2 Florida Cases Decided in Favor of Borrower

The Wadsworth case clearly shows that the appellate courts are requiring the trial court to scrutinize the claims and filings of would-be forecloser and that things like notice of acceleration and the right to cure are important enough to reverse summary judgment. This is directly contrary to the rulings of many judges who say that the lack of notice is NOT a basis for granting a motion to dismiss. It can be argued that if it is enough to defeat a motion for summary judgment, it ought to be sufficient to dismiss the complaint that does not allege the existence of the loan, the financial injury and the compliance with paragraph 22, with a copy thereof.

Wadsworth

The Beaumont decision is especially interesting because it deals with a rather obvious alteration of documents by Bank of America or its “successors” or lawyers. Or I would not be surprised to learn that LPS was involved in this one. They changed the due date and foreclosed. The trial court disregarded the defense that the note was altered and said it wasn’t enough that they alleged these facts on information and belief.  The appellate court that might be true, but the documents of records clearly raise the issue themselves.

Beaumont

61 Responses

  1. Has anyone ever dealt with Ocwen Loan Servicing out of Fort Washington, PA. Wells Fargo is telling me that Ocwen Loan Servicing is the Investor for my 2nd Mortgage which America Servicing Co/Wells Fargo is the servicer. What I need to know is what is the best way to go about finding out if they are the actual investors and if they even have any records of my loan. My guess is that I am going to get the run around and probably will find out that they know nothing about the loan.

  2. Below under “Fighting MERs in CA” someone stated.
    3) Any assignment of the Deed of Trust & Note from MERS to a successor is void and fraudulent.
    I live in Maryland and I have a Deed of Trust that MER’s assigned to successor. Can someone tell me if this is a true statement.? Do I now have a fraudulent document. Would someone be willing to send me their email address so I could scan and send to them, so they can let me know in fact this is a fraudulent document. My email address is jsmith5915@msn.com 443 677 2799. James

  3. Cease and Desist Order against Citi and Wells Fargo.
    There is currently a Cease and Desist Order against Citi Mortgage. Below is the complaint that I sent to Office of Comptroller and Currency.

    There is currently a Cease and Desist Order by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency against Mortgage Electronic Registration System. I am writing because I want something done about the Banks and MERS, because they continue to perform illegal transactions. I recently had a document that was posted to County Public Records by Citi Mortgage and MERS. It was a Deed of Trust for a transaction that was done back in 2005. Something was not right about them just now posting this document after so many years. I goggled the person that signed the document, Geraldine Ann Belinksi, Vice President. I found another Deed of Trust online that had the same person’s name on it, but this time it stated that she is the Assistant Secretary. I immediately got on the phone and called the office that was listed on the document, Citi Mortgage, 1000 Technology Drive, O’Fallon, Mo. I located the office where this individual worked and discovered that she is a mere processor. This has gotten out of hand and I am very skeptical that any of the transactions and documents that I have through Citi Mortgage are legal and binding. Why are they allowed to continue Robo Signing documents? I can be reached at 443-677-2799. Thanks James A. Smith

    I did not call MERS to verify that she worked there. I call Citi and they stated that she was a processor. This is response that I received from Citi regarding the complaint

    “Our records indicate Geraldine A. Belinski is a Certified Appointed signor for Mortgage Electroic Registration Systems Inc.”

    My question is, does MERS have employees that work in Citi facilities? I do not believe this. I called and verified that she worked there and they stated she was a processor. How can I verify that they are lying, because Im sure that OCC will believe what Citi’s response was.
    James Smith 443-677-2799.

  4. eggsistense – thank you!

    * * * * * * * * *

    “In a situation where REO property is not a permitted asset, all income and gain from that property is subject to the 100 percent prohibited transaction tax. Further, REO property can affect the tax status of a REMIC because a REMIC can only hold a de minimis amount of non-permitted assets.”

    That’s as far as I’ve gotten on the back-up for my “REMIC’s can’t own real property.” From this article, it’s not clear. Anyone who can make sense of the article below, please do! It appears to be written for those who understand things many of us, like me, don’t. Looks like she has a lot of good info in general. De minimis = next to none mol.

    http://paularush.com/REMICS.html

  5. JG,
    The Hultman statements are here: http://libertyroadmedia.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/mers-is-the-problem-part-5-million-and-counting/mers-interrogatories/

    The relevant quotes:

    Interrogatory #4: “MERS is only able to transfer what it actually holds and cannot transfer a negotiable instrument by virtue of a transfer of real property.”

    Interrogatory #7: “Any language in the assignment which claimed to assign the note could not do so, as notes do not move through assignments in the land records.”

    Interrogatory #13: “The MERS assignment can only assign the interest that MERS is holding. When MERS is named as the beneficiary, it holds legal title to the Deed of Trust and can assign the Deed of Trust. Unless MERS is the note holder it cannot transfer the note since the note moves through endorsement and delivery pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code.”

    Sworn by Hultman to be true and correct.

  6. eggsistence – would you link something wherein Hultman acknowledges MERS can’t assign notes? I have some stuff “somewhere”, like his depo or two, but don’t want to hunt if I don’t have to, and I think it would be useful to have it here at this same thread.
    I can say without looking that in “Mitchell”, 2008 / 2009 NV BK and DC, MERS tried to say it was a note holder by way of (alleged) possession and the court said, “No, you’re not. ” And by the way, what MERS said, that it was the note holder, was on the basis of alleged possession of a note at the servicer’s by way of a servicer-employee being designated a MERS “officer” with a Hultman resolution. On that basis, just about anyone could be a “holder”, and that’s all that’s really going on here now imo (with paper copies of scanned notes more than likely). It’s insane. Someone says it has poss of a note, and now generally it’s a secn trustee (that I know of) or someone else claiming the secn trustee is the claimant, whereas MERS formerly posited it was ITS possession on the same facts. Then the servicer-employee executes an assignment to – pick one (that’s what they do) – and voila! Court says have at it.

    Public Service Announcement:

    MERS HAS TO GO

  7. justme@8:15 – interesting…I’ve only recently took much of a look at all at GNMA, so I wouldn’t know where to start…their in-house counsel, if one could identify them? (online articles ….?)

  8. I said that wrong. It’s 11 U.S.C. Sect 544 (also forgot how to make that dbl squiggle for section). Try this:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/544

  9. Btw, when some decision is precedent in a particular juris, IMO, one may still argue against it. The door is not closed. But bad idea, also in my lay opinion, to present an argument contrary to precedent without an acknowledgement of the precedent and the vital “here’s why it’s wrong”. I think that’s where we get in hot water.

  10. Neither the debtor nor the bk trustee may take clear of the interests of the party whose interest is actually recorded / noticed (the original lender), but if that lender sold the loan (and no one noticed it), the orig lender has no claim to make. that’s one reason debtors might hurry up and homestead their properties and then make deals with bk
    trustees. I think, but can’t swear, the bk trustee has priority over the homeowner for the ben of the rest of the bk debtor’s bk estate. That would be subject to the homeowner’s homestead $$, which varies
    tremendously state to state. Say it’s only 35k and the prop is worth 200k. The borrower would be free to say to the bk trustee ‘I’ll pay you
    150k less my 35k homestead exemption (which the bk trustee is subject to, anyway in this scenario) instead of you selling it for 200k, paying realtor fees, whatnot.’ Or some such. As long as it benefits the bk estate or maybe just if no unsecured cred sqwauks, such an arrangement could be made. How that 150k has to be paid to the bk estate, I don’t know. Nor do I think it’s available in all chapters of bk. Think i can safely say it IS in 11’s. Banksters are having a cow that unrecorded interests may be avoided, and that’s why they’re ‘working on it’ while we are in the dark about their efforts.

  11. e.tolle – til you mentioned it, all I could remember about kessler was the name kessler. At 5:31, yeah, I guess I said if it’s not recorded it’s no good as to alleged assignees – no notice. Something on my list for ages has been to study the bk laws more fully which lead to avoidance of unrecorded interests. Might be 544 (you know I forget). There’s a premise which underlies that rule, and that’s what I hoped to learn and it may be as simple as just the BFP without notice rule. In a nutshell, and subject to my spotty memory, certain debtors and bk trustees (for instance really) may avoid unrecorded interests. The premise for that is what I have wanted and what I think would be helpful. They are said to take as a bona fide purchaser without notice. In the case of the bk trustee, as i recall only, he may take as a BFP w/o notice even if he has actual notice (like someone told him) – as opposed to notice by way of the constructive notice of recordation. IF it’s BRCP 544, that’s the one the banksters are working to 86 while we’re sleeping (as usual). I got some good clues about the premise in another case in bk, but dang if I didn’t lose it. that has happened with a few of what i call my ‘key’ cases. (i now try – key word – to remember to put them online somewhere or to ‘other storage’.)
    The same premise which underlies that rule imo must hold true for others. Or at least as a matter of law, it might, and if so, which I believe, we have failed to hit while the iron’s hot.
    As to Kessler, or any other court of limited jurisdiction, you know as I do it isn’t precedent. But the reasoning, if sound, may always be
    borrowed and be persuasive.
    The BFP doctrine, mol, has been relied on by banksters post-foreclosure to shut down post f/c homeowner claims. Seems to me that must work both ways.
    The bottom line is the public system of recordation exists for a reason and a damn good one. If someone wants his interest protected, he can record it. And for me, as always, he doesn’t at his own peril, and further, that’s probably what’s behind at least 544.
    If I own a home and ABC doesn’t record his interest, so I go get another loan from XYZ, why should XYZ be penalized when ABC comes calling? The ONLY time a court will find in favor of ABC’s first is on a purely equitable decision (or so it’s said) where there was NO FAULT BY ABC (somebody screwed up mol honestly). ABC’s choosing to not record is his fault – one with dire consequences. And that’s our recording system. This must also apply to a purchase by “Tom”, least that’s my belief.

  12. yesterday I said:
    “(MS) FACT : Every foreclosure goes down with the servicing agents posting of the Due On Date”.

    (jg) Makes sense – why would it be otherwise?”

    Don’t know why MS says that as if it’s errant, but I say it’s errant because the due date for payment by the borrower is not the right date or amt, not when a third party, such as FNMA, is making payments on its guarantee (which payments are further wrongfully never reflected in the amt alleged to be owing on the note). Just like in someone else’s loan here: if interest were charged as shown on the settlement statement before the loan disbursed, which it may NOT be, all figures on that loan balance are wrong and that’s a show-stopper.* If anyone’s loan went thru FNMA and is being foreclosed, the figures rendered should show one or more payments by FNMA. Could they credit the payments to the balance without disclosing that they were made by a third party? Maybe, but they aren’t, I’d bet. To see whaddup, run your own amortization schedule online, keeping in mind that interest on mortgage loans is paid in
    arrears. (your april payment paid the interest for march)

    *there was a case, so there is more than one no doubt, where the first servicer messed up the payment applications and the servicing was transferred that way, with wrong numbers. I think I linked it a few weeks ago or so fwiw. The point is, wrong numbers are a show stopper – the NOD, bk claim, demand, what not, MUST contain accurate figures. the next point is whether or not the due date for the last payment is factual (were payments made by FNMA or others?)

  13. JG, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t you pretty much just sum up the beauty that is Landmark v. Kessler? From my law school, Wikipedia:

    In Landmark Nat’l Bank v. Kesler, MERS, the appellant sought to invoke due process rights which it said were violated when MERS failed to get notice of the fact that their “interest” was being wiped out via a prior foreclosure it did not receive notice of. The Court said simply that MERS — or any nominee” didn’t have any interest and proves its point by reference to simple statements in the documents and the simplest of laws and interpretation of the role of MERS and the requirements of recordation. The splitting or bifurcation of the promissory note or mortgage note and mortgage or deed of trust creates an immediate and fatal flaw in title.

    I understand that what you were pointing out was…if it’s not recorded, it’s not any good, if I read you correctly. And that’s pretty much what the Kansas Supremes said with Kessler….no?

  14. Speaking of bk, BK alert: There are some bk rules which allow
    certain debtors and trustees to avoid unrecorded interests. The banksters are working on getting that changed. If they can’t get that done, they’ll twist what is said and convince judges etc the existing law means something else and they won’t stop til one of those happens.

    Since MERS may no longer f/c, ‘assignments’ are now being executed and recorded, right? The novation thing reminded me of something that’s been on my mind awhile.
    Say you want to sell your home to Tom.
    Public record only shows a dot to MERS. All Tom has notice of is a “MERS” dot on the home. You sell it to Tom, who has no notice on any alleged interest other than MERS interest as ben for the original lender, its successors and or assigns: Tom is a bonafide purchaser for value without notice of anyone’s claim except MERS’.
    Only MERS may dispute the sale to Tom, imo, and MERS can’t stand on ‘well, we’re a nominee for XYZ, someone other than the orig lender’. Maybe it is, but Tom has no notice that MERS is a ben for a new note owner, so that doesn’t change his bonafide purchaser for value without notice status, so, again, the only one imo who may argue against the sale and whether or not Tom’s title is subject to an existing lien is MERS or the original lender. That’s the interest Tom would take ‘subject to’. (Sure, they’ll claim the note owner changed, but Tom has no notice, so imo, he’s a BFPV not subject to that change – just to MERS / the original lender’s). Even if the original lender weren’t toast and showed up and said hey I sold this note to XYZ, I really believe Tom could stand on ‘tough. you didn’t tell me (by the notice of recordation). The original lender could show up and say ‘that’s my loan’, but we know that won’t happen. MERS by itself against Tom: MERS has no interest in the note, so it can’t make a claim against Tom for the note and any “MERS” claim against Tom is accordingly worthless. Would there be a cloud, the MERS’ dot, on Tom’s title? Maybe. Have to think about that some more, but that doesn’t change the fact there’s no claim against Tom on the noticed dot if not made by MERS AND the original lender imo. So if Tom
    is an entrepreneur, say, or a seasoned ‘real estate attorney’ (and just now because of this particular state of the nation, I see no moral / ethical issue), he might want to buy your house for something he’d risk and take it on. Better for a homeowner than rolling over and walking. I think that fight needs to be fought, and ‘deals’ could be made to see that it is. What are we waiting for? Attorneys as “Toms’ might say this is unethical. Well, 10 years ago. Not today. If anything, imo, it falls more inline with fighting the good fight, and apple pie. And where shall I send my 20 bucks for the fight?
    * * * * *

    SURVEY SAYS: “1 out of every 7 Americans receives food stamps,
    at a cost of 80b annually”. Are you stinking kidding me?! This is what we’ve come to?
    One of the obvious reasons for this is the removal of money from the private sector (read the 99). Can’t get paid, can’t start a business, can’t fix your car, can’t pay for child care, can’t consume – unless you, too, have a money-printing press
    I read the material e.tolle linked. Yes, secured creditors are the ones “saved” in bk, but they’re by and large the same bums holding the unsecured cc debt. What they did was create a false economy with their pretty much drive-through, got-a pulse-home loans. We got some goodies – new spiffy tv’s, cars, vacations, all purchased with phony money. Phoney because it was the result of
    phoney appraisals. We not only lost what we thought we gained, we lost it all. The guy who took the 100k ‘out of his house’ to start a business (because clearly he thought there was demand) doomed to fail when the false economy died really got the shaft. He didn’t even get a new tv.
    If your home were really worth 330k in 2004 and you borrowed 100k on a 600k “appraisal”, you likely found yourself owing 400k on a home worth only 200k. Why do you think many foreclosures take so long? Because prices have gone up. Just took some time and THEY could afford to wait, while you, on the other hand with no way to pay your loan, just owe more and more (arrears) on your 400k loan. Try not to call me a fat-head, but if there were 5 of me, one of them would sure as hell be devoted to learning the what to do about the crime of making a predatory loan.

  15. E Tolle,
    I thought Sam Seder had a great name for the new BK law: The Moral Bankruptcy Act of 2005. It was/is a Wall Street hijack, plain and simple.

  16. E.Tolle: great post. Eliz. Warren is the best. That disgusting bankruptcy law is also contributing big time to the student debt through government loans problem. Need to get rid of that bankruptcy law.

  17. And it all trickles down from here:

  18. JG,
    Of course you’re right–trusts can’t own anything or do anything like foreclose. That’s why the pre-foreclosure assignments are always to the servicer. Trusts/REMICS are static entities–fictions for tax purposes.

  19. Senator Elizabeth Warren on debt and bankruptcy:

    “Because bankruptcy is about financial death and financial rebirth. Bankruptcy is the great American story rewritten. We’re a nation of debtors. Why do you think people left Europe to come to the United States? They left because they were in debt. We like to describe it as, “Oh, it was about religious freedom.” No, it was about debt. They were looking for a way to escape their debts.

    And so they founded this nation, and when they got into financial trouble, you know what they did? They moved west. And they moved west, and they moved west. And by the end of the 19th century, there was no place else to move, and creditors could pretty much reach their debtors … anywhere around the country, and that’s when we finally put our first national bankruptcy law into effect. And we’ve had one ever since. It’s the way that people say: “I got out there; I borrowed the money; I did my best; I used that money to start a small business or to keep myself going in my job. … You rolled the dice with me. … It didn’t work. You can have most of what I own, and that’s it, though. We’ll stop there. We’ll declare the default. You write off the part of the debt I can’t pay, I’ll take my human energy … and go right back into the game again.” That’s the whole premise behind bankruptcy. It’s about death and rebirth.”

    __________________________________

    I had a friend, an esteemed BK attorney in the Midwest, who was invited to testify before Congress prior to the 2005 BK reform legislation. I had lunch with her upon her return. Contrary to me naïve hope, she said there was not a chance in hell of anything even remotely beneficial to the consumer getting through that Congress, as she herself couldn’t even navigate the halls of the capitol due to the cash-in-hand lobbyists, like kids lined up at a roller coaster park. She couldn’t speak to a single lawmaker, even though she was an invited guest. She had hoped to speak with them about how devastating this law could be to the populace on the whole and going forward. Fat chance. Mr. Potter saw to that.

    The 2005 bill was entitled, “Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act”, which, knowing full well what the repercussions of that bill would be and have been, should now be changed to read, “Bank Protection and Consumer Abuse Act”.Even the foxes overseeing the henhouse, the NY Fed, wrote a paper in 2011 in which they wondered aloud if the new bill was the cause of the sub-prime mortgage crisis. They wrote:

    “. . . many debtors file bankruptcy precisely so that they can pay their mortgage . . . by discharging other debts. Is it just coincidence that subprime foreclosures surged right after the bankruptcy abuse reform (BAR) took effect in October 2005. This article presents arguments and evidence suggesting that it is not.

    And they conclude with:

    “ Our study suggests that the bankruptcy abuse reform of 2005 may have been one of a number of contributors to the destabilizing surge in subprime foreclosures by shifting risk from credit card lenders to mortgage lenders.”

    Donald P. Morgan, a research officer at the New York Fed was the paper’s lead author. Morgan told The Kansas City Star that he was “99 percent confident” that the bankruptcy reform act of 2005 is a primary cause of the nationwide foreclosure crisis and free-falling home prices.

    So, by the greasing of the palms of our so-called leaders on the hill, we’ve all been robbed, and our combined naïveté suits us to ride forever in the back of a turnip truck – rubes that we all are. Pillaged by a perfectly oiled machine that systematically fleeces the populace while our so-called leaders greedily watch from the sidelines, cash in hand.

    But it gets worse. They’ve now stolen our homes. They’ve taken our equity, through the common lie that was modification – en – masse….just send us a few more thousand….you qualify…don’t worry, we won’t foreclose, trust us…. but your statements show that you still have some valuable assets so send them in and we’ll modify your loan to an affordable rate…but you’ll have to default first! We’re gonna’ need a larger turnip truck.

    Now the logical question would be, what more harm could they possibly do to us? Well it still gets worse. Yves Smith has an article up today by Raúl Ilargi Meijer on the Detroit BK debacle, and it turns out that that same piece of garbage BK legislation in 2005 just keeps on giving (or taking), as it rewrote the pension rules at the same time that it guaranteed our introduction to curbs all across America. He writes, “The game is stacked and fixed in favor of certain parties at the cost of others. We can all grasp how, without even knowing any details, because we should know how America, and the world at large, works these days. All games are fixed.”

    He goes on to say:

    “ Both pensioners and general obligation bond holders argue that they should have priority in claiming from the city’s inadequate assets in bankruptcy. However, a different class of creditor has legally senior status. Holders of financial derivatives enjoy super-priority in bankruptcy. Thanks to changes to bankruptcy law in 2005, they are not subject to the ‘automatic stay’ provision intended to prevent a disorderly grab for collateral by competing creditors. As such, they are able to press their claim immediately, prior to bankruptcy proceedings and therefore before claims by competing creditors are considered. This may potentially leave nothing for other creditors to divide during subsequent proceedings.” He goes on to say that “….a retiree counting on a modest annual pension of, say $30,000, the proposed cut would leave him or her with $4,800.”

    That’s roughly 16 cents on the dollar, going to the same financial institutions that took your home and equity. If any of us had known that our government would allow legislation like this to tilt the table this badly, would you have worked your ass off towards retirement? Towards your home? Wouldn’t you have considered staying home with the children, going fishing or for a walk – for seven days and working one, instead of the other way around?

    So the stage has been set, and is almost complete. The final curtain is for all of the fraudulently foreclosed lands to be assembled into hedge fund control so that the oligarchs have no trouble in dealing with the working class now residing in Potter’s Field. And the really troubling news is that there’s no more land to the west, no escaping their debt load this time by jumping on a ship and sailing into the sunset. We’re screwed.

    But there is a better way. We need to force a change. Only when the people that are supposed to be representing us in D.C. understand that we’re mad as hell and not going to take it anymore will they finally get it, that they represent us and not the monied interest – AT THEIR PERIL. I’m not calling for public lynching’s or other such violence, just good old fashioned shunnings, Amish style. Let them lose their homes and equity, their jobs and life savings, and return to their constituents begging for a part time job. Only then will we get true representation in Washington. REV 2.0

  20. http://www.andrewskurth.com/pressroom-publications-926.html

    jg- ran across this, thought of you ;}

  21. carie and anon, fat chance I’m going to forget anything about MERS,
    especially when its presence may mean what I think, starting with these loans are unsecured. But, I’m always interested in what you have to say (no particular shananigan by that whole group imo is mutually exclusive of others – MERS is likely a multi-purpose vehicle). I just don’t get some of it.

    “this would be securities fraud to the GSE security investors”

    jg: how so? If you’ve tried to explain this before, please try again differently. You said the note/debt is charged off. Okay. I still do not get what there is to sell. Collection rights to WHAT? If you give me a note for 10k, I determine you’re uncollectible say, and charge it off and take the tax deduction for bad debt, WHAT is there to collect? MAY a person (entity, whatever) expense the 10k in one year, or must the write-off be taken dollar for dollar of what is not paid in each year? Like if on that 10k note, in 2012 you were supposed to pay
    $2 049.18, is that the limit of your write-off for 2012? Seems like that could make a difference here (?)

    “Further, MERS was rarely used in valid GSE loans/refinances.’

    jg: say what?!

    “MERS was set up to cover actual debt collection rights…”

    jg: if so, doesn’t change any of its other purposes. As e.tolle might say, it’s quite accomplished.

    As to what I said here about MERS and novation, while I couldn’t quote the law which says a REMIC may not own other assets, I can repeat (and will try to locate) that the PSA’s excuse for others foreclosing is that “it might be seen as doing business in some states”. That’s just more bunk, but they could’ve said “it would be doing business” by the trust and the trust can’t do that. Course, that might have exposed the tip of the iceberg.

  22. David Stern signed every one of those bogus docs as a “MERS”
    officer, did he not, just like every other robo-signor. MERS is liable….and yet? It defies belief. Is there anyone here who thinks otherwise? (i’m curious, since I seem to be the only one whose jaw is still on the floor.)

  23. And E Tolle–brilliant summary of the horrible Stern verdict.

  24. Johngault,
    Really enjoyed your “novation” discussion. I totally agree with the last part of your piece, to wit:
    “Last but not least, why is MERS (as always read servicer-employee) trying to assign the note? Unity. They are trying to pretend there was a novation on the note, as well (meaning there was no fatal bifurcation from the get-go) and the party who was ‘novated’ is simply making someone else, like the trust, both the lender and the beneficiary (albeit “tardily”). ”

    You’re absolutely right–“MERS” ALWAYS purports to assign BOTH the DOT AND the note, even though Hultman himself has acknowledged that this assignment of the note is impossible because: 1) not only can MERS NOT assign the note because MERS is NEVER owner or holder of a note, but also 2) notes do not move through the land records. And the obvious reason that “MERS” purports to assign both DOT and note, is as you said, to unify the DOT and note because they well know that over a century of case law and statutory law deems DOT and note to be inseparable.
    Judges—always the problem, the hurdle, or as Mrs. Erickson said, the troll guarding the bridge—have routinely ruled that MERS can do things that MERS itself (specifically Hultman) has said it CANNOT do.

  25. The other day e. tolle said something about judges allowing the scam of “MERS” assignments, and that got me to thinking about them more than usual. There have been a couple cases where imo the scam was presented in a manner by which there was no ignoring it by the court, and I linked one such case the other day (mims). We need to keep on plugging away, and I felt that case represented a good path. But, imo it still misses the ‘real’ boat. MERS got itself in a heck of a mess and created one even worse.

    I’m always mindful of the MERS Consent Order which resulted in no more foreclosures in MERS’ name. I had some fantasy as recently as a couple years ago that I was going to do some undercover work and get chapter and verse, names and numbers, rhymes and reasons – the factual basis – for that order. Ran out of that kind of steam. I think what was written in the Order itself made reference to unsafe practices (understatement of all time) and other ‘stuff’ and alleged cures – MERS was supposed to mind the store. Though the Consent Order posed some problems for the banksters, nothing much has changed because anyone with one of the 20,000 + Hultman ‘resolutions’ may simply execute an assignment in MERS’ name, something which hardly meets the spirit, in a word, of the Order if not the letter; it’s still business as usual and even more tweaked because those assignments in MERS’ name unbelievably purport to assign the notes, as well.
    Why?
    Today I think the basis for the Consent Order, in addition to a slap on the hand for the unbelievably reckless, unconscionable if not just plain legally skewed m.o. of MERS, was a legal determination that MERS as nominee, and not as agent, does in fact bifurcate the
    note and dot.
    I’m convinced the designation of MERS as ‘beneficiary’ was a novation.

    Novation:
    “The term is also used in markets that lack a centralized clearing system, such as swap trading and certain over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives, where “novation” refers to the process where one party to a contract may assign its role to another, who is described as
    “STEPPING INTO” the contract. This is analogous to selling a futures contract.”

    Novation has been around for years and has been used in any number and types of business dealings / contracts, from the simplest to the most complex.
    I think naming MERS in the collateral instrument was a novation between Party A, lender, and Party B, MERS. When there is a novation, the second party is particularly NOT the agent of the first as to the contract. A novation endows party B with ‘everything’ as if party A had not been the original party in the contract and for sure, it no longer is. But here, it’s a tad messed up for even that because no original beneficiary is named, other than MERS.
    It might not have always been. When MERS first appeared, the lender was appropriately named the beneficiary in the collateral instrument and it was later (very shortly thereafter, could have been minutes even) assigned to MERS as beneficiary. For whatever reasons – greed, recklessness, time constransts come to mind – that was abandoned and MERS became the original beneficiary in collateral instruments.

    I’ve posited the designation of MERS as beneficiary was done to willfully bifurcate the note and collateral instrument because of the foreclosure problem: trusts may not take title to / own other / different assets and which, unlike the loan instruments, don’t
    merely generate pass-thru payments (if not for other reasons). These trusts and their beneficiaries can’t “trade” assets – loans and pass-thru payments for real estate, or cars, or anything.
    (And if a trust were to take title to the real property, does that instantly implicate the certificates? I think so, but can’t frame it, other than to state the obvious which is that there is no longer a payment stream on a note and dot.)

    IMO trusts have no way to enforce the loans, at least they may not end up with real property titles by way of a successful credit bid (enter the complex guarantees / agreements to make payments by third party servicers, issues, and so on and there’s more). No one who is an agent may do so because the act of an agent is the
    act of its principal. It’s all about enforcement and foreclosure.
    Voila: MERS, the beneficiary, a novation of part of a contract, the goal of which was to create a party who could take title on a successful credit bid, such credit bid belonging, if to anyone, a trust which can’t exercise it because (IF it had one), a
    successful bid would mean taking title to / owning real property.

    The designation of nominee was used to mol hide the novation. You cannot make a novation, which makes a new party thee principal – lack of better word – in a contract and yet maintain you preserved that position by designating the new-party-by-novation your nominee. The new party IS the one who was ‘nominated’/ chosen for the Novation, but the Novation happened (had the instrument been properly signed by the party making the novation – and since it wasn’t imo there may not be ANY beneficiary at all).

    Even so, unfortunately, we’re not done ,(disregarding the lack of the autograph of the party to be charged with the novation act) COULD one party take the place of another by novation in a contract and also be the agent of the original party? “I’m an agent for this, but a novated (don’t know if that’s a word) party for that”? The answer, at least here in these particular contracts, is NO imo. In the deed of trust, there has been a novation or there may have (I argue not on this one) been an agency created, but there is NOT both.

    The language in a dot which purports to allow MERS to do x,y,z is bunk and pure misdirection for the benefit of an attempt to make a legally impossible arrangement in one instrument.
    As a party to novation, “MERS” would have all those rights.
    BUT the problem here, the insurmountable problem imo, is that a mortgage loan is a two instrument deal, unlike other traditional contracts which employ novation where there is but one instrument / contract.. Only the collateral instrument and not the corpus of the deal, the note, was the subject of novation. The novation of the deed of trust only served to separate the rights and interests in the dot from those in the note. They’re bifurcated, and willfully so.
    That gang can only be dancing in the street when a court, like in AZ Hogan, found the party designated ‘beneficiary’ in a dot to be the proper party to foreclose (whereas I believe Washington – Bain – found that MERS is not a proper party to be named a
    beneficiary. True enough, if you don’t want bifurcation. Washington stopped short of calling it a (fatal) novation, whether it realized it or not – also imo – simply ruling MERS is not a beneficiary. Well, it is
    if there’s been novation, but then the dot is worthless.
    If one were to take the language in the AZ statutes at face
    (which I forget), one might arrive at the AZ SC’s conclusion in Hogan. But it would still be errant because it doesn’t consider the novation, which makes the dot in fact worthless without the note and maybe just plain worthless. (Truth is, imo (Hogan) would be errant for other reasons, ones I’ve meant to tackle fwiw, but I’m looking at novation here.)

    What does it mean when Party B IS the original beneficiary of Party A’s collateral instrument? The note and dot are not only bifurcated, but if there IS a collateral instrument at all, imo the collateral instrument is unperfected; though recorded, it has no relationship to the note. It’s an orphan, a wild, parentless document; it secures nothing.

    After “all this” and all their shananigans, and I’m including that in homeowner-advocate attorneys Treva Hearne and Robert Hager’s hard-fought NV litigation which morphed into MDL in Arizona and wherein it was determined (voodoo?) that MERS doesn’t bifurcate, the NV SC court now says that MERS’ presence in the dot does in fact bifurcate the note and dot, but that they may be re-unified. There’s no REunification – to me, that’s a monster misnomer. Need unity to re-unite.
    “Saving money on recordation fees” is just more misdirection.
    They never WANTED there to be any assignments, at least not to the trusts, and that was the goal. MERS (someone ELSE) HAS to be the beneficiary because these trusts may not take title to real property by way of a successful credit bid, which would mean real estate could only be sold at foreclosure to a third party and at a third party bid $$.

    They’ve gotten away with their double and tripple dealing for way too long. I say it’s time for the silver bullet, and I think this is it. Unless a note and dot originally (and willfully) bifurcated may be unified, not re-unified (as well as ‘fixing’ public record, etc., succinctly), they should be DONE. They would have to try to reform the dot to show the original lender as the beneficiary and then execute and record all. I don’t think that can be done.

    Last but not least, why is MERS (as always read servicer-employee) trying to assign the note? Unity. They are trying to pretend there was a novation on the note, as well (meaning there was no fatal bifurcation from the get-go) and the party who was ‘novated’ is simply making someone else, like the trust, both
    the lender and the beneficiary (albeit “tardily”). I believe novation occured / was the goal. I understand that I haven’t quoted chapter and verse wherein it says trusts may not own other assets, but there’s no doubt in my own mind REMICs can’t.

    also – Kudos, many kudos, to Shelley for her hard work. Had no idea. Hot damn!

  26. Once again—from Anon:

    “…Fannie and Freddie—-G­SEs—-could not just sell the Note—on performing loans—- this would be securities fraud to the GSE security investors. The Note (and it’s receivable stream) HAD to be falsely placed in default—and charged-of­f (after de-regulation, 1999-2000) in order to sell the “Note”—- but, when this happens the Note NO LONGER EXISTS—thu­s, all that is sold is collection rights to a once existing note…”

    “…When a note is charged off — it is charged-off. Note no longer exists. Cannot sell the note, because the loan that backs the note — is Charged-off!!! Thus, note/loan is gone. All that remains is collection rights to the default debt. This is basic accounting.

    And, many people get harmed in court because they do not use correct terminology. Charged off accounts/notes cannot be sold. If debt collector states “account was not sold” — they are correct. Charged-off accounts are dead — and the account/note/loan cannot be sold. What IS sold is the collection rights to the charged off account/note/original loan. That is all that remains. Must use “collection rights” as terminology.

    Forget MERS for the moment, and bifurcation. Not relevant. MERS is a separate issue, because MERS blocks disclosure of actual owner of note BEFORE the note/loan is charged off/sold.

    Further, MERS was rarely used in valid GSE loans/refinances. MERS was set up to cover actual debt collection rights…”

  27. because they are backed by the US GOVERNMENT!
    …..joke of the year 😀

  28. @Deborah – THANK YOU, I needed that!

    @johngault-
    You know what I find the oddest of all out of all these GNMA issues?
    There is NO contact at all I have been able to find to report a suspected fraud or mishap upon them…don’t you think that odd?
    Fannie, Freddie..they condone a watchful eye for fraud.
    Ginnie…they only have hot lines and numbers for investor guidance and help desks. I have called every number they have and said something of the sort I am looking for any division you may have that may oversee things such as, I dunno……MBS issuers submitting false information to GNMA, like the fact a loan is a conventionally uninsured – if by chance liquidation is in the cards..when they submit that claim for insurance….tough luck,it’s not insured…..
    Well, we do not handle that,…we just over see the issuance of the securities, they say….
    So I say….so you do not have any concern that you may be guaranteeing flawed securities?…..
    They say ..we do not handle issues such as this,mam….
    Interesting thing to ponder, eh?

    Why is it the only entity that carries MBS with a full faith 100% guarantee backed by the United States Government, not have a worry they may be screwed over??

  29. @ E Tolle , John Gault , and Louise ,,

    I have been in contact with MS for over a week and have asked him multiple times to speak with my lawyers researcher to explain his discovery (with protection that it would not be shared) and he has not done so … he originally put forth on this forum October 31,2013 as a drop dead date for the reason that it was an anniversary date for the conversion of a large number of notes and that rights would be lost after that date…

    This is an excerpt from a note he sent today ,, explains it all

    ***************************
    My cut off toniight ios because I sold these analysis “rights” and anything collected after 10:00 pm tonight is going to someon else.
    **************************

    As always it’s all about MS ,, and he can’t even be bothered to spell check … might as well be a Nigerian scammer… At least he can never say I didn’t give him every chance.

  30. WIP for CA appeal – A substantial question of material fact based on the evidence provided by Defendants exists regarding the chain of beneficiary interest.

    Appellant’s objection of illegibility and foundation to the judicially noticed assignment of the original lender to FNMA was overruled by the trial court. None of the noticed documents identifies the Subject Property or Subject Loan on “Attachment A” as presented. Furthermore, the Fontenot court, cited by the trial court, stated
    “In Herrera, the defendants sought judicial notice of the truth of recited facts within the recorded documents—for example, that a particular party ― ‘… is the present beneficiary under‘ a particular deed of trust. (Id. at p. 1375.) As the court noted, this is the type of statement found in Poseidon to be ineligible for judicial notice. (Herrera, at p. 1375.)”

    When coupled with the recent Calvo decision where deed of trust loans are not ‘other encumbrancers’ and don’t require public recording under Civ. Code 2932.5, the question arises why any recorded assignment in a California non-judicial foreclosure case is judicially noticed as a relevant document.

    In determining a motion for summary judgment, the evidence must be viewed by the Court in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and any factual conflicts must be resolved in favor of the non-moving party. Chesny v. Grisham (1976) [64 Cal.App.3d 120, 134 Cal.Rptr. 238]. It was an error of the trial court to find relevance of documents that provide no material facts specific to the action or a foundation of business records to support their consideration.

  31. David J. Stern finally faced his day in court looking at a judge from a slightly different view as a respondent. After thousands of fraudulent assignments of mortgages filed in recording offices from the panhandle to the Keys, after knowingly booting military families to the curb against congress’ favorite and only hands-off taboo in foreclosure, after defrauding countless thousands of Floridians….70,283 families in one year alone, he faced his judgment….

    Will he lose his fleet of yachts worth $20 million? Have to sell his $3 million worth of automobiles? What about his two waterfront properties worth $17 million? Much more importantly, will the thousands of Floridians who were shystered out of their homes be informed of the fraudulent document fabrication that caused them to lose their homes illegally? Also incredibly important to set the bar i.e. warding off repeat crimes such as these by others, will he have to pee in a metal toilet for the next 20 years?

    And the judge says…..Disbarment and a $49,767.62 fine. Huh? OMG&WTF?

    Less than the value of the lowest priced condo he looted. Who needs to lawyer for a living when they can effectively steal millions and sail away with it?

    The judge went on to say, “[Stern’s] “failure to exercise care” resulted in massive injury to the system.” The system? Care?

    That explains the bottom line here perfectly folks. The judiciary along with the government as a whole don’t give a flying-fuck about us or how this illegality affects us, as long as we pay the rent they seek. Citizen meet curb. It’s all about their system, and we ain’t in it, except to labor at their farms and buy their crap.

  32. Justme ……WF foreclosed on me , my name on the deed/title but not on the mortgage…….I fought them for 5 long years and told the judge this is not my fault these morons did not do their due diligence when buying this from original “lender”……..eventually they got a judge to agree and foreclosed. But I would not want to be the title company for the next buyer !!!!

  33. And russel mentioned the manchester city loss AND it was unneccessary
    Carie hes funny but paxton got him on air. That in itself is good,

  34. You guys HAVE to listen to this—believe me—it relates to all this bank crap…guaranteed to get you fired up!

    http://gawker.com/russell-brand-may-have-started-a-revolution-last-night-1451318185

  35. Justme
    You can sign up for west law for 2 weeks to try it out. ( it costs a fortune otherwise). You can research cases. Get the nolo series get the court rules and procedure books. If you are to be pro se you will need these tools. Preferably get a lawyer better still like Christine says interview a few and see if they take contingency or part contingency . Most cost around 200 to 350/ hr. paralegal 50 to 150/hr.
    I know you did not ask my advice but ive been at this for 4 years now gid help me, so if you are serious, and i care because we are all in this mess together.
    Going to my proper job now.
    Peace out all.

  36. Btw re the motion of certification of questions thing new york court of appeals and Brian Davies case. I wanted to “get that” -heres the link

    http://www2.nycbar.org/Publications/reports/show_html_new.php?rid=6

  37. Can I jump in here and ask if anyone has seen any court cases where the lender could not foreclose because they did not have all owners on the note and mortgage?Something like that..

    I am not on the note or mortgage,nor ever signed any type of quit claim etc. I keep reading all this “the lender can only foreclose on half the property” crap.
    It’s marital property, they failed to get my signature….? Any takers?

  38. E.Tolle, MS has been FOS since the beginning. Something is scrambled in his mental software, and he is dangerous to others.

  39. One can’t be too rough on MS. Remember, he created this mess. It’s hard work to design a system that works tirelessly and flawlessly 24/7 to rid billions of people of their life’s earnings and their place to raise a family.

    MS is a lot like a one armed bandit at a sleazy casino. You get the feeling there’s possibly some serious coin inside, maybe, behind all those distracting blinking lights and loud shrieking noises, but there’s never a payout….just more outgo. A waste of time. Nothing of value is ever gained. Save your change. It’ll come in handy as laundromats are in everyone’s future, thanks to MS and his cohorts in FIRE.

    What he and his ilk richly deserve is a mass Saddam shuffle. That’s where you take the protective railing off the top stair platform. You then carefully measure the distance from this upper landing, down to the landing a few floors below. You then deduct 7 feet from that total. That’s the length of the rope necessary to fix the planet’s ills. It’s very basic math. Much simpler than their math used to extort trillions from the global population.

  40. Legal definition of foreclosure according to Black’s Law 5th edition is:
    To shut out, to bar, to destroy an equity of redemption. Anderson v. Barr, 178 Okl. 508, 62 P.2d 1242, 1246. A termination of all rights of the mortgagor or his grantee in the property covered by the mortgage. The process by which a mortgagor of real or personal property, or other owner of property subject to a lien, is deprived of his interest therein.

    In One’s words below, a ‘foreclosure sale’ occurred. The answer to your question can be found when One determines the answer to this question. If foreclosure destroys an equity of redemption, where the definition of redemption is the realization of a right to have the title of property restored free and clear of the mortgage, performance of the mortgage obligation being essential for that purpose. A repurchase, a buying back. (and more) is there still something left to redeem (buy back)? By definition of foreclosure, that option is destroyed.

    Wells Fargo corporate owner now has the home as an asset and as part of the corporation, as well as, your money, and the title. What do you have that shows Wells Fargo corporate owner owes you the household monies, and how can that be enforced (assuming you’d have to get enforcement in the same system that supported the foreclosure sale).

    If people can get past talking about businesses as if they can perform some activity like live, eat, breathe, think, sleep, and can even enter a contract with a meeting of the minds and and sign it, we might get somewhere in this layered deep fraud, but to speak of Wells Fargo like it the name/building/corporation is performing some activity is like saying this pencil foreclosed on my home. I’m looking and saying how on earth did that happen. A pencil is not alive. How can a pencil take your home from you? Who is the actor behind the pencil (the man behind the curtain) who took the home and all you saw was a pencil.
    (Thus the real party of interest is NEVER present in the court and an action against a living male or female endowed by the Creator SHOULD NOT go forward unless the real party of interest is present).

    I mean no disrespect, but One can’t fight an enemy when One is blind. If One can’t see who is attacking them, One can’t put up a proper defense or walk away. One throws their money away and appear ignorant to that system which has ignored your status at first act. , The courts treat us as dead, as an infant the people elected to represent your state put your foot prints on a birth certificate and ran it through probate and got a signature of a registrar. From that point they’ve been having people appointed to execute our will even though we are age of majority, and very much alive and what they are doing is NOT OUR will.

    The people behind this fraud create documents with the name of a ‘person’ and don’t tell us a ‘person’ is a corporation. The people behind this fraud do not train nor educate the people who push the document in front of us for signature. When we sign, we are ‘representing’ the person we did not create. That’s the first fraud.
    They collect money from us when they should have gotten a signature of another and collect money from another from that same transaction we signed. They were paid. We were not born in debt. We were born here with everything we need. If they could bill us for every breath they would, but breathing is free until they pollute the skies with so much that you pay to have some chemical to allow you to breathe.

    People will jump right back into an agreement with these people even though they have been treated this way by someone behind the scenes.

    Peaceful resistance to what they do brings them down. Peaceful resistance proves there is no ‘free will’ to what happened to us. Courts are for mutual parties fighting over an agreement that was made. No one here agreed to be robbed, but some have agreed to be foreclosed on. There is a difference and the courts are for deciding the outcome of agreements. If their case was so strong there’d be no need to fabricate the claim of loss of right or injury or property.

    It’s complicated, but to open someone’s eyes, we have to start somewhere. A law firm has employees and those employees were hired by an employee of Wells Fargo. The law firm employees performed all the actions that led to the completion of the foreclosure sale, their paperwork was attorned enough to get a judge to sign off on it. An employee of Wells Fargo will pay them. The property will be absorbed as an asset of the corporation. The CEO does not own the corporation, someone else owns it and has consumed the property into their corporate ownership. It’s a giant game of monopoly.

    The true question would be who at Wells Fargo owes you the household monies and which employee representing the interest of Wells Fargo will be given the permission or can determine on their own to pay it so that you can receive it?

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Conscience, Life, People, Corporeal, Free, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  41. After foreclosure sale. Do I call wells Fargo and request my household monies due ?

  42. “FACT : You cannot invoke a power of sale by ARBITRARY acceleration”

    The issue was due on sale, not a power of sale.

    “FACT : Every foreclosure goes down with the servicing agents posting of the Due On Date”.

    Makes sense – why would it be otherwise?

    “FACT: The Due on Date is calculated showing the wrong balance and fails to address the households credit due.”

    I don’t know about the hh’s credit due, but no one’s arguing about the wrong balance.

    “FACT: Every foreclosure is calacuted by back dating to the Due On Date while the bond holders represent each obligations as Current and PAID AS AGREED.”

    No one’s arguing. Far as I can tell and have said, the obligation to the certificate holders is current and also doesn’t reflect, in the case of FNMA say, the payments made by the servicer which are reimbursed by FNMA on demand.

  43. Well, MS, in all honesty, I was a little rough on you – “blabbering” and so on. Poor choice of mine – I think I was trying to goad you into actually saying something cognitive / useful (entreaties have come to naught), which in a perhaps perverse way is actually an endorsement – means I still think, as I think do a few others, you might know something we want to know. But I shouldn’t have done it.

  44. MS – I’m not going to resort to what you will and have, but I will say I’m not the one here scrounging for paying customers. I’m not trying to make a living selling anything. Your comment is more annoying to me because you stand for something I despise – a regrettable and absurd inclination by some to attack one’s own team members – than that it’s aimed at me.

  45. […] The Wadsworth case clearly shows that the appellate courts are requiring the trial court to scrutinize the claims and filings of would-be forecloser and that things like notice of acceleration and the right to cure are important enough to reverse summary judgment. This is directly contrary to the rulings of many judges who say that the lack of notice is NOT a basis for granting a motion to dismiss. It can be argued that if it is enough to defeat a motion for summary judgment, it ought to be sufficient to dismiss the complaint that does not allege the existence of the loan, the financial injury and the compliance with paragraph 22, with a copy thereof. Read the full story and relevant court decisions  […]

  46. John Gault you are a loser and simply Blogger trash …Blogger trash …a want a be ! Your a poser and dangerous -clueless …….whacked out ! Get A Job

    FACT : You cannot invoke a power of sale by ARBITRARY acceleration

    FACT : Every foreclosure goes down with the servicing agents posting of the Due On Date

    FACT: The Due on Date is calculated showing the wrong balance and fails to address the households credit due

    FACT: Every foreclosure is calacuted by back dating to the Due On Date while the bond holders represent each obligations as Current and PAID AS AGREED

    registerclaims@live.com

  47. More appropriately stated, the grantors were never informed that MERS was both a nominee and the beneficiary for the Grantors equitable interest …..

    RE: in a document not signed by the party to be charged with that appointment.

    Yeah … both parties signed alright …

  48. Garn St. Germain Act: (US Code / Title 12 – Banks and Banking / Chapter 13 – National Housing / 1701j-3 Preemption of due-on-sale prohibitions.

    There are several exceptions in which the lender may not enforce the due-on-sale:

    (d) Exemption of specified transfers or dispositions…
    (8) a transfer into an inter vivos trust in which the borrower is and remains a beneficiary and which does not relate to a transfer of rights of occupancy in the property; or

  49. The other day at the “JPM Could Lose” post, MS was blabbering about due on sale clauses as if they are relevant to his “payoff / discount 80/20” theory. My first reaction was he’s smoking something.
    Due on sale clauses only apply to FEE owners of real property and as we know are clauses found in the dots. But, hmmm, now that he mentions it, the sale of the collateral for a note may trigger acceleration of the note. Is there any question that is something other than repayment of the note???

  50. .” (Well I agreed to MERs as an agent of the broker and its “assessors & assigns” ”
    More appropriately stated, the borrower was informed that MERS was both a nominee and the beneficiary in a document not signed by the party to be charged with that appointment.

  51. Re the rulings in my case appeared to be bias, as with yours hman
    Frankly its getting very old because we know that they know i did not even expect the playing field to be level as a pro se-r but i PleAd my appeal well and its now up to a panel of judges at the 9th circuit USCA. I hope they apply the principle of truth of the matter and that i have actually ( and so have you) been abused by the court we relied on to give us equal oppertunity and due process. This age old principle is to hopefully see that no innocent man goes to jail and yet we see the reverse.
    Ck my case 12-16192 and you wlll see how it went for me. All i know is this is important work.

  52. A man – looking for the Davies stuff and found this appeal brief, imo highly instructive – good cites to rules of procedure, etc.

  53. Are there links to the two cases quoted, Wadsworth and Beaumont? Would be nice to be able to read them.

  54. *hear the case….opps.

  55. Deb,

    Seriously. I hired an attorney and never even got the opportunity to a trial. There were obviously robosigned document and a previous QT victory against the broker on record. Also, had a statement from the broker stating they had no interest in the loan and it had been sold to a party not even reflected in the title trail anywhere.

    My attorney did a good job but it doesn’t matter when the judge has made up their mind before they even here the case. Makes me wonder if they even read the case. I won the QT case and nothing on record showed I owed anyone else anything. The bank didn’t have to show proof of anything. (Well I agreed to MERs as an agent of the broker and its “assessors & assigns” doesn’t matter if the original broker is long gone if one of the assignees owns the debt. This is the rational of our AZ court as you well know.) MERS is allowed to serve as a “common agent”.

    We really just want to be heard on our merits. The banks are allowed to commit fraud and continually get away with it with a minor slap on the wrist here and there.

  56. Sent from my iPhone

    >

  57. Cool

    Sent from my iPhone

    >

  58. now we are talking.
    the rules are there to preserve and ensure due process, its the principle, I do not care as much about loosing my house as this principle.

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: