Musical Chairs: The music is slowing down — HSBC Goes Down in Flames in Florida

For more information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688.

This is not a legal opinion on any case. Get a lawyer.

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

see Parent Company Cannot Pretend the Subsidiary Doesn’t Exist

The devil is in the details. The article in the above link is by Brendan Sweeney. His point is that the existence of corporate entities may not be ignored. You would think that any large bank with a huge legal department would understand that, and you would be right. But they have a strategy that is working. Their strategy is to pick an entity that has no connection with the loan transaction, either in origination or in acquisition. This ensures that the records of that entity cannot be used to blow up the failed securitization scheme. And then by using a Robo witness from an entity that is referred to as a servicer, they can be sure that the witness knows nothing about the origination or acquisition of the paperwork and certainly knows nothing about the money trail.

Over the last 10 years the courts have disregarded or overruled the objections and defenses of borrowers that rely on the application of existing law. One of those things has been that the names on the documents don’t match up with the names used in the foreclosure. Most judges, believing that this is an inconsequential error, and also believing that a bank like HSBC would not be attempting to foreclose unless they actually had the right to do so, thus rule against the homeowner who is gratuitously described as “The borrower.” Of course just referring to the homeowner as a borrower prejudges the entire case.

Now the courts are starting to take a closer look at these transactions which appear to be facially valid on paper, but nonetheless do not exist. Simple application of black letter law is all that is needed for a borrower to win in foreclosure, if the judge is willing to apply the law in a proper fashion. In this case the party chosen to be the foreclosing party was HSBC Bank. But the paperwork whole pointed to a subsidiary of HSBC Bank.

The homeowner argued that the subsidiary was not the same as the parent and that therefore the action should be dismissed for lack of jurisdictional standing. HSBC argued that they owned all of the subsidiary and that it was the same thing, knowing full well that there was no legal support for their position. If you form a corporation it creates what is known as a corporate veil. In fact had HSBC Bank been successful in this case it would have provided the groundwork for Discovery and claims against parent companies and affiliated companies — something that none of the securitization players would allow or want.

Court in this case simply decided that simple law should be directly applied. So it wasn’t up to HSBC Bank to initiate a foreclosure action, Based upon the paperwork in the court record, then it should’ve been done in the name of the party to whom the paperwork was assigned or endorsed — and not in the name of any other entity, even if the other entity was the parent company.

The Court stated that Florida law is clear in that “[a] parent corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary are separate and distinct legal entities. . . . As a separate legal entity, a parent corporation . . . cannot exercise the rights of its subsidiary.” Wright v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 169 So. 3d 251 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (quoting Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Cornerstone Bus., Inc., 872 So. 2d 333, 336 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)). Despite this, HSBC Bank put forward two documents to establish standing: (1) an Assignment and Assumption Agreement from HSBC Mortgage to HSBC Bank; and (2) a Secretary’s Certificate (dated after the commencement of the action) from HSBC Mortgage indicating that HSBC Bank is the sole shareholder of HSBC Mortgage. The Court concluded that neither document could be utilized to demonstrate that HSBC Bank had standing.

19 Responses

  1. CATHOLICS UNVEILED MASONIC PLOT IN 1936:

    http://www.henrymakow.com/jewish_peril.html

  2. One day last year I was driving & I noticed the car in front of me had MM on the plate. I got to the intersection & he pulled up next to me & was looking in my face & laughing so I just turned my head & ignored it.

    I thought it was incredibly rude to say the least & extremely ridiculous.

  3. The threat is real from these FREEMASONIC GROUPS who pose like every entity imaginable & they’re the most ruthless, dangerous cons you wil ever encounter.

    Moreover, defending your TITLES PRO SE in FRAUDCLOSURE creates genuine hatred for you by them because they want you dead.

    Like when the local cops in OAK FOREST ILLINOIS, pulled me over for not having my headlights on when it wasn’t even dark yet. It wss done just to harass me& they told me I never registered my social in my married name & this was 31 years later. I was never notified of that by the ILLINOIS SECRETARY OF STATE when I registered my business in my married name & they had no problem collecting the tax money from me.

    That’s beside the fact those cops were prying into my personal business unlawfully. Who do they think they’re fooling? Clearly this Stare thinks they can use cops to dicrste foreign policy. Furthernore I’m getting divorced so why would i bother registering in my married name?

    It’s simply STATE CONTROLLED FASCISM & they’re dangerous criminals PERSECUTING CATHOLICS under many guises & I consider their harrassment life threatening.

    That’s why I’m never signing, registeting or voting for none of these DRUG DEALERS who behage like NAZIS & behave like this is some third world country we’re living in & i have had it with their ongoing death threats.

    The ILLINOIS STATES ATTORNEY should be brought up on FEDERAL RACKETEERING CHARGES & the ILLINOIS AG too for running this state like their whore house & FALSE IMPRISONING CATHOLICS to EXTORT their SIGNATURES to hide they’re crooks.

  4. The masons creed is “ORDER OUT OF CHAOS”

    Their AGE-OLD OCCULT GOAL is to disrupt-overthrow NORMAL CATHOLIC ORDERED SOCIETY & replace it with their LICENTIOUS, MATERIALISTIC & GODLESS NEW WORLD ORDER

    http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/who-pulled-911.htm

  5. I was officially called “a shill for the banks” and kicked out of an LLC (twice) by Garfield himself, the last time being on or about June 6 or 8 of this year. I actually enjoy being kicked out of websites for questioning people’s motives. It tells me that my critical sense is still working full speed.

    My fault? I was telling people what works, for experimenting with it myself and winning and… it wasn’t his play.

    In fact, it am everything but his play. His play has worked for NO ONE here. But Garfield is smart: he disclaims responsibility for anything homeowners do after reading his editorials, regardless how misleading they are. Garfield posts as “an attorney” (hence some authority in the matter) for Livinglies, LLC. but he does not try cases. And Livinglies LLC does not try cases.

    And he lets people hanging out to dry when they use his editorials, pro se and attorneys alike.

    Garfield is a fully insured corporation, financed by Google (so many “visitors”) and your stupidity buying his products. Legally, he has no more personal responsibility for whatever he writes and the LLC collects than Monsanto CEO for its GMOs.

    Garfield is not about what works for homeowners. He is about what works for him, as a share holder of any LLC. Smarten up and understand how the game is played or remain stupid and lose it all.

  6. [audio src="http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-139335/TS-1012814.mp3" /]

  7. Garfield’s Goose & Friends
    Description: A Follow-Up Q&A call to our friend Neil Garfield’s Thursday night call… where fans and those in need of clarification might find friends and sympathetic souls…

    First – Neil’s Show
    Click to tune in at
    The Neil Garfield Show
    “http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield”
    Or call in at (347) 850-1260
    6pm Eastern Thursdays (for 30 min)
    Then…
    (every Thursday night 15 minutes after Neil)
    Garfield’s Goose & Friends
    http://www.talkshoe.com/tc/139335
    Or call in at (724) 444-7444 (then use Call ID: 139335)
    6:45 PM Eastern Thursdays (for 60 min)

    RULES

    Talkshoe lets you call-in or log-in 15 minutes ahead of the start time…
    First 5 questions posted ON CHAT BOARD get discussed – more if short
    – 10 min max each – IN ORDER –
    Call-In’s will be limited to people helping others by giving answers or explaining similar situations to the posted questions…

    The Call will be run Strictly – “like a Roman Centurion” – at least to start with – lol…
    [to get a feel for the flow of information…]

    (One Hour is MY ABSOLUTE limit)
    NO COMMERCIALS ALLOWED AT ANY TIME!
    If people need to hook up by private email or phone – and you send your contact info to me; i will provide a secure private reference service between parties who have posted or spoken that they mutually grant me permission to facilitate direct intercourse…
    i may ask you later “off-line” for written confirmation first…
    Otherwise – Publish your email or number at your own risk!
    recordings will all be public…

    host is a man; not a legal entity and reserves all inherent rights with none waived
    host indemnifies “talkshoe”; its heirs, assigns, creditors, et. al. for an unlimited amount against all claims
    participants indemnify host; its heirs, assigns, creditors, et. al. for an unlimited amount against all claims
    this service is a volunteer action on the part of the host for which any compensation is refused and no quid pro quo exists – this also means any proposed donations are refused
    this ongoing event exists without recourse
    this is not legal advice – seek comfort in that which will not place you in jeopardy
    void where prohibited by law

    i hope this helps…

    Hosted by: Greg
    Phone Number: (724) 444-7444 Call ID: 139335

  8. AS OF THE BK OF RESCAP/GMAC WERE ALL HOLDER OF CERTICATES IN THE TRUST PAID IN FULL, AND AGREED TO SETTLE ALL MATTERS OF THE TRUST. IN 2012. ?? DURNING THE BK. OH AND BY THE WAY WE DO HAVE YOUR TESTIMONY AND LETTER DEAMING THAT . TO BE TRUE FACTS.

  9. FIRST QUESTION TO HER. HOW MANY HOLDERS OF CERTIFICATES AS OF AUGUST 2012?? , HOW MANY HOLDINGS OF ANY BENEFICIAL,LEGAL, OR OTHER WISE,EQUITY, IN THE FOLLOWING TRUSTS. AS OF NOW. AND WHO ARE THEY?

  10. HEY ANYONE WITH A WELLS FARGO TRUST, HERE START SENDING HER EMAILS,LETTERS, LAWYERS SHOULD BE ASKING AND DEMANDING HER FOR DISPOSITIONS..

    Notice Recipients with questions regarding this notice or other related matters may direct their inquiries in writing, with evidence of their respective holdings,
    to the Trustee at: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 625 Marquette Avenue, 16th Floor MAC N9311-161 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Attention: Mary L. Sohlberg, Vice President E-Mail: mary.l.sohlberg@wellsfargo.com

  11. From last blog: be careful with “capacity” and “standing” very different things….you will get tossed with “capacity”, just saying, check it!

    Non-legal comment

  12. In the HSBC reference, its called “hearsay” and not subject to any exceptions!!!

  13. Legal departments? They don’t know jack about trials or how to develop evidence or develop discovery…that is how we helped J. Fields beat BONYMellon last year. See our site at CRDefenders.com
    Call us for assistance at Consumer Rights Defenders, ask for Sara or Steve at 818.453.3585 today.

  14. Javagold- don’t forget “Banc of America” ( as opposed to Bank of America”.

  15. Java – im not letting go of that one ( 1099a) because, to use Neils terms, “flys in the face ” of what they submitted into evidence in the court cases i have in executing their plan, by and through several other actors shall we say.

  16. Kind of like Bank of America, NA. ….. Bank of America Home Loans…….Bank of America Services. ………and perhaps a Countrywide thrown into the mix to……..all letters I have received over the course of the past 5 years as they pass the bag of hot poo poo around.

    And what about the 1099A…………..LOL. (still nothing has been done. So fuck them all.)

  17. I think i would use the term ” patsy of choice”

  18. Neil – isnt that the truth!
    “thus rule against the homeowner who is gratuitously described as “The borrower.” Of course just referring to the homeowner as a borrower prejudges the entire case”

  19. Im not sure the 1099a issued by a servicer in the shoes of a lender is an ” inconsequental error” cant get irs to adress it, or the missing 1099c, why is that.

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: