NY Monroe Case: Default entered against homeowner — CASE DISMISSED on Standing — US Bank Never refiled.

multiple choice robo-pleading

NO PLEADING: HOMEOWNER WON ANYWAY

I have held off on discussing this case until some time passed. As far as I now know US Bank, like several cases I won, has not refiled for foreclosure. There is a good reason for that. US Bank is not the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is named as a REMIC Trust, for which the attorneys claim that US Bank is the Trustee.

As such the Plaintiff does not own nor have any interest in the loan either as owner or servicer. Hence the named trustee (U.S. Bank) is named but it has nothing to do since the trust is nonexistent and in all events no attempt has ever been made to entrust the subject mortgage into the fiduciary hands of U.S Bank.

And THAT is because the only party with an equitable interest in the debt is a group of investors whose money was used to fund the origination or acquisition of the loan. The investors meanwhile think that their money was placed in trust and then used to purchase, not originate, loans.

Every once in a while a wily judge catches on from the face of the documentation. This judge ruled against US Bank as Trustee for a named REMIC Trust because he didn’t believe US Bank or the Trust was actually related to the subject loan. He gave them a chance to correct their pleading, but apparently out of fear of perjury, the lawyers for the nonexistent trust backed off, apparently permanently.

Let us help you plan your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.

Purchase now Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense webinar including 3.5 hours of lecture, questions and answers, plus course materials that include PowerPoint Presentations. Presenters: Attorney and Expert Neil Garfield, Forensic Auditor Dan Edstrom, Attorney Charles Marshall and and Private Investigator Bill Paatalo. The webinar and materials are all downloadable.

Get a Consult and TEAR (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345. The TEAR replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments. It’s better than calling!

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

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

see Memorandum and Order – USBank Trust NA as Trustee for LSF9 MPT v Monroe

Quoting from the complaint field by lawyers for their supposed client, a nonexistent trust with a completely denuded trustee, the court includes their own allegation in its ruling:

2 (“Plaintiff is the owner and holder of the subject Note and Mortgage or has been delegated authority to institute this Mortgage foreclosure action by the owner and holder of the subject Note and Mortgage.”);

What does that even mean? This is a perfect example of multiple choice robo-pleading. Either the Plaintiff is the owner and holder of the subject note or mortgage or they are not. If they own the debt,  they don’t say as much and certainly didn’t offer any proof at their uncontested hearing on damages. It’s pretty hard to lose an uncontested hearing but US Bank has done it multiple times, as reported in this case.

If they have been delegated authority by the owner and holder of the subject note and mortgage, they fail to say who delegated that authority and how the delegation occurred. Since the express purpose of the trust was to own the debt, note and mortgage and make payments to investors based upon the trust’s ownership of the debt, note and mortgage, Demoting the trust to the status of a conduit or agent would be completely adverse to the express wording and authority granted in the trust.

Actually that kind of wording is exactly what enables the players to claim interest in notes and mortgages adverse to the interests of the parties whose money was directly used to fund the origination and acquisition of loans.

 

Here are some revealing quotes from the District Judge:

The Complaint does not contain any details concerning U.S. Bank’s role as trustee or the powers it has over the trust property (including the mortgage here). (e.s.)

The party asserting subject matter jurisdiction carries the burden of proving its existence by a preponderance of the evidence. E.g., Makarova, 201 F.3d at 113; Augienello v. FDIC, 310 F. Supp. 2d 582, 587–88 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). This is true even on a motion for default judgment, since the principle that a default deems the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint to be admitted is inapplicable when a court doubts the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. Transatlantic Marine, 109 F.3d at 108.

2 While some of these issues were discussed elsewhere by U.S. Bank’s counsel, e.g., Dkt. No. 7, they were not included in the affidavit filed in support of default judgment.

“When a default is entered, the defendant is deemed to have admitted all of the well- pleaded factual allegations in the complaint pertaining to liability.” Bravado Int’l Grp. Merch. Servs., Inc. v. Ninna, Inc., 655 F. Supp. 2d 177, 188 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (citing Greyhound Exhibitgroup, Inc. v. E.L.U.L. Realty Corp., 973 F.2d 155, 158 (2d Cir. 1992)). “While a default judgment constitutes an admission of liability, the quantum of damages remains to be established by proof unless the amount is liquidated or susceptible of mathematical computation.” Flaks v. Koegel, 504 F.2d 702, 707 (2d Cir. 1974); accord, e.g., Bravado Int’l, 655 F. Supp. 2d at 190. “[E]ven upon default, a court may not rubber-stamp the non-defaulting party’s damages calculation, but rather must ensure that there is a basis for the damages that are sought.” United States v. Hill, No. 12-CV-1413, 2013 WL 474535, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2013)

In the past year, U.S. Bank’s attorneys—Gross Polowy—have repeatedly failed to secure default judgments in similar foreclosure cases before this Court. E.g., U.S. Bank Tr., N.A. v. Dupre, No. 15-CV-558, 2016 WL 5107123 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2016) (Kahn, J.); Nationstar Mortg. LLC v. Moody, No. 16-CV-279, 2016 WL 4203514 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2016) (Kahn, J.); Nationstar Mortg. LLC v. Pignataro, No. 15-CV-1041, 2016 WL 3647876 (N.D.N.Y. July 1, 2016) (Kahn, J.); cf. Ditech Fin. LLC v. Sterly, No. 15-CV-1455, 2016 WL 7429439, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2016) (denying a motion for default judgment due to a defective notice of pendency); OneWest Bank, N.A. v. Conklin, No. 14-CV-1249, 2015 WL 3646231, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. June 10, 2015) (same). In each case, Gross Polowy’s motion was denied for one of two reasons: either the complaint failed to sufficiently allege subject matter jurisdiction, e.g., Dupre, 2016 WL 5107123, at *2–5, or the motion for default judgment failed to meet the requirements of the Court’s Local Rules, e.g., Moody, 2016 WL 4203514, at *2. Here, both of these failures are present.

The Complaint also includes no allegations concerning U.S. Bank’s ability to proceed under its own citizenship, despite bringing this case on behalf of the “LSF9 Master Participation Trust.” Compl.

While U.S. Bank is the nominal plaintiff in this case, it is longstanding federal law that “court[s] must disregard nominal or formal parties and rest jurisdiction only upon the citizenship of real parties to the controversy.” Navarro Sav. Ass’n v. Lee, 446 U.S. 458, 461 (1980). “Where an agent acts on behalf of a principal, the principal, rather than the agent, has been held to be the real and substantial party to the controversy. As a result, it is the citizenship of the principal—not that of the agent—that controls for diversity purposes.” Hilton Hotels Corp. v. Damornay Antiques, Inc., No. 99-CV-4883, 1999 WL 959371, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 1999) (citing Airlines Reporting Corp. v. S&N Travel, Inc., 58 F.3d 857, 862 (2d Cir. 1995)). At issue here is the application of this rule in lawsuits brought by a trustee on behalf of a trust. —3 Gross Polowy should be aware of this rule because they were “foreclosure counsel” for the plaintiff-appellee in Melina, 827 F.3d at 216–17, though in fairness it seems they were replaced by Hogan Lovells for both the subject matter jurisdiction issue and the subsequent appeal, id. at 216; OneWest Bank, N.A. v. Melina, No. 14-CV-5290, 2015 WL 5098635 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2015), aff’d, 827 F.3d 214.

In Navarro, the Court held that trustees can be the real parties in controversy—regardless of the type of trust—provided that they “are active trustees whose control over the assets held in their names is real and substantial.” 446 U.S. at 465; see also Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 191 (1990) (noting that, if the trustees are “active trustees whose control over the assets held in their names is real and substantial,” they are brought “under the rule, ‘more than 150 years’ old, which permits such trustees ‘to sue in their own right, without regard to the citizenship of the trust beneficiaries’” (quoting Navarro, 446 U.S. at 465–66)). The continued validity of this rule was endorsed by the Court in Americold. 136 S. Ct. at 1016.

If U.S. Bank wishes to proceed in federal court, it must, within thirty (30) days, move to amend its Complaint to address the deficiencies identified in this order. This motion to amend must be prepared in accordance with Local Rule 7.1(a)(4), which establishes the form for such a motion and lists the required papers. With that motion, to resolve the Court’s doubts concerning subject matter jurisdiction, U.S. Bank must also provide its articles of association (along with any other documentation required to establish the location of its main office), the trust instrument for the LSF9 Master Participation Trust,4 and any other documentation required to show that U.S. Bank’s control over the trust assets is real and substantial. Failure to comply with this Memorandum-Decision and Order when moving to amend the Complaint may result in the denial of the motion or sanctions. L.R. 1.1(d).

 

4 In the Dupre case discussed above, U.S. Bank also was instructed to file the trust instrument for the LSF8 Master Participation Trust (presumably another securitization vehicle for mortgage debt) in order to establish subject matter jurisdiction. 2016 WL 5107123, at *2. When it did file the trust instrument, “the text . . . was almost entirely redacted,” and the only visible portion seemed to oppose the notion that U.S. Bank was an active trustee with real and substantial control over the trust assets. Id. at *2, *4. This failure should not be repeated here, and filing documents under seal or with redactions requires advance permission of the Court. L.R. 83.13; see also Lugosh v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119–20 (2d Cir. 2006) (describing the standard for restricting public access to judicial documents).

 

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
 

Tonight — Silent Roles of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — Hiding Behind the Obtuse

How to Withhold Vital Information from Homeowners

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

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

Charles Marshall, Attorney and Bill Paatalo, licensed investigator discuss the moral hazard created by the Government Sponsored Entities (GSEs) banks, the courts and the regulators in allowing “presumptions” to be used even when the actual facts are different from the presumed facts.

Fannie and Freddie have long been a mystery wrapped in an enigma.

Before false claims of securitization, before fabrication and forgery of documents, the GSEs had fairly clear role in the origination, servicing and enforcement of mortgages. Now they are used as cover to hide lack of ownership where the banks and servicers make the homeowner travel and endless loop leading nowhere.

Now, as to any specific loan, we don’t know which of the following applies:

  1.  GSE is the guarantor of the loan (basically like a third party insurer with government backing)
  2. GSE is Master Trustee of a REMIC Trust in which there is a named Trustee who has the same powers, rights and obligations as the Master Trustee — i.e., no powers to actively administer the active affairs of the trust because there is no business or assets in the trust.
  3. GSE is or was a purchaser for cash.
  4. GSE is or was a purchaser using MBS issued by a named trust that either exists or doesn’t exist.
  5. GSE, using Trust A MBS paid Trust A for loans owned by the Trust or for loans not owned by the trust.
  6. GSE was a seller of the subject debt, note or mortgage.
  7. GSE claimed ownership when it didn’t own the subject debt, note or mortgage.
  8. GSE showed subject loan on its website but had no interest in the subject debt, note or mortgage (or foreclosure).
  9. Third parties claimed that GSE owned the subject debt, note and/or mortgage and it was true.
  10. Third parties claimed that GSE owned the subject debt, note and/or mortgage and it was false.

Adverse Possession vs Cancellation of Instrument and Quiet Title

In the final analysis, the only way to smoke out the banks on their fraudulent claims as “creditors” or “agents of creditors” is to create a situation where the creditor must be disclosed. In those cases where judges have ruled in discovery or ruled on the right to prepay, subject to identification of the creditor, the cases have all settled under seal of confidentiality. There are thousands of such cases buried under side agreements requiring “Confidentiality.”

Let us help you plan your complaint, discovery requests and defense narrative:

954-451-1230 or 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult. You will make things a lot easier on us and yourself if you fill out the registration form. It’s free without any obligation. No advertisements, no restrictions.

Purchase now Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense webinar including 3.5 hours of lecture, questions and answers, plus course materials that include PowerPoint Presentations. Presenters: Attorney and Expert Neil Garfield, Forensic Auditor Dan Edstrom, Attorney Charles Marshall and and Private Investigator Bill Paatalo. The webinar and materials are all downloadable.

Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 954-451-1230 or 202-838-6345. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).

GO TO WWW.LENDINGLIES.COM OR https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments. It’s better than calling!

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

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

I have been seeing a number of people adding Adverse Possession to their theories about Quieting title. So let me say first that an order granting quiet title to a homeowner whose title is encumbered by a recorded mortgage or deed of trust is practically impossible not only because judges don’t want to grant it, but for the more important reason that quiet title is not legally sound strategy for homeowners seeking defend their homes from foreclosure.

In order to quiet title, one would need to allege and prove by clear and convincing evidence that the mortgage or deed of trust should never have been executed or recorded in the first place. Anything less than that does not deserve quiet title declaration from any court. The fact that a certain party purports to have authority to enforce the mortgage or deed of trust when in fact they don’t have such authority is damn good reason not  to let them enforce the mortgage or deed of trust. But that does not mean that the instrument is void.

Here is the response I gave to a question about adverse possession:

Adverse possession does not seem to apply to this situation. But it is possible that you could get traction by filing a lawsuit to cancel the DOT (Cancellation of Instrument) and maybe even get a order quieting title to your name. This is not simple and the requirements and elements of such claims are difficult to fulfill.

Adverse possession is usually utilized in boundary disputes.
A mortgage or a deed of trust is an interest in real property. And where we are dealing with the deed of trust,The trustee is receiving title to the property. So technically you are probably correct. But when you look deeper, You will see that adverse possession does not apply.
The transfer of title to a trustee under the deed of trust divests the homeowner of title. Under the terms of the DOT you are entitled to live there and act, for all  purposes, as though you are the title owner including in a foreclosure proceeding. Hence several elements of adverse possession are not met especially “adverse,” since you have express permission under a contract to be there and to act as the title owner.
ELEMENTS OF ADVERSE POSSESSION: (NOTE — the “title owner is the DOT trustee)
  • Continuous
  • Open
  • Notorious
  • Peaceful, Peaceable
  • Hostile (claiming title against the interest of the party who actually has title)
  • Adverse (no permission or contractual right to assert title against the party who is seized with title).
  • Exclusive (barring claims or use by the actual title owner
  • Visible (putting a fence on your neighbor’s yard, ignoring the property line)
  • Actual (not implied)
But the fact that the DOT conveyed title to a real trustee on behalf of a false beneficiary is probably the basis for a lawsuit to cancel the instrument (if you can prove your allegations) and then get an order declaring the title is quieted, free from the encumbrance of record that is declared by the judge to be void.
 *
You need to be careful though about your conclusion that the DOT was void. This involves several factual questions that are not obvious. Even a void instrument could conceivably be valid if it contains a defect that is corrected or could be corrected by affidavit pursuant to local law.
 *
Your argument would be that no such affidavit was ever offered. Thus even after you filed your lawsuit, they failed or refused to make any corrections.
 *
Their argument will circle around third party beneficiary, “standing,” and the fact that SOME party could enforce it if they could show that they were the intended beneficiary despite the recitation on the face of the DOT.
 *
This is not the basis for a simple legal argument. Each side must allege and prove their factual (what happened, when, where, who was involved and why) allegations by at least a preponderance of the evidence and most probably, legal or not, the homeowner would be held to a higher standard of clear and convincing evidence informally or formally because the recorded documents carry a “presumption” of authenticity and validity that the homeowner must overcome.
 *
Academically speaking such claims are well-founded. But in practice judges look at such claims as gimmicks to get around a legitimate debt. In order to combat that we must figure out a way to bring in a party who has a legitimate claim to represent the unknown and undisclosed creditors.
 *
The banks have successfully cast the money trail in obscurity. The banks are committing fraud with each foreclosure in my opinion and in the opinion of everyone else I know that has analyzed the securitization of mortgage debt. But they have made it appear that there is nobody other than the bank’s pet entities (the so-called trusts) to play the role of creditor.

Securitization and Standing

Like other decisions establishing  the law of the land, the decisions of SCOTUS are often taken as advisory or optional. Nevertheless TILA Rescission and Article III standing have been affirmed by the Court of last resort. Reluctant judges in trial and appellate courts will get their hands slapped one more time but all the bad prior decisions and their consequences  are neither reversed nor redressed.

Standing is pretty easy — it must be alleged in facts that will be proven at trial. If it isn’t alleged or isn’t proven at trial, the Court lacks jurisdiction to do anything other than to dismiss the claims of any party seeking satisfaction because they have no claim for redress.

Let us help you plan your defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: Dial 954-451-1230 or 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.

Purchase now Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense webinar including 3.5 hours of lecture, questions and answers, plus course materials that include PowerPoint Presentations. Presenters: Attorney and Expert Neil Garfield, Forensic Auditor Dan Edstrom, Attorney Charles Marshall and and Private Investigator Bill Paatalo. The webinar and materials are all downloadable.

Get a Consult and TEAR (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 954-451-1230 or 202-838-6345. The TEAR replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments. It’s better than calling!

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

See 2017 US Supreme Court case defining burden of PLEADING legal standing: Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1645, 1650-1651 (2017)

There are three elements of standing:

  1. The party claiming the ultimate relief (like the party seeking foreclosure) MUST have already suffered an injury in fact — one that is “concrete and particularized.” This means that alleging a default is not enough. The presumption that the pleading party suffered economic loss only arises if they plead and prove that they had a right to payment which was not received, thus constituting a default. Nobody alleges that because it isn’t true. Nobody is entitled to any satisfaction in court without pleading and proving facts that the alleged default actually caused financial loss (injury) to the party seeking relief (or the disclosed principal in an agency relationship with the party seeking foreclosure). This feature is particularly twisted in nonjudicial states where the party makes no claim for foreclosure; instead they merely file papers in the county records and put the home up for sale. Standing is nonetheless required in both judicial and nonjudicial states — a fact often ignored in most courtrooms.
  2. The injury must be traceable to conduct of the party alleged to be in default or breach. Hence the party seeking satisfaction through foreclosure must establish that they had a legal right to receive the payments that were specified in the note and mortgage (deed of trust) either because they own the debt or because they represent someone else who owns the debt. Failure to reveal the party who owns the debt leaves the court without any pleading or proof as to who, if anyone, was financially injured when the homeowner stopped making payments to a party that could possibly be the authorized representative to receive such payments and also could possibly not be the authorized party to receive payments. The presumption of injury only arises  when the right to receive payments is both alleged and proven. Once again, courts have twisted this element beyond recognition. The missing creditor is presumed to exist, without a name or any other identifying characteristics.
  3. The injury, once established, must be likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. So if the foreclosure occurs and the sale is made, what will be the ultimate result of liquidation of the property. The answer is that unrelated parties will enjoy the fruits of foreclosure, which is why servicers are under strict instructions not to reveal the recipient of funds paid by putative borrowers. The proceeds from the sale of the property must be claimed by the party seeking foreclosure or claimed by the party on whose behalf the foreclosure was pursued (assuming that party is the owner of the debt and not another conduit). The trusts are all conduits if they claim REMIC status. That is why there are never allegations that the trust owns the debt or is anything other than other than a “holder.” The right to enforce appears to be presumed but is inaccurate since the Trustee and the Trust were absent from any transaction involving the subject loan. So if the proceeds are not going to the party who loaned money and are not going to anyone who bought the debt, there is no subject matter jurisdiction. Here again the courts are twisting laws beyond comprehension by presuming everything that is not susceptible to proof.

The side note is that it does not appear that the REMIC trusts actually exist or were involved in any financial transaction relating to the loans that lawyers claim it owns. SO the claimant does not exist leaving the court without any semblance of jurisdiction if the pleadings are scrutinized for allegations that the “Trust” is a REMIC business trust organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, for example. They don’t make that allegation — common to all other pleadings in other civil cases — because the trust is merely a graphic image having no significance except for the purposes of foreclosure.

 

New Florida Law Sneaks Under the Radar

BE CAREFUL HOW AND WHEN YOU FILE BANKRUPTCY PETITIONS

Governor Scott, admits 30 other bills signed SB 220 into law. You can barely find it using search engines. The law is   confusing at best and probably unconstitutional but here it is.

The new law makes BKR filings by Petitioner into presumptions in judicial foreclosures — but only the filings of the Petitioner (raising all sorts of constitutional issues). The filings by parties claiming to be creditors do not raise the same presumption unless other legal presumptions should be applied.

So now foreclosing parties can use the filings of the Petitioner against himself. As I have repeatedly stated, BKR filings by homeowners are generally misleading or wrong. Petitioners are admitting the lien and they temporarily surrender the property. The usual computer program that creates the Petition and schedules of bankruptcy makes it difficult to file anything but the wrong schedules.

This new law enables banks and servicers to use the interim period where the home is technically owned by U.S. Trustee in Bankruptcy, disregarding the fact that the Trustee typically abandons any such interest by the end of the BKR proceedings. The logic is the homeowner lacks standing to raise defenses because he/she has surrendered the  property to the court. It gets even worse when the schedules admit the debt and admit the security instrument. ALL OF THIS CAN BE USED AS PRESUMPTIVE (AND TREATED AS CONCLUSIVE) EVIDENCE IN FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS.

Bottom Line: Florida has enacted a law that is out of context and fails to treat debtors and creditors equally with respect to their filings in bankruptcy court. Homeowners in bankruptcy might be blocked from using the proceeding to stop a foreclosure, although the party claiming the status of “creditor” must still apply to lift the stay. Under the new law, the filing of a BKR petition  would essentially be a confession of judgment in foreclosure judicial proceedings blocking homeowners from raising any meritorious defenses because they no longer own the property.

Meanwhile the property records still show the homeowner as owner, and will continue to do so until the foreclosure judgment is entered and the judicial sale is complete together with a certificate of title to the bidder, who in most cases is a sham creditor claiming the right to submit a sham credit bid instead of paying for the home.

Let us help you plan your Bankruptcy petition, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.
Purchase now Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense webinar including 3.5 hours of lecture, questions and answers, plus course materials that include PowerPoint Presentations. Presenters: Attorney and Expert Neil Garfield, Forensic Auditor Dan Edstrom, Attorney Charles Marshall and and Private Investigator Bill Paatalo. The webinar and materials are all downloadable.
Get a Consult and TEAR (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345. The TEAR replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments. It’s better than calling!
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

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

see New Florida Law Traps Homeowners Who File for Bankruptcy Protection

So instead of getting protection from creditors, a Petitioner for Bankruptcy Relief gets the opposite -screwed out of meritorious defenses. This is what happens when nobody is watching and we keep voting for people who will vote or sign for any legislation against the homeowners and for the banks.

This is a law of evidence and until challenged, ruled unconstitutional or invalid, it MUST be followed by judges unless the judge in a foreclosure case rules the new Florida law is invalid. Good luck with that. Not likely.

PRACTICE POINTER: I have often seen Proofs of Claim (and exhibits attached thereto) filed for parties claiming to be creditors that differ materially from the filings in the court where the foreclosure is being heard. Those too could be admissions under existing rules of evidence. POCs are generally sworn documents.

And also keep in mind that if a creditor doesn’t file a timely proof of claim the debtor can file one for the creditor which can say almost anything. If your schedules don’t list a creditor with a secured interest and instead show that you don’t admit this party has that status many people have found that there is no admission that an be used in other courts.

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

702.12 Actions in foreclosure.— 19

(1)(a) A lienholder, in an action to foreclose a mortgage, 20 may submit any document the defendant filed under penalty of 21 perjury in the defendant’s bankruptcy case for use as an 22 admission by the defendant. 23

(b) A rebuttable presumption that the defendant has waived 24 any defense to the foreclosure is created if a lienholder 25 submits documents filed in the defendant’s bankruptcy case 26 which: 27

1. Evidence the defendant’s intention to surrender to the 28 lienholder the property that is the subject of the foreclosure; 29

2. Have not been withdrawn by the defendant; and ENROLLED 2018 Legislature SB 220 2018220er Page 2 of 2 CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. 30

3. Show that a final order has been entered in the 31 defendant’s bankruptcy case which discharges the defendant’s 32 debts or confirms the defendant’s repayment plan that provides 33 for the surrender of the property. 34

(2) Pursuant to s. 90.203, a court shall take judicial 35 notice of an order entered in a bankruptcy case upon the request 36 of a lienholder. 37

(3) This section does not preclude the defendant in a 38 foreclosure action from raising a defense based upon the 39 lienholder’s action or inaction subsequent to the filing of the 40 document filed in the bankruptcy case which evidenced the 41 defendant’s intention to surrender the mortgaged property to the 42 lienholder. 43

(4) This section applies to any foreclosure action filed on 44 or after October 1, 2018. 45 Section 2. This act shall take effect October 1, 2018.

 

Wells Fargo “Explains” Securitization

YOU NEED AN INFINITE NUMBER OF BASES AND PLAYERS TO PLAY BALL WITH THESE GUYS: The Trustee controls the trust as trustee. Oops, wait, it is the Master Servicer who has all the control. No, wait again, it is the subservicer who has the right to administer the loan. But actually if there is an alleged default it is the special servicer who has exclusive authority over decision making. Except that the “Controlling Class” has the last say in the matter. But actually it is the Controlling Class Representative who has the last word.

I have always felt that there must be some way to force the other side into approving a modification or at least providing access by the borrower to the “lender” to discuss or negotiate the matter. I still believe that. Maybe this article will help spur some ideas. Information is leverage, especially in the world of false claims of securitization.

 

Let us help you prepare your narrative (blue print) for litigation: 202-838-6345
Get a consult and TEAR (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345. The TEAR replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments. It’s better than calling!
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

Hat Tip Bill Paatalo

see Wells Fargo Document – No Lender in Remics

Essentially the banks would have us believe that by magic they created loans without owners or holders in due course. So it might as well be the banks who foreclose under any pretense they choose to offer. The political decision was to let them do it for fear that the banks would bring down the entire system. But if that were true, the bank’s capital would be worthless as would every world currency including the dollar. They bluffed Presidents Bush and Obama and the Presidents blinked. Millions of foreclosures followed because the ordinary guy is just not that important even if it involves a substantial portion of a population.

I will provide my comments and suggestions for discovery or cross examination along with each statement in the above cited article. Keep in mind that the entire article is an exercise in deceit: It is assuming that securitization actually happened. If that were true then they would be more than happy to show that the subject loan was purchased on a certain date by the payment of value to a specific seller by a trust. The trust would then be a holder in due course. But as we have seen numerous times nobody ever refers to the trust as a holder in due course which can only mean there was no such purchase.

The indented portions are direct quotes from the WFDb article cited above.

The thing most borrowers fail to realize about conduit loans is that once a loan has been securitized, they are not working with a “lender” anymore.

That’s the first sentence of the “explanation.” And the first thing that pops out is “conduit loans.” What is a conduit loan? Is the subject loan a conduit loan? In what way is the subject loan a conduit loan? [This also corroborates what I have been writing for years — that Matt Taibbi (Rolling Stone Magazine) got it right when he describes securitization as a monster with multiple tentacles.]

There is no legal definition for a conduit loan. The banks would have us believe that if they present any tentacle, that is sufficient for them to foreclose on a loan. But that isn’t legal standing — it is fraud on the court. A loan is a loan, but Wall Street banks don’t want you thinking about that. But by calling it something different it immediately plays into the bias of the court assuming that the big banks know what they are doing and that only they can explain what is going on.

Corroborating my description of the “Conduit”: remark, WFB explains that you are not dealing with a lender anymore. Is that supposed to make us feel better? There is no lender? Was there ever a lender? If, yes, then please identify the party who loaned their money to the borrower.

Now this on servicer advances:

If a loan becomes delinquent, the Master Servicer is usually obligated to make the first three or four payments to the certificate holders as well as pay trust expenses on delinquent assets…

The Master Servicer is reimbursed when the borrower makes up the payment or when the property goes into foreclosure and is later sold.

So we are being told that the Master Servicer is making payments to investors regardless of whether the borrower makes any payment. First, the payments to investors are made by the Master Servicer because they are the only one with access to a giant slush fund or dark pool created out of money that should have a gone to each trust and been maintained as a trust account, administered by the trustee.

But it is true that the Master Servicer gets paid for the “servicer advances” when the property is sold. So if the investors received 12 months of payments (of at least interest), even though it was taken out of a reserve pool (read the prospectus) consisting of their own money, the Master Servicer gets paid as though it was a reimbursement when in fact it is a windfall. Needless to say the incentive is to let the case languish for years before foreclosure and sale take place.

The longer the time period between the alleged default and the sale of the property, the more money is received by the Master Servicer as “reimbursement” for money it never advanced.

The Special Servicer makes all final decisions about dispositions of defaulted property and Real Estate Owned (REO). Often they are also the holders of the “first loss pieces” of the pool. Because they are taking the most risk, as part of their agreement to take that risk, they usually insist on being the Special Servicer as a requirement of their investment. There are only a handful of special servicers in the country.

Really? So the Master Servicer, the subservicer and the Trustee of the alleged REMIC trust have no say in whether to work out or modify a loan that is economically not feasible but which could be feasible if there was a workout or modification. What is a first loss piece of the pool? What is the account name of the pool supposedly held in a bank somewhere? Does the account name match the alleged REMIC trust in any way? Is there an account administered by the Trustee? Does the Trustee get performance reports or end of month statements?

Oops wait! There are other people with special powers —

The PSA also designates a “Controlling Class” who will provide input on recommendations for Special Serviced Loans and REO.

If the Special Servicer is willing to extend the loan, they have to get permission from the Controlling Class Representative (CCR), who is a fiduciary for all the certificate holders.

Anyone who has seen that famous but from Abbot and Costello in the 1950’s understands what is happening here. The Trustee controls the trust as trustee. Oops, wait, it is the Master Servicer who has all the control. No, wait again, it is the subservicer who has the right to administer the loan. But actually if there is an alleged default it is the special servicer who as exclusive authority over decision making. Except that the “Controlling Class” has the last say in the matter. But actually it is the Controlling Class Representative who has the last word.

So in discovery ask which of those entities was contacted about modification and why the borrower was instructed to send the application and documents to the subservicer when the subservicer had no authority?

And let’s not forget the fact that the certificate holders have no right, title or interest in the loans, the debt , the note or the mortgage. So their “Fiduciary” (who apparently is not the Trustee of the alleged Trust) does what?  How do we contact these intermediaries to whom powers and obligations of a trustee are passed around like free money? How do we know if the subservicer is telling the truth when it reports that the “investor” turned down the settlement or modification.

And by the way, why do we not have recording of the modification agreement? Why does not the Trustee of the REMIC Trust sign the modification agreement? Instead it is ALWAYS the signature of the servicer who, as we already know, has no power to accept or deny requests for modifications — and of course it is never recorded in county records. Why?

Remember, there are no “pockets of money” to use for refinance. Special Servicers, although legally allowed by the PSA to forgive any portion of the debt, rarely do so because often that would negatively affect one or more of the bondholders at the expense of the others. Instead, the Special Servicer, on behalf of the conduit, will almost always foreclose and sell the asset.

Hmmmm. So the Special Servicer (and the CCR?) ordinarily chooses to drive down the price of the collateral and take a larger loss on the subject loan because it “would negatively affect one or more of the bondholders at the expense of the others.” But the principal reduction would positively affect some bond holders more than others by saving the collateral. So exactly what are they saying as Wells Fargo Bank about the roles and rules of securitization?

And lastly, why did WFB task authors to write about this when their experience is limited to manufactured home communities? Probably the same reason why robo-witnesses know nothing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

%d bloggers like this: