WINDFALL TO BANKS: Credit Bid Still Not Drawing Attention to Defective Fraudulent Foreclosures

The only party that can make a credit bid (i.e., use the foreclosure judgment instead of paying cash) is one who is still a senior secured creditor as to the property being auctioned.

In my review of the results of many auctions it is apparent that a credit bid was submitted by a party relying upon a dubious claim as the actual creditor at the time the auction was held. The clerk is committing error when it accepts a credit bid from a party who is not the creditor.  The question is whether the right to attack the certificate of sale or the auction process is preserved when the homeowner has failed to object to the credit bid.

Get a consult! 202-838-6345

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.
 
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

In a judicial state, most people treat the actions and events after judgment as ministerial acts of no consequence. But upon review, as pointed out by me in 2011, based initially upon the research by Charles Koppa (in San Diego), it seems that the initial problems with the loan documents persist even at auction.

This is revealed in one of three flavors: (1) a credit bid submitted by someone other than the Plaintiff in the foreclosure action and who is not the secured creditor at the time of the auction and (2) the certificate of title is issued to a party who was neither the plaintiff nor the party who submitted the credit bid and finally (3) a credit bid is submitted by the Plaintiff but the Plaintiff is no longer the senior secured creditor. All three can overlap as we have repeatedly seen in Florida and several other states which have come under our review.

In Branch Banking v Tomblin, a 2015 case dealing with the issue of who can submit a credit bid the logic of allowing a credit bid was explained:

Credit bidding is allowed because “no useful purpose [is] served in requiring a bondholder or a mortgagor to pay cash to a court officer conducting a judicial sale when he would be entitled to immediately have it paid back to him under the decree authorizing the sale.” Grable v. Nunez, 66 So. 2d 675, 677 (Fla. 1953). However, credit bidding would not appear to be available to a senior mortgagee that has not foreclosed its mortgage. (e.s.)

So the upshot is that in a situation where a party claims to be the senior secured creditor it must have been the Plaintiff in a foreclosure action. Any other reasoning would allow what we already know is happening: widespread fraudulent foreclosures performed by entities whoa re indemnified against charges that it intentionally mislead the court and the borrower.

So the bottom line is that the credit bid may ONLY be submitted and should not be accepted by the clerk unless the Plaintiff submits the credit bid and where the Plaintiff is still, at the time of the auction, the senior secured creditor on the property that was subject to the foreclosure action — in short the real party in interest.

At this point the issue is NOT whether they are the “holder” or “owner” of the promissory note. They must be the party to who would be entitled to immediately have it paid back to him under the decree authorizing the sale.” Grable v. Nunez, 66 So. 2d 675, 677 (Fla. 1953).

This seems to be where the rubber meets the road. If the party submitting the credit bid is not entitled to the actual monetary proceeds of the sale (because they are in fact financially damaged by the defendant’s failure to pay) then if they want to bid they must do so in cash.

This is exactly opposite to the strategy employed in foreclosures today. The foreclosing party seeks and obtains a foreclosure judgment, an auction follows and NOBODY pays any cash for the bid. Instead the foreclosing party receives a windfall having absolutely no money in the deal either for origination of the alleged loan or for the purchase of the alleged loan (an event that clearly has not happened in 99% of all “loans” subject to claims of securitization).

Thus it would seem pretty clear that anyone, including the homeowner, could object to the auction and the certificate of title and demand they be set aside. And if the next highest bidder would be the one awarded the property, or depending upon the court, the auction might be reset along with a finding of who, if anyone, can submit a credit bid. Is anyone listening?

7 Responses

  1. Greetings all. I am trying to locate a legitimate address and phone number for US Debt Ventures located in or around Fort Lauderdale Fla area. So far, this entity has several addresses and non-working phone numbers, have shown to be dissolved on the State of Florida business website and numerous newspaper articles in Florida newspapers on the multi-million dollar purchases of distressed properties. Any help you can give is appreciated!

  2. How do you prove they have no right to sell the home in the first place. That they have stolen it and are selling stolen property. Most of the times in nj it is the foreclosure mill present at Sheriff Sale.

  3. The Courts do not care. Flagstar Bank put a note identifying Flagstar bank as the one and only beneficiary and I put up IRS and State IRS filings plus a letter from the Trustee identifying FNMA as making the credit bid in front of a judge (federal and bankruptcy). Made no difference. Bid $598K, debt: $405K, market value on IRS and state filings, $317K…the FNMA credit bid was 85% over market value, for a home they later sold at $317K…which is what I was asking for when I paid lawyer $1200 to get me through the HAMP. The HAMP logs from the bank show blatant fraudulent statements to my lawyer. Failed both with lawyer and pro se…

  4. Ok, those who get this. What now? Post credit bid and post eviction? I have a solid case. Or so I thought. I want to go back and win my fight – not to retake possession of my home but to make a principle statement for the benefit of homeowners like me

  5. David, this is the track group of us is on. Violations of settlement guidelines and law CONTINUE at every level. Agencies and elected officials are ignoring fraud against us, the courts and the government and we need to know where all the money is going and somebody has to pay for continuing harm to us.

  6. SO EVEN MORE STUFF, FROM WHAT I HAVE DISCOVER.. after getting a fraud 2nd mortgage of my off my record, and merscorp holding, discharging that mortgage . because it was never assign or recorded, at the registry of deed in mass. and that the enitiy gmac mortgage corp, was defunck, bk, they had to discharge it.

    so i ask a few more question pertaining to them ( putting and paying for, any assignment to be placed on anyone land records. i was told that mers DOES NOT, AND CAN NOT, PUT A ASSIGNMENT ON ANYONES LAND RECORDS. so now i just ask my SECRETARY OF STATE, AND THE REGISTRY IN MASS TO EXPLAIN TO ME. HOW A COMPANY THAT DOES NOT HAVE, AND NEVER HAS HAD A RIGHT TO DO BUSINESS IN MASS?

    SO I WOULD LOOK TO SEE WHO ( HAD IT RECORDED ) TO SEE IF THAT COMPANY IS A REGISTER TO DO BUSINESS, AND AFFECT PROPERTY OWNERS RIGHTS IN YOUR STATE.

    SO I ASK MY LAWYER THAT QUESTION. THIS IS WHAT HE SAID.

    First, contrary to your assertion, there is no evidence that IGS “put the assignment on [your] record.” IGS is simply the entity that received the original assignment after it was recorded. As you know, MERS is the entity that caused the assignment to be recorded, as evidenced by both the plain language of the assignment and the signature section of the assignment.

    SO THIS IS WHAT I SENT HIM TODAY.

    First, contrary to your assertion, there is no evidence ( EXCEPT FOR THE ADMISSION OF THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS THEMSELVES AS OF THIS MORNING. THAT IGS DID IN FACT PAY FOR, AND DID ORDER THE ASSIGNMENT TO BE PLACED ON OUR RECORDS. ) that IGS “put the assignment on [your] record.” IGS is simply the entity that received the original assignment after it was recorded. As you know, MERS is the entity that caused the assignment to be recorded, as evidenced by both the plain language of the assignment and the signature section of the assignment. ( AND AFTER TALKING TO MERSCORP HOLDINGS, THEY STATED THEY (MERS ) DO NOT ( CAUSE ) ANY ASSIGNMENT TO BE DONE UP/ CHANGE/ OR GET RECORDED AT ANY REGISTRY. ) AND THAT
    THEY DO NOT KNOW WHO IS WILLIAM LONG, WHO HE WORKS FOR, AND HE IS NOT THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.

    SO.

    PETER, just got off phone with registry of deeds , ask THEM A simple question.

    who paid for and did in fact order , the assignment to be put on my property. the lady said, cant you read!

    it was, indecomm global services!!!!!! she said they paid for it. ! to be put on your record.

    again, now i have mers saying they do not put assignments on records, THAT THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ORDERING A ASSIGNMENT TO BE RECORDED, OR DOING A ASSIGNMENT. gmac mortgage corp did not put it on our record, or could authorize anyone to put it on our records BECAUSE OF THEM BEING A DEFUNCT ENTITY , so

    we have a company that is not authorized to conduct any type of business in mass, being allowed to place a assignment on a mass property owner record. AND AFFECTING THE PROPERTY OWNERS RIGHTS. that’s fraud . it would also make it a fraud assignment. so questions.

    1/ when did marshalls mortgage get DEACTIVATED FROM THE MERS SYSTEM. WHAT WAS THE DATE?

    2/ MERS HAS TO HAVE THAT DATE!

    3/ WHO ORDER THE DEACTIVATION OF THE MORTGAGE FROM MERS? THEY ALSO SHOULD BE ABLE TO TELL US THAT.

    4/ EVEN AS OF TODAY, MERS SHOW THE SERVICER AS , GMAC MORTGAGE,LLC. SO WITH THE ASSIGNMENT BEING A FRAUD ASSIGNMENT, AND WOULD BE TAKEN OFF OUR PROPERTY AS A FRAUD ASSIGNMENT, AND ALL OTHER DOCS THAT HAVE BEEN PLACED ON RECORD, I.E FORECLOSURE NOTICES AFFIDAVITS, NOTICES . WOULD BE ALSO FRAUDULENT.

    5/ AND IF THAT WAS TAKEN OFF THE RECORDS, JUST AS I DID THE LAST MORTGAGE, MERS WOULD SEE THAT IT WAS NEVER ASSIGNED/TRANSFER OUT OF MERS, AND THEN THEY WOULD GIVE A MORTGAGE DISCHARGE BECAUSE OF GMAC MORTGAGE CORP BEING A DEFUNCT ENTITY. AND IT NEVER BEEN ASSIGN TO ANYONE, JUST LIKE THE OTHER MORTGAGE THAT I JUST GOT DISCHARGE. FROM MERSCORP,HOLDINGS.

    David,

    ALSO SENT TO STATE AG, AND SECRETARY OF STATE. THIS.

    i want to know the following questions. as to the laws of mass. registry of deed, and any secretary
    of states authority’s to handle this matter.

    1/ can a company, that is not REGISTERED WITH THE STATE, TO CONDUCT BUSINESS IN THIS STATE, AND AFFECT ANY HOME OWNERS PROPERTY, IN THE, AND AT , THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS?

    2/ CAN THAT BE DONE?

    3/ ALSO IF THAT HAS BEEN DONE, HOW DO WE CORRECT THIS ILLEGAL, FRAUDULENT ACTION THAT YOUR OFFICE AND REGISTRY HAS DONE. BECAUSE OF THE GREAT HARM THIS HAS CAUSE ME AND MY FAMILY IS OVER WHELMING. AND HAS COST US IN TIME,EXPENSE,LEGAL FEES , OVER 100,000 DOLLARS SO FAR.

    4/ I HAVE CHECKED YOUR CORP/ SITE TO SEE IF THIS COMPANY, IS REGISTER TO, OR, BE ABLE TO AFFECT PROPERTY RECORDS, OR EVEN REGISTER TO DO BUSINESS IN MASS. AND IT DOES NOT EXIST. SO THE QUESTION BECOME, THEN HOW COULD THIS COMPANY PUT A FRAUDULENT ASSIGNMENT ON MY PROPERTY RECORDS?

    THE COMPANY IN QUESTION. INDECOMM GLOBAL SERVICES

    DAVID A BELANGER
    POA
    1 978-618-3105

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: