Wisconsin Appeals Court: Affidavits Not Based On “Personal Knowledge” Sink Lender’s Attempt To Score Summary Judgment In Foreclosure Action

Wisconsin Appeals Court: Affidavits Not Based On “Personal Knowledge” Sink Lender’s Attempt To Score Summary Judgment In Foreclosure Action

A Wisconsin intermediate appeals court recently reached the relatively unremarkable, predictable, and certainly non-ground-breaking conclusion that affidavits filed by a foreclosing lender that are not based on the “personal knowledge” of the affiant are insufficient to establish a basis for summary judgment.

What does merit note is that, in reaching its ruling, it reversed the decision of Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge Jacqueline R. Erwin, the lower court judge who apparently didn’t have a problem with these obviously flawed affidavits in deciding to allow the foreclosure to go forward. Unlike the vast majority of cases, the homeowner/couple here exercised their right to have an appellate court review, a right that most homeowners in foreclosure are either unaware of, or lack the wherewithal to pursue.

From the ruling (footnotes contained in the original text, bold text is my emphasis):

  • ¶ 13 The Bank submitted two affidavits to support its motion for summary judgment: one by an attorney for the Bank, and one by an agent for BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., f/k/a Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P.

    ¶ 14 The attorney averred that Diane Cano executed a note secured by a mortgage on her property in July 2006; that an assignment of the mortgage to the Bank was recorded in June 2007; and that the Canos had failed to make the January 2007 and subsequent mortgage payments, leading the Bank to file this foreclosure action in April 2007. The attorney attached the following documents to his affidavit: the mortgage assignment; a statement of the Canos’ mortgage payment history for September 2006 to May 2009 generated by Bank of America Home Loans on June 2, 2009, and indicating that the Canos’ last mortgage payment was for December 2006; and a notice of default and acceleration Countrywide sent to Diane Cano in February 2007.

    ¶ 15 The BAC agent averred that he had access to the financial records for the Canos’ mortgage; that Diane Cano executed a mortgage to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., acting as nominee for S&L Investment Lending, Inc.; and that the Canos had failed to make their January 2007 and subsequent mortgage payments. The agent did not attach any documents to his affidavit.

    ¶ 16 We conclude that the Bank’s affidavits do not establish a prima facie case for summary judgment. Affidavits supporting a summary judgment motion must be based on personal knowledge and “set forth such evidentiary facts as would be admissible in evidence.”[4] WIS. STAT. § 802.08(3). Nothing in the attorney’s affidavit indicates that the attorney’s averments as to the Canos’ payment history are based on personal knowledge. To the extent that the affidavit relies on the attached payment history with Bank of America, we conclude that the affidavit does not set forth the facts necessary to establish a prima facie case that the bank’s purported payment history would be admissible at trial.

    ¶ 17 As we explained in Palisades, an affidavit must establish a prima facie case that attached payment statements are admissible evidence under an exception to the hearsay rule to support a motion for summary judgment. See Palisades, 324 Wis. 2d 180, ¶ 11 & n.3; WIS. STAT. § 908.01(3) (defining “hearsay” as “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted”) and § 908.02 (hearsay generally inadmissible). Here, the only arguably applicable exception to the hearsay rule is the exception for business records under WIS. STAT. § 908.03(6) (records “made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, all in the course of a regularly conducted activity, as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness” are not excluded by hearsay rule). Thus, for the statement of the Canos’ payments to support a motion for summary judgment, the affidavit must establish that the affiant “is qualified to testify that: (1) the records were made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge; and (2) this was done in the course of a regularly conducted activity.” Palisades, 324 Wis. 2d 180, ¶ 15. The attorney’s affidavit contains no such averments.

    ¶ 18 The BAC agent’s affidavit is similarly flawed. The agent avers that his knowledge of the Canos’ default on their mortgage is based on his access to the financial records for the Canos’ mortgage, yet no financial documents are attached to the affidavit. Even if we assume the BAC agent is referring to the statement attached to the attorney’s affidavit, the agent’s affidavit fails to set forth the necessary facts to establish a prima facie case for the admissibility of the statement. The agent’s affidavit does not contain any facts to show that the agent is qualified to testify that the statement generated by Bank of America on June 2, 2009, was “made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge,” or that “this was done in the course of a regularly conducted activity.”[5] Id. We conclude that the Bank has not established a prima facie case for summary judgment.[6] Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

For the ruling, see Bank of New York v. Cano, No. 2010AP477 (Ct. of App. Dist. 4, January 20, 2011) (unpublished) (go here for the “Google Scholar” version).

23 Responses

  1. Why this case was not reversed , when Witness was not qualified to testified or had prima face ?? Was jeferson court coroupted ?? Very sad to se . Where is our law. How can attorney for BOA blommer peterson Wuakesha wi . They Present false affadavits sigh by them ,
    Total conflict of interest , froud etc etc .
    Attorneys from both sides including judge have work out a deal , ????

  2. Look at REMIC that is reality

  3. The evidence is clear bank committed fraud and B of A provided false history payments they did not own note at that time or mortgage just corruption . Attorneys from bank prepare documents With conflict of interest grudge again

  4. It is very sad that no matter what Banks find the way to right in a technical way or even they commit fraud and no one is willing to help me to sue them for all the pain , stress , we won this case , they presented false documents been dismissal two times and I still have to spend money to defend our selfs . They are corrupt . Mow we have another herring let’s see what they fabricate again we made the payments and we back to court ??? I wish I could go after them for fraud and malicious prosecution we are the Canos tthe defendant s of this case. Judge did not want this publish way ? Now we have to go back to court?? Banks do is they want no rules or law is very sick where is our legal system . I guess money talks

  5. It is very sad that no matter what Banks find the way to right in a technical way or even they commit fraud and no one is willing to help me to sue them for all the pain , stress , we won this case , they presented false documents been dismissal two times and I still have to spend money to defend our selfs . They are corrupt . Mow we have another herring let’s see what they fabricate again we made the payments and we back to court ??? I wish I could go after them for fraud and malicious prosecution we are the camps do you have advice

  6. As to the attorney’s aff, is it not so that an attorney, not a party to the action, may not file an aff or declaration in the first place, as this is inconsonant with the rules of procedure and evidence?

  7. Here’s the court record of events. It really isn’t over until the fat lady (or judge) sings. If you don’t think this is relevant, pull it down, Neil.

    BANK OF NEW YORK vs. DIANE G CANO et al

    Jefferson County Case Number 2007CV000242
    Court Record Events

    Date

    Event

    Court Official

    Court Reporter
    1

    03-25-2010

    Order

    Erwin, Jacqueline R.

    Additional Text:

    (Diane Cano’s Motion For Reconsideration is denied and court also confirms summary judgment of foreclosure entered 12/29/09)
    2

    03-25-2010

    Order

    Erwin, Jacqueline R.

    Additional Text:

    (Diane G Cano’s Motion for Reconsideration – denied and court confirms summary judgment of foreclosure entered 12/29/09)
    3

    03-11-2010

    Decision

    Erwin, Jacqueline R.

    Additional Text:

    (re: summary judgment)
    4

    03-01-2010

    Hearing

    Erwin, Jacqueline R.

    Markwardt, Susan

    Additional Text:

    Case called at 1:33pm [Clerk-KC] Attorney Christina E Demakopoulos in court for Plaintiff BANK OF NEW YORK. Attorney Colleen J. Locke in court for Defendant DIANE G CANO. Court inquires as to status of appeal, counsel are unaware of status; appealing judgment on 12/29/10. Atty Locker – has not received any filings from Atty Rose; requests deferrment of Motion to Reconsider until appeal court has made its decision Atty Demakopoulos – hear motion today or have motion withdrawn Court – does not know procedural posture of appeal Argument in support of motion for reconsideration presented by Atty Locke; 806.07 excusable neglect basis Argument in opposition of motion for reconsideration presented by Atty Demakopoulos Rebuttal argument given by Atty Locke; client has tried to pay her mortgage, wants to stay in house Atty Locke to provide Court and Atty Demakopoulos update on trial courts jurisdication to hear and decide motion by 3/10/10. Recess 1:56pm
    5

    02-24-2010

    Affidavit

    Additional Text:

    In OppositionTo Defendant Daine G Cano’s Motion For Reconsideration (Christina E Demakopoulos)
    6

    02-24-2010

    Objection to motion

    Additional Text:

    Plaintiff’s Objection To Defendant Diane G Cano’s Motion For Reconsideratin (Atty Demakopoulos)
    7

    02-24-2010

    Transcript

    Additional Text:

    of proceedings on February 24, 2009 (Motion To Reopen)
    8

    02-24-2010

    Transcript

    Additional Text:

    of proceedings on November 3, 2009 (Motion For Summary Judgment)
    9

    02-12-2010

    Affidavit

    Additional Text:

    In Opposition To Summary Judgment And In Support Of Motion For Reconsideration (Diane G Cano)
    10

    02-12-2010

    Affidavit

    Additional Text:

    In Opposition To Summary Judgment And In Support Of Motion For Reconsideration (Atty Locke)
    11

    02-12-2010

    Motion

    Additional Text:

    For Reconsideration 3/1/10 @ 1:30 pm (Atty Locke)
    12

    02-11-2010

    Notice of appeal

    Additional Text:

    (Defendants/Appellants by Atty Christopher W Rose)
    13

    01-06-2010

    Notice of entry of judgment

    Additional Text:

    Of Foreclosure
    14

    12-29-2009

    Order

    Erwin, Jacqueline R.

    Additional Text:

    Amending Name Of Plaintiff
    15

    12-29-2009

    Other

    Erwin, Jacqueline R.

    16

    12-29-2009

    Findings of facts/conclusions of law w/ judgment

    Erwin, Jacqueline R.

    Additional Text:

    Summary Judgment
    17

    12-29-2009

    Memorandum decision

    Additional Text:

    Plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration Of Its Summary Judgment Treatment (Granted)
    18

    12-28-2009

    Memorandum

    Additional Text:

    Plaintiff’s Memorandum In Support Of Its Motion To Reconsider Denial Of Motion For Summary Judgment (Atty Demakopoulos)
    19

    12-28-2009

    Notice of motion, motion

    Additional Text:

    To Reconsider Denial Of Motion For Summary Judgment (Plaintiff by Atty Demakopoulos)
    20

    12-15-2009

    Memorandum decision

    Additional Text:

    (Motion is denied)
    21

    12-15-2009

    Notice of hearing

    Additional Text:

    Scheduling conference on January 13, 2010 at 01:00 pm.
    22

    12-03-2009

    Brief

    Additional Text:

    In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment (Atty Locke for Defendant)
    23

    12-01-2009

    Answer

    Additional Text:

    To Motion For Summary Judgment (Atty Colleen J Locke for Diane G Cano)
    24

    11-03-2009

    Hearing

    Erwin, Jacqueline R.

    Markwardt, Susan

    Additional Text:

    Case called 2:17 [Clerk-KC] Defendant DIANE G CANO in court without counsel. Defendant Mario Cano, spouse of Diane G. Cano in court. Attorney Christina E Demakopoulos in court, via telephone, for Plaintiff BANK OF NEW YORK. Mrs. Cano has not filed any briefs or counter materials. Statement given by Mr. Cano Atty Demakopoulos requests Summary Judgment; waives deficiency, 6 month redemption period 371,078.19 Mr. and Mrs. Cano haven’t made a timely answer for Summary Judgment; Court will give them time to file. Court requires Mr. and Mrs. Cano to adhere to statute. Court gives them 30 days; Plaintiff 7 days file any reply brief requested; responsive brief eob 12/3/09, reply 12/10/09 Recess 2:28
    25

    10-09-2009

    Notice of hearing

    Additional Text:

    Motion hearing on November 3, 2009 at 02:15 pm.
    26

    10-06-2009

    Affidavit

    Additional Text:

    In Support Of Motion To Amend The Name Of The Paintiff (Benjamin J Pliskie)
    27

    10-06-2009

    Notice of motion, motion

    Additional Text:

    To Amend Name Of Plaintiff (Atty Pliskie)
    28

    10-06-2009

    Affidavit of service

    Additional Text:

    for Watertown Memorial Hospital Inc 4/24/07
    29

    10-06-2009

    Proof of service

    Additional Text:

    on MERS 4/24/07
    30

    10-06-2009

    Affidavit of service

    Additional Text:

    on Mario Cano, unknown spouse of Diane G Cano 4/24/07
    31

    10-06-2009

    Affidavit of service

    Additional Text:

    on Diane G Cano 4/24/07
    32

    10-06-2009

    Affidavit

    Additional Text:

    Of Default And In Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment (with Exhibits A-C Benjamin J Pliskie)
    33

    10-06-2009

    Affidavit

    Additional Text:

    In Support Of Motion For Foreclosure Judgment (Brent Robinson)
    34

    10-06-2009

    Affidavit of non-military service

    35

    10-06-2009

    Notice

    Additional Text:

    Of Motion For Summary Judgment (Plaintiff by Atty Pliskie)
    36

    10-06-2009

    Order for dismissal

    Erwin, Jacqueline R.

    37

    02-24-2009

    Reopen

    Erwin, Jacqueline R.

    38

    02-24-2009

    Order

    Erwin, Jacqueline R.

    Additional Text:

    To Reopen Foreclosure Action
    39

    02-24-2009

    Motion hearing

    Erwin, Jacqueline R.

    Markwardt, Susan

    Additional Text:

    Case called at 10:24 am Attorney Christina E Demakopoulos appears by telephone for Plaintiff BANK OF NEW YORK. Defendant Mario Cano SPOUSE OF DIANE G CANO in court. Court reviews case file documents and gives status update of the case including dismissal order of 8/08. Mr. Cano-doesn’t oppose, just wants credit for payments to other mortgage company Atty Demakopoulos-Request to reopen to conduct discovery. From August – present, been attempting to resolve without success. Court grants motion and reopens case Recess: 10:28 am
    40

    02-05-2009

    Notice of hearing

    Additional Text:

    Motion hearing on February 24, 2009 at 10:15 am.
    41

    02-05-2009

    Judicial transfer

    Erwin, Jacqueline R.

    42

    01-29-2009

    Notice of motion, motion

    Additional Text:

    To Reopen
    43

    01-29-2009

    Affidavit

    Additional Text:

    In Support Of Motion To Reopen (Christina E Damakopoulos)
    44

    10-15-2008

    Dismissed

    Ullsvik, John M.

    45

    10-15-2008

    Dismissed by court

    Ullsvik, John M.

    Additional Text:

    (per Order of 8/11/08)
    46

    08-11-2008

    Order for dismissal

    Ullsvik, John M.

    Additional Text:

    (within 20 days unless good cause shown)
    47

    05-07-2007

    Response/reply

    Additional Text:

    of Defendant Diane Cano
    48

    04-19-2007

    Summons and complaint

    49

    04-09-2007

    Lis pendens

    Return to Case 2007CV000242

  8. Hello Neil,
    We had a case in Wisconsin, that was originally scheduled for Sheriffs Sale February 1st. The attorney asked me to review the case, I found several issues, and prepared a summary of my findings. He took this info and motioned to Quash the Sheriffs Sale and Set Aside Summary Judgment. The Sheriffs Sale was cancelled right away, however today The Judge allowed us to pursue discovery, until June 1st, with a hearing scheduled for Oct 7, this will be a huge case in WI…I can get you more info if you wish.

  9. […] 8 Feb Wisconsin Appeals Court: Affidavits Not Based On "Personal Knowledge" Sink Lender's Attempt To Score Summary Judgment In Foreclosure Action A Wisconsin intermediate appeals court recently reached the relatively unremarkable, predictable, and certainly non-ground-breaking conclusion that affidavits filed by a foreclosing lender that are not based on the "personal knowledge" of the affiant are insufficient to establish a basis for summary judgment. … Read More […]

  10. lps , prommis solutions , lawsuit –
    http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/investing/foreclosure-attorneys-illegally-outsourcing-legal-work-nonlawyers/19830892/

    lps = [quality loan] Mcarthy & holthes , with “Prommis Solution” has LITTON LOAN is the common denominator .

  11. A very nice read at Huff Po, from a former AIGer. A quote:

    From Davos to Allenwood:

    As corporate jets returned from Davos to executive terminals around New York, Connecticut, and Long Island, those terminals could have been prime spots for process servers with warrants and subpoenas for Wall Street fraud. More bankers need to do jail time for their crimes – not out of revenge, but as a deterrent to future criminality. Instead, their crimes have either gone uninvestigated or been resolved with SEC fines that come out of stockholders’ pockets and not the perp’s.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/the-third-chamber-why-aig_b_819984.html

  12. SPREADING like wild fire..

  13. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Contact: Sarah Muench

    Feb. 7, 2010

    (602) 926-5848

    smuench@azleg.gov

    House Democrats unveil Homeowner Relief for a Strong Future

    STATE CAPITOL, PHOENIX – House Democrats announced on Monday a homeowner relief package to hold government accountable at a time when the state again ranked second in the nation this month for foreclosures.

    Homeowner Relief for a Strong Future offers balanced, responsible solutions for the foreclosure crisis, prevents fraud and preserves our communities.

    “These bills directly deal with the foreclosure crisis, a problem in Arizona that Republicans have ignored in the past,” said Rep. Debbie McCune Davis, D-Phoenix (District 14). Recent figures as of Thursday show that Arizona continues to rank second in the nation in foreclosures. We have held that top spot for the past few years, and now it’s time to hold government accountable so we can have a strong economic future.”

    McCune Davis has asked House Commerce Committee Chair Jim Weiers to establish a subcommittee on foreclosures.

    In February, Arizona jumped to second in the nation in foreclosures. One in every 17 Arizona households received a foreclosure filing last year. (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11014/1117879-28.stm#ixzz1D2zRAq9o)

    Homeowner Relief for a Strong Future includes the following bills:

    HB2383 Borrowers’ Bill of Rights: Guarantees homeowners the right to receive timely and accurate responses to good-faith borrower inquires. (McCune Davis)
    HB 2283 Abandoned Home Crime Reduction Act: Requires current and accurate ownership information on all property and assists neighborhoods and law enforcement in reducing crime. (McCune Davis)
    HB 2626 Home Sales Notification Act: Allows homeowners in foreclosure to be notified of sales, even when the initial sale is postponed (McCune Davis).
    HB 2124 Homeowner Relief Act: Keeps homeowners in their homes by granting temporary (60 day) relief to residential homeowners, who are in foreclosure and in danger of losing their home. (Patterson)
    HB 2123 Safe Neighborhoods Act: Requires the maintenance of properties during the foreclosure process. (Patterson)
    HB 2430 Right to Rent Act: Allows homeowners, whose foreclosed homes are of low to moderate value, to remain in their homes as renters for an extended period of time. (Tovar)
    HB 2642 Mandatory Mediation Act: Offers homeowners facing foreclosure in an owner-occupied home an additional step that would require a mediation process to take place before the property may be foreclosed. (Tovar)
    HB 2641 Arizona Home Equity Theft Prevention Act: Protects homeowners who are facing foreclosure from scams and fraud. (Tovar)
    HB 2632 The Tenant Rights Act: Ensures that if a tenant is lawfully in possession of the property when a foreclosure action is initiated, the tenant is able to continue to rent the property for the remainder of the lease or 90 days, whichever is longer. (Hobbs)
    HB 2269: Truth in Mortgage Brokers Act: Cracks down on bad acting mortgage brokers and protects borrowers from bad lending practices. (Ableser)

    “This package of bills could not come at a more critical time for our state,” said Rep. Daniel Patterson, D-Tucson (District 29). “We need to hold government accountable to enact legislation that strengthens our housing market and the financial well-being of our communities. Those steps include fighting scams and fraud and encouraging lenders and borrowers to work together for the best possible outcome.”

    -30-

    Sarah Muench
    Communication Director
    House Democrats, Arizona Legislature
    (602) 926-5848
    smuench@azleg.gov
    http://www.azhousedemocrats.com

  14. http://solomon-services.com/fraud
    http://solomon-services.com/fraud/bk

    Any suggestions for the instant Motion to Dismiss, email me please. They monitor these posts you know…

    I

  15. CUBED2k- you misquoted the RESPA QWR guidelines. They changed July 22, 2010- Dodd-Franklin Financial Reform Act of 2010;

    * Shorter QWR Timelines

    Effect of Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act, Public Law 111-203, Section 1463
    • Reduces QWR response deadlines; requires acknowledgement of receipt of QWR within 5 business days and a substantive response within 30 business days, with a possible 15 day extension if the servicer sends notice of the delay and its reason.
    • Adds new 6(k) to RESPA: servicer “shall not fail to respond within 10 business days to a request by the borrower to provide the identity, address, and other relevant information about the owner or assignee of a home mortgage loan”.
    • Addresses the above-mentioned lack of a specific time deadline in TILA §1641(f)(2) by providing that it shall be a violation of TILA for a servicer to fail to identify of the “owner or assignee” of loan with 10 business days following a written request with respect to a loan secured by the borrowers principal dwelling.

    STIFFER FINES;

    Servicers Are Subject to Stiffer Penalties and Stricter Timelines

    In addition to the significant changes to TILA, the Act also makes several changes to RESPA. The amendments to RESPA provide for higher damages and stricter timelines for responding to qualified written requests (QWR). Specifically, borrowers in a class action are now entitled to actual damages and additional damages not to exceed $2,000, per member of the class, when there is a pattern of noncompliance. (Sec. 1463) However, total recovery is capped at the lesser of $1 million (up from $500,000) or 1 percent of the net worth of the servicer. Individuals also are entitled to additional damages not to exceed $2,000 (up from $1,000), if the borrower shows a pattern or practice of noncompliance.
    Similar to the limited amount of time provided to servicers and creditors under the new TILA provisions, RESPA time limits for responding to a QWR are decreased significantly:
    1. Time for servicer to provide a written response acknowledging receipt decreased from 20 days to 5 days.
    2. Time for servicer to make appropriate corrections or conduct an investigation reduced from 60 days to 30 days.

  16. This is how these banksters are advertising their loan officer positions!!!

    In other words, for US the BANKSTERS it is still OK to screw your clients!!!!

    Why not send them a nice message!

    Mortgage Banking Officer (Metro – DC)
    Date: 2011-02-07, 10:59AM EST
    Reply to: job-qzf7a-2201457753@craigslist.org [Errors when replying to ads?]

    MORTGAGE BANKING OFFICER: FDIC REGULATED BANK: . FHA, VA, CONVENTIONAL, JUMBO, REVERSE, 203K, USDA, LOCAL UW, PROCESSING, WEB BASED ORIGINATION SYSTEM, COMMISSION COMENSURATE WITH PRODUCTION. No Disclosure of YSP, Exempt fromn License requirements.
    Teams welcome. Bonus Structure.

  17. yes India, their response to my sort of QWR was we will get back in touch with you in 60 business days. 60 went by and they sent a letter saying they need more time, and oh by the way your mortgage payment is due. We have not spoken to them and the letter asked them to send us the contract that says they are the servicer for this loan number and provide a copy of the original note. How come they haven’t sent us a copy of their contract that they are indeed the servicer for the loan number they provided? You would think they would do that part of the letter request???? Right???? Why should we send money to you? Gosh, maybe we shouldn’t have sent any money to the last servicer. I wish we would have known what we know now, and I would have sent a QWR to the last servicer Chase. Maybe I should still do that, say Chase – can you tell me to whom you were sending our loan payments to?

  18. This ruling isn’t at all surprising. Well articulated and proper objections to evidentiary submissions should have trial courts across the country tossing out evidence submitted by mill attorneys in foreclosure cases. Rarely do these mill attorneys submit their purported evidence in accordance with the rules.

    When the purported evidence they attempt to base their cases on is excluded there is little left to do but dismiss.

    However, we have seen, as a regular course of business, that courts even when this is properly done fail to rule appropriately. But having made proper objections, supported by rule and case law, sets up an appeal that is very likely to result in a reversal by the appellate court/s.

    This Wisconsin decision is not the only one to have been handed down recently on these evidentiary issues.

    Read the rules folks. Know the rules better than opposing counsel. Your chances of winning increase dramatically when you know the rules of procedure, and the rules of evidence.

    The Federal rule are available at the following links (be sure to read your local rules as well):

    Evidence: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/

    Procedure: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/

  19. Interesting how in most of these appellate victories the judges order the cases “non-published!”

    Guess they don’t realize all the plaintiffs are posting and publishing anyway…lol

  20. This is fantastic news. I just had a client call to tell me the Wisconsin Judge basically did the same thing as this job. It is on to the appeals court once we locate an attorney. Her first attorney caved to the bank.

  21. Bank of America is also using “IBM Lender Business Process Services, Inc.” With a bit of research I learned that this servicer was recently “Wiltshire Collections” based in California. IBM bought it and moved the headquarters to Beaverton, Oregon.

    They are essentially a “bucket shop” of bill collectors; they hire phone workers who sit at computers and access whatever meager information is available for them to answer questions. They have no training in mortgage servicing and any serious inquiries are either fobbed off to another department or, in most cases, they say they don’t have that information.

    However, the company is excellent at sending multiple letters that don’t respond to written queries.

  22. Neil
    This ids Great News . God Bless you. You know in Wis the Judgement can’t be opened after 1 year and it can’t be opened once the sale is confirmed.
    Stan
    Racine Wi

  23. Neil- can you start a link for Bank of America?

    Interesting how BofA transferred all serving from BofA to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP and now plans to set up yet another company…they just keep stacking up the layers of easy escape for them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: