Please Keep April Charney in Your Prayers

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm

LivingLies Membership – Get Discounts and Free Access to Experts

For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

Editor’s Comment:

Hopefully April will make a full recovery. I had similar problems in 2003 and the pain, I can tell you, was “exquisite.” I hope the doctors have that under control for her. The whole kidney thing is always painful and discouraging. Send April some messages of good will and keep praying for her. We need her. I must say I’m a little weirded out by my open-heart surgery In March, followed by Max Gardner’s fight with cancer and now April ‘s challenge with her kidney.

As it turns out it appears as though my own recovery is going quite smoothly and that I have a new lease on life — so if the banksters think the seminars are over, think again. Max has made it clear that he will keep teaching and I am about to re-start the seminar tour I had to cut short 2 years ago. The real battle is just beginning.

April Charney’s Latest Battle

Most of you are familiar with Boot Camper April Charney and her tireless work on behalf of homeowners in Florida. Now, April is fighting another unexpected battle: she is hospitalized after complications during treatment for a kidney stone. She has been in critical condition for several days, on a respirator and undergoing dialysis. As of this writing, Max has just learned from April’s family that her condition has seemingly improved though still quite serious.  Please send your prayers, good thoughts, positive energy or whatever suits your beliefs to April and her family.


AG’s Waiving Prosecution of Banks’ Foreclosure Fraud, Leaving America in the Dust

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

EDITOR’S NOTE: It’s Monday and so we must be in the twilight zone. The Wall Street Banks have engaged in multiple schemes to corner the market on money and now they are cornering the market on land — all with other people’s money whom they never intended to pay back. Now they are going to get a waiver that lets them go free for crimes far worse than the 800 people went to jail for in the S&L crisis in the 1980’s. Does anyone care?

They are getting the waiver because the Banks have cornered the market on politicians. They have bought enough of them to turn the tide regardless of the facts and circumstances. Ultimately prosecution is a political decision. Nobody can afford to prosecute all crimes. So it becomes a decision as to which ones to go after.

In this case, the Banks swindled homeowners into fake loans that forever corrupts title to most residential property in the the nation. They faked the appraisals, putting people in the position of losers in a fight they didn’t even know was going on. The one set of people who could not afford to take losses in the hundreds of thousands of dollars are consumers. But that is exactly where the AG’s are heading, because they all have ambitions to be governor and the Banks can make that happen.

The banks lied, perjured themselves, forged millions of documents, to get a free house, thus cheating both homeowners and investors.

People have murdered their family and committed suicide. Millions have lost homes, jobs and life-style passing on a legacy of poverty to the next generation. Investors all over the world have been swindled out of cash for pensions and operations. The credibility of our financial system is hovering just above zero. Just how bad does it have to get before YOU and YOUR FRIENDS take to the streets and let the politicians know that they will be selling shoes after the next election. Yes, a real job.

The message the AG’s are sending is this: If you do it once, you go to jail. If you do it a lot, you become a powerful and rich politician. Amen to April Charney comments about helping the AG’s. Count us in.

The Banks Still Want a Waiver

By

HOW should banks atone for those foreclosure abuses — all the robo-signing and shoddy recordkeeping that jettisoned so many people from their homes?

It has been four months since a deal to remedy this mess was floated. Not much has happened since — at least not publicly.

Last week, banking executives and state attorneys general met in Washington to try to settle their differences. At issue was how much banks should pay, and how and to whom, to make this all go away. The initial terms, which emerged in March, were said to carry a $20 billion price tag.

But here is a crucial question: to what extent would such a settlement protect banks from future liability? Will the attorneys general strike a deal that effectively prevents them from bringing new, unrelated lawsuits against the banks?

If the releases in any settlement are broad, there will be joy in Bankville. If they are narrow, the banks will probably face more litigation, something they would rather avoid.

A looming issue relates to the potential liability stemming from the Mortgage Electronic Registry Systems, or MERS. This company, owned by the major banks, was set up in the mid-1990s by the Mortgage Bankers Association, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Its goal was to expedite the home loan process.

By eliminating the need to record changes in property ownership in local land records, MERS ramped up profits for lenders. In 2007, MERS calculated that it had saved the industry $1 billion over 10 years. An estimated 60 percent of all home loans were registered to MERS.

But the MERS machine started to sputter during the foreclosure crisis. Lawyers challenged MERS’s ability to bring foreclosure proceedings because the system does not technically own the security or note underlying properties, as required. While some courts have not objected to MERS’s foreclosing in place of banks, others have.

New York courts, for instance, have been increasingly hostile to MERS. In a February 2011 opinion, Robert E. Grossman, a federal judge on in Long Island, wrote: “This court does not accept the argument that because MERS may be involved with 50 percent of all residential mortgages in the country, that is reason enough for this court to turn a blind eye to the fact that this process does not comply with the law.”

Equally troubling for MERS is the fact that its officials have filed questionable documents with courts attesting to ownership of the notes and other significant matters.

These practices have consequences, as described by R. K. Arnold, MERS’s former president, in a 2006 deposition. “We are heavily at risk as far as, you know, having to follow the rules of the court and enforcing our rules that our members must go by,” he said. “We also have jeopardy as far as if we were to fail in the foreclosure realm.”

David Pelligrinelli, president of AFX Title, a title search company, said MERS contributed to the problem of thousands of mortgages lacking a complete ownership chain.

“You can’t go back and redocument all these things, because some of the companies aren’t around anymore,” he said. “Even if they are, the charters for these companies don’t allow for backdating of assignments.”

How MERS and its bank owners will fare with the attorneys general is unclear. The early term sheet for the possible settlement said only this: “Issues relating to the use and performance of MERS are reserved for further discussion.” Those further discussions may be taking place now. It’s a good bet that the banks want a comprehensive release from liability relating to MERS.

Officials at the nation’s top four banks declined to comment on the private talks. A spokeswoman for MERS said it was not participating in the discussions and could not speculate on them.

Lawyers who have examined this issue say it would be unprecedented to grant a broad release from liability to the banks that own MERS from claims that have not been investigated.

WHILE some states are scrutinizing MERS, most have declined to investigate its operations. That might seem surprising, given the apparent conflicts of interest in its business. Employees of law firms representing banks in foreclosures, for instance, are also officers of MERS. They can assign mortgages even though they represent a party with an interest in the outcome.

A broad release would vastly diminish the possibility of an in-depth investigation. Such a release might also make it harder for borrowers to argue that MERS has no right, or standing, to foreclose on them. The United States Trustee has supported this view in a number of recent cases, but exempting banks from future lawsuits on this issue would send a message that questioning MERS’s standing is of no interest to top state officials.

And if the banks are insulated from future state lawsuits, responsibility for any abusive acts by MERS would be pushed onto law firms that did the system’s work. With few assets, these law firms are virtually judgment-proof. The unit of MERS that held title to the mortgages also has few assets and was set up in such a way that lawsuits against it would probably reap little for plaintiffs.

MERS has begun to clean up its practices and paperwork. Officials are furiously assigning mortgages out of MERS’s name and into the banks’ names. One borrower in Pierce County, Wash., combed through records from April 1, 2011, to July 18, and found 1,956 assignments of deeds of trust executed from MERS to banks that service the loans or trustees that oversee mortgage pools.

Sure, the issues surrounding MERS seem mind-numbing. Some officials might want to wash their hands of the whole thing in a settlement. But at least one legal professional is offering to educate attorneys general — at no cost. She is April Charney, a lawyer at Jacksonville Area Legal Aid in Florida and one of the first to question MERS’s standing in foreclosures.

“You need lawyers in each state to be legal consultants to the A.G.’s so they’re on equal footing with the huge industry they are up against,” she said. “It would be an honor to consult on these highly complex, layered and nuanced state-based legal issues. Call it pro bono with bells on.”

It would be telling if no one takes her up on that offer.

LPS DEPOS REVEAL THE FACTS

submitted by Barbara

LPS DEPOS!!!

http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/12/18/full-deposition-transcript-of-lender-processing-services-scott-a-walter-part-2-steven-j-baum-p-c-o-max-gardner-us-trustee/

http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/12/18/full-deposition-transcript-of-lender-processing-services-lps-scott-a-walter-part-1/

http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/12/18/full-deposition-transcript-of-lps-greg-allen-mers-is-alive/

http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/12/16/sff-bombshell-deposition-transcript-of-lps-fidelity-bill-newland/

LIVINGLIES NEWSLETTER PROVIDES MORE STRATEGIC INFO

livinglies-general-store

SUBSCRIBE TO LIVINGLIES FOR DISCOUNTED SERVICES, NEWSLETTER AND FREE TELECONFERENCES

A lot of people are signing up for the newsletter. More than I imagined would do so. I found out quickly why. They were looking for strategies that drilled down more deeply into their cases. And they liked the teleconferences that go with it. The discounts on services were welcomed but it was the latest and best info I could give on what is working and what isn’t that they were looking for. It all comes down to what Beth Findsen, Esq. (Scottsdale) is fond of saying “You can be right as rain on the law but if the Judge won’t apply it, you lose!” Jon Lindeman, Esq. (South and Central Florida), with his military background, has impressed on me the need to concentrate our firepower on the areas we can identify as their vulnerabilities and press the point to win, not justify a fee. April Charney, Esq. (Jacksonville) has criticized my work as spawning some bad results and she has a point.

As you can imagine, some of my regular readers are not necessarily singing from the same prayer book as I am. They just want a preview of the song so they can confront anyone who uses the information with an answer. I really don’t have any problem with the opposition reading my material nor with them “preparing” to meet us in the battlefield we call court. The problem I have is that many homeowners and their lawyers are making bad law by misapplication of the suggestions contained on this website. It’s not that the pretender lenders are beating these homeowners and lawyers, it’s that these homeowners and lawyers are beating themselves by presenting this work as some kind of magic bullet. The Judge makes a not unreasonable assessment of their argument as complete crap and then goes on to assume that anyone else who sounds similar is also full of crap. This is making it more difficult for everyone. So what to do?

My answer is to migrate strategy and tactics to the newsletter and leave the general stuff on the blog. By charging a monthly fee, we hope to weed out those people looking for a quick fix and who are making it harder on everyone else. So I might have hints in the blog, but I won’t get into the details except in the newsletter, which will really focus on the prime strategies and tactics that show promise. Assuming I continue to get the support of subscribers on this, I will get into the down and dirty details as much as possible in the newsletter. It’s more work for me but worth it if we get the result of more lawyers and homeowners getting better results. By combining this with members only teleconferences, we know who is listening, and we have an opportunity for everyone to go out with the same message instead of variations on the message that might not make any sense to a Judge.

So this is another step in forming the movement, and concentrating our firepower. The hope is that we are creating the eye of the hurricane where all the action happens. By funneling the general information into direct strategies that are being used in common, and narrowing the focus even further by collaborating with investigation, discovery and motions (Title and Securitization Searches, Expert Witness Declarations, Affidavits etc), we hope to level the playing field. Remember they have the resources and the motivation to collaborate and they do with nationwide telephone conferences and shared research and strategies. It is up to us to do the same thing on our side. We have 20 million or more homeowners who are affected including those who think they lost their home but still have a right to reclaim title and possession. It seems to me that we have more than enough potential to level the playing the field and then some.

Investigation Highlights Challenges to Foreclosure Docs

Got this off the “Mortgage Servicing News” newsletter:
June 16, 2010
Investigation Highlights Challenges to Foreclosure Docs

By Kate Berry

The backlash is intensifying against banks and mortgage servicers that try to foreclose on homes without all their ducks in a row.

Because the notes were often sold and resold during the boom years, many financial companies lost track of the documents. Now, legal officials are accusing companies of forging the documents needed to reclaim the properties.

Recently, the Florida Attorney General’s Office said it was investigating the use of “bogus assignment” documents by Lender Processing Services Inc. and its former parent, Fidelity National Financial Inc. And a state judge in Florida has ordered a hearing to determine whether M&T Bank Corp. should be charged with fraud after it changed the assignment of a mortgage note for one borrower three separate times.

“Mortgage assignments are being created out of whole cloth just for the purposes of showing a transfer from one entity to another,” said James Kowalski Jr., an attorney in Jacksonville, Fla., who represents the borrower in the M&T case.

“Banks got away from very basic banking rules because they securitized millions of loans and moved them so quickly,” Kowalski said.

In many cases, Kowalski said, it has become impossible to establish when a mortgage was sold, and to whom, so the servicers are trying to recreate the paperwork, right down to the stamps that financial companies use to verify when a note has changed hands.

Some mortgage processors are “simply ordering stamps from stamp makers,” he said, and are “using those as proof of mortgage assignments after the fact.”

Such alleged practices are now generating ire from the bench.

“The court has been misled by the plaintiff from the beginning,” Circuit Court Judge J. Michael Traynor said in a motion dismissing M&T’s foreclosure action with prejudice and ordering the hearing.

The Marshall Watson law firm in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., which represents M&T in the case, declined to comment and the bank said it could not comment.

In a notice on its website, the Florida attorney general said it is examining whether Docx, an Alpharetta, Ga., unit of Lender Processing Services, forged documents so foreclosures could be processed more quickly.

“These documents are used in court cases as ‘real’ documents of assignment and presented to the court as so, when it actually appears that they are fabricated in order to meet the demands of the institution that does not, in fact, have the necessary documentation to foreclose according to law,” the notice said.

Docx is the largest lien release processor in the United States working on behalf of banks and mortgage lenders.

Peter Sadowski, an executive vice president and general counsel at Fidelity National in Fort Lauderdale, said that more than a year ago his company began requiring that its clients provide all paperwork before the company would process title claims.

Lender Processing Services, which was spun off from Fidelity National two years ago, did not return calls seeking comment Tuesday. The company disclosed in its annual report in February that federal prosecutors were reviewing the business processes of Docx. The company said it was cooperating with the investigators.

“This is systemic,” said April Charney, a senior staff attorney at Jacksonville Area Legal Aid and a member of the Florida Supreme Court’s foreclosure task force.

“Banks can’t show ownership for many of these securitized loans,” Charney continued. “I call them empty-sack trusts, because in the rush to securitize, the originating lender failed to check the paper trail and now they can’t collect.”

In Florida, Georgia, Maryland and other states where the foreclosure process must be handled through the courts, hundreds of borrowers have challenged lenders’ rights to take their homes. Some judges have invalidated mortgages, giving properties back to borrowers while lenders appeal.

In February, the Florida state Supreme Court set a new standard stipulating that before foreclosing, a lender had to verify it had all the proper documents. Lenders that cannot produce such papers can be fined for perjury, the court said.

Kowalski said the bigger problem is that mortgage servicers are working “in a vacuum,” handing out foreclosure assignments to third-party firms such as LPS and Fidelity.

“There’s no meeting to get everybody together and make sure they have their ducks in a row to comply with these very basic rules that banks set up many years ago,” Kowalski said. “The disconnect occurs not just between units within the banks, but among the servicers, their bank clients and the lawyers.”

He said the banking industry is “being misserved,” because mortgage servicers and the lawyers they hire to represent them in foreclosure proceedings are not prepared.

“We’re tarring banks that might obviously do a decent job, and the banks are complicit because they hired the servicers,” Kowalski said.

Legal Aid, April Charney et al File Amicus Brief

It’s not just a really good brief, it is a good resource. I recommend everyone read it. While it is specifically and powerfully directed against MERS, it also attacks the heart of the securitization scheme in terms of its effect “on the ground.”  You can learn a lot about the mortgage mess just by reading this document.

MERS Amicus Brief

Top New York Judge Urges Greater Legal Rights for the Poor

Editor’s Note: Judge Lippman is certainly onto something here. There is no doubt that the poor get the short end of the stick when it comes to legal matters. Whether this will have any effect on foreclosures is a question that cannot be answered as yet. With more people moving into the poverty level due to declining real wages and joblessness, it would certainly be a step in the right direction to provide legal assistance to people when it comes to having a roof over their head.

With foreclosures the problem is getting an attorney who understands that most mortgages these days are securitized and that this has important ramifications for defense of foreclosures and evictions. it is entirely possible that the wrong party is acting against the tenant or owner or that the mortgage has been paid in whole or in part through various credit enhancement instruments that protect the creditor (the one who actually advanced the money) from loss.

April Charney is leading the way for Legal Aid and other organizations to provide competent help for indigent or financially challenged persons in the cross hairs of some pretender lender. There is no way for her to do it alone. Inch by inch we seem to be crawling away from this mess. But progress is slow and might be illusory. Recent events in Europe show that these manipulations of exotic financial instruments are wreaking havoc on everyone.

The real answer is to bust the Oligarchy of banking interests who have literally cornered the market on money itself. That takes a lot of will power, a lot of people demonstrating their willingness to engage the banks, and a lot of politicians who need to be coerced into blocking the financial sector from meddling in our lives.
May 3, 2010

Top New York Judge Urges Greater Legal Rights for the Poor

By WILLIAM GLABERSON

New York’s chief judge called on Monday for a new guarantee of a lawyer for poor people in civil cases, like suits over eviction and other disputes where basic needs are at stake, pushing the state to the forefront of a national effort to expand the right to representation for the indigent.

In a speech in Albany, the chief judge, Jonathan Lippman, said his proposal, the first such plan by a top court official in New York, reflected a commitment by the state’s courts “to bring us closer to the ideal of equal access to civil justice” that he described as one of the foundations of the legal system.

“I am not talking about a single initiative, pilot project or temporary program,” Judge Lippman said, “but what I believe must be a comprehensive, multifaceted, systemic approach to providing counsel to the indigent in civil cases.”

There was no price tag on the proposal, which could cost many millions of dollars. But Judge Lippman sought to avoid having it fall victim to the politics of the recession by announcing that he would hold hearings before pushing a detailed plan forward next year.

The government has been required to provide lawyers for people facing jail because of criminal charges since a landmark ruling by the United States Supreme Court in 1963, Gideon v. Wainwright.

But that protection has never included civil cases. Lawyers for the poor argue that it should because civil courts are where people who cannot afford lawyers often face the loss of the necessities of life in lopsided legal battles. Opponents say more government-paid lawyers for the poor will paralyze the courts with needless disputes.

Some Democratic legislators said they were interested in Judge Lippman’s idea. In a statement, Speaker Sheldon Silver said the Assembly had been a strong supporter of civil legal services for nearly 20 years.

Austin Shafran, a spokesman for the State Senate Democratic leader, John L. Sampson, said the senator had always supported programs that provided lawyers for indigent New Yorkers and was looking carefully at what Judge Lippman had put forward.

Judge Lippman, a longtime court administrator, has set an unabashedly liberal course as chief judge, a position he assumed last year after he was nominated by Gov. David A. Paterson. In addition to a seat on the highest court in New York, the chief judge also has a broad role as the top administrative official of the state’s sprawling court system.

The speech may well give Judge Lippman national prominence in efforts in recent years by lawyers for the poor, consumer advocates and some legislators around the country to expand the right to a lawyer. California passed a law in 2009 intended to expand legal counsel in civil cases.

There have been local bills elsewhere, including in New York City, and lawsuits in several states arguing that the protections of the legal system are often meaningless to people too poor to hire lawyers. In 2006, the American Bar Association said there should be a right to a lawyer in civil cases where basic human needs were at stake, like those dealing with shelter, sustenance, safety, health or child custody.

Advocates for the right to a lawyer in civil cases — some of them call it a “civil Gideon” right, referring to the 1963 ruling for criminal cases — said Monday that Judge Lippman’s speech was one of the most notable steps in their efforts.

“It is a very important statement, both in New York and nationally, about the need for access to justice. I don’t know that any stronger voice has come forward,” said Donald Saunders, a vice president of the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, the largest national group of lawyers for the poor.

In his speech, Judge Lippman said the recession had swelled the ranks of New Yorkers who could not afford lawyers facing civil legal problems to more than two million a year.

Judge Lippman said he would hold hearings beginning this fall in every part of the state to assess the extent and nature of the unmet need for civil legal representation. He said the hearings would end with recommendations to the Legislature of the kinds of civil cases in which legal representation should be required and what financing would meet those needs.

Legal Aid and other providers of civil legal representation to poor people in New York State operate on about $200 million a year, officials say, a combination of federal, state, local and privately raised money. Those organizations said that they were unable to meet the needs but that the extent of the shortfall was not known.

Steven Banks, the attorney in chief of the Legal Aid Society in the city, called it “a huge step” for the leader of the court system to endorse the idea that poor people had a right to a lawyer, whether they found themselves in criminal or civil court.

Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim by April Charney

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND
FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO.:16-2007-CA-00852-XXXX-MA
DIVISION: CV-D

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY
Plaintiff,
vs.

ERICO LOGAN, ET AL,
Defendant.
______________________________/

DEFENDANTS ERICO LOGAN AND GLORIA BROOK’S ANSWER
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES; COUNTERCLAIMS AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COME NOW, the separate Defendants and for their answer, affirmative defenses, counterclaims and demand for jury trial , state:
COUNT I
Denied that the plaintiff has stated a cause of action to reestablish a promissory note pursuant to F. S. 673.3091.
Admit execution of note, deny that the note was executed and delivered in favor of plaintiff or plaintiff’s assignor.
Denied. The plaintiff has not stated a cause of action to reestablish a promissory note pursuant to F. S. 673.3091.
Denied. The plaintiff has not stated a cause of action to reestablish a promissory note pursuant to F. S. 673.3091.
Denied. The plaintiff has not stated a cause of action to reestablish a promissory note pursuant to F. S. 673.3091.
Denied. The plaintiff has not stated a cause of action to reestablish a promissory note pursuant to F. S. 673.3091.
Defendant admits that the plaintiff does not own the mortgage or the note, admits that the plaintiff does not hold the note; however that plaintiff does not have legal possession of and cannot obtain possession of the subject note or determine its whereabouts. The plaintiff has not stated a cause of action to reestablish a promissory note pursuant to F. S. 673.3091.
Denied.
Denied and move to strike on account of Paragraph 9 of the plaintiff’s complaint does not contain a fact allegation.
Denied. The plaintiff has not stated a cause of action to foreclose a mortgage.
Admit.
Denied.
Admited.
Denied.
Denied.
Denied.
Denied.
Denied.
Denied.
Denied.
Denied.
22. Defendant denies that this plaintiff has stated a cause of action for foreclosure because on the date this lawsuit was filed the plaintiff was not the true owner of the claim sued upon; is not the real party in interest and is not shown to be authorized to bring this foreclosure action.
23. Defendants request the court dismiss this action pursuant to Rules 1.210(a) and 1.140(7) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure because it appears on the face of the complaint and the documents attached to the plaintiff’s March 12, 2007 notice of filing that a person other than the Plaintiff is the true owner of the claim sued upon on the date this action was commenced and that the Plaintiff was not the real party in interest at the commencement of this action, had no interest in the subject mortgage and note at the date on which the subject complaint for foreclosure was filed and is not shown to be authorized to bring this foreclosure action.
24. This action was commenced on January 29, 2007, but the assignment upon which the plaintiff is relying to support its claims is based on an assignment dated February 5, 2007, which post dates the filing of the complaint.
25. Additionally, the plaintiff has filed a separate assignment that conflicts with the February 5, 2007 assignment because on August 14, 2007, the date of the purported second assignment, the assignor had already transferred its interest in the subject mortgage and note to another entity and further because there was a lack of any consideration for the August 14, 2007 assignment.
26. The filing of these two assignments by the plaintiff, neither of which support the plaintiff’s claim of ownership of the subject mortgage on the date this foreclosure was filed, are a sham and a fraud on the court.
27. Plaintiff came into the this court alleging that it owned the subject loan on January 29, 2007, the date this action was commenced when the plaintiff was fully aware that was not true. This is fraud on the court.
28. Fla.R.Civ.P. Rule 1.130(a) requires a Plaintiff to attach copies of all bonds, notes, bills of exchange, contracts, accounts, or documents upon which action may be brought to its complaint.
29. Although the plaintiff alleges in its complaint that it is the owner of the promissory note and the mortgage that are the subject of this foreclosure action, the note and mortgage and assignments attached to the plaintiff’s complaint and to the plaintiff’s notice of filing conflict with these allegations and therefore the contents of actual mortgage and note cancel out the inconsistent and conflicting assignments and allegations as to the ownership of the note and mortgage at the commencement of this action.
30. When exhibits are inconsistent with the plaintiff’s allegations of material fact as to who the real party in interest is, such allegations cancel each other out. Fladell v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 772 So.2d 1240 (Fla. 2000); Greenwald v. Triple D Properties, Inc., 424 So. 2d 185, 187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Costa Bella Development Corp. v. Costa Development Corp., 441 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1983).
31. Plaintiff was not the real party in interest on the date this action was commenced and is not shown to be authorized to bring this action.
32. Because the facts revealed by the exhibits attached to the plaintiff’s complaint and in the Plaintiff’s notice of filing are inconsistent with Plaintiff’s allegations as to ownership of the subject note and mortgage, those allegations are neutralized and Plaintiff’s complaint is rendered objectionable. Greenwald v. Triple D Properties, Inc., 424 So.2d 185,187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. FAILURE OF CONTRACTUAL CONDITION PRECEDENT: NO NOTICE OF DEFAULT: Plaintiff failed to provide Separate Defendants with a Notice of Default and Intent to Accelerate as required by and/or that complies with Paragraph 22 of the subject mortgage.  As a result, Separate Defendants have been denied a good faith opportunity, pursuant to the mortgage and the servicing obligations of the Plaintiff, to avoid acceleration and this foreclosure.
2.   NO HUD COUNSELING NOTICE: Plaintiff failed to comply with the foreclosure prevention loan servicing requirement imposed on Plaintiff pursuant to the National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. 1701x(c)(5) which requires all private lenders servicing non-federally insured home loans, including the Plaintiff, to advise borrowers, including this separate Defendant, of any home ownership counseling Plaintiff offers together with information about counseling offered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.  The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has determined that 12 U.S.C. 1701x(c)(5) creates an affirmative legal duty on the part of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s non-compliance with the law’s requirements is an actionable event that makes the filing of this foreclosure premature based on a failure of a statutory condition precedent to foreclosure which denies Plaintiff’s ability to carry out this foreclosure.  Plaintiff cannot legally pursue foreclosure unless and until Plaintiff demonstrates compliance with 12 U.S.C. 1701x(c)(5).
3. PLAINTIFF FAILED TO COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT LOAN SERVICING REQUIREMENTS: Plaintiff failed to provide separate Defendants with legitimate and non predatory access to the debt management and relief that must be made available to borrowers, including this Defendant pursuant to and in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement filed by the plaintiff with the Securities and Exchange Commission that controls and applies to the subject mortgage loan. Plaintiff’s non-compliance with the conditions precedent to foreclosure imposed on the plaintiff pursuant to the applicable pooling and servicing agreement is an actionable event that makes the filing of this foreclosure premature based on a failure of a contractual and/or equitable condition precedent to foreclosure which denies Plaintiff’s ability to carry out this foreclosure.
a. Defendants assert that the special default loan servicing requirements contained in the subject pooling and servicing agreement, to be filed in pertinent part and which is on file at: http://www.secinfo.com , are incorporated into the terms of the mortgage contract between the parties as if written therein word for word and the defendants are entitled to rely upon the servicing terms set out in that agreement.
b. Alternatively or additionally, the defendants are third party beneficiaries of the Plaintiff’s pooling and servicing agreement and entitled to enforce the special default servicing obligations of the plaintiff specified therein.
c. Plaintiff cannot legally pursue foreclosure unless and until Plaintiff demonstrates compliance with the foreclosure prevention servicing imposed by the subject pooling and servicing agreement under which the plaintiff owns the subject mortgage loan.
d. The Plaintiff failed, refused or neglected to comply with prior to the commencement of this action with the servicing obligations specifically imposed on the plaintiff by the PSA in many particulars, including, but not limited to:
1. Plaintiff failed to service and administer the subject mortgage loan in compliance with all applicable federal state and local laws.
2. Plaintiff failed to service and administer the subject loan in accordance with the customary an usual standards of practice of mortgage lenders and servicers.
3. Plaintiff failed to extend to defendants the opportunity and failed to permit a modification, waiver, forbearance or amendment of the terms of the subject loan or to in any way exercise the requisite judgment as is reasonably required pursuant to the PSA.
e. Plaintiff’s failure to meet the servicing obligations imposed by the PSA cause the filing by plaintiff of this foreclosure to be in premature, in bad faith and a breach by plaintiff of its obligation to defendants implied in the mortgage contract and as specified in writing in the PSA, to act in good faith and to deal fairly with defendants.
f. Instead, plaintiff’s servicing failures as set forth herein render plaintiff’s actions in filing this premature foreclosure to be in bad faith and not acceptable loan servicing under the written contracts between the parties which include the mortgage, the PSA incorporated therein or by which defendants are third party beneficiaries thereof and the promissory note.
g. Plaintiff intentionally failed to act in good faith or to deal fairly with these Defendants by failing to follow the applicable standards of residential single family mortgage lending and servicing as described in these Affirmative Defenses thereby denying these Defendants access to the residential mortgage lending and servicing protocols applicable to the subject note and mortgage.
4. ILLEGAL CHARGES ADDED TO BALANCE: Plaintiff has charged and/or collected payments from Defendants for attorney fees, legal fees, foreclosure costs, late charges, property inspection fees, title search expenses, filing fees, broker price opinions, appraisal fees, and other charges and advances, and predatory lending fees and charges that are not authorized by or in conformity with the terms of the subject note and mortgage or the controlling pooling and servicing agreement which specifies the waiver of late payments and other collection charges as part of the forbearance and loan modification default loan servicing. Plaintiff wrongfully added and continues to unilaterally add these illegal charges to the balance Plaintiff claims is due and owing under the subject note and mortgage.
5. FAILURE OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING: UNFAIR AND UNACCEPTABLE LOAN SERVICING: Plaintiff intentionally failed to act in good faith or to deal fairly with the subject Defendants by failing to follow the applicable standards of residential single family mortgage servicing as described in these Affirmative Defenses thereby denying Defendant s access to the residential mortgage servicing protocols applicable to the subject note and mortgage.
6. UNCLEAN HANDS: The Plaintiff comes to court with unclean hands and is prohibited by reason thereof from obtaining the equitable relief of foreclosure from this Court. The Plaintiff’s unclean hands result from the Plaintiff’s improvident and predatory intentional failure to comply with material terms of the mortgage and note; the failure to comply with the default loan servicing requirements that apply to this loan, all as described herein above. As a matter of equity, this Court should refuse to foreclose this mortgage because acceleration of the note would be inequitable, unjust, and the circumstances of this case render acceleration unconscionable. This court should refuse the acceleration and deny foreclosure because Plaintiff has waived the right to acceleration or is estopped from doing so because of misleading conduct and unfulfilled contractual and equitable conditions precedent.
WHEREFORE, Defendants demands the Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice and for fraud on the court, and for their attorney’s fees and costs and for all other relief to which this Court finds Defendants entitled.
7. PLAINTIFF LACKS STANDING: DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY is not the true owner of the claim sued upon, is not the real party in interest and is not shown to be authorized to bring this foreclosure action.
COUNTERCLAIMS
COUNT I: DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Plaintiff.
2. Plaintiff failed to provide Separate Defendants with a Notice of Default and Intent to Accelerate as required by and/or that complies with Paragraph 22 of the subject mortgage.
3. Plaintiff failed to comply with the foreclosure prevention loan servicing requirement imposed on Plaintiff pursuant to the National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. 1701x(c)(5) which requires all private lenders servicing non-federally insured home loans, including the Plaintiff, to advise borrowers, including this separate Defendant, of any home ownership counseling Plaintiff offers together with information about counseling offered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
4. Plaintiff cannot legally pursue foreclosure unless and until Plaintiff demonstrates compliance with 12 U.S.C. 1701x(c)(5).
5. Plaintiff failed to provide separate Defendants with legitimate and non predatory access to the debt management and relief that must be made available to borrowers, including this Defendant pursuant to and in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement filed by the plaintiff with the Securities and Exchange Commission that controls and applies to the subject mortgage loan.
6. Plaintiff’s non-compliance with the conditions precedent to foreclosure imposed on the plaintiff pursuant to the applicable pooling and servicing agreement is an actionable event that makes the filing of this foreclosure premature based on a failure of a contractual and/or equitable condition precedent to foreclosure which denies Plaintiff’s ability to carry out this foreclosure.
7. The special default loan servicing requirements contained in the subject pooling and servicing agreement are incorporated into the terms of the mortgage contract between the parties as if written therein word for word and the defendants are entitled to rely upon the servicing terms set out in that agreement.
8. Defendants are third party beneficiaries of the Plaintiff’s pooling and servicing agreement and entitled to enforce the special default servicing obligations of the plaintiff specified therein.
9. Plaintiff cannot legally pursue foreclosure unless and until Plaintiff demonstrates compliance with the foreclosure prevention servicing imposed by the subject pooling and servicing agreement under which the plaintiff owns the subject mortgage loan.
10. The section of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) is a public document on file and online at http://www.secinfo.com and the entire pooling and servicing agreement is incorporated herein.
11. The Plaintiff failed, refused or neglected to comply, prior to the commencement of this action, with the servicing obligations specifically imposed on the plaintiff by the PSA in many particulars, including, but not limited to:
a. Plaintiff failed to service and administer the subject mortgage loan in compliance with all applicable federal state and local laws.
b. Plaintiff failed to service and administer the subject loan in accordance with the customary an usual standards of practice of mortgage lenders and servicers.
c. Plaintiff failed to extend to defendants the opportunity and failed to permit a modification, waiver, forbearance or amendment of the terms of the subject loan or to in any way exercise the requisite judgment as is reasonably required pursuant to the PSA.
12. The Plaintiff has no right to pursue this foreclosure because the Plaintiff has failed to provide servicing of this residential mortgage loan in accordance with the controlling servicing requirements prior to filing this foreclosure action.
13. Defendants have a right to receive foreclosure prevention loan servicing from the Plaintiff before the commencement or initiation of this foreclosure action.
14. Defendants are in doubt regarding their rights and status as borrowers under the National Housing Act and also under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement filed by the plaintiff with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Defendants are now subject to this foreclosure action by reason of the above described illegal acts and omissions of the Plaintiff.
15. Defendants are being denied and deprived by Plaintiff of their right to access the required troubled mortgage loan servicing imposed on the plaintiff and applicable to the subject mortgage loan by the National Housing Act and also under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement filed by the plaintiff with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
16. Defendants are being illegally subjected by the Plaintiff to this foreclosure action, being forced to defend the same and they are being charged illegal predatory court costs and related fees, and attorney fees. Defendants are having their credit slandered and negatively affected, all of which constitutes irreparable harm to Defendants for the purpose of injunctive relief.
17. As a proximate result of the Plaintiff’s unlawful actions set forth herein, Defendants continue to suffer the irreparable harm described above for which monetary compensation is inadequate.
18. Defendants have a right to access the foreclosure prevention servicing prescribed by the National Housing Act and under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement filed by the plaintiff with the Securities and Exchange Commission which right is being denied to them by the Plaintiff.
19. These acts were wrongful and predatory acts by the plaintiff, through its predecessor in interest, and were intentional and deceptive.
20. There is a substantial likelihood that Defendants will prevail on the merits of their counterclaims.
WHEREFORE, Defendants request the Court dismiss the Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice, enter a judgment pursuant to Fla. Stat. 86 declaring that the Plaintiff is legally obligated to provide the Defendants with access to the special troubled loan servicing prescribed by the National Housing Act and under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement filed by the plaintiff with the Securities and Exchange Commission and enjoining the Plaintiff from charging foreclosure fees and costs and from commencing or pursuing this foreclosure until such servicing is provided to this Defendant, for attorney’s fees and for all other relief to which Defendant proves themselves entitled.

COUNT II: ILLEGAL CONSUMER COLLECTION
Defendants reassert and reallege, as their Statement of Facts, paragraphs 2 through 20, inclusive as set out in Count I of these counterclaims.
22. Defendants are consumers and the obligation between the parties which is the debt owned pursuant to the subject note and mortgage is a consumer debt as defined in F. S. Section 559.55(1).
23. Plaintiff has engaged in consumer collection conduct which amounts to a violation of F.S. Section 559.72(9) as set out below and Defendants, as a proximate result thereof, have sustained economic damages for which the Defendants are entitled to compensation from the Plaintiff, pursuant to F.S. Section 559.77.
24. Plaintiff’s collection activities described herein violated F.S. 559.72(9) in that the Plaintiff is claiming, attempting and threatening to collect and enforce this consumer mortgage debt by this foreclosure action when the Plaintiff knows that the right to pursue foreclosure does not exist.
25. These acts were wrongful and predatory acts by the plaintiff, through its predecessor in interest, and were intentional and deceptive.
26. Additionally, the reason the Plaintiff does not have a legal right to pursue this foreclosure is because the Plaintiff has failed to first comply with the foreclosure prevention loan servicing obligations imposed on Plaintiff prescribed by the National Housing Act and under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement filed by the plaintiff with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
27. These foreclosure prevention loan servicing obligations are imposed on the Plaintiff pursuant to the National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. Section 1710(a) and the Pooling and Servicing Agreement filed by the plaintiff with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
28. The Plaintiff is claiming, attempting and threatening to collect fees and charges including, but not limited to, attorney fees, legal fees, foreclosure costs, late charges, property inspection fees, title search expenses, filing fees, broker price opinions, appraisal fees, and other charges and advances, and predatory lending fees and charges all of which are not authorized by or in conformity with the terms of the subject note and mortgage.
29. Plaintiff wrongfully added and continues to unilaterally add these illegal charges to the balance Plaintiff claims is due and owing under the subject note and mortgage.
30. Plaintiff continues to claim, attempt, and threaten to enforce this mortgage debt through acceleration and foreclosure when the Plaintiff knows that such conduct is in bad faith because the Plaintiff has charged and collected money from defendants that they did not owe; forced defendants into deepening indebtedness and then failed to meet the contractual and statutory conditions precedent before filing this action to collect this consumer debt.
31. As a result of the Plaintiff’s failure to properly service this mortgage loan before filing this foreclosure action, Defendants have been damaged and Defendants seek to recover their actual or statutory damages from the Plaintiff under F.S. 559.77.
WHEREFORE, Defendants demand the Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice, for an award of damages in defendants’ favor and against the plaintiff for their actual or statutory damages whichever is greater and for their attorney’s fees and costs and for all other relief to which this Court finds Defendants entitled.
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
Defendants hereby demands trial by jury.
WHEREFORE, Defendants demand the Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action and for fraud on the court, and for judgment against the plaintiff for their damages, for an award of attorney’s fees and costs and for all other relief to which this Court finds Defendants entitled.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a true copy of this document has been mailed to Sean Moloney and to Linda Chelvam, Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A. 1800 N.W. 49th Street, Suite 120, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309, Attorney for Plaintiff this ______________________________.
JACKSONVILLE AREA LEGAL AID, INC.
_______________________________ APRIL CARRIE CHARNEY, Esquire Fla. Bar No.: 310425
126 West Adams Street
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Telephone: (904) 356-8371, ext.373
Facsimile: (904) 224-7050
april.charney@jaxlegalaid.org
Attorney for Defendants

Keiser’s Forensic Analysis Workshop

You must remember the judiciary moves slowly is assimilating new facts or patterns in the marketplace. In order to break through a Judge’s preconception of the mortgage origination process, you need to have something that is clear in is presentation of facts, and obvious in its impact.

The reasons for having analysis performed by an independent third party is that it transforms empty argument into a question of fact. Anything that leads to a questions of fact gives you leverage in and out of court. In court, it allows you to credibly raise the issues so that discovery and an evidentiary hearing will allow your claims to be heard on the merits. No “audit” or analysis is PROOF or EVIDENCE unto itself. What it should do is give you something to hold in your had while talking to the Court, and which clearly contests the “facts” that the pretender lender is trying to have the Court assume (which is why objections, motion practice, discovery and evidentiary hearings are so important).

Lots of mistakes are being made on both sides of the mortgage crisis. Brad, in hosting this new forensic analysis workshop, seeks to help analysts avoid the usual pitfalls, recognize the issues that an expert or lawyer or homeowner may be required to present, and work toward providing the litigation support required to achieve a successful result.

There are a number of good workshops out there that can help forensic auditors, lawyers, experts and even lay people understand how to proceed when they wish to challenge some company that claims to be your lender or servicer. Max Gardner’s boot-camps are very good venues for understanding securitized loans, applying law and procedure to the challenge and coming out with good results. April Charney, who is giving a workshop soon in California is adding non-judicial states to the scope of her workshops for the first time. And Brad Keiser, who has been doing the survey workshops with me for a year and a half is now offering an important, even essential, workshop that drills down on forensic analysis of mortgages and foreclosure proceedings.

Brad, being a former banker himself with one of the nations largest banks, has performed virtually all of the research I use in connection with TILA, RESPA etc. A long-time friend, he has worked with me to bring LivingLies from two dimensional blog postings to three dimensional live presentations.

The output is what is important in any analysis of your mortgage or foreclosure situation. It doesn’t matter what work a company says they will do, even if they completed their engagement. The question is whether it is useful in producing an actual result. That is where the intersection of what is working in court and what is not comes into play. The issue here is knowing what you have, planning your strategy, and choosing the right procedures, lawyers, experts etc. in achieving a well-defined goal. Brad and I have carefully analyzed the forensic process and found a number of things that rise to the level of prime importance:

  1. Finding out whether there are patent violations of existing federal and state lending laws that can be identified for further action by the homeowner or their attorney. This among other things involves an examination of the Annual Percentage rate disclosed on the Good faith estimate, the timing of the good faith estimate, the presence of the traditional (but illegal) yield spread premium), affordability and other factors including discrepancies between the GFE and the HUD settlement statement. A key component of this part of the analysis often overlooked by “TILA Auditors” is an examination of the settlement transaction where the alleged loan was closed revealing discrepancies between the beneficiaries of the mortgage, the note, the title insurance, the mortgage insurance etc. and the use of “nominees” instead of naming the real parties in interest, which is evidence of a table-funded loan.
  2. Revealing the latent violations of lending laws and regulations caused by securitization of loans. Here is where the second and much larger yield spread premium appears and must be estimated by your expert or analyst using tables prepared by an expert. In addition. it reveals discrepancies in signatures, dates and parties in connection with fabricated or forged assignments used to justify the foreclosure by a party not named as lender or beneficiary.
  3. Determining whether there are refunds or rebates due back to the homeowner/borrower either from the original named lender or some other party in a securitization chain.
  4. Discovering facts that show a pattern of deceptive or predatory lending.
  5. Researching the loan to determine the record title chain, the probable securitization of your loan, and providing you with the right questions to ask as tot he identity of the creditor and demanding an accounting from the creditor, as opposed to simply a servicer that serves as a buffer between the debtor (homeowner) and the creditor (Investor owning mortgage backed securities).
  6. Providing adequate information and forms to the lawyer or client on sending out a Qualified Written Request, Debt Validation Letter or Demand Letter.
  7. Highlighting the most significant issues in your loan for the expert to use in preparing a declaration or the lawyer to use in filing a lawsuit, a petition for temporary injunction, or a bankruptcy petition.

As I have repeatedly stated on these pages, a TILA Audit is a start but it usually won’t produce the result of a modified loan that is acceptable tot he homeowner or the nullification of the obligation, note or mortgage.

Before securitization of mortgage loans, the process of examining loan transactions was fairly straight forward and fairly simple. With securitization the analysis requires a much higher level of sophistication that enables the lawyer or homeowner to present or proffer evidence of wrong-doing or improper procedures accounting or disclosure on the part of the securitization chain that produced your loan from the investment in mortgage backed bonds by investors.

DISCOVERY TIPS: Thieves Guild: Bank of America Flubs Foreclosure, Seizes Wrong House — AGAIN

In virtually all cases you will not find a person with any relationship to the creditor, investor, or pool. This is because servicers, trustees and other firms in the securitization chain are proceeding on their own initiating foreclosures without instructions, knowledge or any documentation from the creditor, investor or pool.

Editor’s Note: Greyhawk is of course right. But his assumption that this doesn’t happen very often is wrong. We have seen Wells Fargo foreclose on the wrong house and Wells Fargo sue itself because it securitized the first mortgage into one pool and securitized the second mortgage into another pool.

The central importance of these articles is NOT that the banks are stupid or negligent. For the litigator, the central importance is EVIDENCE. Think about it. Work backwards from the event. What would need to be absolutely true for a firm to seize a house in which it had no interest? And how can that help you in other cases where the facts are not quite as clear?

Well, for one thing it would require a belief on the part of someone without any personal knowledge of their own (witness is not competent to testify, plausible deniability thus given a layer of support to other firms in the securitization chain) that they DO have an interest. How could that be? It could only be true if they were using documents and a chain of possession of documents that were either falsified (fabricated) or incomplete (in which case they made assumptions that turned out to be false).

In order for them to make those assumptions they would have had to receive the instructions OR the documents from a “Trusted Source”. Find out the identity for the trusted source and work your way back to the person who actually wrote the document, the person who actually signed the document and the person who gave instructions concerning the creation of that documentation along with any written evidence contemporaneous with those events.

In virtually all cases you will not find a person with any relationship to the creditor, investor, or pool. This is because servicers, trustees and other firms in the securitization chain are proceeding on their own initiating foreclosures without instructions, knowledge or any documentation from the creditor, investor or pool.

The reason we know that documents are falsified and that it is not only common practice but institutionalized pattern of conduct to fabricate documents is simple: when you have a  mortgage that is still “performing” (i.e., payments are up to date) and you ask for the the documentation, they don’t have it.

It is ONLY when the “loan” becomes delinquent, or in default or the notice of sale is issued or there is a challenge to the notice of sale that the documents finally show up. And usually it takes 6-12 weeks to get all the documents. Why? If they started foreclosure proceedings, they would have needed those documents ahead of time.

Trustees routinely pull up a title report before starting a non-judicial sale. You shoudl ask for that and anything else the Trustee had at the time of the initiation of foreclosure proceedings and the date of receipt or creation (under oath in interrogatories as to the date of creation of the documents).

Plaintiffs routinely pull up a title report before they file a foreclosure lawsuit in judicial states. Yet when you ask for them, it takes weeks to produce them and when finally produced and examined and investigated, you will often find that the signature was not authorized, the witnesses were in a different state, the notary was in a a different state from either the witnesses or the signatory or that the signatures are forged (i.e., don’t match the normal signatures of the people who signed.

As for the “negligence” theory, here is the problem for them. How could they think they have something when it doesn’t exist. ANSWER: Because it does exist (or WILL exist when they get around to it) and it was thus fabricated and forged.

But it also means something else when you drill down on these transactions. The pressure to get these loans moving in the securitization chain was immense. Many mortgage brokers or originators took the MORTGAGE APPLICATION, changed it and completed the rest of the closing documents by forgery or simply described the loan as completed when they sent data to the first pool, the aggregator, who then took that description and attached it as an exhibit to his “assignment” to the second pool, the SPV pool.

This is precisely what probably happened in the case reported below. Somebody signed a loan application, never went through with the closing but the loan description went up through the securitization chain and so the originators had to treat it as real even though it didn’t exist. And when its number came up, which was fast because if you don’t have any borrower it isn’t hard to imagine that the “loan” went into default immediately due to non-payment from the non-existent borrower, they foreclosed.

This is where April Charney’s “Produce the Note” fame has been misused and misapplied by those who do not understand the rules of evidence as she does. It’s not just the note she’s after. She wants the Plaintiff in Florida and other judicial states, to prove their case and not be permitted to fake it. Those who report negative results using her material have not mastered the basics, applied a non-existent magic bullet and falsely concluded that April and others are wrong. Those who are too lazy to learn the whole story should withhold their judgment. April Charney is right and what she teaches is correct.

Thieves Guild: Bank of America Flubs Foreclosure, Seizes Wrong House — AGAIN

Sun, 01/17/2010 – 14:46 |  GreyHawk

Hat-tip Consumerist.

For some, the slogan “practice makes perfect” is a motto of encouragement to try again, try harder and achieve perfection. For Bank of America, it should be taken as a strong hint to try and do the right thing the first time, not to try and find a better way to seize the wrong house and then attempt to abstain from any recognizable responsibility.

It should be, but it’s not.

BoA has apparently attempted to foreclose on the wrong house once again, according to an article by Laura Elder in the Galveston County Daily News:

GALVESTON — A West End property owner is suing Bank of America Corp., asserting its agents mistakenly seized a vacation house he owns free and clear, then changed the locks and shut the power off, resulting in the smelly spoiling of about 75 pounds of salmon and halibut from an Alaska fishing trip and other damages.

Agents working for Bank of America cut off power to the property by turning off the main switch in the lower part of the house, according to the lawsuit. They also changed the locks, so Schroit was unable to reach the switch to turn the power back on, according to the lawsuit.

“The property sustained water damage, potential mold contamination arising from the standing freezer residue, water, heat and high humidity conditions during the time the electrical power was off,” according to the lawsuit.

This marks the second time known this has known to occur. The Wheelright, Ky, homeowner in that incident filed a lawsuit against the bank for a similar incident: the locks were changed, and the bank refused to pay any damages other than replacement locks.

Accidents happen, but the bank’s responsibility for its actions doesn’t cease to exist simply because it’s a corporate behemoth. If an average person had “accidentally” shut off power to someone else’s home, changed the locks and caused untold damage, that person would be held liable in both criminal and civil court for the actions — amends and liability would most certainly be assigned.

Bank of America’s incapacity to deal responsibly with “errors” that significantly impact the public should be a wake-up call that the bank has other serious issues that need to be addressed, and that the rights and liberties of “corporate personhood” should not ever exceed the rights and liberties of real living people.

Lawyer’s foreclosure defense of ‘quiet title’ faces tests

“The note is often produced at some point in the litigation, but the real problem is, how did they get it? When did they get it? And did the transfer of ownership comport with federal and Florida law for the transfer of such negotiable instruments?”
In cases that are dismissed based on these arguments, foreclosure defense attorneys said lenders aren’t as eager to re-file the case.

Editor’s Note: If you ignore the hype about history being made, this is an informative article about a trend sweeping the country. Yes it IS that simple.

The best way to smoke out the REAL LENDER is by filing a lawsuit seeking to quiet title. This has already been done successfully in dozens of cases in many states. We are tracking what people are reporting. In almost ALL cases where this was the central focus of the attack against the pretender lender, the homeowner was awarded quiet title by DEFAULT. (The other side never answered).

TRANSLATION: The Court (Judge) entered a Final Judgment declaring that the homeowner owned his/her/their house free and clear of all encumbrances. The claims of the pretender lender were thrown out and the homeowner was left with his house as an asset, not alibaility. The homeowner was no longer subject to foreclosure or ANY claim on the note or mortgage that was signed at “closing.”

Like the NY York decisions recently reported quiet title is another way to invalidate the mortgage and extinguish the note and any right to enforce it.

CAUTION: “PRODUCE THE NOTE: It’s a valid strategy but it offends the sensibilities of many judges. If THAT is the focus of your attack or defense, then you are rolling the dice on ONE thing when there are many arrows in your quiver. Many Judges have held, contrary to the rules of evidence, that merely being unable to produce the original note is NOT a reason to stop the foreclosure. Legally it can be argued this is wrong. I think it is flawed legal reasoning. But the other side is that “just because the “lender” was sloppy in its record keeping does not mean the homeowner should get away scott free. ” Actually, legally, I think it DOES mean that and that Charney is right. But I think you need to couple your argument with why this is a matter of substance and not just procedure or legal sleight of hand.

The reason why many Judges HAVE applied the evidentiary rules regarding production of the note is that there could be someone else holding it with a greater right to enforce it than the pretender lender who is trying to foreclose. And in fact (with the help of a forensic analyst to assist as an expert) the securitization process multiple parties who COULD have the actual original note in their position and/or who COULD be parties with a superior legal right to be paid on the note —because THEY are the ones who actually advanced the money for the loan or they advanced the money to third parties who advanced the money to fund the loan.

Lawyer’s foreclosure defense of ‘quiet title’ faces tests

Jacksonville Business Journal – by Kimberly Morrison

April Charney of Jacksonville Area Legal Aid.

The house at 12920 Mt. Pleasant Road is a modest ranch-style home. The man in it is John McCampbell, a 61-year-old car mechanic who lives with his two children and fiancée.
He took out a $156,000 mortgage from the now-defunct Washington Mutual, which foreclosed on his home in 2004 after he lost his job. But when the lender was unable to produce the deed to prove it had a right to foreclose, McCampbell beat the foreclosure and remains there today.
Now McCampbell and his Fort Caroline home are poised to make history in foreclosure defense with an experimental legal approach that would wipe out his mortgage debt and hand him a clean deed. It’s called a “quiet title,” where the court establishes a party’s title to the property to remove or “quiet” any challenges or claims to it.
It sounds like an impossible endeavour. But April Charney, a Jacksonville Area Legal Aid attorney, has spent the past four years teaching lawyers across the country the legal framework of this foreclosure defense. With an average of 3,000 foreclosures filed every month in Jacksonville alone, there’s no shortage of lawyers tapping her expertise.
“It’s an exceptionally layered, nuanced practice of law, but right now a very productive one,” Charney said recently after her latest sold-out seminar in Jacksonville.
Bankers counter that Charney is taking advantage of a legal technicality.
Anthony DiMarco, executive vice president of governmental affairs for the Florida Bankers Association, said errors on assignments are not tantamount to a person not being responsible for their mortgage.
“When you are doing lots and lots of anything — and there were lots of these loans written — there are human beings involved and there were mistakes along the way just like anything else,” DiMarco said.

‘Show me the note’

Before asking the court to quiet a title, a foreclosure must be dormant for five years. That brings Charney to a critical juncture in many of her early cases where the five years is at or near its expiration. She’ll be seeking multiple quiet titles in 2010, including one for McCampbell, her client.
Charney is a national authority on foreclosure defense, and a driving force behind what is often called the “show me the note” movement making its way through jurisdictions across the country. The strategy is crippling lenders’ ability to foreclose on homes when they are not able to produce the note as evidence of their right to bring a foreclosure.
At the crux of her argument is the very loan itself, securitized loans that became commonplace in the late 1990s, and quickly dominated mortgage lending practice.
Mortgage securitization is the process of bundling home loans into securities and selling them to investors. Mortgage servicers collect monthly payments and distribute them to securities investors.
But Charney said the critical error was that the originating lenders systematically pledged the loans, and didn’t actually transfer them to the trusts that are supposed to hold them and issue the securities. The result is a paper trail that goes nowhere, and a reasonably successful legal strategy.

‘A red herring’

A secondary snag in lenders’ ability to obtain a foreclosure is the physical note, or lack thereof. The Florida Bankers Association testified to the Supreme Court task force on residential mortgage foreclosure that originals were “deliberately eliminated to avoid confusion” when entered into an electronic format. The problem with that is the court requires an original.
Ownership transfers after the foreclosure has been assigned, copies of notes and false signatures have been argued to amount to fraud.
“The ‘produce the note’ argument is really a red herring,” said Chip Parker, a Jacksonville foreclosure defense attorney. “The note is often produced at some point in the litigation, but the real problem is, how did they get it? When did they get it? And did the transfer of ownership comport with federal and Florida law for the transfer of such negotiable instruments?”
In cases that are dismissed based on these arguments, foreclosure defense attorneys said lenders aren’t as eager to re-file the case.

“There is some sloppiness, and what used to be tolerated by the courts is no longer being tolerated because the judges are starting to see the effect of sloppy pleading,” Parker said.

A slippery slope?

Lenders bringing foreclosures and attorneys defending them both claim to be on the side of their communities. Lawyers said the best thing for neighborhood stability and property values is to keep people in their homes. Bankers have a different approach.
“The best thing is to get through the foreclosure as quickly as you can,” DiMarco said. “The faster you can get through a foreclosure process, the faster we can get it sold and in the hands of someone who can get to be a contributing member of the community.”
DiMarco maintained that lenders are doing everything they can to work with homeowners and avoid a money-losing foreclosure, but took notice of a new phenomenon in the housing market — strategic foreclosures on the part of consumers. With courts backed up, mortgages upside down and banks more timid about foreclosing, some consumers who can pay are opting not to.
Lawyers don’t advise those who can afford to make their mortgage payments to stop in hopes they can get a free house out of it, and aren’t convinced that their tactics could provide an incentive for people to intentionally enter foreclosure. They point out that these are long, hard-fought battles that destroy credit.
Lawyers recognize that there must be some end other than a country full of ownerless and free homes. Charney is fiercely advocating a federal intervention, which bankers similarly see as the only reasonable solution.
“I had the vice president of a big mortgage company ask me, ‘What you’re doing here — do you understand what’s going to happen? You’re going to destroy the country. And if you don’t stop, we’re just going to go to Congress and get the laws changed.’ ” said Max Gardner III, a Shelby, N.C.-based bankruptcy attorney who also teaches foreclosure defense. “And my response is, ‘We have some changes we’d like to make, too.’ ”
kmorrison@bizjournals.com | 265-2218

Jose L. Semidey

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,312 other followers

%d bloggers like this: