Yuba CA Jury Awards $15 Million in Punitive Damages

So let’s say you are thinking that those deadbeat borrowers are just trying to get out of debts they owe. And to spice things up the borrowers say it is the bank who screwed everything up, not me. And you laugh at their pathetic attempt to save face when all they do is spend money doing nothing at all to consider whether they will have enough money to pay their mortgage payment to whoever is demanding it — because why would they demand the payment when nobody else is unless they were the creditor and how badly can a bank really screw things up?

Oops, that borrower just got $15 Million in punitive damages for their $500,000 claim against PHH. So what are they now? deadbeats that are rich and don’t need to worry about mortgage payments? Or maybe they are not deadbeats and maybe this entire fraudclosure farce will attract lawyers looking for a big payoff on a contingency fee — like the lawyers in the Yuba case. I don’t know what they got but the usual contingency fee is around 40% and for this award with compensatory damages, the lawyers would receive around $6.4 Million. Not bad for a few days work in front of a jury, if you know how to do it.

If you don’t know how, I am sure these lawyers in the Yuba case will help you. If that doesn’t work, we provide litigation support here. 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

http://www.sacbee.com/2014/07/18/6566661/yuba-jury-awards-16-million-in.html

21 Responses

  1. Ya-stinking-hoo!

  2. Yep, exact same scenario back in ’99. Some bank out of nowhere claims it now owns my loan and I’m 5 payments behind. Laughed it off because my payments were current and I had copies to prove it. Wrong!! After writing everybody in law enforcement and Congress, I had to sell the house at the 11th hour to keep the bank from taking it, sued them, went to court with all the proof you could have that the loan was current, judge never even saw my mountain of evidence, sneered at me and said “Far as I’m concerned, it’s your own damned fault” and issued a judgement against me for $80 for the bank’s legal defenses.

    I retired broke and homeless, got a Cease & Desist Order against the bank two years later by the FTC, but too little too late.

    I’m a veteran, I went to war for this country. Never again!

  3. At all
    I was driven out of my home in 2010 and the courts and judges were unaware at THAT time of just how unclean their hands were, at that time, I had the house taken by a servicers hit man shall I say but I later found that all their hands were black bright and no amount of swarphega ( that’s a word it removes oil from mechanics hands and it’s pink ! ) can remove that grease. I’m raising hell and high water any day. I’ll keep you posted. It’s an issue about unlawful detainer a ruling without a hearing or service of process and the biggy – court lacked jurisdiction, a word comes to mind ” closed loop” I’m pro se as in not a lawyer but I can read and law is law and jurisdiction is jurisdiction.

  4. @A Man – I2ANAL (I, too, am not a lawyer) but I understand the leverage of unclean hands. McIntyre, the appellate justice, understands the leverage as well. Combined with the following, it begs for exposure to the homeowners’ allowable defenses against JP Morgan –

    Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus. False in one thing false in all; once a knave always a knave.

    It will always be found best, ” honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, sua cuique tribuere.” Honesty is the best policy.

    In other words, one caught lie will kill you in court.

    Kalicki applies in many states where the power of perjury still prevails in courts.
    In cases where homeowner has sufficient showing to question assignment of JP Morgan link in chain of title.

    Like Glaski.

    (from – https://archive.org/stream/cu31924021688670/cu31924021688670_djvu.txt)

  5. Soooooo E – 4elf , did you ever wonder why we didn’t file BK? Huh? What was that? We paid who? Why? Because . . . ? You didn’t and why was that? And you lost your home because of it right?

  6. Something I haven’t seen discussed is the fact that it cost the Kalickis’ over a quarter million $$$ in legal fees to get that judgement. That’s what you call an all-in move. And for those of you on this blog who always scream “hire an attorney in your jurisdiction!” such as buffoon-R-cookies, do the math on just how much that couple stood to lose if in fact they’d have walked into a bankster judge’s courtroom like has happened to so many who’ve gone before.

    I have no idea what their house value was, but I’d bet that adding it to their legal fees would have warped most people’s minds and wallets if things went south like is so often the case. Those two, and their legal team, must have great difficulty walking what with their heavy swinging anatomy. Hats off to them all.

  7. Kalicki is not a real big loss. We must reinforce the Glaski Decision.
    This is my humble non attorney opinion.

    GOD BLESS AMERICA

  8. @ elexquisitor ,

    “….it costs $800 to file for a writ of review to the CASC”

    That $800 isn’t much but it’s beyond my capability right now … if anyone at Weidner , Ice or another outfit that fights can swing this and needs an original requestor for publication (I don’t know what the requirements are) please feel free to contact me.

  9. @neidermeyer – and this is why I stated the facts as I did –

    b) Courts of Appeal and appellate divisions

    Except as provided in (e), an opinion of a Court of Appeal or a superior court appellate division is published in the Official Reports if a majority of the rendering court certifies the opinion for publication before the decision is final in that court.

    (Subd (b) amended effective July 23, 2008; adopted effective April 1, 2007.)

    A three-justice panel heard the Kalicki case. A majority implies a second signature of the justices involved. The lack of a second signature presumes no other justice reviewed the requests for publication, thereby thwarting the plain language of rule 8.1105.

    The Devil is in the details.

  10. @neidermeyer – What Acting Presiding Justice James A. McIntyre presented was an (unsigned*) order denying the unopposed motion for publication without stating a reason. He likely feels secure about his decision to protect the bank in this manner since it costs $800 to file for a writ of review to the CASC, and I didn’t notice any @mylawfirm email addresses in the distribution list.

    Yet another way
    To p|ss upon a pro se
    By a judge who refuses to say
    Why the homeowner always pays

    * rules of court state the form of an electronically signed document contains a ‘/s/’ on the signature line

  11. Just received the e:mail , Kalicki will NOT be published.

  12. Escrow analsis show we have over $7,000 in escrow. After allowed cushion there is an overage of just under $ 7,000 but they can’t issue us a check for the overage because the loan is in the process of loan assumption. On the payoff statemenrt it shows it as a default. Pay those taxes and Ins! Funny Math in our escrow since 2010. You should see how they show on the 1098s. Living. Loving. Learning and ROTFLMBO.

  13. elexquisitor, they’re successful because, as you pointed out, they attack the mortgage transaction (contract). Only a moron doesn’t understand that!

    These foreclosure defense attorneys aka “pretender defenders” and other charlatans that frequent these blogs, crying in their soup because they continuously get their assess handed to them, should take notice of how winners , win.

  14. @shelter1banks0 all these larger lenders are servicing some government insured loans that the loans were required to relinquished the Notes to Ginnie Mae. First remember that because it is a Federal Government system that all loans are process in a uniform manner, and that process separated the Notes, debts and titles.

    Bottom-line is that a Ginnie Mae pool loan cannot be foreclosed because there is not actual holder of the Note with a debt, which mean the holder of the Note does not have the authority of anything at all!

    This is why in the settlement of the IFR the issue of “No Standing” was eliminated from the pay out categories!

    If a loan have been placed into the pool the requirement is to relinquish the Note sign endorsed in blank, per Ginnie requirements. However I believe away around the separation of Note & debt is that Ginnie makes the lender/issuer the custodian of record and that why you see that in the Countrywide case that the Notes were never forwarded when the loans were suppose to be transferred. The reason why they were not transferring the blank Notes in my opinion is that under UCC 9 as long as the originator of the loan is in possession of the Note they don’t need to provide proof of ownership. But also a blank Note does not involve a purchase, so if the blank Note is not transferred physically the transaction is not actual completed.

  15. United Law Center in Roseville, CA, has had a number of successes in settlements, mostly for loan mods. and the laws have shifted quickly over the nexus of contract law and real estate law. The actions of PHH were egregious and left a lot of evidence behind. Apparently the judge allowed discovery and the homeowner had something to work with. And the jury is likely sending a message to the courts as well as the banksters that they don’t appreciate the clouded titles left behind as a result of CA case law rulings.

    I wonder if we are seeing the first judges who see the writing on the wall, just as my case was filed with the CA Supreme Court. And the first judge has already given the borrower the home, so the onus of that ‘honor’ now falls on the Kalicki court. Hopefully that is all it will take to keep the judges from tipping the playing field against the homeowners.

    BTW, the count for publication of Kalicki is 18 – 0 as of this morning; all non-party.

  16. I coached the dance pom team when my girls were in HS. This was their Favorite routine. And today I send it out to all you fighters . . . . . ” TAKE IT ALL THE WAY”

  17. Interesting story :

  18. Line all the ducks up in a row and nail their lil peckers down! In legal language, pierce the corporate veil. Nailed the animal when it came back for the scraps. I like the Judge. Bad Boys, Bad Boys, What Cha Goina Do When the Judge Comes for You? Tonights Menu .. Broasted Gizzards. Coming Soon . . Broiled Mountain Oysters. 🙂. Its HOT here in Illinois! Elsewhere, the only party foaming the runway in Ohio is Christine! Them idiots are coming in at full speed to gag her! They are going to crash and burn because even she knows that’s impossable! I can just picture her. siding into homebase sideways saying it was a hell of a ride.

  19. @Charles Reed:

    Can you please explain the exact connection with PHH (and related) in this case in relation to what you are discussing below – please make a clear statement as to how Ginnie Mae, etc. is connected to PHH in this case (Linza v PHH) so the readers can understand – thanks.

  20. What have I been saying? Neil never listen to these comment because all government insured loan that are in the Ginnie Mae MBS are done in the same manner, and because the loan are placed into the pools with the relinquishing of the blank Notes it separates the Notes from the debt forever and they not a valid title because the debt holder does not possess a Note to be able to call the loan due because the debt no longer is owed to them.

    Let take this one step further and that is that WaMu was declared a “failed bank” Sept 25, 2008 and is a definite date to point to that none of the loans placed into the Ginnie pool could be modified or foreclosed!

    So now we got an entity in Wells Fargo approaching the court calling the debt due in there name when in fact they got no right to be in court. Wells along with MERS creates forgeries in the form of assignments of the security instrument in order to administratively foreclose.

    Great timing for this case as it should make BOA & Wells want to settle the Countrywide and WaMu situations with the Justice Dept, so that now they can try and stop attorney who have seen the light to late! I believe this is why the late two settlement Justice was working on any way was to work out the flaw of the Ginnie Mae system.

    We are talking about criminal acts that can be pinpointed in every single case!

  21. Just more proof attacking the contract is the ONLY methodology that works that helpful for homeowners.
    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/homeowners-receiving-multimillion-dollar-awards-155900638.html

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: