FREE Information, Resources and Help with Your Mortgage Loans – Over 13,000,000 Visitors

WELCOME TO LIVINGLIES

ABOUT LIVINGLIES AND LENDINGLIES

CONTACT US: Free and private REGISTRATION FORM

VIDEO: How To Use the TERA Report by LendingLies.com

**************************

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

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

*******************************

About Neil F Garfield

Schedule Private Consultation

Purchase Services and Products

Submit Case Interview Form – Receive Customized Recommended Services

Q & A – What can you do for me?

Contact Information:

GTC Honors, Inc.

Phone: 954-451-1230

Email: info@lendinglies.com

Services include: Expert Consultation Services, Strategy, Qualified Written Requests, Case Review and Reports, Forensic Analysis Referrals, Discovery , Motions, Pleadings, Complaints to AF and CFPB, Title and Encumbrance Analysis, and Case Analysis. We coach lawyers and pro se litigants. ALL 50 STATES.

MISSION STATEMENT: I believe that the mortgage crisis has produced manifest evil and injustice in our society. Pretenders with more money and more lawyers than any consumer or borrower are stealing homes from homeowners while they undermine the investments by  Pensions Funds.

LivingLies is the vehicle for a collaborative movement to provide homeowners with sufficient forensic and legal resources to combat banks who are using fictitious names and entities to cover up their malfeasance.

We provide thousands of pages of free forms, articles and discussion of statutes, case precedent and policy on this site. On www.lendinglies.com I provide paid crucial analytic and presentation services, books and products that enable lawyers and homeowners to confront the lies in attempted foreclosures.

Ask about our CONSULTATION SERVICES and LITIGATION SUPPORT.

Educate Yourself and Your Lawyer: Read this Blog and Purchase Books & Services from www.lendinglies.com

TONIGHT! CitiGroup — Unrelenting Concealment and UN Accountability

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the EAST COAST Neil Garfield Show

with Neil F Garfield

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

WHAT IF IT IS A CONSPIRACY AND IT’S NO THEORY?

Citi companies, as Elizabeth Warren has pointed out a number of times, deserves to be broken up into little tiny inconsequential pieces. The presence of the name “CitiMortgage”) without any entity directly tied to it, has led to direct malfeasance and corruption even in Florida courts. “CitiMortgage” is named by foreclosure mill attorneys as the “Plaintiff.” And Citi subsidiaries pass around the mortgage as though it was a plate of hors d’oeuvres. As one perceptive reader just pointed out to me, “Do you really think that those companies each paid for the debt every time there was a paper transfer?” No I don’t. And the skulduggery perpetrated by Citi that I have personally witnessed is maddening — especially in counties that are corrupt.

Here is some of what I will be talking about this evening on the radio show:

Amongst all of the reported names associated with Citi, one name that travels under the banner of the Citi logo does not appear — CitiMortgage. I invite anyone to update me with me information. The oddity here is that “CitiMortgage” is the name asserted by lawyers (foreclosure mills) in Florida and elsewhere as the Plaintiff.
Citibank is the consumer division of financial services multinational Citigroup. Citibank was founded in 1812 as the City Bank of New York, later First National City Bank of New York. The United States is the largest single market with approximately 26% of branches, generating 51% of revenues. Citibank’s 983 North American branches are concentrated in major metropolitan areas including New York CityChicagoLos AngelesSan FranciscoWashington, D.C., and Miami. Latin America markets make up 25% of revenues, Asia 20%, and Europe / Middle East / Africa 4%.[1]
In addition to standard banking transactions, Citibank markets insurance, credit cards, and investment products. Their online services division is among the most successful in the field,[2] claiming about 15 million users.
As a result of the global financial crisis of 2008–2009 and huge losses in the value of its subprime mortgage assets, Citibank was bailed out by aid from the U.S. government. On November 23, 2008, in addition to initial aid of $25 billion, a further $25 billion was invested in the corporation together with guarantees for risky assets amounting to $306 billion.[3] Since this time, Citibank has repaid its government loans in full,[4] resulting in a net profit for the U.S. government.
{If they really lost so much money how  did they pay all that back so soon? My opinion is that the claimed losses by the largest banks (Citi, Chase, Wells, and BofA) were overstated in order to divert attention from the fact that they had converted the wealth of investors to their pockets and had suffered no real losses.}
According to the Citigroup website, until October 2006, Citibank ran the following subsidiaries:
  • Citibank, N.A.(National Association) – The “original” Citibank, primarily doing business in New York State and the tri-state New York metropolitan area. Also the parent company of the other subsidiaries.[27]
  • Citibank Canada – One of Canada’s longest-serving foreign banks, currently with 3,400 employees from coast to coast.
  • Citibank Texas, N.A. – The former First American bank.[27]
  • Citibank (West), F.S.B. – The former Citicorp Savings (a savings and loan operating in California), as well as the former California Federal Bank and Golden State Bank.[27]
  • Citibank, F.S.B. – The primary Citibank subsidiary serving all other states, based in Chicago.[27]
  • Citibank Banamex USA – Formally California Commerce Bank, Banamex’s U.S. banking division.
  • Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. – A credit card and lending-only bank based in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, including the former Associates National Bank.
  • Universal Financial Corp. – A credit card bank, purchased in 1997, that manages the AT&T Universal Card.
On October 1, 2006, a massive re-structuring designed to streamline the various Citibank banking charters occurred. Citibank, N.A. absorbed the following divisions, with its headquarters for FDIC purposes being its Paradise Road Las Vegas, Nevadabranch.
  • Citibank, FSB
  • Citibank (West), FSB
  • Citibank, Texas, N.A.
  • Citibank Delaware
  • Citibank Banamex USA
  • Citicorp Trust, N.A. (California)
The following divisions were consolidated into Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., with its headquarters for FDIC purposes being in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
  • Citibank, Nevada, N.A.
  • Citibank USA, N.A.
  • Universal Financial Corp.
  • Citibank South Dakota, FSB
On March 29, 2011, Citibank, N.A. and Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. announced their intentions to further consolidate their banking charters by announcing a merger[28] which was finalized on July 1, 2011.[29] The surviving FDIC charter was that of Citibank, N.A. which, as part of the merger, moved its headquarters to that of Citibank (South Dakota), N.A.’s in Sioux Falls.

What I tell Prospective Clients

I had a request today from someone who apparently has an 8-10 year old case in which the property has been ordered sold but the sale has not yet occurred. The fact that the case has been lingering for so long is enough to tell me that the alleged “loan” was most likely subject to false claims of securitization or sales into the secondary market when in fact it was involuntarily funded by investors.

So I figure I’ll share my response, since it is the answer to many other questions I receive.

FIRST OF ALL IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU MAY BE UNDER A DEADLINE TO TAKE ACTION IN WHICH CASE YOU NEED IMMEDIATE REPRESENTATION BY COMPETENT TRIAL COUNSEL. ONLY A COURT ORDER WILL STOP THE SALE. SUCH ORDERS ARE ENTERED BY TRIAL JUDGES, SOMETIMES APPELLATE COURTS (RARELY) AND BY BANKRUPTCY COURTS UPON FILING THE PETITION (UNLESS BARRED FROM RE-FILING).

It sounds like you have sufficient funds available to confront and hopefully repel the foreclosure by what is most likely a fraudulent actor. The question about whether to use those funds or simply move on with your life is a personal decision. For those people and lawyers who follow my guidance, they win judgments for the homeowner more than they fail. For those people who try to use magic bullets they have read on the internet, the odds are much worse.

For starters you should fill out our Registration Form to provide us with basic information about the you and the property.

CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT REGISTRATION

After nearly 42 years of trial work I rarely make court appearances. I also am not licensed in Connecticut which means I cannot represent you without local counsel involved. As a licensed attorney in Florida State and Federal Courts I have certain reciprocal rights, such as in Washington DC and other places. So in all events it is with utmost urgency that I recommend that you find a local lawyer who will represent you and who is good at trial practice even if they know nothing about foreclosures. In fact, it seems that knowing nothing about foreclosures is preferable because those lawyers who know a little have arrived at the wrong conclusions and followed the wrong strategies.

If a lawyer is not willing to accept the possibility that the entire foreclosure and the entire loan are a sham perpetrated as fraud on borrowers and the courts, then they can only act as placeholders while you try to bargain your way into a modification with actors who have no interest in the proceeds of a foreclosure sale and no interest obviously, in the debt. The proceeds of foreclosure sales do not end up in the hands of either investors or the so-called REMIC Trusts, most of which have no legal existence, much less ownership of the debt, note or mortgage or, for that matter, even a bank account.

If a sale has already been ordered or scheduled, then you must know what to look for when the sale is “complete.” In most of these cases neither the deed nor the proceeds of sale when the property is liquidated go to the same party who brought the action for foreclosure. That is the first red flag. A credit bid submitted by a party who does not own the debt is barred from acceptance by law in most states. They may have won the case but the fight isn’t over. The owner of the debt must submit a credit bid along with transfer of the rights under the court judgement or order.

Usually there is some attempt to disguise this reality by recording or filing other documents that imply that some transaction took place, after the foreclosure judgment or order in which the rights to the proceeds were transferred from the name used to identify the party as the claimant in the foreclosure to another name. Where a trust has not been introduced into the mix it is still highly likely that the debt, note and mortgage are subject to claims of securitization.

In all events you can bet that no transaction after the court battle ever occurred and therefore no debt was transferred because the party named as claimant did not own the debt when they started the foreclosure process.

So the way to start is by our accumulating enough information and analysis that I can know what I am talking about when you order a CONSULT.

The usual way we approach this is by starting with the TERA report, then do the Preliminary Document Review (PDR) which includes a 30 minute consult. If litigation has only just begun you can select the BASIC PDR + Consult. But in most cases you need to at least order the PDR PLUS + Consult. We will open a folder on our ftp server on Box.com so you can upload your documents.

Understand that in preparation for the CONSULT we are only reviewing the documents for context and not performing a full case analysis.

CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA

CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR PLUS + Consult)

CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not if you ordered the PDR)
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS (not yet if you haven’t done the TERA and PDR, unless you have equivalent from a third party). It’s in the case analysis where I give specific guidance on strategy and tactics.
THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE UPON WHICH YOU CAN DEPEND. ANY REPRESENTATION OF SUPERIOR KNOWLEDGE ON MY PART IS AS AN EXPERT WITNESS IN BANKING AND THE SECURITIZATION OF DEBT. ONLY A COURT ORDER WILL STOP A FORECLOSURE SALE. NO REPORT WILL STOP IT.

U.S. Sues UBS for Fraudulent Sales of RMBS But Still Manages to Get It Wrong

The bottom line is that the loans themselves were fatally defective in terms of the loan documents. The money was delivered but not by the named “lender” nor anyone in privity with the named lender. At all times nearly all of the loans were in actuality involuntary direct loans from investors who had no knowledge their money was being used to originate loans without any semblance of due diligence.

All the other parties were conduits and brokers for conduits. None of them were brokers for a plan of investment to which investors agreed. and all of them were based upon fraudulent inflated appraisals.

In equity, as I have repeatedly said, the debt, regardless of to whom it is owed, should be reduced by the excess appraisal amount, a fact that ought to be presumed when anyone attempts to bring an action in collection or foreclosure.

This is because the source of the loan, regardless of who it might be in actuality, assumed the risk of loss associated with affordability and most importantly the risk from a false inflated appraisal. Licensed appraisers warned congress as early as 2005 when 8,000 of them petitioned Congress to do something about them being forced to either bring in false appraisals or not get any work at all.

Contrary to popular myth there is no such responsibility for borrowers to figure out if they really can afford the loan or if the appraisal is accurate. That is the state of the law under the Truth in Lending Act. The “conventional wisdom” that home buyers and borrowers don’t need a lawyer or a financial adviser on the largest investment of their lives leaves a vacuum where consumers are entirely at the mercy of predatory and fraudulent operators like Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Citi, Chase, US Bank, Deutsch, and others.

“Don’t bother getting a lawyer. Save your money. They can’t change anything anyway.” That is the catch phrase used to make certain that the fraud being perpetrated on consumers will not be revealed until it is too late and the courts presume that the fraud never occurred (or that if it did occur, it’s somehow too late to complain about it).

Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.

I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM. A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.

PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

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

Hat tip to Dan Edstrom

see United States vs UBS

see https://dtc-systems.com/us-sues-ubs-to-recover-penalties-for-fraud-in-the-sale-of-rmbs-securities/

So once again the Federal government sues a major bank for fraud and corruption causing “catastrophic” damages to investors and fails to mention any losses to homeowners. Piling the entire loss on the backs of homeowners is the third rail. Nobody touches that because of the erroneous perception that the rule of law is contrary to public policy. That may come as something as surprise to those of you who thought we were a nation of laws and not public policy decided behind closed doors.
*
The successful myth perpetrated by the banks is that since borrowers stopped paying the wrong people on their loan, that they should nevertheless  be held liable and lose their home to the wrong people because otherwise (a) borrowers would get a free house and (b) applying the rule of law would undermine the financial system. Both the premise and result are contrary to good sense and our existing laws. The courts generally twist themselves into pretzels to avoid the law and arrive at the public policy result rather than the legal one.
*
Everyone is willing to accept that the entire securitization process was a gigantic process to perpetrate fraud and, as some lawyers who resigned rather than draft securitization documents, part of a “criminal enterprise.” But somehow the victims are only investors who are still called “beneficiaries” even though it is well established that the trusts named in foreclosure lawsuits never participated in a single business transaction and were neither organized nor existing under the law of any jurisdiction, much less the owner of loans..
*
Once again the suit fails to state that the loans were at best problematic in the sense that transactions utilizing undisclosed third party money compromised the efficacy of the loan closing documents.
*

And once again it doesn’t say that the securitization plan itself was fraudulent in that the entities represented as owning the loans did not exist and/or did not own the loans. It also doesn’t say that the use of fraudulent inflated appraisals (a) hurt homeowner and and that therefore (b) UBS lured investors into an investment plan fraught with liabilities.

Nor does the new lawsuit say that investors were promised that their interests would be remote enough to avoid liability for lending violations and bankruptcies of the originators but in fact the money from investors was directly used in the loans and did not go through the alleged “Trusts” that were supposedly purchasing loan portfolios from aggregators who in fact had no interest in the loans and were merely conduits for a paper chain bearing no relationship to the money trail.
*
But it does hint at what the banks were doing. The review of the loans by UBS was simply a sampling and that sampling, was in fact a method of picking low hanging fruit to serve as benchmarks. From that false process of sampling, UBS hoped to avoid liability for mischaracterizing the real defects in the securitization process. In other words they were using their cherry-picked samples to describe the entire “loan portfolio” which in fact was neither owned nor conveyed to the special purpose vehicle (REMIC Trust) that was created (on paper only).
*
You may remember that in my seminar in Malibu in 2008, I described this process as covering a pile of dogshit with gold plating. In the end it is still almost entirely dogshit.
*
Thus we have revealed the unwillingness of Federal law enforcement to get to the real issue, which would in fact protect both investors and homeowners — the fraudulent nature of the loans themselves, the fraudulent nature of the so-called loan portfolios, and the fraudulent enforcement of documents that fraudulently named the wrong party as the lender and are fraudulently brought to courts on a mass basis for fraudulent enforcement that keeps adding to the pain  and anger of Americans who continue to suffer from the discard of the rule of law in favor of “public policy.”

CURRENT STATUS OF TILA RESCISSION AND ITS APPLICATION TO PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE FORECLOSURES

Ultimately there will be recognition that the courts are vetoing legislation passed by congress simply because the judges disagree or are afraid of the consequences if they were to apply the law. Congress wrote it, passed it, and it was signed into law. In a nation governed by the rule of law there can be no space for exceptions. This is a violation of the most basic tenet of the US Constitution — division of governance into three co-equal branches of government. The courts are required under law to follow the law. Eventually the chickens are going to come home. How and when that will happen remains unclear.

I am of the opinion that an action should be brought to SCOTUS, using perhaps some non-traditional approaches for original jurisdiction to demand a remedy, to wit: vacating all orders, judgments and actions taken to enforce the void note and mortgage after rescission has been sent. The failure of the creditors to contest the rescissions should not be the basis for ignoring or invalidating the express wording of the statute.

Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.

I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM. A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.

PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

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

Here is the current status of TILA Rescission.
*
Despite the clear wording of the statute and the clear wording of a unanimous Supreme Court decision, lawyers and judges continue to erroneously “read in” conditions to rescission under 15 USC §1635. They were told not to do that by SCOTUS in Jesinoski but they continue to do it.
*
The practical effect is that judges are not following the law and therefore ruling in ways that basically ignore the TILA rescission.
*
According to both statutory and case law, no lawsuit, no tender, no condition of any kind and of any nature is written in the statute and SCOTUS says the wording is clear and unambiguous and therefore nobody can read any conditions into the procedures set forth by the TILA Rescission statute. In Jesinoski SCOTUS unanimously said that no lawsuit and no tender was required. Tender is NOT required UNTIL the so-called lender complies with the three statutory duties set forth in the TILA Rescission Statute. In Jesinoski the Supreme Court expressly stated that it was ruling on WHEN the rescission was effective by operation of law. The Court expressly ruled that this was a procedural statute. It provides nonjudicial relief to borrowers just like many states provide nonjudicial relief to lenders.
*
In an abundance of caution, I have been advising my clients to raise the issue but realize that virtually no court in the land, state or federal is going to say that the note and mortgage is void unless they are reversed by an appellate court — and the appellate courts have been doing the same thing as the trial courts. You probably don’t need that to preserve the issue because it is jurisdictional.
*
By law, the rescission statute acts as a cancelation and release of the mortgage encumbrance because that is what the law says. If the note and mortgage are in fact void by operation of law then everything that comes after that is void.
*
But if the courts refuse to apply that law because they have decided they don’t like the result then your notice of rescission will not get you any relief until SCOTUS, in a decision like Countrywide v Jesinoski, explicitly tells all the lower courts to stop pretending they can interpret the statute.
*
Such a decision will only be effective if the court spells out that  rescission is and has been effective by operation of law upon delivery and that no other conditions apply. It can attacked on any number of grounds but the so-called lenders must do so within 20 days or they are time barred. And if they maintain that position for one year, they lose the right to enforce the debt, in addition to the their previous loss of the right to enforce the void note and void mortgage.
*
Bottom line: the lawyer who says that tender is required before rescission is effective is wrong on the law but right as to the practical result. In fact any lawyer who advises clients about the weakness of any position based upon TILA Rescission is wrong on the law but right as to the practical effect.
*
Ultimately the system is going to need to deal with the the consequences of rebelling against the clear pronouncements of law from the US Congress and the US supreme Court. There is absolutely no question that millions of foreclosures have proceeded without jurisdiction because the note and mortgage were void as a result of delivery of TILA Rescission. In many cases they were actually recorded in the chain of title. Decisions and actions taken without jurisdiction to do so are void according to all statutory law, common law and rules of civil procedure as required by the US Constitution.
*
In my opinion that means that all homeowners who were deprived of clear title to their homes through foreclosure after sending a notice of rescission, still own their property. Lawyers for the banks were repeatedly told to ignore rescission at their own peril. They did it anyway.
*
Ultimately there will be recognition that the courts are vetoing legislation passed by congress simply because the judges disagree or are afraid of the consequences if they were to apply the law. This is a violation of the most basic tenet of the US Constitution — division of governance into three co-equal branches of government. The courts are required under law to follow the law. Eventually the chickens are going to come home. How and when that will happen remains unclear.

TONIGHT! “So what? What is the Harm?” The Neil Garfield Show 6pm EST

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the WEST COAST Neil Garfield Show

with Charles Marshall and Bill Paatalo

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

Judges and most lawyers think that just because they can’t think of any harm being done to homeowners by fraudulent foreclosures that there isn’t any harm. They are wrong. The question itself demonstrates bias and disregard for the laws under which we live. It rewards those who violate those laws. Charles Marshall and Bill Paatalo join together to talk about this and related subjects tonight on the West Coast Edition of the Neil Garfield Show.

Yes listeners well know that it is continuing the mantra of judges all around the nation in non-judicial and judicial foreclosure cases alike: Where is the Harm? to you the ‘borrower’. Well one judge did find great harm to a party subject to a judicial foreclosure in Florida, in the case of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Riley, which case we have discussed previously on the Show. See Neil’s blog post for details. Bottom line in this case the Judge found Wells Fargo had unclean hands in their behavior, and so could not proceed with the foreclosure.

As for addressing with a wider scope the issue of harm to ‘borrowers’ in these situations, the following types of harm are typical and often ongoing:

– Not getting a true accounting of the amount of money still owing on the alleged debt, and a proper showing of the real creditor to whom any payments are to be made;

– Not having the ability to finally reconcile the debt with the true holder of the debt; – Having an entity report to credit agencies that I am supposedly in default on a mortgage loan, where the particulars of who I owe the money to and the amount of money at issue are finessed or outright misrepresented;

– Not having the ability to alienate, that is sell or even rent my property, without the chain of title be a chaotic mess which cannot be properly explained to potential third-party purchasers or renters;

– Being subject to continual foreclosure proceedings, threatening me with eviction, when the party pushing an auction sale and subsequent eviction has little incentive to negotiate a resolution with me if they don’t in fact hold the debt they harass me over.

  • suicides
  • divorces
  • emotional distress
  • health issues

Wells Fargo Scams Continue Unabated — According to Their Own Reports

The take-away is that modifications are a scam to either steal the loan or force homeowners into foreclosure. If the modification is seen as completed, the loan has been stolen  because the creditor has become a new and different party than anyone in the chain of title to the mortgage deed. If the modification is denied it is because they have never submitted it to any owner of the debt or their authorized representative and they are forcing homeowners into foreclosure, bankruptcy or both.

The most common Wells Fargo scam I encounter is not written about because it is only dimly understood by most and rarely discovered. At the start of foreclosure WFB appears as beneficiary under the deed of trust or mortgagee under the mortgage deed. At the far end of the timeline, when nobody is examining documents anymore, WFB reveals itself to be a servicer acting for an undisclosed party which is also a conduit for undisclosed owners of the debt, note and mortgage.

In the latest iteration of this pattern of conduct I see that — after the foreclosure sale by an unauthorized trustee acting on behalf of WFB falsely claiming to be the beneficiary under a deed of trust (as falsely represented to the court by an attorney who has no idea if the representation is true or false) — Premiere Asset Service (PAS) shows up as the DBA (Fictitious name) of WFB who is “now servicing the property.”

I know of dozens of cases where WFB is named as the creditor and then later, often in trial, admits to being a servicer on behalf of government sponsored entity (like Fannie Mae), who was the “original investor,” they say, for a loan originated by a nonexistent entity.

Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.

I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM. A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.

PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

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

see Wells Fargo SCams Homeowners Denying Approved Modifications

Fundamentals of Foreclosure

Probably the biggest mistake and most common mistake I ever made as a lawyer was by assuming certain things at the very beginning of a case. No case is more dangerous ground for assumptions than foreclosures.

Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.

I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM. A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.

PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

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

WHAT TO KEEP IN MIND:
When a lawsuit is filed or nonjudicial foreclosure is initiated, the party bringing the claim always has the burden of proving the legal elements of the claim. Such a party must prove that it has the right to make the claim (standing) in addition to establishing the elements of a cause of action. A party only has the right to make a claim (i.e., the court only has jurisdiction) if the the claiming party has been injured in some way by the Defendant or homeowner, in the case of foreclosures. The claiming party must identify itself and allege that it exists and is otherwise sui juris (able to make a claim under state law). In foreclosures, this element is nearly always misrepresented.
*
In foreclosure cases the claim is always the same — the involuntary sale of the subject property. The elements to be proven by the claimant, in addition to its legal existence, are that it is injured by nonpayment. The claimant can also allege that it is bringing the action on behalf of the party injured if it identifies the [arty with sufficient specificity such that the homeowner can seek to confirm whether the agency relationship exists. Otherwise the right to cross examine witnesses, guaranteed under the 6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is violated. In the courts this has been a weak spot for judges who simply assume that the named claimant exists and was injured by the homeowner’s alleged non payment. Aggressive advocacy is required to redirect the court’s attention to basic, fundamental elements of lawsuits and nonjudicial foreclosures.
*
If the claimant has proved a prima facie case the burden of proof shifts to the homeowner. Without proof that is accepted into evidence by the Judge, the court is merely presuming facts rather than finding them by weight of the evidence. The common practice is for the claimant to invoke legal presumptions arising from the apparent facial validity of an instrument. But the courts go too far in using such presumptions in also presuming that every word on the document is also valid and true. Again aggressive advocacy is required to redirect the court’s attention.
*
Without the presumptions it is most likely impossible for the claimant to prove a case on its own behalf much less for any third party. Frequently the claimant does not legally exist (REMIC Trust) and thus is not sui juris and has no place being referred to as claimant in either judicial or nonjudicial foreclosures.
*
The usual pattern is that the name of an entity is asserted and implied to be a trust without stating where it was formed, under what jurisdiction, and whether it still exists, and if so, where it exists. Normally the address would be the same as the Trustee but this is not the case with REMIC Trusts; this is because the rules for domicile of a business entity require its place of business to be where it does business and maintains activities that are administered by the trustee. But if no business activity is conducted by the Trust it is usually because there is nothing that has been entrusted to the named Trustee to actively administer on behalf of the beneficiaries of a trust. If there is nothing in trust then there is no trust and the trust allegation must be ignored.
*
To avoid the overuse of legal presumptions, homeowners (by and through their counsel) must “prove” a narrative that contradicts the facts that are presumed. The burden of proof however is much lower than proving a case or a defense. It is more akin to a probable cause finding or even less.
*
The narrative must raise serious and credible issues under which the facts at trial might be found that are inconsistent with the facts that the claimant is presuming. The court would then ignore the legal presumptions and require the claimant to prove their case with facts rather than presumptions.
*
Documents that contain inconsistencies with each other or even within the same document are the most likely sources of a credible narrative under which the actual facts  found at trial might differ from the facts that the claimant seeks to be presumed. In virtually all foreclosure cases where the claimant is forced to prove the facts rather than being allowed to rely on preemptions, our observation is that the case is settled under seal of confidentiality.
%d bloggers like this: