The Neil Garfield Show 6PM with California Foreclosure Attorney Patricia Rodriguez

Call-in (347) 850-1260

Or link up http://tobtr.com/s/10244367

 

Tonight we talk about preparation of a case, and management of a case when you confronting giant banks with unlimited resources.

California attorney Patricia Rodriguez joins us again to explain management of the case from soup to nuts.

This episode of the Neil Garfield Radio Show features Los Angeles attorney Patricia Rodriguez.  She will discuss the current state of foreclosure litigation, techniques, and possible resolutions.

Effective litigation strategies include resolutions like short sales, short pays, modifications, cash for keys, and full litigation judgments.  Rodriguez points out that Securitization arguments are not strong in California and suggests ways to void the lien by examining originations and transfers and overcoming the statute of limitations.

Homeowners who are wronged must challenge theri foreclosures and not allow a bank who can’t prove standing to win.  The Rodriguez Law Firm offers a free initial consultation.

The Rodriguez Law Firm

Attorney Patricia Rodriguez

www.attorneyprod.com 

Address: 1961 W Huntington Dr #201, Alhambra, CA 91801

Hours: 8am to 5pm Pacific

Phone: (626)-888-5206

Contact: http://attorneyprod.com/contact.html

 

4 Responses

  1. I respectfully disagree with Neil’s commentary regarding “judicial bias” during the last show. It has been my “personal” experience that inherent judicial bias does in fact exist. I found Neil’s comments a bit disconcerting given his history of offering what might be considered a 360 degree viewpoint on the topic.

    It was an informative show nonetheless. Res judicata is by no means bulletproof!!

  2. instead of the old “show me the note” defense – how about the “show me the check or wire transfer record” defense to challenge whether the named originator was actually (lawfully) a “lender” or “creditor” or just broker in the initial transaction – a lot of chaff will fall from the wheat if they can’t muster up to that answer…

  3. So let me get this straight… you’ve got:

    1. a purported home loan “originator”, who loans you nothing and only acts as a broker, but claims at closing to have the status of “lender” or “creditor” within the language of a set of unsupported documents: a note plus either a mortgage or deed of trust (DOT)…

    2. a purported “assignee” (usually some alphabet soup named trust) with USBANK or similar as trustee, and said trustee does not claim any active role in accepting said assignment of debt, note, or mortgage/DOT into said purported trust, or even knowledge of it…

    3. an agent (the alleged sub-servicer); LPS or OCWEN or similar claiming to have Power of Attorney (POA) to act on behalf of the two aforementioned entities, who then purportedly assigns the purported note and mortgage/DOT of the originator to the trustee, with specific language emphasizing that their acts are without warranty or recourse (e.g. ‘you can’t blame us’)…

    So in the end, you have an alleged/purported debt/note/mortgage/DOT that does not exist between the homeowner/mortgagor and originator, assigned by a party with no proof of authority, warranty or recourse of accuracy or truth of the documents purportedly assigned, to a party who knows nothing about them; and thus the agent claims they have created a purported nexus between a plurality of trust investors and plurality of mortgage obligors, neither of which have ever entered into any fiduciary agreement, anywhere…

    Is that about right?

  4. instead of arguing debts, notes and mortgage assignments as being void vs. voidable, perhaps it is a case of insisting that per the PSA’s and Internal Revenue Code as pertains to RMBS/REMICS, the assignment into trust was inherently void and facially invalid, but of course, at the discretion of the investors and to their own peril, might be later affirmable (overridden) by said investors – which has not – and no sane person would authorize the destruction of their tax sheltered investment vehicle and incur zillions in liabilities… they would vote to keep the late or non-existent mortgage out of the package…

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: