10 Point Checklist for Foreclosure Defense

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

============================

By popular request, here is my shortlist for items to deal with in foreclosure defense or any challenge to the validity of a mortgage and note.:

  1. Original loan fabricated of faulty — the “lender” did not legally exist as an entity or there was no consideration for the original loan in the chain of loan ownership claimed by the foreclosing or collecting party.
  2. Ownership of loan not offered or proven
  3. Balance of the loan not properly computed because of servicer advances etc.
  4. Transfers of loan not supported by consideration — if there was consideration the Trust would allege it was the holder in due course.
  5. Business records were not properly presented or prepared from actual business records., Instead it was a report prepared just for trial and not in the ordinary course of business.
  6. Unclean hands because the load was predatory per se (Table funded loan) under Reg Z.
  7. Trial by ambush. first they deny you discovery and then at trial they use the materials they should have given you in discovery
  8. Objections to witnesses as being not competent to testify — personal knowledge
  9. Objections to exhibits not properly presented to avoid the hearsay rule and untrustworthy because the servicer is the only one that actually wants the foreclosure.
  10. Objections to judicial notice — judge not supposed to accept the document as proof of the matters asserted in the documents. Judge is supposed to admit judicial notice as proof that a documents exists in the public domain.

Donald Duck Loans: Void Note, Void Mortgage and Recovery of all payments made by borrower in REVERSE FORECLOSURE

Click in to tune in at The Neil Garfield Show

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

=========================

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

—————————————

Hat Tip to Patrick Giunta, Esq., Senior litigator and manager of litigation for the livinglies team.

see 18th Judicial Circuit BOA v Nash VOID mortgage Void Note Reverse Judgement for Payments made to non-existent entity

When I said that lawyers should be counterclaiming for unlawful collection of payments by the servicer and related parties back in 2008, most people simply thought I was nuts and others were more generously skeptical. Everyone said “show me a case” which of course I could not because this scheme had never been played before and it has taken 7 years for courts to piece it together.

In the case we will discuss tonight briefly as I take more time to answer questions from the audience, we will see how the senior Judge in Seminole County carefully detailed the events and documents and concluded that the foreclosure was a farce — but more than that, the mortgage and note were a farce and declared them void. In addition, the Judge not only entered judgment for the homeowner on the issue of foreclosure but also granted a money judgment FOR THE BORROWER AGAINST BANK OF AMERICA for all payments made to Bank of America as successor or formerly known as Countrywide formerly known, but not registered or incorporated as America’s Wholesale Lender — which did not exist.

The conclusion of the Judge is that if the entity named on the note or mortgage does not exist, then neither does the note or mortgage. And any payments squeezed out of unwary borrowers are due back to the borrower because he might need them some day if someone actually makes a claim that is true. Thus at common law we have the very same remedy that was intended by the Truth in Lending Act under the right of rescission.

Hence the upcoming US Supreme Court decision probably doesn’t matter all that much although they should affirm the express wording of the statute even if they think the homeowner is getting a windfall. That is an erroneous assumption against the borrower — just as erroneous as assuming the loan documents were ever valid.

Sorry to be so immature, but I TOLD YOU SO!!!

Now when bankruptcy lawyers and foreclosure defense lawyers are preparing their pleadings and schedules they best look at whether there is an actual loan from an actual entity at the base of the chain relied upon by the foreclosing party.

The Truth is Coming Out: More Questions About Loan Origination, Debt, Note, Mortgage and Foreclosure

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

————————————

Carol Molloy, Esq., one of our preferred attorneys is now taking on new cases for litigation support only. This means that if you have an attorney in the jurisdiction in which your property is located, then Carol can serve in a support role framing pleadings, motions and discovery and coaching the lawyer on what to do and say in court. Carol Molloy is licensed in Tennessee and Massachusetts where she has cases in both jurisdictions in which she is the lead attorney. As part of our team she gets support from myself and others. call our numbers above to get in touch with her.

———————————–

Hat tip to our lead investigator Ken McLeod (Chandler, Az) who brought this case to my attention. It is from 2013.

see New York Department of Housing vs Deutsch

Mysteriously seemingly knowledgeable legislators passed statutes permitting government agencies to finance mortgage loans in amounts for more than the property is worth, to people who could not afford to pay, without the need to document things such as income, and then to allow the chopping up the [*7]loans into little pieces to sell to new investors, so that if a borrower defaulted in repayment of the loan, the lender would not have the ability to prove it actually owned the debt, let alone plead its name correctly. The spell cast was so widespread that courts find almost everyone involved in mortgage foreclosure litigation raising the “Sgt. Schultz Defense” of “I know nothing.”

Rather than assert its rights and perhaps obligations under the terms of the mortgage to maintain the property and its investment, respondent has asserted the Herman Melville “Bartleby the Scrivener Defense” of “I prefer not to” and relying on the word “may” in the document, has elected to do nothing in this regard. Because this loan appears to have been sold to investors, it may be asked, does not the respondent have a legal obligation to those investors to take whatever steps are necessary to preserve the property such as collecting the rents and maintain the property as permitted in the mortgage documents?

It should be noted that in its cross-motion in this action Deutsche asserts that its correct name is “Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Saxon Asset Securities Trust 2007-3, Mortgage Loan Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2007-3″ and not the name petitioner placed in the caption. Which deserves the response “you’ve got to be kidding.” Deutsche is not mentioned in the chain of title; it is listed in these HP proceedings with the same name as on the caption of the foreclosure action in which it is the plaintiff and which its counsel drafted; and its name is not in the body of foreclosure action pleadings. In the foreclosure proceeding Deutsche pleads that it “was and still is duly organized and existing under the laws of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.” However, there is no reference to or pleading of the particular law of the USA under which it exists leaving the court to speculate whether it is some federal banking statute, or one that allows Volkswagens, BMW’s and Mercedes-Benz’s to be imported to the US or one that permitted German scientists to come to the US and develop our space program after World War II.

As more and more cases are revealed or published, the truth is emerging beyond a reasonable doubt about the origination of the loans, the actual debt (identifying creditor and debtor), the note, the mortgage and the inevitable attempt at foreclosure and forced sale (forfeiture) of property to entities who have nothing to do with any actual transaction involving the borrower. The New York court quoted above describes in colorful language the false nature of the entire scheme from beginning to end.

see bankers-who-commit-fraud-like-murderers-are-supposed-to-go-to-jail

see http://www.salon.com/2014/12/02/big_banks_broke_america_why_nows_the_time_to_break_our_national_addiction/

The TRUTH of the matter, as we now know it includes but is not limited to the following:

  1. DONALD DUCK LOANS: NONEXISTENT Pretender Lenders: Hundreds of thousands of loan closings involved the false disclosure of a lender that did not legally or physically exist. The money from the loan obviously came from somewhere else and the use of the non-existent entity name was a scam to deflect attention from the real nature of the transaction. These are by definition “table-funded” loans and when used in a pattern of conduct constitutes not only violation of TILA but is dubbed “predatory per se” under Reg Z. Since the mortgage and note and settlement documents all referred to a nonexistent entity, you might just as well have signed the note payable to Donald Duck, who at least is better known than American Broker’s Conduit. Such mortgages are void because the party in whose favor they are drafted and signed does not exist. Such a mortgage should never be recorded and is subject to a quiet title action. The debt still arises by operation of law between the debtor (borrower) and the the creditor (unidentified lender) but it is not secured and the note is NOT presumptive evidence of the debt. THINK I’M WRONG? “SHOW ME A CASE!” WELL HERE IS ONE FOR STARTERS: 18th Judicial Circuit BOA v Nash VOID mortgage Void Note Reverse Judgement for Payments made to non-existent entity
  2. DEAD ENTITY LOANS: Existing Entity Sham Pretender Lender: Here the lender was alive or might still be alive but it is and probably always was broke, incapable of loaning money to anyone. Hundreds of thousands of loan closings involved the false disclosure of a lender that did not legally or physically make a loan to the borrower (debtor). The money from the loan obviously came from somewhere else and the use of the sham entity name was a scam to deflect attention from the real nature of the transaction. These are by definition “table-funded” loans and when used in a pattern of conduct constitutes not only violation of TILA but is dubbed “predatory per se” under Reg Z. Since the mortgage and note and settlement documents all referred to an entity that did not actually loan money to the borrower, (like The Money Source) such mortgages are void because the party in whose favor they are drafted and signed did not fulfill a black letter element of an enforceable contract — consideration. Such a mortgage should never be recorded and is subject to a quiet title action. The debt still arises by operation of law between the debtor (borrower) and the the creditor (unidentified lender) but it is not secured and the note is NOT presumptive evidence of the debt.
  3. BRAND NAME LOANS FROM BIG BANKS OR BIG ORIGINATORS: Here the loans were disguised as loans from the entity that could have loaned the money to the borrower — but didn’t. Millions of loan closings involved the false disclosure of a lender that did not legally or physically make a loan to the borrower (debtor). The money from the loan came from somewhere else and the use of the brand name entity (like Wells Fargo or Quicken Loans) name was a scam to deflect attention from the real nature of the transaction. These are by definition “table-funded” loans and when used in a pattern of conduct constitutes not only violation of TILA but is dubbed “predatory per se” under Reg Z. Since the mortgage and note and settlement documents all referred to an entity that did not actually loan money to the borrower, such mortgages are void because the party in whose favor they are drafted and signed did not fulfill a black letter element of an enforceable contract — consideration. Such a mortgage should never be recorded and is subject to a quiet title action. The debt still arises by operation of law between the debtor (borrower) and the the creditor (unidentified lender) but it is not secured and the note is NOT presumptive evidence of the debt.
  4. TRANSFER WITHOUT SALE: You can’t sell what you don’t own. And you can’t own the loan without paying for its origination or acquisition. Millions of foreclosures are predicated upon acquisition of the loan through a nonexistent purchase — but facially valid paperwork leads to the assumption or even presumption that the sale of the loan took place — i.e., delivery of the loan documents in exchange for payment received. These loans can be traced down to one of the three types of loans described above by asking the question “Why was there no payment.” In turn this inquiry can start from the question “Why is the Trust not named as a holder in due course?” The answer is that an HDC must acquire the loan for value and receive delivery. What the banks are doing is showing evidence of delivery and an “assignment” or “power of attorney” that has no basis in real life — the endorsement of the note or assignment of the mortgage was fabricated, robo-signed and is subject to perjury in court testimony. Using the Pooling and Servicing Agreement only shows that more fabricated paperwork was used to fool the court into thinking that there is a pool of loans which in most cases does not exist — a t least not in the REMIC Trust.
  5. VIOLATION OF THE TRUST DOCUMENT: Most trusts are governed by New York law. Some of them are governed by Delaware law and some invoke both jurisdictions (see Christiana Bank). The laws that MUST be applied to the REMIC Trusts declare that any action taken without express authority from the Trust instrument is VOID. The investors still have not been told that their money never went into the trust, but that is what happened. They have also not been told that the Trust issued mortgage bonds but never received the proceeds of sale of those bonds. And they have not been told that the Trust, being unfunded, never acquired the loans. And that is why there is no assertion of holder in due course status. Some courts have held that the PSA is irrelevant — but they are failing to realize that such a ruling by definition eliminates the foreclosure as a viable action; that is true because the only basis of authority to pursue foreclosure, collection or any other enforcement of the sham loan documents is in the PSA which is the Trust document.
  6. THIRD PARTY PAYMENTS WITHOUT ACCOUNTING: “Servicer” advances that are actually made by the servicer but pulled from an account controlled by the broker dealer who sold the mortgage bonds. These payments continue regardless of whether the borrower is paying or not. Banks fight this issue because it would require that the actual creditors be identified and given notice of proceedings that are being pursued contrary to the interests of the investors. Those payments negate any default between the debtor and the actual creditor who has been paid. They also reduce the amount due. The same holds true for proceeds of insurance, guarantees, loss sharing with the FDIC and proceeds of hedge products like credit default swaps. Legally it is clear that these payments satisfies the payments due from the borrower but gives rise to an unsecured volunteer payment recapture through a claim for unjust enrichment. That could lead to a money judgment, the filing of the judgment and the foreclosure of the judgment lien. But the banks don’t want to do that because they would definitely be required to show the money trail — something they are avoiding at all costs because it would unravel the entire fraudulent scheme of “securitization fail.” (Adam Levitin’s term).
  7. ESTOPPEL: Inducing people to go into default so that there can be more foreclosures: Millions of people called the servicer asking for a modification or workout that the servicer obviously had no right to entertain. The servicer customer representative gave the impression that the borrower was talking to the right person. And this trusted person then started practicing law without a license by advising that modifications could not be requested until the borrower was at least 90 days in arrears. All of this was a lie. HAMP and other programs do NOT require 90 day arrearage. The purpose was to get homeowners in so deep that they could never get out because the servicers are charged with the job of getting as many loans into foreclosure as possible. By telling the borrower to stop paying they were (a) telling them the right thing because the servicer actually had no right to collect the payment anyway and (b) they put the servicer in an estoppel position — you can’t tell a borrower to stop paying and then say THEY breached the “agreement”. Stopping payment was a the request or demand of the servicer. Further complicating the process was the intentional loss of submissions by borrowers; the purpose of these “losses” (like “lost notes” was to elongate the process and get the borrower deeper and deeper into the false arrearage claimed by the servicer.

The conclusion is obvious — complete strangers to the actual transaction (between the actual debtor and actual creditor) are using the names of other complete strangers to the transaction and faking documents regularly to close out serious liabilities totaling trillions of dollars for “faulty”, fraudulent loans, transfers and foreclosures. As pointed out in many previous articles here, this is often accomplished through an Assignment and Assumption Agreement in which the program requires violating the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act (RESPA), the HAMP modification program etc. Logically it is easy to see why they allowed “foreclosures” to languish for 5-8 years — they are running the statute of limitations on TILA violations, rescission etc. But the common law right of rescission still exists as does a cause of action for nullification of the note and mortgage.

The essential truth in the bottom line is this: the paperwork generated at the loan closing is “faulty” and most often fabricated and the borrower is induced to execute documents that create a second liability to an entity who did nothing in exchange for the note and mortgage except get paid as a pretender lender — all in violation of disclosure requirements on Federal and state levels. This is and was a fraudulent scheme. Hence the “Clean hands” element of equitable relief in foreclosure as well as basic contract law prevent the right to enforce the mortgage, the note or the debt against the debtor/borrower by strangers to the transaction with the borrower.

No. Carolina Appeals Court Approves Dismissal of Foreclosure With Prejudice

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

————————————–

see 13-450 N Carolina Appellate Decision on Holder, PETE, HDC and Owner of the Debt 2013 Decision

There are several interesting features to this appellate case, not the least of which is that it comes from North Carolina which has not been particularly friendly to borrowers. What is interesting is that the court was looking at the substance of the transaction and finding that the the bank was playing games and now wanted to play more. The trial court said no, and then the appellate court said no. The decision is one year old but was recently brought to my attention of a litigant who is confronting the “bank” that claims rights to collect, enforce and foreclose.

This was a case in which the foreclosing party never established any of the conditions under which it was (a) the owner of the debt, (b) the payee on the note or (c) the PETE — party entitled to enforce the note. The Court considered the situation and dismissed the foreclosure WITH PREJUDICE —a trial court decision that is highly unusual looking back 7 years but not so unusual looking back 12 months.

The appellate decision looks first where I said to look — the payee on the note. If the foreclosing party IS the payee on the note then it need not allege how it became the “holder” but it probably has some burden of proving the loan. We will see about that. SO if you are the Payee most of the case is presumed. The problem is that most courts having been applying that universally accepted presumption to cases in which the foreclosing party is NOT the payee on the note. And, as pointed out by this court, that is wrong.

The trial court correctly dismissed the case with prejudice because dismissal was mandatory and in the absence of any action by the bank, the dismissal must be with prejudice. The bank can’t come back later and assert a right to amend when they could have voluntarily dismissed, moved to amend, or taken some action that would put the issue of amendment before the court. As this court states, it is not up to the trial judge, sua sponte, to provide a path to amendment. Hence the same rules that have cooked borrowers for years because they admitted or waived defenses unintentionally now comes back and bite the bank.

And most importantly, when you look to the DEBT, it is the substance of the claim that counts not just the paperwork.

Neither the trial court nor the appellate court liked the fact that the affidavit submitted was so vague that it said nothing — particularly about the acquisition of the DEBT, and nothing about how it was a PETE. This simple statement in the body of the opinion, might represent a sea change in judicial attitude. After all, the point of commercial paper, negotiable instruments, foreclosures etc is that they are all about the same thing — MONEY. The laws (UCC etc) were never meant to facilitate theft from innocent parties (investors, borrowers etc.).

The bank argued that it should not have been dismissed with prejudice and that it should have been given an opportunity to amend, citing to laws, cases and rules that permit liberal amendment. But here the court turned the same indifference to consequences that has plagued borrowers and used it against the bank. You might call it blind justice in practice. The court found that the failure of the bank to do anything to protect its right to amend was sufficient to uphold the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice. The bank argued that this was an extreme remedy implying a windfall fro the borrower. But the appellate court said, quite correctly, how do we know that?

The court was clearly implying that a subsequent action by a real party in interest could theoretically be brought against the homeowner either on the debt, the note the mortgage or all of those. They clearly thought that the party who was bringing the action in this case was a sham party filing a sham action. And they obviously wanted to stop that practice.

It remains to be seen how many cases we will see that discuss the foreclosure the way this court did. I am hopeful and ever optimistic that the courts will follow the money trail and not allow shuffling of paper to replace actual transactions. Every time we enforce an APPARENT transaction we take the risk of ignoring the real transaction. Each time foreclosure judgments are entered raises the probability that a second debt is being created.

Why Are the Banks Abandoning Homes? Hundreds of Thousands of Homes Bulldozed After Foreclosure

For More Information and assistance please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

————————————

No reasonable person would abandon this many homes after taking the trouble to foreclose on them. There is an obvious preference for foreclosure over workouts, modifications, short sales, resales, and other tools. This shows clearly that loss mitigation is not one of the factors in the minds of those who say they represent investors or REMIC trusts.

So they must have a reason to force the sale of a home other than loss mitigation. The people initiating these foreclosures and subsequent abandonment are acting against the interest of the investors who actually put up the money for the “securitization fail” that I identified and Adam Levitin named.

Thus it must be concluded that those who control the foreclosure process at the big investment banks benefit in some way other than loss mitigation. That can only mean one of two things:

  • The people making the decision make more money foreclosing than in pursuing workouts, modifications, or other settlements and/or
  • The people making the decision are using the foreclosing process to institutionalize “securitization fail” and thus avoid trillions of dollars in liability owed to the investors, insurers, guarantors, counterparties on hedge products, the borrowers and local, state and federal government.

This can only mean that the purpose of the foreclosure is not to mitigate damages to the actual lender or creditor. They don’t want performing loans even if it means that the homeowner is paying off the entire balance of the loan. And they make it difficult if not impossible to get a correct figure for a payoff.

So if the money is not the issue, and the house is not really in issue why do they pursue foreclosures, fabricate documents to do it and use robo-signers and robo witnesses to force through foreclosures on homes they will only abandon at the end of the process?

Should we not be asking whether good faith and clean hands have been established to justify the equitable remedy of forfeiture of the home?

———————————–

In South Florida news this morning, local Sheriffs are banding together to board up more than 1,000 homes in Lake Worth. In each case the home was foreclosed. In most cases, the homeowner applied for a modification and was told they could not apply until they were 90 days in arrears. In most cases, all efforts at modification were turned down under the guise that the investors refused to modify or workout the loan. That was most probably a lie. Neither the servicer nor the Trustee or other “enforcer” ever went to the investors with a single workout plan.

Continuous allegations of fraudulent foreclosures on predatory and fraudulent loans have been “settled” but not with the effected homeowners nor with local governments and homeowner associations who are deeply effected by this tragic fraud on the courts, the borrowers, the governments, and the society at large — as millions of jobs were lost and hundreds of thousands of businesses closed down as their customers were displaced from their homes (around 16 Million people directly displaced by fraudulent foreclosures thus far).

As foreclosures continue to increase in number (despite news reports to the contrary) more homeowners are being forced out of their homes, including many that were in the family for generations. The houses, now empty, lay dormant sometimes for 6 years or more before the actual “auction” sale takes place. During that time, miscreants move in creating meth labs, crack houses, safe houses for gangs etc. In the end the property is abandoned, and it leads to more foreclosures and more abandonment. Eventually entire neighborhoods are converted to ghost towns reducing the property values to zero — perfect for an intermediary who wants to cheat investors. The foreclosure sale and abandonment show the recovery at zero. Investors are even told that they should be happy that they didn’t incur further liability than their investment in the property.

In most states, effort to reclaim the homes have failed because they were stripped of the vital mechanical systems and even building materials — a new industry resulting from this process of foreclosure and abandonment. The local property taxes are unpaid for years — leading to forever where the homes are completely abandoned and demolished. But the local government is stuck with the bill because with the new construction from the false boom created by the banks they expanded infrastructure and social services (police, fire, medical etc.).

Meanwhile the same local government is being told that their investment in mortgage bonds have produced losses. So they are stuck with the double whammy of non-payment of property and other taxes plus a direct loss incurred from the “securitization fail” scheme. I believe that attorneys ought to take cases on contingency where local government files suit against the banks. The allegation should be made that not only did the banks NOT act in good faith, they acted in BAD faith because they had no right to foreclose on false papers created at the closing of a loan wherein the borrower and investors were unaware of the true nature of the transaction.

Innovative Lawsuits Test the Credibility of Securitized Loans

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

———————————————

see http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/11/27/u-s-backed-mortgages-put-to-test-in-a-lawsuit/

If you ever saw the movie “The Firm” from the book by John Grisham, you know the ending. The whole system was rigged but what finally produced a result was mail fraud, which is generally off the radar screen for any lawyer combating powerful opponents. The lesson for the perpetrators of crimes, predatory loans and so forth is that they can’t cover everything. There are too many ways that they faked the deals from top to bottom. Mail fraud might be one of them. And as you will see, talking to the borrower might be another. One lawsuit against US Bank shows that anyone who really does their homework might be able to take down Goliath with just such an innocuous provision.

A word of caution here  — these strategies are predicated in part on the assumption that the entire loan process was fraudulent, where there were dozens of undisclosed entities taking undisclosed fees from a large pool of investor money used in part to fund mortgage that were not tied to any documents signed at closing. The documents that were signed had no connection to the actual lender and the entity identified as the lender was a pretender paid to act as though it was loaning money. The reason I mention this is not to hammer down on the reality of those mortgages, but to suggest that a judge who still thinks that the borrower is a deadbeat trying to get out of legitimate loan, is likely to find problems with “innovative strategies.” But it is also true that there are a variety of things that bother many judges more and more about these loans and the foreclosures.

The article in the New York Times by Peter Eavis goes into some detail, but the essence is in this quote:

Not engaging with borrowers who have missed payments may not seem like the strongest grounds for litigation against a bank. Yet that is the basis for an innovative lawsuit against U.S. Bank, a division of U.S. Bancorp, one of the largest banks in the country. The legal action could mean fresh legal problems for other big mortgage banks, as well. It is the latest threat to emerge from a barrage of cases that have forced big banks to pay tens of billions of dollars in recent months.

The lawsuit focuses on a popular type of government-guaranteed mortgage that in fact requires that banks take distinct steps — like trying to arrange a meeting — when borrowers stop paying.

The lawsuit is being brought by Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, a legal aid group. In a twist, the group is suing U.S. Bank in federal court in Ohio on behalf of the United States government, using the False Claims Act. This legislation, which dates to the Civil War, allows private citizens and groups to pursue legal action against companies and other entities for receiving payments from the government on false grounds.

The more you drill down on the existing laws, rules and regulations the more violations you will find. And when it comes to foreclosing, anyone watching this nightmare unfold must get to to wondering about why all of these deals went to foreclosure instead of workouts. The answer is that the foreclosure judgment and the foreclosure sale is part of a massive cover-up of massive fraud. And for the most part, the government has decided to (a) not prosecute real claims for real damages and real crimes and (b) not provide individual homeowners with information already obtained about their homes, their mortgages and their foreclosures that would shut the process down if known. The latter is what most irks Elizabeth Warren who now officially speaks for the average American and who seeks a level playing field in the Senate of the U.S. Congress.

People like Senator Warren, Sheila Bair, former FDIC chief, and others who have been outspoken about the out right fraud — i.e., nonexistence of the loans being used as a basis for foreclosure — keep getting stepped on, but the recent “promotion” of Warren is at least somewhat encouraging in that it shows that the leadership of the Democratic party recognizes they can no longer ignore her or the issues she speaks about. She speaks at gathering that attract voters from across the political spectrum and she is proving what I said years ago a constantly ever since — if you want to win by a landslide, run against the banks  and the people they own in our government.

BAP Panel Raises the Stakes Against Deutsch et al — Secured Status May be Challenged

Fur Further Information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

——————————–

ALERT FOR BANKRUPTCY LAWYERS — SECURED STATUS OF ALLEGED CREDITOR IS NOT TO BE ASSUMED

——————————–

I have long held and advocated three points:

  1. The filing of false claims in the nonjudicial process of a majority of states should not result in success where the same false claims could never be proven in judicial process. Nonjudicial process was meant as an administrative remedy to foreclosures that were NOT in dispute. Any application of nonjudicial schemes that allows false claims to succeed where they would fail in a judicial action is unconstitutional.
  2. The filing of a bankruptcy petition that shows property to be encumbered by virtue of a deed of trust is admitting a false representation made by a stranger to the transaction. The petition for bankruptcy relief should be filed showing that the property is not encumbered and the adversary or collateral proceeding to nullify the mortgage and the note should accompany each filing where the note and mortgage are subject to claims of securitization or a “new” beneficiary.
  3. The vast majority of decisions against borrowers result from voluntary or involuntary waiver, ignorance and failure to plead or object on the basis of false claims based on false documentation. The issue is not the signature (although that probably is false too); rather it is (a) the actual transaction which is missing and the (b) false documentation of a (i) fictitious transaction and (ii) fictitious transfers of fictitious (and non-fictitious) transactions. The result is often that the homeowner has admitted to the false assertion of being a borrower in relation to the party making the claim, admitting the secured status of the “creditor”, admitting that they are a creditor, admitting that they received a loan from within the chain claimed by the “creditor”, admitting the default, admitting the validity of the note and admitting the validity of the mortgage or deed of trust — thus leaving both the trial and appellate courts with no choice but to rule against the homeowner. Thus procedurally a false claim becomes “true” for purposes of that case.

see 11/24/14 Decision: MEMORANDUM-_-ANTON-ANDREW-RIVERA-DENISE-ANN-RIVERA-Appellants-v.-DEUTSCHE-BANK-NATIONAL-TRUST-COMPANY-Trustee-of-Certificate-Holders-of-the-WAMU-Mortgage-Pass-Through-Certificate-Series-2005-AR6

This decision is breath-taking. What the Panel has done here is fire a warning shot over the bow of the California Supreme Court with respect to the APPLICATION of the non-judicial process. AND it takes dead aim at those who make false claims on false debts in both nonjudicial and judicial process. Amongst the insiders it is well known that your chances on appeal to the BAP are less than 15% whereas an appeal to the District Judge, often ignored as an option, has at least a 50% prospect for success.

So the fact that this decision comes from the BAP Panel which normally rubber stamps decisions of bankruptcy judges is all the more compelling. One word of caution that is not discussed here is the the matter of jurisdiction. I am not so sure the bankruptcy judge had jurisdiction to consider the matters raised in the adversary proceeding. I think there is a possibility that jurisdiction would be present before the District Court Judge, but not the Bankruptcy Judge.

From one of my anonymous sources within a significant government agency I received the following:

This case is going to be a cornucopia of decision material for BK courts nationwide (and others), it directly tackles all the issues regarding standing and assignment (But based on Non-J foreclosure, and this is California of course……) it tackles Glaski and Glaski loses, BUT notes dichotomy on secured creditor status….this case could have been even more , but leave to amend was forfeited by borrower inaction—– it is part huge win, part huge loss as it relates to Glaski, BUT IT IS DIRECTLY APPLICABLE TO CHASE/WAMU CASES……….Note in full case how court refers to transfer of “some of WAMU’s assets”, tacitly inferring that the court WILL NOT second guess what was and was not transferred………… i.e, foreclosing party needs to prove this!!

AFFIRMED- NO SECURED PARTY STATUS FOR BK PROVEN 

Even though Siliga, Jenkins and Debrunner may preclude the

Riveras from attacking DBNTC’s foreclosure proceedings by arguing

that Chase’s assignment of the deed of trust was a nullity in

light of the absence of a valid transfer of the underlying debt,

we know of no law precluding the Riveras from challenging DBNTC’s assertion of secured status for purposes of the Riveras’ bankruptcy case. Nor did the bankruptcy court cite to any such law.

We acknowledge that our analysis promotes the existence of two different sets of legal standards – one applicable in nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings and a markedly different one for use in ascertaining creditors’ rights in bankruptcy cases.

But we did not create these divergent standards. The California legislature and the California courts did. We are not the first to point out the divergence of these standards. See CAL. REAL EST., at § 10:41 (noting that the requirements under California law for an effective assignment of a real-estate-secured obligation may differ depending on whether or not the dispute over the assignment arises in a challenge to nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings).
We must accept the truth of the Riveras’ well-pled
allegations indicating that the Hutchinson endorsement on the
note was a sham and, more generally, that neither DBNTC nor Chase
ever obtained any valid interest in the Riveras’ note or the loan
repayment rights evidenced by that note. We also must
acknowledge that at least part of the Riveras’ adversary
proceeding was devoted to challenging DBNTC’s standing to file
its proof of claim and to challenging DBNTC’s assertion of
secured status for purposes of the Riveras’ bankruptcy case. As
a result of these allegations and acknowledgments, we cannot
reconcile our legal analysis, set forth above, with the
bankruptcy court’s rulings on the Riveras’ second amended
complaint. The bankruptcy court did not distinguish between the
Riveras’ claims for relief that at least in part implicated the
parties’ respective rights in the Riveras’ bankruptcy case from
those claims for relief that only implicated the parties’
respective rights in DBNTC’s nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings.

THEY REJECT GLASKI-

Here, we note that the California Supreme Court recently

granted review from an intermediate appellate court decision
following Jenkins and rejecting Glaski. Yvanova v. New Century
Mortg. Corp., 226 Cal.App.4th 495 (2014), review granted &
opinion de-published, 331 P.3d 1275 (Cal. Aug 27, 2014). Thus,
we eventually will learn how the California Supreme Court views
this issue. Even so, we are tasked with deciding the case before
us, and Ninth Circuit precedent suggests that we should decide
the case now, based on our prediction, rather than wait for the
California Supreme Court to rule. See Hemmings, 285 F.3d at
1203; Lewis v. Telephone Employees Credit Union, 87 F.3d 1537,
1545 (9th Cir. 1996). Because we have no convincing reason to
doubt that the California Supreme Court will follow the weight of
authority among California’s intermediate appellate courts, we
will follow them as well and hold that the Riveras lack standing
to challenge the assignment of their deed of trust based on an
alleged violation of a pooling and servicing agreement to which
they were not a party.

BUT……… THEY DO SUCCEED ON SECURED STATUS

Even though the Riveras’ first claim for relief principally

relies on their allegations regarding the assignment’s violation
of the pooling and servicing agreement, their first claim for
relief also explicitly incorporates their allegations challenging
DBNTC’s proof of claim and disputing the validity of the
Hutchinson endorsement. Those allegations, when combined with
what is set forth in the first claim for relief, are sufficient
on their face to state a claim that DBNTC does not hold a valid
lien against the Riveras’ property because the underlying debt
never was validly transferred to DBNTC. See In re Leisure Time
Sports, Inc., 194 B.R. at 861 (citing Kelly v. Upshaw, 39 Cal.2d
179 (1952) and stating that “a purported assignment of a mortgage
without an assignment of the debt which it secured was a legal
nullity.”).
While the Riveras cannot pursue their first claim for relief
for purposes of directly challenging DBNTC’s pending nonjudicial
foreclosure proceedings, Debrunner, 204 Cal.App.4th at 440-42,
the first claim for relief states a cognizable legal theory to
the extent it is aimed at determining DBNTC’s rights, if any, as
a creditor who has filed a proof of secured claim in the Riveras’
bankruptcy case.

TILA CLAIM UPHELD!—–

Fifth Claim for Relief – for violation of the Federal Truth In Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g)

The Riveras’ TILA Claim alleged, quite simply, that they did
not receive from DBNTC, at the time of Chase’s assignment of the
deed of trust to DBNTC, the notice of change of ownership
required by 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g)(1). That section provides:
In addition to other disclosures required by this
subchapter, not later than 30 days after the date on
which a mortgage loan is sold or otherwise transferred
or assigned to a third party, the creditor that is the
new owner or assignee of the debt shall notify the
borrower in writing of such transfer, including–

(A) the identity, address, telephone number of the new

creditor;

(B) the date of transfer;

 

(C) how to reach an agent or party having authority to

act on behalf of the new creditor;

(D) the location of the place where transfer of

ownership of the debt is recorded; and

(E) any other relevant information regarding the new

creditor.

The bankruptcy court did not explain why it considered this claim as lacking in merit. It refers to the fact that the
Riveras had actual knowledge of the change in ownership within
months of the recordation of the trust deed assignment. But the
bankruptcy court did not explain how or why this actual knowledge
would excuse noncompliance with the requirements of the statute.
Generally, the consumer protections contained in the statute
are liberally interpreted, and creditors must strictly comply
with TILA’s requirements. See McDonald v. Checks–N–Advance, Inc.
(In re Ferrell), 539 F.3d 1186, 1189 (9th Cir. 2008). On its
face, 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a)(2)(A)(iv) imposes upon the assignee of
a deed of trust who violates 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g)(1) statutory
damages of “not less than $400 or greater than $4,000.”
While the Riveras’ TILA claim did not state a plausible
claim for actual damages, it did state a plausible claim for
statutory damages. Consequently, the bankruptcy court erred when
it dismissed the Riveras’ TILA claim.

LAST, THEY GOT REAR ENDED FOR NOT SEEKING LEAVE TO AMEND

Here, however, the Riveras did not argue in either the bankruptcy court or in their opening appeal brief that the court should have granted them leave to amend. Having not raised the issue in either place, we may consider it forfeited. See Golden v. Chicago Title Ins. Co. (In re Choo), 273 B.R. 608, 613 (9th Cir. BAP 2002).

Even if we were to consider the issue, we note that the

bankruptcy court gave the Riveras two chances to amend their
complaint to state viable claims for relief, examined the claims
they presented on three occasions and found them legally
deficient each time. Moreover, the Riveras have not provided us
with all of the record materials that would have permitted us a
full view of the analyses and explanations the bankruptcy court
offered them when it reviewed the Riveras’ original complaint and
their first amended complaint. Under these circumstances, we
will not second-guess the bankruptcy court’s decision to deny
leave to amend. See generally In re Nordeen, 495 B.R. at 489-90
(examining multiple opportunities given to the plaintiffs to
amend their complaint and the bankruptcy court’s efforts to
explain to them the deficiencies in their claims, and ultimately
determining that the court did not abuse its discretion in
denying the plaintiffs leave to amend their second amended
complaint).

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,559 other followers

%d bloggers like this: