Who Can Sign a Lost Note Affidavit? What Happens When It Is “Found?”

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

——————————

Let’s start with the study that planted the seed of doubt as to the validity of the debt, note, mortgage and foreclosure and whether any of those “securitized debt” foreclosures should have been allowed to even get to first base. Katherine Ann Porter, when she was a professor in Iowa (2007) did a seminal study of “lost” documents and found that at least 40% of ALL notes were lost as a result of intentional destruction or negligence. You can find her study on this blog.

The issue with “lost notes” is actually simple. If the note is lost then the court and the borrower are entitled to an explanation of the the full story behind the loss of the note, why it was intentionally destroyed and whose negligence caused the loss of the note. And the reason is also simple. If the Court and the borrower are not fully satisfied that the whole story has been told, then neither one can determine whether the party claiming rights to collect or enforce the note actually has those rights.

This is the question posed to me by a knowledgeable person involved in the challenge to the validity of the debt, note, mortgage and foreclosure:

Who is finding the Note?  Can a servicer execute a Lost Note Affidavit as a holder?  Non holder in possession?

It took me a while to get to the obvious point of the above defense.  It is intended in the event that party A loses the Note and files a LNA [Lost Note Affidavit}, that the Issuer, does not have to pay party B even if he appears with a blank endorsed note, unless B can prove holder in due course (virtually impossible these days, esp in foreclosure cases).

This is critical.  The foreclosing party, through a series of mergers and successions, files a case as successor by merger to ABC.  Can’t locate note, so it files a LNA, stating ABC lost the Note.  Note is found, but the foreclosing party says, oops, was in a custodial file for which we were the servicer for XYZ.   While the foreclosing party has the note, it cannot unring the fact it got the Note from XYZ after ABC lost it.

Good questions. He understands that the requirements as expressly stated in the law (UCC, State law etc.) are quite stringent. You cannot re-establish a lost note with a copy of it unless you can prove that you had it and that you were the person entitled to enforce it (known as PETE). You also cannot re-establish the note unless you can prove that the note was lost or destroyed under circumstances where it is far more likely than not that the original won’t show up later in the hands of someone else claiming PETE status. So there should be a heavy burden placed on any party seeking to foreclose or even just to collect on a “lost note.” But courts have steamrolled over this obvious problem requiring something on the order of “probable cause” rather than actual proof. While there is some evidence the judiciary is turning the corner against the banks, the great majority of cases fly over these issues either because of presumptions by the bench or because the “borrower” fails to raise it — and fails to make appropriate motions in limine and raise objections in trial.

But the person who posed this question drills down deeper into the real factual issues. He wants to know details. We all know that it is easier to allege that you destroyed it accidentally or even intentionally than to allege the loss of the note. A witness from the party asserting PETE can say, truthfully or not, “I destroyed it.” Proving that he didn’t and that the copy is fabricated is very difficult for a homeowner with limited resources. If the allegation and the testimony is that the note was lost, we get into the question of what, when where, how and why. But in a lost note situation most states require some sort of indemnification from the party asserting PETE status or holder in due course status. That is also a problem. I remember rejecting the offer of indemnification from Taylor, Bean and Whitaker after I reviewed their financial statements. It was obvious they were going broke and they did. And the officers went to jail for criminal acts.

So the first question is exactly when was the “original” note last seen and by whom? In whose possession was it when it was allegedly lost? How was it lost? Who has direct personal information on the location of the original and the timing and method of loss? And what happens when the note is “found?” We know that original documents are being fabricated by advanced technology such that even the borrower doesn’t realize he is not being shown the original (that is why I suggest denying that they are the holder of the note, denying they are PETE, denying they are holder in due course etc.)

In the confusion of those issues, the homeowner usually fails to realize that this is just another lie. But in discovery, if you are awake to the issue, you can either learn the facts (or deal with the inevitable objections to discovery). And then the lawyer for the homeowner should graph out the allegations and testimony as best as possible. The questioner is dead right — if the party NOW claiming PETE status or HDC status received the “found” original note but received it from someone other than the party who “lost” it, there is no chain upon which the foreclosing party can rely. In simple language, what they are attempting to do is fly over the gap between when the note was lost and destroyed and the time that the current claimant took possession of the paper. And once again I say that the real proof is the real money trail. If the underlying transactions exist, then there will be some correspondence, agreements and a payment of money that will reveal the true transfer.

And again I say, that if you are attacking the paper you need to be extremely careful not to give the impression that the borrower is attempting to get out of a legitimate debt. The position is that there is no legitimate debt IN THIS CHAIN. The debt lies outside the chain. The true debt is owed to whoever supplied the money that was received at the loan closing, regardless of what paperwork was signed. Failure to prove the original loan transaction should be fatal to the action on the note or the mortgage (except if the foreclosing party can prove the status of a holder in due course). The fact that the paperwork was signed only creates a potential second liability that does not benefit the party whose money was used for the loan.

The foreclosure is a thinly disguised adventure in greed — where the perpetrators of the false foreclosure, use fabricated, robo-signed paper without ANY loan at the base of the paper trail and without any payments made by any of the parties for possession or enforcement of the paper. They are essentially stealing the house, the proceeds, and the money that was used to fund the “loan” all to the detriment of the real parties in interest, to wit: the investors who were tricked into directly lending the money to borrowers  and the homeowners who were tricked into signing paperwork that created a second liability for the same loan.

Articles of Deception: PSA and Reynaldo Reyes Affidavit for Deutsch Bank as Trustee

WITHOUT CONFUSION AND OBFUSCATION, COMBINED WITH STONEWALLING, THERE WOULD BE NO FORECLOSURE OF ANY DEBT SUBJECT TO CLAIMS OF SECURITIZATION —- NEIL GARFIELD, WWW.LIVINGLIES.ME

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

—————————————

Hat tip to Carol Molloy who sent me the affidavit

See Reynaldo Reyes Affidavit New Jersey Union County 2010 CCF11162014

—————————————

Reynaldo Reyes, AVP of Deutsch Bank said to a borrower, in a taped interview, that the whole scheme was “counter-intuitive.” In plain language that means that nothing is what it appears to be. And THAT in turn means that disclosures” were deceptive or “counter-intuitive.” And THAT means that the disclosures at closing were also “counter-intuitive” or deceptive. Reyes in a sworn affidavit drafted many times and edited by various top level attorneys for the banks has submitted an affidavit on behalf of Deutsch Bank but which will be used by Banks to try to legitimize their deceptive tactics. Again, to put it simply, they were lying to everyone — investors, borrowers, regulators, law enforcement, Congress, and the President.

Witness the following paragraph from Reyes’ affidavit. Here he says in the affidavit in Paragraph 1, that the Trustees serve the Trust. But then he takes it all back by saying that the Servicers perform all the functions of administering the loans — not on behalf of the Trustee, but rather on behalf of the Trust. THAT can only mean that the named Trustee, is not the Trustee. It means that the power of administering the Trust assets is with the servicers. Does that mean the servicers should be sued for wrongful foreclosures? Then why is the Trust named or the Trustee named?

So the beginning of the PSA, which designates a Trustee, is merely window dressing to give the impression that Deutsch Bank is the Trustee with all the powers of a Trustee, when in fact, the servicer is the one who performs most or all of the functions of a Trustee. But they do so giving the impression that they must go back to the Trustee or the “investor” when in fact they assert the power to do everything. In their circular reasoning, they could say to the court that they must get approval from the investor and then leave the court room. Then they speak for the investors, according to the servicers. So now they come back to the homeowner or homeowner’s counsel and say the application for modification or settlement has been declined. Whether that assertion turns out to be true after analysis in court is another story.

This is contrary to the position taken by U.S. Bank and Deutsch Bank and BONY Mellon in foreclosure cases where they sue for foreclosure in their own name as Trustee for the REMIC Trust. It also accounts for why they sometimes sue as Trustees for the certificate holders, and sometimes even get away with saying they are trustees only for the certificates delivered to the investors. This of course makes no sense, since they are neither holding nor asserting ownership over the certificates.

Paragraph 7: No entity services loans on behalf of the trustees. The trustees and the loan services that are appointed by the the PSA’s each perform their designated functions on behalf of the trusts. In other words, loan servicers to service mortgage loans that have been pooled and sold into a securitization trust are performing services on behalf of the trusts, not on behalf of the trustees.

Then we get to Paragraph 10 which admits that the Trustee has neither any accounts nor any information or business records of its own. According to this paragraph 10, the Trustee receives loan level data from the servicers “to facilitate certain payments to bondholders.” But wait here comes the language that takes all THAT away: “However, for a number of trusts” [unspecified, but probably all of them] “a party other than the Trustee handles those payments responsibilities.” And then the rest is taken away by his statement that “With respect to the Trusts for which the Trustees serve as a Trustee but not as securities administrators, the Trustee do not receive loan level data.”

Get it? Just like the PSA, Reyes’ affidavit says one thing and then takes it all away in the next breath. The fact is that in virtually no case is the Trustee the securities administrator. And that, Reyes, says means that the Trustee neither gets loan level data, nor does it make payments to the bondholders. “Other parties” perform those functions. Who? The servicer who is according to Reyes the party with the actual powers of the Trustee. So why is Deutsch claiming to be a Trustee.

The answer is very simple — MONEY. The sellers of mortgage bonds pay Deutsch to rent their name to underwriters to make it appear as though an independent fiduciary is handling the money, the purchase or origination of loans, and the enforcement or modification of loans. This is meant to deceive the investors into a false sense of complacency. The same is true for borrowers, although at this point “complacency” would hardly be the word.

Everyone believed the wording at the beginning of the PSA and practically nobody read the PSA from end to end to see that the beginning was sales material and the end was a hodgepodge of obfuscation to make it difficult if not impossible to determine the identity of the players or what they were doing. This analysis can certainly NOT be done without reference to the underlying transaction in which we see who actually sent money to originate the loans, from whom they received the money etc.

The fact is that that while most people think the Trusts acquired the loans by sale of the loans into the trust, the evidence shows that practically none of them were sold to the Trust. The only logical conclusion from the facts at hand is that the investors’ money was pooled in an entirely different scheme while hiding behind claims of securitization.

The investors money was used directly, without their knowledge or consent, to fund origination of loans like the toxic Pick a Pay, reverse amortization, payment increase cap (usually 7.5%) that results in what appears to be affordable payments, but also results in uncontrolled liability.

A $139,000 loan that I recently analyzed, indicates the eventual liability could be nearly $4 million — all at the end of 30 years of payments, resulting in an undisclosed hidden balloon payment in the 13th payment and every payment thereafter which thanks to the miracles of compounding interest and an adjustable rate that could go as high as over 12% APR process an obligation that looks affordable but is infinitely not affordable. The interest alone on the new principal (original balance + deferred interest on negative amortization loan) could exceed $24,000 per month on a $139,000 loan.

Then you get to paragraph 11: Here the affidavit produces more obfuscation by referring to the Master Servicer who might (or might not) be responsible for performing any duties. But in the PSA you see the ultimate authority for virtually everything lies with the Master Servicer, who also turns out to be the the underwriter and seller of mortgage bonds. And since we now know that the Trustee had neither trust accounts nor any control or responsibility for the accounts, THAT makes it impossible for the Trustee to have received any proceeds from the sale of bonds issued by the Trust.

Since a Trust cannot operate except through the Trustee by law (see New York law and the law of your state for more information) it is an inevitable conclusion that there were no accounts established for the Trust in the manner expected by the investors who bought the mortgage bonds. And since there was no money in the Trust, the Trust could not have originate or purchased any loan documents, regardless of whether or not there was in fact an underlying loan transaction at the base of the chain relied upon by these parties when they foreclose.

Then Reyes gets to the meat of why he submitted the affidavit. BONY Mellon did the same thing by a lawsuit and so have hundreds of investors, insurers, guarantors, holders of loss mitigation hedge contracts, whose cases have been quietly settled. Reyes states that “the Trustee would not be in the best position to address further inquiries by the Court concerning any possible ‘irregularity in the handling of foreclosure proceedings.’” So to put it simply, Reyes is disclaiming any role in foreclosures and trying to distance Deutsch bank from wrongful foreclosures [i.e. most or nearly all of them] despite its APPARENT AUTHORITY.

Examination of the PSA reveals deep within its pages, prohibitions and restrictions against either the Trustee or the bond purchasers (“trust beneficiaries”) from knowing or even inquiring about anything involving the business of the trust, which we already know never existed because the trust never received its IPO (bond sale) money. This is why servicers assert control over the settlement and modification process. This is why they say the investor declined the modification or settlement because they never contacted the investor or the trust or the Trustee.

The truth is that the servicers assert, in the final analysis, the right to speak for the investors even thought they have a patent CONFLICT OF INTEREST RESULTING FROM SERVICER ADVANCES. A true servicer would be required to mitigate the damages and minimize the losses. Servicers have no interest in doing that because they can make a ton of money for having advanced the principal and interest payment to the creditors from an account that contained the investors money and that would count, as stated in the PSA, as payment in full to the creditor — so the creditor could not declare a default against the servicer.

And THAT is why these foreclosures are pushed through, among other reasons, [avoiding workouts, modifications and settlements] to wit: the foreclosures proceed even though the creditors (investors) are being paid right through the date of foreclosure. The reason is the banks want to “recover” those “advances” (paid from money stolen from the investors) not from the borrower and not from the creditors, who have already been paid, but through a claim against the final liquidation of the property to a third party “innocent” purchaser. BY controlling the foreclosure process, the servicer gets paid a lot of money and protects the banks against claims for refunds and damages arising out of the improper loan practices, loan processing by the servicer, and wrongful foreclosures.

So far the servicers have fooled the courts into thinking that their claim to recover servicer advances is somehow secured. It isn’t. In order to do that the court would be required to issue a declaratory judgment specifying the breakup of the mortgage lien on a continual basis for each servicer advance or find that the total advanced by the servicer from the underwriter’s controlled slush fund, is subject to an equitable mortgage lien. Equitable liens are not accepted in virtually any court because ti would require the buyer of property to make exhaustive investigation into matters that a re not contained on the face of the note or mortgage.

PRACTICE NOTE FOR LAWYERS:

You might want to get the court to take judicial notice of the affidavit and just to be on the safe side get a certified copy of it. You might want to file a motion for involuntary dismissal based upon the affidavit of Reyes who was THE person in charge of the trustee “program.” Think also about a subpoena for Reyes to appear at trial, if there is one.

Reyes is saying that only the servicer can enforce. And he is saying that when the servicer acts, it does so for trust NOT THE TRUSTEE. So the Trustee, according to him is not a proper party to bring the action. The inference corroborates what I have been saying all along. It is that the investors are the real parties in interest and the servicer is acting in a representative capacity — IF IT IS THE TRUSTEE NAMED IN THE TRUST INSTRUMENT (THE PSA).

Post Mortum on 2010 “Bad” Decision in Florida

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

————————————-

See CitiBank v Delassio 756 F Supp 2d 1361 2010

This case is often cited by servicers and banks to enforce a note and/or mortgage. Lots of people regarded this decision as “bad” because it approved the foreclosure. The natural impulse is to run from this decision and try to cite others that conflict with it. But this decision was correct AND it provides a blueprint for making your defense successful. The Judge correctly analyzed the law and the facts and found that the homeowner had not proven anything or objected to anything that would prevent Citi from proving its prima facie case and had not proven anything or objected to anything that would have supported any of the homeowner’s defenses.

So I thought I would take this case, as I have done before, and examine it for clues on how the same Judge would have decided the case differently. Used properly this might enable the homeowner to cite to this case in support of a motion to dismiss, motion for summary judgment or to attack the prima facie case of the party initiating foreclosure. There are also plenty of clues as to proving an affirmative defense in which the final result will be that the mortgage is void or unenforceable and perhaps the note as well, leaving the debt, which arises by operation of law and is owed to the party who physically gave the borrower the money.

  1. LACK OF JURISDICTION — VOID MORTGAGE AND VOID NOTE: The first issue is that for reasons unknown, the borrower failed to bring up the fact that the “lender” did not legally exist in Florida and further failed to object to the finding that AHMSI and  American Brokers Conduit were “one in the same [sic]”. In fact, I wonder if the case could not still be overturned on the basis of lack of jurisdiction and perhaps even that the mortgage was void, thus depriving the court of both in rem jurisdiction and in personam jurisdiction. Perhaps the homeowner did not authorize investigation into the parties. But had he done so he would have found that American Brokers Conduit (the “lender”) did not exist in law or in fact. Any claim that ABC was the alter ego or Trade Name of AHMSI was not explored in the opinion. And as to AHMSI, what difference does it make if they were supposedly the true lender under Florida law? The note and mortgage were both defective and the disclosures were deficient in failing to identify the actual party, which, as we shall see below, would have changed the view of the case entirely.
  2. POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT: The title of the case involves U.S. Bank “as indenture trustee.” By stating that without explanation the homeowner ought to be able to inquire about the indenture, where it exists, and ask for a copy. That would be the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, which makes all arguments about the irrelevance of the PSA moot. Failure to raise the question of where the trustee derived its powers, where the servicer derived its powers, and where the terms and provisions can be found for the duties of the servicer or trustee essentially waives the issue of securitization (false or not). By raising the issue appropriately the homeowner can then inquire as to whether the trust actually owns the debt or is a holder in due course. The holding by the judge in this case that the Trust was a holder in due course was wrong —but not wrong on the facts and admissions by both sides in this case. Hence the decision was inevitable even though the real facts did not support the conclusion. The accepted facts of the case were contrary to the actual facts.
  3. FDCPA CLAIMS: The homeowner settled with AHMSI regarding fair debt collection practices. This might have been a mistake and might have been the reason that the Judge regarded AHMSI and American Brokers Conduit as the same thing. The settlement probably was worded in a way that prevented the homeowner from raising the authority of ABC to assign anything, much less record a mortgage or transfer a note that it could not have funded because it never existed — at least in Florida. I have several cases where the lender is very concerned about the FDCPA claims and needs a settlement. They obviously know that there is danger in those hills and that should be exploited by borrowers when challenging the debt, note, mortgage or foreclosure.
  4. TILA AND RESPA DISCLOSURES: Amongst the agreed facts, the court found that the borrower closed the loan with ABC, and based upon the only issues raised by the borrower, found that the disclosures were proper, and that any discrepancies worked to the borrower’s advantage and therefore did not constitute a violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) or the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). Hence there was no right to rescind either under the 3 day rule or the 3 year rule. Despite the fact that the borrower announced rescission within the 3 years, the court properly found against the borrower. Citi by filing the foreclosure suit, was in substantial compliance with the requirement that it timely file a declaratory action regarding the right to rescind. So if the court had found that there was no closing because ABC did not exist and that the disclosures were inadequate because the borrower raised the issues of disclosing the lender (and avoiding the predatory per se finding by Reg Z), then the same Judge who entered this order probably would have said the rescission right was at least in play and might well have decided, as per the express terms of TILA, that the mortgage was nullified by operation of law by the announcement of rescission. [Note: This issue is currently being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court]
  5. RESCISSION: This in turn leads to the question: if ABC didn’t exist and therefore didn’t actually loan any money then who did? The only thing we can agree on, up to a point ( but that is the subject of another article), is that the borrower did get money and that the receipt of the money is presumed, by operation of law to create a debt in which the borrower is the debtor and the source of funds is the creditor. The failure to disclose a table funded loan or worse, a naked nominee or conduit providing funds from investors who didn’t know how their money was being used, is a material violation of the disclosure requirements in TILA. That is why Reg Z underscores the importance of that disclosure by saying that failure to do so constitutes conduct that is “predatory per se.” And you can prove that by citing to this same case. Hence the rescission would have or at least could have been found to have been complete and the mortgage nullified, thus paving the way for the borrower to get alternative financing,  quiet title or other other remedies.
  6. PREDATORY LOANS: It is unclear what exactly went on at the trial level  with regards to an obviously “trick” loan that fails to disclose its hidden terms in a way that the borrower would any possibility of understanding. The only thing the borrower knew or understood is that he was getting a low interest loan. No reasonable person would sign a loan in which they understood that the interest rate was only good for one month. If you want to win on this point ,though, you need more than the testimony of the borrower. You  need a mortgage broker or other professional that would testify that the loan was unworkable from the start, doomed to failure and was illegally funded from investor funds, and illegally sold to the borrower under false pretenses. THAT is how you prove unclean hands which would prevent enforcement of the mortgage.
  7. UCC: There is an interesting juxtaposition in the “Legal Analysis” of the opinion. The court finds that the Trust was a holder in due course. And this case can be cited for the elements of being a holder in due course. I would encourage foreclosure defense lawyers to do so because you can start out by saying in this case in which the Federal District Court found against the borrower, the elements of the status of holder in due course are summarized. If you go down to the end of the first paragraph in the legal analysis the quote about payment opens the door for your attack against the holder in due course status. Did the Trust prove or show that it PAID for the note and mortgage without knowledge of borrower’s defenses, without knowledge that it was already in default, and in good faith, and did the Trust get delivery (which according to the pleadings, they did not because the note was initially “lost”). Hence the same court that stated that the trust was an HIDC finds that PAYMENT “goes to the heart of the agreement”. If the trust cannot show it paid anything, then two questions arise, to wit: why not? and why did the endorser or assignor of the “loan” transfer or purport to transfer the loan documents to the trust without receiving any payment? If you follow that logic down the line you will corroborate your argument that ABC gave no money to the borrower and that was why ABC never received any money for the transfer of the paper, which now is visible as being entirely worthless, fraudulent and false.
  8. ENDORSEMENT OR ASSIGNMENT IN SECURITIZATION SCHEME: The court correctly states that under the UCC a transferee of negotiable paper can get the right to enforce the paper either by endorsement or assignment. Because the issue was apparently not raised, the court failed to address the issue of whether the enforcement could succeed at trial (as opposed to the pleading stage) if the identity of the creditor is not disclosed. The question at trial or deposition should be, if the witness is from the servicer entity, and assuming the current servicer entity had anything to do with processing payments from the borrower and to the creditor, “who did you pay?” What the court failed to deal with (presumably because the homeowner did not bring it up) is that the party claiming rights (the trustee for the trust) must show that the loan actually went into the trust because it was paid for and properly delivered. If no objection is raised, then the court can correctly presume that those elements are present. If a proper objection is made then the Plaintiff should be required and often is required now to prove the elements of a holder in due course. In cases where my team has been directly involved in litigation the opposing lawyer tried to wriggle out of this problem by declaring that the trust is not a holder in due course and that therefore they had no requirement to prove those elements. They are essentially hoping that the court won’t know the difference between a holder and holder in due course. A mere holder must establish that it has the rights to enforce on behalf of a party who actually owns the debt by identifying that party and identifying the instrument by which the “holder” was given authority to enforce. In the case of a trust that is impossible because by all accounts the trust is the final resting stop of the claims of securitization of loans. So you end up with an empty trust, in which neither the servicer nor the trustee have any legal rights to do anything with the debt created by the borrower when he accepted the money at “closing.” He still owes a debt, and if the opposition would comply with discovery requests we would know the identity of the party to whom he owes the debt. But one thing is for certain, he cannot ALSO owe a second debt created by signature on a note and mortgage made out in favor of a party who loaned him any money. The key to this is emphasizing that a holder must prove the loan in its claimed chain. But the loan will probably be presumed to exist within the chain if the borrower fails to object and raise the issues.
  9. DELIVERY: There is considerable confusion in the case as to the issue of delivery apparently because neither party made an issue about it. The court concludes that Citi got delivery of the loan documents (versus the lost note account that was later abandoned) but fails to show how that delivery constitutes delivery to the trust when the PSA obviously contains strict provisions as to delivery and New York law governing the trust requires any transaction outside the authority stated in the trust to be void.
  10. ECONOMIC WASTE: This decision stands for the proposition that economic waste is a proper affirmative defense, but unless you actually prove it with reliable, credible testimony about facts and documents, merely alleging an affirmative defense and hoping that somehow the opposition will stumble into an admission, is not a very good strategy.

How to Lose a Case in Foreclosure — Tune in to the Neil Garfield Show Tonight 6pm EST

Click in to tune in at The Neil Garfield Show

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

For assistance or information regarding your loan or foreclosure, collection attempts and other notices of delinquency, default or demands for payments, Attorneys and Borrowers may call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688. We provide expert witness consultation, testimony, reports and litigation support with a complete team that will produce memoranda, discovery and motions as well as preparation for trial, motions in limine, suggested voir dire and direct examination and cross examination questions.

TONIGHT: The Delassio case in 2010 and others like it where the Judge ruled against the homeowner, allowed the foreclosure and why those Judges were right and why they had no choice. If you are expecting the Judge to save you from your own ignorance or inaction, you will lose. Tonight I will give examples and show why the Judge MUST rule against the homeowner if the homeowner waives defenses and fails to object to evidence.

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.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,524 other followers

%d bloggers like this: