STANDING: Banks Swimming Upstream as Shell Game Continues in SALMON CASE

For further information please call 520-405-1688 or 954-494-6000.

============================

see 4th DCA Salmon v Foreclosed Asset sales and Transfer CorpDOC042315

I have often reminded lawyers that Judges NEVER get reversed when they deny a motion for summary judgment. When they grant summary judgment in foreclosure cases, their vulnerability to a reversal increases exponentially. In the SALMON case, the appellate court greets the foreclosing party with sarcasm and frustration, reversing the peremptory granting of summary judgment of foreclosure entered by the trial judge.

The shell game of changing entities combined with inexplicable acronyms in the names of new entities entering the picture is alerting courts across the country that we might just be dealing with organized crime. It is at least true that these strategies are typically used by criminal organizations to avoid detection and prosecution by creating an endless series of layers, transfers and roadblocks through the process of incorporation, trade names, and powers of attorney.

The Banks are trying to make it as complicated as possible — beyond the ken of the average judge. But the truth is much simpler than the snowstorm of paper offered by Wall Street banks. If the LENDER funded a loan with its own risk and capital and the disclosures are right THEN there is an enforceable contract and there is no way out of it for either side. If the LENDER SELLS the loan to another party the paperwork can be enforced by the purchaser as a holder in due course unless the loan was already in default at the time of the sale. If the purchaser sells it again, the same principles apply. But where there is no sale and there is no consistency in the chain of title, the party at the end of the chain has no more rights than the parties before him.

We are starting to reach critical mass. More and more courts are starting to opine that these mortgages and notes might not be real and that the wrong parties are coming into court to enforce them. This SALMON case is just one more case showing how the courts are not only turning away from the presumptions claimed by the banks but ridiculing the wily attempts of Banks to avoid the true facts. 4th DCA Salmon v Foreclosed Asset sales and Transfer CorpDOC042315

25 Responses

  1. Yup, E….sad, but true! I thought Mother Theresa passed.

    The fact is: every case, depending on status, jurisdiction and claim(s) are to be handled accordingly. Every action should not be a “defensive” act. The “seasoned and skilled” attorneys are specialties, not one size fits all. It just doesn’t happen like that!

    Having attorney friends….they have cautioned me; the plaintiff-prosecutor, etc…have the burden of proof. Slippery slope, when discovery is elusive.

  2. What do I care? They still won’t attack first and they will keep coming here to bitch and moan. Doesn’t take anything from me. I’m moving on regardless.

    Christine places the back of her hand on her brow, wiping the years of selfless foreclosure aid off as if dusting a neglected shelf…..

    I’ll be all around in the dark. I’ll be everywhere. Wherever you can look, wherever there’s a fight, so hungry people can eat, I’ll be there. Wherever there’s a cop beatin’ up a guy, I’ll be there. I’ll be in the way guys yell when they’re mad. I’ll be in the way kids laugh when they’re hungry and they know supper’s ready, and when the people are eatin’ the stuff they raise and livin’ in the houses they build, I’ll be there, too.

    I’ll be yellin’ at Garfield, just cause I can. I’ll never tire of berating borrowers who don’t listen to me and never jump when I say jump. I’ll tirelessly denounce rulings in favor of borrowers as one-offs, and trash any court that even thinks about being soft on a pro se.

    Christine checks the taut of the ropes securing her Black’s Law dictionary, and climbs aboard the dirty Model T. After years of tirelessly deriding Garfield’s posts, as well as any who comment on his thoughts, she’s moving on, heading westward. Never to be seen or heard from again, at least for a half hour or so.

    (Apologies to the great John Steinbeck)

  3. SC,

    Public record. What do I care? They still won’t attack first and they will keep coming here to bitch and moan. Doesn’t take anything from me. I’m moving on regardless.

    NPV

    Erobobo is local. As far as i know, Erobobo will remain local. And unless I’m wrong, Erobobo is not permanently resolved. Erobobo ain’t changing the landscape.

  4. I worked on Erobobo. It is not a NY Case – it is a Staten island Supreme Case, and other Courts in other counties have shot is down. saying there is better subject matter and rulings. No appellate decision means it is not binding on the sister courts.

    Erobobo won though on securitization and standing.

    So, unless you have an appellate decision that says the loan was not properly securitized, it is an express trust and borrowers are third party beneficiaries of the PSA – you gte one Erobobo versus 999 SJM awarded.

    Doesn’t mean you stop fighting…

  5. refi, HELOC

  6. Rock..you said “Only for primary residence, and it can’t be used if it was for the purchase of the primary” if it can’t be used for the purchase of the primary, then how can it be used??

  7. Only for primary residence, and it can’t be used if it was for the purchase of the primary.

  8. can anyone please confirm…is recission only for a PRIMARY residence or can I use on rental property as well?

  9. neidermyer, the quotes I post are exactly how the courts ruled. You nitwits just don’t like what the courts held–deal with it!

  10. Neidermeyer. .. You need to slow down and comprehend what you are reading.
    Christine… You shared your case publically with this mob?
    Rock….. Nice!
    Louise..Louise..Louise…Always a follower with no sense of direction.

  11. N, thanks for straightening some of the misdirection out. Seen the same thing in my cases not to mention, slander, libel and lying in front of the Court and on the record.

  12. Rock ,

    Christine pointed out nothing of the sort, misdirection works in magic tricks but not here. True enough briefs mean nothing , rulings do… and I don’t care what example you decide to quote , I’ve seen your examples before and the common thread is that they don’t exactly say what you claim…it’s always the same misdirection the banks use; so I won’t waste the time …

    Please explain to me why Yvanova , with AG support means nothing? Do you think the AG is attempting to fool the public? or are you just saying it doesn’t matter until there is a decision.

    P.S. It’s not Jamestown , it’s Jonestown and I’m not drinking YOUR Kool Aid. You banksters have killed far more than 900 , your day is coming.

  13. Everyone outside of Garfieldtown, the new Jamestown, knows Yvanova’s briefs are just a lot of noise, and are of no particular significance as pointed out by Christine.

    Moreover, this is what the courts think of those types of claims as recently as February of this year:

    http://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/13-55631/13-55631-2015-02-23.pdf?ts=1424725268

  14. NG, could you have spent five minutes on a non-party’s affidavit that such and such had occurred? Let’s suppose that aff had been relied on without the other issues in the case. How is such reliance appropriate? And since at least one someone in that act was lying to the court (and imo the court should impose privity on and among all of them), why wouldn’t a counter-mtn for sj have been in order? And if a secn trustee actually sells and assigns anything, under what authority does he do so? Seems like a good opp to have discussed some of these issues.

  15. Defend foreclosure at your own peril. That means that you got in default first and waited to be foreclosed on. Reactive position sucks and doesn’t work.

    Attacking banks first on breach of contract and law long before being in default is what has worked all along. Without useless securitization audits, and costlyTILA and combo packages peddled here. Anyone with half a brain and all his documents can do it: do the maths, attack first. Default afterwards if you must: it’s irrelevant to your action and can only be mentioned on the side. Judges don’t give a hoot. Not part of the action.

    http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/ohio/ohsdce/2:2011cv00314/145674/60

  16. Another federal appeal case NOT won on LL theories but on true and tried law. And federal cases apply all across the 50 states. Garfield must have missed it. Go figure…

    http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/ohio/ohsdce/2:2011cv00314/145674/52

  17. So far, the Yvanova brief is only a brief. What comes out of it is what matters and makes case law… for CA.

    Erobobo Amicus Brief was only a NY brief, extensively quoted. What became of it?

    The only difference is the author of the brief. Results will speak. For CA.

  18. msfraud.org/LAW/Lounge/YVANOVA_CA-AG-Amicus-in-Support_4-15.pdf
    msfraud.org/LAW/Lounge/YVANOVA_NCLC-brief-in-support_4-15.pdf

    msfraud.org/LAW/Lounge/YVANOVA_CAOC-Brief-in-Support_4-15.pdf

    NEVER AGAIN

  19. OMG! Rock is going to need a few drinks after reading the Yvanova briefs. Banksters need to prove (with actual sales…) entire trails of assignments to prove standing… Common sense prevails in California.

  20. Mike thank you. Does anybody have infor on the Yvanova case as to the Respondents Amucus Brief I want to cry of laughter.
    Cry of laughter because it is so sad what is going on and it is better to cry and laugh then get a stroke or a heart attack.

    This is impressive, and confirms what homeowners have been screaming about for two decades. The key word here is “wrongful” foreclosure.
    A. The Foreclosing Party’s Lack of Authority Is a Proper Basis on which the Homeowner May Challenge a Foreclosure
    B. Because a Void Assignment Deprives a
    Foreclosing Party of the Authority to Foreclose, a Homeowner May Bring a Wrongful Foreclosure Action on That Basis
    C. A Homeowner Is Harmed When an Entity
    Without The Authority To Do So Forecloses on Her Home

    msfraud.org/LAW/Lounge/YVANOVA_CA-AG-Amicus-in-Support_4-15.pdf

    msfraud.org/LAW/Lounge/YVANOVA_NCLC-brief-in-support_4-15.pdf

    msfraud.org/LAW/Lounge/YVANOVA_CAOC-Brief-in-Support_4-15.pdf

    Here we have alot to read this weekend. The banksters have pissed to many people and if Ms Kamala wants to get elected State Senator she has to do something. She has done everything but put the foreclosure mills in California in jail. Nationstar and SPS, Inc still doing business in this state.

    NEVER AGAIN

  21. Bank of New York Mellon DISMISSED the foreclosure case against Janeece F [BONYM v. Fields, Sonoma County Superior Court] in Calif because they could not prove the trust owned the Note. Consumer Rights Defenders assisted all the way to a dismissal on Oct. 27, 2014 in Superior Court. We are seeing WINS, homeowners!!!!
    Call us for help at 818.453.3585. Ask for Steve or Sara.

  22. At Consumer Rights Defenders, nationwide we urge the attack on standing in all cases. Academically assessed, the courts simply cannot continue to violate the Evidence Codes which do NOT state that there is a presumption of standing [ownership of the note giving rights to enforce it as a debt collector or by foreclosure]. We have pushed several state and federal constitutional challenges on this point in NY, NJ and Calif. Assuming by presumption as a substitute for provable evidence of a Bank’s standing is arguably unconstitutional as it denies a right to attack and discredit the bank’s position as plaintiff in judicial [and nonjudicial] foreclosures alike. Foreclosure cases are especially vulnerable to this foible.

    Why this continues is fairly assessed as a failure of attorneys and pro ses to attack with solid pleadings these issues and the concomitant failure to bring the constitutional question of due process and equal protection to bear. We have been suggesting early motions for summary judgment by the homeowner to test this belief, but its too early to have much data on its effect, yet.

    Attack standing in EVERY case, for to omit this sets up a dismissal and lengthy, costly appeal. Some day the judiciary will wake up. Until then, we fight vigorously.

    Call us today if you need litigation assistance at 818.453.3585.

  23. The servicers and opp. counsel never produce the receipts to show a true sale of the note and cannot, because they do not have them.

  24. Google Mark Didak Amicus Brief Yvanova for your reading pleasure in the area of standing, truly OUTstanding!

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: