NJ FDCPA Case: Psaros v Green Tree et al

WE HAVE REVAMPED OUR SERVICE OFFERINGS TO MEET THE REQUESTS OF LAWYERS AND HOMEOWNERS. This is not an offer for legal representation. In order to make it easier to serve you and get better results please take a moment to fill out our FREE registration form https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1453992450583 
Our services consist mainly of the following:
  1. 30 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys
  2. 60 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys
  3. Case review and analysis
  4. Rescission review and drafting of documents for notice and recording
  5. COMBO Title and Securitization Review
  6. Expert witness declarations and testimony
  7. Consultant to attorneys representing homeowners
  8. Books and Manuals authored by Neil Garfield are also available, plus video seminars on DVD.
For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688. You also may fill out our Registration form which, upon submission, will automatically be sent to us. That form can be found at https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1452614114632. By filling out this form you will be allowing us to see your current status. If you call or email us at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com your question or request for service can then be answered more easily.
================================

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

—————-
Hat tip to Ken MCLeod
I have already written about this case. But at the promoting of my friend Ken McLeod, it deserves further comment. This is a New Jersey Federal case based upon violations of the FDCPA. The court found that the Plaintiff had indeed stated a case not only against the parties seeking to collect from him, but also the law firm who certified they had done due diligence.
In this case the facts were very clear. They threw him under the bus of foreclosure for failure to pay insurance premiums which, as it turned out, had indeed been paid. Thus the case stated that the law firm and the alleged claimant were wrong and that they had misstated the amount allegedly due, which is the essence of the FDCPA remedial act.
The interesting thing about the opinion written by the NJ Federal Judge is that he picked up on the fact that representations in court ARE included in the scope of the FDCPA. Usually the general rule is what is said in court stays in court. Not so, says this Judge relying upon several other decisions. And I agree with his interpretation. Based upon Congress’ exclusion of court proceedings in other statutes and Congress’ failure to put that language in FDCPA, he correctly concluded that Congress didn’t put it in FDCPA because they didn’t want it in.
So it would appear that most foreclosure mills that are proffering documents or testimony that they knew or should have known to be false are liable for all sorts of damages.  And law firms are in for a nasty surprise if they are relying upon the indemnification of a servicers or even a bank (who is signing not on their own behalf but as trustee of a trust). Borrowers who have been wrongfully foreclosed probably have a cause of action against the law firm and the “plaintiff” (Judicial states) or against the law firm and the “Trustee and Beneficiary” (nonjudicial states).
Like rescission, the FDCPA is a path to clarity and reality of what is really happening. Law firms who represent banks and servicers should take note that they are walking into a buzz saw if they are relying upon the truthfulness of their clients.

17 Responses

  1. Indeed Ian
    They accept what is RECORDED albeit wrongfully
    But as we all know burden is on us
    At this point the evidence is shifting that burden
    onward i say all of ya

  2. Hey nurse Wynn- if you
    Just think about it, the court has no idea who the creditor is, except for the forged, backdated, conjured paperwork thrown together willy-nilly by these thieves. And if that is the BEST these foreclosers can do, along with their lowlife “lawfirms”, ( boy now there is a play on words), then they are more desperate than everyone thinks they are. Great decisions are continuing to come from various courts. Everyone hang in there and keep plugging and sharing information. The truth is an immovable force, which cannot be avoided. It can be evaded, (for awhile) but never avoided. Sooner or later you just run into headon. And it is immovable.

  3. So read CarrieB and Ians posts
    So if rescission is sent to CREDITOR before the foreclosure then theres nothing to foreclose upon, bear in mind the servicer may call themselves beny on that NOTS and the servicer recorded via their sub trustee millions of wrongful liens, my GOD its public record

  4. Well said carrie b

  5. CarrieB- missed this one- in the Federal Reserve Board 2009 TILA amendment, which is now codified law, is clearly stated, “the servicer is never the creditor”. That is the law of the land in judicial states, looks like you are in a nonjudicial foreclosure state, w your mention of beneficiaries and deed of trust.
    Not sure if a creditor is the same as a beneficiary. Someone more knowledgeable than I can chime in here.
    I think everyone here is still adjusting to daylight savings time. Not much activity here for a Sunday. Maybe they are all at a Trump rally. Or church. Maybe both.

  6. CarrieB- you have to backtrack to see who, or what governing documents(PSA) gave the servicer the right to assign anything to amyone in the first place.
    This isn’t a situation where anyone can just arbitrarily decide to begin filing documents with no authority to
    Do so.
    But that is what they do for a living. So keep that in mins. No matter how bad you think it looks, it is 100x worse.

  7. Carrie B-
    The MERS forger filing 10 days after your bk filing working foe both the assignee amd the assignor is not “an arms length transaction”. Furthermore,
    Once the bk is filed, anything further being brought in or taken out of the bk estate must receive court approval.
    Secondly, the servicer cannot receive a duplicate assignment from MERS to itself. Unless the first one has been stricken from the records.
    Next, whether the note is mentioned or not, MERS has no interest in the note, only the mortgage, and that is a stretch, but this has been corroborated by the deposition of their various CEOS, namely RK Arnold, and Wm Hultman as early as 2008 in the LandmarkBank case in Nebraska.

  8. What happens when a law firm commissions a new assignment of deed of trust (from mers to the servicer they represent) to present with proof of claim in a 2015 bankruptcy? The “MERS” signer assigned the deed of trust to the servicer, making the servicer the beneficiary, 10 days after I filed for bankruptcy.

    Three things were hinky:
    1) The MERS signer, a supposed MERS secretary, is a VP at the servicer.

    2) the deed of trust had already been assigned from MERS to the servicer, in 2010, by notorious robosigner LOU ANN HOWARD.

    3) the 2015 MERS signer/Servicer VP’s signature doesn’t even match the other sample I have from a 2014 court case in Connecticut.

    One error:
    the 2015 assignment fails to mention the note. The 2010 one did mention it.

    Also weird: Before all that, the deed of trust as assigned from the actual lender to MERS twice, too. It was done once in 2005, by Brian Workman, the lenders record retention manager, notarized by M Mars, and again in 2010, by ultra notorious Crystal Thomas and Brian Bly (notary), in Florida, pretending to be in the Florida office of the California-based lender. Bly signed his initial, which supposedly invalidates it.

    And in 2010, totally unbeknownst to me, the Trustee filed a notice of default with the original lender listed as beneficiary. The lender was dissolved by FDIC in 2008, after it had transferred my DOT to MERS. It was a case of worst case scenario: being foreclosed on by a party that said it had a claim to the collateral when you’ve been paying another party for two years.

  9. talk about living lies… OMG!
    Who is the real deceiver and who are the deceived?
    03/10/2016 06:45 PM EST – Run-Time: 1:49:02 – Interview & Q&A with Attorney, Legal Procedure Expert, Author and Trainer – Dr. Frederick D. Graves, JD
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4032131/GG%20%23024%20Files.zip

  10. talk about living lies…
    [audio src="http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-139335/TS-1047957.mp3" /]

    03/10/2016 06:45 PM EST – Run-Time: 1:49:02 – Interview & Q&A with Attorney, Legal Procedure Expert, Author and Trainer – Dr. Frederick D. Graves, JD

  11. Many times they lie and twist the truth and facts and no matter how many ways they tell it or who helps them the truth comes up all shiny every time, it just takes time.

  12. Call Consumer Rights Defenders today at 8184533585 for pro se litigation assistance against your bank. Ask for a free consultation.

  13. If your case needs a FDCPA or FCRA or any federal or state based claim, call the No. 1 pro se litigation organization in America, Consumer Rights Defenders at 818.453.3585 for a free consultation with our knowledgeable staff of lawyers and paralegal professionals.
    All inquiries are confidential. Stop letting the banks push you around and take charge with litigation, today.

  14. I think it boils down to debt collection
    But discovery will be needed
    Thing is in taking homes they all had cause to know at a minimum

  15. Well said V, worthy of double posting…..

  16. Getting a deficiency judgement is immoral. Commonsense which is a foundation of law may state that between two parties, the party in the best position to assess the risk should bear the loss. Knowingly lending to people who can’t afford payments and thus causing foreclosure is immoral and a predatory lending practice. As equity prevents duplicative or multiple recoveries for the same alleged damages, deficiency judgments after foreclosure, deed-in-lieu or short sale must be prohibited in the United States when same sex marriage is lawful and medical marijuana is lawful.

    Don’t foreclose on the life of American people. Just foreclose on the collateral if the banks have any right to do so. We need judges who follow the law in the best interest of people – not to make laws for banks.

  17. Getting a deficiency judgement is immoral. Commonsense which is a foundation of law may state that between two parties, the party in the best position to assess the risk should bear the loss. Knowingly lending to people who can’t afford payments and thus causing foreclosure is immoral and a predatory lending practice. As equity prevents duplicative or multiple recoveries for the same alleged damages, deficiency judgments after foreclosure, deed-in-lieu or short sale in the must be prohibited in the United States when same sex marriage is lawful and medical marijuana is lawful.

    Don’t foreclose on the life of American people. Just foreclose on the collateral if the banks have any right to do so. We need judges who follow the law in the best interest of people – not to make laws for banks.

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: