Az Federal Judge Strikes at Heart of Nonjudicial Foreclosure, Denies OneWest Motion to Dismiss

For further information or assistance, please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

————————————–

See OWB CASE Buffington v USBank_MTD Denied incl FDCPA 28USDC AZ

CAUTION: NOT ALL JURISDICTIONS ALLOW THE SAME CAUSES OF ACTION. CHECK WITH ATTORNEY WHO IS LICENSED IN THE JURISDICTION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.

A Federal Judge upheld a Complaint against OneWest on all counts except fraud. Actually the Judge was doing the homeowner a favor because the burden of proof on fraud is clear and convincing evidence whereas the burden of proof for the rest of the causes of action is only a preponderance (50% + 1) of the evidence. If it is more likely than not that the homeowner is right on the multi-count complaint that has now survived dismissal, the homeowner wins and the damages goes to the jury to jury to decide how much that should be. TRESPASS might also require a higher burden of proof. During the litigation, the homeowner will be able to inquire and potentially receive the necessary facts to support a fraud claim as well.

This is a dramatic reversal — lawsuits just like this one were previously dismissed in Az Federal Court. One of them was dismissed after 14 months of non-action by the court.

COUNT 1 UPHELD FOR NEGLIGENCE PER SE

COUNT 2 UPHELD FOR NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE OF AN UNDERTAKING

COUNT 3 UPHELD FOR FALSE DOCUMENTS — Plaintiffs suffered false foreclosure recordings on their real property title record, additional damage to their credit reputation, and false late fees and penalties, as well as attorney fees and costs.

COUNT 4 UPHELD FOR PAYMENT/DISCHARGE/ SATISFACTION — based upon receipt of FDIC loss share payments that were intentionally withheld and therefore causing a misrepresentation to borrower as to the the existence of a default or the actual amount of the balance due to the actual creditor.

COUNT 5 UPHELD FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT

COUNT 6 UPHELD FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT

COUNT 7 DISMISSED — FRAUD

COUNT 8 UPHELD FOR TRESPASS TO REAL PROPERTY

COUNT 9 UPHELD FOR FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

BONY Mellon Sues Chase Bank et al for Misrepresentation

For more information and assistance please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

—————————————–

see BONY Mellon Sues Chase et al Over Misrepresentations on Loans

It is interesting that at the same time that BONY Mellon has its name attached to foreclosures it is claiming exactly what the borrowers are claiming — misrepresentations about the loans themselves as well as misrepresentations about the mortgage backed securities allegedly issued by trusts in the name of BONY Mellon as Trustee.

The problem here is that while there are tantalizing hints about what was wrong with what Chase did, they don’t go so far as to say anything that would actually help borrowers (homeowners). Several commentators have singled out this pattern of non disclosure even in lawsuits and settlements. Elizabeth Warren brought it to light when she questioned investigators who found fatal defects in many if not most foreclosures. Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone last week found that the settlements with the banks were really PR stunts to appease the public and confuse the judiciary.

The point is that all these cases are being settled for what appears to be big money. But if the allegations are true, then the settlements are actually fractions of a penny on the dollar. But everyone is afraid that if they blow the whistle on everything the repercussions will be vast — affecting the credibility of the Federal Reserve, the Department of Justice, and other regulators and officers of law enforcement. The fact that the effect has already been unimaginably vast — with 6+ million foreclosures and over 15 million displaced by crooked deals apparently is of no concern to the players, the government or even the insurers and investors.

Investors fail to realize that they can offset their losses by dealing directly with homeowners through servicers that actually represent their interests and that the investors are not bound by the pooling and servicing agreements because the loans never made it into the trust.

Utah Judge Voids Foreclosure Sale — It Never Happened

For more information or assistance please call 520-405-1688 or 954-494-6000

——————————

see http://www.kcsg.com/view/full_story/25831345/article-Utah-Homeowner-Wins-Lawsuit-Against-Bank-of-America-in-Illegal-Foreclosure-Action?instance=more_local_news1

see Judges Order at http://matchbin-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/public/sites/990/assets/JC9H_Decision_and_Order_140500067.pdf

This case shows how Recontrust — an entity created and controlled by Bank of America — goes down in flames AFTER the sale of the property. The Judge found that Reconstrust was not a proper “substitute trustee” and in my opinion neither are any of the other “substitute trustees” in the context of loans subject to false claims of securitization.

The case is a direct instruction to do what I have been advocating for years. If you think you have a meritorious defense or attack on the foreclosure, deny the implied claims, and plead and prove that your objection is not based upon procedural irregularities, but rather on the fact that the party seeking to sell or foreclose the property never had any right to appear must less enforce anything involved in the loan.

In this case the status was that the sale had already occurred and Recontrust was seeking the usual eviction. The Judge, separating the chafe from reality simply said that Recontrust had no rights whatsoever and that the eviction would not occur (judgment entered for homeowner) and that the reason why the homeowners wins is that the foreclosure sale was void ab initio.

The lesson is that if you are going to try to split hairs you are at best headed for a continuance so that there is an appearance of due process. But if you really want to win, then you need to learn something about securitization — the concept, the written documents and the actions by parties claiming rights under self-serving documents that are completely false.

SPS and the Chase Servicer Shell Game

For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520 405-1688

—————————————-

Many Judges have expressed their concern about the constant movement of servicers and trustees. They are asking why the servicer keeps changing and why the trustees are changing. And now they are asking for legal argument why the substitution of the only named Plaintiff is not an amendment to the Complaint which must specifically allege facts in support of the claim of the “new Plaintiff.” This is a result of the multifaceted fraudulent scheme where claims of securitization are unfounded and claims of debt are fictitious — in derogation of the rights of both investors on Wall Street and borrowers on main Street.

Taking an example from one case being litigated now, we have a fact pattern where WAMU was the “lender” in the purchase money mortgage. Chase steps in and refinances the loan. Long after these events and long after the “default” was declared by Chase, SPS is said to be the servicer, not Chase. This successor entity is thus the party whose corporate representative is brought to trial to testify. The witness admits to having no direct personal knowledge and has no job other than testifying. The witness has no knowledge nor employment history with Chase, WAMU or the Trust or Trustee (usually US BANK where Chase is involved). The borrower, despite encouragement to take more money on refinancing, elected only to get enough money to make repairs due to storm damage. They received $45,000 in this example.

This is an issue which is slowly dawning on me that could shake things up considerably. Whether we use it or not is a different story.

It might mean that the real loan was only $45k — in total. That would affect the collections on the loan, which could have paid off the actual loan in its entirety, as well as the validity of the declaration of default and the truth of the matters asserted in the judicial complaint or the notice of non-judicial default and notice of sale. Specifically the “reinstatement” figure or “redemption” figure might actually be a negative figure — money due from the parties stating that they are the creditors, which claim they can hardly deny since they are pursuing foreclosure.

LOAN #1 was with WAMU. WAMU according to the FDIC receiver had sold the loans into the secondary market for securitization. This was the purchase money mortgage. So at some point before the refinancing in LOAN#2 the purchase money loan was sold into the secondary market. Thus WAMU only had servicing rights — if the “purchaser” entered into an agreement for WAMU to service the loan. In the case where the loan is subject to securitization, the “purchaser” is a REMIC Trust. But it appears as though few, if any, of the REMIC Trusts ever achieved the status of the owner of the debt, holder in due course, or owner of the mortgage or note. While it is possible to start a lawsuit to collect on the note, that lawsuit can never be resolved in favor of the Plaintiff unless the maker of the note defaults.

LOAN#2 was with Chase. This was supposedly a refinancing. The loan closing documents show that WAMU was paid and WAMU issued the satisfaction of mortgage and did not return the old note cancelled.

WAMU usually retained servicing rights so it would be claimed that WAMU had every right to collect the money and issue the satisfaction. But the servicing rights only existed if LOAN#1 actually made it into a Trust. If not, the loan was NOT subject to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. If WAMU — or Chase as successor or SPS as successor are actually the servicers, it MUST therefore be by virtue of some other document. That is why we are seeing some rather strange Powers of Attorney and other “enabling” documents appear out of nowhere in which the issues are further confused.

The borrowers received $45k which was for roof repairs from storm damage. So the borrowers did receive  $45k presumably from Chase, but not necessarily as we have already seen, where the originator, even if it was a big bank was using money from an illegally formed pool outside of the REMIC Trust that the investors thought was getting the money from the proceeds of sale of mortgage backed securities.

So the witness probably has absolutely no access to information and therefore no testimony about whether LOAN#1 got paid off. And in fact it is most likely that WAMU was either paid or not depending upon internal agreements with Chase. And the witness can only testify using hearsay about the preceding records of Chase, US Bank and WAMU. Several trial judges have refused to accept such testimony saying directly that the witness and the company represented by the witness are too far removed from the actual transactions to have any credibility as to the authenticity or accuracy of the business records of other entities and that the SPS records are simply an attempt to get around the hearsay rules without exposing the predecessors to direct discovery and questioning where the answers would either be embarrassing or perjury.

If WAMU was paid in the refinancing (proceeds from LOAN#2) the wrong party was paid and the debt still exists unless Chase can show that the real creditor was paid off. It is unlikely they can show that because it probably is not true. Chase was hiding the default status of loans, as we have seen in Matt Taibbi’s story in Rolling Stone. The reason was simple — the more it  looked like these Mortgage backed Securities were performing as expected, the more the investors were inclined to buy more mortgage bonds — and that is where the bulk of the money is for Chase.

By selling loans at 100 cents on the dollar (Par Value) when the true value might only have been 1/10th that amount, the profit was enormous and it all went to Chase (not the investors whose money was used to start the string of transactions in the first place).

The witness will not be able to say that WAMU was definitely paid, and if it was paid, whether the money was paid to the real creditor. This is probably a primary reason why SPS was inserted between Chase and the foreclosure proceedings. It is also why they are attempting to rely on the business records of SPS instead of the business records of Chase.

SPS is usually inserted AFTER all events have occurred relating to the debt, note, mortgage, “default,” and foreclosure. Using a witness from SPS is, on its face, allowing a witness with zero personal knowledge about anything to verify records of other companies whose records the witness has never seen.

This is done to camouflage the actual events — wherein the money from investors was stolen or diverted from its intended target (REMIC Trust) and then used to fund loans in the name of a naked nominee whose interest in the loan was only that of a vendor whose name was being rented to withhold disclosure of the real creditor, the compensation received, and the identity of all the real parties who were getting paid as a result of the “loan origination.”

This is a direct conflict with TILA, requiring that disclosure and Reg Z which states that such a loan is “predatory per se.” If the loan is predatory per se it might be “unclean hands” per se which would mean that the mortgage could never enforced even if the consideration was present.

Meet PETE: Person Entitled to Enforce

For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520 405-1688

———————————————

§ 3-301. PERSON ENTITLED TO ENFORCE INSTRUMENT.

Person entitled to enforce” an instrument means (i) the holder of the instrument, (ii) a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder, or (iii) a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to Section 3-309 or 3-418(d). A person may be a person entitled to enforce the instrument even though the person is not the owner of the instrument or is in wrongful possession of the instrument.

See my blog article from yesterday and listen to the show.

Concentrating on PETE goes to the nub of the problem. But Judges are not looking for the letter of the law — especially if it conflicts with what they think is common sense. And frankly the UCC is not very helpful for a situation like this — where the banks institutionalized violating the law. It doesn’t make sense to the Judge. From the beginning of this era of litigation, which I would say was around 2004, it was generally thought that Banks would not risk destruction and diminishing their brands by committing crimes that would or could send bankers to jail. Individuals would but banks would not.

The Judge would believe this crazy story if it was an individual in a tee shirt with tattoos and a Hells Angel jacket but it is completely counter-intuitive to believe that the banks would have committed so many crimes in such an elaborate, complicated and complex scheme of layers and laddering. The banks would not do these things they are accused of doing and the regulators would not have allowed it. And today, it STILL makes no sense to most people and most Judges. The borrowers  do not have sufficient education or experience to argue with the popular myth about what the Banks would do, why they would do it and why the borrowers are technically speaking in a far superior legal position when compared to the banks.

So everything presented to the Judge including outright proof of the facts supporting the homeowners’ theory of the case is filtered out by the completely wrong assumption that the bank would never act so irresponsibly and the borrower is merely seizing on hairsplitting notions to escape liability on a deal that went bad for them. The little voice in the Judge’s mind says “Even if you are right, the bank got hurt as well and our laws favor enforcement of negotiable instruments.” And the bank argument that failure to enforce would destroy the financial system and the economy therefore resonates strongly with nearly all judges on both the trial bench and courts of appeal.

The real cause of the trouble comes from the fact that the borrower got money at closing and the notion that assignments, endorsements, powers of attorney were not based upon any actual transaction. To say that there was no money at closing sounds ridiculous to anyone who has not analyzed this from the perspective of an investment banker. There you will easily see that there was no money in the original transaction and there was no money in any “succession” created by false paperwork. And the reason that is important is that in the end the intent of all law is to make a debtor pay his creditor. But who is the creditor?

As the old cases put it, the mortgage follows the note and will automatically inure to the benefit of the party to whom the obligation is owed. see http://law.missouri.edu/whitman/files/2013/12/Foreclosing-on-Nothing.pdf.
The trick here is that the borrower didn’t know there was a difference at closing between the party who funded the loan and the party to whom he promised to pay money. If he did know, or if he was told shortly after closing, then he would no doubt have reconsidered or rescinded once he saw all the people who were actually making money on the origination and transfers of his loan.
The confusion starts with the novel issue or novel fact pattern in which there is now a difference between PAYMENT and REPAYMENT. PAYMENT means you have an obligation to pay. That is not the deal with a loan. THAT is a promise caused by the sale of goods or services. REPAYMENT means that you made a promise to pay back money you received from the Payee on the note, the mortgagee on the mortgage, the beneficiary under the deed of trust.
It should be about REPAYMENT not PAYMENT. And that is where the essential problem lies. If there was no loan at the base of the chain of transfers, then there is no basis to enforce by ANYONE. I think we ought to argue that if some crooked individual had done these things for himself, the Judge would have no problem in stopping enforcement. The fact that a crooked banker engineered this through dozens of conduits and outright civil and potentially criminal theft should make no difference to the result.
I wonder if a voir dire question should not be addressed to the Judge to ask whether it makes any difference to him whether the acts complained of by the homeowner were allegedly committed by some felon with a criminal record or a banker with a clean record. Admittedly the credibility of witnesses is at stake in that example but the ultimate ANALYSIS of the legal and financial  consequences of these schemes should be examined with lady blind justice in mind. I have asked voir dire questions to judges and found them receptive. It is an ideal time to take control of the narrative.

What is Evidence or Proof of the Existence of the REAL Loan?

For additional information or assistance please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688.

————————————

It is a complicated answer. The following is NOT a comprehensive answer which would the length of a treatise.

see also Fla 4th DCA Beauchamp v Bank of New York Mellon, J Shahood reversed — Beauchamp v BONY-Mellon

The Beauchamp case brings to the forefront the issue of redemptive rights which has long been ignored. In short the 4th DCA decided that the redemptive rights are important. They decided that evidence of actual losses or damages must be established without relying on inadmissible hearsay. This is where the rubber meets the road. In order to do so the Plaintiff foreclosing party is open in discovery at the very least to showing actual proof of payment and proof of loss of the actual owner of the debt and/or holder in due course. Presumptions won’t do them any good unless the homeowner’s attorney fails to object.

Thus the real transaction with real money, in a real purchase of the loan must be established by the foreclosing party. That is part of their prima facie case. And these are liquidated contract damages — not subject to anything other than mathematical calculation of net loss. I doubt if the appellate court meant to empower the judge to “estimate” or enter a finding that is “good enough.” The homeowner, like the AMGAR program, has every right to pay off the net debt once it is established and thus prevent the sale of the home. In turn the homeowner is entitled to the recovery of the original note and mortgage or deed of trust.

Be careful because it is evidently a normal practice, contrary to current case law, for the foreclosing party in non judicial states to publish and record a self serving statement of standing in the form of a substitution of trustee. That substitution of trustee must be nullified or else the rest of the theories advanced by the homeowner might be deemed irrelevant.

The interesting thing on remand is what happens when the foreclosing party cannot show proof of payment (proof of actual transaction ) and tries to get the judge to assume that the loss is the amount on the note. If that were the case the 4th DCA would not have remanded for further proceedings to determine damages so that the borrower’s redemption rights could be established. Without a completely transparent introduction of testimony and BEST evidence of original transaction documents, there is no proof of damages and the foreclosure judgment must be vacated.

In loan transactions there usually is no actual written contract that says the creditor will loan money and the debtor will pay it back. So common law and statutory law must make certain assumptions about the loan contract — which still must exist in order for the note or mortgage to be enforced. This is till basic contract law — the elements of which are offer, acceptance and consideration each to the other. The stumbling block for most judges is that the presence of money at the table is automatically construed as consideration for the contract that is sought to be enforced.

In olden times there was no problem in using this heuristic approach to loan contracts, because nobody thought of some third party funding the loan WITHOUT a note and mortgage made out in favor of the actual creditor. But Wall Street found a way to do it and conceal it.

The actual debt — i.e., the duty to pay — arises by operation of law when the debtor receives the money. It is presumed to be a loan and not a gift. The paperwork is intended to provide disclosures and terms and evidence upon which both parties can rely. In this context before Wall Street saw the vulnerability, there was no problem in using the words “debt”, “note”, “mortgage” and “loan” interchangeably — because they all essentially meant the same thing.

The genius of the Wall Street scheme is that their lawyers saw the possibilities in this informal system. The borrower could not claim lack of consideration when he received the money and thus the debt was presumed. And with enough layers of deception, non-disclosure and outright lies, neither the borrower nor even the closing agent actually realized that the money was coming from Party A but the paperwork was directed to Party B. Nobody realized that there was a debt created by operation of law PLUS another debt that might be presumed by virtue of signing a note and mortgage. Obviously the borrower was kept in the dark that for every $1 of “loan” he was exposing himself to $2 in liability.

If the creditor named as payee and mortgagee was not the source of the funds then there is no underlying debt. The rules of evidence are designed to help the court get tot eh truth of the matter asserted. The truth is that the holder of the paper is NOT the party who was the creditor at “closing.” The closing was fictitious. It really is that simple. And it is the reason for the snowstorm of fabricated, forged and robosigned documents to cover up the essential fact that there is not one shred of consideration in the origination or transfer of many loans.

Each assignment, endorsement, power of attorney or other document purporting to transfer control or ownership over the loan documents is corroboration of the lack of consideration. Working backwards from the Trust or whoever is claiming the right to enforce, you will see that they are alleging “holder” status but they fail to identify and prove their right to enforce on behalf of the holder in due course or owner of the debt (i.e., the creditor).

Close examination of the PSA shows that they never planned to have the Trust actually acquire the loans — because of the lack of any language showing how payment is being made to acquire the loans within the cutoff period. THAT was the point. By doing that the broker dealers were able to divert the proceeds of sale of Mortgage Backed Securities to their own use. And when you look at their pleading they never state they are a holder in due course. Why not? If they did, there would be no allowable defenses from the borrower. But if they alleged that they would need to come forward with evidence that the Trust purchased the debt for value, in good faith and without knowledge of the borrower’s defenses — elements present in every PSA but never named as “holder in due course.”

Since the good faith and lack of knowledge of borrower’s defenses is probably not in hot dispute, that leaves only one element — payment. The logical question is why would the assignor or endorser transfer a valuable debt without payment? The only reasonable conclusion is that there is no underlying debt — there is paper but the power of that paper is at very best highly speculative. “Underlying debt” means that the alleged borrower does not owe any money to the party named as payee on the note.
Traveling down the line, seeking for evidence of payment, you don’t find it. Even the originator does not get “paid” for the loan but assigns or endorses the paperwork anyway. No reasonable business explanation can be found for this free transfer of the paper except that the participants knew full well that the paper was worthless. And THAT in turn is presumptive proof that there was a lack of consideration for the paperwork — meaning that the debt was owed to an outside party who was never in privity with the “originator.”
If someone has possession of a note, it is an original and it complies with local statutes as to form and content, the note is accepted as evidence of the debt, and the terms of repayment. The person who signed the note is at risk of a judgment against him only if he defaults or the note falls into the hands of a holder indue course. Of course if the note IS evidence of a loan that WAS funded by the named payee, that is a different story. But looking a little further up the line, you will eventually find that one or more alleged transfers of the paperwork did not involve payment. And the reason is the same as the above. In the end, the money came from illegal diversion of investor funds that were intended to be deposited with a REMIC Trust.

If the signer of the note denies that the transaction was complete — i.e., there was no consideration and therefore there is no enforceable contract, then the burden switches back to the “holder” of the note to step into the shoes of the original lender to prove that the loan actually occurred, the original lender was the creditor and the signer was the debtor.

“I could lose everything. But if we don’t start speaking up, then this really is all we’re going to get: the biggest financial cover-up in history”

Click in to tune in at The Neil Garfield Show

Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

Alayne Fleischmann couldn’t take it anymore

Matt Taibbi: Rolling Stone Magazine this week interviews a whistle blower. Someone that Jamie Dimon paid a $9 Billion fine to cover up and silence. You want a glimpse of what REALLY happened on Wall Street? You want to see how the government entered into the scheme and covered up the greatest economic crime in human history? Read Taibbi’s story.

See http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-9-billion-witness-20141106

Tonight we will talk about the real story. And we will talk about what nobody wants to talk about and why — nobody except people like Elizabeth Warren. While Democrats were busy showing their political incompetence the past couple years, Warren has been speaking to packed houses — packed with Republicans, Democrats and Independents. They all understand one thing — Wall Street screwed the country, maybe the world and the U.S. government let them get away with it and keep the money they stole. We are not talking about grocery store money here. We are talking about an amount of money in excess of the Federal debt and Gross Domestic Product combined.

Democrats were playing the old game when the country was crying out for real efforts and honest talk about economic policy, law enforcement, and putting America right-side up. I said years ago that if anyone wants to really win big in politics they need only run against the banks and for the common guy. But Democrats and Republicans avoided the banks like a third rail in the subway. And that is because they were all getting money from Wall Street. Dick Durbin said it best when the Senator from Illinois said “The Banks own this place.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,518 other followers

%d bloggers like this: