What About All Those Cases Where Foreclosure Was Dismissed?

As I predicted in 2009, the number of cases where foreclosure had been simply dismissed without further action has increased exponentially. The homeowner is normally afraid to take any proactive stance for fear of awakening the giant who will then respond by filing another foreclosure. Some of these cases are as much as 10 years old which goes beyond the statute of limitations in virtually all jurisdictions. As a caveat, let me add that there are states in which the statute of limitations is “ongoing” which means that the entire action is not barred by the statute of limitations; instead, in states where this doctrine is applicable, each new payment due gives rise to a new Period where the statute of limitations begins to run.

The number of inquiries I am receiving based on this scenario has been steadily increasing for the last year. At this point I would say it is accurate to say that I am receiving inquiries at the rate of 3 to 5 per day involving cases in which foreclosure has gone into a state of “limbo”. In most cases the time between the disappearance of the pretender lender at the present time has been a period of years.

There are several strategies that might be applicable and you should contact a licensed attorney who is practicing in the area in which your property is located before you make any decision about taking action or not taking action.

The first strategy which is being followed by most people at this time is doing absolutely nothing. These are people who’ve been living without paying rent or mortgage payments and who hopefully have been wise enough to pay the taxes and insurance. If they haven’t paid the taxes they could lose the home as a result of the tax lien. There most likely entitled to relief under some cause of action like nullification of instrument or a lawsuit to quiet title and may be entitled to damages under various statutes or common law doctrines. In judicial states where the action has been dismissed, most lawyers agree that the dismissal of the action should be recorded in the county records that keep track of transactions involving property.

Another strategy which is being followed by an increasing number of people is a lawsuit to quiet title and nullify the mortgage. The lawsuits to quiet title are getting more traction than any efforts to nullify the mortgage. This is because the homeowner cannot identify whether there is an actual creditor and who that creditor might be. But that is what constructive service of process is all about. You publish the notice in a legal newspaper to let the world know that there is a pending action in which anyone who is claiming a right property, directly or indirectly, or claiming a right under the mortgage or note, might be negatively affected by the outcome of the litigation. If the judge accepts that there is a good possibility that in the absence of anybody coming into court to defend the action a default will be entered along with a final judgment.

I know several hundred cases in which such final judgments have been entered resulting in the elimination of the mortgage and note completely.  Frankly I think most of the cases should be resolved by elimination of the mortgage and potentially avoid the note as an instrument upon which party could rely enforce the collection of a debt.  That would still theoretically leave a debt owed by the borrower to an unknown creditor.

Some interesting questions arise when servicer’s case against the borrower has been dismissed by the creditor has not been informed. The argument would be that the servicer as an agent of the creditor has notice and therefore his principal has notice. This would only be true if the servicer was operating under the provisions of the pooling and servicing agreement. But the provisions of the pooling and servicing agreement would not apply unless the trust was the  creditor. if the investors realize that their interest in the loan arises not because of their purchase of bogus mortgage bonds but rather because their money was used directly to fund the origination or acquisition of loans, then the servicer has no written agreement upon which you can rely for its power to enforce collection of the debt, the note or the mortgage.

There are several other strategies that are in use right now which I do not wish to elaborate upon. I suspect that they may be successful only because they are not on the radar for the banks or the attorneys for the banks. So I don’t want to do anything that might impair the ability of some borrower out there to get the relief that he deserves.

In all cases the homeowner should obtain a full title and securitization report. This can be obtained from us or any number of other reputable vendors. If you are purchasing or selling a home or attempting to refinance it probably should take extra steps to assure that there are no defects in the chain of title and especially no defects in connection with the satisfaction or release of the existing mortgage. In all probabilities those defects exist. I have been receiving an increasing number of inquiries from people who wish to purchase a home but after reading what is available on the Internet have realized that they might not get clear title. Thus they come to us to review the transaction and give our opinions as to what defects might exist and what to do about them.

For information about our services please call 520-405-1688

 

53 Responses

  1. Missing Trust Agreements..
    Missing POA Agreements …

    topped of with MIA Warranty Deeds..

  2. At closing of purchase loan, … there was an altered trustees deed and no trust agreement. I tried and I tried to get that trust agreement myself and eventually via attorney. We still don’t have that trust agreement .. oh fluckerdash and do I know why to.

    Right after I clean up this other fuzzy stuffs off the title in current case.

    I have to take the deceased sellers Attorney, the deceased sellers trust and the deceased sellers trust beneficiary/Trustee to court. But that’s ok .. the Beneficiary/Trustee has lots to say about her deceased parents Attorney, and she (we) have the evidence to prove it. She knows we have to sue her because someone was signing as POA for the Trustee without a POA agreement between the parties. OOPsy ..

  3. * Its a Cloudy Day*

  4. Nope! “The Aliens”. 🙂

    File the Warranty Deed in the public record .. Now?

    1.Filing a Trust Agreement alone is not Perfection.

    2. Filing a Trustees Deed alone (without the Trust Agreement) is not perfection.

    Delivery and Acceptance = Puffect’ed

    Scraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatch …….ed

  5. Hey, poppy! I say the “MERS” assgt of the note and dot to a trust is prima facie evidence they weren’t in the trust before. So we give (right?) For whom does the servicer allege it’s been servicing all this time (since it isn’t the trust)? The depositor? The orig payee? The man in the moon?

  6. or, beauduke, they may just sit there and let the judgment accrue interest (you don’t want this!), knowing if there’s equity beyond the 90k protected by the h/s, and you go to sell, you’ll have to pay them. again, ask a lawyer.

  7. beauduke@johngault, “it appears at my age the homestead exemption is $90K. Does that mean that if the judgment lien is less than $90K, they can’t foreclose or collect, at least until the home sells?”

    I have to think about that. just saw this and it’s been a long day and into something else just now! But from the hip, the judgment lien might attach to your equity which exceeds the 90k exemption, i.e., a 90k homestead exemption protects the first 90k of equity from judgment creditors. If the home is valued at 200k, say, and the exemption is 90k, 110k is unprotected. If the j lien is for 10k, say, it can attach to the unprotected equity. Would a judgment creditor try to foreclose over 10k? I don’t know. Maybe. Strictly lay opinions – ask a lawyer who gets homesteads, and really, do. She might say it’s best to try to settle with the j creditor if you are otherwise uncollectible (or actually, esp if you’re otherwise collectible). F/c is a major hassle for them over 10k (but remember, interest accrues at a statutory rate, generally, on j liens).

  8. @johngault, it appears at my age the homestead exemption is $90K. Does that mean that if the judgment lien is less than $90K, they can’t foreclose or collect, at least until the home sells?

  9. @ Trespass Unwanted ,

    you said “Their words are word magic. We will NEVER understand them, and if we say we do “under stand”, we “stand under” their control over us and the decisions they make on our behalf.”

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

    Reminds me of a legal fraud from back in the early days of long distance de-regulation … some states let it stand , some didn’t …

    Some smart guys started a long distance company with no assets ,, they merely routed traffic over another carrier… and gave their company the name “Home Office Long Distance” ,,, you as a consumer would be solicited by someone inferring they were from your local phone company and inquire as to what long distance carriers you would like… the “H.O.L.D.” sales rep would ; after a short while; ask “can I put you on HOLD” ,,, if you said yes they would assign you to Home Office Long Distance and you were screwed with outrageously high rates until you got it fixed…

  10. sub trustee must be appointed before he can take action, not sub trustee document must be recorded. recordation constitutes notice to third parties, not validity of the document itself. check local listings of course. in fact, in some states, the sub of trustee can occur after the steps are taken by the trustee and the sub of trustee doc ratifies those actions.

    there is a fundamental distinction between execution and recordation in that recordation is for notice/priority purposes as opposed to validity purposes. the deed of trust is valid between the parties and can be the basis for foreclosure even if not recorded. if not recorded, then the priority of the deed of trust is in jeopardy. again, check local listings

  11. johngault,
    Substitute Trustee must be recorded before they can take action, true.
    Substitute Trustee takes action then records their status as substitute trustee, –that’s just one of the bad things done to steal my home’–.

    I sit here and read all the fraud and theft and pilfering going on and everyone still using the legitimate name of ‘foreclosure’.

    Do you know that if you use a legitimate name for a crime, you legitimize the crime?

    If someone steals your purse or wallet, do you call them a debt collector, when you don’t even know them, don’t owe them a thing, or if they take your car, do you say your car got repossesed by someone you didn’t know and didn’t owe?

    Why are you calling these actions and activities, foreclosure?

    You give legitimacy to the claim that they are taking back something that belongs to them and they are using legal means to do so.

    It’s your world, your reality, and you are creating it.

    I was robbed. The rest can say they were ‘foreclosed’
    Robbery occurred from someone who was not the creditor and I didn’t owe them anything.
    Foreclosure is done by the ‘creditor’. Look in the legal dictionary. The Creditor foreclosures and brings the foreclose action using a law firm they hire to make it happen.

    A trust is a different kind of contract. You have to know the role of the trustee, and how you created the trust, you are the grantor, and that somewhere someone is holding some sort of ‘power of attorney’ over you and your assets and using it without telling you. You go to court, and when someone else is not there to re-present the situation they assume it’s not re-presented and take the property on one word, the word of the party that is re-present-ed. When you hire someone to re-present the situation(trust), their allegiance is to the court because their salary comes from cases and assignments within that court. They will dance the dance and give up the goods so they can feed their self and their family.

    There will NEVER be a fair remedy in any court. Courts are esoteric. For all we know, a judge will decide based upon rules and who dotted all i’s and crossed all t’s and not on the absolute truth and legal facts. In a cartoon world, a world of fiction, who ever ‘builds’ a case that looks winnable will win. That’s not justice, true justice you don’t build/create your crime and then walk off with someone else’s assets with the blessing of the judicial system.

    In every movie, if a villain got something that wasn’t his, he couldn’t keep it no matter how perfect the crime, but movies aren’t even based on our own reality.

    There is no remedy in the court. A judge is no pope, he’s a banker. He’s a flesh and blood man sitting in a position that he’s only recognized in when he steps into his persona and wears his costume and plays his part. He has to shop at the grocery store and dump his waste in a toilet like the rest of is.

    He doesn’t hear the living, he summons the dead. Dead has to be represented like a spirit in a seance. Someone speaks for the dead and tells the court the will of the dead, it is that information the court is interpreting.

    We are not dead. Until living people walk in there and say you either hear me, or you are not doing my will, they will keep stealing from us.

    Notice a spirit can make an appearance. They want you to appear in court.

    Their words are word magic. We will NEVER understand them, and if we say we do “under stand”, we “stand under” their control over us and the decisions they make on our behalf.

    We can speak for ourselves, but they want the body to be represented. Ever ask yourself, why do I need someone to represent me, when I am me?

    Imagine being a parent and telling your co-creations that you will send your representative in to discipline them or to talk to them about certain matters.

    Doesn’t this sound strange that you’ve stepped into their reality and are calling theft a foreclosure?

    Are you helping them hurt us by not seeing?
    I didn’t see for a long time, but I know they know what they are doing. They watch us try to figure it out. They know they are stealing. Judges know we don’t know what they are doing. They know we don’t know why we have to be ‘represented’ to come into their court. They know we don’t know a lot of things…but they would sit back and say ignorance of the law is not bliss.

    If the information was available we would not be ignorant of it.
    ignorance I defined in a post sometime this month. It has nothing to do with the capacity of our mind. It has to do with not having the information we need to stand up on our own to make decisions that benefit us.

    But, it was never meant to keep us ignorant. We were supposed to have the information and when we present it, we were supposed to receive our remedy.

    That’s where their failure in their position of trust will come back to bite them. Someone is looking over their shoulders. They are going through the books now, and seeing what is going on.

    At first they only saw the surface, but someone got them to look deeper, look harder, the evidence is there.

    When you see society crumble, pay attention to the position and role of the people who are going to suffer the most. Yes, these people have family and friends, and mothers and fathers, and cousins and children, but it does not absolve them from what they have done.

    Once they lost their immunity, they lost it.
    They think that since nothing has happened immediately, nothing will happen.

    People read the story of the fallen angel. No one ever wonders how someone can fall from grace like that, or choose to. But if there is any clarity to the story, the one who fell was not the Creator. They thought they could out wit or out smart the Creator, and take over, and found out that the One Creator knows everything.

    These people are in no position to take from us, yet they do, and they have no immunity for what they’ve done, only a bunch of papers loaded with their lies, even their order and judgment is a lie.

    By their signature which is their seal, they seal their fate.

    Give it some time. They are not all powerful and omnipotent.
    They can’t rob with impunity and surely have no more immunity.

    I’ve been robbed, and I went to court to stop it, and they helped the thief steal my property, because I didn’t speak their language, and they didn’t hear me nor see me because they needed that appearance to be ‘represented’ by someone they have a contract to agree to see and hear.

    Trespass Unwanted, absent the name, Creator, Corporeal, Free, Independent, State, People, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  12. The Banksters are the Harlem Globetrotters and the Borrowers are the other team. Just this is not a game.

    The Judges are the Ref’s. come to your own conclusion.

    http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=harlem+gobetrotters&FORM=VIRE2#view=detail&mid=F3FAFC9646599D2C6944F3FAFC9646599D2C694

    NEVER AGAIN

  13. I don’t know about anyone else here, but MERS on my docs is a nominee, a nominee to do what? $64,000 question: Can a nominee with “limited” power, continue to designate and appoint more nominees? I think not! Just my opinion….and MERS is a storage facility, with no employees. HAH! Judges are full of it…

  14. Christine this is not a dating service.

  15. Save Tax Payer Dollars and follow the True Law. Enforce Produce the Note Judge Dont become an accessory to Fraud and save tax payer dollars.
    http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=holocaust+images&id=E02317954A11F79CC0D9887B8C54E8E35A5E1971&FORM=IQFRBA

    This is what happened when we let Deutsche Bank go wild.

    NEVER AGAIN

  16. KC – yes, but the issue of MERS as a beneficiary was, unfortunately, not raised in that litigation, so the court declined to address it. Had it been, the court would have followed Pilegram: MERS is not a beneficiary and has nothing to assign (unless it is because it IS the ben, something not considered by the Montana court, or if they did (in Pilegram) they concluded MERS is not a party meeting the stat. def of a ben, which imo leaves the dot without one.

  17. Remember that phrase “Why don’t you just make a federal case out of it?” Anyone seen the subpoenas etc flying, and how fast they’re flying, out of the Chris Christie traffic-gate deal? You’d think there’s no tomorrow. I guess it (the stinking law) just depends on who you p.o.

  18. Beauduke,

    Those are questions for an attorney. What state are you in?

  19. “I have been receiving an increasing number of inquiries from people who wish to purchase a home but after reading what is available on the Internet have realized that they might not get clear title. Thus they come to us to review the transaction and give our opinions as to what defects might exist and what to do about them.”

    Foreclosure defense attorney. Closing attorney. Forensic expert. Securitization expert. A man of many hats…

    How’s business? Is it biting yet?

    What a great country.

  20. Well, at least the Montana Supreme Court Dissenting Judge got it right.

    RUBY VALLEY NATIONAL BANK v. WELLS FARGO
    The beneficiary of a deed of trust must be “the entity to whom the secured obligation flows.” That entity is the lender, not an electronic registry such as MERS. MERS was not a valid beneficiary and had no interest in the Deed of Trust. The chain of assignments leading from MERS to Wells Fargo was empty. Wells Fargo has no stake in the outcome of this case, and therefore lacks standing.
    (The rest of the court reversed in favor of Wells Fargo.)

    http://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/ruby-valley-bank-v-wells-fargo_mers-not-beneficiary_1-14.pdf

  21. @johngault – A MBS trust may have as few as a single certificate holder, or a plethora. If the majority of certificate holders is easily defined as the majority, they may exercise their power in overriding the MBS trustee’s decisions per the terms of the PSA. An example would be a LLC composed of former stockholders of a failed financial institution who ended up with the certificates to a given trust.

    Ofter your simple answers to your own questions fail to reflect the possible complexity of the answer, and leads people astray as a result. As to your most recent ‘posit’, did you receive a TILA notification from the recent MERS activity on your loan?

  22. The courts are siding with the banksters because there is no one backing them up at the Federal level. If there were, the Feds could take all that excess computing power from the NSA, subpoena the transaction database of MERS Inc. and the collateral file containing correspondence of the lenders (by loan#) and match them up to determine the conformance level. I’m betting it’s near ZERO, and I’m not talking about the current resident of the White House. The Feds could send the borrower a letter of their findings of noncompliance based on the addresses in the collateral file(s).

    After all, the NSA isn’t using all that computing potential against U.S. citizens any longer, are they? /s

  23. Poppy said:
    “A “servicer” under the PSA? No valid trust, no PSA adherence or claim.” You’re so right, poppy – glad you said that again. The servicer derives whatever authority it has from the PSA / its servicing agreement. I’ve posited that the post-default (current, not 7 years ago) “MERS” assignment is prima facie evidence the loan was not in the trust previously. And as you said, not in the trust, the servicer has no authority, at least for the trust. Since that authority, which would find its origin in the PSA, isn’t there, isn’t applicable, seems to me the ‘servicer’ can’t do anything. If the servicer wants to document that it otherwise has authority for another party, we’d like to see that! The failure of a loan to make it into a trust takes the servicer of the trust out of the picture.

  24. @beauduke – check the new TILA that allows a QWR where they must specify the name and address of the lender / note holder, and the name and address of the servicer. Compare that to the TILA requirement of notifying you of any change of note holder within 30 days (eff 2010). The SOL for notification is 1 year, but the fine is enough to pay attorney fee to start a case to recover it if lender changed without notification to the borrower. I haven’t seen anyone use it against MERS yet, but it’s a possibility.

  25. Obviously I’m fuming about people getting 1099’s from joe blows who weren’t the party who filed for foreclosure or named as the “creditor”. I was reading some IRS stuff and see among other things, you have to owe the dough to have its not being paid by you forgiven. (duh) But do you owe it? Never minding that someone else may have paid it – that’s another matter – you may not owe it. The IRS refers to recourse loans and debt forgiveness. A recourse debt / loan is one you owe personally, like credit card debt. An example of a non-recourse debt obligation is where the lender / creditor’s remedy is limited to the collateral for the loan, our homes. If a loan is non-recourse, the lender has no recourse against us or any of our other assets (and so can’t get a deficiency j) to try to collect out of those other assets, including wages. we can’t be compelled imo to pay debt forgiveness taxes on debt we don’t owe, i.e., a non-recourse loan. I haven’t studied this – just looked at it. People who have gotten 1099’s imo need to see if they, not their homes, actually owed the money, were personally liable.
    And it looks like there are offsets even if the loan were recourse. Before claiming some bs 1099, people who got them might want to read this and talk to an attorney or accountant who knows this stuff.

    http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p4681.pdf

  26. Right now they are negotiating $50 billion and slipped these negotiation out why? Are you folks writing to the government agencies and Congress about what your going through and how you think you were wronged!

    I think they thrown these figure out to see what else is out there, that they can wrap up in this one settlement. Think about it as your talking about a small amount in a single mortgage compared to billions if people teamed up!

  27. @johngault, thanks for the I’ll look into the homestead law, never thought of that. Yes, I am trying to put this thing to rest with a QT action but don’t want to stir up an issue I can’t win. Non-judicial state and BoA filed foreclosure a couple years ago and when I sued them to get it into court, they dismissed the foreclosure when I mentioned discovery. Now they claim to have transferred the servicing to a new party and we’re currently doing the modification “dance”. The whole process is getting old and I’m looking to do something to end it. The lis pendens is left over from the previous action.

  28. Long Live Neil Garfield and Company. Be Strong and Courageous

  29. By the language in the dot, it’s poss a borrower could be charged with knowing of the novation, or at least that some outfit called MERS is the ben, but that still doesn’t make the note and dot not bifurcated all the same. A borrower can’t agree to an unlawful deal. Well he can, but it’s not enforceable. All objects of any agreement, to be enforced, must be lawful. Is bifurcation “unlawful” per se? I don’t actually know, but probably, but either way, the debt has become unsecured, and that’s not necessarily all good news (because it could poss lead to recourse where recourse wasn’t contemplated or allowed by stat). And the note and dot are still bifurcated originally. I just want to repeat that ‘they’ originally, when MERS first showed up, showed the lender as the ben, and then assigned to MERS. Imo they got bold and really stupid when they decided they could call MERS the orig ben, unless it was their
    misguided desire to bifurcate the note and dot for their own reasons. But actually, they could have accomplished that by sticking to naming the lender as ben and then doing an assgt to a third party (MERS).

    Even if a borrower could be charged with knowing that another party
    were the ben, there still wasn’t a meetting of the minds imo, because no borrower would know what that actually meant (like maybe losing
    non-recourse status of an unsecured loan). There really was no meeting of the minds. The borrower had no idea signing that dot would mean that he would never know who could come after him and who that is could be determined by any one of 20,000+ Hultman appointees. The MERS m.o. imo is a recipe for robo-signing imo. MERS itself disclaimed the veracity of the ‘records’ in its database. I believe they’re trying to comform the evidence to the prior acts by their
    7 year contract with Genpact being carried out on info and belief far, far away in India.

  30. I think that’s part and parcel of the consent order – a finding that MERS is not an agent of anyone, esp of those who buy the note and that’s why (one of the reasons) the assignments now – from a party who it turns out is really an impossible fourth party to a dot. (lender, borrower, dot trustee and then MERS). The Consent Order, if anyone really got to the bottom of it, imo would show that AZ et al are mistaken, that one with no interest in the financial obligation has no right to a remedy for its default and that MERS is no one’s agent. Further, that principals acting in the name of the alleged agent is legally impossible). With the here and there exception (NB and certain mfrs), MERS has been very vocal about no interest in the debt / note. The post-default assgts are an attempt to unify the note and dot for enforcement (two problems: there was no orig unity by not first naming the lender as ben and the fact that the trusts can’t take late assgts.)

  31. hman – the secn trustee never assumes the role of dot trustee. He can’t, pretty sure. The substitution of a dot trustee must be recorded prior to that party (the sub’d trustee) trying to act in that capacity. For instance, a sub’d dot trustee can’t issue a NOD prior to the recordation of its substitution. Check the reading of your state’s law.

    As far as a borrower goes and MERS, the borrower isn’t agreeing to anything per se imo. His signature might signify that he has been informed that MERS is thee ben – by another agreement between the lender and MERS, maybe. The borrower isn’t and can’t be charged with knowledge on another contract: all the borrower can be charged with knowledge of is what’s in the dot. Even so, the borrower having knowledge of someone else’s assertion doesn’t make that assertion a fact. The borrower can’t be charge with knowing of the MERS’ membership agreement or any other agreement that’s not of public record as to his property specifically. Even if MERS were the agent of the note payee, which it isn’t, that agency is not evidenced in the dot, and certainly no agency is created between a lender and MERS (or anyone) by your signature. You nor anyone else may make MERS the lender’s agent nor may the lender (nor you) make MERS anyone else’s agent. The only way note buyers down the line could be “subject” to MERS is if there is a novation, and MERS IS THEE ben. I don’t subscribe to the dot follows the note because primarily of the statute of frauds, which requires a writing to transfer an interest in real prop. The
    Carpenter case may have preceded the SofF plus it was about a mortgage, which is a lien, not a transfer of (a form of title – equitable) as takes place in and by a dot. If MERS is a novated party (disregarding that the orig lender wasn’t named first to substitute – major biggie to me), the party who bought the note would have to demand an assgt out of MERS, and if it’s not forthcoming, sue for it. If MERS is the novated party, it wouldn’t do any good prob for the buyer to sue the former note owner because MERS isn’t the former note owner’s agent.

  32. Also, does anyone have any thoughts on the trustee on record (on the deed of trust) & the securitization trustee.

    Let’s assume for the moment title company serves as trustee for closing. At what point does the securitization trustee assume this role? and does this need to be recorded anywhere?

    Maybe many of us did agree to MERS on our DOT & we also agreeded to allow the “lender” to substitute trustee but is there any statutory, state or federal law that states that it needs to be recorded within a certain time frame?

  33. Reasonably, I thought the same when I defaulted my broker/lender. However, in my case I did not default MERS. When I went to court the 2nd time my judge seemed to think that the QT was worthless because I had agreed to allow MERS to be the beneficary in my DOT. I also agreed to MERS to be the “nominee” for the lender & “successor & assigns”.

    So I guess MERS can serve as a common agent. (Maybe even an agent without a principal, an unidentified principal, or a novated party as John Gault has suggested).

    This brings me to several questions. The DOT is a contract of adhesion & it’s terms must be in favor of borrower. Wouldn’t there be an argument for unconscionable contract by MERS logic, especially in Non judicial states? I mean if it wasn’t you could go on Quiet titling endless chain of parties (assuming they are MERS members) & MERS could keep assigning away after every victory.

  34. The also use autopens to sign documents. A metal plate is made of your signature and then they have an automated arm with a pen at the end of it that signs your name. However, it can be determined by an expert that it is a forgery.

  35. @ louise

    Like to be a fly on the wall for that one…eenie, meenie, minee, moe, which one will I pick says the judge?

    I was told the other day and cannot verify, but a good source says: many of these thugs signed OUR names to the notes to sell them…trying to verify this. Very much explains the disappearance or destruction of them.

  36. My first servicer apparently has a lost note affidavit and allonge ONLY 14 days after refinancing of mortgage closed. How do you lose the note in 2 weeks !!!!

    They then robo signed assignment of mortgage to Wells Fargo 5 years later by post dating the assignments and didn’t even put the dates in correct order. Still WF was able to foreclose !!!!

  37. Hey, Poppy, hogwash indeed! What if you have two “forged” notes? Should be fun.

  38. beauduke – I’m not a lawyer. this is lay opinion. I’m not clear exactly what you’re asking. Seems like you want to file a qt to establish or 86 the claim of a mtg lender on your home. If you successfully 86’d a mtg lender’s claim, then the judgment lien holder would “move up”. You might check out the homestead laws in your state. Filing a homestead exemption (if one must file for one in your state with the recorder) might protect your home from the cc creditor’s lien. I don’t know about your old lis pendens. ask a lawyer.

  39. A “servicer” under the PSA? No valid trust, no PSA adherence or claim.

    And further, if loans are MBS, bonds; they cannot foreclose legally! This is where your forged paperwork is coming from, the illusion of a trust, a valid note, or collection rights…Hogwash all of it! IMHO

  40. Two wrongs dont make a right. But when one does a wrong (banksters didnt the judges say that robo signing was alright didnt really matter) and it is endorsed with case study by Judges then it becomes a right.

    http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2014/01/17/new-meaning-to-stupid-is-as-stupid-does/

    The attorneys should have a field day with this. My mom doesnt allow me to commit fraud. So I have to go by what she says.

  41. carrie et al, this is from the IRS:

    “Non-recourse loans: A non-recourse loan is a loan for which the lender’s only remedy in case of default is to repossess the property being financed or used as collateral. That is, the lender cannot pursue you personally in case of default. Forgiveness of a non-recourse loan resulting from a foreclosure does not result in cancellation of debt income. However, it may result in other tax consequences.”

    Whether or not a loan is recourse or non-recourse imo will be the result of one of two things or both: an agreement in the loan agreement or as a matter of law. Certainly in states which prohibit deficiency judgments, the loan is essentially non-recourse. I didn’t continue with this to see what those other tax consequences might be. Maybe it’s as simple as getting a 1099. However, I still maintain that when a lender chooses non-judicial foreclosure where judicial f/c is available, and it’s available everywhere as far as I know, i.e., non-j is a choice of two remedies; by his choice to f/c using non-j, the lender has foregone a right to write-off the deficiency. Further, there may be a correlation between a lender’s own (credit) bid and that ultimate deficiency, I’m pretty sure. If a lender foregoes the remedy for default which could find the lender with a deficiency judgment, i.e., judicial foreclosure (and see one-action rule – generally, must get f/c decree and deficiency j in one action), imo he has no right to take the loss, the deficiency, on his books as a write-off. The write-off, the loss, is the corresponding one to the 1099 he issues. There can’t be a 1099 without a corresponding loss on the lender’s books, and the only one who may take the write-off is the f/c’ing party. So who is foreclosing is critical. Party A can’t be the forecloser and then poof! Party B issues a 1099 in its name. The alleged ‘assignment’ of a credit bid from A to B doesn’t change this. If I got a 1099 from a party who was shown as the foreclosing party and someone else issued me a 1099, I’d fight til the cows come home, including filing suit on two ‘counts’: 1) the party who allegedly foreclosed or was identified as the creditor is not the party who issued the 1099 and 2) whomever foreclosed non-judically gave up the right to write-off any deficiency (again, without the corresponding write-off, a 1099 can’t issue and they can’t “assign” a write-off, any more than I could give you mine.) Non-judicial foreclosure is a legislated privilege for the convenience of the lender, but it came with a price or two. No where that I’m aware of is the IRS allowed to change its rules for the benefit of one group of set of people. The IRS allows no write-off for bad debt in the absence of an attempt to collect it, which is clearly not done when the option of non-j foreclosure is elected because non-j precludes a deficiency judgment aka attempt to collect. Imo, we need to see some suits about these 1099’s, even if we have to collectively pay for one. Imagine what we might discover (no, not me, carrie or someone else here). I personally like carrie for it because she has been the most vocal about ‘related stuff’.

  42. James, Ocwen cannot be the master servicer. They are a servicer plain and simple. WF has to be the master servicer. They are a bank.

  43. Charles, I also know that it is VOID. We closed on the Loan in 2006, but they did not record and put into the trust until 2011. They had 90 days to do that correct?

  44. Charles its a Securitized Loan, WF is the Servicer and I have been told that Ocwen is the Master Servicer

  45. Now that I am on my second lawsuit related to foreclosure (the second one is breach of contract) I see comparisons between the two lawsuits. They include the same strategies, worthless production of docs, almost all of them my own docs from TEN load mod packages, no proof of creditor, stating they have the original note, asking for all my bank accounts and statements since 2006, asking for every house I ever owned, etc. Of course, most of this is krap that has nothing to do with the case and everything with how to discredit the homeowner. Remember, spending billions to hide and keep trillions is what it is all about.

  46. James Smith the reason they are not bring action is because they would need to buy out the 1st mortgage to collect on the 2nd, so they are just sitting and waiting.

    OK we need to know what kind of mortgages these were. I been saying that it impossible to foreclose a Ginnie Mae pooled loan, and this is from day one the loan have been placed into their pools starting in 1971.

    You cannot relinquish the blank endorsed Note and EVER transfer it again but there is a void spot on the Note as to a sale for the sum of money. How can you transfer something to another when that suppose to contain a debt but you don’t possess that debt plus your not on the lien/title.

    People this is simply because we know for a fact what the Federal Government in Ginnie Mae can and cannot do, and told the world that they do not originate, buy or sell home mortgage loans or mortgage backed securities. So as they are in possession of these blank Notes with out owing the debts, what is being claimed?

    How when we know in the case of WaMu that Wells Fargo is having MERS submit assignment placing Wells in the position of “Holder in due course” in the eyes of the local land recorder, by saying they are the legal holder of the Promissory Note, throwing the court off saying it is “holder”!

    These lenders are negotiating because big dollars are on the line and individuals have these long shots of cases that one by one the bank strategy is prolong you, as you run out of money or die. What are you attorneys waiting and letting people try and find you, when you got an entire sector on homeowners every single large lender is playing the game along with Ginnie Mae.

    They are buying back these securities for a reason and it ain’t some “we did not underwrite these loan correctly”!

  47. the Homeowner is not afraid. The Politicians Judges and Attorneys are chickens. Are the kind of guys and gals you dont want in a fox hole. The ones that arent afraid get there Licenses sanctioned for frivilous reasons. The Attorneys are not the only ones. If I was a betting person I would put money that the judges are also being threatend by the banksters etc……

    That is why all the roads head back to Produce the Note. Produce the note is the cheapest and most efficient way to end this.

    But nobody wants to end this but the homeowner and probably the Judge. The Judges in my opinion dont want to touch these cases with a ten foot pole.

  48. JS
    They sold the “debt”
    But- can one sell what one does not own.still like that analogy , the holographic paper bag one.

  49. I got a recent Credit report and they are still reporting it as being late.

  50. Check to see if the second mortgage has been zeroed out, written-off!

  51. I have a question that someone may be able to answer. I have a second mortgage with Wells Fargo. I have not made any payments to them in close to a year. I also sent them a cease and desist letter a few months ago. Why have they not taken any kind of action after all this time?

  52. Good grief my appellate case appears to have gone into a state of limbo:-/

  53. I posted this in a different thread but this one is a lot closer to my actual subject so here it is:

    Question for the brain trust here. If I have a judgment lien on my property (from a scam c/c debt, but a whole ‘nuther story) would I be shooting myself in the foot by doing a quiet title? I would have to serve the bottom feeder debt buyer notice in that action, right. Bringing them to the surface to try to collect? Also, I still have a three year old lis pendens (which I filed in an old foreclosure action) on record with the recorder, does that have any impact on a QT action or the filing of a new foreclosure action in a non-judicial state?

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: