Where are the Accountants?

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

This is not a legal opinion on your case. Get a lawyer. Get an accountant.

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

Practice Note for Lawyers: Taking its cue from many states, the Federal Court System has adopted a new rule that went into effect 12/1/15. Basically it says that boilerplate blanket objections to discovery will not be permitted any longer.

These cases are about money. And money is about accounting. For some reason the entire accounting industry has failed to get involved in these disputes. There is a LOT of money they can make and CPA’s can present more convincing testimony by issuing a report with the appropriate opinion.

The key here is that the originator didn’t make the loan. The CPA could issue a report indicating what he or she needs in order to determine who funded the loan. THAT would be a powerful piece in support of discovery attempts by the homeowners that are universally stonewalled. And in at least 65% of all cases involving claims of securitization the other side folds instantly when the judge issues a discovery order requiring them to make the information available.

It’s simple. If they were just a pretender lender then they didn’t make the loan. If they didn’t make the loan they didn’t own the loan. If they didn’t own the loan they could not have endorsed or assigned it.

The CPA would explain that if the transaction was not posted as a balance sheet item then that means ipso facto that it wasn’t a loan by the originator. If it shows up as being posted as an income statement item then that shows that the originator was a fee based servicer acting as “pretender lender”. Hence the note and mortgage were procured under false pretenses and contrary to the federal and state requirements of disclosure as to who was getting paid what money to lure the borrower into a signing a document that was not a valid note but was going to be used in multiple fraudulent transactions.

The very fact that the note named a payee whom the borrower was deceived into believing was loaning him money — but wasn’t loaning him money makes the note and mortgage void documents — that should never have been released by the closing agent and which certainly should never have been recorded.

The second key is even if the originator does at least appear to have originated the loan, is the question of whether it “Sold”. The “endorsement”, “assignment” are only as good as the what is owned by the assignor.

This is where we get them again on lack of consideration for the initial funding even if they managed to fake the funding by the originator on their books. A CPA would report that the auditing standards require him to see the entire transaction, not just the paperwork that management wants him to see. And if bookkeeping and accounting of the successor or the originator showed no payment for the loan, then the obvious conclusion from an accountant is that the transaction documents (assignment etc) were fabricated. No reasonable business purpose can be stated as to why the originator would endorse, assign transfer or whatever without receiving payment — unless they never funded the loan in the first place or unless they had already received payment from someone else. Otherwise their assignment of a six figure asset would be a gift. Really?

The use of accountants in foreclosure litigation is key to winning more often. Standards from the FASB and GAAP and perhaps the SEC would end the discussion and shut down the entire “we are a holder” myth. The use of CPA’s would result in collapse of the case of the foreclosing party long before trial.

55 Responses

  1. Back in the far reaches of the batcave, batman pulls out this mysterious looking piece of paper that has hieroglyphic type writings on it.

    Holy macaroni batman what’s that?

    It’s called the FALSE ARTIFICE robin AKA the FAKE INDENTURE.

    With this one old looking piece of paper robin, WALL STREET can hover DRONES over small nation states & misidentify their SUBJECT MATTER TARGETS by their own MISCEIVIOUSNESS.

    Wow sounds like WARANTLESS MISDEEDS batman.

  2. What do you make of this batman? The words “EVIDENTIARY HEARING.”

    Why that’s simple robin “MEMORY ERADICATION.”

    How is that done batman?

    By re-entering FALSIFIED DATA that is subcomputed in the human psyche.

    It’s something like being told you’re in GOTHAM CITY seeing the JOKER but it’s really the RIDDLER in CHICAGO wearing the JOKERS makeup.

    Wow, i’m perplexed batman.

    To the batcave robin where I can show you the FREEMASONIC model & how they develop their rumor mill of gossip theories based upon FALSE INUENDO.

  3. NOTICE; for and on the record: any original writings; interpretations or other expressions posted on this blog/website by greg (lawman@gmx.us) is/are the sole copyrighted property of greg (lawman@gmx.us); effective upon each moment of creation; with all rights reserved and none waived; with any other adhesion clause(s) to the contrary within or without this blog/website; notwithstanding; no license to use any such copyrighted property for another’s profit is granted or presumed; in G-d i trust.

    //s// gregory-george gary: hufnagel-groeper clan…
    Date: now for then

  4. That logo is similar to the DOJ logo which explains why the WALL STREET DRUG CARTEL has not been criminally prosecuted to date for their SECURITIES FRAUD WAR CRIMES upon the U.S. SOVEREIGN CITIZENRY.

  5. If you google the RUSSIAN FEDERAL SERVICE BUREAU LOGO you will discover they’re the KNIGHTS TEMPLARS, the WARLORDS of the evil underworld of BANKS & BANKING.

  6. The only thing in the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK VAULT is probably JFK’S brain that mysterioualy went missing like JIMMY HOFFA.

  7. If you checked JANET YELLIN’s STOCK PORTFOLIO she probably invests heavily in FORENSIC AUTOPSIES.

  8. WALL STREET & it’s CORPORATE AMERICA MEGACONGLOMERATE/BANK LOBBY should rename itself THE MOONIE DEATH CULT because they’re one vast CRIME SYNDICATE of FASCIST DRUG RACKETEERS.

  9. Look up MIND CONTROL PROGRAMMING & you will discover that is done by murderers who want to cover up their crimes.

    WALL STREET is one vast CORPORATE CONGLOMERATE of SERIAL KILLERS.

  10. Translation: they’re DR. DEATH SQUADS trying to recollect their own FRAUDULENT CREDIT SLIPS.

  11. So buyer beware of FRAUDULENT DEBT REPURCHASERS of their own criminal malice, INCUBUS & SUCUBUS up on WALL STREET charged those off & it’s way past the legal time limit to RECOLLECT USURY that’s eccessive to say the least.

  12. Statutes were designed to undermine the law & overthrow our CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC by denying WE THE PEOPLE have LEGAL RIGHTS.

    The demonizers up on the hill think everyone is the slave to their MIND CONTROL RUSSIAN MOB CRIME SYNDICATE WAR on the FREE WILL of U.S. SOVEREIGNS..

    Most of the human rights denying FREEMASONS think everyone is stupid & everyone is the PAWN in their satanic line dance but especially CATHOLICS.

  13. The torts do no exist & the law requires it.

    Therefore, FRAUDCLOSURE is called the SUICIDE SQUEEZE like in “baseball you bet.”

    There’s no fleeing & if you let them steal your TITLES their going to be even more ruthless.

    Best bet is STAND YOUR GROUND.

    Because we’re not WALL STREETS programmed dummies.

  14. As I said the “law” (really statutes) are not for the people. It is for the corporation/banks. They used to tell used car salesmen jokes when referring to honesty. Well we should be telling lawyer and judge jokes. My opposing lawyer has been lying from day one while the judge directs her on what to say right in the open in the court room. It’s BS, a pity and a complete mockery of justice. You know why they have a Department of Agricultural seal on the wall in in your courtroom (just look)? It’s because the people are a crop to be harvested!!!

  15. @BDL – News Flash: We had a certified forensic loan audit in 2010 and an affidavit from the same people who neatly pointed out two completely different “True Test” copies of the ‘note’ that were filed on two different occasions, a fabricated, undated, unsigned, etc. ‘allonge’ that magically appeared out of thin air – just to name a few. All done by the same foreclosure mill of Shapiro & Burson who were fired here in Maryland around the same time by Fannie & Freddie for their outrageous doings, AND Emergency Court rules that were put in place in October 2010 because of them – in the end none of it mattered. Not one fucking judge all the way up to our highest court in Maryland gave any of it a second look. My waterfront house was handed to the only bidder – Greg Dorn for a paltry sum. That some of a bitch watched and waited while for five years while we drained our 401k in a desperate attempt to claw our property back. Fat Chance! He’s living in my dream house. I’m living with my mother in law. If I sound bitter it not a coincidence.

  16. Correct typo: Failure to file such a Certificate shall be Prima Facie evidence of fraud in securing credit.

  17. No person or persons carrying on, conducting or transacting business as aforesaid, or having any interest therein, shall have after be entitled to maintain any suit or action in any of the courts in this state without alleging or proving such a person or persons has filed a Notorial Certificate as provided for under the Provision of the Act, (735 ILCS 5/13-214.2), in section (a.). Failure to file such a Certificate shall be Prima Facie evidence of fraud in securing crddit.

  18. They’re probably lunching with their comrades in BANKS & BANKING.

    If they’re reps can even prove their registered CPA’s is doubtful because they’re hiding their criminality & don’t want to incriminate themselves.

    I should have suggested to JUDGE REYES the ACCOUNTING FIRM for FIRST WEST MIDWEST be AUDITED by their CREDIT BROKERING FIRM.

    I told him in COOK COUNTY CHANCERY COURT they don’t have the LEGAL ASSIGNMENT to which he replied – you just figured that out?

    I did not respond to that rude remark by him because that was in my responses.

    The ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS TABLE had their heads down, so clearly they knew.

  19. @ Dr. David B. Starkey

    Assuming the underlying facts exist to support a TILA rescission notice, and that said notice was timely, as well as the suit to enforce was also timely, it sound as though “the guy” (wink) should be preparing for, and hopefully created an adequate record for, an appeal.

    If I may ask, in which non-judicial plutocracy is “the guy” domiciled?

  20. @ greg (part 2 of dancing with a ghost)

    Kalifornia, on December 5, 2015 at 10:56 am said:

    A lost century in economics: Three theories of banking and the conclusive evidence

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521915001477

  21. @ greg: (part 1 of dancing with a ghost)

    Kalifornia, on December 5, 2015 at 10:50 am said:

    How Banks Create Money Out of Nothing, and Why It Matters

    https://betternature.wordpress.com/2015/12/04/money-out-of-nothing-and-why-it-matters/

  22. So a guy sends in a rescission notice by certified mail to all the parties ever acknowledged in writing to be a party to an unconsummated contract several years ago. The “bank” supposedly holding the “note” writes back and says you can not rescind because- because- because. This guy takes a notarized copy of the rescission letter and a notarized copy of the “banks” refusal to rescind and puts it in the property records. The guy (in a non judicial state) files suit against the “bank” and all the other players. They do the motion dance and then the supreme court makes it ruling on rescission this January. So the guy makes a motion for judgment on the pleadings since the note and DOT are void. The “judge” takes it under advisement and comes back denying the guys motion because HE SAYS the rescission isn’t proper. Then there is silence for 6 months so far. All the rest of the BS we all have been going through with discovery and HDC and the dance the esquire world does including flat out lying over and over again had been going on but this thing should be over with a rescission evidenced in the property records several years ago. The “guy” wants to put this horse down. It’s a million dollars worth of property (two 4,500 sq. ft. homes). The guy only needs one of them.

  23. IN RE: Kalifornia, on December 6, 2015 at 9:50 pm said:
    Reconsidering the Application of the Holder in Due Course Rule to Home Mortgage Notes

    AM I THE ONLY ONE IN THE ROOM THAT NOTICES THAT ALL THE JARGON IS ABOUT EXTENSION OF CREDIT AND NEVER THE LOAN OF MONEY?!?!

    THAT IS BECAUSE THE BANKS AND OUR WHOLE SYSTEM HAS NO “MONEY” IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE, AND ALL THEY CAN DO IS EXTEND “PUBLIC” CREDIT – CREDIT THAT THEY DERIVE FROM CONVERTING YOUR “PRIVATE” CREDIT, CREATED BY BY YOUR NOTE/SIGNATURE – INTO “PUBLIC” CREDIT FOR USE IN THE BANKRUPT U.S. BANKING SYSTEM…

    MORE IF YA WANT

  24. On the COLORADO EVICTION TRIAL comment.
    in my opinion
    These suits are like being sent to the principal’s office, the suits are administrative. Even a purported civil suit would require the real party.
    These suits appear to be all about dotting i’s and crossing t’s like a teacher or principal is concerned with; when it comes to turning in an ‘assignment’ for class.
    These purported legal people, who most have no oath, so what’s legal about the process; grade the paperwork as if it’s accepted by the court because it used a certain type of font, and a certain character spacing.
    It’s all about form/form(at)/form(al)/form(alities).

    Facts are more powerful than words.
    .. .. .. .. ——————– .. .. .. ..
    Here is a timeless blog about ‘fraudulent misrepresentation’

    https://adask.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/ignorance-of-the-law-is-no-excuse-except-when/

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

  25. Sunday 6 December 2015

    Greg:

    Thank you for posting the Colorado case info. It is right out of my own
    playbook being developed over the past 2 months and adds a nice
    finishing touch on how to best proceed.

    Kalifornia:

    Thank you for your informational posts.

    Cheers…

  26. Reconsidering the Application of the Holder in Due Course Rule to Home Mortgage Notes

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1304716

    Abstract:

    In this paper we investigate the history of negotiable instruments and the holder in due course rule and contrast their function and consequences in the 1700s with their function and consequences today. We explain how the holder in due course rule works and identify ways in which the rule’s application is limited in some consumer transactions. In particular, we focus on laws limiting application of the rule to some home mortgage loans. We investigate Lord Mansfield’s original justification for the rule as a money substitute, the lack of explicit justification of the rule by the drafters of the Uniform Commercial Code in the 1950s, the contemporary justification of the rule as a means of increasing the availability and decreasing the cost of credit, and the concerns of legislators and regulators about lack of consumer knowledge, bargaining power, and financial resources which caused them to limit the application of the holder in due course rule to some consumer transactions. We conclude that changes in policy justification, parties to negotiable instruments and the structure of the home mortgage market call for a reconsideration of the continuing appropriateness of holder in due course protection for assignees of home mortgage notes. We suggest further analysis based on economic theory and review of empirical research in order to formulate policy recommendations.

    Number of Pages in PDF File: 65

    Keywords: assignee liability, holder in due course, home mortgage note, negotiability, negotiable instruments, Lord Mansfield, Miller v. Race, Uniform Commercial Code, UCC, securitization, FTC holder rule, Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act, HOEPA

    JEL Classification: G20, G21, K12, L14

  27. From 2002…

    Held Up in Due Course: Predatory Lending, Securitization, and The Holder in Due Course Doctrine

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=904661

    Abstract:

    This second article of a two-article set analyzes the conjunction of the holder in due course doctrine, securitization of residential mortgages and predatory lending. Predatory and deceptive lending, widely documented in the media and in Congressional and regulatory hearings, is the practice by unscrupulous lenders of originating loans at above-market rates through deceptive practices or undue influence or by taking advantage of the ignorance, desperation, or susceptibility to fraud of borrowers. These lenders have been targeting primarily elderly, poor and minority borrowers throughout the country. Even worse, these practices have been funded by Wall Street. This article explains how predatory lending has its roots in the history of the holder in due course doctrine, which cuts off most borrower claims or defenses once a loan is transferred.

    This aged doctrine has been transformed from its inception in the seventeenth century as a relatively benign, commercially useful doctrine, into a malignant one. Currently, the holder in due course doctrine promotes deception and aids unscrupulous lenders by protecting the buyers of residential loans even when the loans are the result of many forms of fraud. At the same time, the original purposes of the holder in due course doctrine, such as ensuring liquidity and transferability of notes, have been taken over by other and better means. Various federal, state and local efforts have been made to prevent predatory lending and some have done so by eliminating the holder in due course doctrine at least as to high price loans.

    The article analyzes securitization, the process of pooling assets, in this case mortgages, and issuing securities based on the pooled assets. Unlike the praise by other academic commentators for securitization, this article shows how securitization creates holders in due course almost immediately as it allows relatively unregulated mortgage brokers with almost no capital to originate loans. Securitization thus provides an opportunity and safe haven for predatory lending, and worse yet, reduces lender discretion in resolving borrowers’ difficulties once the borrowers discover they are the victims of deception. The article includes an economic analysis of the holder in due course doctrine and indicates that it increases the likelihood of fraud and other forms of predatory lending by putting the risk of fraud and unfair lending practices on the borrower, who often is virtually helpless to prevent them. The article concludes with a call for the abolition of the holder in due course doctrine in all cases where it would cut off the defenses of a residential borrower.

    Number of Pages in PDF File: 113

    Keywords: mortgages, predatory lending, securitization, holder in due course, lending, negotiable instruments

    JEL Classification: E43, F34, G22

  28. this sucks…

    http://www.commerciallending-lawblog.com/Illinois-Supreme-Court-Declines-to-Review-Appellate-Court-Decision-Regarding-Junior-Lenders-Right-to-Separately-Enforce-Note-Apart-from-the-Mortgage_5-2014

    Illinois Supreme Court Declines to Review Appellate Court Decision Regarding Junior Lender’s Right to Separately Enforce Note Apart from the Mortgage

    Posted on May 23, 2014 by Robert B. Groholski

    Recently, the Illinois Supreme Court denied a Petition for Leave to Appeal seeking review of the First District Appellate Court decision in Turczak and Lew v. First American Bank. In that case, the First District Appellate Court held that under Illinois law a lender may bring separate enforcement actions on the note and mortgage. Further, the Appellate Court held that despite the senior lender obtaining a default judgment of foreclosure and sale, the junior mortgagee’s lien was not extinguished until the senior lender obtained an order approving sale.

    In Turczak, the homeowners obtained a $391,250 loan from one lender secured by a first mortgage on the property, and a $73,335 loan from a another lender secured by a second mortgage on the property. When the homeowners stopped making payments on both loans, the senior lender filed to foreclose its mortgage and joined the junior lender as a defendant. The senior lender subsequently obtained a default judgment of foreclosure and sale against the homeowners and the junior lender. Almost concurrently with the suit filed by the senior lender, the junior lender brought an action against the homeowners on the note (but did not seek to foreclose the junior mortgage) and received a default judgment. Thereafter, the homeowners sought a short-sale of the property, which the senior lender agreed to approve if, among other things, the junior lender agreed to execute a release of its second mortgage lien. The junior lender required the homeowners to pay $6,000 in order to release the junior mortgage, and did so upon receiving the payment.

    The homeowners then filed suit against the junior lender alleging that the junior lender violated either the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act or a valid interlocutory order by demanding payment to release the junior mortgage.

    Before the Appellate Court, the homeowners argued that once the junior lender obtained a final judgment in its action to enforce the promissory note, the junior lender was barred from further actions to enforce the junior mortgage. Therefore, the homeowners’ reasoned, the junior lender’s demand for payment to release the junior mortgage in conjunction with the short-sale was fraudulent. The Appellate Court rejected this argument, holding that under well-settled Illinois law, upon default, a lender can choose whether to proceed on the note or to foreclose upon the mortgage and that the remedies may be pursued consecutively or concurrently.

    The homeowners further argued that when the senior lender obtained its default judgment of foreclosure and sale against the junior lender, the junior lender’s mortgage was extinguished. The Appellate Court rejected this argument as well, holding that “[a]fter a judgment of foreclosure, only a judicial sale of the property followed by judicial confirmation of the sale will terminate ‘with finality,’ the rights of third parties.” As no judicial sale ever took place, the junior lender was not prohibited from seeking payment in exchange for releasing its junior mortgage. Only when a judicial sale has been approved by the court does the junior lien holder lose its lien interest and related legal rights.
    To learn more, contact the author of this alert, Robert B. Groholski at 312-627-2295

  29. High profile Bartram mortgage foreclosure case moves to Florida Supreme Court
    part 2:

    http://therealdeal.com/miami/blog/2015/11/03/high-profile-mortgage-foreclosure-case-moves-to-florida-supreme-court/

    High profile mortgage foreclosure case moves to Florida Supreme Court
    Lawyers argue over when clock starts ticking to sue on a mortgage foreclosure

    November 03, 2015 12:00PM
    By James Teeple
    When does the clock start ticking on a mortgage foreclosure case?

    That’s the question being argued Wednesday before the Florida Supreme Court in the case of Bartram v. U.S. Bank.

    Back in 2006, the Law Offices of David J. Stern filed a mortgage foreclosure suit against Lewis Bartram of Ponte Vedra Beach. Years later, after Stern’s “foreclosure mill” collapsed leaving tens of thousands of foreclosure cases in limbo, lender, U.S. Bank missed a case management conference and its foreclosure case was dismissed.

    However, the case was revived and Bartram received another favorable judgment in 2011 based on the fact that the five-year statute of limitations on mortgage foreclosures had expired. But U.S. Bank appealed that ruling, and in 2014 Florida’s Fifth District Court ruled in the bank’s favor, throwing out Florida’s five-year statute of limitations on mortgage foreclosures.

    The ruling was a victory for banks in Florida who continue to foreclose on loans that defaulted years ago. Many of those loans are so called “zombie mortgages,” or a foreclosure that has been started but not completed. Over the past few years it has taken an average of 62 months to clear such foreclosures and many have been dismissed because they fell under the state’s five-year statute of limitations rule.

    At the heart of the case being argued on Wednesday is the issue of mortgage acceleration. Most mortgage contracts carry an acceleration clause, which allows the lender to sue for the entire loan amount immediately, starting a five-year clock on the foreclosure process. But the Fifth District ruled that the court’s dismissal of U.S. Bank’s lawsuit in 2011 negated the loan’s original acceleration date that had been set in 2006, effectively resetting the acceleration date to 2011.

    Eric Wesoloski, a Miami-based lawyer who is not involved in the case but has clients who will be affected by the outcome, told The Real Deal that if the ruling is upheld by the Florida Supreme Court it will unleash a new round of litigation against condo and homeowners associations that are saddled with many such “zombie mortgages,” as well as what he says are the “now relatively small number of homeowners with defaulted mortgages left over from the Great Recession.”

    “Basically it means the lender at any time can re-default the debtor and say the clock is ticking,” Wesoloski said.

    Miami-based attorney Matthew Estevez, who is also representing the owner of a second mortgage on the Bartram condo, said banks had a deliberate strategy to delay the foreclosure process on many properties – in a bid to let the real estate market recover and allow them to avoid paying condo and homeowners fees on many foreclosed properties. The Fifth District ruling directly encroaches on the authority of Florida’s legislature, he said.

    “Our position is that the banks don’t get a special judicial carve out for a statute of limitations that was passed by the legislature.”

    U.S. Bank and lawyers arguing its case in Florida’s Supreme Court declined to speak with TRD about the case. Two other Florida courts have issued similar rulings upholding the Fifth District decision but a court in Miami recently ruled against it, leaving it up to Florida’s Supreme Court to settle the matter. A ruling in the case is not expected for several months.
    Tags: mortgage acceleration, Zombie Foreclosures

  30. High profile Bartram mortgage foreclosure case moves to Florida Supreme Court
    part 1:
    http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2014-04-26/us-bank-national-association-vs-bartram-beginning-end-five-year-statute-limit

    Prominent Royal Palm Beach foreclosure defense attorney Tom Ice said for homeowners in foreclosure litigation, “the news doesn’t get much worse” .

    He believes it will result in an increase of banks restarting old cases or dismissing flawed cases to start over with new paperwork and pleadings.

    Unless the Florida Supreme Court reverses the Appellate Court decision; “Right now, this opinion is law of the land,” Ice said. “For homeowners, it means there is no end in sight to the litigation.”

  31. http://www.attorneyatlawmagazine.com/palm-beach/u-s-bank-v-bartram-incorrect-decision/
    U.S. Bank v. Bartram An Incorrect Decision

    Posted September 16, 2014

    By Amanda L. Lundergan

    The recent Fifth District Court of Appeal decision in U.S. Bank National Association vs. Patrician J. Bartram, et al was incorrect, and should the Florida Supreme Court take up the case, it should rectify a decision that will only cause decades of litigation in an already overburdened court system.

    The problem with this decision is obvious – the mortgage documents contain only acceleration clauses, but lack a provision for deceleration.

    Florida law defines the statute of limitations for foreclosure of a mortgage as five years, a period beginning when the last element of the claim occurs, generally at the time of acceleration. In non-legal terms, this is when “the clock starts ticking” for the bank to foreclose. But in this case it is “ticking off” a considerable number of Florida homeowners and more than a few of the attorneys who represent their best interests. Typically, creditors have five years to sue to collect on a defaulted debt.

    In Bartram, the court addressed a question on a key issue. What happens when someone defaults on a loan, there is an acceleration, the foreclosure lawsuit is ultimately dismissed and the five years has run?

    The defendants argued that the cause of action for default of future installment payments accrued upon acceleration which triggered the statute of limitations. Therefore, the bank didn’t and couldn’t revoke its acceleration after the dismissal and re-file its case after the expiration of the five year limitation.

    The court disagreed and decided that the lender can accelerate its mortgage more than once, holding that if the bank accelerates, and the case is later dismissed, the bank can still re-accelerate the loan and foreclosure the mortgage. When the bank re-accelerates and re-forecloses, it may not be able to seek collection of payments which are older than five years, but it can still seek collection on all payments which are not five years or older on all future payments.

    Bartram is a detrimental case which could cause not only an influx of new filings in previously dismissed cases and more voluntary dismissals in the face of errors and oversights, but also decades of litigation in our already backlogged foreclosure courts. By ruling that the five-year deadline now starts again when each mortgage payment was missed, the court has effectively extended the legislature’s five-year limitation to thirty-five years (for the typical thirty-year mortgage).

    The ruling allowing banks to decelerate a mortgage at will essentially rewrites the contract. Mortgages are classic contracts of adhesion and Florida courts have long held that all ambiguities in contracts of adhesion should be construed in the light most favorable to the insured. Courts are also prohibited from rewriting the terms of contracts when they are unambiguous and in those cases where the contracts are ambiguous, they must be interpreted against the person who drafted them, here, the financial industry.

    Contracts should be interpreted liberally in favor of the borrower who must accept the language in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae agreements if he or she is to obtain the desired mortgage. The court cannot insert language permitting the lender to decelerate when nothing in the contract provides for such an action.

    The Florida Supreme Court should take up this case and rectify a decision that will complicate and overburden our legal system and create unnecessary challenges for mortgage borrowers.

    *Excelsior Ins. Co. v. Pomona Park Bar & Package Store, 369, So. 2d 938, 942 (Fla. 1979).

    For more information on the U.S. Bank v. Bartram case, visit [www.icelegal.com].

  32. http://www.templelawreview.org/lawreview/assets/uploads/2012/02/83.1_Greenberg.pdf

    TEMPLE LAW REVIEW [Vol. 83]

    NEGLECTED FORMALITIES IN THE MORTGAGE ASSIGNMENT
    PROCESS AND THE RESULTING EFFECTS ON RESIDENTIAL
    FORECLOSURES

    If a foreclosing entity is unable to meet the appropriate pleading standard,
    courts should walk the fine line between the two competing policies and dismiss the case without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice prevents improper foreclosures, but gives financial institutions a chance to refile if they are able to correct the standing or ownership issues present in the first filing. Neglected formalities—such as timing issues and inadequate evidence—which are less severe will likely be correctable and will eventually go through. Conversely, where the neglect or disregard for the process resulted in severe deficiencies—such as bringing foreclosures on behalf of undisclosed third parties— the problems will
    likely be uncorrectable. While a consideration of both public polices suggests that a foreclosing entity should have the opportunity to refile; if
    the problems with the first filing cannot be corrected, then the foreclosing entity should always be prevented from foreclosing. Therefore, it is through a consideration of both relevant public policies and through dismissals without prejudice that the courts will be able to distinguish between the varying levels of assignment neglect to ensure that only the most severe and irreparable forms of neglect will prevent a foreclosure.

  33. very informative John

    didn’t Neil feature this awhile back?

  34. H.O. beats bankster case:

    “The court’s analysis focused on the issue of whether the Fair Foreclosure Act (“FFA”), N.J.S.A. § 2A:50-56.1 (which governs statutes of limitations relative to foreclosure proceedings),… ”

    From the ruling:

    “No one gets a free house.” This Court and others have uttered that admonition since the early days of the mortgage crisis, where homeowners have sought relief under a myriad of state and
    federal consumer protection statutes and the Bankruptcy Code.
    Yet, with a proper measure of disquiet and chagrin, the Court
    now must retreat from this position, as Gordon A. Washington
    (“the Debtor”) has presented a convincing argument for entitlement to such relief. So, with figurative hand holding the nose, the Court, for the reasons set forth below, will grant Debtor’s motion for summary judgment……”

    http://voidjudgements.net/suedc/MorrisCountyHomeownerGetsFREE-HOUSE.pdf

    I don’t know if the bankster appealed, but there’s some good info in here.

  35. Thanx Greg can anybody find the case number

    NEVER AGAIN

  36. Neil
    when you get back –
    here is a headliner!
    greg-chicago

    http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/?p=624

    COLORADO EVICTION TRIAL STOPPED IN ITS TRACKS: CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION ON RESCISSION AND “PETE” DEFENSES TO PROCEED TO OTHER COURTS
    Posted on December 5, 2015

    December 5, 2015

    In what we consider to be a major victory in a case of first impression in Colorado, an Archuleta County Judge stopped an eviction trial from proceeding after motions, briefing, and lengthy argument yesterday. Jeff Barnes, Esq. represents the homeowners, who are battling both US Bank and Citimortgage in connection with the threatened eviction.

    Colorado law permits the assertion of defenses in an eviction action, but the case law does not limit or specify what defenses can be raised. The homeowners raised defenses related to a post-sale change of ownership in the loan (and thus a “person entitled to enforce” [PETE] issue), and other defenses including a defense based on a TILA rescission effected pursuant to 15 USC sec. 1635 and 1640. Neither the “lender” nor the servicer undertook any action within the 20 day period permitted by the Federal statute to challenge the homeowners’ exercise of their right to rescind, electing instead to wait until yesterday’s hearing to attempt to argue a “defense” to the rescission.

    The Court ultimately ruled that it is without jurisdiction to entertain the defenses raised, and issued an abatement order staying the eviction case until the District Court decides the issues related to the defenses. This means that no eviction trial can be scheduled until the District Court litigation on the defenses (which is an entirely new action to be filed) has run its course, which would include any appeals.

    Further, if the homeowners prevail on their rescission claim, the entire eviction action could conceivably disappear forever. The law on rescission, after the issuance of the Supreme Court’s Jesinoski decision in January of this year, is far from settled, and more issues have opened up in view of this decision which clarified, among other things, that a rescission is effective upon the mailing of the notice of rescission. The principles of the Jesinoski decision were recently affirmed in the Pataalo decision out of Oregon (which was brought to our attention by several of our dedicated followers), much to the chagrin and frustration of JPMorgan Chase (the foreclosing party in that case).

    Jeff Barnes, Esq., [www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com]

  37. News flash…you can make arrangements, with an attorney present, out of court then file a motion. What judge would allow opposing counsel to disallow critical information to bring a lawsuit to an end before trial.
    What motion did opposing counsel file?

    For other homeowners, accountant and forensic examiner will help circumvent thousands of dollars in attorneys fees. Accountant alone could shed light are the darkness of their fabricated bookkeeping. In most cases…THEY DON’T HAVE IT. An accountant or examiner would save a judge a lot of time and energy before or during discovery.

  38. News flash: Forensic accountants and document and forgery experts can be hired but opp. counsel objects to allowing them in at all. It is called no discovery. Been there, done that.

  39. Rehypothecation – Distorting Legal Principles By Risking Mortgage Loans – Nemo Dat!

    https://deadlyclear.wordpress.com/2015/01/18/rehypothecation-distorting-legal-principles-by-risking-mortgage-loans-nemo-dat/

  40. A lost century in economics: Three theories of banking and the conclusive evidence

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521915001477

  41. How Banks Create Money Out of Nothing, and Why It Matters

    https://betternature.wordpress.com/2015/12/04/money-out-of-nothing-and-why-it-matters/

  42. Forensic examiners are available to you all…their written and oral testimony will not be refuted.
    Accountants are available to all of you.
    A judge cannot throw out the sworn testimony of forensic examiners as well as accountants.
    Technology today is extremely advanced.
    Get busy and hire.

  43. We facilitate appeals too, everyone. Consumer Rights Defenders 818.453.3585.

  44. Accountants can help but robust discovery is more important everyone…..get your discovery to the banks and take depositions of their persons most qualified about the securitization. We beat BONY Mellon doing just this very tactic. We know how to win at Consumer Rights Defenders 818.453.3585.

  45. I have experienced the same louise. My motions to compel fall on the corrupt ears of the judge that takes his direction from the banks “lawyers”. The judge even directs the banks attorneys when I do confuse them. The “judge” just recently decided that my rescission (from years ago) wasn’t valid even though I have it in the pleadings and registered in the county records with my written notice of rescission and the banks written notice of they are not going to let me rescind. Just face it the whole system is corrupt and run by the banks from the top down. Why do we keep kidding ourselves. The law isn’t for us it’s for them………………………………………..

  46. In CA I was on a role, as much as a pro se can be, and requested motion to compel. At that point I was directed by the court into a ‘discovery facilitation’ program, two weeks before its debut.

    The questions I asked were simple.
    Produce all documents depicting or otherwise relating to the sale or purchase of the Subject Loan.
    Produce all documents depicting or otherwise relating to any transfer of the promissory note of the Subject Loan by bailment or physical conveyance.

  47. Friday 4 December 2015

    Correct Louise. However, objecting on record and having a motion for
    discovery denied is ripe for one aspect of appeals. Most states have
    liberal discovery policies. A case site demonstrating this fact, as a part
    of the motion for discovery, strengthens the appeal.

  48. God, i have asked this a zillion times and can not get a lawyer to answer BUT if Wells Fargo says FreddieMac is the investor and owns MY Mortgage then WF most likely didn’t fund the loan, is that somehow correct or not? so WF should not be able to foreclose on me? yet they did and were recorded as the beneficiary, so hows that so? WF clearly and even on the FreddieMac website says they own my mortgage… shouldn’t I have a case??? why won’t any lawyer in AZ take the case? all I ever get is “WF is too big to beat” this doesn’t seem so anymore?

  49. The key is discovery which we do not get even with a Motion to Compel. I have experienced it multiple times.

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: