Tonight! The Neil Garfield Show with Illinois Attorney Dan Khwaja — LOPEZ Case

US Bank v Lopez

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

It is always a pleasure to speak with an attorney who is an ardent advocate for consumers. And it is good to know they are out there even though everyone is complaining about not finding an attorney. Dan wins cases and motions because he fights every step of the way — but like every good litigator he thinks about the case before he writes or says anything.

Here the note was sent for endorsement AFTER suit was filed. Truth is stronger than fiction. In the Lopez case an Illinois Appellate Court reversed the trial judge and dismissed the foreclosure. Then the same court reversed its own decision en banc and affirmed the foreclosure. Now Khwaja is taking it to the Illinois Supreme Court. He has the law and the rules on his side. You can see what he filed here: US Bank, Trustee v Lopez.

Included in the above link is what was filed with the attached appendix and relevant documents. It has the first complaint and note, second complaint and note, the affidavit of Robert Rappe Jr admitting the note was sent for endorsement after the foreclosure was filed. The first and second opinions. Everything is here that you need to look at if you want to review it.

At issue now is whether the rules mean anything or if the rules promulgated by the Illinois Supreme Court can be ignored. This of course has been the continuing cry of homeowners who were seeking workouts and modifications only to be inexorably drawn into foreclosure. In a word, the access of borrowers to their creditors has always been continually blocked during the modern era that involves false claims of securitization.

The fact pattern involves the familiar US Bank as Trustee for a presumed Trust. The parties continue to refer to the Plaintiff as “US Bank” which of course is not the case. The named Trust is the Plaintiff — if it exists. If it doesn’t exist then there is no Plaintiff notwithstanding the size of US Bank. Since the style of cases is a  shorthand “US Bank” becomes shorthand for US Bank, as trustee for the XYZ Trust.

Guest Information:

Daniel Khwaja, Esq.
Attorney at Law
ph (312)-933-4015
 

3 Responses

  1. Lawyers help if there is good equity in the house! I lost our residence due to F modification w Wells Fargo

    Like

  2. Neil -THERE SHOULD BE NO SHORTHAND. Please inform Dan Khwaja — that it should be TWO entities — the trustee and the trust – for representation. If not, you are dealing with ONE entity — which simply cannot be possible. The Trustee must represent the trust. The trust cannot represent itself unless a business entity – a non traditional trust. Nevertheless, “US Bank as trustee for BS trust” — is not the name of the trust. BS TRUST is the name of the trust — you cannot make it all one name.

    My guess — only the servicer’s attorney is representing.

    Like

  3. Neil, my story ended with a sale of my home. I walked away with money… which I understand is rare. If there is anything I can do to help struggling homeowners, I’d like to contribute.

    On Thu, Jun 14, 2018, 6:46 AM Livinglies’s Weblog wrote:

    > Neil Garfield posted: “US Bank v Lopez Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The > Neil Garfield Show Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays It > is always a pleasure to speak with an attorney who is an ardent advocate > for consumers. And it is good to know they are out there” >

    Like

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: