Information, Resources and Help with Your Mortgage Loans – Over 11,500,000 Visitors

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

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

MAIN NUMBER: 202-838-NEIL (6345).

Get a Consult!

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule, leave message or make payments.

Our Services:  https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/what-can-you-do-for-me-an-overview-of-services-offered-by-neil-garfield/

Register for Consultation here: https://live.vcita.com/site/lendinglies

Have a Foreclosure Question? Get an answer NOW with the Foreclosure Information Service $49: https://live.vcita.com/site/lendinglies

Fill out our FREE registration form at https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1453992450583

MISSION STATEMENT: I believe that the mortgage crisis has produced manifest evil and injustice in our society. I believe our recovery will never reach the majority of struggling Americans until we restore equal protection for all citizens and especially borrowers in our debt-ridden society. LivingLies is the vehicle for a collaborative movement to provide homeowners with sufficient resources to combat bloated banks who are flooding the political market with money. We provide thousands of pages of free forms, articles and discussion of statutes, case precedent and policy on this site. And we provide paid services, books and products that enable us to maintain an infrastructure to provide a voice to the victims of Wall Street corruption.

MAIN NUMBER: 202-838-NEIL (6345).

Ask about our CONSULTATION SERVICES and LITIGATION SUPPORT.

Case reviews by Neil Garfield available. Litigation and Expert Consulting in all fifty states.

Educate Yourself and Your Lawyer: Read this Blog and Purchase Books & Services from our Online Store

  • GET A CONSULT WITH NEIL GARFIELD
  • GET A REVIEW AND REPORT ON STATUS AND STRATEGIES
  • GET our Rescission Package
  • GET Litigation support
  • Get our COMBO Title and Securitization Report
  • FREE! Select recent articles from the right side of this page!

RECOMMENDED READING:

WHOSE LIEN IS IT ANYWAY? by Neil F Garfield. E-Book available on our online store.

CHAIN OF TITLE by David Dayen. Available on Amazon

LISTEN LIBERALS! by Thomas Frank. Available on Amazon and Kindle.

Pretender Lenders: How Tablefunding and Securitization Go Hand in Hand” By William Paatalo and Kimberly Cromwell. CLICK: http://infotofightforeclosure.com/tools-store/ebooks-and-services/?ap_id_102

Expert Testimony and Expert Reports

Homeowners are dismayed and even claim court bias when the report of a self-proclaimed expert is barred from evidence. Or they become equally incensed when the court allows the report into evidence but gives it zero weight in rendering a decision. But the court is, to that extent, merely following the rules that govern what Judges should or should not do.

Get a consult! 202-838-6345

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.
 
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-
It goes without saying that any report that has not been read and any testimony that has not been heard will be disregarded as a practical matter and in many cases as a legal matter. The Internet has been awash in offers of “magic bullet” analyses and reports that either directly or indirectly make the false promise of relief from foreclosure. Nearly all of the forensic analysts are self-proclaimed, unlicensed in any field requiring a license, inexperienced and untrained. What they are seem to share in common is the hope or belief that once a Judge lays eyes on the report, the decision will be rendered swiftly in favor of the homeowner.
 *
Forensic analysis can theoretically be performed by anyone, which of course means that they are predominantly worthless even in their inception. Most analysts are looking for the wrong things and/or looking for things that are irrelevant and/or looking for things that will not be admitted into court record as evidence. Even an unopposed expert declaration or affidavit will either not be admitted into evidence by written report or oral testimony if it is delivered by such analysts. Homeowners are dismayed and even claim court bias when the report of a self-proclaimed expert is barred from evidence. Or they become equally incensed when the court allows the report into evidence but gives it zero weight in rendering a decision. But the court is, to that extent, merely following the rules that govern what Judges should or should not do.
 *
The one thing in which most “successful” forensic analysts excel is selling. They tell homeowners what they want to hear when they need to hear it. It’s akin to imbibing a libation or drug to take the edge off for the moment but it doesn’t change a thing.
 *
So let’s go to the other end of the spectrum. Does it matter if the analyst is unlicensed? NO. But if the analyst is unlicensed he or she will need to spend a lot more time giving testimony about how they acquired their expertise and how their work is based upon established frameworks of prior work in teases and other sources — and not merely a theory in their own head.
 *
But the interesting thing is that when such experts do survive the challenges under Daubert or Frye (see below) the seemingly less qualified analyst frequently is able to explain to the court how he or she arrived at an opinion and then explains both the opinion and the basis of the opinion in clearer language than most “qualified” experts with far superior credentials.
 *
Further the Banks’ Ostrich Strategy appears to have been working for the last 10 years. After tens of thousands of reports and expert declarations have been filed or served on behalf of homeowners, there are no reported instances in which an expert from the banks or servicers ever filed an affidavit or declaration in opposition to the experts who execute expert declarations for the homeowners. In fact, there are few instances in which the “expert” is even deposed, which thus removes the ability of the banks to challenge the expert. The end result has been that expert testimony is nearly always discounted or completely ignored. I the banks ignore it in litigation then so does the court.
 *
But the unwillingness to make an issue of the expert declarations filed by homeowners may well have a downside, especially as more and more Motions for Summary Judgment are filed. As the courts are gradually changing course to consider the possibility that homeowners should win and that banks should lose, the time has come to file a motion for partial summary judgment on issues specifically raised and supported in a properly drafted expert declaration.
 *
In the absence of an opposing affidavit, the court has little choice but to take the assertions as true as stated in the expert declaration for the homeowner. That leaves only the legal argument of whether the homeowner is entitled to the entry of summary judgment on the issues raised, inasmuch as the homeowner has effectively eliminated the issue or issues to be heard at trial.
 *
For example suppose the expert’s opinion is that the trust was never funded, that the trust has no legal authority to administer the alleged loan because the loan was not in the trust, and that the trust therefore could never have purchased the debt or the note or the mortgage, and that the “servicer” appointed as servicer in the trust instrument (PSA) has no authority because the property (i.e., the loan) was never transferred into the trust and that the Trustee named in the trust instrument (PSA) also has no power over the subject loan because the trust never purchased the loan, the debt, the note or the mortgage, and perhaps also that the foreclosure is a grand illusion in which the banks and servicers are completing a scheme of civil theft of the investors’ money, and perhaps that the debtor-creditor relationship consists of the homeowner and the investors whose identities have been withheld by the banks.
 *
In order to take those conclusions seriously, the court must hear that those conclusions are supported by understandable evidence that is based upon widespread axioms; since the conclusion is counterintuitive, it is important that the declaration be credible.
 *
Hence the expert must bring in corroboration as part of the explanation of the reasoning in the expert declaration. Corroboration could be direct evidence (by the way, hearsay is allowed in expert testimony) or clear deductive reasoning that eliminates anything else as an alternative explanation; (e.g., if the trust had actually entered into a transaction in which it purchased the alleged loan or some part of it, then it would not assert that it was a holder but rather, as is custom and practice in the industry the trust would declare itself to be a holder in due course or the actual owner of the debt (not just the note and mortgage) and would gleefully have proven the purchase by offering a canceled check or wire transfer receipt into evidence).
 *
By elimination of the elements of “good faith” and lack of knowledge of the borrower’s defenses (e.g. lack of consideration, non-merger of debt and note etc.) the only missing element would be that the Trust was not a successor to the original creditor regardless of whether the original creditor(s) was or were victims of theft or the actual payee on the note. Thus the conclusion that the Trust is not a holder in due course and should not be treated as one. And if it was the agent for an actual creditor, the Trust had failed to identify the creditors fro whom it was acting as agent. Note that such an admission would crash the entire trust and its beneficiaries under the weight of several violations of the Internal revenue Code turning all money handled by the “REMIC” into ordinary revenue and income.
==============================
One trick often used to bar such expert testimony is the 11th hour challenge either the day before or during trial. One New Jersey appellate court correctly assessed the situation has revealed in the following article:
Appeals Court Reverses Grant of “11th Hour” Motion to Strike Expert

Parties will frequently seek to strike the opinions offered by their adversaries’ experts as legally insufficient. While there are a variety of bases for such motions—including that the report does not set forth the “whys and wherefores” of the expert’s opinion, or that it does not satisfy other evidentiary rules for its admissibility—the strategic purpose is clearly to weaken or even destroy the opposing party’s case by barring key testimony. These limiting, or in limine, motions typically will be brought just before trial after the expert’s opinions have been discovered and often after the expert has given deposition testimony about the support for the opinion. A recent New Jersey Appellate Division case now seems to suggest that due process requires that (1) such a limiting motion must be made with enough time for the opponent to respond adequately, and (2) the trial judge must conduct a hearing prior to deciding to exclude the challenged expert’s opinions.

The issues arose in a lawsuit over a failed real estate deal, Berman, Sauter, Record & Jardim, P.C. v. Robinson, Dkt. No. A-5650-11T3 (App. Div., Nov. 17, 2016). The plaintiff law firm sued a seller claiming that it wrongfully breached a purchase agreement and caused the law firm’s loss of fees from the deal. The defendant seller then counterclaimed and filed a third-party claim alleging that the plaintiff and third-party defendant law firms had committed legal malpractice by failing to include an express termination clause in the purchase agreement, a claim supported by the opinion of a legal malpractice expert. The plaintiff law firm filed a pre-trial motion to strike the expert’s testimony because the expert did not explain the bases for his legal malpractice conclusion and his testimony was therefore an inadmissible “net opinion.” One week before trial, the pre-trial judge denied that motion “so that the trial judge can hear the testimony and determine whether the expert’s opinions—which seem to set forth the whys and wherefores at least in their reports—were [legally] sufficient[ ] . . .” Because the pretrial judge was not going to be available for the entire trial, a different judge presided over the trial. After jury selection, the trial judge decided to revisit the court’s prior in limine ruling on the expert. Without taking testimony, he concluded the expert had rendered a net opinion and thus excluded the testimony. Because the defendant was left without an expert to support its case, the trial judge also entered an order dismissing the legal malpractice claim and the remainder of the lawsuit quickly settled.

The Appellate Division reversed. The appeals court first noted that the motion to strike the expert was “nothing more than a thinly veiled summary judgment motion” because it essentially was dispositive of the defendant’s claims. The court recognized that the notice provisions for summary judgment motions were meant to satisfy due process by giving parties an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful matter. In addition to failing to provide the 28-day notice required for summary judgment motions, the motion did not give the “one week in advance of trial” notice required for an in limine motion, leaving the defendant with no opportunity to present written opposition. And, because the trial judge had not ruled on the earlier summary judgment motions in the case, he did not have the defendants’ opposition to that motion.

The appeals court held that the trial court should not have granted a motion that was dispositive of the plaintiff’s claim without holding a hearing under Rule 104 of the New Jersey Rules of Evidence. The trial court had decided the motion in a way that was “fundamentally unfair” to the defendant. Fairness required the trial court have conducted a hearing before “barring an expert’s testimony based upon a report, particularly if doing so will be dispositive of a case, when the expert has not had the opportunity to explain his opinions through testimony.” Slip op. at 10. The court left it to the trial court’s discretion whether to conduct the hearing before or during the trial.

The importance of the Berman, Sauter decision is that trial counsel can no longer leave to the last minute in limine motions that seek to exclude expert testimony or any other evidence that could be dispositive of the lawsuit. If trial counsel believes that expert’s opinions are inadmissible, it must give sufficient notice to the court and its adversary—and the Appellate Division suggested that it might not be enough just to comply with the one week notice provision if the in limine motion would have the same effect as a summary judgment motion. Berman, Sauter will make trial judges more likely to order pre-trial hearings when an in limine motion seeks to preclude the expert’s opinions and virtually a certainty if such a motion is made without the expert having given deposition testimony explaining his or her opinions.

Fannie, Freddie Plunge After Court Rules Hedge Funds Can’t Sue

Editor’s Note: Although the hedge funds and investors can’t claw back lost profits, perhaps they can sue on the rampant fraud committed by the GSEs.
Moments ago, the stocks of the nationalized GSEs – Fannies and Freddie – tumbled by over 30%, after a federal appeals court upheld a ruling that barred hedge funds from suing to overturn the U.S. government’s 2012 decision to capture billions of dollars in the profits generated by the mortgage guarantors Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac after their bailout.According to Bloomberg, which first reported the ruling, some Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac investors still have a shot at money damages, based on when they acquired their shares and whether they did so before or after the Federal Housing Finance Agency was created and then imposed its control over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They can pursue breach of contract claims, the appeals panel said in a split 2-1 decision Tuesday.

“It’s a little too early for me to announce what our response will be other than to say what these breach of contract claims were always the central claims in this case,” said Hamish Hume, a Washington-based attorney with Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, who represented some of the prevailing shareholders.

In place since January 2013, the controversial net worth sweep allowed the U.S. to recapture all of the $187 billion in taxpayer money it spent to stave off the companies’ collapse during the global fiscal crisis and as of 2016, at least $56 billion more. All of that without reducing Treasury’s liquidation stake in either firm.

As Bloomberg adds, the court, which included two judges selected by Republican presidents and one picked by a Democrat, heard arguments on April 15. It later allowed additional friend-of-the-court briefs to be filed by allies on each side, solicited still more submissions concerning a jurisdictional question and permitted the investors’ filing of evidence produced in sweep-related cases pending before other courts. Their ruling may yet be subject to U.S. Supreme Court review.

The U.S. Treasury Department press office did not immediately reply to an e-mailed request for comment. David Thompson, an attorney for the suing Fairholme Funds Inc. did not immediately respond to a voice-mail message seeking comment.

The appellate decision follows Fannie Mae’s Nov. 3 report in which it said it made a $3.2 billion profit in the third quarter of 2016, the company’s 19th straight quarterly profit. Those profits were more than the $1.96 billion earned in the same quarter a year earlier. The company had said it would send $3 billion to the Treasury in December, bringing its total payments to $154.4 billion.

 

Two days earlier, the smaller Freddie Mac said it made a $2.3 billion profit during the third quarter of this year and would send the same amount to the U.S.

 

Sweep terms let the companies retain an annually diminishing capital buffer that phases out in 2018, meaning any losses later sustained will require one or both to draw on taxpayer funds.

Meanwhile, some prominent hedge funds investors – most notably Bill Ackman and Richard Perry –  have been actively pushing the government to revert to the GSE status quo, as existed prior to the 2008 bailouts, convinced it would unlock substantial stakeholder value. Today, however, that won’t be the case.

Fannie and Freddie Launch Flex Modification Program: No Paperwork Required in Some Cases

By the Lending Lies Team

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have launched a new loan modification program for troubled mortgages known as “Flex Modification.”  The GSE’s have an issue with rising defaults and questionable paperwork and the Flex Modification allows them to modify the underlying defective “loan” and gloss over the false endorsements, assignments and chain of title issues.  Brilliant!

The new flexible loss mitigation tool is a combination of the impotent HAMP,  the Standard Modification, and the Streamlined Modification, and will replace the trio as early as March 2017.

Loan servicers are beginning to implement the Flex Modification at that time, but will be required to participate starting October 1st, 2017.

The Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) expired at the end of December.

How the Flex Modification Works

It is obvious that Fannie and Freddie are attempting to lure as many homeowners in or near default inot the Flex Modification program.  Unlike the original HAMP modifications that required burdensome amounts of paperwork (that was intentionally lost), the required borrower documentation needed to get a loan modification under this new program is surprisingly minimal.

A major problem with HAMP was the complicated paperwork and long, drawn out processes.  Not to mention that loan servicers who had little incentive to modify a loan when they could foreclose, typically threw the homeowner’s application into the trash.

HAMP has been revised to make it easier for borrowers to get relief, and it appears those lessons have been applied to the new Flex Modification, at least in theory.  However, the reality is that a servicer who illegally forecloses on a home receives a financial windfall, compared to a paltry fee for modifying.

Fannie and Freddie claim that the Flex Modification will aim to lower monthly housing payments to help at-risk, delinquent borrowers avoid foreclosure.

Those who are less than 90 days behind on their mortgage must submit a Borrower Response Package (BRP) in order to be evaluated for a Flex Modification, which will target a 20% monthly payment reduction and a 40% Housing Expense-to-Income (HTI) Ratio.  Why such aggressive measures when the previous HAMP program would rarely reduce principal or monthly payments?  The GSE’s have always been hostile to homeowners wishing to modify preferring to foreclose.  Less than 40% of all applicants were given loan modifications.

Freddie Mac noted that a “high percentage” of those at least 60 days delinquent would be eligible, and in some cases it could also be an option for those who are current on the mortgage or less than 60 days late.

However, that latter group would need to occupy their homes in order to get relief.

For those more than 90+ days delinquent, the program targets the same 20% payment reduction, but requires no “borrower documentation.”

Likely this program will be used to grease the runways, as Timothy Geitner of the Fed admitted back in 2008 when HAMP was devised.   It appears that the GSEs know they have MAJOR issues with the underlying loans they guarantee and they are resorting to issuing modifications to wipe the slate clean.  I predict that there is language in the agreement that states the homeowner will not sue their servicer or the GSE’s once the loan is modified.  The GSEs, Fed and OCC are not benevolent entities- they are cold, calculating bankers where profit is all that matters.

In other words, they realize you’re in imminent danger of foreclosure and that they have major legal liabilities so they’re going to make it easy for you to get assistance.   Without knowing more about the program I can already tell it doesn’t pass the sniff test.

Perhaps this program will actually provide relief by lowering monthly mortgage payments.  It is likely that borrowers will be incentivized to hit the 90 day plus delinquent status to take advantage of the easier modification option also.  Not that it matters because the entire program appears to be created to “fix” loans that are damaged beyond repair.

It is interesting that many loan servicers are exiting the market while the GSEs are attempting to paper over their fraudulent history.  There are unseen forces in the background that are influencing change.  It appears that servicers and faux lenders are running scared or do they know something we don’t?

In any case, the program will also allow for principal forbearance to an 80% mark-to-market loan-to-value ratio (MTMLTV), but this amount must not exceed 30% of the unpaid principal balance.

Some key changes from the Standard Modification include:

• Housing-to-income ratio for borrowers less than 90 days delinquent changed from less than/equal to 55% to 40%
• No amortization choice for borrowers with an MTMLTV ratio of less than 80%
• Must now forbear principal down to a 100% MTMLTV ratio rather than the prior 115%

Flex Modification Eligibility

– Mortgage must be owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac (GSEs do not own loans)
– Must be 60 or more days delinquent unless owner-occupied and in imminent default
– Must submit a Borrower Response Package (will the servicer actually process the package when they have more incentive to foreclose than modify?)
– Must have an eligible hardship
– Must verify income
– Must have been originated 12 months prior to evaluation date
– Must target a 20% principal and interest payment reduction and 40% front-end DTI
*If 90 days+ delinquent, a Borrower Response Package is not required, and servicer is not required to confirm a borrower’s hardship or income.

Ineligible for Flex Modification

– FHA, VA, and USDA loans
– Mortgages subject to recourse
– Mortgages secured by second homes or investment properties less than 60 days late
– Mortgages that have been modified three or more times previously
– Mortgages approved for a short sale or deed-in-lieu
– Mortgages under a different modification program
– Mortgages that don’t make it through the trial period or aren’t brought current

2d Florida DCA Knocks Down CitiMortgage – PennyMac Dance

“In order to establish its entitlement to enforce the lost note, PennyMac could establish standing “through evidence of a valid assignment, proof of purchase of the debt, or evidence of an effective transfer.” BAC Funding Consortium, 28 So. 3d at 939. PennyMac’s filings in support of its motion for summary judgment did not present evidence of any of these things. In the absence of such evidence, the order of substitution standing alone was ineffective to establish PennyMac’s entitlement to enforce the lost note. See Geweye v. Ventures Trust 2013-I-H-R, 189 So. 3d 231, 233 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); Creadon v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 166 So. 3d 952, 953-54 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015); Sandefur v. RVS Capital, LLC, 183 So. 3d 1258, 1260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); Lamb, 174 So. 3d at 1040-41.”

Get a consult! 202-838-6345

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.
 
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

See http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2017/02/16/houk-v-pennymac-corp-fl-2dca-pennymac-failed-to-meet-its-burden-of-showing-the-nonexistence-of-a-genuine-issue-of-material-fact-regarding-its-entitlement-to-enforce-the-lost-note/

The Second  District Court of Appeal in Florida has issued an opinion that diligently follows the law and the facts. This decision should serve as the blue print of foreclosure defense in all cases involving the dance between CitiMortgage and PennyMac. It is a shell game and the Court obviously is growing weary of the claims of “immunity” issued by the banks in foreclosure cases.

It all starts with self serving proclamations of owning the note, the mortgage or both. It NEVER starts with an allegation or assertion of ownership of the debt because they don’t own the debt. When the note was made payable to someone other than the owner of the debt, there could be no merger wherein the debt became merged into the note. And the reason for all this is that the mega banks were engaged in the a program of institutionalizing theft from investors.

The aim of the game is to get a court to enter an order which then raises the presumption that everything that preceded the entry of the order was legal — a presumption that is hard to rebut. So the strategic path for borrowers is to show that the program or scheme is not legal before the foreclosure is entered or to attack for damages based upon fraud after the foreclosure judgment or sale is entered.

In this decision lies the foundation for most cases involving foreclosure defense. The reader is encouraged to use the above link to read and then reread the decision. My comment on the highlights follows:

“In order to establish its entitlement to enforce the lost note, PennyMac could establish standing “through evidence of a valid assignment, proof of purchase of the debt, or evidence of an effective transfer.” BAC Funding Consortium, 28 So. 3d at 939.

COMMENT: Merely alleging that it was the holder of a note when it was lost is insufficient to assume standing to enter a judgment on behalf of the foreclosing party (in this case PennyMac). In the absence of physical possession of the note standing can be established by (1) EVIDENCE of (2) a VALID assignment or (3) PROOF of PURCHASE OF THE DEBT or (4) evidence of “effective” transfer.

The steamrolling presumptions that buried millions of homeowners are now hitting the wall. The main point here is that an allegation is not enough and most importantly standing to file suit does NOT mean that the party has standing for the entry of judgment in favor of the foreclosing party.

The error that both courts and lawyers for litigants have consistently made for the last 10 years is their assumption that a sufficient allegation that a party has legal standing at the time suit is filed (or notice of sale, notice of default, notice of acceleration) means that the party has proven standing with evidence. It does not. Like any other allegation it is subject to being discredited or rebutted. AND it requires proof, which places the burden of persuasion upon the party making that allegation. It is neither the law of the case nor subject to any twisted notion of res judicata to assume that matter is proven when merely alleged.

The 2d DCA shows it has a firm grasp of this basic fact. The fact that standing was challenged in an unsuccessful motion to dismiss does NOT mean the matter is resolved or has been litigated.

Fundamentally the issue in all these cases is about money. The question of foreclosure should always have been a secondary issue of much less importance. American jurisprudence is filled with recitations of how foreclosure was a severe remedy that requires greater scrutiny by the court. Up until about 15 years ago, Judges would sift through the paperwork and deny foreclosure even if it was uncontested if the paperwork raises some unanswered questions. That tradition follows centuries of tradition and doctrine.

Thus the 2d DCA has placed purchasing of the debt and ownership of the debt in the center of the table. In the absence of a party who owns the actual debt, it is possible for a party to seek enforcement of the note, the mortgage or both — but that can only be true if the foreclosing party has indeed acquired the right to enforce the instrument from an instrument signed by the owner of the debt; simply alleging that one is owner of the note has no effect at trial or summary judgment as to evidence of ownership of the debt. And without evidence of the true owner of the debt being the payee on the note, the grant of authority through Powers of Attorney, Servicing agreements or anything else is evidence of nothing.

The use of the word “effective” (i.e., effective transfer) in this decision also opens the door to the rescission debate that was actually settled by the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Jesinoski v Countrywide. What does it mean that something is effective? Reviewing court decisions and legislative histories it is clear that “effective” means that the event or thing has already happened at the moment of its rendering. Thus the court here is talking about an effective assignment (not just a piece of paper entitled “assignment”), meaning that all the elements of a proper assignment had been met, and NOT just the writing or execution of the instrument. It is not effective if the elements are missing. And the elements are missing if the proponent of the assignment does not prove the elements — not just allege them.

There is a difference between pleading and proof.

In the absence of such evidence, the order of substitution standing alone was ineffective to establish PennyMac’s entitlement to enforce the lost note. See Geweye v. Ventures Trust 2013-I-H-R, 189 So. 3d 231, 233 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); Creadon v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 166 So. 3d 952, 953-54 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015); Sandefur v. RVS Capital, LLC, 183 So. 3d 1258, 1260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); Lamb, 174 So. 3d at 1040-41.”

COMMENT: This addresses the musical chairs tactics that have perplexed the Courts, borrowers and attorneys for nearly 2 decades. The court here is presenting for consideration the notion that substitution of parties does not confer anything on the apparent successor or new foreclosing party. What it DOES accomplish is removing the original party from having any legal standing for judgment to be entered in its favor. The claim of “succession”must be proven by the party making the claim — not by the party defending. What it does NOT accomplish is bootstrapping the allegations of standing from the original plaintiff or foreclosing party to a new party also having standing to pursue the judgment.

In all events therefore, the party alleging and/or asserting standing must prove it before the homeowner is required to rebut or even cross examine it.

 

 

Happy 70th Birthday Neil Garfield!!!!!

happy-birthday-neil-garfield_001

Dear Mr. Garfield,

For the last decade you have enlightened and educated millions of homeowners and helped countless others defend against fraudulent foreclosure.

Your willingness to explain complex legal theories and procedure have helped to level the playing field between homeowners and the banks.

We appreciate your sacrifices and believe that history will memorialize you as a mercenary who exposed the greatest financial crime ever perpetrated on the American public.  The Livinglies blog was ground-zero.

Happy Birthday!

Gratefully,

The Lending Lies Team & your devoted readers

The FBI convicts a small time operator while the Big Banks continue their Crime Spree unabated

The FBI proudly announces they have convicted a California mortgage rescue operation but pays no attention to the fact that banks are continuing their unabated crime spree that way surpasses a small time mortgage rescue operation.  The government has hard evidence that bank servicers are participating in criminal conduct that includes forging instruments, perjured affidavits, predatory servicing and modification scams and does nothing of impact to address the rampant fraud.

To date no executive calling the shots has gone to prison, further emboldening their illegal behavior.  In fact, most executives who designed the greatest financial fraud scheme the world has ever seen, are promoted or enter government.  Steven Mnuchin perfectly executed the OneWest master crime spree and instead of a stint in federal prison he was promoted to Secretary of Treasury.

The government has sanctioned and fined the banks hundreds of millions of dollars.   The paltry fines have done nothing to curtail their fraudulent behaviors.  A fine of $500 million is simply a tax write-off and a cost of doing business for the big servicers who are collecting billions in profits for foreclosing on loans they can’t prove they own.

At this point, servicing fraud, securitization fraud, foreclosure fraud and modification fraud are considered acceptable operating procedures for the big banks.    The Federal Bureau of Investigation has not done their job and are part of the cover up.  Meanwhile the FBI tries to distract people with stories about saving vulnerable homeowners from small time operators while the guilty go free.

In fact, if you have hard proof of fraud or criminal behavior and report it to the FBI, you will be told that your problem is a civil matter.   If the FBI is interested we would be happy to share dozens of cases where the bank and their counsel forged documents, submitted fraudulent affidavits to the court and foreclosed on homes they didn’t own by resorting to forgery and fraud.  The evidence we have is 100% conclusive and yet no governmental agency has any interest in what the big banks are doing to steal homes.

False Promises

California Man Sentenced for Operating Foreclosure Rescue Scheme

When California homeowners couldn’t make their mortgage payments and faced foreclosures during the Great Recession in 2008, some turned to a Long Beach church pastor for help.

For almost six years, Karl Robinson offered mortgage rescue services under his name and through companies such as Stay in Your Home Today, 21st Century Development, and Genesis Ventures Corporation. Now he’s serving four years in federal prison for his role in a scheme that brought in nearly $3 million in fees from unknowing clients.

Robinson and a group of co-conspirators attracted distressed homeowners with the promise of delaying foreclosures and evictions. They claimed to offer services that connected clients to experienced consultants who could keep them in their homes for an affordable fee.

It was all too good to be true—until an FBI-led investigation in 2013 determined that the mortgage rescue programs were far from legitimate.

“Robinson joined a growing number of con artists surfacing throughout the country during the subprime mortgage crisis focused on lining their own pockets instead of actually helping clients,” said FBI Special Agent Kevin Danford, who investigated the case out of the Bureau’s Los Angeles Field Office.

During the housing crisis, opportunistic groups like Robinson’s preyed on vulnerable and desperate homeowners through common scams such as offering affordable refinancing with lower monthly payments, low-interest deals, and delinquent mortgage pay-offs.

In 2008, Robinson began offering fraudulent foreclosure delay solutions by taking part in what were known as partial-interest bankruptcy scams (see sidebar). The process went on for months, providing Robinson with a steady flow of income as long as his clients were willing to pay.

Another scam delayed evictions for Robinson’s clients whose homes had been sold in foreclosure proceedings. Robinson falsely claimed in state court eviction actions that his clients still had tenants in those homes. Robinson would then file bankruptcies for the fictional tenants, postponing the evictions.

By 2011, clients and lenders were starting to catch on to Robinson’s scams. They turned to their local police, who confirmed the suspected fraud and alerted the FBI.

“Robinson joined a growing number of con artists surfacing throughout the country during the subprime mortgage crisis focused on lining their own pockets instead of actually helping clients.”

Kevin Danford, special agent, FBI Los Angeles

The Bureau opened an investigation on Robinson in August 2013 and subsequently obtained an external hard drive from his home that contained documents such as fake driver’s licenses, false identities, and incomplete bankruptcy petition drafts—which revealed the steps he was using to carry out his fraud scheme.

Following his arrest, Robinson confessed to knowingly defrauding his clients and the state and federal courts. Robinson pleaded guilty in August 2016 to the role he played in running the multi-year foreclosure rescue scheme.

“Robinson was able to delay foreclosure sales for more than 100 properties, and he filed at least 200 bankruptcy petitions,” said Danford. “His scheme not only impacted more than 60 lenders and clogged both federal bankruptcy court and state and local eviction court systems but also caused undue stress to numerous purchasers.”

Partial-Interest Bankruptcy Scams

The scam operator asks you to give a partial interest in your home to one or more persons. You then make mortgage payments to the scam operator in lieu of paying the delinquent mortgage. However, the scam operator does not pay the existing mortgage or seek new financing. Each holder of a partial interest then files bankruptcy, one after another, without your knowledge. The bankruptcy court will issue a “stay” order each time to stop foreclosure temporarily. However, the stay does not excuse you from making payments or from repaying the full amount of your loan. This complicates and delays foreclosure, while allowing the scam operator to maintain a stream of income by collecting payments from you, the victim. (Source: FDIC)

Share your Foreclosure Experiences with Lending Lies by completing our short Survey.

Please tell Lending Lies about your foreclosure experience here: Foreclosure Survey

Business Concepts

Please complete our our brief survey on your experiences.

All answers are confidential and will not be shared.

No personal information required or collected.

We will report about our findings in the next several weeks.

Thank you in advance for your participation.

%d bloggers like this: