, start buying branch networks from defunct banks (the FDIC will pay you to take them) and start making actual loans. Also, start hiring trading desks to gamble on things more exotic than Treasuries. Yes, all this sounds risky, but just remember–the risk isn’t yours, and you’re already $500 million to the good.

STEP 11: Sell $500 million of your stock to a “strategic investor” and let the rest ride. Don’t worry, if your traders and loan officers turn out to be idiots or the Fed suddenly raises rates, the taxpayers will handle it. And you’ve already made your $1 billion.

So, congratulations, you’re now a billionaire! Now all there is left to do is celebrate!

________________________________________________________

* If you’ve been paying attention, you will note that the only potentially tricky step in this process is the “raise $1 billion of equity.” Where, exactly, are you going to get $1 billion of equity? Well, you will have to do some selling there.

Basically, you’ll have to tell a few investors about your awesome new business plan (see above) that will earn them returns of at least 20% on their equity from Day 1. A 20% return on equity is a lot, especially when the return is largely risk free. So you should have no problem raising that $1 billion of equity.

Given the government’s desperate desire to get banks to start lending
again, you might also want to try to hit up the government for some funds. The pitch will be simple: Old banks aren’t lending because they’re hiding embedded losses and need to protect their balance sheets. You don’t have that problem. You’ll use the equity to LEND. (And you will use it to lend! You don’t have to say that you’re going to lend it to the US government. None of the other banks are saying that.)
marcus, on December 14th, 2009 at 6:46 pm Said:

This is in response to “Help” request::

Check these attorneys:

Dawn Rapoport: Attorney in Ft Lauderdale
Christie D. Arkovich Tampa, FL

I don’t know if they will help a Pro Se, but they know their stuff.

Contact Florida Defense Team. They specifically help Pro Se.
floridadefenseteam@comcast.net

Good Luck,

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
Abby in CA, on December 14th, 2009 at 4:25 pm Said:

Whack a Banker game in England big hit:

(from reuters)
Inventor Tim Hunkin says the ”Whack A Banker” machine at his pier arcade in Southwold, Suffolk, is proving a great investment.
Punters are promised a ”truly rewarding banking experience” and use a mallet to hit as many bald pop-up figures as they can in a limited time.
”You pay 40p to hit as many bankers as you can in 30 seconds as their heads pop up. It’s based on an older game called ‘Whack a Mole’,” said Mr Hunkin, 58.
”It’s proving very popular. I keep having to replace worn-out mallets.”
He added: ”The bankers are bald and all look the same because that’s how I think people see bankers – as faceless.
”And, of course, the bankers never really lose. If you win the game a banker’s voice says: ‘You win. We retire. Thank you very much to the taxpayer for paying our pensions’.”
help, on December 14th, 2009 at 4:25 pm Said:

I need a florida attorney to help a Pro Se person in a foreclosure case. any recommendations?
steve sinacola, on December 14th, 2009 at 3:56 pm Said:

Lisa E…thanks. Hopefully I can discover something regarding indispensable parties .
Deontos, on December 14th, 2009 at 3:46 pm Said:

Laundered Drug Money Saved Many Banks Says UN Crime Chief

Drugs money worth billions of dollars kept the financial system afloat at the height of the global crisis, the United Nations‘ drugs and crime tsar has told the Observer.

Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, said he has seen evidence that the proceeds of organised crime were “the only liquid investment capital” available to some banks on the brink of collapse last year. He said that a majority of the $352bn (£216bn) of drugs profits was absorbed into the economic system as a result.

This will raise questions about crime’s influence on the economic system at times of crisis. It will also prompt further examination of the banking sector as world leaders, including Barack Obama and Gordon Brown, call for new International Monetary Fund regulations. Speaking from his office in Vienna, Costa said evidence that illegal money was being absorbed into the financial system was first drawn to his attention by intelligence agencies and prosecutors around 18 months ago.
marcus, on December 14th, 2009 at 12:26 pm Said:

House kills mortgage relief in Wall Street bill
Source: AP

WASHINGTON – Dec. 14, 2009 – The House has rejected an effort to expand a Wall Street regulation bill with mortgage relief that would let debt-ridden homeowners reduce their payments in bankruptcy court. The vote was 241-188 to reject.

The provision would have revived a previous bill that passed the House but later failed in the Senate.

Democrats hoped that by inserting the provision in the regulatory legislation they would have had another opportunity to make it law. Aiding homeowners through bankruptcy had been a key feature of President Barack Obama’s foreclosure fighting proposal, but the president did not push for it.

Banks and credit unions have lobbied against the bankruptcy measure. They say it would force a flood of bankruptcy filings and ultimately drive up mortgage rates.

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
Jason in GA, on December 14th, 2009 at 12:21 am Said:

New strategy, any ideas?

As you may know, GA is a non-judicial foreclosure state so a lender can foreclose without going to court. Here’s my situation in a nutshell. After sending numerous QWR letters to my lender and being blown off, I eventually sent a notice of rescission to my servicer “CitiMortgage” and to the original lender. Next I stopped making payments and waited for them to respond. They ignored my rescission notice, and sent a notice of default and acceleration instead. Next CitiMortgage sent notice of a scheduled foreclosure sale from their attorney. Then they filed a fraudulent assignment of the deed from “MERS” to CitiMortgage. I sent their attorney notice that the mortgage and note had been rescinded and that any attempt to foreclose would open their firm and CitiMortgage open to legal action. They ignored me and foreclosed anyway, then purchased the home themselves at the sherrifs sale.

Now,

I plan on pursuing damages for TILA and RESPA violations in federal court, but I am drafting a suit in State court first. So far I am bringing suit for wrongful foreclosure, theft by deception, theft by conversion, and seeking damages the price of the home itsself.

In GA, the law governing unlawful foreclosures (O.C.G.A. 51-12-5) allows you to either sue to reverse an unlawful power of sale, or to sue for damages resulting from the wrongful foreclosure. My strategy is to seek damages for the actual value of the home itsself. It’s my position that my home “which was stolen from me” was an unsecured property at the time of the sale. The security instruments that would have given CitiMortgage the legal grounds to pursue forecloseure was voided the very second I rescinded the loan. Furthermore, there is no evidence of any assignment of the note from the original lender to them anyway. So, in essence they took my home, and should be liable to me for the fair market value of the home. Of course, the foreclosure may stand on the official record, but I can live with that for a cool $180,000. If anyone has ever heard of this approach , please let me know. I am currently proceeding pro se, and would appreciate any advice here. Thank You.
Lisa E., on December 13th, 2009 at 11:22 pm Said:

To: steve sinacola,

Steve,

My questions to you would be:

1) When was that statute last amended?

2) Is there ANY MI case law regarding notifying indispensable parties (maybe first research in regards to foreclosures and then branch out into other areas of secured debt).

By reading the wording, I would still think one would have an argument (albeit one that requires much coddling). From my understanding (which, admittedly has lots of room to grow), MERS is neither the creditor, does not hold an interest in the property, and is not a servicer.

How I see it (and perhaps I’m wrong), MERS is a big ole’ computer database, owned by R.J. Arnold, with a bunch of confusing legalese backing up it’s (false) position as a “nominee” with the rights of land transfer and foreclosure in the event the borrower stops making payments to their servicer (despite the fact that the default does not harm MERS in the slightest).

After MERS forecloses in your state, what happens? Does a MERS rep. show up to buy the house at auction? Does MERS show as payer of taxes on the county public records after foreclosure if no buyer purchased the house? Does MERS sell it to the next (poor sap now with an unclean title) buyer? What do the county clerk records show as far as how MERS washes up that unclean title?

A little study of 10 or so foreclosed homes from early 2009 to research and follow the trail of post-foreclosure action might reveal some interesting information.

Lisa E.
ForeclosureHamlet.org
ALLAN (with a question for eponymous ALLAN HENNESSEY), on December 13th, 2009 at 8:31 pm Said:

ALLAN, though BK 7 can discharge an obligation, how do you keep a creditor from going after the underlying collateral in rem?

Got a Cliff Notes’ version of your dissertation?

RSVP as I have mail meant 4 U

ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
Allan Hennessey, on December 13th, 2009 at 5:01 pm Said:

For everyone that is wondering what the silver bullet that I had was…

There isnt one!

In my personal case… I declared on my schedules of UNSECURED NON PRIORITY debts ALL parties… The Servicer, Originator, Investment bank who originator sold note to.

If you already filed BK7 and put them down as secured debts…

AMEND YOUR SCHEDULES! If you declare them secured, it doesnt matter whether they are or not. You make it so.

If any party ATTEMPTS to come back later down the road to foreclose… Hit them with a cease and desist demand, referencing the discharge of the debt, and the consequences for collecting on a discharged debt.

Only thing left is the Deed of Trust. I will not provide full details of how this is accomplished, as it requires a dissertation and your understanding of many principles of fact before understanding.

Simply put… there is a solution for correcting the public record to reflect reality… I do suppose this is the silver bullet… Correcting the Deed of Trust / Mortgage in the public record.

To be CLEAR… Bankruptcy court is not for everyone and you can arrive at the same place I have without going there!

To arrive at a place in life, where you do not have to worry about losing your home… Give me a call.

Allan

1-800-552-9313 Ext 111
usedkarguy, on December 13th, 2009 at 4:54 pm Said:

Lisa, you beat me to it. I found that article yesterday at work.
angry & NOT TAKING IT!, on December 13th, 2009 at 4:36 pm Said:

Allan Hennessey,
can you post a description of the way you scheduled the mortgages, and the titles.. ie bank, mortgage company, [the real names are not necessary ] the more info the more help it is to everyone here..
tia
totally angry!!
steve sinacola, on December 13th, 2009 at 1:16 pm Said:

Michigan Foreclosure law in part says “The party foreclosing the mortgage is either the owner of the indebtedness or of an interest in the indebtedness
secured by the mortgage or the servicing agent of the mortgage”.

It seems that the definition of “holder in due course” has been expanded to include the gaggle of actors found in securitized loans. Michigan is nonjudicial foreclosure by advertisement. Almost without exception MERS is the party that initiates foreclosures in Michigan.

My question is does this wording nullify the defences found on this site.

thanks in advance
Lisa E., on December 13th, 2009 at 6:15 am Said:

Perspective.

2009 Foreclosure Actions: by year’s end an estimated 3.9 million properties to receive either a default , or auction notice, or were seized by banks. There is 2.5 people per household in the U.S. Admittedly, there are empty investment houses and non-residential commercial properties and also raw land properties in that 3.9 million total. Although, some of those foreclosures are multi-family rental units affecting many more than 2.5 people. Still, I estimate at least 7.5 MILLION Americans are 2009 “Foreclosees”; all ages, both genders, children, pets, unemployed, elderly, disabled, people in all levels of the financial spectrum.

April – November 2009 Swine Flu Stats: “more than 200,000 hospitalizations… and sadly, nearly 10,000 deaths including 1,100 among children and 7,500 among younger adults. Thomas Frieden, head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) told reporters.

Lisa E.
ForeclosureHamlet.org
ForeclosureHamlet @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)
Lisa E., on December 13th, 2009 at 5:07 am Said:

Let me try that link again….

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704201404574590453176996032.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection
Lisa E., on December 13th, 2009 at 5:05 am Said:

Thanks to Dave L. who sent me thislink about Goldman & AIG’s torrid affair.

Gosh, reading this article shows how much fun all these investment bankers had playing around with the homes of American families; a little appraisal fraud here, a little upwards adjustment of borrower income and assets there, a little mortgage backed securities (collateralized debt obligation) here, a little credit default swap there, a little over-rated AAA bond here, a little bailout there.

Yo-Ho-Ho and a bottle of rum!
We’ll pirate a family’s home,
And have some fun!

Pardon my breaking into song. I feel like I’m going crazy as I learn more and more about the background of this Foreclosure Catastrophe.

How can this be?

Lisa E.
ForeclosureHamlet.org
Foreclosure Hamlet @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)
M. Soliman, on December 13th, 2009 at 1:18 am Said:

” Christmas Day Lock Out! ”
By m.soliman
expert.witness@live.com

Reader Comments – - – Abbey ty for your response, I do not understand why he (Attorney) hasn’t filed a suit . . .I am down to my last trick up my sleeve . . . .as i have already filed my bankruptcy and it would seem that avenue is now lost to me. Sorry . . .I am about to lose my home, right before Christmas…
————————————————————————————-
December 11th 2009

Dear Reader-

You got some good advice here so if nothing else read it and do something. My input is as follows:

1) Christmas, Valentine’s Day or Ground Hog day…one thing has nothing to do with the other. Consciousness here okay.

2) What tricks up your sleeve are necessary? I will be happy to call the attorney (Abby too I am sure ) and ask this mysterious legal pundit what the hell is going on.

3) I would be interested in seeing all documents recorded and affecting title “obtained from the county recorder.

4) Forget what you already have as the stamped documents from the recorder that are the only set admissible as evidence …sometimes they slip something in there that is recorded you’ll need in your defense.

Let’s start here – I can review for integrity check all recorded instruments affecting title looking for defects.
Defects compel a trustee recovery firm to rescind or toss the sale.

You want to portray the deed as resting in a disturbed state and as such title you assigned over to the trustee is defect where the sale is prohibited in a transfer of any real property. This is due to an unenforceable conveyance that’s seen or determinable as void and not or voidable.I’m aware of at least one client a week getting the sale rescinded using this approach. In parting, a week to go is an eternity in this business. Who are the “parties” (not lender) taking you to sale anyway.

The lender does not own your home, and the claim filed under a Power of sale lacks any standing and the sale will suffer a from unlawful conveyance . The limited jurisdiction of the court forces the matter against you as a holdover and subject to an lawful detainer hearing to be dismissed in favor of the lender NOT YOU bringing the action in an unlimited civil filing.

You can do this if your smart and think it through. Stay out of U/D hearings. Superior Court dockets show backlog and first hearing pushed likely set in April for unlimited civil filings.

Remember,evidence of consideration and a mutual intent are basic element for argument supporting a lawful assignment. Sorry, it just does not exist Mr. Lender. NG called it a “pretender lender” the LL coined pharse.I am pressing this with the parties and prevailing. Why are not the rest of you?

This nonsense will result in SEC indictments filed against recovery attorneys.Look out as likely malpractice suits aginst any attorney still seeking modifications that DO NOT EXIST.

Careful here counsel, the stakes just got higher. There is no modification AVAILABLE by parties of interest who lack standing as a holder in due course. I again guarantee it. You WILL be home for Christmas. [www.foreclosureinfosearch.com]

I Guarantee it!

m.soliman
expert.witness@live.com
.
Allan Hennessey, on December 12th, 2009 at 10:39 pm Said:

Hillary… please feel free to contact me… I do not charge to tell my story… (all I can do since I do not give legal advice)

I am certain we can arrive at a course of action for you to take.

Allan
800-552-9313 Ext 111
help, on December 12th, 2009 at 3:42 pm Said:

FLOIRDA requirements-

in foreclosure, the bank appears to have kept the note for my loan.

1) The orginal loan was signed for us by a power of attorney, the realtor. THEN the witness, the closing agent never notarized the documents with a stamp notary. does this help us make the note not valid?

2) two later loan renewals were mailed out to us and signed out of state and also not notarized, does this help?
Abby in CA, on December 12th, 2009 at 3:10 pm Said:

hilary g–I’d be on the phone every single day until I got a copy of the billing charges (detailed) and I’d fax them the same request several times a day. You have every right as the consumer to know how every penny is spent that you have sent them.

I am not an attorney nor providing any legal advice, however, if I were in your shoes, I’d do one of two things at this critical juncture: keep up the payments
OR fire the attorney and file your own lawsuit(s).

I’d probably keep up the payments. If they screw up, then you file complaint with state bar and you could possibly later sue the lawyer. If you don’t keep up with the payments, then the firm will probably drop you like a hot potato and focus on all those who are paying.

You will have to decide.
Abby in CA, on December 12th, 2009 at 3:03 pm Said:

ANOTHER AVENUE POSSIBLY
should you find forgeries on your documents, especially with the same notary doing the notarization of the same executive or officer in different states, such as in Florida and then California—different forged signatures, then be aware, that at least in California, the notary has a bond and the information on the bond & bonding company should be filed with the county of record for the notary. Thus, since it is a felony in California for the notary to notarize forged docs, you might be able to go after the notary and recover $$ from the bonding company.

I’d seriously advise, whether or not you’d use the forgeries in your case to recover or keep your home, that you obtain certified copies of the recordings and file a complaint with your local District Attorney and the FBI office nearest you. Forgery is very serious.

You’d want to attach the certified copies to the complaint. Typically, in order for criminal charges to be filed, the DA has to do it.
hilary g, on December 12th, 2009 at 10:11 am Said:

abby ty for your response, I did ask for a detailed invoice over a month ago and I did not hear from him until thursday last and he put me on the phone with his “negotiator” and no mention of the billing. I have not sent my $1,000.00 for this month and my house is set to sell on Tuesday the 15th. I do not understand why he hasn’t filed a suit and got us to discovery the way Neil and Brad et al advocate. I think I am down to my last trick up my sleeve so to speak. I wish i had known what Mr. Hennesey was doing as i have already filed my bankruptcy and it would seem that avenue is now lost to me. sorry if I ramble but I am really feeling like I am about to lose my home, right before christmas…
M. Soliman, on December 12th, 2009 at 10:01 am Said:

The note defense is worthless and I am not sure (hm mm) what you’re interpretation is for the judges remarks. If limited jurisdiction was prevailing then no challenge to the note is customary whereby the jurisdiction is an unlimited civil matter is deemed appropriate.

The defendant filing as plaintiff is appropriate and limited jurisdiction is cause for either to throw out the current ruling either way.

It’s just a fact I come to accept and a waste of time. Limited jurisdiction and related hearings are simply procedural and not customary to affirmative defense challenges. We have three current cases of forgery, back dating and lack of chronological order all for Notice and “defect” recording information.

My recommend is staying the hell out of the limited jurisdiction and submit the lawsuit with an immediate exparte citing judicial relief. In other words no need to consolidate the matter or injunction if the court will consider in a hearing the questions of evidence for violating a power of sale under a trustees guidance.

All loans are booked and sold. Got it.
Do the accounting yourself:

Loans held $1 06,500
Loan Held – $(95,000)
————–
Cash Acct. $(11,500)

A VC of $6,500 booked at origination is not inclusive of FC (assuming a SLA) and near double the combined expense or $20,000 added to your capitalized basis. If cash offsets to the basis in assets held results in a 5% clip (haircut) – total cash outlay is over $11,000.

Compare to a securitization example:

Loans Sold $106,500
Loans Held $ 0.00
————–
Shares Acquired
At par value $106,500

The SPV offers “advantageous “crack-head” accounting for a levered opportunity at 3.5 multiples and equals off balance sheet lines of credit totaling $325,000 in working capital.

The SPV eats the warehouse line and “Liabilities” held by the FDIC bank backing the platform and deal (loops) how we know….

I wondered what they meant by a introducing a “Troubled Assets Relief Program and Assets Recovery etc. The government used a relief program to crap out three major prestigious banking turfs overnight? (thinking about forming a Citizens Consumer Bounty Hunter program and start investigating the roles of these banking morons who are scheming their next move back into South Hampton with their Grey Pompon and favorite whines (“honey I need more , bring me more excesses, scar$# the little guys, bring me more….).

Lender Loser Watch list (for executive resurfacing)
1) Dingy Savings,
2 We Mooch FSB
3 Indy Mess FSB)

What happened to Glass-Seagull*

(* enacted during the Great Depression. It protected bank depositors from the additional risks associated with security transactions. The act was dismantled in 1999. Consequently, the distinction between commercial banks and brokerage firms has blurred; many banks own brokerage firms and provide investment services.)
———————————————
“Bernie Mad off was a piker compared to the fraud found at Indy Mac Bank”
William Black (on Bill Moyer / PBS interview)
———————————————-
Best news feature of the week –

Reporter said “Some feared for Mad offs life in prison where harming him garners instant celebrity notoriety. But prison officials claim his willingness to remain silent has earned him instant admiration. He is labeled someone who did not “snitch” and gained some new fame behind bars.

.. . Where is this society going…going…gone!

M.Soliman
expert.witness@live.com
MSoliman, on December 12th, 2009 at 8:57 am Said:

NG and staff of Livinglies….

This site is not an easy place to survive scrutiny and that is something I admire and homeowners should welcome.

Thanks LL for showing your readers who are the real Dead Beat’s . “That’s when a lender walks on a tax payer insured “line of credit” for the amount of a mortgage but has little if anything in common left with the borrowers loan it was used to fund.

There are only two options for the informed reader. Win back your home or allow yourself to lose it back to a disinterested impostor.

Stay clear of the nay-sayer whose challenges throughout history are motivated by wrong disinterested intentions. And remember… Its true that in a foreclosure a lender may lack any rights to offer you relief and has likely lost the note to their defense. That is especially true concerning their rights to an expeditious power of sale. These facts are a corollary we must surrender too in these trying times.

This site is an attorney sponsored reference and think tank who allows the homeowner and their counsel to survive any claims to the contrary and to develop better arguments while growing with confidence each day.

Thanks Livinglies;

M.Soliman
expert.witness@live.com
Deontos, on December 11th, 2009 at 2:59 pm Said:

KIBOSHED LENDER DEFIES COURT ORDER?
(Indymac still demanding payment from Yano-Horoski)

Bills Homeowner For $474K
Two Weeks After Long Island Judge Wipes Out
Loan In Foreclosure For “Repugnant” Conduct
In Suffolk County, New York, Newsday reports:

* The state Supreme Court justice who last month lashed out at a bank’s dealings with an East Patchogue family facing foreclosure and canceled the mortgage on the home has ordered the bank and the homeowners back to court, records show.

* Justice Jeffrey Spinner wants the parties to return to discuss a recent letter from IndyMac Mortgage Services that says $474,936.78 still is owed, according to legal documents obtained by Newsday. Spinner’s unusual decision to cancel the mortgage generated much attention. His ruling said the lender – a division of OneWest Bank, FSB – was “harsh, repugnant, shocking and repulsive” in proceedings where the homeowners attempted to work out a loan modification.

* This week, Spinner ordered that a conference be held Dec. 18 in Riverhead to explore “at length” the bank’s letter, which was dated two weeks after his initial ruling. Homeowners Diana Yano-Horoski and husband Gregory Horoski could not be reached Thursday. After the first decision, Gregory Horoski told Newsday he was stunned that the decision essentially gave them the house outright, but that he worried the bank would appeal and prevail.

* Spinner’s latest order notes that the letter came after he “barred, prohibited and foreclosed” the bank from taking any action to enforce the mortgage and adjustable rate note on the Oakland Street house.

REMEMBER THESE GOOD LENDERS ARE DOING THE SAME THING IN CALIFORNIA RIGHT NOW ON ANOTHER CASE THEY
LOST.

** IT IS ABOUT TIME TO PUT A FACE ON THE FACELESS
DECISION MAKERS HERE AND INDICT THEM. **
Abby in CA, on December 11th, 2009 at 12:35 pm Said:

PUBLIC CITIZEN IN WASHINGTON DC

We’re getting closer.

As I write, the U.S. House of Representatives is on the verge of taking an important first step to rein in Wall Street by passing the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009.

Thanks in no small part to the work that we’ve done together, the bill creates a powerful financial consumer watchdog agency.

But the bill doesn’t do nearly enough. The banksters crashed our economy once, and they’ll do it again – unless we stop them.

Now, we need to get a running start as the fight moves to the Senate.

Contribute $35, $75 or $120 today to help us keep up the momentum and remind Wall Street how powerful Main Street can be!

Wall Street and the big banks know how much is at stake. That’s why they’re pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the fight.

We can overcome their money and power. But every minute counts and it’s going to take everything we’ve got. That’s why I need your help.

To take on the Wall Street banksters and keep up the momentum, can you help me raise $25,000 in the next 48 hours?

Contribute $35, $75 or $120 today to help us keep up the momentum and remind Wall Street how powerful Main Street can be!

More than a year since Wall Street brought down the national economy, Congress has finally taken a first step to re-regulate the big banks.

Now, as the fight moves to the Senate, we are gaining momentum. There Public Citizen will lead the fight to strengthen the House bill.

We’ll fight to break up the “too big to fail” banks that grow bigger every day, tax the obscene bonuses Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street banks are paying to their executives, and strengthen the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

But we will also encounter a ferocious assault in the Senate from powerful banking lobbyists who, to paraphrase Senator Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Assistant Majority Leader, “own the place.”

Contribute $35, $75 or $120 today to help us keep up the momentum and remind Wall Street how powerful Main Street can be!

Robert Weissman
President, Public Citizen

P.S. It’s the dedication and loyal support of members like you who make our work possible. This campaign to take on Wall Street is impossible without your help. Please make a generous contribution of $35, $75 or even $120 today and help us raise the $25,000 we need to fight corporate power.

GO TO THIS LINK TO SUPPORT PUBLIC CITIZEN

https://secure.citizen.org/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=5502&track=w10dev1211FinRef1
steve sinacola, on December 11th, 2009 at 12:32 pm Said:

HOUSE REJECTS MORTGAGE CRAMDOWN LEGISLATION…

Anybody have any questions in regards to WHO their non representing representatives are in reality representing.

this ought to clear that point up for ya

here
reuters dot com/article/idUSTRE5BA3CN20091211?type=politicsNews
Abby in CA, on December 11th, 2009 at 9:45 am Said:

5 Year Old Boy Killed During Family’s Foreclosure Move—from wire reports’ 12/11/2009 Modesto, California A Modesto family was making funeral plans for their 5 year old son as dozens of neighbors and friends helped empty the family’s foreclosed house this week. Robert Martinez’s parents moved furniture from house to garage to stage it for loading into moving truck. The little boy opened the garage door when no relatives were around and it struck a tall cabinet which then teetered and fell on him killing him. He tried to stop the teetering. He could not be saved by paramedics. The local mortuary has offered to provide free services & burial worth $7500. The foreclosure move was completed. LET’S BE CAREFUL OUT THERE!! It is bad enough for all families to suffer stress & financial duress with this foreclosure ‘rape’…..but other dangerous things can happen and the big banks could care less!! Don’t you think the banks, lawyers and court could have shown a little respect and compassion in this situation????
Abby in CA, on December 11th, 2009 at 9:37 am Said:

hilary g — every attorney should be sending the client each month a detailed billing statement against any client retainers and monthly payments. The attorney should be sending copies of anything filed with respect to the case. I hope you at least have a copy of the contract or agreement signed by you and the attorney. If you are in California, I can almost guess which attorney this is, if not, it has become a common place practice for attorneys. You are a consumer of the attorney’s services. I’d also advise everyone on this site to make sure there are some clear milestones or endpoints in the contract for services. I know some attorneys are charging 1K per month, with no end dates!! Now we all know that cases take time and can be unpredictable…..but there could be some milestones, deliverables etc.. that attorney should meet and then the contract can be re-negotiated. Just a for instance: if attorney plans to file bkr, then when bkr is complete….renegotiate…..and then attorney will file a fraud complaint….etc. I can understand how fearful and helpless people feel and so they just pay the attorney ongoing the 1K per month without another thought. hillary g—-immediately request a detailed invoice/billing statement from attorney….they have to provide this to you the consumer…..else, file complaint with state bar.
hilary g, on December 10th, 2009 at 10:41 pm Said:

My auction date is the fifteenth of Dec. after a release of stay from my bankruptcy, and then a 60 day postponement on stipulation from their attorneys. Now my attorney wants me to pursue a loan mod w/ a principal reduction (to what I have no idea) with his “negotiator” and if they will not postpone again, then he will file tro? lawsuit and try to get a restraining order. He has been my attorney since july and I have paid him around $8,000.00 by now, which includes the bankruptcy fees. I think they want me to pay more money for the “negotiator” and I haven’t seen a bill yet for anything. Am I right to be worried?
ALLAN (with a hearty CONGRATULATIONS and HIGH FIVE to the eponymous ALLAN HENNESSEY), on December 10th, 2009 at 9:26 pm Said:

ALLAN, first of all CONGRATULATIONS!

Back in 2002 I too sought BK protection, and did exactly as you did, though I never sought a discharge.

Filed in 2002 a Chapter 13 BK the very afternoon vultures were gathering around my Cambridge home of 20 years and it was valued at 10 times what I bought it for initially in 1983. This was after 9/11 when the anthrax scare delayed a renter’s 3-month rent check’s NSF status by 90 days. Lender (now the Royal Bank of Scotland) refused to let me catch up despite FHA requirements that they do. Their refusal was a protracted SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) action to ‘reward’ me for my active public participation. You see, I was very involved in a civic association that targeted the corrupt county political machine that operated with the all the impunity of Tammany Hall. The party that controls patronage gets unrivaled access to the judges’ ears through the clerks they put in place, enough to influence a case’s outcome at both district and superior court levels.

I listed my second mortgage as UNSECURED, as it was obtained (as was the first) by this lender’s fraud and racketeering. My first lawyer, who should have been up to speed on foreclosure defense, wavered in his defense of my unusual and novel position. He caved over my objections, largely because my judge (chief judge at the time) had it in for him for all the appeals he took over this judge’s arbitrary rulings. For the next four years my next two lawyers fought over it. To make matters worse, one of the lawyers representing the bank knew something my attorneys couldn’t have known. As the judge’s former clerk, he knew the judge ALWAYS awarded banks their fees, no matter what they were. I ended up paying a hugely unreasonable and inflated $55,000 in legal fees directly to the bank over a $15,000 mortgage. This on top of what I had to pay my counsel. Talk about a coup de grâce! Sadly I was too tapped out to muster an appeal. Deep pockets assure unjust, sometimes corrupt, outcomes. My faith in our vaunted judicial system remains badly shaken.

ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
12.10.09 9:26
UsedKarGuy, on December 10th, 2009 at 7:20 pm Said:

Allan Hennessey! CONGRATULATIONS! You put a smile back on my face!
Allan Hennessey, on December 10th, 2009 at 3:20 pm Said:

Dan,

In all fairness much of the deposition/examination was regarding other debts being discharged as well.

There was a court reporter, I can get a transcript…

I submitted a few bankruptcy decisions along with my documentation, and after I explained the fraud that applied to my case, the Trustee asked me…

“Is it your position that due to the unsecured nature of these debts, and your claimed homestead exemption, that you should come out of this bankruptcy action owning your home free and clear of all debt?”

I responded with a grin… “Yes ma’am, that is in fact my position indeed!”

and that was it!

No Trial, No proceedings, no arguments, no briefings, and most importantly… NO ATTORNEY.
Dan Edstrom, on December 10th, 2009 at 2:43 pm Said:

Allan,
Did you have a court reporter when you talked with the Trustee for 2.5 hours? Or if you have perfect recall it would be great if you could write it up.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Allan Hennessey, on December 10th, 2009 at 2:14 pm Said:

Hey Folks!

To be clear… there is not a lot to work with in the BK file or the State Court Case… It was simple… I listed my Mortgages as UNSECURED Debts… There was no judges decision or dramatic citation. The servicers and pretender lenders just took a nice long walk… and let the time frame to object expire!

This is not the best method for everyone… You need to consider all your options before filing bankruptcy.

The truth is that it is much easier for many people’s situations.

Most situations require an identification of the specific fraud relevant to your situation… followed by a correction of the public record, utilizing multiple options for how to accomplish that. County Recorder/Clerk, or online(NationalRepublicRegistry.com)(Great place to record lis pendens when county won’t), Many folks just publish by newspaper, and get a notary to certify such.

The answers are here… Lets find the right one for you together.
Deontos, on December 10th, 2009 at 1:47 pm Said:

Dan or ANYONE,

Can anybody post access to the actual BK Case File?

Cases Report for 8/13/2009
U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Western District of Washington

Gerald Allan Hennessey
09-45890-PBS bk 7
Filed: 08/13/2009
Entered: 08/13/2009
Office: Tacoma
Assets: No
Abby in CA, on December 10th, 2009 at 10:57 am Said:

ALLAN—wahoooo!!! Congratulations to you.
Dan Edstrom, on December 10th, 2009 at 10:42 am Said:

ALLAN,
CONGRATULATIONS, that is awesome! The post is probably not showing up yet because of the email address. Here it is just in case:

REAL SUCCESS STORY!

Sorry I have not posted for a bit… been off in the trenches!

Many of you have seen my previous posts providing details of my story along the way over the last 18 months. I will quickly outline my story.

Let me cover some basic facts here about MY PERSONAL HOME:

I have not paid a single mortgage payment since January 2008 after my purchase in 2006.

My loan originated with Decision One/HSBC. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) is named as the nominee on MY Deed of Trust. (I emphasize MY Deed of Trust for a reason ~ See below)

A Foreclosure auction date was set, and I filed a State Civil Lawsuit in 11/2008 with a Lis Pendens that was effective at getting Recontrust (the Foreclosure Trustee) to cease the auction. After Depositions with counsel for Countrywide, Recontrust, MERS, Et. Al., ALL relevant questions and demands were sidestepped and my carefully prepared and delivered live oral arguments were ignored as the judge mysteriously reassigned the case due to Scheduling conflicts, and I became a rubber stamped victim of a CR 56 Summary Judgment Motion.

I then filed Chapter 7 in Federal Bankruptcy Court,

LISTING MY MORTGAGES(2) AS UNSECURED DEBTS.

After a 2.5 hour deposition with the U.S. TRUSTEE to explain my position, MY MORTGAGES WERE DISCHARGED WITHOUT OBJECTION FROM ANY PARTIES INCLUDING THE SERVICERS AND THE INVESTMENT BANK THAT PAID OFF MY LOAN AND SECURITIZED THE UNSECURED MONTHLY PAYMENT RECEIVABLES.

After a couple documents being filed with the County Recorder, to CORRECT the PUBLIC RECORD, MY Deed of Trust NOW reflects reality.

…and VOILA!

I NOW OWN CURRENTLY OWN MY HOME FREE AND CLEAR!

I have now put together a program from TRIAL and error, literally!

The next step in my process is to utilize the UCC-1 Process to establish a 1st position against my property, to prevent anything like this from ever happening again!

I have now participated in several dozen actions with other homeowners against the major players in this to arrive at the stratagem we currently use to beat the bank!

Not only CAN we beat them… WE ARE BEATING THEM!

CALL me or Email me if you would like to STAY IN Your Home PERMANENTLY!

UCC 1-207

Allan Hennessey
Author
Help @ StopForeclosureToolbox.com
1 800 552 9313 Ext 111
Luis, on December 10th, 2009 at 10:06 am Said:

Alan,

I’m sorry. I had a typo in the search and that is why I could not find your posting.
Luis, on December 10th, 2009 at 10:02 am Said:

How come I can not see Alan’s REAL SUCCESS STORY! comment on the web site?

Anyway, Alan, what state are you in?

Could you please post the case numbers for the foreclosure and BK filings?
Deontos, on December 10th, 2009 at 9:46 am Said:

The Fed Is (Finally) Talking About Toxic Titles
By Mary Kane 12/10/09 9:04 AM

It looks like the problem of banks walking away from distressed properties is finally getting some serious attention. Federal Reserve Board Governor Elizabeth Duke tackled the subject in a recent speech, Housing Wire reports. She detailed a disturbing trend TWI has been following since January 2008: Banks abandoning properties in severely troubled markets even before completing the foreclosure process, leaving the cities stuck with “toxic titles” and trashed vacant homes.

“In the most devastated neighborhoods, some lenders do not even complete the foreclosure process or record the outcome of foreclosure sales because the cost of foreclosing exceeds the value of the property,” Duke said.

These “toxic titles,” she added, have placed a large number of properties in legal limbo.

Complete article:
X_http://washingtonindependent.com/70383/the-fed-is-finally-talking-about-toxic-titles
Deontos, on December 10th, 2009 at 9:33 am Said:

Steve Sinacola,

Thank you for that “point of view”. There really is enough
blame to go around for EVERYONE. But then again
blame isn’t going to SOLVE anything.

What we have here is a system broken beyond sane
measurement and ALL us of need to contribute to
getting it functioning fairly for everyone. You and I
Steve regardless of our political persuasions or whatever
else we might see differently I think agree in that.

Ironically our common plight that binds us to the livinglies cohort
also encourages our contributions “great and small” to
an American Restoration.
steve sinacola, on December 10th, 2009 at 5:51 am Said:

deontos

Dont be so quick to lay the blame on the FED for the current finacial hell we, as a country, find ourselves. The FED was originally set up to protect the economy and provide cash flow, as JP Morgan did as a private bank during the panic of 1907. It has evolved into what it is today, which is a means for FISCAL IRRESPONSIBLE CORPORATE INTERSTED POLITICIANS to achieve selfish goals. A perfect scapegoat, when irresponsible fiscal policy of politicians goes wrong, simply blame the FED. Now then, who elects these non representing representatives??

my apologies for being OFF TOPIC
steve sinacola, on December 10th, 2009 at 5:32 am Said:

VG DIAZ

That is interesing….I have read a little about the “bill of exchange” method of resolving debt. Its based on the bankruptcy of the United States of America back in 1800’s, its transformation into THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,the adoption of UCC , and the bankruptcy of the rest of the world after world War 2. Tied into all the “shamaz’ is the Brenton Woods Agreement, which explains why Marx I mean Roosevelt made it a crime to hold and confiscated all privately held gold. This entire subject is like peeling an onion. I find it difficult to grasp… teamlaw dot org for those that dare to tread. It seems to me, in that there is now such little privately held gold, that our houses are being collected instead.

my apologies for being OFF TOPIC
Deontos, on December 10th, 2009 at 12:47 am Said:

Link for last post FAILED..sooooo try this for the VID

Stephen Colbert Hilariously Savages The Federal Reserve
X_http://www.businessinsider.com/colbert-the-fed-is-owned-by-no-one-just-like-the-houses-in-your-neighborhood-2009-12
Deontos, on December 10th, 2009 at 12:42 am Said:

Trying to post a video, hope this FLIES. The lyrics are mine. A “remix”.

tHE Fed is dead?
That’s what I said…
Bernanke and Greenspan had a plan; ’said give him a loan
and then take the home.
Their hope was a rope, and we should have known.
It’s hard to understand;
I’m sure all would agree,
why they would spread so much misery,

Now the Fed is dead?
That’s what I said…
Everybody’s misused by him;
he’s ripped them off and abused them.

We’re all built up with progress,
but sometimes I must confess,
we can deal with rockets and dreams,
but reality… what does it mean?
Ain’t nothing said.
Till the Fed is dead.

The Colbert ReportMon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c<td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'Fed’s Dead http://www.colbertnation.com Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor U.S. Speedskating
Deontos, on December 10th, 2009 at 12:13 am Said:

Lisa E.

I have been having the same problem posting
LINKS. My comments just go into “eternal
moderation”. What I have been doing lately is
PUTTING a “X_” in front of the link, that “dummies”
the link and the post goes through OK. I’m figuring
people see it; drop the “X_” and use the url.

EXAMPLE:
X_http://livinglies.wordpress.com/in-trouble-right-now-press-here/#comment-32170

Your posts are always on “target”! Please keep linkin’.
Lisa E., on December 9th, 2009 at 8:33 pm Said:

There was a US Congressional hearing on Dec 9th and a US Senate hearing today on “our” issues.

I posted links under latest activity on my blog.

Interesting but same-old-same-old.

I would repost the links here, but every time I try to post more than one link in a post, the post gets lost in the universe.

http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.org

Lisa E
Dan Edstrom, on December 9th, 2009 at 8:37 am Said:

My servicer tried hard to cancel my homeowners insurance policy (they didn’t succeed) but they said they did not get proof of coverage so they put forced place insurance on my property for 3x what I am paying (and with no coverage for me). I started to pay on my own and will continue to pay it. They are just trying to rack up the fees they can charge (and make). Also, they tried VERY HARD to get my insurance company to send the refund of the cancelled insurance to THEM. Of course it wasn’t cancelled so their was no refund, but my insurance carrier wouldn’t go for it anyway. Watch out, these companies will do anything.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
marcus, on December 9th, 2009 at 7:56 am Said:

Kathy,
BofA paid the property tax because they’re required to by the servicing agreement. They don’t want to loose the property on a tax lien. They are not doing you a favor; they’re protecting the collateral of the loan. It is likely that they won’t answer the letter any time soon. You could request the refund or let it go to next year tax bill.
Have you sent a Qualified Written Request letter to BofA?
If not, you should.

marcus@foreclosureprose.com
ALLAN (urging fellow foreclosure activists to weigh in TODAY with Congress), on December 8th, 2009 at 11:43 pm Said:

Wednesday, the House Finance Committee’s Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises Hearing at 10 A.M. takes up ADDITIONAL REFORMS TO THE SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION ACT (see it LIVE)
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/CMHR_120909.shtml

Today I was forwarded this from a Sojourner for economic justice. It includes a template for a letter to send to your representative.

—– Original Message —–

From: Sojourners
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 9:41 AM
Subject: WALL STREET vs THE REST OF US

Dear________________________,

Bank lobbyists must not win this fight – we need real financial reform.

TELL CONGRESS: PROTECT CONSUMERS, NOT BANKS.

A year ago, a crisis – brought on by a financial industry hooked on greed, short-term profits, and heedless risk-taking – nearly brought the world economy to a grinding halt.

Tomorrow, Congress will vote on historic legislation that would create an independent agency charged with protecting Americans and their families from unjust financial practices.

After so many of us have seen countless families and friends harmed by this crisis while banks continue to award huge bonuses, this legislation would help restore justice to our financial system. Consumers would finally have a regulator whose only job would be to protect the American people, not the big banks.

TELL CONGRESS TO CREATE A CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION AGENCY.

Under the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, consumers would be protected from excessive bank fees, predatory subprime mortgages (and resulting foreclosures), unfair student loans, and random and abusive credit-card interest rate increases and credit-limit cuts.

We’re down to the wire on the vote, and banking lobbyists are fighting hard to stop passage of this important legislation. We need you to tell Congress to pass this reform!

ASK CONGRESS TO SUPPORT LEGISLATION THAT RESTORES INTEGRITY AND JUSTICE TO OUR FINANCIAL SYSTEM AND DEFENDS THE VULNERABLE.

As Judeo Christians, we can advocate for a just financial system based on the wisdom of scripture. The Bible commends “those who deal generously and lend, who conduct their affairs with justice” (Psalm 112:5), and condemns those who oppress the poor and needy for their own gain (Ezekiel 18:10-13).

As a result of this economic crisis, many of us have reformed our personal financial practices. It’s time for our financial institutions to do the same.

A return to the same old financial practices is unacceptable. Tell Congress to pass the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

The voting begins tomorrow, so please take five minutes to send a message to your representative in support of this important legislation.

Peace,

The team at Sojourners”

“Speak Out

Tell Congress: Restore Integrity to our Financial System

Despite the heart-wrenching impact of the economic crisis, we still have not seen the financial regulatory system reform that is critical for preventing the same thing from happening again.

Faced with job losses, foreclosures, and failing businesses, many of us have reformed our personal financial practices. It’s time for our financial institutions to do the same.

Tell Congress to pass reform that protects American families and restores integrity and justice to our financial system. We must not allow the banking and financial industry to return to “business as usual.”

THE SUGGESTED LETTER TO YOUR REPRESENTATIVE:

“As a person of faith, I believe our current economic situation is not just a financial crisis, but also a crisis of integrity.

I want you to support the creation of an independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency that would protect Americans from unjust and abusive financial practices; enforce consumer protection rules; and close loopholes in the existing system that led to our current financial breakdown.

Families across our country are reeling under the negative impact of this economic crisis: job loss, foreclosure, and loss of businesses. Many have reformed their personal financial practices, and our financial institutions need to do the same.

The Bible commends “those who deal generously and lend, who conduct their affairs with justice” (Psalm 112:5). Fair lending practices and the protection of the vulnerable are hallmarks of a just society.

America can do better. I urge you to support all efforts that can help bring integrity and justice back to our financial system. We cannot afford to return to “business as usual.” “

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

ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
12.08.09 @ 11:43 P.M.
Kathy/ Oregon, on December 8th, 2009 at 9:38 pm Said:

Would like to know if any body could answer a question that I have, Here is a little history. We have not made any house payments in the last 12 months, we have tried to redo our loan with Bank Of America, they raised are payments a thousand dollars, that would not work, so we never signed any paper work on this, I told them they would have to redo the loan, they said that was all they had to offer. In this process our property taxes came do, we paid them quartly ,so we paid a payment. We received a letter today from the tax collector that we over paid our taxes, it said on the paper work that BOA paid the taxes for the hole year, we didn’t know they were going to do this. The letter said we or BOA was do a refund, but we needed to fill out the form and we both need to agree on who gets the refund. Each one of us received this letter. Does any body know what this is about and what we need to do with this letter. We are just asking for informtion. Thank You
VG Diaz, on December 8th, 2009 at 8:51 pm Said:

I found the case below extremely interesting.

It is a Florida case where one of the Defendants paid the mortgage with a bill of exchange, the court dismissed the case, but the bank refuses to take a bill of exchange as a form of payment, but the judge said, it is just as money.

THINGS ARE STARTING TO COME UNRAVELED……..LOOK AT THIS!!!!!

You have to read this url below, where a Defendant had sent a bill to the Treasury to pay for their home mortgage of over $80,000. Well the court case argument is over the ‘Bank/Lender’ wanting to accept the ledger transfer from the Treasury as payment or not??

So the court case ruling by the judge is: That since the normal business practice of the bank is ‘Ledger Entries’, the judge ruled in court that the bank had to accept the ‘Ledger Transferred Payment’ from the Treasury as a valid payment on the Defendant’s mortgage!

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/MoneyBanking/Articles/BankOneVWard.pdf
Dan Edstrom, on December 8th, 2009 at 8:31 pm Said:

Ian,
You are entitled to a full accounting of ANY debt you incur. They are being selective in who they are showing this information to. For instance, they will account to the IRS in one way and they will account to another entity another way. Let me give you an example. The sub-servicer is making payments for homeowners when they miss their scheduled payment (this is according to the pooling and servicing agreements). They report to the master servicer that the borrowers payment was made (I know they report the servicer advances in aggregate but I do not know if they report them individually). However, they report to the homeowner that they missed their obligation and it is still due. So the HOLDER IN DUE COURSE has received payment in full. They are making a material misrepresentation or what I call fraudulent concealment to conceal what actually happened (or fraud in the execution?). The same is true for ANY payment given to the HOLDER IN DUE COURSE as credit on your account when they in fact do not disclose this to you. They are making statements every day in court that are flat out LIES using information from sources that are not reliable, are incomplete or are outright fabrications (fraud upon the court, fraud upon the borrower and/or bankruptcy fraud).

If I initiate foreclosure on my neighbors house because I know they are behind in payments and are packing up and leaving, have I done anything wrong? If I create an assignment of the note from the originator (who I can find from the recorders office) over to me (or how about my business name) is that wrong? Or, how about I hire a foreclosure company and just tell them (verbally) that I am the lender but I never recorded an assignment and I need one for the foreclosure. If they do it, have I broken any laws? If I do this and nobody says anything 999 out of 1,000 times is that OK? On the 1,000th case can I tell the judge “oops” I must have made a mistake? What if I tell the government I have a bad loan and my company cannot continue because the borrower will not pay me – and Mr Geithner and/or Mr Bernanke agree to pay me for the loan. And then I give the same loan to my good friend Charlie and let him foreclose. Is that OK?

You probably realize that if I did any ONE of the items above I would be in jail quickly – I would probably easily be convicted of a felony. But for some reason the banks are allowed to do this because it is OK for them to do it.

I am not a lawyer and I am not an accountant so maybe I am just flat out wrong. After all, I don’t know of any large bank who is not doing all of the above, therefore it must be OK.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Ian, on December 8th, 2009 at 8:03 pm Said:

A question I haven’t seen addressed on the site- all this talk of the mortgages being paid off by CDS, TARP ;money, overcollateralization, cross collateralization, NIMS, etc.- is it actually against the law (any laws) for an entity(entities) to be paid in full for a note, and then try to collect on the note a second or third time, or sell the note to another entity so that they can collect? Or is it just rotten business? Or have they written the note off as an IRS loss or to placate the SEC, only to try and collect on the note again later? Any in-depth answeres available? Thanks!
Allan Hennessey, on December 8th, 2009 at 4:15 pm Said:

REAL SUCCESS STORY!

Sorry I have not posted for a bit… been off in the trenches!

Many of you have seen my previous posts providing details of my story along the way over the last 18 months. I will quickly outline my story.

Let me cover some basic facts here about MY PERSONAL HOME:

I have not paid a single mortgage payment since January 2008 after my purchase in 2006.

My loan originated with Decision One/HSBC. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) is named as the nominee on MY Deed of Trust. (I emphasize MY Deed of Trust for a reason ~ See below)

A Foreclosure auction date was set, and I filed a State Civil Lawsuit in 11/2008 with a Lis Pendens that was effective at getting Recontrust (the Foreclosure Trustee) to cease the auction. After Depositions with counsel for Countrywide, Recontrust, MERS, Et. Al., ALL relevant questions and demands were sidestepped and my carefully prepared and delivered live oral arguments were ignored as the judge mysteriously reassigned the case due to Scheduling conflicts, and I became a rubber stamped victim of a CR 56 Summary Judgment Motion.

I then filed Chapter 7 in Federal Bankruptcy Court,

LISTING MY MORTGAGES(2) AS UNSECURED DEBTS.

After a 2.5 hour deposition with the U.S. TRUSTEE to explain my position, MY MORTGAGES WERE DISCHARGED WITHOUT OBJECTION FROM ANY PARTIES INCLUDING THE SERVICERS AND THE INVESTMENT BANK THAT PAID OFF MY LOAN AND SECURITIZED THE UNSECURED MONTHLY PAYMENT RECEIVABLES.

After a couple documents being filed with the County Recorder, to CORRECT the PUBLIC RECORD, MY Deed of Trust NOW reflects reality.

…and VOILA!

I NOW OWN CURRENTLY OWN MY HOME FREE AND CLEAR!

I have now put together a program from TRIAL and error, literally!

The next step in my process is to utilize the UCC-1 Process to establish a 1st position against my property, to prevent anything like this from ever happening again!

I have now participated in several dozen actions with other homeowners against the major players in this to arrive at the stratagem we currently use to beat the bank!

Not only CAN we beat them… WE ARE BEATING THEM!

CALL me or Email me if you would like to STAY IN Your Home PERMANENTLY!

UCC 1-207

Allan Hennessey
Author
Help@StopForeclosureToolbox.com
1-800-552-9313 Ext 111
Adrienne, on December 8th, 2009 at 3:16 pm Said:

Thanks Usedkarguy,
You are the best! I have learned so much from you and others on this site, and for that I am grateful.
Kevin E Thomas, on December 8th, 2009 at 1:09 pm Said:

I have just been able to work out something with my mortgage company now my homeowner associatiion is file a petition to have me evited for non-payment of assestment. I ask them to workout a payment plan but they want all the monsyr up front or they will proceded with trying to collect.
ALLAN (with a LET ME ROGER THAT, UKG), on December 8th, 2009 at 10:00 am Said:

Roger P Rinaldi, AKA UKG, you stated, “I do believe the worst case scenario is on the horizon. Let us pray, and start keeping an eye out for our fellow man. If I learned anything from this site, it’s that people DO care.”

My sentiments exactly, Roger. I pray you prevail BEFORE you head to BK court, where a good strong competent lawyer makes a world of difference. Here’s wishing you good fortune.

Don’t underestimate your ability to have an impact, beyond helping whip up eye-pleasing Shakespearean omelets.

BTW, how was your Thanksgiving duck?

ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
11:59 AM 12/08/09
usedkarguy, on December 8th, 2009 at 9:46 am Said:

I forgot to say that I, too, am very fond of the relationships established on this website. I learned it all right here!
usedkarguy, on December 8th, 2009 at 9:25 am Said:

Thanks, Lisa. I don’t know if you or anyone else realized, but that’s me at the post above this box you are typing in right now. The payment I made on July 4, 2008 was for $1776.00. That was the last payment I would ever make to Wells, and I knew it. I felt like a jerk afterwards for even sending it to them. 5 weeks later I found Neils’ site, and the rest, well, is history! But we learn from our mistakes, and God knows, you’re never too old to learn (nor to make mistakes).

I have struggled with the case-law side of the battle. I have one more shot: I filed a motion for reconsideration, and I’ll be blazin’ with both barrels! “Your Honor, all I have are the facts. You have the power to stop this”, wil be the last hurrah. Then it’s off to bankruptcy court.
Like Super Mario said, it will stop when the homes are destroyed and the assets disappear. Let’s just hope that we’re strong enough, as parents, humans, and especially our kids, to persevere through the worst crisis this country has ever seen.
I do believe the worst case scenario is on the horizon. Let us pray, and start keeping an eye out for our fellow man. If I learned anything from this site, it’s that people DO care.
Lisa E, on December 8th, 2009 at 9:11 am Said:

Sorry, link broken.

Click the link in my post below and scroll until you see this link on the mid-right side bar and see the 41 pages of Summary Judgment Hearings set for next week.

Division AW Online Docket
[posted 12/01/2009]

Lisa E.
ForeclosureHamlet.org
Lisa E, on December 8th, 2009 at 9:05 am Said:

Just another Grinch-inspired week in Foreclosure Court just before the holidays.

https://15thcircuit.co.palm-beach.fl.us/web/guest/judges/sasser

No words are adequate…………

Lisa E
ForeclosureHamlet.org
Foreclosure Fraud, on December 8th, 2009 at 6:55 am Said:

MERS SMACKDOWN in NEVADA!!!

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant, v. LISA MARIE CHONG, LENARD E. SCHWARTZER, BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE

Dist. Ct. Case No. 2:09-CV-00661-KJD-LRL
Bankr. Ct. Case No. BK-S-07-16645-LBR

“This appeal arises from eighteen cases in which MERS filed motions for relief from stay in the Bankruptcy Court. In each case, either a party or the Bankruptcy Court raised the issue of whether MERS had standing to bring the motion. In holding that MERS did not have standing as the real party in interest to bring the motion for relief from stay, the Bankruptcy Court determined that MERS was not a beneficiary in spite of language that designated MERS as such in the Deed of Trust at issue. MERS seeks to overturn the Bankruptcy Court’s determination that it is not a beneficiary. However, the Court must affirm the Bankruptcy Court’s order under the facts presented because MERS failed to present sufficient evidence demonstrating that it is a real party in interest.”

4closureFraud
Lisa E., on December 8th, 2009 at 4:18 am Said:

Thank you Allan for alerting me to this!

US House of Representatives Hearing on The Private Sector and Government Response to the Mortgage Foreclosure Crisis.

You can listen in if you wish.

See this link: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/fchr_120809.shtml

Lisa E.
ForeclosureHamlet.org

P.S. UKG, I learned quite a bit from the seemingly effortless paragraph you tossed off in the post below this one! Sir, you have learned an awful lot & I thank you for sharing it with all of us!
usedkarguy, on December 7th, 2009 at 10:25 pm Said:

Adrienne, a 15-15d means that the trust is closed (no more loans being aggregated) and the filing stops while the trust is “seasoned”. This is a start-up period for the registrant. I think this is two years. Then the certificates (bonds) are rated. There are two 8k’s filed while the loans are collected, the 10K is the final statement of the trust value, the EX-99 is the document you’re looking for to find your loan. You may not find this under the registrant name, you may need to check “relationships” and find a master trust that holds the bonds for your trust. The EX-99 will contain the loan number, location (state, county, town, zip code),mortgage insurance purchased, rate, caps, floors, term, lock date, close date, dwelling classification (multi- or single-family), etc. The collateral term sheet is part of the EX-99.

Hope this helps. ukg
usedkarg, on December 7th, 2009 at 7:16 pm Said:

When a bank (sponsor)starts a mortgage-backed(or asset-backed) security “deal”, the bank obtains an identifying number and picks a name (registrant). This s the “deal name”. While the loans are collected for the trust (usually over 90 days)they file an 8K for the 2 or 3 months the loans are collected. These statements usually only shows “bulk” numbers. Once the loans are are collected and the “pools” are established, they file a “10K” statement. Again, bulk numbers reflecting the total values and breakdowns for distribution to the “tranches” or “certificates. The certificates pay different interest rates and and are subordinated from bottom to top. the top tiers (super-senior)get their money first, and the lower tranches get paid according to the “waterfall” as laid out in the “prospectus”. Your 15-15D is the notice that the trust suspends filing any more reports until it gets through “seasoning” and then the “certficates” (bonds) are “rated”. The trust is aged and then the certificates are sold. The loan amounts, zip codes, loan numbers, are in the EX-99. This will also include the rates, floors, caps, lock dates, credit insurance amount, zip, county, town, type of dwelling, etc. also look under “relationships” and you will find common deals of the same “vintage” (year)and the series number (01, 02, 03, etc.). hope this helps a little.
Adrienne, on December 7th, 2009 at 3:17 pm Said:

Can anyone out there tell me what the SEC Form 15-15d “Notice of Suspension of Duty to file reports”
Foreclosure Fraud, on December 7th, 2009 at 2:56 pm Said:

Deontos, on December 7th, 2009 at 1:30 pm Said:
Might Be Important

Just saw this on ForeclosureFraud ….. Twitter Feed:

HOMEOWNERS ARE GETTING HIT A SECOND TIME

——————————

This is important for many reasons, morally, ethically, financially, legally.

““A new foreclosure tactic, whereby lenders or debt collectors holding second mortgages freeze bank accounts or garnish pay checks of already struggling homeowners, is emerging and making it even more difficult for people to hold onto their homes.”

It isn’t supposed to work like that. See, that’s the point of a capital structure – the first (secured) lienholder gets his, and if (and only if!) there’s something left, the second gets what they can.

This is why a first mortgage is typically cheaper than a second, among other things.

If the subs are allowed to pull stuff like this then the damage to the first mortgage market could be tremendous – and result in a significant repricing of risk – and thus rates – upward.”

4closureFraud
Deontos, on December 7th, 2009 at 2:39 pm Said:

FIGHTING BACK AGAINST THE MORTGAGE CRISIS!

We are collecting consumer complaints against certain mortgage companies and distributing them to the State Attorneys General offices. (see drop down list on the form below for a list of the Mortgage Companies included)

If you’d like to participate, please fill out the form below. Make sure you select your Mortgage Provider from the drop down list. We may display your complaint with the other complaints on our website with your personal information removed. Please do not include any personal information in the “Message Body”, instead use the form fields provided. We will make every reasonable effort to remove any potentially sensitive information from the message body before we post your complaint. Please try to keep your complaints direct and to the point, without obscene or offensive language.

What information will be displayed on our site?

The Mortgage company, Date and Time of complaint, Your City, Your State and finally your Complaint Message.

What information will go to the State Attorney General?

We will provide the individual State Attorney General with all the information collected from your original complaint with nothing removed or modified.

Consumer Warn Network Link:
X_http://www.consumerwarningnetwork.com/fighting-back/
Deontos, on December 7th, 2009 at 1:30 pm Said:

Might Be Important
Just saw this on ForeclosureFraud ….. Twitter Feed:

HOMEOWNERS ARE GETTING HIT A SECOND TIME

Homeowners are getting hit a second time
By Karen O’Shea
December 06, 2009, 9:00AM
By KAREN O’SHEA

George Apolinaris and Maria Gil……..
Their bank accounts were frozen by their
*** second-mortgage *** lender.

A new foreclosure tactic, whereby lenders or debt collectors holding second mortgages freeze bank accounts or garnish pay checks of already struggling homeowners, is emerging and making it even more difficult for people to hold onto their homes.

Lawyers for troubled Staten Island homeowners say they are beginning to see examples of clients who go to the bank to take out money and find that their accounts have been frozen or wiped out by other banks or debt collectors — the entities holding second mortgages on houses already in default on the first and primary mortgage. Some are learning the lender or debt collector has already gone to court and secured a judgment to garnish paychecks.

It’s a move more in line with the traditional debt collection industry, which typically targets credit card debt, and it’s dragging the house and what little cash reserves people often have into the foreclosure battleground. Experts say it’s an end-run by second lien holders around the traditional foreclosure process, which involves only the first mortgage holder and provides important legal protections for the homeowner.

“It’s a fast and dirty process,” Margaret Becker, lead attorney with the Homeowner Defense Project of Staten Island Legal Services in St. George, said of the new trend.

So far, she said, she’s taken on two cases and she’s heard similar stories from other attorneys.

In several emerging tales, homeowners say they learned about the garnishments only after their bank accounts dropped into the negative or paychecks diminished. And that is making it even more difficult for people to pay bills and modify the terms of the first mortgage to save homes from foreclosure. Homeowners being targeted often include the most troubled, or people who are behind on payments and whose homes are worth less than what is owed on the house.

“It just takes their money away so they don’t have any money to afford a (loan) modification,” Ms. Becker said of those who have been hit with judgments from second lien holders.

She is representing an Arden Heights woman who was talking to her bank about modifying the loan on her first mortgage. Then a debt collector, which bought the second mortgage on the house, won a judgment to garnish 10 percent of the woman’s paycheck. That has jeopardized a good shot at a loan modification, said Ms. Becker.

George Apolinaris of Graniteville said his longtime companion, Maria Gil, got an unwelcome surprise when Ms. Gil tried to withdraw some money for groceries from two small bank accounts totaling $6,000 that the two maintained. The accounts were frozen and in the red for $250,000 — twice the $126,000 owed on their second mortgage.

Apolinaris said the couple never received any notice about the court action that froze the bank accounts.

“They claim they handed a notice to somebody, but we don’t know who it is,” Apolinaris said.

Robert Brown, an attorney specializing in foreclosure and predatory lending cases, argued successfully in court that Ms. Gil had not been properly notified of judgment proceedings by attorneys for lender Citimortgage.

In court papers, Brown noted that the lender’s debt collection law firm, Forster and Garbus, had been cited by state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo for problems in serving legal papers to defendants in civil suits, also known as “sewer service.”

Last week, state Supreme Court Justice Judith McMahon sided with Brown and vacated the judgment, effectively unfreezing the couple’s small bank accounts.

Brown now plans to make a counterclaim under predatory lending laws. He said the couple had fallen behind on their first mortgage but foreclosure proceedings had not yet begun.

“The second mortgage is just that — it’s second in priority, so they are sort of jumping the line and making it impossible for Ms. Gil to pay her first mortgage because they’ve frozen her bank account,” said Brown.

The couple acknowledges their own financial missteps — the kind that helped fuel the housing crisis.

Apolinaris bought a house in Clifton in 2004 as an investment, refinanced several times and then fell behind on payments after his tenant stopped paying rent and he was forced to evict. That house recently entered foreclosure.

Apolinaris said he used some of the money he took out of that house during those refinancings to buy the two-family home in Graniteville with Ms. Gil.

At the time, he said, both were working and making money and the housing market was booming.

The couple bought the home for $520,000 early in 2006 with an adjustable rate subprime loan from IndyMac bank, which was shut by the government last year. Less than a year later, they said, they refinanced to lower their interest rate and took out $20,000 to pay off credit card debt.

As part of the refinancing, they took out a mortgage in the amount of $464,000 from HSBC bank with an interest rate of 6.8 percent, and a simultaneous second loan from Citimortgage for $126,000. The latter loan came with an interest rate of 9.5 percent. In all the refinancings, the couple never used an attorney.

Josh Zinner of the Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project in Manhattan said some lenders or trusts for banks that went out of business are selling off second mortgages today to debt collectors for pennies on the dollars. Those debt collectors are then going after the homeowners’ bank accounts or pay checks to recoup whatever money they can.

“The backdrop to that is there are real fundamental problems in the debt buyer industry,” said Zinner. “The combination of the second mortgage problem with all the abuses in the debt collection industry is toxic, and could really create havoc for homeowners who are trying to avoid foreclosure on their primary mortgage.”

Karen O’Shea is a news reporter for the Advance. She can be reached at oshea@siadvance.com.
Arpad, on December 7th, 2009 at 12:15 pm Said:

Hello Friends,
Lisa and I went to the local court house on Friday to hear some summary judgment hearings. Most people did not show up, and SJ was automatically granted for the plaintiff. It seemed like that the Judge was only asked if the original note was filed. So this brings up the following question I have for everyone. If they do find the original note, can we request an inspection of it to make sure that is the real one? When and how should this be done and what are the things to look for?
Also if the suing Bank is the original lender how can I prove that they sold my loan? Since most of the loans were sold or transferred in the last few years, it is a fair assumption that it is the case. I am thinking, they sold my loan and kept the servicing rights of the loan.
marcus, on December 7th, 2009 at 11:24 am Said:

Mortgage Insurers Denying Claims
Source: Reuters News, Al Yoon (12/04/2009)

Mortgage insurers are increasingly likely to reject claims and hold lenders responsible for bad loans, says a report by Moody’s Investors Service.

Insurers have rescinded about $6 billion in claims since January, after their reviews indicated that lenders failed to do due diligence when underwriting the loans during the peak years of the boom.

If these claims are successfully denied, the losses will be transferred to the banks, but Moody’s says that many banks have already written off the majority of these bad loans.

Marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
Foreclosure Fraud, on December 6th, 2009 at 6:29 pm Said:

Foreclosure Defense – Use the UCC

Something interesting I came across today… Thoughts???

“In light of the fact that virtually all promissory notes taken by banks, mortgage companies, etc., were sold at some time after the “closing” for the respective transactions — without the right in discovery to physically inspect, and photocopy the original wet-ink instrument, (production of the original instrument), meaning that the bank, mortgage company, etc., retained physical possession of the NOTE, standing in court to enforce the instrument in foreclosure is impossible pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code. (UCC).

This is the law behind — “Show Me the Note!”

Statutory Requirements For Establishing The Right To Enforce An Instrument

1. Prove status of holder of the instrument. (UCC § 3-301(i)); or

2. Prove status of non-holder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder. (UCC § 3-301(ii)); or

3. Prove status of being entitled to enforce the instrument as a person not in possession of the instrument pursuant to UCC § 3-309 or UCC § 3-418(d). (NOTE is lost, stolen, destroyed).

UCC § 3-309, requirements.

a. Prove possession of the instrument and entitled to enforce it when loss of possession occurred. (UCC § 3-309(a)(1)).

i. If illegality or fraud were involved in the original transaction, it cannot be proved that the person is entitled to enforce the instrument.(See UCC § 3-305. DEFENSES)

b. Prove non-possession of the NOTE is NOT the result of a transfer. (UCC § 3-309(a)(2)).

NOTE: If discovery shows that the instrument was sold by the person claiming the right to enforcement, a transfer occurred, and such person is NOT entitled to enforce the instrument. (See UCC § 3-309(a)(ii)).

c. Prove that the person seeking enforcement cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process. (UCC § 3-309(a)(3)).

NOTE: If discovery shows that the instrument was sold by the person claiming the right to enforcement, a transfer occurred, and such person is NOT entitled to enforce the instrument. (See UCC § 3-309(a)(ii)).

d. A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (a) must prove the terms of the instrument and the person’s right to enforce the instrument. (UCC § 3-309(b)).

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

UCC § 3-309 Enforcement Of Lost, Destroyed, Or Stolen Instrument.

(a) A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if

(1) the person seeking to enforce the instrument

(A) was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred, or

(B) has directly or indirectly acquired ownership of the instrument from a person who was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred;

(2) the loss of possession was NOT the result of a transfer by the person or a lawful seizure; and

(3) the person cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process.

(b) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (a) must prove the terms of the instrument and the person’s right to enforce the instrument. If that proof is made, Section 3-308 applies to the case as if the person seeking enforcement had produced the instrument. The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument. Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means.

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

An instrument is transferred when it is delivered by a person other than its issuer for the purpose of giving to the person receiving delivery the right to enforce the instrument. (UCC § 3-203(a)).

If a transferor purports to transfer less than the entire instrument, negotiation of the instrument does not occur. The transferee obtains no rights under this Article and has only the rights of a partial assignee. (UCC 3-203(d)).

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

If the bank, mortgage company, etc., sold the NOTE, they have no right to enforce the NOTE, through foreclosure or court proceeding pursuant to the fact that the UCC bars such claimant from invoking the court’s subject matter jurisdiction of the case.

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

Even if the claimant produces the original wet-ink NOTE, there is a defense to the action pursuant to UCC 3-305.

Illegality and false representation (fraud) perpetrated in the transaction. Did the bank disclose the SOURCE of the money for the transaction?

Did the bank inform the NOTE issuer that the money for the transaction was provided at no cost to the bank?

Did the bank disclose that the NOTE would be sold at the earliest possible convenience, and that such sale and receipt of money from a third party would actually pay off the NOTE? (Satisfaction of Mortgage).
Many discovery questions to be asked when a claimant initiates foreclosure proceedings.

***********

Many assume that the bank/broker/lender that begins the process is actually providing the money for making a “loan,” when in fact, the bank/broker/lender is only making an “exchange,“ of notes, at no cost, and then, coercing the issuer of the promissory note into the comprehension that he is receiving a “loan.”

The following was stated in A PRIMER ON MONEY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC FINANCE, COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 88th Congress, 2d Session, AUGUST 5, 1964, CHAPTER VIII, HOW THE FEDERAL RESERVE GIVES AWAY PUBLIC FUNDS TO THE PRIVATE BANKS [44-985 O-65-7, p89]

“In the first place, one of the major functions of the private commercial banks is to create money. A large portion of bank profits come from the fact that the banks do create money. And, as we have pointed out, banks create money without cost to themselves, in the process of lending or investing in securities such as Government bonds.”

In this instance, the transaction was funded by using the prospective property (collateral) and the signer’s promissory note as if the property and the Note already belonged to the bank/broker/lender.

So, if the bank used the promissory NOTE, as money, to create the cash reserve which was then used to validate the bank check issued on the face amount of the promissory NOTE, at no cost to the bank, without NOTICE to the signer of the promissory NOTE, and without fully disclosing these facts and aspects of the transaction, the bank committed a DECEPTIVE PRACTICE, FRAUD.”

4closureFraud
http://4closurefraud.wordpress.com/

I am not an attorney and this is not legal advise…
Lisa E., on December 6th, 2009 at 3:17 pm Said:

Excellent resource with links, commentary, radio and video shows.

Financial Crisis for Beginners (links,
radio shows, slide shows)

ForeclosureHamlet.org
ForeclosureHamlet @ gmail . com
Abby in CA, on December 5th, 2009 at 8:27 am Said:

WANT TO SEARCH FOR THE TRUST YOUR LOAN WENT INTO??

Some steps below to use the SEC website to locate your loan and the trust it is in (mortgage pool).

This example uses WAMU (Washington Mutual).
Typically, Chase had JPMAC (JP Morgan Acquisition Corp) as the name of trusts.

http://www.sec.gov/

1. click on above link
2. if you have not yet created a free account and it asks you for login info…create the account
3. click on ’search’ in upper right corner
4. in the blue area, type in WAMU in the ‘company name’ field
5. click find companies at bottom
6. this brings up all the WAMU filings
7. search around for one that is the year you got your WAMU refi
8. it will be tedious, but you have to click on each CIK number (in red) over on left, and that will take you to a whole big list of more filings for that particular trust
9. go througn an click on any ‘fwp’….read/scan to see if it lists any loan numbers….some will….check to see if your loan number is in it.
10. when you click on an ‘fwp’, which means free writing prospectus, you will see even more files…try to avoid looking at the ones that have .txt ending (the other, usually an html file, will have any infor you may need.

Note: you may want to also search around in years just prior to or just after your loan was done.

Some of these deals were set up even prior to you getting your loan.

Again, another place you may find the trust name is on your recorded docs, in MERS or on a Power of Attorney filed at the county recorder by the Securities trustee in your local county (if required by law).
Lisa E, on December 4th, 2009 at 10:19 pm Said:

The Global Pool of Money. NPR This American Life Radio show (or read transcript) that spells it all out.

ForeclosureHalmet.org
ForeclosureHamlet @ gmail . com
Marcus, on December 4th, 2009 at 4:41 pm Said:

Bias Against Pro Per Litigants: What It Is. How to Stop It.

By Stephen Elias
Copyright © Nolo Press

Posted April 4, 1997

From the moment they first contact the court system, most people who want to represent themselves, without a lawyer, encounter tremendous resistance. Within the closed universe of the courts, this bias is as pernicious as that based on race, ethnic origins or sex.

During my 17 years with Nolo Press, the nation’s leading publisher of self-help law books, I have spoken with countless competent people, including many who excelled in demanding occupations–physicians, architects, teachers, dentists, inventors, physicists–who, when using Nolo books to handle their own cases, were treated like stupid children by clerks and judges. To a person, they thought they finally understood what it must often be like to be an African-American in our society. That their perception of bias was objectively accurate cannot be doubted in the face of that most deeply insulting bromide, so popular with lawyers: “He who represents himself has a fool for a client.”

This bias exists in direct contradiction to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Faretta v. California. that everyone has the constitutional right to proceed without counsel. The reasoning behind that decision means that the Constitution requires our justice system to be neutral towards the self-represented litigant. That in turn means that the courts must offer a level playing field for the represented and unrepresented alike, consistent with basic principles of fairness.
The Problem

Are courts really biased against self-represented litigants? Clearly so. Here are just some of the realities non-lawyers are up against when they try to use their courts:

* Procedural requirements are often perversely difficult.
* Strange–and unnecessary–terms are tossed about. Court jargon–should we call it “lawbonics”?–serves as a means to exclude from the courts anyone who doesn’t speak the language or doesn’t pay a lawyer to translate.
* Judges and their courtroom personnel are often either condescending or downright rude.
* Court clerks withhold information from non-lawyers that they routinely give to lawyers. If a lawyer’s office calls to ask about a particular scheduling procedure, for example, the clerk provides all sorts of answers without thinking twice. But let a self-represented person ask for the same (or even much less) information, and it suddenly becomes legal advice. Many clerks’ offices feel compelled to post signs saying, “We don’t provide legal advice!” Most often, that means that they are unwilling to help unrepresented people get into court or respond to a lawsuit. (Imagine if IRS clerks refused to answer questions about how to file a tax return.)
* Even if the clerk’s office has a special “pro per” window, it’s no guarantee of real help, or even civility. Recently I saw the clerk at such a window hand out information the way some farmers slop the pigs. When I asked whether she had volunteered for the job, she looked at me as if I were crazy.
* County law libraries–in many states, supported by filing fees paid by non-lawyers–are operated almost exclusively for the convenience of lawyers. Non-lawyers are often made to feel distinctly unwelcome and again are visited with the “we don’t provide legal advice” admonition when making a normal request for reference information.
* People who show up without lawyers are singled out and labeled (in Latin, no less) as “pro per” or “pro se” litigants. As is frequently true with other group labels imposed on a group from outside it–”cult” and “handicapped” come to mind–these terms mask a deeper institutional bias.

Why are the courts so unfriendly to the self-represented? They weren’t always that way; in the first 100 years of our history, the courts dealt equally with all comers. But in the late 19th and early 20th century, the courts came to serve the needs and interests of the legal profession, which took control of them and built a monopoly over who can appear before them as advocates.

There are probably a number of reasons why lawyers and the courts they control are biased against the self-represented. Among them are:

1. Many people could pay a lawyer but choose not to. Their choice repudiates lawyers and their “special gifts” and takes money out of lawyers’ pockets.
2. Because non-lawyers are unfamiliar with court procedures that are set up by lawyers for lawyers, they tend to get in the way of smooth court administration (but no more, it should be noted, than do many lawyers).
3. People who can’t afford a lawyer are a rebuke to the organized bar’s monopoly over legal services, because that monopoly is morally–if not legally–justified only if the legal profession is able to provide affordable justice for all. The lawyer bias against the self-represented is a clear case of blaming the victim–even though for years, the ABA has admitted that 100 million Americans can’t afford lawyers.

A number of recent studies funded by the courts and the ABA have advanced the concept of the multi-door courthouse, where courts would offer potential litigants a menu of possible solutions, many of which would not require a lawyer. This concept assumes courts want to reach out to prospective users and help them resolve their disputes in a manner appropriate to the dispute and the resources of the parties.

Unfortunately, the ideal of the multi-door courthouse is at odds with how courts traditionally operate: to support and enhance the lawyer business by making it extremely difficult to get through court without a lawyer. As long as courts are institutionally biased against creating a level playing field for the self-represented, it will make no difference how many doors a court has.

Individual lawyers almost always find it difficult to actually see the bias against the self-represented that pervades our courts, just as a few years ago, judges who complimented woman lawyers on their looks were shocked when they were labeled as sexist. Few lawyers are able or willing to come to terms with the fact that a significant portion of their livelihood is based squarely on barriers to self-representation that the courts erect and enforce.
Some Solutions

Lawyers and their bar associations who do get a glimmer of the access problem tend to think that it’s strictly a money issue. They focus their efforts on pro bono services or what legal services programs still exist. This clearly confuses the forest for the trees. Poor and rich alike have a right to use the courts without an intermediary. Or to use a popular means of expressing a fundamental point: It’s the monopoly, stupid. It probably is no coincidence that by directing their efforts towards the poor, lawyers are addressing the access problem only for people who can’t afford to pay lawyers.

What to do? Here are 10 suggestions for reforming the way courts deal with self represented individuals. A few are already being implemented (usually hesitantly and on a small scale) here and there by isolated courts. And there has been one truly magnificent effort, by the Family Law Division of the Superior Court for Maricopa County, Arizona to throw open court procedures to non-lawyers. For the most part, the suggestions set out here require not money but changes in attitude, rules and procedures.

1. Recognize that bias exists. As with other forms of bias (against women or minority lawyers, for example), the first step to eliminating bias against non-lawyers is to recognize that it exists.

The best way for a lawyer to understand bias against the self-represented litigant is to become one, an experience I recently went through in a civil proceeding. Even before the judge examined my papers or knew what I was seeking (and whether I was on track to achieve it), he expressed deep skepticism that I could competently handle the case myself. After I stood my ground, the judge warned me that I would be held responsible for meticulously complying with every court rule. Lawyers can also learn a lot by coaching a self-represented person through a judicial procedure. Very quickly, most lawyer-coaches come to appreciate how badly the self-represented are treated by court clerks and judges.
2. Accept the right of the self-represented to equal access. Because lawyers and courts are so intertwined, it seems almost reasonable to legal professionals that lawyers are needed for meaningful access. And yet, in a democracy (the rule of law, not men), lawyers should never be necessary to obtain justice.
3. Adopt the principle of helpfulness underlying the multi-door courthouse. Courts should actively help people find an appropriate resolution process. For example, a great many disputes could be sensibly and quickly settled without lawyers if courts encouraged mediation (which is happening in more and more courts).
4. Use existing community legal resources to staff the multi-door courthouse. Many retired lawyers and judges would probably volunteer to:
* help parties assess and sharpen the issues once the pleadings are on file, and
* counsel the parties on appropriate dispute resolution alternatives

Law students and paralegals could also be trained to perform these tasks.
5. Make plain-English information about how to navigate in the court available to the public. All court procedures can be explained in plain English. Nolo Press, other self-help law publishers and the Maricopa County Superior Court have proven that this is so. Unfortunately the courts systematically refuse to inform self-represented litigants about available private-sector publications, apparently on the ground that they don’t want to be seen endorsing them. Fair enough. But the courts should then follow the lead of the Maricopa County Superior Court and make plain-English guides available to all.
6. Unleash court clerks. Clerks should be free to provide the same information to the self-represented as they do to lawyers and their staffs. If clerks were retrained and instructed that their responsibilities included helping non-lawyers and dispensing procedural information, one large barrier to access would disappear.
7. Make courthouse law libraries user-friendly. Like court clerks, law librarians are often afraid to answer even simple questions from non-lawyers. Librarians, like the court clerks, should be encouraged to help non-lawyers, and should be reassured that doing so doesn’t constitute practicing law without a license.

Another step would be to fundamentally redesign the law libraries so that nonlawyers would feel more comfortable with:
* user-friendly orientation aids to the library’s resources
* special shelves and collections of materials that self-represented litigants commonly need, and
* assistance in using online resources.
8. Accept all complaints, petitions and responses filed, in whatever form, and create user-friendly forms. Among the most obvious of barriers to equal access are rules governing the form of the papers people need to start a lawsuit or defend themselves if they are sued. Complicated pleading rules definitely operate to deny equal access. In fact, a simple plain-English statement of claim (as is used in many small claims courts) or a fill-in-the-blanks, check the boxes type of complaint form used in California courts is all that’s needed in most common kinds of cases. Later, the legal and factual issues can be sorted out by a mediator or judge. The Superior Court of Maricopa County has created a number of easy-to-use forms for its Family Court, and by all accounts, people are able to handle them with little help from court personnel.

Fee waivers should be granted upon request for the purpose of filing a response and preventing a default. Later in the case, the defendant’s ability to pay can be sorted out. (This is the typical procedure used by the criminal courts when a defendant requests a court-appointed lawyer.)
9. Use small claims court techniques in bench trials. Most states have revamped court rules and procedures to accommodate non-lawyers very well in one place: their small claims courts. Small claims cases are not simple; many are conceptually difficult. (Lawyers have been willing to accommodate the small claims court system because those cases present little or no potential for fees.)

When cases go to trial before a judge, there is no reason to insist on formal procedures or evidence rules. The judge should facilitate each side’s presentation as is done in small claims court, rather than sit back and make the parties present their cases under arcane rules that take years to master. This approach would not violate due process, because judges would base their decisions on competent and relevant evidence.
10. Encourage lawyer coaching. Many self-represented litigants are willing to pay lawyers to coach them through their cases–that is, give them information about the ins and outs of court and the substantive issues–without taking the case over. Yet, few lawyers are willing to enter into this type of relationship because of ethical concerns about participating in a case they don’t control, and fear of being held liable for issues that are beyond the scope of the coaching relationship. The organized bar should address these concerns by:
* defining the ethical duties of a lawyer coach, and
* sponsoring legislation that would create a standard contract defining the rights and responsibilities of the lawyer coach and the self-represented litigant.

marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
Deontos, on December 4th, 2009 at 4:35 pm Said:

Jeff,

Thank you once again for pointing out very relevant NY Cases.
I hope people reading who live in New York will benefit from your efforts.

In the meantime……..
You can rename me: CALIFORNIA SCREAMIN’

CALIFORNIA JUDGES FOR GOD SAKE WTFU!!!
Kansas, Arkansas and New York are now at the
forefront of acknowledging the OBVIOUS.
There is NO Emperor, got that?
Just Naked Pretenders!

Judges….judges can’t you SEE?
They have NO CLOTHES.
They are just livinglies…..

{{{{{Rant over}}}}}
Jeff, on December 4th, 2009 at 3:17 pm Said:

ANOTHER NY APPELLATE CASE

U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore
2009 NY Slip Op 09019
Decided on December 1, 2009
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 1, 2009

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P.
RANDALL T. ENG
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JJ.

2008-07847
(Index No. 1578/08)

[*1]U.S. Bank, N.A., etc., appellant,

v

Adrian Collymore, respondent, et al., defendants.

Hiscock & Barclay, LLP, Buffalo, N.Y. (Charles C. Martorana
and Tara N. Kamble of counsel), and Zeichner Ellman & Krause,
LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jantra Van Roy of counsel), for appellant
(one brief filed).
Arnold E. DiJoseph, P.C., New York, N.Y., for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff U.S. Bank, N.A., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated July 2, 2008, as denied those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment and to appoint a referee to compute the sums due and owing under the subject note and mortgage.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In 2005, the defendant Adrian Collymore (hereinafter the defendant) executed a note to borrow the sum of $569,500 from the New Century Mortgage Corporation (hereinafter New Century). The note was secured by a mortgage on the defendant’s property located in Brooklyn. In July 2006 New Century assigned the mortgage to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (hereinafter MERS), and MERS subsequently assigned the mortgage to U.S. Bank, N.A. (hereinafter the Bank) in December 2007.

On January 15, 2008, the Bank commenced this foreclosure action alleging that it was the holder of the note and mortgage, and that the defendant had defaulted upon his payment obligations as of August 1, 2007. In his verified answer, the defendant alleged lack of standing as an affirmative defense. The Bank thereafter moved, inter alia, for summary judgment and to appoint a referee to compute the sums due and owing under the note and mortgage, and the defendant cross- moved to dismiss the complaint, alleging, inter alia, that the Bank lacked standing to commence this action. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court denied the motion and cross motion, and the Bank appeals from so much of the order as denied those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment and to appoint a referee to compute the sums due and owing under the subject note and mortgage. [*2]

Where, as here, standing is put into issue by the defendant, the plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief (see Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d 239, 242; TPZ Corp. v Dabbs, 25 AD3d 787, 789; see also Society of Plastics Indu. v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761, 769). In a mortgage foreclosure action, a plaintiff has standing where it is both the holder or assignee of the subject mortgage and the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced (see Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v Coakley, 41 AD3d 674; Federal Natnl. Mtge. Assn. v Youkelsone, 303 AD2d 546, 546-547; First Trust Natl. Assn. v Meisels, 234 AD2d 414, 414). Where a mortgage is represented by a bond or other instrument, an assignment of the mortgage without assignment of the underlying note or bond is a nullity (see Merritt v Bartholick, 36 NY 44, 45; Kluge v Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537, 538). Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation, and the mortgage passes with the debt as an inseparable incident (see Weaver Hardware Co. v Solomovitz, 235 NY 321; Payne v Wilson, 74 NY 348, 354-355; LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn. v Ahearn, 59 AD3d 911, 912; Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v Coakley, 41 AD3d at 674; Flyer v Sullivan, 284 AD 697, 699).

Contrary to the Bank’s contentions, it failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law because it did not submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate its standing as the lawful holder or assignee of the subject note on the date it commenced this action. The Bank’s evidentiary submissions were insufficient to establish that MERS effectively assigned the subject note to it prior to the commencement of this action (see Slutsky v Blooming Grove Inn, 147 AD2d 208, 212), and the mere assignment of the mortgage without an effective assignment of the underlying note is a nullity (see Merritt v Bartholick, 36 NY at 45; Kluge v Fugazy, 145 AD2d at 538). Furthermore, the Bank failed to establish that the note was physically delivered to it prior to the commencement of the action. The affidavit of a vice president of the Bank submitted in support of summary judgment did not indicate when the note was physically delivered to the Bank, and the version of the note attached to the vice president’s affidavit contained an undated indorsement in blank by the original lender. Furthermore, the Bank’s reply submissions included a different version of the note and an affidavit from a director of the Residential Funding Corporation which contradicted the affidavit of the Bank’s vice president in tracing the history of transfers of the mortgage and note to the Bank. In view of the Bank’s incomplete and conflicting evidentiary submissions, an issue of fact remains as to whether it had standing to commence this action. Accordingly, those branches of the Bank’s motion which were for summary judgment and to appoint a referee to compute the sums due and owing under the note and mortgage were properly denied (see TPZ Corp. v Dabbs, 25 AD3d 787, 789).
SKELOS, J.P., ENG, LEVENTHAL and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court
James#, on December 4th, 2009 at 3:17 pm Said:

Abby,
I sent emails to my Senators and my Congressman.
Jeff, on December 4th, 2009 at 3:13 pm Said:

NY APPELLATE DIVISION

FORECLOSURE MILLS JUST DON’T GET IT

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v Gress
2009 NY Slip Op 08989
Decided on December 1, 2009
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 1, 2009

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P.
RANDALL T. ENG
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JJ.

2008-09808
(Index No. 1193/07)

[*1]Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., appellant,

v

Anthony Gress, respondent, et al., defendants.

Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C., Plainview, N.Y. (Edward
Rugino of counsel), for appellant.
Steinberg, Fineo, Berger, & Fischoff, P.C., Woodbury, N.Y.
(Gary C. Fischoff and Jessica Anne
Gould of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Feinman, J.), dated June 25, 2008, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Anthony Gress which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3).

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Anthony Gress which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) on the ground that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring this action. In order to commence a foreclosure action, the plaintiff must have a legal or equitable interest in the subject mortgage (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Marchione,AD3d, 2009 NY Slip Op 07624 [2d Dept 2009]; Katz v East-Ville Realty Co., 249 AD2d 243; Kluge v Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537, 538). “Where the plaintiff is the assignee of the mortgage and the underlying note at the time the foreclosure action was commenced, the plaintiff has standing to maintain the action” (Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Youkelsone, 303 AD2d 546, 546-547; see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Marchione,AD3d, 2009 NY Slip Op 07624 [2d Dept 2009]; First Trust Natl. Assn. v Meisels, 234 AD2d 414). Here, it is undisputed that the subject mortgage was not assigned to the plaintiff until July 5, 2007, more than five months after the commencement of this action on January 22, 2007. Furthermore, although the July 5, 2007, assignment recited that it was effective retroactive to August 1, 2006, “a retroactive assignment cannot be used to confer standing upon the assignee in a foreclosure action commenced prior to the execution of the assignment” (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Marchione,AD3d, 2009 NY Slip Op 07624 [2d Dept 2009]; see LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn. v Ahearn, 59 AD3d 911, 912).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions.
SKELOS, J.P., ENG, LEVENTHAL and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court
Bob, on December 4th, 2009 at 2:34 pm Said:

H.R. 4173 will provide much-needed regulation of the greed and recklessness that has wreaked havoc in our economy and brought hardship to so many hard-working Americans. In particular, a strong Consumer Financial Protection Agency with the ability to place limits on predatory behavior is essential, and any attempts to strip the agency of enforcement of critical consumer protections like this should be opposed.

Wait a cotton picking minute, they mean the same regulation that assured us in previous administrations and assemblies that we the consumer are protected. All this great new legislation by the same people who worked for the banks, as lobbyists, and now receive special favors to make it look like they are doing something to help the consumer.

It’s a red-herring.

With Gratitude

Bob
Abby in CA, on December 4th, 2009 at 1:19 pm Said:

CALL TO ACTION

From Public Citizen:

Dec. 4, 2009
The Time to Change the Rules of the Road for Wall Street Is Now!
The House of Representatives will vote this week on a major overhaul of the financial industry to ensure more accountability, stability and protections for consumers.

The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009 (H.R. 4173) will provide much-needed regulation of the greed and recklessness that has wreaked havoc in our economy and brought hardship to so many hard-working Americans. In particular, a strong Consumer Financial Protection Agency with the ability to place limits on predatory behavior is essential, and any attempts to strip the agency of enforcement of critical consumer protections like this should be opposed.

Now, the bill is fast approaching time for debate on the House floor. But the big banks are spending hundreds of millions of dollars—from the billions they got in taxpayer-funded bailouts—on lobbyists and public relations firms to oppose real consumer protections.

Use the simple form below to tell Congress to pass the financial reform package with no exemptions or loopholes in accountability. Tell your representative you want a strong Consumer Financial Protection Agency and a strong economy that works for all of us. .

Learn more on our Financial Accountability and Security page.

Please take a moment to add your own words to the email below. This greatly increases the likelihood that your message will make a difference! You can also ask your representative and senators to support a strong Consumer Financial Protection Agency by phone by calling the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121. Let us know how it goes!

http://action.citizen.org/t/6693/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27546
Abby in CA, on December 4th, 2009 at 7:01 am Said:

GO HERE TO ACCESS MERS DATABASE TO CHECK IF YOUR PROPERTY IS HANDLED BY MERS

https://www.mers-servicerid.org/sis/
Deontos, on December 3rd, 2009 at 10:37 pm Said:

Hope this works!(Trying to post a youtube video)

CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST MERS – MID MISSOURI
WHEN THE CLASS ACTION SUIT IS FILED (HOPEFULLY WITHIN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS) THEY WILL FILE AN INJUNCTION AGAINST ALL MERS FORECLOSURES UNTIL THE SUIT IS SETTLED! Hopefully the Judge will Approve the Injunction!!
X_http://sherriequestioningall.blogspot.com/
usedkarguy, on December 3rd, 2009 at 8:02 pm Said:

Originator Wells
Sponsor Wells
Depositor Wells
Securities Administrator Wells
Custodian Wells
Counterparty Bear Stearns
Securities Underwriter Citigroup Global Markets
Trustee HSBC

Who took the writeoff if the deal never passed seasoning and was shelved?
Foreclosure Fraud, on December 3rd, 2009 at 8:02 pm Said:

As I await humbly for a response from M. Soliman, here is something I just came across for all to enjoy…

PRICELESS
(no pun intended)

This banksters license plate says it all…

4closureFraud
usedkarguy, on December 3rd, 2009 at 7:57 pm Said:

Where’s the assignment to the trustee and the re-po (now a POA?)
Foreclosure Fraud, on December 3rd, 2009 at 7:51 pm Said:

M. Soliman,

May I have three guesses???

1. Consideration for the purchase? No taxes were paid on the “sale”?

Warm or cold?

4closureFraud
mortgagelies, on December 3rd, 2009 at 7:22 pm Said:

CASE STUDY (Actual Case)
By M.Soliman

ABC Financial originates a $500,000 loan. After 12 months pass, MERS assigns the loan to Duetsche Bank as Trustee for Indy Mac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR13. Indy Mac Bank is the issuing entity.

After 24 months total term leading to default, Indy Mac Bank purchases the property in a Trustee Sale.

Check List:
————–
Assignment from MER’S to Deutsche Bank [Yes]
Grant Deed (of Sale) from Trustee to Indy Mac [Yes]
(Missing) [ ? ]

What’s missing here? (Think – It’s not the legally correct answer we are accustomed to seeing from attorneys. (Hint) It is the argument that will have standing in an IRS examination or plaintiffs subpoena for accounting production of documents).

M.Soliman
expert.witness@live.com
Dan Edstrom, on December 3rd, 2009 at 10:05 am Said:

Lisa,
Sounds like a great idea. For those in California, let’s do the same thing. We can show a pattern and practice of unlawful behavior, not just within our own cases, but across the industry also. All in California email me and we can set something up to meet and/or discuss. I know my case is coming down to the wire and I know others are also. I have no particular agenda in mind, I am just thinking of a review of our cases to look at similarities. We could also get together as a group with as much evidence as possible and approach someone about criminal charges and an injunction (the state DA for instance).

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Abby in CA, on December 3rd, 2009 at 7:37 am Said:

By FAWN JOHNSON
WASHINGTON — A broad financial overhaul bill that would give federal watchdogs new authority to audit the Federal Reserve cleared a key House committee Wednesday.

By a vote of 31-27, on party lines, the House Financial Services Committee gave its final stamp of approval to a bill to create a new council of regulators that would wind down large institutions that pose a risk to the economy.

The measure marks the cornerstone of Chairman Barney Frank’s (D., Mass.) financial regulatory agenda and is a critical part of the administration’s overhaul plan. The goal is to stave off another Wall Street meltdown. “That’s our goal — is to A, make it less likely that this will happen and B, to be able to deal with it better when it does,” Mr. Frank told reporters after the vote.

The committee vote was delayed for more than a week by members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who had expressed concerns that the government wasn’t adequately addressing economic problems in their communities. Committee members on the CBC boycotted the vote. (See related article.)

Mr. Frank said the bill is slated to face a debate and vote on the House floor next week, where it will be combined with other financial regulatory measures on hedge funds, derivatives, investor protection and executive compensation.

Similar financial regulatory efforts are underway in the Senate, but a wide-ranging bill introduced by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.) is on hold while committee members attempt to rework some of its provisions to attract Republican support.

In the House, meanwhile, Mr. Frank likely will attempt to tweak some of the language in the broader financial package during floor debate. He has said he will offer an amendment to remove language in an investor protection bill that would exempt small and mid-size companies from audits required under the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate-reform law.

One of the more lively discussions could involve a provision in the bill to remove restrictions on the Government Accountability Office’s auditing authority of the Federal Reserve, giving it access to every item on the Fed’s balance sheet.

The provision, introduced by Rep. Ron Paul (R., Texas), was approved in committee last month over the objection of Mr. Frank.

Mr. Paul for decades has championed abolishing the Fed, and he has garnered considerable bipartisan support in the House for additional auditing authority of the central bank.

After the committee vote, Mr. Frank indicated he doesn’t intend to change Fed auditing language in the bill. “Absent some change in the way the public is reacting, I don’t see any changes’ in the Fed provision, he said.

It is possible other lawmakers will raise the Federal Reserve issue on the House floor.

The committee’s bill to deal with systemic risk may be the most difficult of the administration’s financial plan because of the competing agendas of regulators and policy makers’ desire to use a deft touch with still shaky financial institutions.

The new regulatory council would be headed by the U.S. Treasury secretary. Also having votes would be the federal banking regulators, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Federal Housing Finance Agency and the National Credit Union Administration.

The bill includes controversial language allowing the government to break up large, risky firms pre-emptively before they falter. The council could determine whether the size, concentration or interconnectedness of an individual firm “poses a grave threat to the United States.” If the council reaches that conclusion, a company could face limits on its business practices or be required to sell or divest business units.

The measure also would direct the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to establish a special pool of funding to help dissolve large, troubled institutions.

Money for the fund would be collected through risk-based assessments on firms holding assets of $50 billion or more. Regulators would have the authority to assess payments on hedge funds with $10 billion or more in assets.

The dissolution fund would be capped at $200 billion.

In a statement, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association President Timothy Ryan Jr. said his association firmly supports a systemic risk supervisor but has some concerns with a few provisions in the bill.

Specifically, Sifma opposes a provision requiring secured creditors take a mandatory 20% loss, or “haircut” in the event a financial firm collapses. Sifma also said it thinks the measure relies too heavily on banking regulations to resolve nonbank claims.

Write to Fawn Johnson at fawn.johnson@dowjones.com
Deontos, on December 3rd, 2009 at 1:02 am Said:

Lisa E

Would you please move to Calif?
Then I could join your study group.
Sounds like a great idea to me.
Lisa E., on December 2nd, 2009 at 7:44 pm Said:

Florida Case Law Study Group?

I’m considering forming a study group. Participants could send me the case law that is used by the Florida foreclosure mill attorneys in their filings. I would be willing to obtain copies of those cases, scan and email them. (My costs include gas, parking, and 20cents/page to print, so donations will be warmly welcomed.)

We could set an agreed upon agenda each week, with assignments (PUN). A chat venue or a teleconference could be discussed as to the preferred method of discussion.

If interested, please send me an email so I can determine that this isn’t just one more dud expelled from my very burnt out mind.

Lisa E
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.org
ForeclosureHamlet @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)
Abby in CA, on December 1st, 2009 at 10:25 am Said:

GOLDMAN SACHS EMPLOYEES BUYING GUNS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST PUBLIC UPRISINGS

Commentary by Alice Schroeder

Dec. 1 (Bloomberg) — “I just wrote my first reference for a gun permit,” said a friend, who told me of swearing to the good character of a Goldman Sachs Group Inc. banker who applied to the local police for a permit to buy a pistol. The banker had told this friend of mine that senior Goldman people have loaded up on firearms and are now equipped to defend themselves if there is a populist uprising against the bank.

I called Goldman Sachs spokesman Lucas van Praag to ask whether it’s true that Goldman partners feel they need handguns to protect themselves from the angry proletariat. He didn’t call me back. The New York Police Department has told me that “as a preliminary matter” it believes some of the bankers I inquired about do have pistol permits. The NYPD also said it will be a while before it can name names.

While we wait, Goldman has wrapped itself in the flag of Warren Buffett, with whom it will jointly donate $500 million, part of an effort to burnish its image — and gain new Goldman clients. Goldman Sachs Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein also reversed himself after having previously called Goldman’s greed “God’s work” and apologized earlier this month for having participated in things that were “clearly wrong.”

Has it really come to this? Imagine what emotions must be billowing through the halls of Goldman Sachs to provoke the firm into an apology. Talk that Goldman bankers might have armed themselves in self-defense would sound ludicrous, were it not so apt a metaphor for the way that the most successful people on Wall Street have become a target for public rage.

Pistol Ready

Common sense tells you a handgun is probably not even all that useful. Suppose an intruder sneaks past the doorman or jumps the security fence at night. By the time you pull the pistol out of your wife’s jewelry safe, find the ammunition, and load your weapon, Fifi the Pomeranian has already been taken hostage and the gun won’t do you any good. As for carrying a loaded pistol when you venture outside, dream on. Concealed gun permits are almost impossible for ordinary citizens to obtain in New York or nearby states.

In other words, a little humility and contrition are probably the better route.

Until a couple of weeks ago, that was obvious to everyone but Goldman, a firm famous for both prescience and arrogance. In a display of both, Blankfein began to raise his personal- security threat level early in the financial crisis. He keeps a summer home near the Hamptons, where unrestricted public access would put him at risk if the angry mobs rose up and marched to the East End of Long Island.

To the Barricades

He tried to buy a house elsewhere without attracting attention as the financial crisis unfolded in 2007, a move that was foiled by the New York Post. Then, Blankfein got permission from the local authorities to install a security gate at his house two months before Bear Stearns Cos. collapsed.

This is the kind of foresight that Goldman Sachs is justly famous for. Blankfein somehow anticipated the persecution complex his fellow bankers would soon suffer. Surely, though, this man who can afford to surround himself with a private army of security guards isn’t sleeping with the key to a gun safe under his pillow. The thought is just too bizarre to be true.

So maybe other senior people at Goldman Sachs have gone out and bought guns, and they know something. But what?

Henry Paulson, U.S. Treasury secretary during the bailout and a former Goldman Sachs CEO, let it slip during testimony to Congress last summer when he explained why it was so critical to bail out Goldman Sachs, and — oh yes — the other banks. People “were unhappy with the big discrepancies in wealth, but they at least believed in the system and in some form of market-driven capitalism. But if we had a complete meltdown, it could lead to people questioning the basis of the system.”

Torn Curtain

There you have it. The bailout was meant to keep the curtain drawn on the way the rich make money, not from the free market, but from the lack of one. Goldman Sachs blew its cover when the firm’s revenue from trading reached a record $27 billion in the first nine months of this year, and a public that was writhing in financial agony caught on that the profits earned on taxpayer capital were going to pay employee bonuses.

This slip-up let the other bailed-out banks happily hand off public blame to Goldman, which is unpopular among its peers because it always seems to win at everyone’s expense.

Plenty of Wall Streeters worry about the big discrepancies in wealth, and think the rise of a financial industry-led plutocracy is unjust. That doesn’t mean any of them plan to move into a double-wide mobile home as a show of solidarity with the little people, though.

Cool Hand Lloyd

No, talk of Goldman and guns plays right into the way Wall- Streeters like to think of themselves. Even those who were bailed out believe they are tough, macho Clint Eastwoods of the financial frontier, protecting the fistful of dollars in one hand with the Glock in the other. The last thing they want is to be so reasonably paid that the peasants have no interest in lynching them.

And if the proles really do appear brandishing pitchforks at the doors of Park Avenue and the gates of Round Hill Road, you can be sure that the Goldman guys and their families will be holed up in their safe rooms with their firearms. If nothing else, that pistol permit might go part way toward explaining why they won’t be standing outside with the rest of the crowd, broke and humiliated, saying, “Damn, I was on the wrong side of a trade with Goldman again.”

(Alice Schroeder, author of “The Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life” and a former managing director at Morgan Stanley, is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Alice Schroeder at aliceschroeder@ymail.com.
Abby in CA, on December 1st, 2009 at 7:39 am Said:

Take a look at this new site:

http://www.wix.com/iPSSystem/Subversion_Of_Rural_Innocence

I wonder if we all did something like this and posted on Youtube…would anyone pay attention??
usedkarguy, on November 30th, 2009 at 10:50 pm Said:

Lisa, is that the “Ralph’s Special Omelet”? Make mine with a little feta!
Lisa E., on November 30th, 2009 at 10:13 pm Said:

Deontos,

Yikes! I’m just brainstorming along with the rest of us “Foreclosees”.

But here’s something on topic from my studies tonight.

Apparently the big bully banks (all guilty players at Mortgage Backed Securities Craps Table) are now yipping at each other. Who promised Who What? Who made fraudulent claims? Who pretended everything was fine when it was all going to hell in a handbag? Who defrauded Who?

Now see this here quote:

Plaintiff Deutsche Bank AG (“DB”), by and through its attorneys, Williams & Connolly
LLP, as and for its Complaint against Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“BOA”), as successor
in interest to LaSalle Bank, National Association,

So, let me think………..let me think………….Now, let me ponder this equation:

BOA is a successor to LaSalle Bank = Holder in Due Course in Foreclosure is a successor to the loan originator

And if that could be argued (and I have no idea if it could), then wouldn’t that show that in the financial industry, holding the original party of an agreement responsible is accepted industry practice?

Would this hold legal water?

I mean, the BANKS themselves are saying that the son (assignee/successor) has to take responsibility for the sins of the father (assignee/originator)?

So, hey, what’s a poor borrower to do when the BANKS themselves are suing each other on that premise?

It’s either the successor in interest DOES (A) or DOES NOT (B) have to answer for it’s predecessor’s actions. Can’t be A when it’s convenient but B when it’s not, can it?

Anyway, there in one night, is a (rough light bulb idea) way to kind of tie in the CT opinion in all 50 states where one was up against Deutsche Bank. Will it work? Is it proper? Will the judge throw the book at the poor Pro Se? Heck, how would I know?

Again, it’s late. I’m very, very tired. I will probably read this after a few hours of sleep and wonder what illicit substance was slipped into my sparkling water.

And with that; I think I’ll stop posting for the night!
Deontos, on November 30th, 2009 at 9:20 pm Said:

Lisa E.,

Thank you for that response! I will contemplate as time permits.
I already have a teacher here, Master Po(aka: Maher, et al).
So I guess you’ll be Master Kan. So you can both call me Grasshopper.
I guess again along with Abby, Dan, ukg, I feel like I am in Ivy League Professorville sometime! So MANY legally stellar intensities in the livinglies constellation.
Lisa E., on November 30th, 2009 at 5:47 pm Said:

Deontos,

You ask excellent questions! I WELCOME spirited debate and hope to set up some chats for exactly THIS type of discussion. Thank you!

HOPE may just be the strongest defense we have. If you are answering Motions tomorrow, good luck! I did one last week and another today myself.

You said, “The only thing I can see is to review the “decision”; then use any favorable citations and boilerplate the judges reasoning in any relevant arguments I might be trying to construct?”. And, I agree, the information gleaned from these opinions and case law from other states can not be used as foundations for our own cases in different states, but they can be used as “padding” which MAY someday help to set precedent?

Also, to be honest, I know nothing about case law, in Florida or any other state. But, I can promise you this: that is about to change. Do we really know if there is or is not case law in our own states that speak to these issues? And if there isn’t, well, then…….please, let’s figure out HOW we can use that to our advantage because somehow, someway, the law is MEANT to be used as a cool applier of justice, quenching the fires of hot heads.

Are there foreclosure defense attorneys burning the midnight oil in the law library searching for answers in case law, looking for creative ways to present preceding case law to the judges?

Is the law a little like that quote, where there’s Three kinds of lies; Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics?

Maybe, just maybe, some of these “answers” for us lie in the dusty books sitting in the law libraries of our states (or on Google Scholar). Maybe, like finding a needle in a haystack, we need to have a strong back, don magnifying glasses, put in hard labor, fire up a creative mind, and just plain get to work in projects which we would never have chosen for ourselves?

Maybe some great case law can help save us but somehow it doesn’t exactly have to do with mortgages, but some other area of the law where transfer of value was the subject of the case, where the spirit and the intent of the opinion applies very well to the thievery that is a securitized mortgage foreclosure?

Honestly, just this week, I started traveling down this new line of thought. Maybe my post here is gibberish, and I’m babbling away? Perhaps, from sheer grief and exhaustion, I’ve finally and completely lost my tenuous grasp on reality?

Anyway, tonight I start. Tonight, I start with one of the hardest thing to prove, Fraud Upon the Court. That, and I’ll read a few of the cases used by the foreclosure mill I’m up against (if I can find them on Google Scholar or Pacer).

Oh, and one more thing; do we REALLY know what the case law cited in that construction blog stated?

Lisa E
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.org
ForeclosureHamlet @ gmail.com
Deontos, on November 30th, 2009 at 2:08 pm Said:

For the sake of SPIRITED discussion:

Lisa E.,

Regarding our exchange of views:

————————————–
me:
Xhttp://livinglies.wordpress.com/in-trouble-right-now-press-here/#comment-30707
you:
Xhttp://livinglies.wordpress.com/in-trouble-right-now-press-here/#comment-30716
————————————–

That Connecticut Case certainly exemplifies a burgeoning trend favorable to all of our plights! Especially considering the obvious illegalities being discovered in the public record.

However and unfortunately the status quo of the Case Law nationwide might mitigate against us as whole for the time being.

I regard your insights and views highly! So I ask, if that is one case in Connecticut and I am answering “Motions” tomorrow, how is it going to help me?

The only thing I can see is to review the “decision”; then use any favorable citations and boilerplate the judges reasoning in any relevant arguments I might be trying to construct? And then HOPE.
Marcus, on November 30th, 2009 at 2:06 pm Said:

Brent White paper can be download from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=661219

marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
Deontos, on November 30th, 2009 at 2:06 pm Said:

For the sake of SPIRITED discussion:

Lisa E.,

Regarding our exchange of views:

————————————–
me:
http://livinglies.wordpress.com/in-trouble-right-now-press-here/#comment-30707
you:
http://livinglies.wordpress.com/in-trouble-right-now-press-here/#comment-30716
————————————–

That Connecticut Case certainly exemplifies a burgeoning trend favorable to all of our plights! Especially considering the obvious illegalities being discovered in the public record.

However and unfortunately the status quo of the Case Law nationwide might mitigate against us as whole for the time being.

I regard your insights and views highly! So I ask, if that is one case in Connecticut and I am answering “Motions” tomorrow, how is it going to help me?

The only thing I can see is to review the “decision”; then use any favorable citations and boilerplate the judges reasoning in any relevant arguments I might be trying to construct? And then HOPE.
Marcus, on November 30th, 2009 at 1:57 pm Said:

More underwater borrowers should walk away from mortgages, professor says

By Kenneth R. Harney
Source: Seattle Times

WASHINGTON — Go ahead. Break the chains. Stop paying on your mortgage if you owe more than the house is worth. And most important: Don’t feel guilty about it. Don’t think you’re doing something morally wrong.

That’s the incendiary core message of a new academic paper, “Underwater and Not Walking Away: Shame, Fear and the Social Management of the Housing Crisis,” by Brent T. White, a University of Arizona law-school professor.

White argues that far more of the estimated 15 million American homeowners underwater on their mortgages should stiff their lenders and take a hike.

Doing so, he suggests, could save some of them hundreds of thousands of dollars they “have no reasonable prospect of recouping” in the years ahead. Plus the penalties are nowhere near as painful or long-lasting as they might assume.

“Homeowners should be walking away in droves,” according to White. “But they aren’t. And it’s not because the financial costs of foreclosure outweigh the benefits.”

Sure, credit scores get whacked when you walk away, he acknowledges. But as long as you stay current with other creditors, “one can have a good credit rating again — meaning above 660 — within two years after a foreclosure.”

Better yet, you can default “strategically”: Buy all the major items you’ll need for the next couple of years — a new car, even a new house — just before you pull the plug on your current mortgage lender.

“Most individuals should be able to plan in advance for a few years of limited credit,” says White, with minimal disruptions to their lifestyles.

What kind of law-school professorial advice is this? Aren’t mortgages legal contracts?

In an interview, White said that in so-called anti-deficiency states such as Arizona and California, mortgage lenders have limited or no legal rights to pursue assets of a defaulting homeowner beyond the house itself.

In other states, lenders may decide it is not worth the legal expense to pursue walkaways, or consumers may be able to find flaws in the mortgage documents, disclosures or underwriting to challenge the original contract.

The main point, White says, is that too often people’s “emotions” get in the way of clear financial thinking about mortgages, turning them into what he calls “woodheads” — “individuals who choose not to act in their own self-interest.” Most owners are too worried about feelings of shame and embarrassment after a foreclosure, and ignore the powerful financial reasons for doing so.

Buttressing these emotions is a system White labels “the social control of the housing crisis” — pressures and messages continually sent to consumers by the “social control agents,” namely banks, government and the media.

The mantra these agents — all the way up to the president — pound into owners’ heads, says White, is that “voluntarily defaulting on a mortgage is immoral.”

Yet there is an inherent imbalance in the borrower-lender relationship that makes this morality message unfair to consumers: Banks set the rules during the housing boom, handing out home loans with no down payments, no income checks and inflated appraisals. Now that property values have dropped 20 to 50 percent in many areas, banks have been slow to modify troubled mortgages and reluctant to reduce principal debts.

Only when homeowners cut through the emotional fog and default strategically in large numbers, White argues, will this inequitable situation be seriously addressed.

How does his 52-page manifesto go over with mortgage lenders? Predictably, not well.

Officials at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — investors who fund the bulk of all new mortgages in the country — disputed White’s characterization of how quickly after foreclosure a walkaway borrower can obtain a new loan.

It’s not three years, they said, but a minimum five years, absent extenuating circumstances such as medical or employment problems that caused the foreclosure.

“Borrowers who walk away from their mortgage obligations face serious consequences” including severely depressed credit scores for extended periods, said Brian Faith of Fannie Mae. In addition, he said, “there’s a moral dimension to this as homeowners who simply abandon their homes contribute to the destabilization of their neighborhood and community.”

Lewis Ranieri, CEO of several major mortgage-related companies and one of the pioneers of the mortgage-securities industry, called White’s entire argument “incredibly irresponsible and misinformed.”

Not only is the professor urging consumers to break legally binding contracts, said Ranieri, but if large numbers did so it would send home mortgage rates soaring and “tear apart the very basis” upon which mortgage lending rests — the understanding that borrowers will honor their commitments and pay back the money they borrowed.
Search the Web on Snap.com, on November 30th, 2009 at 12:35 pm Said:

Deontos,
“There is no spoon”

There can be no Holder in Due Course if there is no Holder

There can be no Holder if there is no loan

There can be no loan if there are no securities

Why no securities?

In my case the reason is as follows:
The originator entered into a business relationship with the securitizer whereby the securitizer will supply a warehouse line of credit in order to securitize loans (5 years before my loan closing). This business combination is material information that was NOT DISCLOSED. The source of the money was MATERIAL INFORMATION that was NOT DISCLOSED. The fee paid to the originator from the securitizer was NOT DISCLOSED. The sub-servicing fees collected by the originator were NOT DISCLOSED. The list goes on and on.

All parties with the exception of the borrowers had complete knowledge of the relationships of the parties and the fees that would be paid BEFORE the borrowers even signed their loan applications. Because the entire purpose for issuing the loans was to securitize the loan and issue securities, the entire origination, design, offer and sale of these securities was built on fraud.

If the securities are void ab initio because of fraud in their offer and/or sale, the loans were the beginning of the securities, therefore they are void. If not for that reason, how about this: If the securities are VOID, who do you have left to make your payments to? Who is entitled to receive the money? Who can provide a satisfaction of mortgage? Who can provide a true accounting of WHERE ALL OF THE MONEY WENT? Who is entitled to the proceeds of a foreclosure sale or a short sale or a loan modification? The investors lost their security when (if) the securities are voided.

This ultimately means the the following for the originator and the warehouse lender:

– the 5 deals done in 2005 are void
– the 9 deals done in 2006 are void
– the 1 deal done in 2007 is void

There are upwards of 40,000+ properties and probably well over $5 Billion dollars worth of securities in these 15 deals.

Every assignment created after the originator went into bankruptcy is a fraudulent conveyance. At the VERY LEAST this means that they have to do a judicial foreclosure to enforce their (alleged) rights. Instead they get a 3rd party to do the fraudulent conveyance and then they MAIL and WIRE these to enforce their putative power of foreclosure. (MAIL fraud and WIRE fraud).

Hopefully, this will apply in your case and most other cases (if not all) that are out there.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice. This is what I am looking at in my case.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Mary Pro Se Florida, on November 30th, 2009 at 11:27 am Said:

Does a Lack of Standing defense in a Motion to Dismiss/Motion to Vacate Judgement ever trump failure to answer foreclosure liz pendens on time?
Lisa E, on November 30th, 2009 at 10:44 am Said:

Deontos,

I think there was a recent ruling in CT that is in contradiction to the info you posted (a GOOD thing for borrowers)!

http://4closurefraud.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/foreclosure-fraud-defense-connecticut-u-s-bank-national-association-as-trustee-v-toni-ascenzia-et-al/

Lisa E
Deontos, on November 30th, 2009 at 9:43 am Said:

**But the FHDC Rule foils borrowers’ and guarantors’ defenses…..**

FDIC LOANS SALES: IT’S GOOD TO BE A HOLDER IN DUE COURSE

Full article: xhttp://www.constructionlawattorneyblog.com/2009/11/fdic-loans-sales-its-good-to-be-a-holder-in-due-course.html

THE FEDERAL HOLDER IN DUE COURSE RULE

The FHDC Rule is the second, and last, of D’Oench, Duhme’s companions. Like the D’Oench, Duhme doctrine and Section 13(e), the FHDC Rule neutralizes many defenses that borrowers and guarantors raise in their post-bank failure attempts to avoid re-paying loans. But the FHDC Rule is separate from, and operates independent of, D’Oench, Duhme and Section 13(e). Critically, D’Oench and Section 13(e) apply only where an “agreement” hurts the FDIC. But the FHDC Rule foils borrowers’ and guarantors’ defenses even when there is no agreement. For example, when the amount of interest on a loan is usurious.

SO WHY’S IT SO GOOD TO BE A HOLDER IN DUE COURSE?

Because the HDC of a note enjoys nearly complete immunity from borrowers’ and guarantors’ defenses against payment. HDCs are immune from what lawyers call the “personal” defenses. Personal defenses include:

(These are links to Case Law Precedents. Go to the “Full article:” to click through and view them.)

• Bad faith
• Fraud, fraudulent inducement, and material alteration of the note
• Violation of unfair and deceptive trade practice statutes
• Usury
• Tortious interference
• Failure of consideration (i.e., the other side didn’t perform their part of the contract as promised)
• Waiver, estoppel, and unjust enrichment
• Accord and satisfaction, laches, release, and breach of fiduciary duty

Keep in mind this post is just a miniature primer on holder in due course law. Lawyers, judges, and professors have written volumes more. If you’re interested, try starting with The ABCs of the UCC: Articles 3 and 4
Abby in CA, on November 29th, 2009 at 8:51 pm Said:

Dan is absolutely correct about this ” This 3rd party took over the borrowers obligation to pay such that the borrower does not have to make payments and the “investor” lender’s payments are still “magically” made.

I’ve heard of at least one case where somebody received their annual IRS form from the mortgage company (bank) stating the amount of P&I paid for the year….and it included amounts that the homeowner/borrower had not paid. In other words, the borrowers had not been making their mortgage payments, yet the statement indicated they did. The investors were getting thier magic payments!!
Marcus, on November 29th, 2009 at 8:48 pm Said:

I started using Google Scholar legal search tool. It is really handy. I was able to look at cases cited by the plaintiff in response to my motion to dismiss. I am getting ready to fire back. Their citation is mostly out of context.

marcus @ foreclosureProse.com
Dan Edstrom, on November 29th, 2009 at 8:16 pm Said:

So the homeowner gave an unconditional promise to pay. The “investors” who purchased securities from the issuing entity (the trust) stood up as the lender and provided the money. Now is where it gets tricky. Another 3rd party sprang up between the two and became the obligor to the lender. That is, they took over the CONDITIONS for providing payments to the “investors”. As Maher just said, they sliced and diced everything up into small pieces. But one thing is for sure, the relationship between the original borrower and the ultimate lender was bifurcated. They abstracted out the borrowers obligation to pay and replaced it with another 3rd party obligation to pay that is jacked up full of all kinds of goodies that apply not only to the investors, but to the borrowers also. This 3rd party took over the borrowers obligation to pay such that the borrower does not have to make payments and the “investor” lender’s payments are still “magically” made.

What are these “goodies” and magic? Advances, credit default swaps, hedges, insurance, over-collateralization, extra pools of funds, payments from borrowers in lower level tranches, you name it. And of course this does not even include government bailouts, write-offs, charge-offs, etc. The homeowners obligation to pay has been eviscerated.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Abby in CA, on November 29th, 2009 at 8:13 pm Said:

Pro Se folks—go to Google Scholar–there is functionality to look up cases and citations.

One can even ‘limit’ the search by most recent years.

Very handy to those who do not have access to Lexis or their law library.
mortgagelies, on November 29th, 2009 at 7:40 pm Said:

Living lies Readers;

These views are my own and seem opposed to anything I read here. they are not necessarily shared with anyone from this site.

The Treasury Department pumped $125 billion into the country’s largest financial institutions, and it promised another $125 billion — more, as necessary — to recapitalize regional and community banks.

They are vital steps and the global recapitalization of the banking system is the reason. But the job isn’t done and nothing seems to have trickled down to the homeowners….why?

Wake up America – Modifications do not exist. And the capital advances are to supplement the value for the assets these banks are stealing back for securitization deals gone wrong….very very wrong.

California said no more modification help . . . maybe they could have been a little more honest? Modifications do not exist.

Portraying foreclosure consultants as Crooks Thieves and Shakespearean web sites are a little bit of an obstruction of justice.

Even the bad ones made phone calls and talked to parties who “were not authorized to discuss the loan.” FAS 140-3 friends. THAT IS THE VIOLATION NEEDED TO ARGUE RELIEF IN COURT MORE THAN ANY OTHER ARGUMENT. That’s testimony to an “expert witness” to provide counsel AND I will go out, interview and collect the information.

They need to realize – there is no other solution to a securities deal gone bad. We played by the rules and lost in better times. Now are faced with this?

John Kennedy spoke about these secret societies and need for it elimination. Harvard University and others have authored excellent articles on opaque secretive and clandestine financing arrangements.

Look Darwin was nuts, dinosaurs did not exist, the Berlin Wall never came down and do you believe we put a man on the moon? Mr. Andy Kaufman’s gone wrestling, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah

M.Soliman
expert.witness@live.com
Foreclosure Fraud, on November 29th, 2009 at 7:24 pm Said:

Holy Crap,

Maher Soliman agreeing with Abby???

On top of that Maher followed up with one of the most comprehensible posts I have ever read from him. Simple, to the point, and for the most part, no condescending remarks…

The tide is starting to turn!!!

BTW, Maher, I love your slice up the bill analogy. I’m going to use it as if it were my own. Thanks for the tip!

4closureFraud
http://4closurefraud.wordpress.com/
mortgagelies, on November 29th, 2009 at 6:48 pm Said:

ASSET BACKED SECURITIZATION MEANS NO NOTE

Asset backed securitization is magic come to life. It is the transformation of a note into pieces. The pieces act like a waterfall of cash flow. Its distributed as investment, structured finance, accrual, accretion and cash flows set forth into many classes of offerings.

Take a dollar bill and slice it up and distribute it to your friends. Piece by piece. Then ask your friends to go cash it. The US Treasury will accept only greater than 51% of any legal tender to make the payer (government) honor the bill. Get it…no?

Try this- The bill you cut up…that bill was a promissory note that went bad. Now if you’re a (GE) stock holder and lose on the stock you purchased you won’t get far attacking General Electric. You cannot seize company assets now can you? The assets are still GE assets and you lose.

What’s your point? The note you gave the lender, the lender did own. But lender sliced it up and it was distributed amongst many investors. The investors lose as the certificates they hold are only valuable as the whole and not the pieces. It’s worthless.

They (investors) have an abundance of insurance they can attack related to the security and that’s it.

Hey investor – are you really going to foreclosure on a 17.8% share of a borrower’s home?

Maher, Nooooo! – You’re talking out both sides of your mouth. You said in the above example GE owns the assets and you cannot attack a public company because of a bad stock deal. So the lender owns the note after all and they can foreclose… Correct?

Yes mischief makers I did say that “about the GE stock example”, correct! But these registrants offer pass through certificates.

They are portioned out and “passed through” from the lenders beneficial interest to the investors. You want me to be any clearer here. Then join me and let’s scream from the highest mountain””….HEY INVESTORS….GET IT TOGETHER AND GO COLLECT ALL YOU’RE CERTIFICATES AND PIECE THEM TOGETHER . . . And NOW you can foreclose on me!” You lender tore the LEGAL “TENDER’ into pieces and the note is lost forever to the securitization they created.

I walked away from structured finance and private placement fees because of this argument. No attorney; accountant or lewd Cop could ever overcome this argument for denying you your home on a securitization gone badly?

So who wants to call me for an audit? Need a modification? I cannot and never will do an audit or modification! If others do, then kiss them for me. What are you auditing . . . Something the lender does not own? Want to file bankruptcy – careful. Are you bringing a lender into court and re-establishing them as a creditor?

They are not a creditor and that’s why BK Trustees want no part of the bankruptcy rip-off report. Where’s the modification that California said no more attorneys or consultants can help out on?

THERE ARE NO MODIFICATIONS. THERE IS NO MODIFICATION OR SHORT SALE IF YOU’RE WAITING FOR! GOT IT.

You note is gone and that is that. Fight the security as they cannot evidence the note. What if the “The lender came to court with the note…! So…..what? The lender was not a security player or they left the loan out of a securities offering. No problems counsel, you win.

Oh wait a minute! What’s that? You booked the transaction as a sale under FAS 140-3 instead of debt on your balance sheet. That is what we call securities fraud even under FAS revisions 140-3 and for servicing arrangements under FAS115.

Its your home and an impostor, Realtor, Recovery firm, Attorney . . . Someone is trying to steal it from you.

Peace.

M.Soliman
Expert.witness@live.com
mortgagelies, on November 29th, 2009 at 5:34 pm Said:

Abby,

Hello, your right!
Anything is better than the current ,
but on second thought….

Your right! Great call – my error. . .

Maher
Lisa E., on November 29th, 2009 at 2:05 pm Said:

Servicers: Why Modify When Foreclosure is so much more profitable?

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.org
ForeclosureHamlet.org
Abby in CA, on November 29th, 2009 at 10:13 am Said:

Maher,
while agree with you on replacing Geithner as Treasury Secretary, the CEO of Chase, Jaimie Dimon, is the wrong chap to put in there. This would be like putting the fox in the henhouse. IMHO.
Dan Edstrom, on November 29th, 2009 at 9:25 am Said:

Who is really in default?

This is a definition from US Bank (a big time Trustee for bondholders):

Default: The issuer’s failure to pay principal or interest when due. Default may occur as a result of bankruptcy or failure to meet non-payment obligations, such as reporting requirements.

How can a homeowner be in default if another party is obligated to make payments to the “real parties in interest” and this party has actually made ALL of the required principal and interest payments?

If the issuer makes all required payments to the “real parties in interest”, I maintain that there can be no borrower default. This goes directly with what Neil maintains about 3rd parties making your payments for you. In discovery, I would push to determine if an issuer default has occurred, and if so, provide the details.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice. These are only my opnions.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
mortgagelies, on November 29th, 2009 at 7:59 am Said:

Upon the borrowers hitting a 60 days delinquency mark the servicing agent is obligated to assure the borrower’s right to “cure” the “arrears” amount due.

California real property law provides for extra-judicial foreclosure of a Deed of Trust (a Deed of Trust is in effect a mortgage with a power of sale). Lenders enjoy an efficient process from start to finish totaling four months. Under California Civil Code (“CC”) §§2924-2924(k) the statute offers broad framework for the oversight of non-judicial foreclosure sales.The statutory procedure maintains in a default by the borrower, the lender may declare a default.

Upon such notice the lender may proceed with a non-judicial foreclosure sale. Under CCC§2924 / 2923.5 a lender must provide the delinquency with a meaningful workout option under recently passed legislation. From the 60 days delinquency mark and thereafter the servicing records offered by the lender are uncertain as to the servicing agent’s compliance with state civil code.

Therefore it is unknown what rights the lender maintains in a foreclosure and trustees sale of the subject property for any alleged delinquency and upon denying the borrowers fundamental rights prior to conducting a Trustee’s sale.
(1) A right to cure the delinquent amount
(2) The right to a notice of intent to foreclose
(3) A right to a meaningful offer to a workout

A claim brought by the borrowers stems from plaintiff allegations made in a wrongful foreclosure claim under California’s Non-Judicial Deed of Trust Foreclosure Process.

The matter will point out the necessity for a lender to pay attention. Maintaining timeliness is not just a smart idea but it ensures both appropriate and spontaneous intelligent approaches to managing delinquency. Where the courts have made known their tendencies to not see the lender as a fiduciary the servicing agent none the less maintains a higher level of responsibility to the borrower.

The current administration in Washington has made it very clear through the office of the Secretary of the treasury the same is not true for the servicing agent.

M.Soliman
expert.witness@live.com
mortgagelies, on November 29th, 2009 at 7:56 am Said:

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon potential successor to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner

Finally…its about time!

MSoliman
expert.witness@live.com
Foreclosure Fraud, on November 29th, 2009 at 6:15 am Said:

Obama to push banks on mortgages

“While some 650,000 people have had their mortgage payments temporarily adjusted, only a fraction have received permanent modifications. More comprehensive data should be released soon, but preliminary figures show the extent of the problem.

For example, fewer than 5% of the trial adjustments on loans owned or guaranteed by Freddie Mac were converted to permanent modifications as of Sept. 30, according to the mortgage finance giant.

Looking more broadly, the figures are even lower. As of Sept. 1, only 1.26% of all trial adjustments were made permanent after three months, reported the Congressional Oversight Panel, which monitors the government’s use of bailout funds.”

4closureFraud
4closurefraud.wordpress.com
Lisa E., on November 29th, 2009 at 1:09 am Said:

TUNE IN ON MONDAY: President Obama to annouce new plans encouraging lenders to help homeowners.

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.org
ForeclosureHamlet@gmail.com
Lisa E., on November 28th, 2009 at 6:19 pm Said:

Part 2 (The link to Part 1 is a few posts down.)

One can listen or read the transcripts by clicking on the “Related Transcript” of both of these recorded sessions.

Judges listen and make queries Part 2

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.org
ForeclosureHamlet@gmail.com
ALLAN (with some of TODAY'S NEWS), on November 28th, 2009 at 3:41 pm Said:

Today in History, November 28, the Boston Globe reports, in 1520 Magellan reached the Pacific Ocean, having navigated the Straits now bearing his name.

In 2001 ENRON collapsed after a $8.4 billion dollar deal to take them over, fell through. There we saw corporate greed at its worst.

What most got me was the obituary of Mark Pittman. In this obit, we’ll find a treasure trove of facts, materials and resources.

Pittman brought us the FAUSTIAN BARGAIN series. Why are there so few investigative reporters of his caliber left? Are they muzzled by parent corporations? He practiced the ‘afflict the comfortable’ ethos.

Boston.com

MARK PITTMAN, 52; reporter who foresaw subprime crisis

By Bob Ivry, Bloomberg News | November 28, 2009

NEW YORK – Mark Pittman, the award-winning investigative reporter whose fight to open the Federal Reserve to more scrutiny led Bloomberg News to sue the central bank and win, died Wednesday in Yonkers, N.Y. He was 52.

Mr. Pittman suffered from heart-related illnesses. The precise cause of his death was not known, said his friend William Karesh, vice president of the Global Health Program at the Bronx-based Wildlife Conservation Society.

Mr. Pittman, a former police beat reporter who joined Bloomberg News in 1997, wrote stories in 2007 predicting the collapse of the banking system. That year, he won the Gerald Loeb Award from the Anderson School of Management at the University of California, Los Angeles, the highest accolade in financial journalism, for “Wall Street’s Faustian Bargain,’’ a series of articles on the breakdown of the US mortgage industry.

Mr. Pittman’s fight to make the Fed more accountable resulted in an Aug. 24 victory in Manhattan Federal Court affirming the public’s right to know about the central bank’s more than $2 trillion in loans to financial firms. Mr. Pittman drew the attention of filmmakers Andrew and Leslie Cockburn, who gave him a prominent role in their documentary about subprime mortgages, “American Casino,’’ which was shown at New York City’s Tribeca Film Festival in May.

“Who sues the Fed? One reporter on the planet,’’ said Emma Moody, a Wall Street Journal editor who worked with Pittman at Bloomberg.

“The more complex the issue, the more he wanted to dig into it. Years ago, he forced us to learn what a credit-default swap was. He dragged us kicking and screaming.’’

James Mark Pittman was born in Kansas City, Kan., where he played linebacker on the high school football team. He took engineering classes at the University of Kansas in Lawrence before graduating with a degree in journalism in 1981.

He was married soon after and had a daughter, Maggie, in 1983. The marriage ended in divorce.

Mr. Pittman’s first reporting job, covering the Police Department for the Coffeyville Journal in southern Kansas, paid so little he took a part-time job as a ranch hand across the border in Lenapah, Okla., according to an interview he gave to Ryan Chittum for the Columbia Journalism Review’s The Audit, a watchdog for the business press.

“What a funny guy – huge personality,’’ Chittum said in an e-mail message.

“Mark was my favorite reporter working. In a time when too much journalism is timid or co-opted, Mark personified the whole ‘afflict the comfortable’ tenet of the business. Mark’s passing is a huge loss for journalism at a time when we can least afford it.’’

Mr. Pittman spent a year in Rochester, N.Y., with the Democrat & Chronicle newspaper and 12 years at the Times Herald-Record in Middletown, N.Y., where he met his wife, Laura Fahrenthold-Pittman, in 1995.

“All I know is we fell in love the moment we met,’’ Fahrenthold-Pittman said in an interview yesterday.

“We moved in together a week later. He was as serious about his family life as he was about work. Mark did nothing in a small way.’’

In 2007, Mr. Pittman was writing about the securitization of home loans when subprime borrowers, who have bad or limited credit histories, began missing payments on their mortgages at a faster pace.

Mr. Pittman’s June 29, 2007, article headlined “S&P, Moody’s Hide Rising Risk on $200 Billion of Mortgage Bonds’’ was excoriated at the time by Portfolio.com for “trying to play gotcha’ with the ratings agencies.’’

Mr. Pittman’s story proved prescient. So did his reports on US banks exporting toxic mortgages overseas, on Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson’s role in creating those troubled assets while he was chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs Group Inc., and on the US bailout of American International Group Inc.

“He’s been on this crisis since before the crisis,’’ said Gretchen Morgenson, the Pulitzer Prize-winning financial columnist for The New York Times.

“He was the best at burrowing into the most complex securities Wall Street could come up with and explaining the implications of them to readers of all levels of sophistication. His investigative work during the crisis set the standard for other reporters everywhere. He was a giant.’’

In the “Faustian Bargain’’ series, Mr. Pittman explained how 5 percent of US mortgage borrowers missing monthly payments could lead to a freeze in lending throughout the world.

Public policy would be more effective if reporters, lawmakers, and citizens understood how the financial system worked and why the crisis happened, Mr. Pittman said during the interview with Chittum in February.

“We need to know how to prevent it from happening again, and we need to know who did it,’’ he said.

“I always learned something new when I spoke with Mark,’’ said Representative Scott Garrett, a New Jersey Republican on the House Financial Services Committee.

Bloomberg’s lawsuit against the Fed, which was filed after Mr. Pittman’s requests under the US Freedom of Information Act were denied, continues without him. The central bank won a delay pending an appeal, which is scheduled for the week of Jan. 4.

At the time of his death, Mr. Pittman’s outgoing messages offered a link to a black-and-white photo of Woody Guthrie. Written on Guthrie’s guitar: “This machine kills fascists.’’

© Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
Lisa E, on November 27th, 2009 at 9:59 pm Said:

What we are up against.

A Florida Case (skimmed and posted here)

Looks like a homeowner had a terrible lawyer and lost his house in Circuit court, which was upheld on appeal where he apparently had a better attorney who raised the post-dated assignment issues and also raised for the first time the issues of fraud & securitization standing.

Then, he took his case up to the FL Supreme Court where the following two links show attorney for homeowner’s petition and then Plaintiff’s counsel Law Office of Marshall Watson’s (foreclosure mill attorney) response.

The FL Supreme Court refused to hear this case due to lack of jurisdiction (to the best of my ability to figure out why there was no FL Supreme Court opinion was written).

I plan on reading these carefully and then pulling out the case law to study. Hmmmm, perhaps we could start a chat or teleconference study group? Wonder if any one would be interested in that?

Homeowner’s Attorney’s Petition to the FL Supreme Court

Plaintiff’s Foreclosure Mill Attorney’s Response

Lisa E (Pro SE, Florida)
ForeclosureHamlet.org
ForeclosureHamlet @ gmail . com
Lisa E, on November 27th, 2009 at 8:28 pm Said:

Judges and Lawyers (on both sides of thie issue) discuss the lost note and lack of standing issues.

FACINATING!

Judges listen and query lawyers on both sides of this issue.

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.org
ForeclosureHamlet @ gmail . com
deontos, on November 26th, 2009 at 8:18 pm Said:

To: usedkarguy {Ph.d}

Your dissertation …….. short but direct,
“GOT IT”. I kinda had the same idea
that they were buying at pennies on the
dollar and then telling the homeowner
THEY were doing them a favor! Not so,
of course. They were doing themselves
a FAVOR making a huge spread.

YOUR COMMENT:
Comment on Homeowners by usedkarguy
by usedkarguy
Deontos, I think this is just recycling of the old bad debt being sold off the books (after the swaps are paid) and the scam just repeats itself. Remember, this is a $500Trillion BLACK HOLE. I think that was the number bantered about reflecting the total value of the MBS/ABS/Derivatives market. The more of this bad debt they can push on the taxpayers the better for them. Remember, they’ve already collected at least twice on the original principal, and possibly up to 30 times. The exception would be where the bond insurer has gone insolvent. There have been quite a few bond insurers that reached runoff status(claims exceed premiums) in the past two years. Those securities were unable to collect, so they sell off at a discount like the article says. But now the holders become DEBT COLLECTORS, SINCE THEY HAVE ACCEPTED DEFAULTED INSTRUMENTS. Now were back to getting the consumer to re-up on a debt that has been extinguished, or should have been extinguished, or is being enforced by someone who really has no right to the real estate. Kind of like a CDO squared. Bad debts layered upon bad debts. Let’s see if they can get the new mortgage recorded in the name of the guy they don’t want you to know!
JRN, on November 26th, 2009 at 11:43 am Said:

ATTENTION: I have scoured the internet for resources to aid me in my ongoing lawsuit against JP Morgan Chase. I have read thousands of posts and pleadings, most of which are useless. I have a legitimate fraud cause of action against my lender, and the supporting documents to prove it (which my lender accidently sent me by mistake). I have been fighting off the trustee sale of my California residence since August 2008 and keep running into inexperienced attorney’s that claim to know what they are doing and claim to have expertise with these types of cases. I have shelled out over $20k in attorneys fees to a couple of different attorneys, but I have lost confidence in each of them, and question their boiler plate pleadings. Is there a REAL mortgage fraud litigation attorney out there that knows what they are doing? One that has successfully gotten an injunction issued? One that is currently active in litigation against several lenders? One that is AV Rated by Martindale? If you fit the profile and are reading this, HELP! My property is located in Orange County,ATTENTION: I have scoured the internet for resources to aid me in my ongoing lawsuit against JP Morgan Chase. I have read thousands of posts and pleadings, most of which are useless. I have a legitimate fraud cause of action against my lender, and the supporting documents to prove it (which my lender accidently sent me by mistake). I have been fighting off the trustee sale of my California residence since August 2008 and keep running into inexperienced attorney’s that claim to know what they are doing and claim to have expertise with these types of cases. I have shelled out over $20k in attorneys fees to a couple of different attorneys, but I have lost confidence in each of them, and question their boiler plate pleadings. Is there a REAL mortgage fraud litigation attorney out there that knows what they are doing? One that has successfully gotten an injunction issued? One that is currently active in litigation against several lenders? One that is AV Rated by Martindale? If you fit the profile and are reading this, HELP! My property is located in Orange County, CA. I need someone that is competent to continue representing me. Alternatively, anyone else out there in an Option Arm from Washington Mutual? I would also like to organize a class action. This is not a frivilous TILA or HOEPA claim. Please e-mail me at: fightingback31@gmail.com. CA. I need someone that is competent to continue representing me. Alternatively, anyone else out there in an Option Arm from Washington Mutual? I would also like to organize a class action. This is not a frivilous TILA or HOEPA claim. Please e-mail me at: fightingback31@gmail.com.
usedkarguy, on November 25th, 2009 at 11:44 pm Said:

Deontos, I think this is just recycling of the old bad debt being sold off the books (after the swaps are paid) and the scam just repeats itself. Remember, this is a $500Trillion BLACK HOLE. I think that was the number bantered about reflecting the total value of the MBS/ABS/Derivatives market. The more of this bad debt they can push on the taxpayers the better for them. Remember, they’ve already collected at least twice on the original principal, and possibly up to 30 times. The exception would be where the bond insurer has gone insolvent. There have been quite a few bond insurers that reached runoff status(claims exceed premiums) in the past two years. Those securities were unable to collect, so they sell off at a discount like the article says. But now the holders become DEBT COLLECTORS, SINCE THEY HAVE ACCEPTED DEFAULTED INSTRUMENTS. Now were back to getting the consumer to re-up on a debt that has been extinguished, or should have been extinguished, or is being enforced by someone who really has no right to the real estate. Kind of like a CDO squared. Bad debts layered upon bad debts. Let’s see if they can get the new mortgage recorded in the name of the guy they don’t want you to know!

Happy Thanksgiving
gfaust, on November 25th, 2009 at 10:05 pm Said:

some say the new law has no teeth good let them think that
ca civil code 2923.5

its obvious to me the statute states more then once the
The beneficiary or beneficiary’s authorized agent must contact
the borrower —- this force’s the standing issues because the servicer and mers are not the beneficial party you just have to look for the teeth
Deontos, on November 25th, 2009 at 5:10 pm Said:

*usedkarguy**

REAL LOAN MODIFICATION WITH PRINCIPAL REDUCTION?

The New York Times

November 22, 2009
Back to Business
Wall St. Finds Profits by Reducing Mortgages
By LOUISE STORY

As millions of Americans struggle to hold on to their homes, Wall Street has found a way to make money from the mortgage mess.

Investment funds are buying billions of dollars’ worth of home loans, discounted from the loans’ original value. Then, in what might seem an act of charity, the funds are helping homeowners by reducing the size of the loans.

But as part of these deals, the mortgages are being refinanced through lenders that work with government agencies like the Federal Housing Administration. This enables the funds to pocket sizable profits by reselling new, government-insured loans to other federal agencies, which then bundle the mortgages into securities for sale to investors.

While homeowners save money, the arrangement shifts nearly all the risk for the loans to the federal government — and, ultimately, taxpayers — at a time when Americans are falling behind on their mortgage payments in record numbers.

For instance, a fund might offer to pay $40 million for a $100 million block of mortgages from a bank in distress. Then the fund could arrange to have some of those loans refinanced into mortgages backed by an agency like the F.H.A. and then sold to an agency like Ginnie Mae. The trick is to persuade the homeowners to refinance those mortgages, by offering to reduce the amounts the homeowners owe.

The profit comes when the refinancings reach more than the $40 million that the fund paid for the block of loans.

The strategy has created an unusual alliance between Wall Street funds that specialize in troubled investments — the industry calls them “vulture” funds — and American homeowners.

But the transactions also add to the potential burden on government agencies, particularly the F.H.A., which has lately taken on an outsize role in the housing market and, some fear, may eventually need to be bailed out at taxpayer expense.

These new mortgage investors thrive in the shadows. Typically, the funds employ intermediaries to contact homeowners and arrange for mortgages to be refinanced.

Homeowners often have no idea who their Wall Street benefactors are. Federal housing officials, too, are in the dark.

Policymakers have encouraged investors and banks to put more consumers into government-backed loans. The total value of these transactions from hedge funds is small compared with the overall housing market.

Housing experts warn that the financial players involved — the investment funds, their intermediaries and certain F.H.A. approved lenders — have a financial incentive to put as many loans as possible into the government’s hands.

“From the borrower’s point of view, landing in a hedge fund or private equity fund that’s willing to write down principal is a gift,” said Howard Glaser, a financial industry consultant and former official at the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

He went on: “From the systemic point of view, there is something disturbing about investors that had substantial short-term profit in backing toxic loans now swooping down to make another profit on cleaning up that mess.”

Steven and Marisela Alva say they do not know who helped them with their mortgage. All they know is that they feel blessed.

Last December, the couple got a letter saying that a firm had purchased the mortgage on their home in Pico Rivera, Calif., from Chase Home Finance for less than its original value. “We want to share this discount with you,” the letter said.

“I couldn’t believe it,” said Mr. Alva, a 62-year-old janitor and father of three. “I kept thinking to myself, ‘Something is wrong, something is wrong. This sounds too good.’ ”

But it was true. The balance on the Alvas’ mortgage was ultimately reduced to $314,000 from $440,000.

The firm behind the reduction remains a mystery. The Alvas’ new loan, backed by the F.H.A., was made by Primary Residential Mortgage, a lender based in Utah. But the letter came from a company called MCM Capital Partners.

In the letter, MCM said the couple’s loan was owned by something called MCMCap Homeowners’ Advantage Trust III. But MCM’s co-founders said in an interview that MCM does not own any mortgages. They would not reveal the investor that owned the Alvas’ loan because they had agreed to keep that client’s identity confidential.

Michael Niccolini, an MCM founder, said, “We are changing people’s lives.”

In Washington, mortgage funds are lobbying for policies that favor their investments, particularly mortgages held in securitized bundles. They want more mortgage balances to be lowered, which might help mortgage bonds perform better. Big banks generally oppose such reductions, which lock in banks’ losses on the loans.

In April, about a dozen investment firms formed a group called the Mortgage Investors Coalition to press their case. One investor who is speaking out is Wilbur L. Ross, who runs a fund that buys mortgages and owns a large mortgage servicing company.

Mr. Ross said modifications that simply lower interest rates or lengthen the duration of a loan, as is typical in the government modification program, do not work well.

“They make a payment or two, but then one night the husband and wife will sit down at the table and say, ‘Do we really want to make 140 monthly payments into a rat hole?’ ” Mr. Ross said.

The Fortress Investment Group, a hedge fund in New York, is one of the firms at the forefront of picking through mortgages. Fortress created a $3 billion credit fund in 2008 partly to buy loans from banks like Citigroup, which were under pressure to purge loans to raise cash.

“They’re going ahead and they are refinancing them and getting their money out right away,” said Roger Smith, an analyst at Fox-Pitt Kelton. “What Fortress is doing is actually good for the borrower.” Congress, however, may not be happy that hedge funds are making money this way, Mr. Smith said.

Fortress, which declined to comment, typically buys batches of loans and works with other companies to evaluate which ones might qualify for F.H.A., Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac refinancing.

Sometimes Fortress works with Nationstar, a mortgage servicer and originator that it owns. Other times, Fortress uses an outside partner like Meridias Capital, a lender in Henderson, Nev., that once originated Alt-A loans, which are just above subprime.

After the mortgage market imploded, Meridias began dissecting portfolios of troubled loans for investment funds.

Because firms like Fortress purchase blocks of mortgages at distressed prices, they are able to reduce the principal amount of the loans. Nick Florez, president of Meridias, calls such transactions an “incentive refinance.” He said he would not agree to take a loan unless he could help the homeowner. He said he was able to reduce the loan amount by 11 percent on average.

“I’m giving money away,” said Mr. Florez, who is a 35-year-old Las Vegas native. “It’s really a feel-good business.”

It is too early to know how the new loans will work.

David H. Stevens, the new commissioner of the F.H.A., said he was monitoring F.H.A. lenders but did not have thorough information about which ones work with distressed investors. So far he has not seen a problem from loans coming from hedge funds.

“They’re helping to protect people in their homes and they’re refinancing people from a distressed situation,” he said.

But he acknowledged that funds have an incentive to aggressively push homeowners into federally guaranteed loans, since the investors get their money back as soon as they complete the refinancing.

Seth Wheeler, a senior adviser in the Treasury Department who specializes in housing policy, declined to say whether the investment firms that are lowering principal for homeowners are altruistic or not.

“Investors are doing it where it both benefits the investor and the borrower,” he said.

Part of the risk may be determined by how the funds compensate the F.H.A. lenders and whether the lenders are beholden to the funds for business.

David Zitting, the chief executive of Primary Residential Mortgage, the company that refinanced the Alva family’s loan, said his company did not receive fees from the hedge funds.

“They have all sorts of motivations that, frankly, we don’t understand,” he said. “We don’t do anything special for them because that’s not fair lending.”

The Alvas had to dip into their savings to qualify for their new federally insured loan, since the biggest F.H.A. mortgage they could get was for $285,000, they said. They paid off $21,000 in credit-card and car loans, and put up an additional $29,000 for their new mortgage, depleting their already meager savings.

Brian Chappelle, a mortgage consultant, said loans to people like the Alvas, with modest incomes and scant savings, could turn out to be risky.

“It does raise risk concerns for F.H.A.,” he said.

The Alvas are grateful for the help. Their home is, Marisela said, a dream come true. “I’m very happy,” she said. “We never thought this was possible.”
usedkarguy, on November 25th, 2009 at 3:47 pm Said:

Guys! Guys! GUYS!! (and Gals)

There is no modification. Repeat after me: There is no modification. One more time: THERE IS NO MODIFICATION! The pooling and servicing agreements forbid it. This is extortion. They are gaming you. They are collecting as much money as they can from you while they continue to collect the insurance swaps. They are trying to get you to re-affirm an obligation that has probably been extinguished (depending on the length of your default). They will come to foreclose on you at the first sign of default on the repayment plan (or while you are waiting for your “ghost” approval to come along). This is not legal advice. This is an opinion. Thank you.

Happy Thanksgiving Everyone!
Lisa E., on November 25th, 2009 at 3:34 pm Said:

Mike,

Many HAMP-ers are finding that their “trial modification” period continues to be extended over and over. Anything to avoid the bank accepting writing down your loan, slowing/preventing default, and preventing that holy grail of insurance payout, oppsss they might even have to re-purchase that modified loan.

Be careful.

Save EVERY bit of proof of your payments, bank statements and if possible print out images, front and back of each cashed check. I’ve heard of stories where the HAMPed checks were cashed and “misapplied” re-defaulting the loan, rushing into foreclosure, do not pass GO, do not collect 200 dollars! (a old reference to the monopoly game)

Good luck!

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.org

P.S. Just call me Ralph.
Thomas S. in Trinity,Fl., on November 25th, 2009 at 2:17 pm Said:

Yahoo Homepage 11-25-2009

Judge blasts bad bank, erases 525G debt

Judge KOs 525G mortgage to slap bank
By KIERAN CROWLEY, RICH WILNER and DAN MANGAN

Last Updated: 3:34 PM, November 25, 2009

Posted: 3:46 AM, November 25, 2009

A Long Island couple is home free after an outraged judge gave them an amazing Thanksgiving present — canceling their debt to ruthless bankers trying to toss them out on the street
Suffolk Judge Jeffrey Spinner wiped out $525,000 in mortgage payments demanded by a California bank, blasting its “harsh, repugnant, shocking and repulsive” actsThe bombshell decision leaves Diane Yano-Horoski and her husband, Greg Horoski, owing absolutely no money on their ranch house in East PatchogueSpinner pulled no punches as he smacked down the bankers at OneWest — who took an $814.2 million federal bailout but have a record of coldbloodedly foreclosing on any homeowner owing money
“The bank was so intransigent that he [the judge] decided to punish them,” Greg Horoski, 55, said about Spinner’s scathing ruling last Thursday against OneWest and its IndyMac mortgage divisionIt erased up to $291,000 in principal and $235,000 in interest and penaltiesThe Horoskis — who had been paying only interest on their mortgage — had no equity in the homeHoroski, who had begged the bankers to let him restructure the loan, said, “I think the judge felt it was almost a personal vendetta.” Dealing with the bank, he said, was “like dealing with organized crimeOneWest said, “We respectfully disagree with the lower court’s unprecedented ruling and we expect that it will be overturned on appeal
It claimed it “has been extremely active in working with consumers on home loan modifications through the Obama administration’s Home Affordable Modification Program and other loan modification initiatives.The bank is owned by a private equity group that purchased the failed IndyMac bank.
Yano-Horoski, a college professor of English and cognitive reason, and Horoski, who sells collectible dolls online, bought their 3,400-square-foot, one-level house 15 years ago for less than $200,000.

In 2004, court records show, they refinanced, paying off their original mortgage with part of a $292,500 sub-prime loan from Deutsche Bank. They used what was left for health care and for his business.
The loan carried an initial adjustable interest rate of 10.375 percent, which soared to 12.375 percent.It eventually ended up being either owned or serviced by IndyMac, and the bank sued the couple in July 2005 when they began having trouble making payments because of Horoski’s health problems.

After a foreclosure was approved last January, Yano-Haroski successfully asked for a court settlement conference.
Spinner excoriated OneWest for repeatedly refusing to work out a deal, for misleading him about the dollar amounts at stake in the case, and for its treatment of the couple over months of hearings.
OneWest’s conduct was “inequitable, unconscionable, vexatious and opprobrious,” Spinner wrote.

He canceled the debt because the bank “must be appropriately sanctioned so as to deter it from imposing further mortifying abuse against [the couple].”

The bank is involved in a similar case in California, where it’s trying to foreclose on an 89-year-old woman, despite two court orders telling it to stop.

kieran.crowley@nypost.com

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/judge_kos_mortgage_to_slap_bank_28ZS1oW8Y58z6gu1AQbWMI#comments_block#ixzz0XuKoiMBm
Deontos, on November 25th, 2009 at 1:34 pm Said:

from “The Nation” interview with Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur:

CAN THIS ADMINISTRATION BE TRUE PARTNERS AND ALLIES IN THIS FIGHT, OR ARE THEY AN OBSTACLE?

Well, I really think some of the president’s generals need to go. I think that the economic advisory team is very, very poor. And in the housing arena–[HUD Secretary] Shaun Donovan gets all these plaudits, but the way I see it the mortgage mess is worse now than ever. And something is fundamentally wrong, because they are not aggressively dealing with the housing–and I think the reason is because I think they made the decision that the losses are going to be on the people, and that they’re not going to make an effort to resurrect as many of these troubled loans as possible. I think that they have decided that Wall Street will be rewarded and Main Street will be penalized. I don’t agree with that but I think that’s the decision–that’s the way it looks to me.

YOU’VE BEEN IN CONGRESS FOR TWENTY-SEVEN YEARS NOW. YOU KNOW THIS PLACE AS WELL AS ANYBODY. HOW DO YOU PERCEIVE THE POWER OF THESE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS IN CONGRESS AND IS IT DIFFERENT FROM WHEN YOU FIRST CAME?

It’s even worse. It was bad enough when I got here and what I’ve seen happen over the years is they’ve just gotten larger, and there’s more concentration in the financial system. Every few years another bailout by the federal taxpayer of some of their wrongdoing–whether one looks at the peso crisis after NAFTA’s passage, Long-Term Capital Management, Enron, and before that the savings and loan mess. And now this. Every single decade it just gets worse, and they keep getting away with it.
ALLAN (PROPOSING an APROPOS MOTTO for SOME TWISTED FORECLOSURE COURTS), on November 24th, 2009 at 10:02 pm Said:

I recently heard there is a clever sign hanging in some apothecary that reads: WE DISPENSE WITH ACCURACY.

From the research conducted by fellow foreclosure defense activists who pore through thousands of specious case files across the nation, but most especially in Florida, home of ‘rocket docket’ foreclosure courts, the sign could just as well hang in most of them.

Or, how about:
WE DISPENSE WITH JUSTICE ©

ALLAN
Brattle Research Associates
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
Marcus, on November 24th, 2009 at 2:36 pm Said:

Mike,
It seems like you’ve been HAMPed. I don’t think they are negotiating in good faith. They may turn around and foreclose on you with no warning.
If were you, I would check weekly my county records for any Lis Pendens.
___________________________
marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
Allan Hennessey, on November 24th, 2009 at 12:38 pm Said:

Mike…

Search for the article “Don’t get HAMP’ed” on this site…

This is just another stall tactic of the system to slow the pipeline of foreclosures temporarily so they can keep up with the Trustee Sale Filings… while they take more of your money.

Most that keep up their payments will not be approved… and are only depleting their resources prior to foreclosure… unfortunately preventing them from any REAL solutions.

The advice to all Homeowners out there is to attack your Servicer and originating lender for PROOF of what they have regarding your account.

Then you will know, where to go from there. Don’t trust a word they say… they are a sales call center that is reading from a script of what to tell you!

Spend your money on a Forensic Loan Audit.

There are many great sources out there…

Allan Hennessey
1-800-552-9313 Ext 111
mike in florida, on November 24th, 2009 at 6:44 am Said:

I need some help! I’m in the HAMP “trial payment plan” w/Indy Mac (One West). I’m scheduled to make one more payment (due by 1/1/10) and then I’ll find out if I get a Loan Mod or not.

I asked my Loan Mod rep who I can speak to about the program and what kind of offer I might get. They added $36K in principal over 4 years through negative amortization. I want to negotiate. He says:

“1. The final mod is prepared in our loss mitigation group, I am a member of that department.
2. It is done through an automated process and is not done through manual calculation
3. There is no negotiation to this process a modification, if offered, is what we offer

There isn’t a person to speak with. Everything is done systemically according to your income. It will be explained in the information once you complete the trial plan.”

Should I just accept this or try another angle to get involved in the process? I appreciate any thoughts on how to best proceed. Thanks!
Mary Tossell Pro Se Florida, on November 24th, 2009 at 1:09 am Said:

Neil,

Can a Trustee for Certificate holders of Asset-Backed cetificates be Plaintiffs and sue in a judicial foreclosure?

If Countrywide was the original lender and assigned the Mortgage but NOT the NOTE to a Trustee for holders of Asset-backed certificates is that a problem for the Trustee Plaintiffs?

If the alleged assignment generated on the Plaintiff Atty’s letterhead, dated AFTER the Lis Pendens, a fraud upon the court?

shaking in my boots,Pro Se Jan 5th, Hillsborough Cty. Fl,
mary
Deontos, on November 23rd, 2009 at 6:16 pm Said:

MANY FLOUTING LAW AT FORECLOSURE AUCTIONS

Neil, this might make a good discussion and novel legal attack?
Questionable conduct by Trustees at Foreclosure Sales?
Would a “complaint” of this sort still fall under California
Non-Judicial Statutes? Or would it be possible to gain “due process”
and an evidentiary hearing somewhere along the line forcing the
“Pretenders” to flee?

I should note the below article is about events in ARIZONA not
California. However they are pointing a finger at a Trustee FROM
California. So they may be doing something similar here in my state.
Perhaps you are aware of these Phoenix Shenanigans, I believe you
live in AZ.

ILLEGAL HOUSING BIDDING ON RISE
MANY FLOUTING LAW AT FORECLOSURE AUCTIONS

EXCERPT:
When foreclosure homes come up for public auction in Phoenix, a minimum opening bid is set and bidding is open to anyone.

At least that is the way it’s supposed to work.

But a Republic investigation into the daily public auctions held on the Maricopa County Courthouse steps and at some local law offices suggests a growing number of homes are sold for less than the posted opening bid.

Prices on some foreclosure homes are being dropped below the opening bid just hours or even minutes before the auction. Buyers aware of the “drop bids” scoop up the houses before other bidders know about the price drops.

Drop bids violate the state’s foreclosure-sale laws, say the state’s leading court-appointed foreclosure-trustee attorneys…………..

• PEOPLE LOSING HOMES WHO ARE NOT OFFERED THE LOWER “DROP BID” PRICE. A BUYER WHO LOST A HOME OWING $200,000 TO THE BANK MIGHT THEN SEE IT RESOLD FOR $50,000 BUT WOULD NOT HAVE HAD THE CHANCE TO BID ON IT AT THE LOWER PRICES. ………..

In this atmosphere of little oversight and record numbers of homes going to foreclosure auction, state laws are being IGNORED, and the foreclosure process has been compromised.

“It’s common knowledge (in the foreclosure market) that a certain CALIFORNIA TRUSTEE has been lowering the minimum acceptable bid hours and sometimes minutes before the scheduled trustee’s sale,” said Tom Ruff, an analyst for the Arizona property-records research firm Information Market. “The amount by which these bids are dropped can be substantial.”

Drain, the Phoenix attorney and court-appointed trustee, was among the group of Arizona attorneys who wrote the law. She said drop bids are CLEARLY ILLEGAL………..

“………”What we have with drop bids is the potential for a class-action lawsuit over illegally conducted trustee sales,” Drain said…….”

Four page article:(Remove the “x” before the “http” to activate the link.)

xhttp://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2009/11/22/20091122dropbid1122.html
Marcus, on November 23rd, 2009 at 10:58 am Said:

Deontos,
I received about a dozen emails from them. I call it spam.

marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
ALLAN ready to thump that BANKSTER BUSTER'S BIBLE, on November 22nd, 2009 at 10:04 pm Said:

Yeah, we’re all apparently on their mailing list, Deontos!

I’m ready for my promotional copy for professional review. Please send it along!

ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
Deontos, on November 22nd, 2009 at 2:59 pm Said:

BANKSTER BUSTER’S BIBLE

I got an email with this title and it had apparently
be Broadcast to anyone who has left their email address
on livinglies

DOES ANYONE HAVE INSIGHTS ON THE SUBJECT
MATTER IN THE EMAIL? OR ON THE PERSON WHO
SENT IT?

—————————————————————————–

“No Holds Barred in the BANKSTER BUSTER’S BIBLE

Attorneys and laymen alike are praising the arrival of the Bankster Busters Bible. Many attorneys claim the Bankster Busters’ Bible is equivalent to the schematic to follow when fighting wrongful foreclosures and winning, many also claim that it is the beginning of the end for the largest Ponzi scheme in the worlds history that has brought our great nations economy to its knees while generating hundreds of thousands of illegal foreclosures. This new 668 page e-book exposes the Banksters, their crooked lawyers and provides what you need to stop them…………………… “
Deontos, on November 21st, 2009 at 10:20 am Said:

YOU CAN’T SQUEEZE BLOOD OUT OF A TURNIP!

“uHHHH… That’s TRUE, yes. But YOU are not a turnip.” {{{smile}}}

————————————

Connecticut To Clobber Foreclosed Homeowners With Real Estate Conveyance Tax?

In Hartford, Connecticut, the Hartford Courant reports:

* Losing a property to creditors will get more painful next year: Some homeowners in foreclosure will be hit with a new tax. Foreclosures sales have been exempt from Connecticut’s real estate conveyance tax for years, but the General Assembly is ending that break Jan. 1. The state is making the change to help close gaps in its budget, and cash-strapped municipalities are eager to get their share of the new revenue, too. But several state lawmakers say they’re already dissatisfied with the change.”I really believe that this is pouring salt into the wounds,” state Rep. William Hamzy, R-Plymouth, told colleagues at a meeting of the banks committee Tuesday.(1)
Lisa E., on November 20th, 2009 at 10:17 am Said:

Nov 21th West Palm Beach Foreclosure Prevention Seminar
Deontos, on November 20th, 2009 at 10:13 am Said:

WHO CAN ENFORCE A MORTGAGE AFTER A ‘LANDMARK’ CASE?
http://bankruptcy.law360.com/registrations/user_registration?article_id=131943&concurrency_check=false

Law360, New York (November 03, 2009) — A recent Kansas Supreme Court decision, Landmark Nat’l Bank v. Kesler, 216 P.3d 158 (Kan. 2009), is the most recent decision casting doubt on the ability of nonlender parties to appear in foreclosure or bankruptcy proceedings as a proper party in interest.

These cases encourage debtors and other parties to defensively use the mortgage securitization servicing system to prohibit servicers and other nonlending parties from enforcing rights under a mortgage……..

—————————————–

REVENGE OF THE DEBTORS:
WHO CAN LEGALLY ENFORCE A MORTGAGE
AFTER A “LANDMARK” CASE?
By
Timothy F. Nixon

EXCERPT:
Historically, lenders’ servicers or agents have been allowed by courts to assert the mortgagee’s rights. Landmark and similar recent cases coming after the August 2008 financial collapse, at minimum, suggest courts are reconsidering that historic review. At worst, they may demonstrate a backlash against the lending industry. Landmark is not an isolated case. In re Hayes, 393 B.R. 259 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2008) and In re Mitchell, No. BK-S-07-16226-LBR (Bankr. D. Nev. Mar. 31, 2009) reached similar conclusions. The respected Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain In the Matter of Parades, Case No. 09-22261-RDD (Bankr. S.D. N.Y. Oct. 9, 2009), went so far as to expunge the mortgagee’s claim because the
servicer could not prove who owned the mortgage. While entertaining these challenges to a party’s legal standing to assert the rights of a mortgagee may be a trend, it is not a unanimous tidal wave as evidenced by Bucci v. Lehman Bros., No. PC-2009-3888 (R.I. Super. Ct., Aug. 25, 2009) holding that MERS has standing to foreclose a mortgage under Rhode Island law.

On a practical level, this may be much ado about nothing. For instance, if a debtor raises these or similar defenses, it may only be necessary for the servicers and the mortgagees to complete and file the proper assignment documents.

—————————————–

Read: …” it may only be necessary for the servicers and the mortgagees to complete and file the proper assignment documents…..”

This is where the Bankster FRAUD is being committed. This article implies that it is so easy legally for them to do. Can’t we collectively dig deep and organize effective strategy around this issue?

A lot of “old news”; but some interesting nuggets in there:

http://www.gklaw.com/resources/documents/TFN_%20Article_%20REVENGE%20OF%20THE%20DEBTORS.pdf
gator, on November 20th, 2009 at 9:47 am Said:

For those of you interested in the FL cost bond issue.:

[6] Failure to Give Security for Costs

A nonresident plaintiff, or one who leaves the state or removes his or her effects from the state, must post a bond with surety for costs when filing an action.31 If the plaintiff does not post the required bond within 30 days after commencement of the action or removal from the state, the defendant may move to dismiss the action after 20 days’ notice to the plaintiff. Alternatively, the defendant may hold the plaintiff’s attorney liable for the costs of the action.

If the plaintiff files the bond within the 30-day period, the court has the discretion to deny the defendant’s motion to dismiss. If the bond is defective, and demand is made for the bond as required by statute, the court may dismiss the case after the required notice without any attempt to conform the bond to the statutory requirements.

Be aware that this is rare for as the court has held in Eastern Invs., L.L.C. v. Cyberfile, Inc., 947 So. 2d 630 See Diaz v. Bravo, 603 So. 2d 106, 107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)(stating that a motion to dismiss for failure to post a bond pursuant to section 57.011 can be easily remedied).

This rarely works and is easily remedied.

FYI
Alina, on November 20th, 2009 at 8:12 am Said:

Jeff,

the only thing to say is to quote Dan, “It’s a beautiful thing.” YEAH!!!! Kudos to the judge for examining the evidence before him and making an informed decision.
Deontos, on November 19th, 2009 at 11:01 pm Said:

Jeff,

All I can do is repeat Dan Edstrom’s soliloquy,

“THAT IS A BEAUTIFUL THING.”

Poetry it is certainly not but it is prose for the legal
heart.

The judge actually alluded to SOCIAL JUSTICE and PUBLIC
GOOD trumping “equity doctrine”!

I sure wish I could find similar statutes and case law for Calif.
Of course we’d need judges here with some backbone to do
what’s right.

Jeff. Thank you Man. You keep my spirits UP.
Dan Edstrom, on November 19th, 2009 at 10:18 pm Said:

Jeff,
That is a beautiful thing. There is nothing else to say, except READ THIS ENTIRE CASE. Be sure to have your dictionary handy.

Wow.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Jeff, on November 19th, 2009 at 9:57 pm Said:

This Judges decesion is incredible.

Upon the Court’s own motion, it is

ORDERED that the Adjustable Rate Note in the amount of $ 292,500.00 dated August 4, 2004 made by Diana J. Yano-Horoski in favor of IndyMac Bank F.S.B. shall be and the same is hereby cancelled, voided, avoided, nullified, set aside and is of no further force and effect; and it is further

ORDERED that the Mortgage in the amount of $ 292,500.00 which secures said Adjustable Rate Note given by Diana J. Yano-Horoski to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. As Nominee For IndyMac Bank F.S.B. dated August 4, 2004 and recorded with the Clerk of Suffolk County on August 16, 2004 in Liber 20826 of Mortgages as Page 285, as assigned to IndyMac Bank F.S.B. by Assignment recorded with the Clerk of Suffolk County in Liber 21273 of Mortgages at Page 808 shall be and the same is hereby vacated, cancelled, released and discharged of record; and it is further

ORDERED that the Plaintiff, its successors and assigns are hereby barred, prohibited and foreclosed from attempting, in any manner, directly or indirectly, to enforce any provision of the [*7]aforesaid Adjustable Rate Note and Mortgage or any portion thereof as against Defendant, her heirs or successors; and it is further

ORDERED that the Judgment of Foreclosure & Sale granted under this index number
jeff, on November 19th, 2009 at 9:46 pm Said:

NY JUDGES ROCK

Indymac Bank F.S.B. v Yano-Horoski
2009 NY Slip Op 52333(U)
Decided on November 19, 2009
Supreme Court, Suffolk County
Spinner, J.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on November 19, 2009

Supreme Court, Suffolk County

Indymac Bank F.S.B., Plaintiff

against

Diana Yano-Horoski, Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota National Association as Trustee for Soundview Home Equity Loan Trust 2001-1 and Kimberly Horoski, Defendants.

2005-17926

Steven J. Baum P.C.

Attorney for Plaintiff

P.O. Box 1291

Buffalo, New York 14240

Diana Yano-Horoski

Defendant Pro Se

8 Oakland Street

East Patchogue, New York 11772-5767

Jeffrey Arlen Spinner, J.

This is an action wherein the Plaintiff claims foreclosure of a mortgage dated August 4, 2004 in the original principal amount of $ 292,500.00 recorded with the Clerk of Suffolk County, New York in Liber 20826 of Mortgages at Page 285. The mortgage secures an adjustable rate note of the same amount with an initial interest rate of 10.375%. The mortgage encumbers real property commonly known as 8 Oakland Street, East Patchogue, Town of Brookhaven, New York and described as District 0200 Section 979.50 Block 05.00 Lot 001.000 on the Tax Map of Suffolk County. Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a Summons, Verified Complaint and Notice of Pendency on July 27, 2005. The Notice of Pendency was extended by Order dated April 28, 2008 and a Judgment of Foreclosure & Sale was granted on January 12, 2009.

Thereafter and in accordance with the Laws of 2008, Ch. 472, Sec. 3-a and in view of the fact that the loan at issue was deemed to be “sub-prime” or “high cost” in nature, Defendant seasonably requested that the Court convene a settlement conference. That request was granted and a conference was commenced on February 24, 2009 which was continued five times in a series of unsuccessful attempts by the Court to obtain meaningful cooperation from Plaintiff. In view of Plaintiff’s intransigence in its continuing failure and refusal to cooperate, both with the Court and with Defendant’s multiple and reasonable requests, the Court directed that Plaintiff produce an officer of the bank at the adjourned conference scheduled for September 22, 2009.

At the conference held on September 22, 2009, Karen Dickinson, Regional Manager of [*2]Loss Mitigation for IndyMac Mortgage Services, division of OneWest Bank F.S.B. (“IndyMac”) appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. IndyMac purports to be the servicer of the loan for the benefit of Deutsche Bank who, it is claimed, is the owner and holder of the note and mortgage (though the record holder is IndyMac Bank F.S.B., an entity which no longer is in existence). At that conference, it was celeritously made clear to the Court that Plaintiff had no good faith intention whatsoever of resolving this matter in any manner other than a complete and forcible devolution of title from Defendant. Although IndyMac had prepared a two page document entitled “Mediation Yano-Horoski” which contained what purported to be a financial analysis, Ms. Dickinson’s affirmative statements made it abundantly clear that no form of mediation, resolution or settlement would be acceptable to Plaintiff. IndyMac asserts the total amount due it to be in excess of $ 525,000.00 and freely concedes that the property securing the loan is worth no more than $ 275,000.00. Although Ms. Dickinson insisted that Ms. Yano-Horoski had been offered a “Forbearance Agreement” in the recent past upon which she quickly defaulted, it was only after substantial prodding by the Court that Ms. Dickinson conceded, with great reluctance, that it had not been sent to Defendant until after its stated first payment due date and hence, Defendant could not have consummated it under any circumstances (Defendant, through Plaintiff’s duplicity, found herself to be in the unique and uncomfortable position of being placed in default of the “agreement” even before she had received it). Plaintiff flatly rejected an offer by Plaintiff’s daughter to purchase the house for its fair market value (a so-called “short sale”) with third party financing. Plaintiff refused to consider a loan modification utilizing any more than 25% of the income of Plaintiff’s husband and daughter (both of whom reside in the premises with her), the excuse being that “We can’t control what non-obligors do with their money” (the logical follow up to this statement is how does the bank control what the obligor does with her money?). The Court found IndyMac’s position to be deeply troubling, especially since a plethora of sub-prime loans in this County’s Foreclosure Conference Part have been successfully modified with the lender’s reliance upon the income of non-obligors who reside in the premises under foreclosure. The Plaintiff also summarily rejected an offer by both Plaintiff’s husband and daughter to voluntarily obligate themselves for payment upon the full indebtedness, thus committing their individual incomes expressly to the purpose of a loan modification. It should be noted here that Defendant did not even request any waiver or “forgiveness” of the indebtedness aside from some tinkering with the interest rate, just a modification of terms so as to enable her to repay the same. It was evident from Ms. Dickinson’s opprobrious demeanor and condescending attitude that no proffer by Defendant (short of consent to foreclosure and ejectment of Defendant and her family) would be acceptable to Plaintiff. Even a final and desperate offer of a deed in lieu of foreclosure was met with bland equivocation. In short, each and every proposal by Defendant, no matter how reasonable, was soundly rebuffed by Plaintiff. Viewed objectively, it is apparent that Plaintiff’s conduct in this matter falls within the definitions set forth in 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1( c)(2), which might well warrant the imposition of monetary sanctions.

On the Court’s own motion, a hearing was held on November 18, 2009 in order to explore the issues herein. At the hearing, Ms. Dickinson appeared as well as Mr. Horoski. IndyMac claimed a balance due, as of September 22, 2009 of $ 527,437.73 which included an escrow overdraft of $ 46,627.88 for taxes advanced since the date of default but did not include attorney’s fees and costs.. Plaintiff was unable to tell the Court the amount of the principal [*3]balance owed. Mr. Horoski advised the Court that according to two letters received from Plaintiff, the principal balance was said to be $ 285,381.70 as of February 9, 2009 and $ 283,992.48 as of August 10, 2009. Plaintiff stated was that Defendant must have made payments though it was conceded that in fact no payment had been made.Plaintiff insisted that it had remained in regular contact with Defendant in an effort to reach an amicable resolution, that it had extended two modification offers to Defendant which she did not accept and further, that due to her financial status she was not qualified for any modification, even under the Federal HAMP guidelines. Plaintiff denied that it had “singled out” Defendants, simply stating that her status was such that she fell outside applicable guidelines. All of these assertions were disputed by Defendant.

That having been said, the Court is greatly disturbed by Plaintiff’s assertions of the amount claimed to be due from Defendant. The Referee’s Report dated June 30, 2008, which has its genesis in a sworn affidavit by a representative of Plaintiff (presumably one with knowledge of the account), reflects a total amount due and owing of $ 392,983.42. The principal balance is reported to be $ 290,687.85 with interest computed at the rates of 10.375% from November 1, 2005 through August 31, 2006 ($ 25,118.62), 12.50% from September 1, 2006 to February 28, 2007 ($ 18,018.66), 12.375% from March 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008 ($ 39,126.39) and 11.375% from April 1, 2008 to June 24, 2008 ($ 7,700.24) totalling $ 89,963.91. Plaintiff also claims $ 20.00 in non-sufficient funds charges, $ 295.00 in property inspection fees and $ 12,016.66 for tax and insurance advances. The Judgment of Foreclosure & Sale dated January 12, 2009 was granted in the amount of $ 392,983.42 with interest at the contract rate from June 24, 2008 through January 12, 2009 and at the statutory rate thereafter plus attorney’s fees of $ 2,300.00 and a bill of costs in the amount of $ 1,705.00. Even computing the accrual of pre-judgment interest of $ 18,299.18 (using Plaintiff’s per diem rate in the Referee’s Report) together with post-judgment interest at a statutory 9% through November 19, 2009 (an additional $ 31,740.90), the application of simple addition yields a total amount due of $ 447,028.50. This figure is $ 80,409.23 less than the $ 527,437.73 asserted by Plaintiff to be due and owing from Defendant. The Court is astounded that Plaintiff now claims to be owed an escrow advance amount of $ 46,627.88 when, under oath, its officer swore that as of June 24, 2008 that amount was actually $ 34,611.22 less. Moreover, it now appears that the elusive principal balance is either $ 290,687.85, $ 285,381.70 or $ 283,992.48.

It is the province and indeed the obligation of the trial court to assess and to determine issues regarding credibility, Morgan v. McCaffrey 14 AD3d 670 (2nd Dept. 2005). In the matter before the Court, the pendulum of credibility swings heavily in favor of Defendant. When the conduct of Plaintiff in this proceeding is viewed in its entirety, it compels the Court to invoke the ancient and venerable principle of “Falsus in uno, falsus in omni” (Latin; “false in one, false in all”) upon Defendant which, after review, is wholly appropriate in the context presented, Deering v. Metcalf 74 NY 501 (1878). Regrettably, the Court has been unable to find even so much as a scintilla of good faith on the part of Plaintiff. Plaintiff comes before this Court with unclean hands yet has the insufferable temerity to demand equitable relief against Defendant.

The Court, over the course of some six substantive appearances in seven months, has been afforded more than ample opportunity to assess the demeanor, credibility and general state [*4]of relevant affairs of Defendant and Plaintiff. Although not actually relevant to the disposition of this matter, the Court is constrained to note that Defendant is afflicted with multiple health problems which outwardly manifest in her experiencing great difficulty in ambulation, necessitating the use of mechanical supports. Moreover, Defendant’s husband, Mr. Gregory Horoski, suffers from a myriad of serious medical conditions which greatly impede most aspects of his daily existence. Nonetheless, both of these persons, together with their adult daughter who resides with them and who is substantially and gainfully employed, receive income which they are more than willing to commit, in good faith, toward repayment of the debt to Plaintiff and indeed, despite their physical challenges, they have appeared at each and every scheduled conference before this Court. At each appearance, they have assiduously attempted to resolve this controversy in an amicable fashion, only to be callously and arbitrarily turned away by Plaintiff. This has been so even in spite of the Court’s continuing albeit futile endeavors at brokering a settlement.

As a relevant aside, the scenario presented here raises the specter of a much greater social problem, that of housing those persons whose homes are foreclosed and who are thereafter dispossessed. It is certainly no secret that Suffolk County is in the yawning abyss of a deep mortgage and housing crisis with foreclosure filings at a record high rate and a corresponding paucity of emergency housing. While foreclosure and its attendant eviction are clearly the inevitable (and in some cases, proper) result in a number of these situations, the Court is persuaded that this need not be the case here. In this matter, Defendant is plainly willing to make arrangements for repayment and both her husband and daughter are likewise willing to allocate their respective incomes in order to reach the same end. Were Plaintiff amenable, she would presumably continue to maintain the property’s physical plant, pay taxes thereon and the property would retain or perhaps increase its market value. Plaintiff would receive a regular income stream, albeit with a reduced rate of interest and without sustaining a loss of several hundred thousand dollars. In addition, no neighborhood blight would occur from the boarding of the property after foreclosure which would, in turn, avert problems of litter, dumping, vagrancy and vandalism as well as a corresponding decline in the property values in the immediate area. In short, a loan modification would result in a proverbial “win-win” for all parties involved. To do otherwise would result in virtually certain undomiciled status for two physically unhealthy persons and their daughter, leading to an additional level of problems, both for them and for society.

Since an action claiming foreclosure of a mortgage is one sounding in equity, Jamaica Savings Bank v. M.S. Investing Co. 274 NY 215 (1937), the very commencement of the action by Plaintiff invokes the Court’s equity jurisdiction. While it must be noted that the formal distinctions between an action at law and a suit in equity have long since been abolished in New York (see CPLR 103, Field Code Of 1848 §§ 2, 3, 4, 69), the Supreme Court nevertheless has equity jurisdiction and distinct rules regarding equity are still extant, Carroll v. Bullock 207 NY 567, 101 NE 438 (1913). Speaking generally and broadly, it is settled law that “Stability of contract obligations must not be undermined by judicial sympathy…” Graf v. Hope Building Corporation 254 NY 1 (1930). However, it is true with equal force and effect that equity must not and cannot slavishly and blindly follow the law, Hedges v. Dixon County 150 US 182, 192 (1893). Moreover, as succinctly decreed by our Court of Appeals in the matter of Noyes v. [*5]Anderson 124 NY 175 (1890) “A party having a legal right shall not be permitted to avail himself of it for the purposes of injustice or oppression…” 124 NY at 179.

In the matter of Eastman Kodak Co. v. Schwartz 133 NYS2d 908 (Sup. Ct., New York County, 1954), Special Term stated that “The maxim of “clean hands” fundamentally was conceived in equity jurisprudence to refuse to lend its aid in any manner to one seeking its active interposition who has been guilty of unlawful, unconscionable or inequitable conduct in the matter with relation to which he seeks relief.” 133 NYS2d at 925, citing First Trust & Savings Bank v. Iowa-Wisconsin Bridge Co. 98 F 2d 416 (8th Cir. 1938), cert. denied 305 US 650, 59 S. Ct. 243, 83 L. Ed. 240 (1938), reh. denied 305 US 676, 59 S Ct. 356 83 L. Ed. 437 (1939); General Excavator Co. v. Keystone Driller Co. 65 F 2d 39 (6th Cir. 1933), cert. granted 289 US 721, 53 S. Ct. 791, 77 L. Ed. 1472 (1933), aff’d 290 US 240, 54 S. Ct. 146, 78 L. Ed. 793 (1934).

In attempting to arrive at a determination as to whether or not equity should properly intervene in this matter so as to permit foreclosure of the mortgage, the Court is required to look at the situattion in toto, giving due and careful consideration as to whether the remedy sought by Plaintiff would be repugnant to the public interest when seen from the point of view of public morality, see, for example, 55 NY Jur. Equity § 113, Molinas v. Podloff 133 NYS2d 743 (Sup. Ct., New York County, 1954). Equitable relief will not lie in favor of one who acts in a manner which is shocking to the conscience, Duggan v. Platz 238 AD 197, 264 NYS 403 (3rd Dept. 1933), mod. on other grounds 263 NY 505, 189 NE 566 (1934), neither will equity be available to one who acts in a manner that is oppressive or unjust or whose conduct is sufficiently egregious so as to prohibit the party from asserting its legal rights against a defaulting adversary, In Re Foreclosure Of Tax Liens 117 NYS2d 725 (Sup. Ct. Kings County, 1952), aff’d on other grounds 286 AD 1027, 145 NYS2d 97 (2nd Dept. 1955), mod. on other grounds on reargument 1 AD2d 95, 148 NYS2d 173 (2nd Dept. 1955), appeal granted 7 AD2d 784, 149 NYS2d 227 (2nd Dept. 1956). The compass by which the questioned conduct must be measured is a moral one and the acts complained of (those that are sufficient so as to prevent equity’s intervention) need not be criminal nor actionable at law but must merely be willful and unconscionable or be of such a nature that honest and fair minded folk would roundly denounce such actions as being morally and ethically wrong, Pecorella v. Greater Buffalo Press Inc. 107 AD2d 1064, 468 NYS2d 562 (4th Dept. 1985). Thus, where a party acts in a manner that is offensive to good conscience and justice, he will be completely without recourse in a court of equity, regardless of what his legal rights may be, Eastman Kodak Co. v. Schwartz 133 NYS2d 908 (Sup. Ct., New York County, 1954), York v. Searles 97 AD 331, 90 NYS 37 (2nd Dept. 1904), aff’d 189 NY 573, 82 NE 1134 (1907).

An objective and painstaking examination of the totality of the facts and circumstances herein leads this Court to the inescapable conclusion that the affirmative conduct exhibited by Plaintiff at least since since February 24, 2009 (and perhaps earlier) has been and is inequitable, unconscionable, vexatious and opprobrious. The Court is constrained, solely as a result of Plaintiff’s affirmative acts, to conclude that Plaintiff’s conduct is wholly unsupportable at law or in equity, greatly egregious and so completely devoid of good faith that equity cannot be permitted to intervene on its behalf. Indeed, Plaintiff’s actions toward Defendant in this matter have been harsh, repugnant, shocking and repulsive to the extent that it must be appropriately [*6]sanctioned so as to deter it from imposing further mortifying abuse against Defendant. The Court cannot be assured that Plaintiff will not repeat this course of conduct if this action is merely dismissed and hence, dismissal standing alone is not a reasonable option. Likewise, the imposition of monetary sanctions under 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 et. seq. is not likely to have a salubrious or remedial effect on these proceedings and certainly would not inure to Defendant’s benefit. This Court is of the opinion that cancellation of the indebtedness and discharge of the mortgage, when taken together, constitute the appropriate equitable disposition under the unique facts and circumstances presented herein.

After careful consideration, it is the determination of this Court that the indebtedness evidenced by the Adjustable Rate Note dated August 4, 2004 in the original principal amount of $ 292,500.00 made by Diana J. Yano-Horoski in favor of IndyMac Bank F.S.B. should be cancelled, voided and set aside. In addition, the Mortgage which secures the Adjustable Rate Note, given to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. As Nominee For IndyMac Bank F.S.B. dated August 4, 2004 and recorded with the Clerk of Suffolk County on August 16, 2004 in Liber 20826 of Mortgages at Page 285, as assigned by Assignment recorded with the Clerk of Suffolk County in Liber 21273 of Mortgages at Page 808 should be cancelled and discharged of record. Further, Plaintiff, its successors and assigns should be forever barred and prohibited from any action to collect upon the Adjustable Rate Note. In addition, the Judgment of Foreclosure & Sale granted on January 12, 2009 and entered on January 23, 2009 should be vacated and set aside and the Notice of Pendency should be cancelled and discharged of record. For this Court to decree anything less than the foregoing would be for the Court to be wholly derelict in the performance of its obligations.

Upon the Court’s own motion, it is

ORDERED that the Adjustable Rate Note in the amount of $ 292,500.00 dated August 4, 2004 made by Diana J. Yano-Horoski in favor of IndyMac Bank F.S.B. shall be and the same is hereby cancelled, voided, avoided, nullified, set aside and is of no further force and effect; and it is further

ORDERED that the Mortgage in the amount of $ 292,500.00 which secures said Adjustable Rate Note given by Diana J. Yano-Horoski to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. As Nominee For IndyMac Bank F.S.B. dated August 4, 2004 and recorded with the Clerk of Suffolk County on August 16, 2004 in Liber 20826 of Mortgages as Page 285, as assigned to IndyMac Bank F.S.B. by Assignment recorded with the Clerk of Suffolk County in Liber 21273 of Mortgages at Page 808 shall be and the same is hereby vacated, cancelled, released and discharged of record; and it is further

ORDERED that the Plaintiff, its successors and assigns are hereby barred, prohibited and foreclosed from attempting, in any manner, directly or indirectly, to enforce any provision of the [*7]aforesaid Adjustable Rate Note and Mortgage or any portion thereof as against Defendant, her heirs or successors; and it is further

ORDERED that the Judgment of Foreclosure & Sale granted under this index number on January 12, 2009 and entered in the Office of the Clerk of Suffolk County on January 23, 2009 shall be and the same is hereby vacated and set aside; and it is further

ORDERED that the Notice of Pendency filed with the Clerk of Suffolk County on July 27, 2005 under sequence no. 172456, which was extended by Order dated September 2, 2008 shall be and the same is hereby cancelled, vacated and set aside; and it is further

ORDERED that the Notice of Pendency filed with the Clerk of Suffolk County on August 29, 2008 under sequence no. 199616, shall be and the same is hereby cancelled, vacated and set aside; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of Suffolk County shall cause a copy of this Order & Judgment to be filed in the Land Records so as to effectuate of record each and every one of the provisions hereinabove set forth with respect to cancellation of the instruments and items of record; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff shall pay to the Clerk of Suffolk County, within ten (10) days from the date of entry hereof, any and all fees and costs required to effect cancellation of record of the Mortgage, Notices of Pendency and any other fees so levied; and it is further

ORDERED that within ten (10) days of the date of entry hereof, Plaintiff’s counsel shall serve a copy of this Order upon the Clerk of Suffolk County and the Defendant.

This shall constitute the Decision, Judgment and Order of this Court.

Dated: November 19, 2009

Riverhead, New York

E N T E R:

______________________________________

JEFFREY ARLEN SPINNER, J.S.C.
Abby in CA, on November 19th, 2009 at 6:42 pm Said:

Dan & Ian
I will be testing shortly what you are describing regarding the asset in bankruptcy.
Dan Edstrom, on November 19th, 2009 at 5:20 pm Said:

Ian,
It is my understanding that they cannot assign or transfer ANY property in bankruptcy without getting permission from the judge. They should have listed it as an asset in bankruptcy. Because of the date, which is AFTER the bankruptcy was initiated, this will be a HUGE issue. It appears to me that somebody is committing bankruptcy fraud unless it was done properly. Look at the bankruptcy filing. You probably need a bankruptcy lawyer to help – unless your lawyer knows how to do this.

I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice. Consult with an attorney.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Ian, on November 19th, 2009 at 5:15 pm Said:

Anyone with any info? 6 years ago I was hit with an ttempted foreclosure on a second property I own.. My atty reviewed the mortgage itself and discovered that the lender, American Business Credit of Phila area had never applied one cent of my paymenbts to principal as per the note. (that made me feel real smart!) The judge gave us 3-6months to have my payment history recreated to see how much money should have been applied to principal and what my balance should be. About 2 months later I get a notice that the mortgage has been sold, new servicer, etc. I figured oh well. No further guidance from attorney. So here 6 years later, I get a writ of execution, just answered today, motion to open/strike, I have the same attorney, he answered that there is already an open docket on this matter from 2003. He is a capable attorney, don’t think he is up on everything on Neil’s website here. My question: does anyone know of any SPECIFIC law in regards to non-application of payments to pricipal? And the loan, while thus litigated, was sold to Security National Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-2, assignment of mortgage dated 2 weeks after originating lender (ABC) went ch11. Any thoughts or comments? Thanks. my email is isopko@sunlink.net or post here for all to see!
Foreclosure Fraud, on November 19th, 2009 at 4:27 pm Said:

November 17, 2009

A Massachusetts federal judge has upheld a bankruptcy court ruling allowing a trustee to treat a mortgage as an unsecured claim, which strips the mortgage holder of foreclosure rights, because of defective mortgage paperwork.

http://wp.me/pFWnq-5C

4closureFraud
Dan Edstrom, on November 19th, 2009 at 2:46 pm Said:

Marcus,
This quote is from your article:

Jumana Bauwens, a spokeswoman at Bank of America, says the bank is projecting an increase in foreclosures in part because customers will not be qualifying for existing loan-modification programs.

Maybe it is because my 9% payment is now an 18% payment for a home that is worth < 50% of what it was in 2005 when it was [fraudulently] appraised for the loan.

Oh yeah, and I am making more money now. Go figure.

Here is another interesting fact. I actually sent them probably 10 offers for a loan modification for $275,000. They never responded even though they had a BPO of $230,000. So they would rather lose $45,000 + costs of foreclosure (10's of thousands of dollars) instead of keeping me in my home.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Dan Edstrom, on November 19th, 2009 at 2:33 pm Said:

Nice article Marcus.

Apparently they have never heard of (among other things) “mark to market”, impaired assets and receivership, bankruptcy, securitization, etc …

I thought the whole point of securitization was “bankrupt remote entities”, trusts, etc. Do you mean to tell me that some banks are actually holding these assets on their balance sheets? You mean in some instances they kept the asset but assigned the borrowers payments?

If this is all part of a single securities transaction can you say FRAUD? Isn’t every unlawful act a securities violation? If they violate the FDCPA by not verifying the debt before further collection, isn’t that now a securities violation? What about a fraudulent assignment? What about failure to disclose the true holder in due course?

• Asset write-downs. Banks may in part be waiting to liquidate homes through foreclosure because they don’t want to write down the value of the asset. Lenders can keep homes on the books at a higher value until they are sold at foreclosure.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Marcus, on November 19th, 2009 at 2:19 pm Said:

Next Wave of Foreclosures Looms
Source: USAToday

WASHINGTON – Nov. 19, 2009 – A second wave of foreclosures is poised to hit the market, potentially undermining housing recovery efforts as more homes add to the glut of inventory and drive down prices.

These homes largely represent loans that are delinquent but have not yet resulted in foreclosure sales.

About 7 million properties are destined to go into foreclosure, according to a September study by Amherst Securities Group, compared with 1.27 million properties in early 2005.

“There’s a huge supply out there,” says Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. “The foreclosure process can take a long time. When it comes to (the housing recovery), we’re not home free.”

There is often a long lag time between a borrower going delinquent and the bank taking the home. Here’s why:

• Moratoriums. New state laws imposing short-term moratoriums have slowed the timeline from delinquency to foreclosure.

• Overwhelmed lenders. Banks dealing with a surge in refinancing, mortgage modifications and defaults are overwhelmed with demand, so it can take longer to initiate a foreclosure sale.

• Modifications. Many loans now are first examined to see if they might qualify for a modification. This drags out the timeline and means it is taking longer for homes to go into foreclosure.

• Asset write-downs. Banks may in part be waiting to liquidate homes through foreclosure because they don’t want to write down the value of the asset. Lenders can keep homes on the books at a higher value until they are sold at foreclosure.

“There is a lot of foreclosed property in the pipeline that will hit the market and depress prices,” says Mark Zandi at Moody’s Economy.com. Foreclosed homes often sell at prices below those on the market and can therefore drag down overall home values.

The shadow market of foreclosed homes eclipses the number of homes lost this year. Zandi anticipates there will be about 2.4 million homes lost next year through foreclosure, short sales and deeds in lieu of foreclosure. That compares with 2 million homes lost in 2009.

Jumana Bauwens, a spokeswoman at Bank of America, says the bank is projecting an increase in foreclosures in part because customers will not be qualifying for existing loan-modification programs.
James#, on November 19th, 2009 at 11:36 am Said:

here is the wording from my lawyers motion to dismiss:

This case should be dismissed as it fails to make the requuired jurisdictional allegations. Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.110(b) requires “short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends. . . . The complaint fails to allege whether Plaintiff is a resident or nonresident of Florida; whether Plaintiff has registered to do business in Fllorida: or whether Plaintiff has posted a bond as required by Florida Statutes (there is some mark here not on my keyboard) 57.011 in order to prosecute this case.
Abby in CA, on November 19th, 2009 at 9:09 am Said:

Arizona folks– I do not know if this AZ attorney is on the LL list, however I came across her name in a case against Aurora, MERS, Cal Western etc.

So she might be a resource in defending homewoners against foreclosure etc.

Veronica L. Manolio of Kelhoffer, Manolio & Firestone, PLC of Scottsdale, AZ.

If folks in other states are having trouble findng attorneys to assist with defending their homes and there are no resources on the LL list, then one avenue is to go down to your local civil clerk office at court and look up some recent cases on their computer (usually they have one available to public). You can see which attorneys are already defending homeowners, and see what types of results they are getting.
Abby in CA, on November 19th, 2009 at 9:03 am Said:

Arpad, Linda –

Check legal name of your bank/lender. If it has an N.A. or National Association in the name, then
this bank/lender can do business in any state of the USA without having to get any special registration or corporate license number in any state.

Also, you should check the parent company bank name, should your bank/lender/party is a subsidiary.
Sometimes the it is not so apparent whether the bank/lender/party is a subsidiary of a larger company.

For instance, and this is not a bank, but many folks are dealing with Cal Western Reconveyance Corp for their foreclosures. Cal Western Reconveyance Corp is actuallly a wholly owned subsidiary of Prommis Solutions, LLC, a Delaware Corporation.

In some cases, you may want to also name the parent company in your lawsuits.
Arpad, on November 19th, 2009 at 7:20 am Said:

Lisa, i do not know what makes a bank a resident in Florida or any state. Some say, if they have a branch in Florida they are resident. The way i read it that FS. is for private person suing and not for a corporation. But i could be wrong…
Arpad, on November 19th, 2009 at 7:08 am Said:

Hello,
I just got an affidavit as to attorney’s fees from FDLG. Friends…you need to check this out!! Signing attorney is LISA CULLARO, her signature is a DOUBLE LOOP, the signing notary public is ERIN CULLARO, her signature is a capital E !! This is what they filed here with Palm beach county court.
I could not believe when i got it yesterday. Unreal!
Linda, on November 19th, 2009 at 6:38 am Said:

Arpad and James#–your post is just sinking in–Chase is a nonresident of Florida? am I reading this right?–Chase calls us about 20 times a day (even after being sent a Cease and Desist letter)–
How do you find out the information about a business being a non-resident? Is it a big deal for the banks to post a bond? Might they just start doing that? Or is this going to slow them down.
Linda, on November 19th, 2009 at 6:26 am Said:

James#–congrats on dismissal–you need to take immediate action before they come back with new summons-(maybe rescission and Quiet Title?)-I had the same thing happen (case dismissed) and 20 days later I got another summons–
I also live in Florida–could you tell me what lawyer you are working with?
Lisa E., on November 18th, 2009 at 10:12 pm Said:

Arpad,

I filed a notice to the court that Plaintiff did not post a bond. Within a few days, my Plaintiff posted that $100 bond.

Here’s an example of one from ForeclosureProSe.com:

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
ForeclosureHamlet.org
ForeclosureHamlet @ gmail . com
Dan Edstrom, on November 18th, 2009 at 7:37 pm Said:

Deontos,
This law is NOT being changed to keep bondholders from notifying borrowers that they have an interest in borrowers loans. There is NO WAY they are notifying borrowers today. This law is being modified to protect the bondholders from being SUED for not disclosing this information.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Dan Edstrom, on November 18th, 2009 at 7:07 pm Said:

Deontos,
That is just crazy and won’t help at all. I have discovered over 10 companies that all have an “interest” in my loan and that does not include the investors. While the Trust has alleged “legal title”, this is still a partial interest because they do not have any pecuniary interest. So this still does not disclose who has interest. HOW CAN YOU TRANSFER TITLE AND HAVE A VALID HISTORY IF ALL INTERESTED PARTIES ARE NOT IDENTIFIED. They should make it absolutely mandatory that ALL parties with an interest have to be disclosed. Sarbanes-Oxley, securities companies, bank disclosures – these companies need to open and transparent in their dealings and they are the exact opposite. How can a title company assure title coverage if they do not know who has or who had an interest in a borrowers property?

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Deontos, on November 18th, 2009 at 6:20 pm Said:

Fed Proposes Changes to Mortgage Disclosure Law
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 9:57 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Federal Reserve is proposing to exempt some investors from a requirement that consumers receive notice within 30 days after their home loan is sold or transferred to a new mortgage company.

The requirement, included in legislation signed by President Barack Obama in May, means investors who buy mortgages now have to give consumers written notice that they are collecting payments.

Congress passed the law amid concerns that many consumers do not know who owns their home loan, especially since many are sold to investors as part of complex mortgage securities.

Under the Fed’s proposed interpretation of the rule published Monday, the disclosure requirement will apply only if an investor acquires legal title to loan. That excludes those who only acquire a partial interest, such as investors in mortgage-backed securities.

The Fed proposal is open to public comment for 60 days.
James#, on November 18th, 2009 at 3:30 pm Said:

Arpad
My lawyer got my case dismissed. With the Judge giving the Plaintiff 20 days to pay a $100 bond.
If the plaintiff (Chase) is not doing business in Florida they are required to post a bond.. Also the Plantiff had no standing which the Judge recognized. It’s been 2 months and the Judge has not yet posted the order giving the plaintiff 20 days to refile. I guess they are busy.
Arpad, on November 18th, 2009 at 11:52 am Said:

57.011 Costs; security by nonresidents.–When a nonresident plaintiff begins an action or when a plaintiff after beginning an action removes himself or herself or his or her effects from the state, he or she shall file a bond with surety to be approved by the clerk of $100, conditioned to pay all costs which may be adjudged against him or her in said action in the court in which the action is brought. On failure to file such bond within 30 days after such commencement or such removal, the defendant may, after 20 days’ notice to plaintiff (during which the plaintiff may file such bond), move to dismiss the action or may hold the attorney bringing or prosecuting the action liable for said costs and if they are adjudged against plaintiff, an execution shall issue against said attorney.

This is a FS. Can we force the banks to put up this bond?
Arpad, on November 18th, 2009 at 11:46 am Said:

Hello,
This just came up. The fact that the plaintiff (the Bank) in not domestic to Florida has any bearing on my case?
Lisa E, on November 18th, 2009 at 8:41 am Said:

Hi Alina,

Actually, I submitted two comments and got one F and one A- in response from the Florida Supreme Court.

Still, it is VERY disheartening that the main focus of this Task Force is enhancing efficiency of the judicial system in dispensing of these oh-so-burdensome foreclosure cases. Far be it from me to suggest the REAL issue is the pervasive judicial disregarding ILLEGAL FORECLOSURES that are being herding through the system like a cattle call. It’s a rodeo, and we are on the horns of a dangerous bull (PUN intended).

Lisa E. (Pro Se, Florida)
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.org
Alina, on November 17th, 2009 at 3:45 pm Said:

Lisa E.,

The document you posted was, in part, drafted by the guy that is hawking the “Cancel the Mortgage Now” book.

btw, did you get the response to your comment from the FL Supreme Court? I received mine and it’s nice to know that the State of Florida does not care about the homeowners’ comments.

We are on our own folks. Is it too late for a Tea Party protest in front of the FL Supreme Court?
Search the Web on Snap.com, on November 17th, 2009 at 3:37 pm Said:

Study of Sarasota, Florida Foreclosure Cases reveal SHOCKING results: “incomplete documentation” in almost all cases!

href=”http://api.ning.com/files/bBGV9985jQ4EB*itLejgx9zLKIBCBs6KBP3kYA6N5zM_/Haste20Makes20Waste_Draft_Recommendation.pdf” target=”_blank”>Judges! Yooooooo Hoooooo! Oh custodians of Justice, where aaaaaaaarrrrrrrrree youuuu?

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.org
Dan Edstrom, on November 17th, 2009 at 11:41 am Said:

FDCPA violations

It is my understanding that violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act have a statute of limitations of 1 year.

The cases I have seen with foreclosure can go well over 1 year. If you do not initiate a lawsuit within 1 year of the violation, it is possible that you will lose your rights. I don’t see anyone “winning” their foreclosure case based on FDCPA violations. However, the kicker is that if you get summary judgment or “win” at trial on even 1 FDCPA cause of action, this will probably entitle you to get your legal fees covered (assuming the pleadings are done right and you are entitled to collect attorneys fees). In my opinion you should consider filing an action for your foreclosure within the appropriate time lines for including any FDCPA violations that have occurred.

I was involved in a case against an abusive debt collector in 2004/2005. We prevailed in summary judgment on 3 points and the defense on 1 point. But this means we won. This caused them to settle (a little late in my opinion). We received $4,000 but the attorneys recovered $20,000 in legal fees (this one happened to be on contingency). All of this for a debt that we had paid already paid that was under $1,000 (this case was all about the wording on the debt collection letter and the fact that they charged us numerous unlawful fees that debt collectors are not allowed to charge). The defense attorney kept insisting that we had owed the money and had paid it and they weren’t entitled to pay us anything. He gave his client very bad advice and refused to settle initially. FDCPA violations probably won’t make you rich, but the foreclosure cases are large and complex. FDCPA violations that you “win” might net you the following:

– you may get some or all of your fees back that you paid to your attorney already
– if you lose your case you may have to pay the other side’s legal fees, but with even 1 summary judgment “win” for an FDCPA violation, the other side will (probably) have to pay your legal fees (or at least some of your legal fees)

Whenever you receive any request to pay a debt from a debt collector (especially if it says it is or might be from a debt collector) ALWAYS dispute the debt and ask for verification. I always ask who the original creditor is. If the debt is under $1,000 I include a cease and desist for everything (my money, credit, personal info, credit reporting, selling, transfering, assigning or giving away the debt, etc., etc., etc) and revoke all rights which I may or may not have given them or someone else.

As always, I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice. This is actually what I did with one of my own cases and is for educational and informational purposes. ALWAYS consult with an attorney.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Foreclosure Fraud, on November 17th, 2009 at 10:37 am Said:

Alina, James,

I have been working on finding Cage’s (original name Coppola) files since I learned about it over the weekend. The property recorder for New Orleans does not have online access. Well it has a paid subscription of $100 a month for “inquiry only” use by the general public. The actual documents are not available. Only the indexed entries are available via the Remote Access Service.

Here is what I know so far.

Cage’s (Coppola) 10,300 sq-foot property at 1140 Royal Street went for $2.3 million, while the 13,200 sq-foot home at 2523 Prytania Street sold for $2.2 million.

Regions Bank, a Birmingham, Alabama-based lender, took two multi-million-dollar homes back.

The owner of record is Hancock Park Real Estate, a company set up so that Cage’s (Coppola) name would not appear on public records.

The auction took place at noon on November 12, 2009 at the Orleans Parish Civil District Court located at 421 Loyola Avenue.

I found the SALE BY CIVIL SHERIFF JUDICIAL ADVERTISEMENT.

Along with a copy of the federal tax lien for $625,7005.00.

Where it refrences the case number Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans No. 2009-8494

The Attorney ROBERT A. MATHIS (504) 837-9040 of Newman, Mathis, Brady & Spedale.

And the property discriptions…

LOT 3-A, SQUARE 214
FOURTH MUNICIPAL DISTRICT
MUNICIPAL NO: 2523 PRYTANIA STREET
ACQUIRED CIN 310095
- AND –
LOT 1, SQUARE 50
SECOND MUNICIPAL DISTRICT
MUNICIPAL NO. 1140 ROYAL STREET
ACQUIRED CIN 310095

That is a far as I can get. Can anyone access the court file or live in New Orleans to pull the property and case records?

It would be real intersting to see if the same schemes were played on him. If so, this could really help our fight.

4closureFraud
http://4closurefraud.wordpress.com/
Dan Edstrom, on November 17th, 2009 at 8:32 am Said:

BT,
A Trustee is an agent for somebody else (my definition). The law firm was hired for somebody else (who may or may not have authority). It is my understanding that if they regularly collect debts they are considered a debt collector. Which state are you in? They will most likely be the ones filing an assignment from the originator to the Trustee (Trustee in securitization). Check your recordings to see if they have recorded it already. Who is the originator? Are they or have they been in bankruptcy? Do they still exist? Did another company take them over? What is the name of this company? Do some research on who is signing any documents provided since your notice of default. Send in a QWR, there are some good ones on this site, many of us have our own that we have used. Get an attorney right away to protect your rights and your property, these guys are insidious.

I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Marcus, on November 17th, 2009 at 8:08 am Said:

BT,
The letter they sent you said it all. They are debt collectors.
I think they are correct when they said they don’t have to report the dispute to the credit bureaus. The original creditor has to do that. Alternatively, you can write to the three credit bureaus to dispute the debt.

marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
bt, on November 17th, 2009 at 7:46 am Said:

FDCPA

Can anyone clear this up?

IF a law firm is trying to foreclose in a nonjudicial state and has been appointed as Trustee by the lender, I would think that would make them a third party debt collector? yes or no

The law firm sent a FDCPA letter giving us the 30 days to dispute. WE did, but they never reported the loan in dispute to the credit reporting agencies. There attorney says they are not required to report to the credit agencies since they aren’t debt collectors?

Any help, law references or help on this?
Alina, on November 17th, 2009 at 7:45 am Said:

Re: Notaries

As a certified notary signing agent in both Florida and Texas, I can tell you that each state has its own rules and regulations. In Texas, a notary must keep a journal and thumbprints are required. However, that is not true for Florida. Florida law does not require a notary to keep a journal of all notarizations.

James,

I like your idea of getting someone with big money to donate to the cause. Equally important is to get the message out. I saw over the weekend on the CNN ticker that Nicholas Cage is in foreclosure. I could not find any detailed information re this. But my thought is that he’s probably in the same boat as the rest of us. Since he’s a pretty high profile celebrity, getting him to join the cause would be a tremendous asset. What do y’all think?

Alina
Rob, on November 17th, 2009 at 7:20 am Said:

I’m having trouble with my 2nd Lien holder. I sent the a QWR and got the following response from them:

Green Tree is in receipt of your correspondence dated November 6,2009.
The purpose of a qualified written request is to receive information, clarification or corrective
action regarding problems and disputes with the servicing1 of a loan secured by a first lien
mortgage. You are seeking information for a loan secured by a subordinate lien mortgage.
Therefore, 12 USC §2605(e) does not apply to your loan serviced by Green Tree.
Since this is not a proper qualified written request, Green Tree is not required to respond. As a
courtesy, Green Tree will respond to your servicing questions within 60 business days.
On May 1,2009, the servicing of your loan was transferred from to Green
Tree. Green Tree neither originated nor owns your loan; it merely services it for third party. It
can only provide information from May 1,2009 forward. Information requested which is not
germane to the actual servicing of your account will not provided.
Although 12 USC §2605(e) is not applicable to your correspondence, please be advised that a
qualified written request is not the appropriate vehicle assert loan origination issues.

Something stinks here….
Lisa E., on November 17th, 2009 at 6:18 am Said:

“=> No. Florida law does not require, nor authorize, notaries to take fingerprints from persons whose signatures they notarize.

=>Section 117.107(12), Florida Statutes, provides that you may not be the notary for a transaction in which you have a financial interest or to which you are a party.”

THIS COULD BE ADDED TO “THE LIST” FOR ALL FDLG victims! It doesn’t speak to the biggest frauds, but just one more nail to be hammered in the coffin.

Check out your AFFIDAVIT OF REASONABLE ATTORNEY’S FEES entered into the court file by FDLG. See the notary? Google the notary’s name and the name of your bank’s foreclosure mill firm.

Anything of interest show up?

Hmmmmmmmmmmm…………

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
http://www.Foreclosure Hamlet.org

***I am no attorney.****
floridadefenseteam, on November 17th, 2009 at 5:32 am Said:

=> No. Florida law does not require, nor authorize, notaries to take fingerprints from persons whose signatures they notarize.

=>Section 117.107(12), Florida Statutes, provides that you may not be the notary for a transaction in which you have a financial interest or to which you are a party.
Foreclosure Fraud, on November 17th, 2009 at 4:42 am Said:

Ella,

The donate button is on the top right corner of the main page of my blog.

Or you can just click the link below…

http://bit.ly/4closureFraudDonate

4closureFraud
Allan Hennessey, on November 16th, 2009 at 11:19 pm Said:

If anyone wants to donate, go to Paypal.com… and send a payment to Neils email address… Not sure if he has used paypal… but I am certain he or brad can figure it out… otherwise hit me up neil… I can walk you through setting it up.
James#, on November 16th, 2009 at 9:41 pm Said:

Re: Erica Johnson Seck,
If she were prosecuted for and found guilty of Fraud would all of the cases where she signed be thrown out or at least tainted. Maybe a campaign to put Erica in Jail would be in order. I would certainly donate to that cause. Is there a lawyer out there that would be willing to prosecute?
Ella, on November 16th, 2009 at 9:21 pm Said:

To Foreclosure Fraud,
Thank you for all the work you have done! I went to your site and couldn’t find where to donate. Where is it?
MSoliman, on November 16th, 2009 at 8:49 pm Said:

by msoliman

here it is ….a real amazing opportunity to look into the world of a genuine set of trouble makers. This moron actually thinks anyone with an Aurora loan is an automatic winner.

Aurora, counsel Jaime Siedler (a business contact of mine) has got wind of this unfair and unnecessary email considered judicial interference and now we have a name and details for our case pending for defamation and other allegations of tortous interference with an experts testimoney

You’ll love this one – please read!
————————————————————————-

From: bemoved@aol.com
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:28:18 -0500
To:
Subject: CONGRATULATIONS on your Friday the 13th

Good Luck on your UD case

Hi, Syreeta,

I am an active participant, with many embattled homeowners, of a 21st Century foreclosure defense blogsite http://www.LivingLies.WordPress.com (LL).

On LL we learned last Friday through Maher Soliman that you prevailed with a dismissal with prejudice against Aurora. Would you be willing to visit our blogsite, weigh in and tell us just how you did it?

Maher Soliman (a brilliant poster on LL) was ecstatic and claimed your victory was a vindication of arguments he used as an expert witness (supposedly on your case).

I was surprised because I was under the impression Aurora was ‘on the ropes’ in California, and that they just aren’t bothering to show up where homeowners defend their foreclosures (with or without attorneys).Could you share with us or with me how expert testimony helped, and if so, what was it?

(Mr. Garfield , me) we are all keen to learn from Maher Soliman . . . track his announced WINS (while we remain clueless!

————– look at this trash —————————

I understand Abby has contacted you. She mentioned something about the judge in this case.

RSVP

Allan O’Brien Denchfield
Foreclosure Fraud, on November 16th, 2009 at 8:40 pm Said:

James#

Great thought… Thanks for putting that out there…

If we had just a couple hundred dollars a week donated to what we are doing, we could really take this to the next level. We do what we do out of true passion for the greater good. People are losing their homes, their marriages, their family, there lives because of this well devised scheme.

Everything I have done so far I have published publicly for free with no expectations of getting paid. I don’t know how much longer my employer is going to keep me around when all I do when I am at work is “foreclosure fraud research” and do not get much else done.

If you, or anyone else, has contacts with Nader or someone who is “Super Rich” or would be interested in donating to what we are doing, feel free to send them our way. We could use the support.

4closureFraud
http://4closurefraud.wordpress.com/
Abby in CA, on November 16th, 2009 at 5:24 pm Said:

RE: any forgeries on recorded documents with notary.

At least in California, the notary has to get a thumbprint of anyone notarizing any document to do with property.

It is kept in their notary journal.

Thus, if you have a suspected or known forgery like on a Corporate Deed of Assignment, you could prove it was a forgery by getting the fingerprint from the notary journal and comparing to the real person’s (whose name is being signed for on the document) fingerprint.

What about Florida? Does the notary have to get a fingerprint?
James#, on November 16th, 2009 at 4:02 pm Said:

Foreclosure Fraud,

We need a rich person to donate big money to the cause. I saw Ralf Nater giving a speech last night. He was promoting a book on don’t be afraid to ask rich people for money to help your cause. He went on to talk about how the Super Rich had helped move the Civil Rights movement forward as well as the Women’s Movement. Even a couple of million could go a long way in getting these frauds moved from civil court to criminal court.. Jail time for one of or all of these fraudsters would go a long way in getting this mess straighted out. Anyone know any SUPER RICH people? If you are out there, give the check to Neil he will know how best to use it. I know this is kind of crazy but sometimes just getting the idea out there can make things happen.
Foreclosure Fraud, on November 16th, 2009 at 3:11 pm Said:

Deontos,

The order was submitted to be dismiss WITH prejudice but the Judge denied and dismissed it WITHOUT prejudice. Regardless it was dismissed. Even with all the facts presented here the pretender lender gets another shot.

Not much of a response so far since I posted it last night. Feel free to share it with anyone who will listen. The more people that learn how corrupt this is, the better we will all be. This is not an isolated incident.

4closureFraud
http://4closurefraud.wordpress.com/

Disclaimer
I am not an attorney. The materials I reference are for informational purposes only and are not to be construed as legal advice.

Online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.
Deontos, on November 16th, 2009 at 1:24 pm Said:

ForeclosureFraud,

I just read the deposition you posted here:

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/in-trouble-right-now-press-here/#comment-28824

Has a judge ruled on this “MOTION FOR SANCTION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE”?

I wish I understood all the legal implications. But as a kno’ nothin’ layman I would say it ain’t good for MERS. And it ain’t good for Deutsche Bank either. My god! These PEOPLE! They flat out LIED in their Interrogatory and then in the deposition were forced to admit their deceits. It puts AGAIN a GLARING light on what you’ve been screaming from the roof tops about.

Has anyone else responded to you on this? It would seem this really exposes LEGALLY the culpability of MERS and these foreclosure mills NATIONWIDE who follow this pattern of fraudulent filings and assignments to illegally foreclose on homeowners.
Lisa E., on November 16th, 2009 at 4:03 am Said:

Now we’re talking!

This breaks it down nice and neatly.

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.org
ForeclosureHamlet @ gmail . com
Foreclosure Fraud, on November 15th, 2009 at 1:59 pm Said:

Full Deposition of the Infamous Erica Johnson Seck – RE: Indymac Federal Bank Fsb, Plaintiff, Vs. Israel a. Machado

http://wp.me/pFWnq-4k

4closureFraud
Bryan, on November 14th, 2009 at 4:51 pm Said:

I’m still alive and don’t know how?

M&I Bank admitted to buying my 5 acres on wholesale from the contractor and this is another reason why I didn’t know there was a loan on my property.

After the house burned down, the bank postponed the illegal auction from Sept. 9, 2009 (already past) to December 16, 2009.

The insurance company is as fraudulent as the bank. I’ve now been living on my 5 acres for 3 months without water, electric (nothing at all) last night I almost froze to my death. NO JOKE… But at least I would have been on my land. After the 16 I won’t have a place to park my car.

Still in Arizona
Still no help
4 heart attachs now (and I keep living) WTF

My life may not be as worse as Genises but it seems like it.

The bank refuses to allow my insurance to pay off the loan and therefore the insurance refuses to pay anything, so far. and I still can’t get an attorney.

Sorry to those who have left me phone messages, I live out of range and can’t call out. I could right now but the messages faded away already and I am on a friends puter.

God Bless Us Everyone and Good luck and I pray none of you ever go through what I have been going through for 6 years.
Abby in CA, on November 12th, 2009 at 4:32 pm Said:

Mortgage Fraud & Closing Agents–what to look for!!

Closing Agents
• Concealed Payments
• Multiple Settlement Statements
• Conversion of Funds to Personal Use
• Multiple Conveyance
• Bogus Down Payment Sources / Seller 2nds
• Sales Contract Manipulation
• Borrower Identity Validity
• Affiliated Relationships
• Validation and Verification
Marcus, on November 11th, 2009 at 4:25 pm Said:

Thank you Allan. I have a person account to NCLC web site. But I could not find one exactly for the state of Georgia.

marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
Marcus, on November 11th, 2009 at 2:04 pm Said:

Deontos,
Thank you very much for the link; that’s exactly what I was looking for.
__________________________
marcus @ foreclsorueProSe.com
www. foreclosureProSe.com
Deontos, on November 11th, 2009 at 12:33 pm Said:

GOLDMAN SACHS CASTIGATES MCCLATCHY:

Letter to the editor from Goldman Sachs

Sir:

Your recent series of articles on Goldman Sachs (Goldman Sachs’ Secret Bets) is filled with unsubstantiated claims, innuendo and outright falsehoods. This is not investigative journalism but, rather, poorly researched and sensationalist fabrications presented as facts.

As your reporter knows, there is no factual basis for the theories put forward in the articles, and your claim that we misled investors is untrue.

You have done your readers a disservice.

Sincerely,

Lucas van Praag
Managing Director
Goldman, Sachs & Co.
85 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004

(Editor’s note: Van Praag is the chief spokesman for Goldman Sachs. McClatchy stands by its reporting, and rejects as untrue his allegation that the reporter knows “there is no factual basis” for the articles.)

Commenters:
#1
JimWhite wrote on 11/10/2009 07:21:49 PM:

My dear Mr. van Praag,

You and I both know that if there were indeed “no factual basis” for what McClatchy has published regarding your firm, your notification would be made to them through the court rather than through a letter to the editor. Please do try to keep up.

And you might want to keep your passport handy. You never know when you and your colleagues might just decide it’s a good time to retire to an island without an extradition treaty with the US.

In the meantime, I eagerly await the next installment of the McClatchy series.

Sincerely

Jim White

#2
FletcherFramer wrote on 11/10/2009 04:59:15 PM:

A typical attack on the messenger that we are supposed to believe is a refutation of the issues raised in the articles. It would have more credibility if it would have addressed the specific issues and shown what specific factual errors they claim.
Deontos, on November 11th, 2009 at 12:24 pm Said:

PATHOS

Man trying to serve legal documents shot in leg

By Kristina Davis, Karen Kucher

Originally published November 11, 2009 at 1:03 a.m., updated November 11, 2009 at 7:44 a.m.

ESCONDIDO — A 50-year-old process server trying to deliver some legal documents at an Escondido home Tuesday night was shot in the leg and a 65-year-old man was arrested, police said.

The shooting occurred near Avenida del Diablo and Red Bark Road after 9 p.m., Escondido police said. The victim ran to his car and drove away before calling 911 on Del Dios Highway.

He was taken to a hospital and is expected to recover.

The man who lived in the home also called police after the shooting. Police arrested Burk Neal Ashford on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon, said Escondido police Lt. Mike Loarie. He is being held in Vista jail on $75,000 bail.

A .22-caliber revolver was recovered. Two shots were fired in the incident, Loarie said.

It was initially thought that the victim was serving an eviction notice.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/nov/11/possible-eviction-notice-server-shot-leg/
Deontos, on November 11th, 2009 at 8:47 am Said:

Marcus,
——————————————————————
Marcus, on November 11th, 2009 at 7:58 am Said:

Hello,
I am looking for a sample TRO and Preliminary Injunction pleading for the state of Georgia. Can someone help?
Thanks
——————————————————————

I am not sure if you wanted a BLANK “TRO Form” to do a pleading or a sample of an actual TRO pleading that someone else has already done.

I found a pleading done regarding a foreclosure action in July 2009.

LINK:
In the state of Georgia:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18096819/Motion-for-Temporary-Restraining-OrderPreliminary-Injunction
ALLAN in MA & FL (With a reply to MARCUS for pleadings and forms from NCLC ~ National Consumer Law Center), on November 11th, 2009 at 8:18 am Said:

MARCUS, try http://cladv.wssites.com/Login.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fDefault.aspx

USERNAME: norfolklawlibrary
PASSWORD: patron

Good luck!

ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
rick k, on November 11th, 2009 at 8:11 am Said:

just wanted to thank every one here for their contributions to helping others in their time of need. i admire everyone taking a stand to fight the good fight.fight on . what a great community.. i have been fighting for one year. i have since hired an attorney but i started my fight with info here and it was invaluable in helping me see their was hope.thanks again
i hope something i am working on will help those here who need it
Marcus, on November 11th, 2009 at 7:58 am Said:

Hello,
I am looking for a sample TRO and Preliminary Injunction pleading for the state of Georgia. Can someone help?
Thanks
___________________________
marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
wwwDOTforeclosureProSe.com
ALLAN in MA & FL (WITH 22 STATE FORECLOSURE MEDIATION PROGRAMS from NCLC ~ National Consumer Law Center), on November 11th, 2009 at 1:09 am Said:

22 PROGRAMS for FORECLOSURE MEDIATION and MANDATORY CONFERENCES

Programs for Foreclosure Mediation and Mandatory Conferences

* Summary of Programs

Summary of 22 state/local programs that establish some type of foreclosure diversion program requiring lenders to engage in mediation, conciliation, or a settlement conference. Summaries include a general program description and lender and borrower obligations under the program.

* Programs: Forms and Documents

Links to text of enabling legislation, administrative orders,court rules, forms and other information links related to programs.

* Pending Legislation

Jobs | Unreported Cases | Useful Links | Site Map | Contact Us
National Consumer Law Center, 7 Winthrop Square, Boston, MA 02110

© Copyright, National Consumer Law Center, Inc., All rights reserved.
National Consumer Law Center and NCLC are trademarks of National Consumer Law Center, Inc.
Joe, on November 10th, 2009 at 9:48 am Said:

BlackRock CEO Fink Dismisses Talk Of Possible Bubble
Last update: 11/10/2009 11:31:41 AM

By Daisy Maxey
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

NEW YORK (Dow Jones)–Laurence Fink, chairman and chief executive of BlackRock Inc. (BLK), said there’s all too much talk of a bubble being created in the equities market, and that the economy is now in a period of stability.
“I think things are playing out as they should,” Fink said in discussion Tuesday with Alan Murray, deputy managing editor of The Wall Street Journal and executive editor for the Journal Online. The Wall Street Journal is owned by News Corp. (NWSA), which also publishes this newswire. BlackRock is the largest public asset manager in the U.S.
“We are now seeing record amounts of cash being put to work,” with huge flows even going into hedge funds recently, said Fink, who dismissed talk of a bubble. There are too many articles in today’s newspapers about bubbles, he said, adding that crises occur when they’re not in the rearview mirror.
The financial system needs change, including increased transparency, more derivatives trading on exchanges and regulatory change, Fink said. He also said though BlackRock misjudged the commercial real-estate sector, it’s an area on which it will be refocusing and that the asset-management business is changing dramatically.
Fink also said he didn’t think the U.S. dollar would fall that far, though it will slip lower versus the yuan, the real and other countries’ currencies. “I don’t know if this is a bad thing,” he said. “Hopefully, a weakening dollar will produce more companies willing to manufacture here.”
As for the crisis, the financial system needs to be a lot more responsive to society and make sure this doesn’t happen again, Fink said. “Risk has to be a lot more transparent to investors. I think that is happening.”
The system is dialing back risk substantially, bringing down leverage, Fink said. It also needs more derivative products trading on exchanges and to make sure everything is done on balance sheet, he said. But regulatory change is also in order, Fink said, calling for global consistency in regulation and risk management.
One question that needs to be answered is “where will capital come from to finance America next year?” Fink said. The Obama administration’s theory is that if interest rates are kept low, banks may start lending in the mortgage area, he said. “I hope the private sector will come in,” he said, but noted that there’s currently a reluctance to buy mortgage securities because of the uncertainty around rights as a first lien holder.
In addition, a new ratings system is needed if there’s going to be more private-sector involvement in the mortgage sector, he said.
Fink also launched into a defense of mortgage securitization, calling it “a good thing” that went bad in this decade. “For 30 years, mortgage securitization saved American homeowners 250 basis points” on their mortgages, he said. It was not the structure, but the underwriting and the acceptance of risk which became a problem, he said.
As for commercial real estate, BlackRock “probably had an overzealous view of where real estate was going to go,” Fink said, noting that before 2006, it has been a sector where there had been “tens of years of success.” Commercial real estate hasn’t rallied much, and if you believe that tight spreads and high yields will continue and that the U.S. can grow only about 2% a year, “we are going to have slow healing,” he said.
Nevertheless, it’s an area on which BlackRock will be refocusing, he said, noting that for the first time in a year, an investor has given the asset manager money to be put into the sector “because they think values are now appealing.”
As for the asset-management business, it’s being dramatically redefined, with more and more clients seeking holistic advice and increased use of traditional beta (index-tracking) products, Fink said. BlackRock is helping clients manage large chunks of their portfolios “almost like a fiduciary outsourcing,” he said.
- By Daisy Maxey; Dow Jones Newswires; 212-416-2237; daisy.maxey@dowjones.com
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
November 10, 2009 11:31 ET (16:31 GMT)
Copyright © 2009 MarketWatch, Inc. All rights reserved.
Marcus, on November 9th, 2009 at 4:44 pm Said:

Housing Crisis Redefines Broker-banker Relationships
Source: Houston Chronicles
HOUSTON – Nov. 9, 2009 – In his 17 years as a mortgage broker, Edward Kampf developed long-standing relationships with banks that would provide home loans to his customers.

But when the housing crisis hit, some lenders began turning their backs on brokers – the mortgage middlemen who originated the majority of loans during the boom.

When Kampf started having trouble finding financing for his customers, he converted his business to a mortgage banking operation, joining a growing number of mortgage professionals getting out of the brokerage business and into banking.

“It’s not that it’s a utopia, but you have more confidence in underwriting, longer lines of credit and peace of mind,” he said.

Over the next two years, mortgage bankers are going to gain a significantly larger share of the market, said Scott Norman, vice president of the Texas Mortgage Bankers Association.

He expects the 250-member association to grow another 10 percent over the next year as regulations governing brokers become tighter.

But even in his role representing bankers, Norman said taking brokers out of the equation does a disservice to the marketplace.

“They bring a good sense of competition,” he said. “There’s always going to be a mom and pop mortgage broker down the street who can provide you with excellent service with good rates and good fees. I don’t think that should go away.”

A mortgage broker is someone who matches a borrower with a lender.

The broker earns a commission on the transaction, but once the loan has closed, the broker’s involvement ends.

Alternatively, a mortgage banker typically provides its own funds and therefore assumes more risk.

The number of brokers multiplied during the housing boom when lenders were eager to loan to almost anyone.

Image problems

Their ranks began tapering off when the market cratered and they were painted as greedy and untrustworthy.

To distance themselves from brokers, some large financial institutions ended their wholesale lending divisions that funded loans brought in by third-party brokers.

They began to focus exclusively on retail customers.

Kampf said borrowers seeking second homes, construction loans and jumbo financing were considered high risk – even if they were doctors or lawyers with great credit and plenty of cash in the bank.

Brokers were getting fewer referrals from real estate agents, too.

“It’s easier to market yourself to Realtors as a banker versus broker because of the perception involved,” Kampf said. “From a marketing standpoint, it’s been a benefit.”
______________________________
marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
www. foreclosureProSe.com
Marcus, on November 9th, 2009 at 4:10 pm Said:

More Walk Away From Homes, Mortgages
Source: US TODAY
PENNINGTON, N.J. ¬– Nov. 9, 2009 – When Sharon Sakson was laid off recently from her job as a television writer and producer, she burned through her savings to pay the $2,400 monthly mortgage on her home. But she soon decided it didn’t make sense: Her home was worth thousands less than the mortgage she carried on it.

The home had been appraised at $390,000 when she refinanced in 2006, but she estimates it’s not worth the $320,000 it initially cost in 2004. So Sakson did what a growing number of homeowners are doing today: She stopped paying and decided to let the bank take her home.

“I’m walking away from my house,” says Sakson, 57, who stopped making payments about six months ago on her home in Pennington, N.J. “The bank can have it.”

What Sakson did is called a strategic default, or a voluntary foreclosure, and it’s fast becoming a major challenge to the government’s $75 billion effort to keep distressed borrowers in their homes. Walking away from a mortgage is serious business – it can knock 100 points off your credit score and make you ineligible for a new mortgage for seven years. Yet, about 588,000 borrowers walked away from homes last year, double the number in 2007, according to a recent study by credit-scoring firm Experian and management consultants Oliver Wyman. While home prices are rising, the increases pale compared with overall drops in home prices since 2005 that threaten to push millions more homeowners into Sakson’s predicament, owing more than their homes are worth and seeing little chance of rebuilding equity soon.

More will walk away, which will hamper the housing recovery, reinforce lenders’ tight credit policies and drag on the economy’s recovery, economists say.

“It’s increasingly a more important factor driving the foreclosure crisis,” says Mark Zandi, of Moody’s Economy.com. “As we move forward, the job market will stabilize, and the big thing will be strategic defaults. People are going to determine it doesn’t make financial sense to hold on to their homes. That’s going to be a significant problem. Strategic defaults mean foreclosures could be high for a long time.”

It’s not just economists who are concerned about strategic defaults.

The mortgage unit of Citigroup says one in five borrowers who defaults does so willingly, even though they’re able to pay the mortgage. “It’s a very large number, and it’s a very, very significant risk to the housing recovery,” says Sanjiv Das, CEO of CitiMortgage, adding that new government programs to curb strategic defaults may be needed.

Waiting for prices to stabilize

How bad the strategic defaults issue gets may depend on how much more home prices fall and whether the government does more to help homeowners with mortgages larger than their homes’ value. Both Zandi and Das suggest further actions to reduce mortgage principal for underwater borrowers.

“A better way to do it may be an incentive to stay current for a period, and after two years of being current, they get a principal reduction,” says Das.

The government’s current Making Homes Affordable program for mortgage modifications disqualifies borrowers whose unpaid mortgages are more than 125 percent of the home’s market value.

Nationally, median prices have fallen about 25 percent from their peak in late 2005, although prices recently have risen compared with prior months this year. The median price in the second quarter – $170,000 – was at roughly the level it was in autumn 2003.

But price declines have been worse in some markets. A closely watched barometer of home prices, the Standard & Poor’s/Case-Shiller 20-City Composite Index, shows they have fallen more than 25 percent in 12 markets and more than 50 percent in two – Phoenix and Las Vegas – from peaks hit in 2006 or 2007.

Fifteen out of the 20 metro areas saw a rise in prices from July to August, but those increases are not anywhere close to the losses that have already occurred.

The number of borrowers who walk away is expected to increase, along with the rise in homeowners who owe more than their homes are worth. An unprecedented 16 million homeowners currently are underwater, according to Moody’s Economy.com. That’s about a third of all homeowners with a first mortgage.

Moody’s Economy.com estimates the number of underwater borrowers will peak at 17.4 million in the third quarter of 2010.

An even higher estimate comes from Deutsche Bank, which predicted in an August study that the number of homeowners underwater will grow from 14 million (or 27 percent of all homeowners with mortgages) in 2009 to 25 million homeowners, or 48 percent of all those with a mortgage, by the time home prices stabilize.

Not coincidentally, strategic defaults have been highest where prices have plunged most, such as California and Florida.

From 2005 to 2008, the number of strategic defaulters went up by 68 times in California, according to the Experian-Oliver Wyman study published in September. During that same time period, the median price for existing, single-family homes in California fell from $522,670 in 2005 to $346,410, according to the California Association of Realtors.

In other geographic regions, the increase in strategic defaulters ranged between 3 times and 18 times more.

The Experian-Wyman study found borrowers with higher credit scores when they applied for their loan were 50 percent more likely than other types of borrowers to walk away from a mortgage only because they were underwater, even though they could afford to pay. The study was based on an analysis of about 12 million borrowers.

No household would default if the equity shortfall is less than 10 percent of the value of the house, according to another study this year, done by the University of Chicago, Northwestern University and the European University Institute. But 17 percent of households would default, even if they could afford to pay their mortgage, when the equity shortfall reaches 50 percent of the value of their house. That means the market value of a mortgage property is that much below the amount of loan taken against it.

There also appears to be a contagion effect. Borrowers who know someone who defaulted are 82 percent more likely to declare their intention to do so.

Growing acceptance

“The most disturbing aspect of this is that it’s becoming acceptable to do,” says Joel Naroff, an economist with Naroff Economic Advisors. “What does that mean down the road for housing and the economy if people are happy to walk away and destroy their credit? They’re saying, ‘Why pay a high amount if they can get something, even a rental, for less?’ “

Because of the time and expense involved in completing a foreclosure, borrowers who decide to walk away often wind up staying in their homes for months after they stop paying their mortgage.

In most states, lenders can go after homeowners for past-due payments, but many fail to take such action when borrowers abandon their properties, because the legal costs are so high.

Short sales, in which lenders agree to the sale of a home for less than the balance of the mortgage, is an alternative to a strategic default. Many lenders are now encouraging them, but Zandi says that alternative may seem too time-consuming for borrowers who want to quickly get out from under their homes.

Janet Speer, 51, isn’t happy to be walking away from her 200-year-old home in Royersford, Pa., but she doesn’t feel ashamed. Speer says she was paying about $1,400 a month for her home, which was appraised at about $155,000.

After getting laid off last year, Speer said, she tried to modify her mortgage to more affordable terms but was denied because her unemployment benefits and alimony didn’t count as income. Speer stopped paying on her mortgage in September 2008.

She is still living in the home and waiting to be foreclosed upon. Speer is saving her unemployment benefits for an apartment once the bank takes over her home.

“I got letters and calls from the bank at first, but they stopped,” said Speer, who now earns commission income from a job in the health care industry. “I have a three-story house. It’s way too big. I just want a little two-bedroom apartment. I don’t want this place anymore. I would never have chosen to do this, but it’s going to work out.”
___________________________
marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
www. foreclosureProSe.com
Marcus, on November 9th, 2009 at 3:21 pm Said:

I created this document to show how to search the SEC web site for documents about one mortgage trust.
All constructive comments are welcome. It is released under Creative Common License for wider distribution.

www. foreclosureprose.com/storage/forms/HowToFindATrustSECFiling.pdf

marcus @ foreclosureProSe.com
Ella, on November 9th, 2009 at 1:40 pm Said:

Watchdog warns bankers they could go to jail in stinging attack on financial industry

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226430/Watchdog-warns-bankers-jail-stinging-attack-financial-industry.html#ixzz0WOf3jV98

Why can’t we even “warn” them here in the US?
M.Soliman, on November 9th, 2009 at 7:25 am Said:

Comments: “but the transferee cannot acquire rights of a holder in due course by a transfer, directly or indirectly, from a holder in due course if the transferee engaged in fraud or illegality affecting the instrument.”
——————————————————————————
Void (vs voidable) from the commencement
By M. Soliman
November 09 2009 6:08 PST

Los Angeles, CA // Filing an action is necessary for keeping your home after determining a wrongful foreclosure claim. I don’t see anyway around it as the state and federal initiatives are like going to court over and over and getting tossed by the trustee every time. (What?)

Until a court rules on the matter it may be the only way you have a way to protect your home.

Yet, real property (e.g. in California) cannot transfer from one party to another where a lien is considered to be defect.

The notion is the sale must fail whereby a transfer or conveyance or real property is near impossible. But a closer look at case law will mandate a good attorney for determining the grounds for calling a Trustees Sale void or voidable and need for understanding the remedies where a tort or material violation does exist.

Even when a fraud takes place we remind clients the court may not necessarily rule your home is yours anymore; even after determining the deed and transfer is unenforceable.

A predatory loan is something that falls under a theorem of “Mutual Consideration”. It is the shared responsibility by both sides for a willful act offered by one and accepted by the other party.

For example, you took the loan under the circumstances as a borrower from a predatory lender and now changed your mind. The courts say Ummmm! I don’t think so.

Courts also are sticking with the notion of equitable consideration. Therefore there is no one to blame according to some courts recent rulings. I don’t know about that where a cause of action can be made by an attorney and claims can be made supporting the deed is potentially defective.

Another type of claim is made where someone committing an unlawful act such as a forgery or a recorded document facilitates the sale. Where fraud or deceptive business practices is proven the deed is considered defect and therefore the sale must fail.

If the subject loan originated through unfair business practices, then your deed or mortgage maybe argued to be subject to a defect. That deed or mortgage will “rest disturbed” even where subject to substantive arguments brought in litigation. Therein your claims may make the transfer of the property impossible and that includes a UD hearing.

In other words the power of sale and right to acceleration in a non judicial matter are rendered unenforceable. You challenge the lenders security which always allows them to claim your home in a judgment. It is unenforceable from commencement or discovery and subject to a void or voidable determination by the court. Here is the catch you need to be aware of. It falls under fraudulent releases, request for reconveyance and forgeries.

Can a bona fide purchaser acquire title to property involved free of the improperly reconvened deed of trust? The answer is yes! Its a judeges call between void and voidable acts and the deeds. It suggest it’s not the forgery but where forgery comes into play that determines the outcome between innocent victims.

Expert.witness@live.com
MSoliman
M.Soliman, on November 9th, 2009 at 7:02 am Said:

Motion to Dismiss…first time. Plaintiff is a no show?

Need more facts! Decision entered is final? If final ask the court to handle it. Your judgement is in favor of …? Done then ? right?

Need more info! (I am pulling for you …)

msoliman
admin@borrowerhotline.com
M.Soliman, on November 9th, 2009 at 6:59 am Said:

Dan

MERS is not a gang …it’s a club.

We would ship (my prior life) collateral packages for over three days. Notes and assignments do get lost in Fed Ex and the warehouse bank would lose stips or we need a new endorsement, jurat, rider, etc.

It would delay wires by a month and I had payroll worry about.

You ever see those RV’s on the road with a happy Sam sticker. Or how about triple AAA. If you join you’re a member and MERS gives members full authorization to sign away . . . and the wire is out the next day.

You can ship after the fact as MERS will insure the collateral. If they dont make every lender an honorary officer of MERS and don’t have the power of attorney ….I am confused here bubs!

Peace

M. Soliman
admin@borrowerhotline.com
jeff, on November 8th, 2009 at 1:40 pm Said:

Does anyone know fo any case law regarding quiet title, specifically as it relates to securitazition. Since I won my Motion to Dismiss, I now have to clear up the cloud on my property. These pretenders caused this problem.

Can I sue for my Attorneys fees? Since they caused the problem, shouldn’t they be responsible to clean it up?

Thanks

Jeff
Dan Edstrom, on November 8th, 2009 at 12:23 pm Said:

Lisa E.,
That is awesome information. Among other things, the misrepresentation is NO CONSIDERATION when the assignment states “FOR VALUE RECEIVED” or similar text from the new assignee to the originator. I am sure California has something similar for recordings at the county or in court cases.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
jeff, on November 8th, 2009 at 8:48 am Said:

Lisa E.

Thanks for the kudos but without everyone here it would not have been possible. SO THANKS TO EVERYONE HERE.

Jeff
Dan Edstrom, on November 7th, 2009 at 8:28 pm Said:

Maher,
You may be correct about the power of attorney. However, my limited view is that the foreclosing attorneys are not that smart either. They do not have it because the servicer does not give it to them (they only tell them). It doesn’t mean smarter attorneys will not include references to some sort of actual “power of attorney”. In the cases I have read (only 2 I believe), the attorneys never provided proof of power of attorney to the court.

Even if they were to provide proof of a power of attorney, the court still needs to determine if the power of attorney was used as provided by the proof.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
M.Soliman, on November 7th, 2009 at 7:53 pm Said:

Dan – Impressed – but no cigar here.

MERS affords the power of attorney to the person assigned the task of executing the documents or instruments. Those documents are drawn on software with a special twist. Therefore the notices are pulled in advance and like some states is part of the original deed of trust.

MERS on the other hand empowers the person in charge to have endorsed the documents by jurat and assignment in blank (there’s an issue). Get MERS on your side and seek an injunction if necessary. So why attack MERS – they and trustee work for the parties’ collectively – yeah right.

Careful here, as your observations (as many attorneys do) lack onsite experience where the real world which is in violation with the procedural “other” world. That is the trustees and attorneys advantage in court.

As for affirmative defenses available to homeowners- one would never believe the vast number of procedural shortfalls and volume of errors and omission evidenced in almost every recovery effort we see. It’s a difficult decision when contemplating defending a home in foreclosure. It can be done successfully and we recommend using an attorney. The market for attorneys with this level of expertise however is concerning.

We believe it safe to assume the industry mandates maintaining tight regulatory control ensured by regulated use of approved software and dedicated documents system where certain instruments (assignment, substitution and deed of trust) shall recorded. Foreclosure recording information must be consistent to ensure valid timeliness.

Altering a document raises concerns for integrity and subjecting the trustee to impossible events and Trustor to unfair business practices and deceptive dealings. The fact most loan originated in 2004 through 2007 are predatory or in error is cause t claim the security is disturbed.

If the Trustor can show in a court of law where the deed has in fact violated civil code it may be rendered defect and therefore cannot ever convey title to real property.

Expert.witness @live.com
http://www.foreclosureinfosearch.
Lisa E., on November 7th, 2009 at 7:25 pm Said:

Dan,

In Florida the FELONY is held in FL Statute §817.545 (2)(d). ASSignment Fraud in any of your cases?

I wonder if other states have similar statutes?

817.545 Mortgage fraud.–

(2) (d) Files or causes to be filed with the clerk of the circuit court for any county of this state a document involved in the mortgage lending process which contains a material misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission.

(5)(a) Any person who violates subsection (2) commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(b) Any person who violates subsection (2), and the loan value stated on documents used in the mortgage lending process exceeds $100,000, commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.org
ForeclosureHamlet@gmail.com
Dan Edstrom, on November 7th, 2009 at 8:19 am Said:

Steve Sinacola,
The putative assignment’s are all “FOR VALUE RECEIVED” and of course no value was received

The putative assignment’s are all done by the transferee – the transferor is not present (and in many instances is either in bankruptcy or no longer exists) – this is very much like you allegedly owing me some unknown disputed amount of approx. $100.00 and I take YOUR check and and I have my “friend” John Smith (who isn’t very bright) write it out and sign it using a power of attorney that I told him I had for you.

The putative assignment is done under color of authority

In California, using somebodys personally identifiable information to commit any unlawful act is a FELONY (with or without that persons permission). (see CPC 530.5)

Common law: No good title passes with fraud

I have heard that it is a felony to mess with title to somebodys property (I have not confirmed this)

Many other issues discussed on this site and elsewhere

Now throw into the mix disparagement of title

The judges are typically concerned about “equitable distribution” but it sure seems to me that kicking somebody out of their home and giving it to those committing fraud, felonies and other unlawful acts (fraud upon the court, bankruptcy fraud, etc) is not very equitable.

Just remember – whatever you FAIL to bring up in a lawsuit will typically not be heard or considered by the judge or a jury.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice. Consult with an attorney to determine what is applicable in your circumstances.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
steve sinacola, on November 7th, 2009 at 7:06 am Said:

I’ve learned a new term, “Slander of Title’. From Wki:
In law, slander of title is normally a claim involving real estate in which one entity falsely claims to own another entity’s property. Alternatively, it is casting aspersion on someone else’s property, business or goods, e.g. claiming a house is infested with termites (when it is not), or falsely claiming you own someone else’s copyright (what allegedly occurred in the SCO v. Novell case). Slander of title is a form of jactitation.[1]

Slander of title is a one of the “specialized” Common law intentional torts. The State of California has adopted the definition of slander of title set forth in section 624 of the Restatement of Torts reading as follows: “One who, without a privilege to do so, publishes matter which is untrue and disparaging to another’s property in land, chattels or intangible things under such circumstances as would lead a reasonable man to foresee that the conduct of a third person as purchaser or lessee thereof might be determined thereby is liable for pecuniary loss resulting to the other from the impairment of vendibility thus caused.”

The term slander of title is somewhat of a misnomer as slander refers to that which is spoken yet the tort slander of title requires publication. A more accurate term would be “disparagement of title”

A slander of title suit can be pursued with merit in a variety of circumstances including but not limited to” the filing of an invalid lien against real property or virtually any type of recordable instrument recorded against a property by one without privilege which is untrue….It is not a requirement that it be recorded merely published, and in the broadest sense of the word. Published can ever refer to the placement of a lawn sign in front of someone’s property upon which is conveyed an untrue disparaging statement.

I am curious to know how (if) one could use “Slander of Title” to defend their home. At any rate, due to the “defective sheriff” lawsuit,counter-claims of “Conversion and Slander of Title” are now before the court.
Lisa E., on November 7th, 2009 at 6:58 am Said:

JEFF!!!

May I attend your coronation as KING of LivingLies for the month? Could I perhaps finesse my way into a VIP Invitation!

WOW! That is some MAJOR impact you’ve just had on the world!

Congratulations and a HUGE heartfelt THANK YOU!

Lisa E
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.org
steve sinacola, on November 6th, 2009 at 11:37 pm Said:

Class action filed AGAINST THE SHERIFF for unlawful forclosure…

Associated Press

4:22 a.m. CST, November 5, 2009

DETROIT – A lawyer who has filed a proposed class-action lawsuit says tens of thousands of foreclosures in Wayne County are unlawful because sheriffs did not follow state law when they conducted foreclosure auctions.

The suit filed in federal court by Bloomfield Hills attorney Paul Nicoletti seeks to set aside the foreclosures of 46 plaintiffs in Wayne County and potentially hundreds of thousands of others statewide.

The suit claims former Wayne County Sheriff Warren Evans was required by law to sign the sheriff’s deeds. But, as in most Michigan counties, the undersheriff signed.

Nicoletti tells The Detroit News it’s a “hyper-technical argument, but it’s due process.”

Evans, now Detroit police chief, and current Wayne County Sheriff Benny Napoleon declined comment
dasmom, on November 6th, 2009 at 5:10 pm Said:

@Alina

The foreclosure mediation program in my state has all of the stipulations you mentioned and a 60 day time limit. My attorney told me that he has heard of mediation cases taking 6 – 9 months without having a final resolution. With the mounting attorney’s fees, interest, etc. the homeowner ends up upside down on the mortgage if they weren’t upside down before. Sometimes this whole process seems hopeless, especially if the homeowner doesn’t have the funds to keep paying their own attorney.
Deontos, on November 6th, 2009 at 2:54 pm Said:

Urgent: GOT TO HAVE A MEMBERSHIP CARD TO GET INSIDE

From:
http://www.imfpubs.com/issues/imfpubs_ima/2009_42/news/1000012647-1.html

** Inside Mortgage Finance Publications **
Inside MBS & ABS

Some Servicers Feel Less Confident about MERS as Courts Increasingly Question Its Ability to Foreclose

Recent court cases that call into question the ownership of a mortgage loan are forcing servicers to alter their practices and making them less likely to foreclose or appear in court in the name of the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, according to Moody’s Investors Service. Non-agency MBS servicers are adjusting their foreclosure and bankruptcy servicing practices due to the outcomes of…
……….. Must be a paying member to see the rest. CAN ANYBODY ACCESS THIS SITE? Could be VERY interesting info here.
bt, on November 6th, 2009 at 12:43 pm Said:

FANNIE MAE- Government-controlled mortgage company Fannie Mae is going to give borrowers on the verge of foreclosure the option of renting their homes for a year. The new “Deed for Lease” program will allow homeowners to transfer title to Fannie Mae and sign a one-year lease.

Isn’t this the easy way out for Fannie Mae? IF the original lender was Big Bank US, loan sold to Fannie Mae…they are trying to solidify the 90% of the public that gives up to foreclosure and avoid the Securitization issue….any thoughts?

IF in default, shouldn’t we take our chances in court, lack of standing..yadda-yadda? thoughts anyone?
Alina, on November 6th, 2009 at 9:46 am Said:

“If the borrower is mediating in bad faith or is really not available or able to engage in a meaningful mediation then we’ve wasted the court’s time,” Townes said.

In my comments submitted to the Florida Supreme Court, I stated the same thing with the exception that “borrower” was “bank.” I also stated that attorneys be required to attend in person the mediation along with someone with authority to negotiate and to bring with them a signed authorization giving them the authority to negotiate. Otherwise, the borrower’s time will be wasted.

I would love to get in touch with this AP reporter and give him some info regarding on who is really negotiating in bad faith.
Alina, on November 6th, 2009 at 9:38 am Said:

Jeff,

WAY TO GO!!!!! this is excellent.
James#, on November 5th, 2009 at 11:40 pm Said:

Jeff,
WELL DONE! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Foreclosure Fraud, on November 5th, 2009 at 7:19 pm Said:

CALL OUT TO LIVINGLIES READERS

Not sure if you all read the hype on Fannie Mae’s new program today but it has been all over the internet.

“This new program helps eliminate some of the uncertainty of foreclosure, keeps families and tenants in their homes DURING THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, and helps to stabilize neighborhoods and communities,”

Translation:

Fannie won’t sell the properties immediately because then they would have to recognize the mark. Keep people in the home so it is not abandoned and have them maintained until they are SOLD. Not having to go through the foreclosure process and try to foreclose on a home THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO in the first place…

WTF?

Here is CNN’s Article on it…

CNN – Avoid foreclosure: Rent your own home…

“YOUR OWN HOME”

Fannie Mae implements deed-for-lease program that allows troubled borrowers who don’t qualify for loan modifications to stay in their homes.

You have to be kidding me!!!

There is so many levels of WRONG in this.

This is nothing other than yet another way to avoid recognition of bad paper Fannie took on their books and has a HUGE embedded loss on.

This is yet another scam, all courtesy of our government who will do anything to avoid admitting the extent of the liabilities that are now in Fannie and Freddie’s portfolio

Post comments here on CNN about the TRUTHS of what is REALLY going on w/ foreclosures that lead them back to this site, the Guide on Scribd, etc…

http://bit.ly/2WbiBF

Look at the comments by the main stream… So brainwashed… So misinformed…

This is getting RIDICULOUS…

4closureFraud
jeff, on November 5th, 2009 at 7:16 pm Said:

Hi to all, sorry I haven’t responded but have been very busy. The following is my case

A BIG WIN FOR ME AND ALL OF LIVINGLIES THANK YOU.

HSBC Bank USA v Miller
2009 NY Slip Op 29444
Decided on October 29, 2009
Supreme Court, Sullivan County
Meddaugh, J.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on October 29, 2009

Supreme Court, Sullivan County

HSBC Bank USA, National Association, As Trustee for WFALT 2007-PA02 3451 Hammond Avenue Waterloo, La 50704-5400, Plaintiff

against

Jeffrey F. Miller, Board of Managers, Emerald Green Property Owner’s Association, Inc., JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., JOHN DOE, (said names being fictitious, it being the intention of Plaintiff to designate any and all occupants of premises being foreclosed herein, and any parties, corporations or entities, if any, having or claiming an interest or lien upon the mortgaged premises, Defendants.

4786-2008

Steven J. Baum, P.C.

By Megan B. Szeliga, Esq.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

P.O. Box 1291

Buffalo, New York 14240-1291

John S. Edwards, Esq.

Attorneys for Defendant

317 Little Tor Road South

New City, New York 10956

Mark M. Meddaugh, J.

The Plaintiff filed a motion to for leave to reargue the Decision and Order of this Court, which granted the motion of the Defendant, Jeffrey F. Miller, dismissing the complaint in the above-referenced matter on the grounds that the Plaintiff lacks standing to maintain this foreclosure action.

The Court found, in its prior decision, that the Assignment of Mortgage attached to the Plaintiff’s papers in opposition to the original motion only referred to the assignment of the mortgage, and made no reference to the note. The Court noted that the Assignment had only the vague reference that “the said assignor hereby grants and conveys unto said assignee, the assignor’s beneficial interest under the mortgage ” which the Court found was insufficient to establish that both the note and the mortgage had been assigned to the Plaintiff.

Upon reargument, Plaintiff’s counsel asserts that the Assignment provides in pertinent part that:

Said assignor hereby assigns unto the above named Assignee the said Mortgage, and the full benefit of all powers and of all covenants and Provisions therein contained, and the said Assignor hereby grants and conveys unto the Assignee, the Assignor’s beneficial interest under the mortgage. (Emphasis added by Plaintiff’s counsel)

Plaintiff’s counsel then relies on language appearing in page 3 of the mortgage as follows:

BORROWERS TRANSFER TO LENDER OF RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY
I mortgage, grant and convey the property to MERS (solely as nominee for the lender and lender’s successors in interest) and its successors in interest subject to the terms of the Security Instrument. This means that, by signing this Security Instrument, I am giving Lender those rights that Applicable Law gives to Lenders who hold mortgages on real property. I am giving Lender those rights to protect Lender from possible losses that might result if I fail to:
(A)Pay all the amounts that I owe Lender as stated in the Note including, but not limited to, all renewals, extensions, and modifications of the Note;
(B)Pay, with interest, any amounts that lender spends under this Security Interest to protect the value of the Property and Lender’s rights in the Property;
(C)Keep all of my other promises and agreements under this Security Instrument and the Note. (Emphasis added by Plaintiff’s counsel)
Plaintiff counsel also refers to Page 4 of the Mortgage in the section entitled Covenants [*2]under the Mortgage which provides:

I promise and agree with the Lender as follows:
1.Borrower’s Promise to Pay. I will pay to the Lender on time Principal and Interest due under the Note and any prepayment, late charges and other amounts under the Note and any prepayment, late charges and other amounts under the Note. I will also pay all amounts for Escrow Items under Section 3 of this Security Instrument,
Payment due under the Note and this Security Instrument shall be made in U.S. Currency . . . . . (Emphasis added by Plaintiff’s counsel)

Plaintiff argues when the Assignment and Mortgage are read “as a totality they make clear that the Note was transferred along with the Mortgage by and through (sic) the Assignment in this matter.”

It is further argued that the Note holder has standing to maintain a foreclosure action so long as the mortgage and note have been delivered to that party. It is further argued that case law provides that a mortgage can be transferred by delivery, without a written assignment.

The Defendant, Jeffrey Miller, by his attorney, argues that the prior decision was correct in finding that, in the absence of proof that both the Note and the Mortgage sought to be foreclosed have been assigned to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is without standing to maintain a foreclosure action. The Defendant further argues that the Plaintiff has again failed to establish that it is the holder of both the mortgage and the underlying debt.

In reply, the Plaintiff’s counsel argues that the Court of Appeals held that where a mortgage is recorded with MERS named as the lender’s nominee and mortgagee on the instrument, the beneficial ownership and servicing rights may be transferred among MERS members, and that a reading of the Mortgage, Note and Assignment “make clear” that both the Mortgage and Note were assigned.

Conclusions of Law
The Plaintiff herein is requesting that the Court reconsider its decision that the Plaintiff failed to establish that it has standing in this action, due to the lack of a reference to the Note in the Assignment of the Mortgage.

The Plaintiff’s Counsel is apparently abandoning the arguments which she made in opposition to the Defendant’s prior motion to dismiss, in which she first cited nonexistent language in the Assignment, claiming that the Assignment explicitly assigned the mortgage “together with the bond or obligation described in said mortgage, and the moneys due to grow thereon with interest” (Emphasis added by Plaintiff’s counsel) (See, Affirmation of Megan B. Szeliga, Esq., affirmed on March 6, 2009). The second assertion made by Plaintiff’s counsel was that “[a]s a matter of course, the note also follows the mortgage,” and that “title to the Note passed upon physical delivery from MERS to the Plaintiff” (See, Affirmation of Megan B. Szeliga, Esq., affirmed on March 6, 2009, ¶16). The assertion that the note follows the mortgage is unsupported any law, and the assertion that the original note was transferred by physical delivery to the Plaintiff is made only in an affirmation by Plaintiff’s counsel and is unsupported by any evidentiary factual support from a person with personal knowledge of the facts.

The Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledges that the Note is a negotiable instrument (See, [*3]Affirmation of Megan B. Szeliga, Esq., affirmed on March 6, 2009, ¶ 19). In Slutsky v. Blooming Grove Inn, Inc., 147 AD2d 208, 542 NYS2d 721 [2nd Dept., 1989], the Court held that when “[t]he note secured by the mortgage is a negotiable instrument ( see, UCC 3-104) [it] requires indorsement on the instrument itself or on a paper so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof’ (UCC 3-202[2] ) in order to effectuate a valid assignment’” of the entire instrument (cf., UCC 3-202[3], [4]).”

In the case at bar, the Note attached to the Plaintiff’s papers contains the following undated, unexplained indorsement on the last page thereof, “Pay to the Order of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. without recourse by: Real Estate Mortgage Network, Inc., Eric Hahn, Vice President.” It would appear, therefore, that the beneficial interest in the Note was transferred to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and that it is Wells Fargo, N.A. who is entitled to receive payments under the Note. No date was provided for that transfer. By contrast, in Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Coakley, 41 AD3d 674, 838 NYS2d 622 [2nd Dept., 2007]), the Court outlined the history of indorsement from the original mortgage, to another transferee, followed by an indorsement in blank which was ultimately transferred and tendered to MERS. The Coakley Court concluded that it had been established that MERS was the lawful owner of the promissory note at the commencement of the action, and of the mortgage, that it had standing to bring the action.

The Court notes that the Lender listed on the Note is Real Estate Mortgage Network, Inc. (no reference in contained on the Note to indicate that MERS has become the nominee of the lender on the note), and the Note further provides that anyone who takes this Note by transfer and who is entitled to receive payments under the Note is called the Note Holder.

The Court finds no proof in the papers that the Note was transferred from the Lender described on the Note to MERS as a Note Holder, and even if there was proof of an initial transfer to MERS, there was no proof that the Note was then transferred from MERS to the Plaintiff.

The documentary proof provided by Plaintiff’s counsel supports a finding that the Note at issue was transferred to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., whereas the Assignment of Mortgage indicates that the mortgage was assigned by MERS, as nominee for Real Estate Mortgage Network, Inc., to the Plaintiff herein.

In Kluge v. Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537, 536 NYS2d 92 [2nd Dept., 1988] the Court held that the assignment of a mortgage without transfer of the debt is a nullity and a cause of action for foreclosure must fail. In Merritt v. Bartholick, 36 NY 44 [1867] the Court of Appeals held that as a mortgage is but an incident to the debt which it is intended to secure (cites omitted ), the logical conclusion is that a transfer of the mortgage without the debt is a nullity, and no interest is assigned by it. The security cannot be separated from the debt, and exist independently of it. This is the necessary legal conclusion, and recognized as the rule by a long course of judicial decisions.” It should be noted that in MERSCORP, Inc. v. Romaine, 8 NY3d 90, 828 NYS2d 266 [2006], Justice Ciparick, in her concurring opinion specifically notes that the Court’s ruling left for another day the argument made by the County of Suffolk and various amici “that MERS has violated the clear prohibition against separating a lien from its debt and that MERS does not have standing to bring foreclosure actions * * * (see, e.g., Merritt v. Bartholick, 36 NY44, 45 [1867]). [*4]

The Plaintiff’s counsel has argued that the transfer of the note to the Plaintiff is implied by a combined reading of the Assignment and the Mortgage itself, but the Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to establish that it is a holder of the note by indorsement at the time the foreclosure action was commenced (First Trust Nat. Ass’n v. Meisels, 234 AD2d 414, 651 NYS2d 121 [2nd Dept., 1996]), nor did the language of the assignment explicitly assign “the note or obligation described and secured by said mortgage”(In re Stralem, 303 AD2d 120, 758 NYS2d 345 [2nd Dept., 2003]). Accordingly, the Court shall not alter its prior finding that the Plaintiff failed to establish that it has standing to maintain the instant mortgage foreclosure proceeding.

Wherefore, based on the foregoing, the Plaintiff’s motion seeking reargument is denied.This memorandum shall constitute the Decision and Order of this Court. The original Decision and Order, together with the motion papers have been forwarded to the Clerk’s office for filing. The filing of this Order does not relieve counsel from the obligation to serve a copy of this order, together with notice of entry, pursuant to CPLR § 5513(a).

Dated: October____, 2009

Monticello, New York

ENTER

__________________________________________

HON. MARK M. MEDDAUGH

Acting Supreme Court Justice
erlinda, on November 5th, 2009 at 6:32 pm Said:

because they are not the real party to modify the loan, neither have the right for make any legal arrangement. like what neil always said these are people who are the “pretenders” trying to steal our properties. i don’t make any deal with the devils. i don’t make payment to the wrong parties so the only way we could win this fight is to bring them to court. some judges and lawyers are still can’t get it because this is a new legal crisis that hit america, the biggest “fraud” of all time. believe me time will come that all those who were responsible for this “FRAUD’” and PONZI MORTGAGES WIL BE BEHIND BARS. IT IS JUST A MATTER OF TIME.
dasmom, on November 5th, 2009 at 5:15 pm Said:

“If the borrower is mediating in bad faith or is really not available or able to engage in a meaningful mediation then we’ve wasted the court’s time,” Townes said.

Townes is not considering that the lender could be wasting the court’s time and the borrower’s time. My foreclosure case has been in a mandated court mediation program for over 6 months, with no progress made because the lender always promises to come back with answers or a mod agreement and never does. There are no teeth in mediation
dasmom, on November 5th, 2009 at 4:04 pm Said:

“If the borrower is mediating in bad faith or is really not avai

Livinglies’s Weblog

Pages

Tags

Homeowners

Click to view: What You Need to Know – Part 1

Click to view: What You Need to Know – Part 2

What Lawyers Are Saying About Neil Garfield’s Seminars

PURCHASE ATTORNEY WORKBOOKS: Request to Purchase Garfield Lawyers Workshop Handbook-v4

Special Homeowners Workshop Sunday afternoon November 1, 2009 from 1:00-5:00 pm.

Click link below to Register for Homeowners’ Seminar

Download Here –>Homeowners Workshop Registration Form Clearwater Beach FL – November 1, 2009

Click link

Download and Complete Homeowner Intake Form Here

PLEASE FAX THE COMPLETED FORM TO 772-594-6244 or scan and email to fdg.clientservice@gmail.com

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

Problems-with-a-loan-modification-10-points-to-consider

WORKSHOPS COMING UP

Stay tuned 2010 dates to be announced soon

lawyers-workshop-sneak-preview

All the information we provide is free and we are recruiting new people all the time to take your questions. If you are actively looking for help from a professional we will need information from you. If you can take the time to download and printout the following form it will speed up the process.

1,873 Responses