Wisconsin Law

Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 134, 134.15 “Issuing and using what is not money; contracts void. (1)Any person who shall knowingly issue, pay out or pass, and any body corporate, or any officer, stock holder, director or agent thereof who shall issue, pay out or pass, or receive in this state as money or as an equivalent of money, any promissory note, draft, order, bill of exchange, certificate of deposit or other paper of any form whatever in the similitude of bank paper, circulating as money or banking currency, that is not at the time of such issuing, paying out, passing or receiving expressly authorized by some positive law of the United States or of some state of the United States or of any other country, and redeemable in lawful money of the United States, or current gold or silver coin at the place where it purports to have been issued, such
person shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not more than six months or by fine not exceeding $100, and such body corporate shall forfeit all its rights, privileges and franchises and shall also forfeit to the state and pay for each offense the sum of $500.
All contracts of any kind whatever the consideration of which, in whole or in part, shall consist of any such paper as is prohibited in sub.(1) and all payments made in such unauthorized paper shall be null and void.”

This COULD mean that derivatives and securitization might fall under what Wisconsin considers to be illegal practices.

376 Responses

  1. Thank you,Stan. Best to you!

  2. Roger Love ur comments

  3. Where Does It Go From Here? Foreclosure Actions in Wisconsin

    We have been watching the wheels of justice turn ever-so-slowly here in Wisconsin as the foreclosure crisis continues to displace families. What is so disheartening is that the judiciary, accepting spoken-word bank attorney theories of note transfers as evidence of those transfers, continue with their “see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil” act. When presented with evidence of bank wrongdoing (including forgery, perjury, and fraud on the Court) they continue to rule on behalf of the banks and their law firms without regard for the laws of the State.
    “Substitution of plaintiff” would normally require “leave of the Court”, but here in Cheeseland, lawyers switch the names of complainants “willy-nilly” without even a question by the Judge.
    Presenting an affidavit from mortgage servicers or their counsel stating “We have the note in our possession” is no substitute for presenting the note in Court for opposing counsel or the signor (maker) to inspect. Multiple varying copies of the note, all affirmed as “true and correct copies” even though they lack intervening indorsements or even an “indorsement in blank” are overlooked by the judges as though it doesn’t matter. The rules of equity (and evidence) have been cast to the curb in favor of dispossessing the citizens and handing the proverbial “free house” to the bank servicer or even their law firms. “What does it matter? The guy didn’t pay his mortgage!” This has been their mantra for many years.
    Requests for discovery relating to transfer of possession becomes “work product” protected by “attorney client priveledge”, and when the “mortgage purchase agreement” as set forth by the PSA is brought to the attention of the Court, suddenly the homeowner has no standing to contest the lack of transfer to the named plaintiff or to even cite to the failure of the banks to follow the Uniform Commercial Code as specified by the trust indenture, even though it was bank plaintiff attorneys who entered the PSA into the record as their own “proof of standing to foreclose”.
    The lawlessness that has taken hold here is a by-product of the Walker administration (and the failure of the State Attorney General, local district attorneys, and the Office of Lawyer Regulation) to stand up to the banking oligarchy and lawyers that line their pockets. As a matter of fact, it amounts to misprision of a felony in my humble opinion.
    Particularly saddening is that the Walker administration saw fit to take the National Foreclosure Settlement Agreement monies and use it to plug the budget deficit. The fact that Attorney General VanHollen signed the agreement and then gave the money to his friend The Governor speaks volumes about the sorry state of our political system and its total disregard for the citizenry.
    A little further on down the map, in Indiana, homeowners who had their homes foreclosed using forged documents and other illegal acts committed by banks and their law firms are being paid $2,000,000 in restitution EACH. That is what the foreclosure settlement monies were intended to provide: relief and restitution. To some, that may sound extreme. To those on the receiving end of abuse of legal process, fraudulent foreclosure, bank servicing fraud, and the other crimes committed by the national and foreign national banks, it may be “just enough” to help these people restore their lives and bring peace to their world that seven years ago seemed “upside down”.
    As those wheels turn ever so slowly, some Wisconsin attorneys are having success. The Appellate Court tries to issue unpublished rulings wherever possible to protect the status-quo. However, only after the corrupt county judges are repeatedly reversed on appeal and made to look extremely foolish for their faux ignorance of the law will the correct rulings start to appear and be published. But because so many homeowners blamed themselves first and failed to contest these fraudulent foreclosures, the banks have had carte-blanche at the trough of justice in “courts of equity” for a long, long time. Those days, hopefully, are coming to an end.

  4. Where Does It Go From Here? Foreclosure Actions in Wisconsin

  5. And this ruling, in my not so humble opinion, should add fuel to your fires to get those appeals going on foreclosures completed on copies of notes.


    Finally, FINALLY, a common sense ruling comes out of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals on OWNER and HOLDER and RIGHT TO ENFORCE A NOTE!!!

    The bank attorney stating that he has an original and a copy IS NOT EVIDENCE sufficient to take somebody’s dwelling. This is a LIEN theory state.

    Please take your time to read the opinion. This ruling puts the Circuit courts on notice that copies of a note are worthless!

    Congratulations Tom!!! And to your counsel. Reed Peterson again writes and argues a compelling appellate case AND WINS ON TRUTH AND COMMON SENSE!

    You better hold on to your house!

  7. We need some help here, and many of those who know me know my attorney, Wendy Nora. I am fortunate to have her in my corner, as well as 10 other folks like myself who are defending title and possession of their homes, some even after losing on fraudulent documents submitted to the court. Over the last six or seven years, she has been instrumental in deciphering the massive fraud that she herself has been subjected to.
    Now that we are exposing the corrupt foreclosure-mill law firms, charging them with RICO and WOCCA, and accusing other government agencies of dereliction of their duties to the people of Wisconsin, the Office of Lawyer Regulation has decided to pursue charges against my lawyer. The OLR and Wisconsin Department of Justice have already blown off many of you who took the time to file proper complaints containing evidence of fraud in your foreclosure, mortgage, servicing, or all three. The Wisconsin Supreme Court needs to hear from you. My friend, Shelly Erickson, has emailed her side of the family, now I’m reaching out to you. Here’s her email…..

    “Wendy Alison Nora is being attacked by the Wisconsin Bar Association for her foreclosure defense cases wherein she has filed RICO claims and other defenses on behalf of her clients. She has been charged with filing RICO cases against law firms who file false in pleadings in Wisconsin (a judicial foreclosure state), based on forged documents and then seek summary judgment on falsely sworn Affidavits in 2 cases. The first case goes to evidentiary hearing on April 5, 2016. Affidavits from anyone located more than 150 miles from Madison, Wisconsin should be admissible as “declarant unavailable” under the Wisconsin Rules of Evidence.

    We need Affidavits (not just declarations) in support of Wendy for her admirable service to the legal community in the realm of foreclosure defense.
    I am attaching my personal affidavit as an example and I feel it is imperative to add as many more as we can generate. There is also a word copy with the caption all prepared for your convenience. Wendy has spent countless hours investigating foreclosure issues and securitization – even on her own home in order to better understand the crime that has caused so many homeowners to lose their homes. If any of my investigation has ever helped you it is likely that a lot of the work has been reviewed by Wendy and directly or indirectly her comments and thoughts have added to the information.

    The point is that we should stand united to help any attorney that is being targeted in foreclosure defense. Wendy has worked relentlessly since the last farm crisis in the 1970s to help those that been victims of a distressed market. We cannot allow any bar or bank attorney firm to silence good attorneys.

    Wendy needs our help. A short Affidavit (not a declaration because this is Wisconsin Supreme Court) in support of Wendy and how she has helped others by discussing facts and sharing knowledge may go a long way to saving her license.

    We need a Miracle on 34th Street to happen in the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. They need to be overwhelmed by mail. Anyone can provide an Affidavit. It would be especially helpful to have as many other attorneys supporting her as possible.

    Wendy will enter / file the affidavits but we need them to be sent to her ASAP before the April 5, 2016 hearing.”

    Once you have your Affidavit notarized send it to Wendy and she will file them:

    Attorney Wendy Alison Nora
    310 Fourth Ave. S., Suite 5010
    Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415

    I am also available to help accept your documents if you email me at usedkarguy@yahoo.com with WENDY AFFIANT in the subject line. I have the original email with the affidavit attachment to forward to you.

  8. …will not be tolerated.

  9. Please take time to write the DOJ if you were involved at all with HSBC in your mortgage or foreclosure.

    Attn: Mortgage Fraud Settlement Monitor
    P.O. Box 7857
    Madison, WI 53707-7857

    HSBC Agrees to $470M Settlement of Mortgage Abuse Allegations

    http: // www. nationalmortgagenews.com/news/compliance-regulation/hsbc-agrees-to-470m-settlement-of-mortgage-abuse-allegations-1071358-1.html?site=default_msn&utm_medium=email&ET=nationalmortgage:e6071906:742394a:&utm_source= Wisconsin Department of Justice

    HSBC will pay $100 million in cash to federal and state parties and $370 million in customer relief.
    The question is: how do we enter our claim with your office after enduring eight years of abuse of process, robo-signed affidavits, three void, late assignments of mortgage entered into the record, lis pendens filed and removed, foreclosure entered and vacated, slandered title, and WOCCA? Claims for legal fees, Wisconsin trust law violation, securities violations, identity theft (proof of TWO loans originated),fraud on the court, wire fraud, need I go on? Foreclosure mill law firms have been exposed for their illegal practice and use of the law for theft by conversion on behalf of bank servicers with no valid recorded interest or equity in the original loan transaction by using COPIES of NOTES and MORTGAGES with FORGED ENDORSEMENTS AND ASSIGNMENTS OF MORTGAGE:

    http ://thjf.org /2012/12/12/mortgage-backed-trusts-using-mortgage-assignments-from-docx-llc/

    You are hereby noticed that another dereliction of your duty to Wisconsin homeowners to protect their land title rights as stated in the Constitution of the State of Wisconsin, the Laws of the State of Wisconsin, and the United States Code.

  10. I know things are kind of dead around here, But all you Wisconsin folks who have lost or are losing their homes, are still in the fight (Stan, Scott, Melissa, all you who know me) hopefully on the autosubscibe link to this page, I need some information.

    Those of you who have complained to the Wisconsin Department of Lawyer Regulation about forged and falsely sworn documentation used to foreclose by bank servicers, please e:mail me, PRONTO, if you can. I know you’re out there, and everyone is putting up a valiant fight.
    Need the dates of your complaints, the bank attorneys’ and the firms’ names, the dates they responded and DISMISSED YOUR COMPLAINT.

    part of the complaint follows:

    OLR Director Sellen is derelict in his duty to assure that OLR investigators perform competent and diligent investigations, and has committed malfeasance in public office by neglecting his duty ….to investigate homeowner claims of forged documents that have been uttered into the court records and falsely sworn affidavits, assignments of mortgage, false and fraudulent pleadings filed in courts in the State of Wisconsin, under the jurisdiction of the Wisconsin Supreme Court and Federal Circuit and Bankruptcy Courts by Wisconsin licensed attorneys……

    Keith Sellen is the Director of the Office of Lawyer Regulation
    Investigators include J. Zeisser, C. Hahn, C Schally, A. O’Mahar, K. Galarowicz. Deput Director E. Estes.

    Looking for the dates you first contacted the Office of Lawyer Regulation, Names of respondents, and names of bank servicer attorneys AND firms FAST. And thank you.

  11. http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=157676

    from B of A v. Yahn
    We first turn to the copy of the note attached to Bank of America’s
    complaint. Bank of America alleged in its complaint that it “is the current holder
    of [the attached] note,” and it attached to the complaint an uncertified copy of a
    note. First, “holder” is a legal term that means, in the foreclosure context, “[t]he
    person in possession of a [note] that is payable either to bearer or to an identified
    person that is the person in possession.” WIS. STAT. § 401.201(2)(km)1. Whether
    an individual is a holder is a legal conclusion, not a factual allegation. Second, the
    complaint alleges that attached is “a true copy of the note,” but not that a true copy
    of the original note was attached. In addition, the Yahns denied that the attached
    copy of the note was a “true copy of the note.”3

    ¶10 Third, even if the complaint had alleged that the attached note was a
    true copy of the original note, the attached copy was not sufficiently authenticated.
    In order to be admissible in evidence, a document must be authenticated by
    “evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its
    proponent claims.” WIS. STAT. § 909.01. The original note, or a certified copy of
    the original note, is self-authenticating. See WIS. STAT. § 909.02(9) and (12); see
    also WIS. STAT. § 889.08 (addressing certification of copies). However, an
    uncertified copy of a note, which may not be a copy of the original note, is not
    self-authenticating. See BAC Home Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Williams,

    Bank of America incorrectly asserts in its brief on appeal that the Yahns’ “answer does
    not specifically deny the authenticity of the note or the authority of the signatures on the note.”
    No. 2015AP936
    No. 2010AP2334, unpublished slip op. ¶11 (WI App. Sept. 29, 2011); see
    generally WIS. STAT. § 909.02.
    ¶11 Another means of authenticating a document is through testimony of
    a witness “with knowledge that a matter is what it is claimed to be.” WIS. STAT.
    § 909.015(1). However, the copy of the note in this case was not authenticated by
    Johnson’s affidavit, which makes no mention of the copy of the note attached to
    the complaint being a true and correct copy of the self-authenticating original note.
    Johnson avers in his affidavit that he has personal knowledge that the records in
    Bank of America’s custody are prepared in the ordinary course of business at or
    near the time of the transaction or event by persons with knowledge of the
    underlying transaction. Johnson’s affidavit does not, however, contain any
    specific averments that the copy of the note is a true and correct copy of the
    original note. The fact that Johnson may have been in position to authenticate the
    copy of the note does not, standing alone, mean that he has done so. Put another
    way, assuming without deciding that a clear statement that the uncertified copy
    attached to the complaint is a true and correct copy of the original note would be
    sufficient to do so, Johnson’s affidavit makes no reference whatsoever to the copy
    attached to the complaint.
    ¶12 We next turn to Johnson’s affidavit. Johnson avers that Bank of
    America or its agent “has possession of the promissory note.” However,
    Johnson’s averments are silent as to whether Bank of America is in possession of
    the original note. Bank of America argues that the uncertified copy of the note
    attached to the complaint is evidence that it possesses the original note. However,
    Johnson’s affidavit is silent as to whether the copy of the note attached to the
    complaint is a true and correct copy of the original note, there are no admissions
    No. 2015AP936
    on file that the note attached to the complaint is a true copy of the original, and the
    Yahns denied that the attached copy is “a true copy of the note.”
    ¶13 Bank of America makes the additional argument on appeal that its
    invitation during discovery to the Yahns for them to inspect the original note and
    Bank of America’s attorney’s offer to bring the original note to court were
    sufficient, for purposes of summary judgment, to make a prima facie case that it
    possesses the original note. Summary judgment is based on the pleadings,
    depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file. See WIS. STAT.
    § 802.08(2). Summary judgment may not be based upon offers by the moving
    party to make something available for inspection. If Bank of America wanted to
    establish its possession of the note by bringing it into court, it should have done
    so, not just offered to do so.
    ¶14 In summary, neither the copy of the note attached to the complaint,
    nor the averments in the affidavits presented by Bank of America, establish that
    Bank of America was in possession of the original note. Bank of America has
    thus failed to establish that it has the right to enforce the note and to foreclose
    based upon any failure on the part of the Yahns to pay according to the terms of
    the promissory note.
    ¶15 Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we reverse the circuit
    court’s summary judgment decision and remand for further proceedings.4

    The Yahns argue that summary judgment should be granted in their favor because the
    “record before [this court] is barren of any evidence of a note and mortgage.” The Yahns are
    mistaken. Bank of America presented evidence of the existence of a note and mortgage. What
    No. 2015AP936
    By the Court.—Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further
    This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT. RULE

    Bank of America failed to do on summary judgment is to establish that there is no genuine issue
    of material fact as to Bank of America’s possession of the original note. Accordingly, we reject
    the Yahns’ argument. The failure of a party to establish the right to summary judgment does not
    mean that the other party necessarily prevails on the ultimate issue, only that it is still an issue for
    decision by the trier of fact. That the other party may itself establish an entitlement to summary
    judgment is only one of the possible outcomes.

  12. Corruption in Government? Making Hay While The Sun DOESN’T SHINE!
    Comment: this was sent to me by a close friend, a patriot, and one who makes it a point to keep an eye out and be involved in state government. Removing mainstream media from your life is good. Find your own news sources. They’re out there.

    This is not how the “peoples business” should be done. It is evident both parties are RULING CLASS IDEALOGUES WHO ARE SELF-SERVING AND CORRUPTED BEYOND REPAIR.

    Need more proof we are not working with democratic processes any longer? See below. YOU don’t count. I am stunned (although I shouldn’t be). Highlights are mine. And by the way, I am not arguing for or against the legislation; it is the PROCESS that has been compromised.

    P.S. I distinctly remember Governor Walker saying he would never allow legislative business to be held “after dark,” yet this isn’t the first time this has happened. Very discouraging. FYI: Links to the withheld “details” are within the link below the letter, if you are interested in the specifics.

    Subject: Sen. Vinehout ~ Friday Night in Madison

    November 11, 2015

    Volume 9

    Friday Night in Madison

    It was Friday night at 5:00 pm.

    Most people were leaving work and looking forward to the weekend. Maybe they headed to see friends and family at the fish fry or watch the prep football playoffs.

    At that same hour, Senators received details on two very important bills. Legislation that rewrote laws related to elections, campaign finance, lobbying and the ethics of elected officials.

    Leaders kept details about changes to the bills secret until the last minute. Details we had not seen; the press had not read; no member of the public had an opportunity to provide comment.

    By 7:00 pm, the Senate debate on the two bills began. Final Senate passage happened before the sun came up on Saturday morning. Most Wisconsinites did not hear the debate or see the vote. No TV news cameras observed the Senate. Most reporters had gone home. Senate galleries were mostly empty.

    Few realized what happened and Senate Republican leaders wanted it that way.

    GOP leaders called an “Extraordinary Session”: extraordinary because the regular fall floor period for final passage of legislation expired the day before.

    Senators waited in Madison all week for details of which bills would be up for a vote and how those bills might be amended – changed – before the Senate vote. But, those details didn’t emerge until the sun went down, most of the press had gone home and Wisconsinites were enjoying the start to their week-end.

    Big changes were on the way to campaigns and elections. Changes most people would not like – nastier, untruthful campaign ads, shadowy out-of-state groups buying more ads, and less sunlight on campaign donations. [SO glad I don’t watch TV or listen to corporate radio, so won’t be subjected to the spin.] A newly created partisan, gridlocked commission would oversee ethics, lobbying and elections. More opportunity for secret deals in the dark.

    Democracy needs sunshine. Wisconsin campaign laws should shine light on who donated to whom, when, how much and where that person worked. Groups that want to influence your vote should be required to say where they got their money and how they spent it. Elections must be fair and lobbying transparent.

    Laws passed after dark keep voters in the dark. Legislation moving at warp-speed usually means something bad. [100% agree. Otherwise, there would be no need to keep everything secret.]Friday night in Madison there was certainly enough confusion among Senators about what the bills did and didn’t do which served as a warning that we didn’t know all the answers.

    But, slowing things down to get answers and represent voters was not something on the mind of GOP leaders.

    It was almost 11:30 pm.

    “I didn’t hear a single word about what we’re going to do to help a voter cast a more informed vote,” said Senator Janet Bewley. “But, instead, they [voters] are going to be buffeted by a fire hose of bad information; too many campaign ads, mail, phone calls… This is madness. And it has nothing to do with voters.”

    It was now after midnight. The Senate had only begun debating the dismantling of the Government Accountability Board (GAB) – the nonpartisan judges that oversee elections, campaign finance, lobbying and ethics.

    Most of the press had gone home. All who remained was a political news service and a single reporter from the local college newspaper.

    Supporters of the bill provided no hard evidence to justify dismantling nonpartisan oversight of elections, campaigns and ethics.

    Exasperated, the longest serving state legislator in the United States, Senator Fred Risser stood up. He asked the bill’s author, “You just don’t like this agency?”

    It was now almost 2:00 AM Saturday morning.

    Senator Mark Miller implored the bill’s author. “GAB rose out of the ashes of one of the greatest political scandals our state has faced; created in an equally bipartisan bill. But this bill was created in the dark, brought forth at the last minute. How can we be sure this legislation has the interest of the public at heart?”

    When you do not want the world to pay attention to legislation that is not in the public’s best interest, you pass it in the wee hours of Saturday morning.

    Speed and secrecy: that was the game plan Friday night in Madison.

  13. Nice job Roger

  14. (Wisconsin Court of Appeals, summary disposition)

    JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. v. Seamonson, 2015AP830, Sep 22, 2015. Bank’s counsel’s affidavit in support of summary judgement said the original mortgage note was in his possession. Affidavit in opposition from former employee of originating lender said, based on his knowledge of its system, that images provided differed in a way indicating note in Bank’s possession was not an original. “[W]e reverse the summary judgment because, at least as the record now stands, it does not support summary judgment… .”

    Another Reed Peterson victory….

  15. Roger Count me in. We must stop the erosion of our property rights in Wisconsin. We should get national attention.
    Happy July 4th
    Stanley Putra
    Racine Wi

  16. After bushwhacking us in Bankruptcy court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Susan V. Kelley was promoted to Chief Judge. WTF? Is that all it takes? A little abuse of discretion mixed in with some extrajurisdictional decisionmaking and VIOLA! YOU’RE THE BOSS!

  17. Now recruiting Wisconsin homeowners as plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Governor Scott Walker and Attorney General Van Hollen and his successor, Brad D. Schimmel. Any Wisconsin resident who lost his home to fraudulent foreclosure or mortgage servicing fraud is urged to contact me at USEDKARGUY@YAHOO.COM. Put the words “SUE WISCONSIN’S ADMINISTRATION” in the subject line.
    We should certainly have enough plaintiffs to chip in $20 each to cover the cost of filing and service of process and pay an attorney a retainer.
    Anybody still fighting this fraud in our state? Let me know.

  18. My lawyer said we had an excellent appellate case but at $250 an hour I couldn’t do it anymore and still worry about where I was going to live.

  19. I apologize. Yes, that is his name.

  20. Nate, Schroeder is in criminal court right now. Your case was moved to the other branch because of the rotation schedule. But you’re right. Can’t win here……

  21. do you mean Anthony Milisauskas?

  22. He somehow became the judge 2 weeks before the motion for summary judgement

  23. Brian Milikauskas

  24. How can you attack when the Judge won’t even hear your case?

  25. Nate, which judge?

  26. Attack, attack, attack. The assignments are fraudulent. None of this paperwork is real. It’s all a sham.

  27. Blommer and Peterman created every single mortgage assignment in my chain of title. How can you not win when you can create your own evidence?

  28. Yep!!! I got 10 minutes in Kenosha County. Note was stamped and endorsed 4 times. None of those stamps or endorsements were there in 2011. It was clearly backdated and fraudulent. Judge didn’t care about any of it or how BOA told me to default and then adding 70K to the amount of my loan and then passing it off to Nationstar to steal my house. They must be paid off or just really stupid.

  29. If you haven’t figured it out by now, the legal system in this Sate is the worst. Everyone from judges, attorneys, & politicians are either dumb as rocks or corrupt, maybe both. Both state and federal courts are full of incompetence. Not sure if it’s because WI is the only state not to require a state bar exam to in-state law degrees.

  30. from rogerrinaldi.wordpress.you know the rest
    April 4, 2015
    Somebody once said something to me about how bad pleadings can result in bad law being rendered. But nobody said anything about clear, concise claims of racketeering, fraud on the court, document fraud, bankruptcy fraud, and failure to follow the PSA would result in a judge taking it upon herself to pull rulings our of her arse in her extrajurisdictional rant to protect the foreclosure-mill attorneys she sits and hob-nobs with on the Bankruptcy CLE panels. This posting should not be construed as a personal or ad-hominem attack on the judge, the appellate judge, the Department of Justice, or the law firms used by Wells Fargo. It should, however, illustrate the lengths that these parties will go to silence and intimidate debtors and their attorneys who bring these acts of fraud to the attention of the court. If we didn’t do that, it would be misprision of a felony. At the outset of the case the judge declared that the claims made were, and I quote, “voluminous and serious”. At that point, the decision was made to violate mine and my spouses’ constitutional right to an evidentiary hearing and make sure that THERE WOULD BE NO JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS. What was deemed to be important is that the bank attorneys would not be held responsible for any of their fraudulent filings.
    And back to that bad law thing. In the following quotes that are already being used throughout the 7th Circuit verbatim (just like the phrases used by judges that travel between county courts in a matter of hours) I will try to illustrate the absurdity of what these judges read into pleadings that were actually VERY CLEAR.

    In re Rinaldi, 487 BR 516 – Bankr. Court, ED Wisconsin 2013
    ReadHow citedSearch
    How this document has been cited

    —finding that Debtor lacked standing to challenge mortgage assignment because borrower was not party to or third-party beneficiary of pooling and servicing agreement
    – in In re Schmid, 2013 and 2 similar citations
    Contrast that with the 9th Circuit (Glaski) and the fact that the PSA was cited as evidence of the transfer and ownership of the note and mortgage. The foreclosure was obtained with a note lacking an indorsement of any kind, and still payable to Wells Fargo, although the foreclosure was brought in the name of HSBC BANK, U.S.A., N.A. AS TRUSTEE. The other interesting thing is that this judge had NOT ONE, NOT TWO, BUT THREE ASSIGNMENTS OF MORTGAGE IN FRONT OF HER. Assignment #1 was recorded FOURTEEN MONTHS AFTER THE FILING OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (oops, that one’s no good), Assignment #2 showed up for the first time ever in the Proof of Claim #6 alleging to be from 2005, and Assignment #3 was recorded AFTER THE BANKRUPTCY WAS FILED.

    Citing recent decisions from the US District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Bou-Matic contends that Tilstra’s claim for intentional interference with contract is barred by the statute of limitations for intentional torts, Wis. Stat. § 893.57.
    – in Tilstra v. Bou-Matic, LLC, 2014 and one similar citation
    These decisions HAD TO BE RECENT because they fly in the face of REASONABLE CASE LAW ALREADY ON THE BOOKS. Let me ask a simple question: if the crimes are being committed in the very bankruptcy case before the court, how can the statute of limitations be expired? The horse and the stable master (Stadtmueller) stated that our claims were for the bogus foreclosure action. NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! THE RICO CLAIMS WERE FOR THE DOCUMENTS USED IN THE BANKRUPTCY CASE TOO, DUMMY!
    The Rooker-Feldman doctrine has been applied to bar collateral attacks on judgments entered in state-court foreclosure proceedings.
    – in In re Schmid, 2013 and one similar citation
    “Oh, Suzanna, don’t you cry for me…..” MS. Schmid lost her house to foreclosure because the BANK REFUSED HER PAYMENTS, creating the alleged default. Her case was a sham pleading from the start with another plaintiff and no note. This gal had put $100,000 down (30%) on her purchase transaction. The horse-feather-filled argument in Judge Kelley’s inane ruling against me was that the VACATED FORECLOSURE SOMEHOW CREATED SOME KIND OF RES JUDICATA TO TOTALLY DIFFERENT ISSUES RAISED IN THE BANKRUPTCY ADVERSARY ACTION, unrelated to the foreclosure conducted two years earlier, and yes it’s still vacated!
    in In re Rinaldi, a bankruptcy case, the bankruptcy court stated that the debtor’s insinuation (that insinuation was evidenced with the unindorsed note, making two copies that were both deemed authentic by this dummy) that the creditor endorsed the note after the foreclosure proceeding began was irrelevant to that proceeding because there was no requirement that an endorsement be dated.
    – in AnchorBANK, FSB v. BOGENSCHNEIDER, 2014 and one similar citation
    This was clearly addressed in Dow Family Trust v. PHH Mortgage, which was decided during our case and cited to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals: ” ¶10 The (Wisconsin) court of appeals, however, found that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment to PHH because PHH failed to show that it could enforce the note. Dow Family, LLC, 350 Wis. 2d 411, ¶24. Specifically, the court of appeals concluded that PHH’s documentation at summary judgment did not show that it held an authenticated copy of the note in question. Id. Furthermore, the court of appeals held that PHH’s arguments as to whether the note could be considered self-authenticating o. 2013AP221 6 were undeveloped, and it declined to address those arguments. Id., ¶22. Therefore, the court of appeals reversed and remanded for trial on the issue of PHH’s ability to enforce the note in question.3 Id., ¶24.
    The point is well taken that an unrecorded mortgage and a note lacking endorsement does not a valid foreclosure make!!! Even the BK Appellate court and the corrupt 7th Circuit ignored Dow.
    The only relationship the allegedly fraudulent assignment bears to the Debtors’ bankruptcy case is that the Debtors have filed bankruptcy, and presumably, any money damages awarded would increase the funds in the Debtors’ estate
    – in In re Laddusire, 2013 and one similar citation
    This poor gal got a raw deal in the Court. But our case involved, again, THREE ASSIGNMENTS OF MORTGAGE before the court. Susan Kelley stated that ONE OF THOSE THREE MUST BE GOOD, SO IT’S A NON-ISSUE. THIS FOLLOWED HER STATEMENT THAT THE TRUST, OR ANY SIMILARLY NAMED TRUST, HAD A RIGHT TO FORECLOSE. WHAT????
    Likewise, “Stern reaffirmed that bankruptcy courts have the authority to restructure the debtor-creditor relationship and determine `creditors’ hierarchically ordered claims to a pro rata share of the bankruptcy res.’”
    – in In re Schmid, 2013 and one similar citation
    As long as the injury complained of in federal court is “inextricably intertwined” with the state-court judgment, the doctrine applies.
    – in In re Schmid, 2013
    Further, the only connection between the State Court Action and the bankruptcy proceeding is the fact the Debtor filed bankruptcy, and if it is determined there was not a partnership, that there may be property of the estate subject to administration.
    – in IN RE BECHARD, 2014
    The claims of forgery or fraud, however, do not stem from the bankruptcy itself, nor will such claims necessarily be resolved in the claims allowance process.
    – in In re Schmid, 2013
    “The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is jurisdictional in nature; its applicability must be determined before any other affirmative defense, including claim preclusion.”
    – in In re Schmid, 2013

  31. for those in Wisconsin (and others, of course) I started a blot at
    Hope you find it imformative,

  32. Malissa Keep filing with the DOJ

  33. file:///C:/Users/Roger/Downloads/Lou%20Jones%20Outline%20-%20Civil%20Procedure%20&%20Foreclosure%20(3).pdf

    Nice read on Wisconsin foreclosure law

  34. I am looking for all Wisconsin people that had any dealings with the Dept. Of Justice pertaining to,trial loan mods, perm. loan mods, right of recession, complaints, follow ups, anything. If you can remember your contact name at the DOJ and the name of the bank- servicer that would be great. Thanks

  35. pay attention, Wisconsinites. This is your defense against the phony notes being used to foreclose. No legal advice, just a hunch……

    Indiana Court of Appeals Gets to the Real Thing — Forecloser Must Prove It Controls the Note
    Posted on October 1, 2014 by Neil Garfield
    see 09291401mpb
    Editor’s Note: This case is important because the court is no longer making presumptions that all elements of “holder with rights to enforce” are present. It 180 degrees opposite to the “discretionary” rulings by trial courts that the loan and the transfers of the loan must be valid — why else would the forecloser be i court. In discovery the homeowner has been restricted because of these presumptions — thus barring the homeowner from demanding proof that is in the sole care, custody and control of the Defendants. Or it is not i their control, which is what this case says and what is true in nearly all other cases in which there is a foreclosure based upon defective loan origination documents that are subject to false claims of securitization.
    The following are excerpts from the case decision:
    According to the UCC, a negotiable instrument may be enforced by “the holder of the instrument.” Ind. Code § 26-1-3.1-301(1). The term “holder” means “the person in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either to bearer or to an identified person if the identified person is in possession of the instrument[.]” I.C. § 26-1-1- 201(20). In this context, “bearer” means the person in possession of a negotiable instrument “payable to bearer or endorsed in blank.” I.C. § 26-1-1-201(5).
    Wells Fargo claimed it controlled the Note and was entitled to enforce it pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 7021, which provides:
    (a) Definitions
    For purposes of this section:
    (1) Transferable record
    The term “transferable record” means an electronic record that—
    (A) would be a note under Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code if the electronic record were in writing;
    (B) the issuer of the electronic record expressly has agreed is a transferable record; and
    (C) relates to a loan secured by real property.
    A transferable record may be executed using an electronic signature.
    (b) Control
    A person has control of a transferable record if a system employed for evidencing the transfer of interests in the transferable record reliably establishes that person as the person to which the transferable record was issued or transferred.
    (c) Conditions
    A system satisfies subsection (b) of this section, and a person is deemed to have control of a transferable record, if the transferable record is created, stored, and assigned in such a manner that—
    (1) a single authoritative copy of the transferable record exists which is unique, identifiable, and, except as otherwise provided in paragraphs (4), (5), and (6), unalterable;
    (2) the authoritative copy identifies the person asserting control as—
    (A) the person to which the transferable record was issued; or
    (B) if the authoritative copy indicates that the transferable record has been transferred, the person to which the transferable record was most recently transferred;
    (3) the authoritative copy is communicated to and maintained by the person asserting control or its designated custodian;
    (4) copies or revisions that add or change an identified assignee of the authoritative copy can be made only with the consent of the person asserting control;
    (5) each copy of the authoritative copy and any copy of a copy is readily identifiable as a copy that is not the authoritative copy; and
    (6) any revision of the authoritative copy is readily identifiable as authorized or unauthorized.
    (d) Status as holder
    Except as otherwise agreed, a person having control of a transferable record is the holder, as defined in section 1- 201(20) of the Uniform Commercial Code, of the transferable record and has the same rights and defenses as a holder of an equivalent record or writing under the Uniform Commercial Code, including, if the applicable statutory requirements under section 3-302(a), 9-308, or revised section 9-330 of the Uniform Commercial Code are satisfied, the rights and defenses of a holder in due course or a purchaser, respectively. Delivery, possession, and endorsement are not required to obtain or exercise any of the rights under this subsection.
    (e) Obligor rights
    Except as otherwise agreed, an obligor under a transferable record has the same rights and defenses as an equivalent obligor under equivalent records or writings under the Uniform Commercial Code.
    (f) Proof of control
    If requested by a person against which enforcement is sought, the person seeking to enforce the transferable record shall provide reasonable proof that the person is in control of the transferable record. Proof may include access to the authoritative copy of the transferable record and related business records sufficient to review the terms of the transferable record and to establish the identity of the person having control of the transferable record.
    (g) UCC references
    For purposes of this subsection, all references to the Uniform Commercial Code are to the Uniform Commercial Code as in effect in the jurisdiction the law of which governs the transferable record.
    Given the lack of evidence regarding a transfer or assignment from Synergy to
    Wells Fargo or Fannie Mae, Mouzon’s conclusory testimony was not sufficient to establish that it controlled the Note as defined in §7021. Thus, Mouzon’s trial testimony did not establish that Wells Fargo is entitled to enforce the note as the holder, and is not a basis for affirming the judgment of foreclosure.
    Wells Fargo has not shown that it controls the Note for purposes of §7021(b) and, accordingly, has not established its status as holder for purposes of the UCC. Because Wells Fargo has not established that it was entitled to enforce the Note as its holder, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment was improper and the resulting judgment must be set aside. We reverse and remand.
    Reversed and remanded. BRADFORD, J., and BROWN, J., concur.

  36. by the way, this is not the first time PHH was found to be foreclosing with unauthenticated documents. Remember Kolodziej?
    This is apparently the case with most foreclosures that are contested: an endless stream of trailing documents fabricated to fill the holes in a chain of title that doesn’t exist, probably never existed, and is pretty much a servicing right being collected upon with not real beneficial interest tied to the homeowners’ note.

  37. Excellent question, DC.

    The Wisconsin Court of Appeals had remanded the Dow Family case on August 6, 2014, 838 N.W.2d 119 (2013) finding “PHH has not submitted evidence sufficient to support a finding that the copy of the note is what PHH claims — namely, a true and correct copy of an
    original note in PHH’s possession,”¶20. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin held at ¶24,“There are simply too many questions surrounding the document PHH submitted for us to conclude it is a
    true and correct copy of an original note in PHH’s possession. As a result, PHH has not made a prima facie showing that the copy of the note would be admissible in evidence. See Gross, 259
    Wis.2d 181, ¶ 31, 655 N.W.2d 718. Without the original note, or a properly authenticated copy, there is no factual showing that PHH is entitled to enforce the note as the party in possession of a note endorsed in blank. Consequently, PHH has failed to make a prima facie case for summary judgment. We therefore reverse the grant of summary judgment in PHH’s favor and remand for a trial on the issue of whether PHH is entitled to enforce the note.”

    The reason this is most significant, and believe me when I tell you that bank attorneys are spinning this as some kind of victory for their side, but that position is mistakenly one sided.
    Yes, equitable assignment (the mortgage follows the note) is alive, but you have to have
    1) an original note that is validly endorsed, not forged, that is held by a holder in due course or a holder with rights of a party entitled to enforce (again, by proper ENDORSEMENT).
    2) In Dow Family, the Wisconsin Supreme Court plainly held that the documents necessary to establish that a foreclosure claimant is entitled equitable assignment by operation of law must be determined in evidentiary proceedings and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ remand to the circuit court for further proceedings. A copy of an unendorsed note with an unrecorded mortgage lacking assignment does not a foreclosure case make! Got it?

    Because the purchaser of real estate in Dow Family can challenge the authenticity of the Note produced in support of a claim of equitable assignment, the owner of the property has no less a right to the production of an authenticated copy of the Note or the original
    Note, free from forgeries than the purchaser of real estate from the owner, before equitable assignment by operation of law may be determined based on the alleged possession of the original Note.

  38. Any thoughts on recent Dow v PHH Supreme Ct decision?

  39. Everyone should be reading the complaints and perm loan mods if they received one. What you are looking for is a statement that says the plaintiff owns your note. If they own your note than they are admitting they bought your note. If they bought your note than there is no loan and there is no damage. If they provided you a loan against your note they do not own your note. You sign your note over to them as proof of your obligation to them. If it is a loan they do not own the note. The next question is did they provide any considerations at the closing table. That is for a different discussion.

  40. Mark, on February 24, 2014 at 11:30 am said:

    the servicer should be required to prove how they acquired standing. I have 27 pages of bloggers notes on standing if you want it—If you’re comfortable putting your email address on here.

    MARK I AM VERY INTERESTED. Aug. 20th I am up for conf. of sale & removal. That is infront of the Judge and my motion to dismiss based on lack of standing.
    lulo bean@gmail

  41. Her say was ndver look or confirm by judge . He was against Cano , conflict of interes

  42. Please help me I dont understand , how the Judge ,Attorneys and Bank , can just do what they did it is against the law

  43. How can BOA gets away with this crime ??? Including Blommer petterson attorneys , making false affadavits federal legal documets . Made for MARS one of the defendents , made by planiffs attorney .total conflict of interest and frude . Where is the Law
    BONY/BOA vs Cano . Time for justice deparment to stop Bank and Judges and Attorneys to msnipulate and comitt iligal actions like frude and violation of constitution .???
    Supreme Court has the dutty to see and change this abuse by Banks ,Big Firms And Judges

  44. your email is on its way

  45. Nathan Please email me as to the cost Ryan is charging you. studly26@hotmail.com.

  46. My attorney is Ryan Blay with Lakelaw in Kenosha. His answer to the foreclosure complaint was that Nationstar lacked standing due to the fact that when BOA tried to foreclose in 2011, they submitted a “true and accurate copy” of my mortgage note that had no stamps or endorsements. When Nationstar filed it in 2013 mysteriously the note had 3 stamps and endorsements going back to the originator. They have been telling my attorney for 3 months that they are getting the original but have yet to come up with it. Also, Nationstar told my attorney, “Well, in 2011, BOA lied in their complaint but we have a true and accurate copy”. I call BS!!!!!!

  47. Nathan Good job. Who is your attorney? Try to get the motion with prejudice and ask for attorney’s fees.

  48. I would presume the affiant knows nothing. Good move, Tinhorn.

  49. Also they said that they would be asking to remove her affidavit from the court records. HMMMMMMMMMM………..

  50. Well, Nationstar moved for summary judgement and it was to be heard in Kenosha County March 19th.They were relying on an affidavit signed by a Nationstar employee. My attorney was set to depose the Nationstar employee this week via telephone. Today my attorney called me and said that Nationstar would be motioning the court next week to strike the motion for summary judgement and that the employee no longer wished to be deposed. Any ideas on what this means and why this may have happened?

  51. Hi,

    Does anyone know of any Wisconsin foreclosure cases that reference the FERREL L. AGARD Federal decision? This federal decision states that MERS mortgage transfers are illegal. This decision was supposed to stop foreclosures where MERS is involved.

  52. They are allowed to get away with it because. 1) judges are lazy or incompetent, 2) attorneys in this state are lazy or incompetent,3) the judges are bought off by law firms/banks.

  53. Mario–they initiate because they’ve been allowed to get away with it unchallenged. Every allegation in the Complaint needs to be challenged immediately. Deny everything said in the Complaint. Make them prove it and prove they have the standing to bring the complaint. File your own motion to dismiss; find case law to back you up. Also, I did find a helpful book on Amazon—“23 Legal Defenses to Foreclosure”

  54. How is it posible to initiate frclousure , When you are not the note holder and you are gussing the amount of mortgage . ???? Wi law needs to change , you need to have standing , and not confuse it with equitable position , anyone can claim equitable position , fail judgmentlike BOA did but it was for 118000 not 500 k
    Corropted judges manipulate the law
    we got to fight for justice . Just look at all the unfair justice on BOA vs Cano
    Frude and crime by Attorneys , Planniff , and coperation of judges

  55. How is it posible to initiate frclousure , When you are not the note holder and you are gussing the amount of mortgage . ???? Wi law needs to change , you need to have standing , and not confuse it with equitable position , anyone can claim equitable position , fail judgmentlike BOA did but it was for 118000 not 500 k
    Corropted judges manipulate the law we got to fight for justice .

  56. If you have OCWEN please look for lost note affidavits and forward the to the Congresswoman.
    Anyone with time to research, could, of course, assist Congresswoman Waters and Superintendent Lawsky by proving them with copies of these Ocwen-made Affidavits, Assignments and Allonges from county records nationwide

  57. the servicer should be required to prove how they acquired standing. I have 27 pages of bloggers notes on standing if you want it—If you’re comfortable putting your email address on here.

  58. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have policies that instruct the servicer to foreclose in the servicer’s name. I believe most times it is the servicer that forecloses

  59. Can anyone clarify something, can a servicer be the plaintiff in foreclosure?

  60. Either the attorneys in WI are extremely biased or incompetent (also shows the circuit court judges have no clue). For example, re: the Bank of NY v Carson decision, if you read the Quarles article you would think that it would only apply to abandoned properties, Quarles ignores the fact that the “foreclosure without deficiency” language is identical. It’s a huge decision that would open up counter claim issues. For example, if its an abandoned property or the bank waives deficiency they would only be entitled to additional costs covering the redemption period, nothing more.

  61. Usedkarguy
    WF are cooks and they get richer.
    Stanly Putra

  62. Wells Fargo also administers a large chunk of Wisconsin government plans.

  63. You may have a point, I don’t know how strong. Here’s a link to the external managers of the State of Wisconsin Investment Board showing JP Morgan as a manager of the Global Equity fund. One of about 2 dozen various fund managers: http://www.swib.state.wi.us/externalmanagers.aspx

  64. I got a couple questions. If JP Morgan manages Wis pension fund, isn’t it a conflict for a judge who is state employee to preside over any matters involving JPM? Also, if a judge owns investments in mutual funds (Wells Fargo) that may include MBSs couldn’t that be a conflict? Or am I over thinking this?

  65. It’s unbelievable that so many cases are being overturned in the Appellate Courts and the media hasn’t reported much. Plus, what use is the circuit court if they get everything wrong. Either the judges are incompetent or corrupt. Needs to be a law if a circuit court gets it wrong the judge gets fired. I for one don’t have the money to appeal. The good attorneys need to start filing complaints against opposing attorneys and judges.

  66. thank you’s go to Godfrey and Kahn for this article……

    For Wisconsin mortgage lenders, it has long been the rule that a foreclosure judgment gives the mortgagee the right to sell the subject property at a Sheriff’s sale. Foreclosing lenders, however, were not required to actually bring the property to sale. A recent Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision—The Bank of New York v. Carson1—may have just turned this lender remedy on its head.

    The Carson decision sets forth an unprecedented interpretation of Wisconsin’s abandoned premises statute, Wis. Stat. § 846.102. In this recent decision, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that either the foreclosing lender or the defaulting homeowner can force the sale of an abandoned residential property in the context of a foreclosure action. Never before has an appellate court held that a homeowner is entitled to invoke this statute and force a lender to pursue a Sheriff’s sale.

    The Statute

    When foreclosing on an abandoned property, a lender may elect to proceed under the abandoned premises statute, Wis. Stat. § 846.102, which provides a shortened redemption period upon the entry of a foreclosure judgment. The statute provides in relevant part:

    In an action for enforcement of a mortgage lien if the court makes an affirmative finding upon proper evidence being submitted that the mortgaged premises have been abandoned by the mortgagor and assigns, judgment shall be entered as provided in s. 846.10 except that the sale of such mortgaged premises shall be made upon the expiration of 5 weeks from the date when such judgment is entered…. In this section “abandoned” means the relinquishment of possession or control of the premises whether or not the mortgagor or the mortgagor’s assigns have relinquished equity and title.

    Wis. Stat. § 846.102(1) (emphasis added).

    Until recently, Wis. Stat. § 846.102 was understood to be an exclusive right, held by the foreclosing lender, for a shortened redemption. While there is little case law interpreting the statute, there are no published decisions stating that Wis. Stat. § 846.102 obligates a foreclosing lender to bring a property to Sheriff’s sale upon expiration of the redemption period. After all, Wisconsin law does not require a foreclosing lender to complete a foreclosure. The Carson decision changes this, at least in the context of abandoned residential properties.


    On January 25, 2011, the Bank of New York (BoNY) initiated an action seeking to foreclose upon Carson’s Milwaukee home. Carson had already vacated the property, and on April 26, 2011, BoNY registered the property as abandoned with the City of Milwaukee. On June 13, 2011, the trial court granted BoNY’s motion for default judgment and ordered the property to be sold at any time after three months from the entry of judgment.

    Three months passed, but BoNY did not schedule a Sheriff’s sale. Neither Carson nor BoNY maintained the property and it fell into disrepair. The City of Milwaukee began issuing Carson fines for building code violations.

    Almost a year and a half after entry of the foreclosure judgment, Carson sought to amend the judgment to (i) find that the property was abandoned pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 846.102, and (ii) require the property be brought to sale five weeks from the date of the amended judgment. The trial court denied Carson’s motion, holding that it did not have the authority to order the sale of the property. The court further construed Wis. Stat. § 846.102 to mean that only BoNY, not Carson, could elect the five-week redemption period provided by the statute.

    The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court was required to order a sale of the foreclosed abandoned property. First, the court determined that the plain language of Wis. Stat. § 846.102 allowed any party to prove abandonment and to elect the five-week redemption period. Absent statutory language limiting the redemption period election to a particular party, “the statute plainly provides that any party to a foreclosure action … [is] permitted to present evidence of abandonment.” Carson, ¶ 12.

    Second, the court determined that the plain language of the statute required the abandoned property to be sold. In other words, a lender cannot obtain a judgment of foreclosure and later choose not to enforce its right to a Sheriff’s sale. The court reasoned that “[t]he statute declares that judgment ‘shall’ be entered, and later states that sale of the mortgaged premises ‘shall’ be made upon the expiration of five weeks from the date of entry of judgment.” Id., ¶ 13. As such, the court concluded that the statutory language was mandatory, requiring “the court to ensure that an abandoned property is sold without delay.” Id.


    If the Carson case stands, it has the potential to significantly alter Wisconsin’s foreclosure laws and the way lenders do business in Wisconsin. Never before has an appellate court required a lender to bring a foreclosed property to sale. Rather, if a lender chose to hold a Sheriff’s sale, then the sale had to proceed in a certain manner at any time after the redemption period expired.

    Now under Carson, a foreclosing lender of an abandoned residential property shall hold a Sheriff’s sale of the abandoned property upon the expiration of five weeks from entry of the foreclosure judgment. The Court’s proclaimed reliance on the mandatory nature of the statute poses serious questions for foreclosing lenders going forward.

    1. How soon after the redemption period expires “shall” the property be sold?

    The Carson decision provides little guidance as to when a Sheriff’s sale must occur. The Court only makes clear that a lender may be held in contempt for failing to bring the property to sale in a timely manner. Id., ¶ 13.

    However, under the Court’s own reading, a sale would have to occur upon the expiration of the five-week redemption period. As a practical matter, a lender’s ability to bring a property to a Sheriff’s sale inevitably depends on the Sheriff’s calendar, and the days or weeks after the redemption period expires may not

    be available. In that case, is the lender allowed to schedule the Sheriff’s sale for the next available date? How much time can elapse between expiration of the redemption period and a sale before the lender runs afoul of the court’s mandate that the property be sold “without delay”? Must lenders incur the costs of scheduling a Sheriff’s sale, and of providing notice, during the redemption period?

    Despite all this ambiguity, one thing is clear: a lender cannot make the business decision to walk away from a foreclosed property once it is proven to be abandoned.

    2. Is the lender required to bid on the property at Sheriff’s sale?

    Under the Court’s formulation of the statute’s plain language, the sale of the property must occur upon the expiration of the shortened redemption period. But what happens if there are no bids for the property at Sheriff’s sale? Under such a scenario, the mortgagor would remain the property owner because there would be no confirmation of sale to transfer ownership. Must the lender credit bid at the sale or could the mortgagor force the lender to schedule yet another sale?

    Although it would seem extraordinary to require a lender to bid on a property at the Sheriff’s sale, under Carson, a lender may be found in contempt if the court perceives that the lender has delayed completion of the foreclosure.

    3. Will the Carson decision stand?

    The Carson decision is, ultimately, a public policy decision. Throughout, the Court expresses concern over “lender walkaways,” noting that such properties may be “in limbo for years.” See id., ¶ 14. In allowing the defaulting homeowner to invoke the abandoned premises statute, the Court found a way to curtail this practice: by placing lenders on the hook for the property.

    Most debtors still seek to delay foreclosure and stay in the property as long as possible—mortgage and rent free. However, until Carson is overruled or clarified, lenders will need to carefully evaluate the decision to initiate foreclosure actions, particularly in blighted areas. As a result of Carson, municipalities facing an epidemic of abandoned properties may themselves be more inclined to intervene in foreclosure actions to prove abandonment and now force lenders to sell—and potentially purchase—abandoned properties.

    BoNY has indicated it will appeal the Court of Appeals’ decision to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Mortgage lenders in Wisconsin should be encouraged to explore participating in the appeal, or at least to contact their representatives about amending the abandoned property statute.


    1The Bank of New York v. Shirley T. Carson, Appeal No. 2013AP544 (Wis. Ct. App., Dist. 1, Nov. 26, 2013).
    Copyright © 2014 Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

  67. Great reference. Here’s a WI appeals court decision from Aug 2013 that helps in the standing/note authentication defense as well: http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=100357
    If this link doesn’t show up the case is Dow v. PHH

  68. A blurb from one of our pleadings…..posted for you Wisconsinites RE:case law

    The servicers, probably through their in-house counsel and their national coordinating counsel then developed the legal argument that the party to be named as the foreclosure claimant owned the note and mortgage which eventually was changed simply to an allegation that the
    foreclosure claimants “held” the notes under Article III of the Wisconsin Commercial Code (Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 403.) This entirely ignores the holding of Blakely v. Carter , 70 Wis. 540, 36 N.W. 329(1888) which has never been reversed and is consistent with the Statute of Frauds (now Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 704) and the plain meaning of current Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 846, which provides for foreclosures of mortgages. When the mortgage assignments were abandoned as evidence of standing, copies of notes were attached to
    foreclosure complaints and, when necessary, second versions of the copies of notes purportedly endorsed in blank began to appear for the first time in pending foreclosure cases even though the first version of the copy of the note (frequently alleged to be a true and correct copy of the original) was produced without an endorsement. The purpose of the second versions of the notes bearing endorsements was frequently to redirect the attention of courts away from the forged mortgage assignments and facilitate the argument that the note endorsed in blank automatically carries with it the mortgage security under Tidouette State Bank v. Libbey, 101 Wis. 193, 77 N.W. 182 (1898) which did not overrule Blakely, supra. Reading Tidouette, supra, and Blakely, supra, in harmony with Mitchell Bank v. Schanke, 268 Wis. 2d 571, 676 N.W.2d 849 (2004) no Wisconsin court has relieved a foreclosure claimant from the burden of demonstrating that a debt is owed to the claimant for which the mortgage was pledged as security.

  69. Looking for homeowners here in Cheeseland with loans from HomeSide Lending, allegedly sold to WaMu, serviced by Chase and/or Wisconsin mortgage.
    If you were foreclosed, succumbed to a deed in lieu, are an alleged “debtor in possession” or in any stage of alleged default or foreclosure, I would really like to hear from you.
    Homeside/WaMu/WI in the subject line please.


  70. Roger
    Thanks. My Mom is in the Housing on 16th street here in Racine.
    Take care

  71. Stan, I had three complaints in front of the OCC and got nuthin’, other than a letter and a complaint number. Don’t know if things have changed, I almost called them today as a matter of fact. Funny you should mention that. I thought of you, too. Is your ma living in Racine? Saw her (your) name on a mailbox in one of the buildings I service.
    Once the sale is confirmed, it’s very difficult to prevail.
    did you ever appeal along the way?
    formal motion to vacate? I don’t know, man. The deck is pretty stacked until we get a landmark case (like mine) won.

  72. Usedkarguy
    Brought up that CitiMortgage did not have standing. That the note was stuck at Lehman Bros-endorsed in blank. Under OCC the plaintiff had to show that the note was issued to Citi. But the Judge confirmed the sale. Does it do any good to complain to OCC?
    Stanley Putra

  73. thanks, Stan. How are you, buddy? Give me a call sometime. I’ll send you my new number

  74. Goo Luck UsedKarguy!

  75. believe it or not, Wisconsin law does not require the assignment of mortgage to be recorded to be assumed valid. This is after Wells filed three different assignments of mortgage with the courts, all post foreclosure, post bankruptcy filing. We have big problems here in Cheeseland.
    Lost my appeal to Eastern District, off to the 7th Circuit to get relief from bogus rulings by bogus judges.

  76. 403.203
    A complete chain of title analysis (not a securitization audit) was done. Showed the breaks in the chain of title. Complaint alleges FNMA owns the note without offering proof of ownership. The judge did not require FNMA prove they owned the note. If they owned the note there would have to be an assignment of mortgage to them and guess what, there is no assignment of mortgage to FNMA on public record. So much for following the law.

  77. Hey Mark, which state statutes are you referring to?

  78. let me go back and look for something..

  79. Larry, I’m going through a load of crap with Chase. Summary judgment on 10/3. Judge ignored the evidence I presented challenging plaintiff’s standing. Judge never required any proof of Plaintiff’s hearsay that was in the complaint, etc. I had an affidavit from a private investigator. A complete chain of title analysis that proved every player violated state statutes. The judges own words: “….the Plaintiff , to exercise its rights under the mortgage and note, needs to comply with the requirements under the statute.” And later he says, “..The mortgage was subsequently assigned. The assignments were recorded.” We proved they didn’t comply with statues and not all the assigments were recorded and he chose to ignore that.
    Next step for me is Motion to Vacate as well as filing an appeal.
    Send me your contact info: mrfeelthemusic at gmail.com

  80. Larry, usedkarguy@yahoo.com
    send me a phone number.

  81. Am going through currently some same issues. Would like to reach out to other wisconsin people going through the same. Currently in chapter13. Fighting boa who is objecting to a plan we shouldn’t be in.

  82. B of A v Neis, 2010CV662; 2012AP1994; 2013WIAPP89-Published. Columbia County. Interesting how this is got published, what a joke. Hope Reed is taking it to Supreme Court

  83. OKAY PEOPLE!! I have spoken with many who have loans from Central States Mortgage.
    If you’re still in your house (and your Confirmation of Sale hearing has not yet occurred) I would suggest getting off your butts and filing your lawsuit for fraudulent origination claims. Now you have some ammo.


  84. DC, got a case number? I’ll keep looking….
    what happened?

    Anybody else getting any traction out here in Wisconsin?

  85. Unfortunately Reed lost Neis appeal and its been published.

  86. Wells Fargo Dismissed with Prejudice
    thanks to Donna for getting this to me. You’re the best!

    Reed Peterson pounds one nail in the coffin at a time.


  87. does anybody have case law or other resource that denies WElls Fargo’s contention that they don’t need to have assignments of mortgage and note from Wachovia after they took over Wachovia in 2008?

  88. sorry to break it to you, nathan, but $5-10,000 is a reasonable retainer if you want somebody in for the long haul. Hours of pleading, filing costs, depositions, travel costs, appeals, research, you have no idea until you’re in it. What’s your house worth and what do you owe?
    Are you willing to owe HALF of what it’s REALLY worth to someone you know who is interested in your family and your proerty rights? or maybe you would rather A)lose your house, or B)keep it with modification fraud and owe twice what it’s worth to a criminal banking enterprise waiting to take it again??
    The first attorney I met with (Sean Govern) told me $20g’s. He knew.
    He won Kolodziej

  89. Nate, allregs tell Fannie/Freddie to obscure their name from any of the proceedings until title is taken, then the warranty deed is issued in their name. Totally fraudulent. If Fannie is the owner, move to dismiss for the lack of standing. who’s your attorney?
    better get one.you have my email? send me a number.

  90. I have a letter that states Fannie Mae owns my loan but Nationstar is telling the Kenosha County Courts that they own my loan. I need help!!!

  91. Any of you guys know of anybody doing any good work in Wisconsin??? Nationstar is now trying to foreclose after buying the servicing rights from BOA. Lawyers here want 5k-10k and that seems absolutely ridiculous. I should be getting served soon and I sure could use some help. Even if it’s just helping me with the answer to the lawsuit. I have all the evidence of fraud but most lawyers here say that the best you can hope for is a modification.

  92. Usedkarguy
    I have a alonge to Lehman Bros., then a 3 year gap with MERS in the note chain. Under OCC they are supposed to verify the note chain since I received $600 from them. No sale yet.

  93. I gave credit to the undisclosed friend who sent this to me on the front page. Thanks to her, Stan. I missed it.

  94. Stan, the argument is that if the judgment is obtained with forged mortgage assignements, note copies,no proof as holder, they’re done A voide judgment has no power..
    Have the exact same parties in a case here also that I’m working on.

  95. Usedkarguy
    Do you think this could be use to open a false judgment?
    Nice job
    Stanley Putra

  96. Outstanding post UsedKarGuy!
    Instead of the banks lending you their credit, they are lending you your own credit. They are not lending you money – that is correct. “Money on account” is put in the bank’s ledger by the Federal Reserve when your loan application is tendered to the Federal Reserve. This is what “funds” the loan… the applicant’s signature basically.

  97. So, after much confusion, consternation, and getting hit in the head with arguments like (in reference to Wisconsin Statute 134.15): “Oh, that’s a Civil War counterfeiting law…….”
    “Uh, that law means the state can’t make it’s own money, uhh….”

    The law was written to stop BANKS from lending CREDIT, as opposed to currency. Big difference: Lending credit is the opposite of lending money. Think about it. Fraud is not new. The concept of fraudulent transactions and fraudulent conveyances have been covered by the law since the 1600’s.

    In American Express Co. v. Citizens State Bank, 181 Wis. 172, 177-178, 194 N. W. 427 (Wis., 1923) the Supreme Court of Wisconsin held:
    Neither as included in its powers nor incidental to them is it a part of a bank’s business to lend its credit. If a bank could lend its credit as well as its money, it might, if it received compensation and was careful to put its name only to solid paper, make a great deal more than any lawful interest on its money would amount to. If not careful, the power would be the mother of panics, and if no compensation was received, there is the additional reason, if any is needed, that such a power is in derogation of the rights and interests of stockholders, and at all events could only be exercised with the consent of all. “Indeed, lending credit is the exact opposite of lending money, which is the real business of a bank; for while the latter creates a liability in favor of the bank, the former gives rise to a liability of the bank to another.” 1 Morse, Banks & Banking (5th ed.) § 65; Magee, Banks & Banking (3d ed.) § 248; 1 Michie, Banks & Banking, § 99. This rule is so well established that it is unnecessary to cite the great number of cases which declare it.

    In American Express Co. v. Citizens State Bank, supra, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin was prophetic. Only six (6) years later, in 1929, the mother of all panics occurred in the twentieth century as a result of banks lending their own credit on margin for the purchase of
    stocks which resulted in the stock market crash of 1929. In 1923, the Wisconsin Supreme Court also prophesied the collapse of the real estate securities market in 2008 and the ensuing panic which resulted in the bank bailout of September, 2008, which can fairly be called this century’s “mother of all panics.” This current panic led to the “Foreclosure Crisis” unfairly blamed on “Borrowers” by the banks but was caused because the banks violated the basic principle of banking by lending their credit and not lending money.

    This is what the Supreme Court of Wisconsin held in similar circumstances as to the First National Bank of Shullsberg:
    “1. A corporation may be held liable as a party to a conspiracy to defraud in a transaction outside the scope of its charter, and a complaint against it and its co-conspirators to enforce such liability, charging that the corporation and its co-defendants made and consummated the fraudulent agreement, is not defective on demurrer for want of allegations as to who acted for the corporation in making such agreement and as to special authority having been given by its governing body in regard to the subject. [From the Syllabus by Judge Marshall]
    Judge Marshall wrote:
    The complaint in this case appears to be free from novelty except for the magnitude of the fraudulent scheme set forth, its completeness, the boldness with which it was consummated and the fact that a national bank was one of the guilty parties. . . Zinc Carbonate Company, at page 230.
    . . .The doctrine of ultra vires is a most powerful weapon to keep private corporations within their legitimate spheres and to punish them for violations of their corporate charters, and it probably is not invoked too often; but to place that power in the hands of the corporation itself, or a private individual, to be used by it or him as a means of obtaining or retaining something of value which belongs to another, would turn an instrument intended to effect justice between the state and corporations into one of fraud as between the latter and innocent parties. Such is the modern doctrine, evolved and settled in the progress of events, reaching from the time when private corporations were few and the doctrine of ultra vires invoked quite as freely as to them as to public corporations, to a time when substantially all restrictions to the formation of such private bodies were removed, and they were authorized and commenced to exist, great and small, everywhere, for the purpose of conducting almost every kind of legitimate business. If such a body transcend its powers it commits a wrong against the state, and ordinarily it is for the state, only, to call it to account for such violation. [Citing numerous cases.] Zinc Carbonate Company, at page 231.
    . . . Counsel for respondents freely admit that a corporation may be liable for a tortious act and as a co-conspirator in a scheme to commit fraud, but insist that unless the fraud be a
    wrongful means resorted to, to accomplish something which the corporation has a lawful right to do by lawful means, fraud cannot be attributed to it unless its officers or agents who assumed to act in its behalf were specially authorized to so act, and that a statement of the cause of action to remedy such a wrong requires the special authorization to be pleaded. Zinc Carbonate Company, at page 231.

    The Supreme Court of Wisconsin went on to hold,
    We need not, for this appeal, determine whether the special authorization is necessary. If it be admitted, for the purposes of the discussion, that such is the case, yet the complaint charges that the corporation did the wrongful acts. That is repeated over and over again. How it became involved in the transactions complained of is a matter of proof in respect to which an issue need not necessarily be tendered by the complaint. If the allegations charging the corporation are open to any criticism, it is upon the ground of indefiniteness to be reached by motion and not by demurrer. . . Necessary facts, reasonably inferable from those pleaded, under our liberal rules of pleading, must be considered as pleaded by way of such inference. Miller v. Bayer, 94 Wis. 123, 68 N. W. 869. It may properly be said, in addition, on this point, that the complaint fairly shows ratification by the corporation of the scheme entered upon and carried out in part by its officers and agents assuming to act in its behalf with knowledge of the facts. That is sufficient to render it liable by ratification, the same as if such officers and agents were originally authorized to represent and act for it. Zinc Carbonate Company, at page 231.

    And if the mortgage assignment upon which a bank proceeds is a forgery in violation of Wis.Stats. sec. 943.38(1), which provides:
    943.38 Forgery.
    (1) Whoever with intent to defraud falsely makes or alters a writing or object of any of the following kinds so that it purports to have been made by another, or at another time, or with different provisions, or by authority of one who did not give such authority, is guilty of a Class H felony: (a) A writing or object whereby legal rights or obligations are created, terminated or transferred, or any writing commonly relied upon in business or commercial transactions as evidence of debt or property rights; or (b) A public record or a certified or authenticated copy thereof; or (c) An official authentication or certification of a copy of a public record; or (d) An official return or certificate entitled to be received as evidence of its contents.

  98. a defense to payment (on a note) is also
    that the endorsement is a forgery and the claims for recoupment are set forth in Wis. Stats. sec.
    403.305 which provides, in relevant part:
    403.305 Defenses and claims in recoupment. (1) Except as stated in sub. (2), the right to enforce the obligation of a party to pay an instrument is subject to the following: (a) A defense of the obligor based on any of the following: 1. Infancy of the obligor to the extent that it is a defense to a simple contract. 2. Duress, lack of legal capacity or illegality of the transaction which, under other law, nullifies the obligation of the obligor.1 3. Fraud that induced the obligor to sign the instrument with neither knowledge nor reasonable opportunity to learn of its character or its essential terms
    4. Discharge of the obligor in insolvency proceedings. (b) A defense of the obligor stated in another section of this chapter or a defense of the obligor that would be available if the person entitled to enforce the instrument were enforcing a right to payment under a simple contract. (c) A claim in recoupment of the obligor against the original payee of the instrument if the claim arose from the transaction that gave rise to the instrument; but the claim of the 3 obligor may be asserted against a transferee of the instrument only to reduce the amount owing on the instrument at the time that the action is brought. (2) The right of a holder in due course to enforce the obligation of a party to pay the instrument is subject to defenses of the obligor stated in sub. (1) (a), but is not subject to defenses of the obligor stated in sub. (1) (b) or claims in recoupment stated in sub. (1) (c) against a person other than the holder. (3) Except as stated in sub. (4), in an action to enforce the obligation of a party to pay the instrument, the obligor may not assert against the person entitled to enforce the instrument a defense, a claim in recoupment or a claim to the instrument under s. 403.306 of another person, but the other person’s claim to the instrument may be asserted by the obligor if the other person is joined in the action and personally asserts the claim against the person entitled to enforce the instrument. An obligor is not obliged to pay the instrument if the person seeking enforcement of the instrument does not have rights of a holder in due course and the obligor proves that the instrument is a lost or stolen instrument. (4) In an action to enforce the obligation of an accommodation party to pay an instrument, the accommodation party may assert against the person entitled to enforce the instrument any defense or claim in recoupment under sub. (1) that the accommodated party could assert against the person entitled to enforce the instrument, except the defenses of discharge in insolvency proceedings, infancy and lack of legal capacity. (Emphasis added.)
    Wis. Stats. sec. 403.306 provides for recision of a negotiation.
    403.306 Claims to an instrument. A person taking an instrument, other than a person having rights of a holder in due course, is subject to a claim of a property or possessory right in the instrument or its proceeds, including a claim to rescind a negotiation and to recover the instrument or its proceeds. A person having rights of a holder in due course takes free of the claim to the instrument. (Emphasis added.)
    403.406 Negligence contributing to forged signature or alteration of instrument. (1) A person whose failure to exercise ordinary care substantially contributes to an alteration of an instrument or to the making of a forged signature on an instrument is precluded from asserting the alteration or the forgery against a person who, in good faith, pays the instrument or takes it for value or for collection. (2) Under sub. (1), if the person asserting the preclusion fails to exercise ordinary care in paying or taking the instrument and that failure substantially contributes to loss, the loss is allocated between the person precluded and the person asserting the preclusion according to the extent to which the failure of each to exercise ordinary care contributed to the loss. (3) Under sub. (1), the burden of proving failure to exercise ordinary care is on the person asserting the preclusion. Under sub. (2), the burden of proving failure to exercise ordinary care is on the person precluded. (Emphasis added.)
    Wis. Stats. sec. 403.407 provides:
    403.407 Alteration. (1) “Alteration” means an unauthorized change in an instrument that purports to modify in any respect the obligation of a party or an unauthorized addition of words or numbers or other change to an incomplete instrument relating to the obligation of a party. (2) Except as provided in sub. (3), an alteration fraudulently made discharges a party whose obligation is affected by the alteration unless that party assents or is precluded from asserting the alteration. No other alteration discharges a party, and the instrument may be enforced according to its original terms. (3) A payer bank or drawee paying a fraudulently altered instrument or a person taking it for value, in good faith and without notice of the alteration, may enforce rights with respect to the instrument according to its original terms, or, in the case of an incomplete instrument altered by unauthorized completion, according to its terms as completed. (Emphasis added.)
    And if you end up getting ruled against when the court acts upon forged documents, you would be claiming the order is void…..
    A judgment or order which is void may be expunged by a court at any time. Such right to expunge a void order or judgment is not limited by statutory requirements for reopening, appealing from, or modifying orders or judgments. [Cases cited.] State ex rel. Wall v. Sovinski, 234 Wis. 336, 342, 291 N.W. 344 (1940). See also, Home Bank v. Becker, 48 Wis. 2d 1, 7, 179 N.W.2d 855 (1970). The fact that the award came many years after the void order is of no consequence. In Halbach v. Halbach, 259 Wis. 329, 331, 48 N.W.2d 617 (1951), the void judgment was challenged ten years after entry. The court stated that laches did not apply even if the plaintiff had been dilatory or lackadaisical in his efforts to overturn the judgment. “It is the duty of the court to annual an invalid judgment.” A void judgment cannot be validated by consent, ratification, waiver, or estoppel. Furthermore, void judgments may be attacked collaterally. The 1960 application was still valid. (Footnote omitted.)

  99. Are there any GMAC/ResCap/Cerberus/AEGIS/Stephan/Urguandu?/MERS/Homecomings/ RFC/GRAY and Associates/BlommerPeterman foreclosure victims out there from Wisconsin?
    I know you ten or so who are communicating with me, but how about some others? Warriors? Dissatisfied clients? Happy Clients? Let’s get some action going here. The pressure is on. BK Court is like the Aragon Brawlroom on Lawrence Avenue back in the 70’s!

  100. dan, illegitimate servicing fees come from losing payments, extra escrow charges, misrepresentation at closing (if the same party). LIBOR manipulation is a great cause of action if you had an ARM,
    surprised you are still in your house.

  101. I would countersue BOA then they can’t get a summary judgement.
    Stanley Putra
    Can you help me with Osceola County case 2009CA003487? Restarted with Owen sending me a bill.
    BOA had the case from Countrywide amd used a robosigner to restore lost note.
    Stanley Putra
    262 6422543
    I am a disabled Combat Veteran and would like to sue the bank. I NEED to hire you

  102. I found this answer to my question posted here:

    Q: This is Dan from Milwaukee.
    We are in the middle of a foreclosure battle with BOA who is asking for Summary Judgement in August. Now we get a letter telling us there is a change of servicer to Nationstar Mortgage. Anybody know if this is significant?

    A: When a loan goes into default, it is often transferred to a servicer that specializes in default servicing. While servicing can be transferred and loans can be sold without it impacting the foreclosure case, it is often true that mistakes are made which may provide defense opportunities.

    Anyone have any comments on this?

  103. I need a lawyer in Wi. and Fla. I can’t get anyone to respond in Garfield’s Fl. office.
    Does anyone know about a mortgage by Wells Fargo that requ7ires a $50K dray at closing?
    Stanley Putra
    Racine, Wi.

  104. Trying to get the Lender to follow OCC guidelines.
    Stanley Putra

  105. usedkarguy,
    I agree we have a lot of problems in Wi with the circuit courts. But again we don’t have any lawyers stepping up to the plate like other states.Do you know how to get a article posted on livinglies? Also is there a way to start a petion that all 4.2 million illegal foreclosed homeowners could sign? any thoughts?

  106. “The circuit court concluded, without providing reasoning, that Bank
    of America’s evidence was admissible under WIS. STAT. § 908.03(6).”
    Based on this evidentiary ruling, the circuit court concluded that Bank of America had shown that it was entitled to enforce the mortgage and note. ”
    It is true that some of Doss-Parker’s averments seem to, in Neis’s
    words, “parrot” the requirements of WIS. STAT. § 908.03(6), and to the extent that her averments merely state legal conclusions we disregard them. See Gross v.
    Woodman’s Food Mkt., Inc., 2002 WI App 295, ¶20 n.12, 259 Wis. 2d 181, 655 N.W.2d 718 (courts disregard legal conclusions in affidavits in a motion for summary judgment). Doss-Parker’s affidavit would be insufficient for purposes of
    § 908.03(6) if it contained only legal conclusions of this nature. However, we are satisfied that Doss-Parker’s affidavit does more than merely parrot the statute’s requirements or make legal conclusions, at least as to the payment history, notice of intent to accelerate, and account information statement. It additionally contains sufficient factual assertions to make a prima facie showing that those three documents are admissible under § 908.03(6).”

    the case doesn’t matter. What DOES matter is the fact that judges are making things up as they go along. We have a real problem here in Cheeseland with the judiciary making decisions like “the note follows the mortgage”. OOPS! WRONG!! WTF???!! The mortgage FOLLOWS THE NOTE, DUMMY!

  107. Usedkarguy, this is Dan. I had your number in my old email, which is now gone. Can you call me or contact me? freedomteam2004@gmail.com

  108. Did you find a lawyer for SE Wis.?

  109. usedkarguy – I sent a letter to the AG a couple years ago and their response was that they represent the State and Governor and I should contact the OCC.

  110. Eastern.

  111. DC, I did the pro-se thing three years. can’t do it. you need a lawyer.
    where do you live?
    eastern or western district?

  112. Just got back from BK court, as a pro se. Some things the judge said boggled my mind. 1) She said that the creditors didn’t have to mail proofs of claims, I can get those on pacer, however, she wasn’t aware pacer costs money to view documents, 2) she pointed out the trustee was not my attorney and that the trustee represented the creditors, 3) when I tried to explain my reasons she sarcastically that I was blaming everyone else making it was everyone elses fault. Any thoughts?

  113. This is from:
    United States Bankruptcy Court Western District of Wisconsin

    Cite as: 486 B.R. 466

    Christopher M. Seelen, Trustee of the Douglas Lee Couillardand Deborah Mae Couillard Bankruptcy Estate, Plaintiff,v. Douglas Lee Couillard, Deborah Mae Couillard, andBank of America, N.A., Defendants

    (In re: Douglas Lee Couillard and Deborah Mae Couillard, Debtors)Bankruptcy Case No. 12-11610-7Adv. Case No. 12-132

    United States Bankruptcy CourtW.D. Wisconsin, Eau Claire Division

    This case is about recording statutes. The case involves a mortgage that failed to identify the “homestead parcel”, and only referenced the “easement” that provided access to the land in question. An affidavit was filed in the county register to correct the mortgage, but is was found to be invalid. But they used to get away with it, and …
    “In 1969, theWisconsin legislature repealed the statutory authority for correction by affidavit,although it was not clear whether the change was intended to prohibit their use.See Sara B. Andrew, Correcting Real Estate Documents, 83 Wis. Law. 30 (Oct.2010). Affidavits of correction nonetheless remained a popular option until 2007,when the Wisconsin Court of Appeals found such an affidavit invalid. See Smiljanicv. Niedermeyer, 2007 WI App 182, 304 Wis. 2d 197, 737 N.W.2d 436, 445 (2007)(“[T]here was and is no statutory authority for accomplishing a correction of thedescription of the property conveyed by the deed by simply recording [an] . . .affidavit.”). The Wisconsin legislature responded by enacting Wis. Stat. § 706.085,which became effective in May of 2010. This statute authorizes the correction of real estate documents by affidavit, and also provides for retroactive validation of previously recorded instruments which comply with its requirements. See Wis.Stat. § 706.085(4). A valid affidavit may correct a legal description or otherinformation (such as a party’s name, the tax parcel number, whether the propertyis homestead, and the like). To be valid, however, an affidavit may only beexecuted by certain individuals, and their identity varies depending upon the natureof the correction itself.”

    “Two recent bankruptcy opinions (one from this Court, oneissued in the Eastern District) have concluded that in Wisconsin an instrumentwhich does not appear in the tract index against a particular parcel is not properly recorded “as provided by law.” See In re Thulis, 474 B.R. 668, 678 (Bankr. W.D.Wis. 2012); In re Wittman, No. 10-22811, 2012 WL 2742099, at *7 (Bankr. E.D.Wis. July 9, 2012).”

    Interesting case. The BK Trustee should take action in my case to defend the asset.

  114. While this might seem fantastic at first glance, lets take a closer look at their reasoning
    and their findings. Have you created a situation where you have one foot
    out the door, just in case things don’t work out. Players were topping out very early and the whole tournament seemed to pass in the blink of an eye. 4) Trust your higher mind to formulate connections that you never saw before. (I’d setup a
    giant stack almost to your top but then My partner and i won).

  115. Hi Everyone,

    I am a homeowner seeking some legal representation against Chase bank. As far as I know, I have tried all over Wisconsin to get a pro bono or an atorney I can afford to fight Chase bank with. Two years and two modifications under my belt. I cannot fight these people anymore and I need help. They refuse to provide me note copies or detailed escrow statements or anything. They gave me a mod, claimed they screwed up my “Suspense account” then decided I was 2 months behind. So I applied for another mod and got denied. Going to give up as I have looked everywhere for resources and this is about all I could find other than NACA/HOME SAVE and I am way past the point of couseling. I want to sue these jerks for making my life HELL.

  116. send a letter, you’ll feel better….

    Mr. Mark Belling
    c/o Belling . com
    12100 W. Howard Street
    Greenfield, WI 53228

    Dear Mark,
    I have enjoyed your show ever since moving here in June of 2005. Your spot-on coverage of the issues we face here in the State of Wisconsin is always appreciated.
    I am afraid, however, that you, like most members of the media, have shied away from covering the foreclosure crisis that is a result of the blatant mortgage backed securities fraud perpetrated by the national banking associations in collusion with the foreign national banks.
    I have enclosed a letter to the Wisconsin DOJ (one of many pieces of communication I have sent them over the past five years) condemning them for their failure to prosecute and hold accountable the banks and foreclosure-mill law firms that are involved in this racketeering enterprise.
    Please understand that it is not just the banks and lawyers that are contributing to this fraud; it also comes back to the judges who sit on the bench and allow the fabricated documents to flow freely and result in the taking of homes by servicing companies who
    1) never lent a dime to the borrowers
    2) have contracted with law firms to commit fraud on the courts
    3) order the fraudulent documents used to take these home in fraudulent foreclosure actions

    I have heard you many times take our elected leaders to task over their shortcomings in applying the laws of the State. I would appreciate your taking a look at what is happening in our courts so that you might see the rampant, blatant fraud that has infected our court systems and, in turn, has resulted in thousands of fraudulent foreclosures to date. The judges themselves are ruling against homeowners with valid counterclaims to protect THEIR OEN RETIREMENT HOLDINGS. BlackRock is the administrator of Federal Pension Plans, and also the holder of the Maiden Lane (TARP) assets which represent the thousands of EMPTY MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES which were supposed to contain the recorded mortgages of borrowers pursuant to the Securities and Exchange Act of ’33-’34. The fact that the unrecorded mortgages of thousands resulted in the banksters selling notes and mortgages MULTIPLE TIMES TO MULTIPLE TRUSTS should have been enough to incarcerate the likes of Stumpy John Stumpf, Jamie Dimon, Irene Doerner, Pandit the Bandit, Angelo Mozillo, and all the others who took their turn at the altar of GREED pledging to ruin and to indenture millions to their debt collecting processes.
    It is hard to understand for the laymen. Those in the know realize they have been duped. And when the United States Government, through the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and the Justice Department allow the fraud to continue, it harms everyone, not just the “borrowers”.
    Enclosed please find the copy of the letter I submitted to various elected representatives and AG VanHollens’ office. I have also enclosed some of the fraudulent documents and evidence of the law firms racketeering activities which were introduced in my case.
    It is much easier to blame homeowners than it is to hold banks accountable. We surely did not buy this home for investment, vacation, or with fraudulent intentions. We bought our house to provide HOUSING FOR OUR FAMILY. It is now recognized that the bank servicers intended to force these defaults; not just with illegal fees and charges against borrower accounts, but also with the LIBOR rate rigging that triggered massive defaults. This scheme started many years ago with Clinton’s repeal of Glass-Steagall and Eric Holder/Lanny Bruer engineering the creation of the MERS system through Covington and Burling. There was never any legal reasoning behind MERS, only the creation of an artifice to commit fraud.

    In closing, I would welcome any contact from you regarding my evidentiary findings and the 10,000 pages of legal writings, case law, and litigation paperwork that fills the corner of my family room.
    Thanks again for what you do on the radio. I enjoy you on RUSH’s show as well. Unfortunately, Rush has taken the position that the banks did nothing wrong. That is not unexpected, since he is now part of the “ruling class” himself.

    Sincere best regards,

    Joe Mattarrotz

    Enclosures: Affidavits of Jennifer Robinson None are alike
    Signatures of Notary-Joseph Cariola-conflicted
    Attorney notes from billing statement: effects of “non-recording”

  117. oh, they know, Nate. i think it went from 600 mil to 200 mil. don’t quote me, but it was definitely 60% loss against whatever the number was. it’s too bad that they don’t understand that the banks have stashed all the cash. They could break up the banks, make everybody ‘nearly’ whole again, and the banksters would still have the cash to recapitalize.
    If they wanted to take out the illicit profiteers and tax cheats and the drug cartels, they would change the color of the money. lotsa greenbacks out there.

  118. Too bad they prolly don’t know that their pensions have been raped like everybody elses!!!!

  119. glad to hear it, Nathan…..
    put them on notice that you want some proof of agency for their debt collection activity. as in “where’s the beef (aka beneficiary)?)
    Mack the Knife, my appeal is roasting, too. going on 75 days I think. These judges will not rule against their retirement plans who are holders of these securities. dig around BlackRock and govt pension funds. more later.
    not legal advice, though. you know the drill.
    it’s mayhem out there…..

  120. Mack, I wish you the best of luck!!! They should be foreclosing on my house real soon and I intend to bring the fraud to the courts. Even if I lose I want the truth on record!!! BOA had a company called RDS contact me and asked if I would be willing to accept cash for keys. I didn’t let them get any further and told them not to contact me again since I wasn’t leaving my house!!!!!!

  121. Hey guys,

    Well the appeal has been filed. Not too sure what the problem was, but I’ve seen it on CCAP and my attorney also sent it to Madison as well. Not sure if thats part of the process or just being double sure to file it everywhere in the state. We’ll see where it goes from here.

  122. not me, my attorney in another case. i think it was Kiefer

  123. Hey usedcarguy. Which judge did you get recused?Waukesha County?

  124. Mack, you have the e-mail
    use it.

  125. mack the knife: they’re stickin’ it to ya. I would say DEMAND the transcripts in a timely fashion in writing and motion to extend time due to delay at the clerks office. They know we know they know. So mums the word. Remember you’re dealing with the ruling class. They won’t make it easy on you.
    The moments of exasperation can be overcome. Remember that anything these county judges do is subject to appeal. All the proper rulings were only obtained in appeals court.
    I have attorneys who petitioned to remove the judgment and then want to claim res judicata in another jurisdiction.
    We (me and the mouse in my pocket) have been fighting tooth and nail. They don’t like it. Had a judge recuse because his daughter works for Gray. Now he can’t hear any more GRAY foreclosure cases. DUH!!! No grounds for them to stand on other than to blame us for making them admit their inherent biases. They commit fraud, and then they say they can do it because they’re lawyers. Uh Uh. Nope. Doesn’t work..
    Pretty funny.
    the above does not constitute legal advice, as I am not an attorney. just the rantings of an out of control Dago.

  126. HI Usedkarguy, Nathan & Scot. I haven’t forgot about you guys. I’m sure like all of us, just been a lil busy lately due to the holidays and what not. Just to update a little bit of what’s currently going on… Well… My attorney recently filed the appeal, only thing is, we are not getting cooperation from the clerk of courts as to getting transcripts, phone calls answered/returned and confirmation of the appeal filing. Hmmmmmmm….. Does this seem weird of what?! Like they don’t want us to file an appeal and are going out of there way to do so. Almost seems movie like. We only have 45 days to do so, and it just feels like the court house is trying to run the clock down. I really don’t know what to think on this. It may be that they are so overwhelmed that they can’t keep up. IDK, but just letting everyone know. It’s kind of strange.

    I’m now starting to receive calls again from BOA after at least a year of not getting them, asking about my intentions of the home I live in. I said I was keeping it!! LOL. Then she went on to tell me that I got the trial modification ALL WRONG, although it is stated in black & white what the terms of the mod are/were. Oh well…That’s DEBT COLLECTORS FOR YA!!! I was the one that got it all wrong. “There’s nothing wrong on our end over here at Bank Of America.” ” Huh… What lawsuits??” LOL. I just needed to come up for some air, take a breather before I go back under and swim with this slime. Ya know. Hang in there guys & MERRY CHRISTMAS!!

  127. I’m getting ready to go throught some of the same things and I used to talk to some people from this forum and stopped cause I realized it was consuming me. Now I’m ready to fight again. I would like to get involved in the talks as well. I would be willing to drive and meet for coffee, lunch, beers or whatever. I’m getting prepared for the summons and complaint to show up. I also have so much fraud that I can prove but afraid I will be kicked right out of the court room as well. Please include me in the talks. I’m ready to fight again!!!!!

  128. mac:
    send me your number. We can talk tomorrow night.
    Chin up!

  129. @ Usedkarguy

    Thank you for that bit of inspiration. I really think I’m just burned out. I truly had the fight in me, but after being crushed in court in 5 seconds really takes the wind out of your sails, ya know. I’ve been following your comments on this site for quite some time, along with others and we all are saying the same thing. Hell we all know whats going on and so do the lawyer & judges. There are sooooo many personal dear family & friends that are also going through the same thing, but without representation. I thought I was the smarter one of the bunch only to get the same results. I didn’t lay down and just let them take it!! I put up one hell of a fight but at the end of the day who has the money to continue this fight for years, not to mention the drive. I lost this thing in October & I’m just getting around to tell you all now. I needed to walk away for a while and reassess my sanity. There’s no reason for these types of cases to even exist but to keep the wheels of corruption in motion. I mean, this crap is DESTROYING FAMILIES. I know I’m stating the very obvious but I so needed to vent and I thank you guys for understanding. I certainly did not write that to discourage anyone from seeking fair justice. It’s such a sad commentary that we always have to go to the appellate level for common sense ruling. I literally interviewed 10 attorneys until I found one that would fight based on the principles of the case. All the other attorneys just wanted to “negotiate” or file bankruptcy. I will never do that, because I did nothing wrong and to do either one of those would be admitting to something that we all know we/I did not do. I also think I have an idea of the Minnesota lawyer you referred to. If it is who I think it is, she has quite a story herself, and she’s in the loop unlike most of us who have regular jobs and then have to come home and deal with this until the wee hours of the morning on our free time. To be honest, someone would need to convince me as to why a class action suit would benefit any homeowners as I only know them to benefit lawyers. OK, it puts the banks on notice? Well with all the bad PR the banks have going on, are they not on notice now, as is. Hmmm. Usedkarguy I’d like to get ahold of you and chat. How can I do that because I don’t want to publicly put my personal info out there. Scot… I read your comments as well and in a perfect world that sounds great and quite easy, unfortunately it’s not. If that worked for you congrats and I’m honestly happy for you. I’d like to know more of this strategy but as we all know, most lawyers won’t touch that. LOL…Basically most lawyers won’t touch anything unless you do all the work for them or it falls out of the sky and lands in their lap.

  130. You need to sue the banks. I know the burden of proof is suppose to be on the Plaintiff but the couirts are putting all the burden on the Defendent. So reverese the tables. Sue the banks for fraud, for breach of contract. Because the bank did not fund the loan. The banks are suing you for foreclosure becuase they state you breached the contrat. Breach of contract works both ways. The Banks breached the contract when they did not fund the loan as outlined in the Promissory Note/Contract.

    In Wisconsin you don’t have to own the note to foreclose on the note. This is the law. But the lenders cannot provide the original and the courts are letting them use a copy. The homeowners than need to go to the register of deeds and also get a certified copy of the note. Now the court has not option but to demand the original. Because there are now to separate parties that claim to hold the same note.

    You need to take this argumate further and simplify it with simple contract law. The name of the Lender on the Note and Mortgage agreed to lend the homeowner money in return the homeowner agrees to make payments according to the terms of the contract/Note. If the homeowner fails to make the payments per the terms of the contract/Note the homeowner is in breach of contract and the Lender will sue the Homeowner to foreclose on the property. This works both ways. The Lender must also perform. In order for the contract/Note to be perfected the Lender must borrow to the Homeowner the Lender’s money. As the contract/Note states the Lender will be providing the money. If the Lender does not provide the Homeowner the Lender’s money than the Lender did not perform and is in breach of contract and the contract/Note was never perfected and the mortgage which is security for the contract/Note is void.

    There were two separate transactions at the closing table. The first transaction that provides the name of the alleged Lender on the Note and Mortgage never took place because the Lender did not perform. The Lender never provided any of their money. The second transaction which was not recorded was between a un-named third party. This third party funded the loan to the homeowner and is the real lender. (You need to obtain the wire confirmation or copy of the certified check that funded your loan to prove this point.)

    The Lender named on the Note and Mortgage committed fraud. The Plaintiff in the foreclosure case does not have a claim against the Homeowner but they do have a case against the Party they obtained the Note and or Mortgage from because this Party knowingly sold an un-perfected Note and Mortgage to the Plaintiff. This need to be brought to the attention of the Judge but no one is doing this. You need to take the offensive. You need to be the P:laintiff and sue the Bank and not be the Defendent.

  131. yes, Mack, it is GOOD vs. EVIL.
    Any other Wisconsinites reading this, I need your info. Name, address, phone, and servicer-lender. Wells, BofA, Citi, GMAC, Chase–there will be class actions coming soon against all these parties (RICO/WOCCA) based on the forged assignments and other racketeering behaviors. Reply in confidence. This info will not go anywhere other than to my attorney consortium. We need lead plaintiffs who have either lost their home or are in the home fighting. The battle is really just beginning. We have some victories here in Cheeseland, but they pale in comparison to the number of foreclosures already done.
    Don’t give up. I haven’t, and it’s going on 5 years. Still in my house.

  132. Mack,. usedkarguy here. first, email me with a phone number and we can talk.. Also, Mahany and Ertl are on the offensive with this. My lawyer is also a bulldog, she works out of Minnesota but is licensed and works in Wisconsin as well. You have to understand that there ARE NO RULINGS FOR HOMEOWNERS UNTIL YOU REACH THE APPELLATE LEVEL.
    Appeals is where it is happening. Again, send me your number, and let’s get you in touch with somebody who is having some success. I am sure you are frustrated; I don’t know how many attorneys you’ve talked to, I interviewed almost 20 until I found mine.

  133. I’m sorry guys, but I’ve been to the Milwaukee circuit court with a lawyer and had so much overwhelming evidence (forensic reviews,robo-signing and so on) AND the law on my side but the “HONORABLE” judge just looked it over and declared summery judgement for BOA. One after another until it was my turn. Not much of a shock. I’m planning on appealing but for what??? To just lose again. I’m very disappointed in the system. We on this site and many more absolutely know it’s rigged. On top of that the months and years it took to prepare for this hearing with so many unanswered legal questions from BOA makes you think, they don’t have to answer anything because they know they just need to show up and automatically win. Hmmmm… It truly makes you think whats the point. Much like this current lottery, one or two people win out of millions. We all hear stories, we all hear theories but in the end the banks, lawyers and judges win. Just another industry now where everyone gets fat pockets on the back of real law abiding citizens. I know this is glum reporting but I can honestly say that I stuck every bit of my soul into this scam. I’ve been on this site and others for years studying and for what, a couple of wins here and there. Thats peanuts!! I just needed to face it, there’s way too much talk out there and not nearly enough action. Right is right, wrong is wrong, unless you’re an “insider”. Sure foreclosure defense attorneys could do more. Alot more!! But at the risk of being cast out of the “boys club” at the Milwaukee court house or wherever. I think not!! Ofcourse I wouldn’t jeopardize and trash my career as a lawyer either. Just another industry designed to milk us. Talk talk talk is all I hear. WOW, how civilized we’ve become. Instead of the barbaric ways of the Romans and the Vikings taking your possessions 2000 years ago, now they just lawyer you with contracts to death. Is there any reason why there is so much dissatisfaction in this country? Where’s the “misery index” now that I think of it? I bet it’s not being used anymore due to the fact that it’s absolutely off the charts. I’ve seen many people on here fighting the same fight for years. Almost a second unpaid career and not by choice. I obviously do not have the answers, but don’t you dare say I haven’t tried just like so many others out there. Sure, once in a great while somebody wins, but come on, really!? There just happens to be so much evil out there that it’s plainly viewed as business as usual and that’s so sad. For all those who continue to fight the good fight I applaud you because it truly takes a toll on you. Off I go to live in an apartment. At least as a renter you really do have more rights and viewed much more favorably in a court of law as opposed to being a homeowner. Neil, thank you for so many of your “theories”. Unfortunately the rubber just barely meets the road thus not creating any traction. I know in time future generations will look back and say “What were they thinking?” as we always have done with history and to that, I’m very sad that I was part of living in that time period.

  134. Victory,Tammy Baldwin has been a supporter of homeowners.Write her letters telling your story.

  135. DD donated to Judge Reilly’s (Waukesha Cty) campaign for appellate court (which he won). Just so happens in my case Reilly ruled a deafault judgment in favor of Gray/Chase even though Chase never made an appearance nor was there any evidence to support the claim.

  136. It’s really a great and helpful piece of information. I’m satisfied that you shared this useful information with us. Please keep us informed like this. Thank you for sharing.

  137. DD is the official responsible for the FAnnie/Freddie foreclosures run through Gray and Associates. He carries a badge. He’s an agent of the government. Wonder why the judge won’t accept racketeering charges? This is why.

  138. Used Kar – what do you mean DD is a Federal official? In what capacity?

    Melissa – I’m looking for a good BR attorney. Who are you using?

  139. I refer to DD by initials only for fear of retribution. As for fighting to the bitter end, yes, I agree. It will only be bitter if you let it become too much. I choose to smile and know that in the end they paid, and paid, and paid. Too bad, they could have modified my mortgage by half with what they spent on attorneys. It’s just silly.

  140. Usedcarguy,
    I am confused above your response. You state that the owner Gray & associates is (DD) who or what is that? The rest I understand. Also I agree that we will lose, I just filed bankrupcy and have a pretty good lawyer, but the 1st thing he said was” Your fight is over, you should have filed appeal and probaly would have won. But what does everybody call a win? My verson of a win is charges bought against Gray, following the complete money, pooling and servicing agreement and too award my house to the right party. In my opnion that would be me, but I don’t share the same property laws as the lawyers ,judges and banks. So my answer is make life for the banks and lawyers hard and stay to the end. That is the only winning I see that I will get.

  141. I’m outta here. Bye everybody.

  142. Melissa, as to your post of 6 weeks ago: the AG has plenty of information to pursue charges. Our unfortunate circumstances are that Gray and Associates owner (DD) is a Federal official who handles the Fannie/Freddie, GMAC/RES CAP, and of course, our Wells Fargo stuff. There is no winning here. The order has come down from above. Any of the assets related to the TARP payoffs will be confiscated. The lie must continue. Not one Federal agency is taking any action, other than to not act. Same goes for your state law enforcement administration. The homeowners are expendable. These laws that we endlessly banter about here longer apply. I’m sorry.

  143. Getting slapped around in the Eastern District as we speak. I can’t help but think the judge is very uneasy having to adjudicate claims for racketeering and fraud when the guys from the other side are all familiar faces. Their only path of retreat is to disallow and subvert proper procedure to protect the banksters, their attorneys, and the wrongful claims that, if recognized, will create problems for years to come. Borrower attorneys are being brutalized with forged documents and fraudulent claims, all of which have to be timely responded to by Debtors’ attorneys. The foreclosure mill law firms (and their defense firms) will stop at nothing to misconstrue and misrepresent the facts. Watch your step out there; the ground is getting mighty soft (the foundation of property rights, to be more clear).

  144. Good news in E Wisc Bankr Ct. Judge Shapiro is retiring effective end of the year. I personally witnessed him: 1) tell a debtor he can’t get a free home, 2) unaware of an important change in a form, 3) laughed it off when the lender submitted an affidavit in the name and property different than the debtor, 4)allowed an affidavit that did not identify the affiant or have supporting attachments, 5) ignored the fact that the lender filed proof of claim late, and 6) allowed debtor’s attorney to quit. The guy is around 80 yrs old and I doubt he knew what was going on in the mortgage industry.

  145. Usedcarguy & joe baker
    Is there anyway to make a post here and then have wisconsin residents email their docs to a email address for anyone fighting Gray & associates, then gather all the fraudulent docs and turn them over to the media and maybe the ag will wake up.

  146. Nice job, JB! I’m impressed. Is your sister living in the house?

  147. Put up a notice on the door of your house on the day of the eviction….
    Put “No Tresspassing” “Notice of Non-Abandonment” “Private Property” Notice of Fee of two million dollars for tresspassing. “Notice of ongoing controversey with Sheriff’s department and the courts.” Then bring the matter to the attention of the realtor who is trying to sell the property on behalf of the new bank — that you could not get a fair proceedings in the courts of the county and you still claim ownership of the property. It helped in my case that the sheriffs had previously roughed me up and that they had threatened me bodily harm – so how can I attend a hearing hin that county when my life would be in danger. now over a month is past since the posted “eviction date” and the house is still empty with my sign on the door and in my posession. Also find a notary public who will accept mail on your behalf and post your address for correspondence on the note care of the notary.

    It also helps to share proof that objections filed into the record of a notice of non-judgement and objections for the record were mysteriously absent from the court file.

    Then send notice of all this stuff to Gray and Associates, the bank, the sheriffs, and cc a supreme court justice (David Prosser) in my case.

    Also post on the notice that you will not pay for moving or storage expenses.

  148. you know, Melissa, I don’t know WHAT to do. Neither does my attorney. If the racketeering is exposed here in the Wisconsin courts and the FEDS do nothing, that confirms the thinking that the foreclosures are being done at the behest of the Treasury and Federal Reserve. We are looking for rulings that fly in the face of the law, ex-parte communications between bank counsel and judges, phony orders that are signed and entered by judges, anything you can imagine that is wrong or illegal. We need to stop it.

  149. usedcarguy,
    I,m in Dodge County and fighting with Gray & Associates what are you looking for and who wants the information? I have been told that Wis. ag isn’t doing a thing and the people are not winning in circuit court, so what can the people do to stop this.

  150. looking for info on foreclosure cases involving Quarles and Brady (Katherine Perhach, any others), Gray and Associates (Brian Perhach, others), Blommer Peterman (any/all), cases from Wood County and Judge Potter. Any irregularities encountered with the court system, please forward. Please check your title registries at the recorder of deeds and retrieve any and all assignments of mortgage before, during, or after your foreclosure action. Thanks.

  151. Time will show what our constitution is build on right and wrong .BONY/ BOA /BCA/ S&L /MERS all commited frude , the costumer is paying for all of it . Time to stand for the people , how can our legal system can let bank attorneys , Banks officers , lie to court judges etc etc and expect for the suprem court to let it go???? . I am glad suprem court will look at the facts again . They are ther because , they are fair constitutional judges . It is way Our system work , they won’t let Bsnk or Law firms committ crime and abuse . Time to stop abuse from Banks and others . I do not want a free gift but I demand my rights . To a fair treatment . It is what USA is buildt on

  152. Joe Baker, I am also fighting with Gray & Associates. Any help would be welcomed. I just don’t understand how Gray& Associates keep getting away with the mill they are running. Please email me. Thanks

  153. Well, I had an eviction scheduled at my home, and the day came and went. We made sure nobody was there, and I had posted a Sign prominently on the door ” Private Property, No Trespassing, Notice of Non-Abandonment, Notice of ongoing controversey, Fees for tresspassing of $2,000,000.

    And I faxed and certified mailed notice to the Sheriff’s department proof that the court did not enter my objections mailed into the court and to Gray and Associates into the court record.

    Plus I copied the documents to Supreme Court Justice David Prosser.

    Interestingly we still have control of the house now long after the scheduled eviction date of August 9th, 2012.


  154. If anyone is interested, I have a contact within Governor Walkers’ office. If you have information on court irregularities or judges and attorneys acting improperly, contact me. usedkarguy@yahoo.com

  155. Stanley, I would love to see what you have done!!!

  156. Stanley Putra, on July 3, 2012 at 6:18 am said: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    After a chapter 7, it is WIS LAW that I can have the foreclosure judgement negated by the judge’s signature! WHEN, a foreclosure judgment is attempted, one needs to file a counter-suit; bringing up issues that would prevent a foreclosure judgment from taking place.
    You, or anyone is, welcome to see the paperwork I filed or am filing.
    The bank may not have the correct paperwork to file foreclosure. I believe but am not sure that if 5 years passes without a payment and no foreclosure is filed; I can file a quit claim deed and have the mortgage removed in Wis? A Wis judge has no choice; there is always the Wis. Court of Appeals. Why would I makes any payments to an entity that doesn’t prove they are the lender with proper paperwork? I also believe that Fannie allows partial payments. I would demand a principle reduction.

    Stanley Putra


  158. MARY KAY
    After a chapter 7, it is WIS LAW that I can have the foreclosure judgement negated by the judge’s signature! WHEN, a foreclosure judgment is attempted, one needs to file a counter-suit; bringing up issues that would prevent a foreclosure judgment from taking place.
    You, or anyone is, welcome to see the paperwork I filed or am filing.
    The bank may not have the correct paperwork to file foreclosure. I believe but am not sure that if 5 years passes without a payment and no foreclosure is filed; I can file a quit claim deed and have the mortgage removed in Wis? A Wis judge has no choice; there is always the Wis. Court of Appeals. Why would I makes any payments to an entity that doesn’t prove they are the lender with proper paperwork? I also believe that Fannie allows partial payments. I would demand a principle reduction.

    Stanley Putra

  159. I have not been on this site in some time. My home was in foreclosure. I called Fannie Mae and asked the how it was possible for BAC to file a foreclosure complaint and summons stating that they were the mortgagee of record on my home loan. Fannie Mae stated that they owned my mortgage. I then informed Fannie Mae that they and BAC were committing fraud against me and what do you know, 2 days later I had a modification in the mail and the foreclosure was dropped. Months later I had to file chapter 7 to be able to keep paying my mortgage. For 2 months BAC refused to send the reaffirmation paperwork to my bankruptcy attorney and my bankruptcy was discharged. 1 week before my bankruptcy was discharged, I received a letter from BAC stating there was an “unforeseen shortage in escrow” and my mortgage payment was going up $98 a month. The very next day I received a letter from the Assessor’s Office in Kenosha stating my house is now worth 116k. I owe 198k after all BAC’s fines, fees, attorney’s costs, penalties and interest. Needless to say, I am happy BAC didn’t send the reaffirmation paperwork. My question is this, can I still fight the foreclosure even though the note has been discharged in bankruptcy? All my recorder of deeds filings and paperwork that will be in the ensuing foreclosure summons and complaint are fraud! I can prove the fraud easily. How are the judges in Wisconsin handling these foreclosures. If it is going to be a 30 second hearing and kick me out of the court room is it even worth my time? If anybody could help or steer me to somebody to talk to it would be greatly appreciated.

  160. Dan what do you meant the 40 day rule under what statute of law , I can’t understand ho the banks attorneys and the bank can commit a crime like Fraude , forgery etc etc and the courts “judges” look the other way ?? Is this real BONY vs Cano Wi. Where is the law system . What they did is a felony , and judge do not see it becuse big firms , control small courts ?? I will apeeal again , all I am waiting is for the court to say my time to do it is over . So they win my attorney said my clock starts untill judge rules on motion to reconsider is that right

  161. Some astute observations from an attorney in the trenches…..

    We are far less advanced in these arguments (fraudulent, forged assignments of mortgage) in Wisconsin because the “fraudulent document” issue has been well-known in Florida for about 4 years. We are just beginning to bring these issue to the attention of Wisconsin courts. We might as well start with the right words–forgery. Notice how Justice Pariente (oral arguments in PINO) distinguishes “robo-signing” from fraudulent documents. Let us distinguish robo-signing from fraudulent documents and fraudulent documents from forgery. This is why the PR cover of robo-signing was created in the first place: to make criminal forgery look like a hastily signed document. As you can surmise from this argument, we need to go beyond civil fraud to the crime of forgery.

    943.38  Forgery.
    (1)  Whoever with intent to defraud falsely makes or alters a writing or object of any of the following kinds so that it purports to have been made by another, or at another time, or with different provisions, or by authority of one who did not give such authority, is guilty of a Class H felony:
    (a) A writing or object whereby legal rights or obligations are created, terminated or transferred, or any writing commonly relied upon in business or commercial transactions as evidence of debt or property rights; or
    (b) A public record or a certified or authenticated copy thereof; or
    (c) An official authentication or certification of a copy of a public record; or
    (d) An official return or certificate entitled to be received as evidence of its contents.
    (2) Whoever utters as genuine or possesses with intent to utter as false or as genuine any forged writing or object mentioned in sub. (1), knowing it to have been thus falsely made or altered, is guilty of a Class H felony.
    (3) Whoever, with intent to defraud, does any of the following is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor:
    (a) Falsely makes or alters any object so that it appears to have value because of antiquity, rarity, source or authorship which it does not possess; or possesses any such object knowing it to have been thus falsely made or altered and with intent to transfer it as original and genuine, by sale or for security purposes; or
    943.38(3)(b) (b) Falsely makes or alters any writing of a kind commonly relied upon for the purpose of identification or recommendation; or
    (c) Without consent, places upon any merchandise an identifying label or stamp which is or purports to be that of another craftsman, tradesman, packer or manufacturer; or
    (d) Falsely makes or alters a membership card purporting to be that of a fraternal, business or professional association or of a labor union; or possesses any such card knowing it to have been thus falsely made or altered and with intent to use it or cause or permit its use to deceive another; or
    (e) Falsely makes or alters any writing purporting to evidence a right to transportation on any common carrier; or
    (f) Falsely makes or alters a certified abstract of title to real estate, a title insurance commitment, a title insurance policy, or any other written evidence regarding the state of title to real estate.

    “Fraud” is too “cutesy”. Call it what it is: forgery!

  162. take a look under WiStat 403 maybe.

  163. Does anyone in Wisconsin know the Wisconsin Statue, where a person can get the note back after the bank takes the property? If a bank takes your property, you should have the right to recieve the Orignal Note back. I want to get mine back but the statues can be very confusing. Any help would be appreciated.


  164. Marvin
    I received your message and want to assure you that the Wis portion of this blog is not dead. There are many good people that will help in Wisconsin.
    Usedkarguy is very helpful, and many others. I will try calling you.
    It just seems dead because everyone is so satified with this 49 State AG settlement. Well I for one am not!
    The best thing anyone can do is challenge your paperwork. Respond to the 40 day notice. Ask for a verification of debt. This is where you will find the robosignors.

  165. The Response and Motion to Dismiss was handled by a third party. We submitted this because it was all we had and I knew nothing about any of this at the time.

    I realize now that going after the Assignment was probably not the best approach, but I’m hoping that the Motion can be ammended.

    U S Bank is forclosing and the letter from First Franklin says Merrill Lynch.

    You mentioned that you can help find a copy of the certified check or copy of the wire confirmation that funded our loan. If this will help, that’s great.

    Also, I have no knowledge on how to locate the documents this trust filed with the SEC.

    I understand, for the most part, what is needed, but I’m still new to all this. I do understand that most of this is common sense, but man it’s a little overwhelming.

  166. Also Scot

    For some privacy, you can contact us at:



  167. Why is the assignment of mortgage fraudulent. Have you gone the the sec.gov website and looked at the documents filed by Merrill Lynch FFMLT 2007-3. You state you have a letter that states Merrill Lynch FFMLT 2007-3 is the owner of your note. Who is foreclosing on you. You have to ask how they obtained your mortgage note. What did they pay for your mortgage note. Review the documents this trust filed with the SEC. You will fine a specific order as to who and how your mortgage note was to be transferred and or assigned and a very specific order your mortgage note must be transferred.

  168. Hi Scot,

    Quick chain of events:

    Adjustable Rate Note from March 2007, First Franklin Financial Corp. Sub of MLB&T Co., FSB

    August 2010 sent First Franklin QWR.

    Sept. 2010 receive Letter from Home Loan Services d/b/a First Franklin referencing QWR. Letter states “The owner of this loan is Merrill Lynch FFMLT 2007-3.

    Sept. 2010 sent to HLS d/b/a/ FF Certificate of Non-Response, Notice of Default.

    October 8, 2010, letter from HLS d/b/a FF states that “Certificate or Non-Recourse Notice of Default is of no legal significance nor does it form the basis of any contract or agreement. Says Oct. 1st installment is due.

    One week later letter arrives from BAC Home Loans Servicing stating that Effective Oct. 1, 2010 servicing of the mortgage loan is being assigned, sold, or transferred from FF to BAC.

    Aug. 15, 2011 receive summons from U S Bank and others, (long list of successors). Ccap only shows U S Bank as filing the complaint.

    Sept. 2nd we file an answer and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing. Motion to Dismiss states that Assignment of Mortgage is fraudulant.

    Feb. 1st appear before interim judge and get continuance so that motion can be heard by the judge that will hear the case.

    No new court date has yet been set.


    Law firm is from Chicago and hires a Waukesha attorney to appear on their behalf. We live in Milwaukee.

    Attorney stated on Feb 1st that U S Bank owns the note.

    We have Assignment of Mortgages from Florida with same names as ours but completely different signitures. Also, the note submitted to court only has my wife and my signiture. No allonge attached, no stamp, and no proof that it was sold or transferred.

    I do not have a copy of the certified check or copy of the wire confirmation that funded our loan.

    Hope that this helps.

    I am meeting with Legal Action this afternoon and will try to contact Legal Aid tomorrow.

  169. The courts will allow this unless you point it out. The note is the same as a pay roll check or personal check. If you want to redeem the check you must first endorse the check with your signature. If you wish to endorse the check to a third party and the third party wishes to redeem the check they too must endorse the check with their signature. This shows a chain of title so if anything is wrong with the check the check issuer or the authorities can trace the history of the check, (chain of title). The same with your mortgage note. The alleged original lender endorsed the mortgage note. They have claim to the promissory note. The may have endorsed the mortgage note pay to the order of and left the remaining blank this is OK. The only endorsement is from the alleged originating lender. If a third party wants to enforce the note they must first endorse the note. Just as third party that want to cash a check must first endorse the check.

    If the third party lender to the mortgage note does endorse the mortgage note this does not automatically give them legal standing as holder in due course. The third party must also provide proof as to how much they paid for the mortgage note and who they paid for the mortgage note. They cannot pay $10.00 for the mortgage note and than claim they have been damaged $150, 000.00 if the mortgage note goes into default. If they did not pay face value of the note than the holder in due course rights are not passed on to the new holder of the mortgage note and chain of title is broken.

    Since the Plaintiffs are claiming that most of the notes have been securitized every party that allegedly bought the mortgage note must endorsed the note and must prove how much they paid for the mortgage note and who they paid for the mortgage note. There should be 4 to 5 endorsements on the mortgage notes for the notes to be properly securitiezed. The first endorsement should be the alleged originating lender and the last should be the trust that is bringing the foreclosure claim.

    You have to explain this to the courts and point out to the courts that in all the evidence that the Plaintiff has provided that the Plaintiffs name is not listed or mentioned anywhere except maybe on a assignment of mortgage. In which case the mortgage was split form the note. This is a whole nother defense. Just point out to the court that the mortgage is not an obligation.

  170. Scot- you said “if you want to enforce the note, you have to endorse the note”. To which I say most notes are endorsed in blank, along with an allonge, which is dummied up just prior to f/c beginning. The courts have been letting this illegal arrangement slide in favor of the foreclosing entity. What’s your take on this? Thanks.

  171. Dan, do you know the name of the trust your mortgage note is allegedly in. This is the first step. If you don’t I can help. Do you have a copy of the certified check or copy of the wire confirmation that funded your loan. If not I can help. Do you have a copy of the mortgage note the Plaintiff filed in the foreclosure complaint. Did the Plaintiff endorse the mortgage note. Most likely they haven’t.

    I leave you with this one statement. If you want to ENFORCE THE NOTE YOU MUST ENDORSE THE NOTE!

  172. Usedkabinetguy
    Good Luck tomorrow in Court! We need a State of Wisconsin bank, like North Dakota, that will help and pay taxes in Wisconsin. The Big 5 banks pay no taxes to Wisconsin.

  173. It appears that the states will use some of this money to fill slush funds. Here in Wisconsin they are already carving up the pie. Screw the homeowners:

    MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Wisconsin plans to use about $26 million of its $140 million share of a national mortgage settlement to help plug a state budget hole, a move that drew criticism from Milwaukee’s mayor and Democratic state lawmakers.

    Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen’s office made the decision in consultation with Gov. Scott Walker, and they announced their plan Thursday.

    The rest of Wisconsin’s share of the $25 billion national settlement will go toward helping homeowners who were affected by foreclosure abuses between 2008 and 2011.

    Walker told a news conference that just like communities and individuals affected by the foreclosure crisis, the state has also been harmed and the payment will go toward offsetting that. Walker has previously been critical of using so-called “one-time” money from legal settlements to balance the state budget.

    He defended his own use of this settlement money Thursday by saying that this time it was different since the foreclosure crisis had a “direct impact on the economy.”

    But Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett said in a story published Friday by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (http://tiny.cc/r18r1 ) that “not one dime should be used to fund the unbalanced state budget.”

    Democratic state lawmakers circulated a bill Friday that would require legislative approval before any of the money could be used to balance the budget. Republicans have majority control of the Legislature, so the proposal is unlikely to go anywhere.

    A new projection released Thursday shows the state faces a $143 million budget shortfall by July 2013. Walker said his administration would plug the hole without the need to pass an emergency budget bill.

    Barrett, a Democrat, is considering running against Walker, a Republican, in a possible recall election. Barrett lost to Walker in the 2010 governor’s race.

    Barrett said all of the $31.6 million coming to the state instead of directly to homeowners should be used for foreclosure mitigation programs in Milwaukee, a city that has had more foreclosures than any other in Wisconsin.

    “The worst thing that can happen now is for the state of Wisconsin to employ its own bait-and-switch,” Barrett said.

    Van Hollen, a Republican, said Barrett was wrong to focus on just that one piece of the $140 million payment.

    “The overwhelming majority of that $140 million is going to go to Milwaukee, is going to be able to help homeowners who are in trouble in Milwaukee, reimbursing homeowners who were foreclosed upon and shouldn’t have been, preventing or remediating blight and creating jobs,” Van Hollen said.

    Wisconsin’s share of the proposed settlement includes:

    — Up to $60 million in benefits from loan term modifications and other direct relief for homeowners.

    — About $17.2 million in uniform payments of up to $2,000 for eligible Wisconsin borrowers who lost their home to foreclosure from Jan. 1, 2008, through Dec. 31, 2011, and who sustained servicing abuses.

    — About $31.3 million in refinancing benefits for eligible borrowers who are making payments but owe more than their home is worth.

    The money is coming from Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Residential Capital and Wells Fargo & Co.

  174. Hi Scot,

    We’re here in Milwaukee fighting a foreclosure Pro Se. Because of our income, we are going to try to get pro bono help to make our case.

    We could sure use someone with some knowledge to throw ideas with out there. Are you able to contact us? Unfortunately we have 3 young kids that I’m trying to protect from all this.

    Thanks for your input in this forum.


  175. “You can’t solve a problem unless you know the source”

    Anyone outta State can’t make it?….please forward to someone you know who can! Post on your blog, webpage, share! Everybody has relatives near Chicago! 😉 Thanks, Deb!

    The Rock River Patriots Welcome G. Edward Griffin To Wisconsin

    Posted on January 2, 2012 by Rock River Patriots

    Join the Rock River Patriots in welcoming the author of the groundbreaking book on the Federal Reserve System, The Creature from Jekyll Island to Wisconsin.

    G. Edward Griffin

    Description: http://rockriverpatriots.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/g-edward-griffin-pic2.jpeg?w=222&h=316Be prepared to learn and be challenged as Mr. Griffin presents valuable information in TWO informative presentations! All are invited!!! No Cost to Attend!!! Tell Your Friends!!! Tell Your Neighbors!!!

    When: Saturday February 11th , 2012

    1 pm – The Real War On Terrorism—learn some of the startling historical events that will forever change the way you view the present, including the war on terror.

    6 pm – Who Killed The American Economy? An update to The Creature from Jekyll Island—a look at the Federal Reserve System past and present.

    Where: Olympia Resort and Conference Center
    1350 Royale Mile Road, Oconomowoc, WI

    Why: In order to understand the present problems we face, we must understand the “roots” of these problems in the past. In light of the global economic turmoil, it is important to understand one of the central players, The FED.

    G. Edward Griffin February 11th Event Flyer

    For More Information contact the Rock River Patriots at:
    Email: rockriverpatriots@gmail.com
    Phone: 920-650-1260

    Filed under: Events | Tagged: End the Fed, G. Edward Griffin, Olympia Resort, Rock River Patriots Events, Sound Money, The Creature From Jekyll Island, The Federal Reserve, The Gold Standard, The War on Terror | 9 Comments »

  176. Roger what you are looking for is anyone that obtained a stated asset stated income home loan or a pick a payment home loan.

  177. Question for everyone. The mortgage notes have cash value for the dollar amount listed in the note. We create the note when we sign the note. Our signature monetized the note. The alleged lenders took both our mortgage note and the mortgage. Wouldn’t that mean that the alleged loan was double collateralized. Wouldn’t this mean that if the alleged loan went into default the bank would be entitled to one or the other but not both. I encourage and welcome all insights.

  178. Looks like I’ll be in Madison Monday afternoon. First stop is US Bankruptcy Court Eastern District.

  179. this is very troubling. Everybody, get on this, NOW!

  180. I might have to eat my words down below. I will be contacting Governor Walker immediately.

  181. Office of the Governor………(608) 266-1212
    i would suggest we all call Governor Walker and ask him to speak with Attorney General VanHollen and not allow ANY EX-POST-FACTO legislation that would let the banks off the hook. Remind him why he was elected. He’s done a great job so far. Let him know we’re watching.
    Wisconsin residents only, please. Thank you.

    Hello Scotty. Give me a call or e-mail me, please. I have someone I want you to contact. Any other Wisconsinites, we need your foreclosure stories so they can be relayed to a reporter. I will forward.
    usedkarguy@yahoo.com. Put “Foreclosure Fraud Article” in your subject line.
    Thanks again!

  182. Putting the plaintiffs and or courts free house for the defendant argument to rest

    You can nip this in the bud in the very beginning. When you answer the complaint the first thing you want to state is, Your Honor we do not dispute the obligation. What we dispute is who the creditor is and submit an extensive QWR asking how the plaintiff obtained the note and mortgage. How much did the pay for the note and or mortgage. Provide copies of the checks both front and back. Ask if the note was securitized. Use Recoupment as a defense. The UCC 3-305 is about recoupment, UCC 3-306 is the claim you must make to apply the set-off from the account ledger. this counterclaim is mandatory.

    1099 OID report

    S3 A registration statement: shows when and where the instrument was sold… they can’t
    claim “lost” note.

    424 B-5 prospectus (security filing)

    RC S & RC B call schedules.

    FASB (Financial Accounting Standards Board) part of GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Standards)

    FAS 125, 133, 140, 5, 95. These will direct the auditor to the liability side of the banks’ books and also create the trail of exactly where the money came from and where it went.

    A promissory note falls under UCC Art. 3 because it is a negotiable instrument, once it is securitized, it falls under UCC Art. 8 & 9 as a security. The banks are illegally selling your un-registered instrument. Deeds of trust and mortgage deeds are always registered as evidences of debt… notes are never registered… selling n-registered securities is an automatic right of rescission of the original contract. You possess entitlement rights and possessory rights to your original note… it is negotiable.

    UCC 3-305 is about recoupment, UCC 3-306 is the claim you must make to apply the set-off from the account ledger. this counterclaim is mandatory.

    Title 12 1813 (L)(1) states that when you deposit a promissory note, it becomes a cash item to the bank, you were supposed to get a receipt for it. But you didn’t ask for it. These notes are deposited into a transactional account and the credit goes to the accounts payable side of the ledger (assets) of the bank, but on the liability side, the note has been sold already after it was monetized by your signature. You are, therefore, the first funds transferor and have the right to either your note, or the cash equivalent.

    Under Civil Rule 13, if you fail to bring a counterclaim, you waive your rights to the note. Because you were ignorant of the rules of procedure.

    Ask for all documents in discovery, under Civil rule 36 if they don’t produce them, they are admitted.

    We loaned them the note, we started the process, so we need to show them where to fix the problem. At law, we are presumed to be knowledgeable in banking since we deal in commercial paper every day. FRN’s are nothing more than registered promissory notes,
    that’s why they are recognized as deposits and you receive a receipt from the bank for your deposit. You should register your promissory note on a UCC-1 or UCC-3 to show a public interest in the note itself. This is recognizable in Court. Otherwise, your only
    public interest is shown by your payment to the bank, on the receivable(asset) side of their ledgers.

    The 1099 OID will identify who the principal is from, which capital and interest was taken, and who the recipient or payer of the funds are, and who is holding the account in escrow, un-adjusted.

    I am not an attorney, and this is not to be construed as legal advice. If you have questions about the information contained herein, seek the advice of competent counsel, if that exists.

  183. Tips about finding the right probable bankruptcy attorney ; lawyers along with their particular … Strategies for getting better credit after personal bankruptcy ; there is certainly personal bankruptcy assist in the usa along with Waukesha


    BAC Home Loan Servicing, L.P. f/k/a Countrywide Home Loans Servicing L.P., Plaintiff-Respondent,
    Michael J. Williams and Nicole J. Williams, Defendants-Appellants.

    No. 2010AP2334.
    Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District IV.

    Opinion Filed: September 29, 2011.
    Before Lundsten, P.J., Sherman and Blanchard, JJ.

    ¶ 13 Because the copy of the document purportedly assigning to BAC Williams’ mortgage—and by reference, the promissory note—was not properly authenticated, it did not meet the standard of admissible evidence required for summary judgment materials under Wis. Stat. § 802.08(3). Therefore, BAC failed to make a prima facie case that it had standing to foreclose based upon Williams’ failure to pay according to the terms of the promissory note. In light of BAC’s failure, we do not need to address whether any of the affirmative defenses asserted in Williams’ answer would also have created material disputes for the circuit court. Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court’s summary judgment decision and remand with directions that the matter proceed with discovery[2] and trial on BAC’s foreclosure claim.

  185. Stan, it’s funny how all the guys I spoke with over the years are now full-fledged foreclosure defense attorneys. We (homeowners) have a big problem in that these cases become so labor intensive and research-sensitive it gets too expensive to litigate. When the attorney turns to you and says “well…we’re thinking around twenty-grand, total, with $5000 up front and $1000 a month, it may take up to three years to settle……” you run out with your hair on fire! But that’s an entirely reasonable fee for what’s involved. A simple chapter 7 is $1300, and I excused Mr. Nixon after filing because of the…situation. All I can say.
    I can’t disclose anything about my arrangements except that I am hoping someone from DOJ or USBT’s office get’s involved. I’ve rang all their doorbells. Let’s see who comes to the door, eh? Some in power think I’m singlehandedly trying to bring down the entire mortgage industry. Yeah, that’s right, I’m a “troublemaker”. At least, that’s what the result of a ruling in my favor would open up. Huge can of worms! Probably 10,000 foreclosures in this state could be overturned if I can win this. But that is not my issue. You see, they want to turn it into the “free house” issue, when it’s really a theft by conversion and fraudulent conveyance. No recording equals no standing. Period. You gotta hang tough and when they slap you down, go and appeal in a timely manner. That’s the only place you’ll win. Appeals court.

  186. Usedkarguy
    Great. Thanks for the information. How many Attorneys do you have? Lakelaw? Jay Nixon? Wendy? How many? Please give us some details on your results. Has Jay challenged the proof of claims from your mortgagers?
    Lets learn from your successes, so we don’t continue with our failures.
    Can you have DC email me?
    I am ready to picket at Racine Courthouse at 1 PM on tuesdays, foreclosure auction day.

  187. Stan and DC, I saw Abraham Michelson at my 341 hearing last week. He told me he went to Max Gardners’ boot camp and is in full swing foreclosure defense.
    Michelson Law in Racine, Wi. Give him a call. He’s a good egg.

  188. DC
    I believe you should see what HAMP has to offer you. Bottom line is if it can save you money on your mortgage, you are in a great position. You can also complain to the OCC; they are investigating bad foreclosures. Since the AG in this state is doing NOTHING what have u got to lose? Have you met with your register of deeds about the monies MERS owes your county in fees?
    I am trying to get Jeff Barnes involved in a class action in WI. before the banks go bankrupt. There was an article that Chase has plenty of monies to fight. I need to see you paperwork from Gray. I also have the discovery forms you need to look at.
    My email studly26@hotmail.com
    Racine WI

  189. Thanks Stan for the info. I have been fighting Chase since 2008. Although a Judge ordered a DJ they have not conducted a sale (for numerous reasons). But Chase in asking for info for the HAMP and I have refused to give them anything unless they drop the foreclosure and provide proof of ownership. I find it crazy they can ask for for financial info when they are in the middle of sueing me. FYI- The Judge granted a DJ although Chase did not provide the note (just a copy of mortgage) or an affidavit (an attorney from Gray signed the affidavit). Has anyone found any attorney who is willing to fight the banks?

  190. Fellow Wisconsonites being tormented with foreclosure. I have found the investigative branch of HAMP. If you are waiting unbearable for a modification, have been rejected on the telephone for a HAMP application or you feel you were just denied denied, send your complaint to
    escalations@hmpadmin.com . Don’t take no for any answer! After all how much of our tax money was given to the banks? $29 trillion? It will also help if you tell them you contacted HOPE NOW. Hope keeps a record of your call and they will tell you if you qualify or not for HAMP.
    Racine, WI.

  191. that didn’t take long. Now, wait a minute. I called the Department of Justice, JB VanHollens Office, and they gave me this number. Really! I don’t believe it!

    Here Is the response I got from them. Now remember: I called the AG’s office and asked about mortgage fraud……..and asked for a specific e-mail address for mortgage fraud……….

    Hi Mr. Citizen of the State of Wisconsin…….

    Have you spoken with the Department of Financial Institutions about your mortgage lender? Their phone number is 800-452-3328 or 608-261-9555. You can also find them on the web at http://www.wdfi.org.

    Consumer Protection does not oversee lending companies, so we are not in a position to help you. Please check with DFI to see if they’re the correct agency to file a complaint with.

    Thank you for contacting the Bureau of Consumer Protection.

    So there you go! They are protecting me!

    The question is, from who?

  192. Let’s start pounding the Attorney General’s office with the fraudulent affidavits, assignments of mortgage, ANYTHING YOU HAVE THAT INDICATES FRAUD ON THE PART OF THESE LENDERS and bank attorneys.


    They are listening. They’re not DOING anything, but they are collecting files.

  193. Used Car Guy, I believe I may have posted this case last spring. There are more appellate court reversals in favor of the homeowners and the decisions also list then name of the attorneys that the homeowners use. Below is the website. Choose which court decisions you want to review, Wisconsin Supreme Court Decisions or Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Keyword, Foreclosure. The good thing about the Court of Appeals Decisions is that the court tells you that they don’t necessarily disagree with the homeowners case and they goes on to state why they ruled against the homeowners so you can learn from their mistakes. Here is the website.


  194. From the “I Don’t know how I missed this one…..” file:

    Wisconsin Appeals Court Tosses Foreclosure Judgment!

    by Brian Mahany

    In a case decided March 23rd of this year, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed a judgment of foreclosure issued by a Rock County Circuit Court Judge.

    Aurora Loan Services obtained a judgment of foreclosure against David and Nancy Carlsen. The dispute in this case wasn’t the money owed, it was whether Aurora could prove it was the holder of the mortgage note. Although the evidence was razor thin, the trial judge accepted the testimony of mortgage company employee. The Carlsens lost their home as a result but appealed.

    As is so common today, the bank or mortgage company servicing the loan is not the original lender. Very few banks hold mortgages today. As soon as the mortgage is written, the mortgage is sold to someone else. Sometimes it is sold multiple times.

    In this case, the original paperwork showing the transfer could not be located. Many banks use a company called Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (“MERS”) to keep the transfer records. Unfortunately, MERS has been both overwhelmed by the sheer volume of home foreclosure and plagued with internal problems.

    Although the trial judge relied on a photocopied, uncertified assignment provided by MERS. Not good enough said the appeals court.

    Aurora next relied on one of its employees who testified that the assignment made them the holder of the note and entitled to foreclose. Like the “robosigners” elsewhere in the country, Aurora’s witness could not say that she had reviewed the original assignment or if it even exists.

    As so eloquently states by the appeals court, “Thus, Conner did no more than identify herself as an Aurora employee who was familiar with some unspecified Aurora documents, who had reviewed some Aurora documents, and who had brought some documents … to court.”

    What should you do if you receive a foreclosure notice? Hire a lawyer. The money you spend could keep you in house for months or even years. In a few cases, courts have simply dismissed the foreclosure action completely. It’s hard to raise money for a lawyer when things are tight but you may save much, much more in the long run

    Mahany & Ertl is a full service law firm offering foreclosure defense throughout Wisconsin. Often we can represent you on a flat fee basis and help you remain in your home. Contact our Milwaukee mortgage foreclosure lawyers at (414) 704-6731 for a no obligation, no nonsense consultation.

    (C) Mahany & Ertl LLC – Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Asset Recovery, Fraud, Foreclosure Defense, White-Collar Criminal Defense, Tax and Securities Arbitrations. Milwaukee, Waukesha, West Bend, Sheboygan, Janesville, Racine, Wausau, Green Bay, Platteville and beyond

    Comment: Wisconsin residents, I’d call these guys.

  195. Anyone find a Wisconsin lawyer or paralegal who can dig into the merits of foreclosure defenses in Wisconsin.

    If so, let me know! Also, if we can assemble a number of homeowners who need help, and can chip in, we can recruit some energetic help.
    Contact me if you want to try and fight the system of MERS and lawyers, and banksters.

    Let everybody know! I am not looking for free help. I want real help.

    email : creek6470@yahoo.com

  196. Joe Baker: GTFOH!!! Really?
    This post from “hateracinewisconsin” is a plant to get somebody to take a swipe at these judges. No articles or info released to associate the deceased judge to any impropriety nor any law firm. I know you, JB, and I trust that you know me after our convo. I have provided copies of affidavits to numerous news sources, and never got a peep back. And I’m talking NATIONAL news writers. The only ones who wrote back were attorneys generals and county recorders. And let me tell you, these recorders that are beefin’ are p.o.’d. Some don’t care. AG’s are mum on everything. So is DOJ. Nobody is talking.
    Contaminated collateral is an understatement! You have to believe that law an order will prevail over money and power. As to date we have only seen small, marginal victories. Too few practitioners. But the legal industry is taking notice. Many lawyers doing CLE for foreclosure defense. I hope to put up some contact information for SE WI soon. We need a legal consorteum to handle this.
    Marquette U School of Law should be heavy into the consitutional side of this, this,…NONSENSE!

  197. If there is any evidence of Judge Dennis Barry having taken bribes from Gray and Associates, you may send it to me at joebaker@dcresearch.com . He was the judge in my foreclosure case and the day he died was a day scheduled for him to hear my foreclosure case. I can received PGP encrypted email with key ID number 0xDDEC0260 .

  198. First, that Judge Barry was on the take doesn’t surprise me. Nor would it surprise me if my judge was also in the “circle of trust”. The rulings handed down by these judges is evidence of the “insider” behavior influenced by the crooked law firms. Please provide where the article came from.

    Also, judges are getting the message here. There were two judges at a CLE class on foreclosure defense, and they walked away with some new insights. Can’t talk now, but change is in the wind.

  199. hateracinewis, I feel your pain. I just Googled this and could not find anything. Could you please be more specific as to where the article was posted, date and time. this would help our investigation greatly. Thank you. It is not what you know but what you can prove.





    registration now open for upcoming seminars on public records and open meetings laws

    For Immediate Release For More Information Contact:

    September 6, 2011 Dana Brueck 608/266-1221

    MADISON — Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen has announced that the public, media representatives, and government officials and employees can begin registering online today to attend upcoming Department of Justice seminars on the public records and open meetings laws.

    It’s recommended anyone who is interested in attending the seminars register early because space is limited for the free programs with Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen and Assistant Attorneys General from the Department of Justice.

    “I urge anyone who wants to better understand the workings of an open government as well as a person’s responsibilities and rights under the law to attend one of these programs,” Van Hollen says. “The best way to prevent violations of the public records and open meetings laws is to educate, and that’s why we hold these seminars every year.”

    The three-hour, live programs will be held the afternoons of Monday, October 3rd (Pewaukee) and Monday, October 10th (Madison). A webinar also is scheduled for Thursday, October 20th.

    A webinar is an interactive audio-visual presentation viewed live over the Internet from the participant’s personal computer.

    When registering, participants will be asked to provide their name, title, email address, organization/agency, zip code and which seminar they plan to attend.

    To register for either of the live seminars or the webinar, access the link below.


    Please see the attachment for additional information.

  202. no more demurrers in Wisconsin.l

  203. Bennie, I cannot answer your question. But I can tell you that First Magnus was not the original lender. They were just a broker. I know this first hand since I used to broker a lot of loans to them in the day. Sounds like there was a clouded title issue before your friend even signed on the dotted line at closing. Your friend needs to go to the register of deeds to see if the note was ever assigned. If not than the note and the mortgage were separated. Which mean the mortgage is not worth the paper it is printed on and the note is unsecured. CARPETER V. LOGA, 83 U. S. 271 (1872) and Glover v. Marine Bank of Beaver Dam, 117 Wis.2d 684, 345 N.W.2d. Hope this helps.

  204. I have a question. I am a California 3 year post foreclosure homeowner. I have a friend in kenosha that is being sued for foreclosure by Bank o America Corporation. I looked at his doc’s and found flaws. The assignment was executed by mers in 2011 in California. However, his original lender was First Magnus Financial Corporation. First Magnus went out of business in 2009 after an Arizona Bankruptcy. All assets were transfered to the trust. I feel that BAC is not the Real Party in interest. My question is can you demurrer to a compliant in Wisconsin, or does he have to file some type of motion to dismiss the compliant due to lack of standing. An answer would be greatly appreciated.

  205. OK. That’s a start. Thanks for the update Roger. We still need everyone else to contact Representative Evan Wynn. We finally have an ear in the legislature but it does no one any good if everyone doesn’t take advantage of it. Please everyone let us know if you contacted Evan Wynn. He did give his cell phone number.

  206. Scot, sorry I couldn’t make that meeting, but I did talk with Brandon today (one of Rep. Wynn’s staffers). He sounded interested in the cause, and asked for some documentation that the Rep could take to the state assembly. Please people, start sending in your robo-hobo signed affidavits to the address below. And thank you, Scot, for fighting like you are. Your house is gone, and you’re still in the battle. OUTSTANDING WORK ON YOUR PART, MY FRIEND!

  207. OK, everybody. We all want equal protection under they law. What new laws do you want passed to protect the Wisconsin homeowner. I sat down with a state representative for over 2 hours going over what the pretend banksters are doing the the homeowners in this state. The theft on a grand scale the fraud that is required to commit the theft. How if the note and mortgage are split the mortgage is void and the note is unsecured and once split they can never be reconnected per the US Supreme Court and the Wisconsin Supreme Court. How this crime has clouded most of the titles in this state. The tens of millions of dollars the counties have lost from not recording the assignments of the notes.

    This state representative gave his permission to write this post and to post his contact information. He is waiting to here from each and everyone of you. Please tell everyone you know. Be prepared to speak before the state legislature once the bill is drafted. Below is his information. It is time to put up or shut up. No one will stand up for you unless you are willing to stand up for yourself first. Below is his contact information.

    Evan Wynn
    State Representative 43rd Assembly District

    P.O. Box 8953
    Madison, WI 53708-8953

    608-282-3643 fax
    888-534-0043 toll free
    262-470-2081 cell


  208. Meet state representative Jeff Fitzgerald tonight at the Fort Atkinson Library at 6:00 to discuss the banks involvement in the foreclosure fraud that is happening.

  209. Linda or whoever needs help email me at studly26@hotmail.com
    Racine WI

  210. Need more info. Your loan was sold Sept 1st of 2010? Who is currently foreclosing on you? Litton is a servicer not a creditor.

  211. Can someone give me some advice? We were scheduled for a phone hearing for a scheduling conference for foreclosure on Sept. 20 and just got notice from Litton that our mortgage was sold to Ocwen as of Sept. 1. If anyone else has had this happen I would appreciate any advice you could give me. Also they have kept 7,000 dollars in insurance checks for a hail damage claim since April.

  212. So, people, I just found out that my contact in the Wisconsin AG’s office left her job to go work for the Feds in DC with the DOJ-Consumer Fraud division. Then there was that article stating that the USDOJ is pressuring state AG’s to “settle” with the BIG FIVE. What am I missing? “DOJ tells States to stop prosecuting fraud?” Is that the headline we’re not seeing?

  213. Wis. Judge Found Dead of Gunshot Wound in Apparent Suicide

    The local community is in shock over the apparent suicide this week of a judge in Racine County, Wis. Circuit Court Judge Dennis Barry, 64, was found dead yesterday morning in Racine’s Lincoln Park not far from his car. He had suffered a gunshot wound to his head, reports the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
    There is no reported motive for the judge to commit suicide, but the county medical examiner said officials have authorities had “no reason to believe it was not a suicide,” the newspaper reports. Friends and colleagues described Barry as an unusually caring and devoted judge who was very active in his community.
    “He was always there if you needed him… He was one of the best judges Racine County had,” former state representative Bonnie Ladwig tells the Caledonia, Wis., Patch. “He was a caring person. He looked at all sides of story. He was thoughtful and thorough, and he wanted to do what was right.”
    Last seen leaving the courthouse at 3 p.m. on Wednesday afternoon, Barry was reported missing by his wife early the next morning, the Journal Sentinel says.
    Racine County Circuit Judge Eugene Gasiorkiewicz told the newspaper that Barry “devoted his legal career to the protection of the people of his community and the administration of justice in a fair and evenhanded manner.
    “He was devoted to his family, his community and to the concept of justice,” Gasiorkiewicz continued. “He was an excellent lawyer and an equally excellent judge.”
    A 1973 graduate of Marquette University Law School, Barry worked as an assistant Kenosha County prosecutor and in private practice before he was elected at a young age as Racine’s district attorney. Within two years he was appointed to the state-court bench in 1980, at age 33.
    He was also known for his work to reform juvenile justice laws, reports WHBL.
    “As defense attorneys, we do not always agree with the decisions made by the bench,” wrote attorney Adrienne Moore in an email to the Journal Times. She serves as first assistant in the Public Defenders Office Racine Region.
    “However, we respect those judges who are objective and do what they believe is appropriate. Judge Barry was one of those judges,” Moore wrote. “He did what he believed was appropriate despite what the district attorney or defense attorney might think or say. … He was one of Racine’s finest, and I for one will miss him dearly.”

    Comment: There was no apparent reason for this man to take his own life. I will continue to research his involvement with the foreclosure crisis and post more info as it becomes available. RPR

  214. Good day to all,

    I hope that everyone is doing well on this blessed Friday afternoon. My name is James and I am a Minister of the Lord, by Faith and Profession. I would like to thank Mr. Garfield for this wonderful site.

    I wanted to take a moment to tell you about our exciting experience getting the first “Vacation of Foreclosure” in the State of Michigan. We had refinanced our mortgage with First Franklin Financial back in 2006. Unfortunately, we were snookered into an Adjustable Rate. The beginning rate was 7.75% on a +$300,000.00 home. By January of 2009; the interest rate had increased to 9.875% and our payments were nearly $4,000.00 (after those bums added in escrow for taxes which, they had failed to do at the close).

    My wife and I both, attempted to seek some sort of remedy and so we made efforts to contact the bank (SERVICER) for consideration on our monthly payment. It was becoming too much for our retirement incomes and my preaching income. We had originally attempted to refinance with the family member of, one of our congregants (Mr. Dan Moss). We thought that it would be easy because we had good credit, reasonable income and not that many bills. The only problem was the fact that, we could not get refinanced because the best appraisal that we could get was for $215,000.00. That didn’t help so, Mr. Moss suggested that we request a loan modification. First Franklin kept us on the treadmill for nearly 7 months. Our modification was declined 2 times. First, they said that we didn’t make enough (we didn’t include the additional income from the Church). After we sent First Franklin the additional income documents; First Franklin denied our 2nd attempt and told us that, “it appears that you make enough income and should be able to handle the payments”.

    First Franklin wasted more than a half of a year, just to deny our request.

    I am not quite sure why Mr. Moss had continued with looking for other options, he could have easily said that, there’s nothing that could be done (like so many others) but by the Grace of God, Mr. Moss insured us that he was going to find some sort of way to get this problem solved. Around mid August of 2009; Mr. Moss came to us and said that, he had been researching foreclosure cases, all over the country and that, he felt like we had a chance of beating First Franklin (by this point, we were in default and First Franklin was sending us notices).

    Mr. Moss started having some Affidavits drafted for us and we began a very intense letter writing campaign, with the First Franklin. I was amazed at Dan’s work. He must have sent out at least 9 separate letters to First Franklin, BoA, US Bank, MERS, MI-AG, ABN Amro, Fannie Mae, the REO Agent, the securitized trust (whatever that is) and Title Co. Mr. Moss apparently, did more research than what we thought because we started getting back all sorts of letters from the banks. Mr. Moss had rattled some cages and the banks stepped up their efforts to foreclose. Some of the mailings sent, laid out the fact that, the way First Franklin had handled us and our mortgage was inappropriate, at best. I was pretty shocked because, I and my wife were frustrated with the whole situation and all we could do was pray. Dan told me, “Pastor, your life’s calling is based on Faith” and “you keep the Faith and let me worry about the banks” (that’s what we did and that’s what Mr. Moss did).

    The one thing that I didn’t know was the fact that, the whole time, Mr. Moss was building our Court Case by gathering information for the discovery portion. He even sent the most interest Affidavit to MERS and this was before the Michigan Court of Appeals Rulings on MERS. After that MERS letter; Mr. Moss advised us that, “we are currently in the drivers seat” and “it is time to take it to, the banks… we can’t go into a foreclosure case as, a defendant”. Mr. Moss secured a knowledgeable “Lead Attorney” because there weren’t any in Michigan. Mr. Moss and the attorney work very close, almost like a team. I told Mr. Moss that, as much as he had done and knew that, he should go into law (that guy told me, he had bigger things to do).

    The Sherriff’s Sale was in Feb. 2010 but we had the MI redemption period and that allowed us to continue on building the case. In August of 2010, we found a notice posted on our door from Fannie Mae, saying that, “we own your home”. This was even more confusing because, there were several other banks saying that they owned the house. I notified Mr. Moss and sent him a copy of the notice. He contacted Fannie and the REO Agent and told them basically to , buzz off. We never heard back from them again.

    We went into Court in Oct. 2010 and were shocked to find out that, we were going to get a “Stay of Eviction”, a full trial schedule and absolutely no escrows. I was literally blown away. And the funny thing is that, after the first appearance, Mr. Moss said that we needed to fire our crummy UAW/LS attorneys (they wanted us to dump the lead attorney, change our litigation so that they could request a new modification). Our original local attorney, DIDN’T GET IT and so, Mr. Moss got us another one.

    We told our new attorney (Mr. Moss told them) that, “all we need you for is to file, we don’t need you to think, we don’t need you to over bill, all we need are your legs” (the attorney still billed us more than what he did but in life, we must choose our battles wisely). The new local attorney agreed and within a matter of 7 months (mid June or so) the Judge (we love him) had issued the ruling that, “none of the defendants listed had standing to foreclose” and the Judge then “vacated our Foreclosure”.

    The Judge did leave one opening (Mr. Moss told us that the Judge didn’t want to known for giving away a “free house”) he had allowed for the “original lender” to initiate any future foreclosures.

    Here is the kicker, Mr. Moss had already enticed First Franklin into sending a letter saying that, “we’re only the servicer and do not own the loan” (we got this letter before we even went to our 1st appearance).

    Currently, we are working together and Mr. Moss is spearheading the damages portion of our litigation.

    Our family would like to thank Mr. Moss for all of his time, patience and thoughtfulness. I didn’t know that we would get the first “Vacation of Foreclosure” in Michigan and now we are going for the vacation of mortgage and then a few dollars for the trouble and worry the banks caused us by, not working with us.

    In closing, keep the Faith in God and then find the people who get it.

    God blessed us with Mr. Moss’ help and we felt that we owed him, the recognition for all of his assistance. I can tell you right now that you should let Mr. Moss and his attorneys “who get it”, work for you. Please tell Dan that, I referred you to him. Mr. Moss has even gone to considerable lengths in helping us to get the money to pay his back-end fee (we had some of it but expense always seem to, rear up). The gentleman isn’t very demanding. All he will ask you for is the admin. Fee and for you not to lose anymore sleep.
    Send me an email and I will give you Mr. Moss’ contact information or you can email him at:
    Have a wonderful evening, keep the Faith and Fight the GOOD Fight.
    Pastor James H.

  215. nate, we’ll talk tomorrow. go to bed.

  216. Well I’m winding it down to go to bed. Just finished putting together a folder with over 100 pages documenting the fraud being committed upon me and the Kenosha County Circuit Clerk’s Office. Have the feeling that the circuit judge will just issue a rubber stamp foreclosure like I hear has been happening but I have found the good fraud!!!! Funny bit of info I found that will make everybody here laugh, I was looking at my payoff statement that I received from my servicer and they actually charged me $30 for the fraudulent assignment of mortgage that the plaintiff’s own attorney drafted 3 months ago in order to prove standing in court! Now that’s funny! Anybody’s thought on that one?

  217. Stan< I called ya and usedkarguy, I emailed you. I look forward to talking to you all!!! It seems as every time I peel back another layer, it only gets more rotten.

  218. Nathan
    I am in Racine. Call tonite
    262 672 2543

  219. Nathan, e-mail me at usedkarguy@yahoo.com with a phone number, I’ll call you back.

  220. Stan, e-mail me with your “flint”.

  221. Stan, I’m working Monday, or I’d go with you. yes, Grass is in my crosshairs. Named them for wire fraud.

  222. Roger
    We must attack the records that the foreclosure mills are producing. You know the firm I am refering to. For the sake of this website lets us refer to them as Grass. You know the firm??? I have to submit my Chap 13 today and I have a hearing Monday at 2pm in Civil Court. I could use some encouragement since I am going to be there alone.
    I have a key to light a fire under the AG

  223. Currently being foreclosed on in Kenosha!!! This site has given me many answers. I need to get involved in these discussions. Bank of America has committed fraud on me and I have the paperwork to prove it!!!! I have a few questions I need to ask. Can some of you guys help me?

  224. Stan, did you get the Kenosha News today? Three pages of sheriff’s sales. The banks are going full speed ahead again in their quest for world domination. And now I’m watching the “Shorewest Realty” t.v. channel, and the houses in Milwaukee are down to $24,950. Almost everything is a short sale or a foreclosure. The houses are now less expensive than the cars I sell. Unbelievable! Big brick ranch homes for $59,000. How’s that recovery summer working for YOU? Anybody wanna move to Milwaukee? Lots of vacant homes for sale!

  225. Just a quick question. Does anyone know how much money the top 5 banks contributed to Van Hollen’s re-election?

  226. Roger, Scott and Brother and Sister Wisconsonites.
    Write your State Senators and State Assemblyman and Att General Van Hollen and ask them what is being done in this Stae to help the homeowner that is in foreclosure or had lost their house thru foreclosure with fraudulent documents and assignments. If you lost a house claim the summary judgment is void due to fraud. There are no time limits in claiming to void summary judgment since it lacked due process.
    Please keep up the fight. This is is a non partisan fight. Either we are free citizens or not free
    God Bless
    Racine WI

  227. (202) 225-3365

    this is the phone number to congressman SeanDuffy’s office in Washington, D.C. (Republican, Waukesha) Call this schmuck and tell him your house is being stolen with fraudulent documents tendered by the national banks. And remind him that he will not get another vote if he doesn’t change his tune.

  228. AG Van Hollen: Provides $230,000 grant to the Milwaukee Foreclosure Mediation Program

    For More Information Contact:

    Bill Cosh


    Of particular concern to me are the significant public safety concerns related to foreclosed and abandoned properties in Milwaukee… Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen

    MILWAUKEE – Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen announced today that he has renewed the agreement with Marquette University through its Law School for the Milwaukee Foreclosure Mediation Program and will provide a $230,000 grant to be used towards a third year of operation.

    Funding for the grant comes from the successful Countrywide Financial Corporation lawsuit. A portion of the proceeds from the Stipulated Judgment has been directed to fund the Milwaukee Foreclosure Mediation Program pursuant to a recommendation by the Milwaukee Foreclosure Partnership Initiative. In particular, the Attorney General will fund the participation of Marquette University Law School by supporting two positions necessary to implement the recommendation.

    “Our success in the Countrywide matter has made this possible. At the Mayor’s request and in concert with the Marquette University Law School and the Milwaukee Foreclosure Partnership Initiative, Countrywide proceeds can be put to work- as the court ordered them to – mediating potential home foreclosures,” Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said. “Of particular concern to me are the significant public safety concerns related to foreclosed and abandoned properties in Milwaukee,” he concluded.

    Marquette University Law School uses a trained chief mediator to lead mediation efforts, in addition to another full-time position providing administrative support. The chief and Law School faculty, together with an advisory board, work to recruit other qualified attorneys to volunteer their time toward the effort. Law students provide supervised volunteer assistance in the form of research, case management and other mediation-related activities.

    A one page memo of the Basic-Program Operation is available at:


    A copy of the second revised and restated Memorandum of Agreement is available at:


  229. County of Kenosha


    Summons and complaint



    Filing fee paid


    $ 265.50

    Additional Text:

    11R 019925



    Additional Text:

    of Roger P. & Desa L. pro se.



    Additional Text:

    Plaintiff’s List of Exhibits filed by Roger P. & Desa L. pro se.



    Additional Text:

    Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions Propounded on HSBC Bank USA National Association as Trustee for Wells Fargo Bank NA d/b/a Wells Fargo Home Mortgage d/b/a Wells Fargo Asset Securites Corporation d/b/a Wells Fargo Home Equity Asset-Backed Securities 2005-2 d/b/a America’s Servicing Company filed by Roger P. & Desa L.pro se.


    Proof of Service

    Additional Text:

    Service List.


    Affidavit of service

    Additional Text:

    Summons & Complaint served on Wells Fargo Bank National Association (X) on 06-15-2011.


    Affidavit of service

    Additional Text:

    Summons & Complaint served on Gray & Associates LLP (X) on 06-15-2011.

  230. To anyone and everyone,
    Has anybody that has lost their property thru a foreclosure know what happen to the promissory note?
    Does the banks destoy the notes or are the notes still on the banks books?
    If the bank still has your note are they(the Bank) still selling or trading those notes?

  231. Scot, Roger here…
    QWRs aren’t very helpful in and of themselves; they might give information, and if not answered may lead to some legal remedies. Your letter would be better sent under the auspices of Wis. Stats. 138.052(7s), which requires a response in 15 days, but it’s not clear that there’s a right to an answer after foreclosure.
    If they are still reporting, then you should be entitled to an answer.

  232. Some of you here know that I lost my home a few years back to a pretend lender. On my credit report BofA is listed as the lender but I know that Countrywide was the servicer and BofA bought out Countrywide. I called to get a pay off and payment history. I was told that there is still an outstanding balance and that they could not give me a payoff because the transferred the account to a different subservicer. I did not say nothing just kept my mouth shut. But they did fax me a payment history which shows I still owe over $79,000. The loan history couriously also shows payments made by the investor. The investor made 10 monthly payments on one day to bring the account current and than on the same day reversed the payments. I do not know why this happened. I can only guess. So I called BofA and they now state they cannot answer my questions as to who the investor is or anything else related to the loan history because they no longer have the file it was service released. Yet they could give me a print out of the loan history in less than 24 hours via fax. BofA is still reporting on my credit report as the lender.

  233. Send To: foiapa@sec.gov
    Subject Line: FOIAPA Request

    Scot Krueger
    Street Address
    City, St, Zip

    Date: June 7, 2011

    U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission
    100 F Street, NE
    Mail Code 5100
    Washington, DC 20549

    Dear Sir:

    Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), please send me all the records of any and all complaints complaints be it consumer complaints, private complaints, corporate complaints. In short any and all complaints legal or otherwise as it pertains to IMH Assets Corp., collateralized Asset-Backed Bonds, Series 2001-3, with Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. f/k/a Bankers Trust Co. a CA. N.A., as Indenture Trustee under the Indenture relating to IMH Assets Corp., collateralized Asset-Backed Bonds, Series 2001-3. that the SEC has received since June 1, 1995. I will pay up to $100.00 for search and review fees. My daytime telephone number is (920)_xxx-xxxx



  234. Lis
    Are you the one I talked to at the Clinic today?
    Frm Salem????
    Racine Wi

  235. Lisa
    It is good that you answered the summons and complaint. What does the lat modification say about default. How many payment behind are you?
    What County? Do you have a fannie or freddie loan?

    262 672 2543

  236. CORRECTION: Equifirst is NOT the original lender; for, we close on our home in Oct. of 2001.

  237. Hello,

    I live in WI. and have the atty for US Bank Nationl Trust c/o GMAC wants to rush the foreclosure. I got the Motion for summary Judgement paperwork in the mail. I am currently trying to find WI law to back my foreclosure defense. The assignment was assigned to trust and lender by MERS (not legal) and ELECTRONICALLY FILED way in Dec 2010, but closed in Dec 2005. Equifirst is the the original lender, we closed on our home in Oct of 2001. Our loan was modified in 2005 and once again in 2008 or 2009, when the govt told the banks to hold off on adjusting the Arms for another five years. I did reply to complaint, but did not do it right…just bascically answered deny for most of it, figuring proof was the burden of the plaintiff. The exhibits entered prove nothing. I could really use some help in clarifying what laws to use within my defense, and how to stop this summary for judgement hearing from moving forward. The plaintiff has not proved their case; however, if the judge is satisfied with an electronically filed assignment without dates that are off, and an affidavit from people who will not be in court…well, I am sure you get my jist..and no original note..furthermore our mortgage is part of a pooling and service agreement…this rabbit hole is quite deep and makes me quite angry; for, this case is one that should be added to many to not only save our homes, but literally take down these banks and Fannie Mae/Freddie who have and continue to profit the most from this scam…our government is behind this..this is no small battle folks.

  238. Roger, I couldn’t have said it better myself. All they are doing at Dane County is leading the lambs to slaughter. That being said it was nice to finally meet you, your wife and Tom. When should we schedule our next meeting.


    So we show up at this “Foreclosure Defense Workshop” put on by Dane County Legal Aid and Green Path Credit Counseling. I say “we” being Scott, Tom, and myself. We’re stopped at the door and, after being referred to as “you Livinglies guys”, we’re told that we can’t speak. We can’t put out the 100 pounds of briefs and pleadings and…. We can’t discuss legal matters. “You see, I’m not a lawyer, and, well, we can’t, you know….” What? “Well, you guys are way over everybody’s heads in there (being the meeting room), and, well, some of these people really can’t afford the house they’re in and they, you know……”

    NO, I don’t know. What I do know,and what Tom and Scott know, and what everybody on this blog, and MSFraud, and 4ClosureFraud, and every other respectable foreclosure defense website knows, is that THE BANKS BROKE THE LAW. THEY DIDN’T RECORD THE SECURITY INTEREST, AND THIS STATE (Wisconsin) REQUIRES PROOF OF SECURITY INTEREST TO TAKE SOMEONES’ PROPERTY. IT’S A LIEN STATE.

    What I also know is that the people in that room are doomed. They will be fed the pablum that they should contact their servicer and try to get a modification. Maybe give a “deed in lieu”, or just take their lumps and write off the experience to, well, experience.

    “That house is a lot of responsibility. A big LIABILITY. You might just want to move on…..”
    Pray for them.

    I remember paying a lawyer $500, just to tell me that same thing. I didn’t listen. And you know what? I’m a better man for it today. And so are the people who struggle to fight this battle in an arena that nobody wants you to understand: the law and the courts.

    And don’t think for a second that the powers that be, the media, academia, the politicos in the ruling class, don’t think that these people DON’T know. They do. They know the mortgages are unsecured. They know the banks broke the law. And they know that if they can keep the lid on this, they’ll pull it off.

    Oh, about that meeting……
    Frankly, we don’t know what they told those people in that room. We didn’t go in. We just know that it wasn’t going to be the truth. There was not going to be any bank bashing, or judge bashing, or lawyer bashing going on in there. No trying to empower people. No inspiration. No knowledge being shared. At least not the kind that might give your bank any inkling that YOU ARE READY TO FIGHT!

    “We’re not lawyers, so we can’t do any legal discussions here. There is a lady here who is a lawyer, and she’ll talk to you in this room over here….”

    So we three got to talk amongst ourselves, and we talked to the attorney, and, well, I never got her card.

    But the three of us all left with something that we didn’t have prior to our arrival: a face to go with the friendship that built over the past 2 or 3 years of e-mails, phone calls, and reading each other’s postings. 4 hours in the car, a $34 mexican dinner that was quite enjoyable, and 2 guys that my wife and I may call “our friends”.

    And for that, I want to thank Mr. Garfield.

  240. Scot K, and anyone in Wisconsin: I was reading the Wisconsin Statutes last night under Money and Interest Wi. Stat. Ch.138:

    138.056 138.056  Variable rate loans.

    138.056(3) (3) Fees prohibited. No costs or fees may be charged in connection with adjustment to the interest rate of a variable rate loan or an adjustment to the payment, principal balance or term implementing an interest rate adjustment.

    So, let’s see here. I made three “trial payments” and I got a statement that says
    Fee: $999.95
    Fee: $999.95
    Fee: $999.95


    See you tonight at 5:30 in Madison at the meeting.

  241. Ian, you do not need your old loan number. You just need the basics. The name of the title company that closed your home loan, the date you closed and the title company should be able to get the information you need. If you still have your HUD1 Settlement Statement the document that shows you all the fees that were charged on your home loan the title company also assigns their own file number to each closing. This number is usually found on the at the top of the first page of the HUD1 next to the name of the title company. Hope this helps.

  242. Ian, my title company offered no resistance to providing a copy of the funding check. I don’t think he wants to antagonize me.

  243. Ian, you need to contact the title company that closed your loan and ask for a copy of the wire confirmation that funded your loan. The title company most likely will say they do not know what you are talking about. But they do. Just respond did the lender write the title company a check, did they overnight a certified check, drop off cash or did they wire the funds to the title company’s escrow account. You want a copy of the confirmation of the funds that funded your loan and a copy of the closing instructions. To see if the closing instructions will tell you where the title company should send any left over funds . If there are any left over funds the title company will be instructed to send the funds back to the real lender.

    Everyone the meeting in Madison this Thursday at Madison Area Technical College is located at 3550 Anderson Street Room 142A

  244. Thursday, May 12
    Foreclosure Defense meeting
    Madison Area Technical College.
    3550 Anderson Street, Madison, WI 53704

    Thank you, Scott Krueger, for the e-mail and reminder.
    Roger Rinaldi

  245. Ian
    Yes Scot has contributed much for the people of Wis. I find it frustrating that I see 3 pages of foreclosures and I am the only person in Racine arguing pro se.
    Who closed your loan? The title people. You can contact the title people to ask for a copy of the wire receipt with the name of who funded the loan.
    If your house was auctioned off ask the clerk who put up the 10% of the bid if any for deposit. Ian contact usedkarguy to get in touch with me.

  246. Scot Krueger- great post. What is generally the best way to find the wire number for a loan or refinance, if the ” lender” is long ago out of business, etc.? Appreciate any help. This topic isn’t discussed much on LL.

  247. You need to get a copy of the wire confirmation that funded your home loan. If the wire did not come from the same lender that is mentioned on your note and mortgage than wire fraud was committed. You should look into pressing charges against both the pretend lender that is listed on the note and the entity listed on the wire confirmation. See the legal definition of wire fraud below.

    18 USC 1343, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to use interstate wire communications facilities in carrying out a scheme to defraud.

    A person can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

    First: That the person knowingly and willfully devised a scheme to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false pretenses, representations or promises; and

    Second: That the person knowingly transmitted or caused to be transmitted by wire in interstate commerce some sound for the purpose of executing the scheme to defraud.

    It is not necessary that the Government prove all of the details concerning the precise nature and purpose of the scheme; or that the material transmitted by wire was itself false or fraudulent; or that the alleged scheme actually succeeded in defrauding anyone; or that the use of interstate wire communications facilities was intended as the specific or exclusive means of accomplishing the alleged fraud.

    What must be proved is that the person knowingly and willfully devised or intended to devise a scheme to defraud; and that the use of the interstate wire communications facilities was closely related to the scheme because the person either wired something or caused it to be wired in interstate commerce in an attempt to execute or carry out the scheme.

    To “cause” interstate wire facilities to be used is to do an act with knowledge that the use of the wires will follow in the ordinary course of business or where such use can reasonably be foreseen.

    Each separate use of the interstate wire facilities in furtherance of a scheme to defraud constitutes a separate offense.

  248. Roger
    Do you have Neil’s email. I am ready to file fraud upon the court. I can send you a copy of the brief. I will email you. I have some papers on China Brown
    signer for ASC (WF) in S. Carolina

    But every time I read that, I know they were talking about this kind of situation. No case law.

  250. Here’s today’s lesson on causes of action in Wisconsin:

    1. Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices – Sec.100.18 WI Stats
    2. Door to Door solicitation acts (for you guys that did the re-fi on the hood of your car at the Shell Station)
    3. Common Law Fraud and Misrepresentation
    4. Common Law Unconscionability
    5. Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty
    6. Contract Claims, including the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
    7. Negligent Supervision of Employees (I LIKE IT!)
    8. Sec. 224.77, Discipline of Mortgage Bankers, Loan Originators and Mortgage Brokers – private cause of action under Sec. 224.8
    9. Wisconsin Consumer Act (little FTC)
    10. Violations of Agricultural Trade Consumer Protection Rules, Agriculture, Trade Consumer Protection Chapter 110.05(1)(ATCP). Plaintiffs have the right to assert claims against holders of the loan because the holders take subject to all claims and defensesof the buyer. SEE Wis. Admin. Code Sec. ATCP 110.06
    11. Loss by Theft, Sec. 895.80 and Sec.943.20, Wis. Stats. (I am checking into “Attempted Theft by Conversion”.


    This does not constitute legal advice. I am not a practioner of law nor do I profess to be. This is some cool stuff I received from:

    Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee
    521 N. 8th Street
    Milwaukee, WI 53233
    (414) 727-5331

    A nice lady named Catherine Doyle provided this information.
    Call and ask for:


    THURSDAY, MAY 12, 2011



  252. Let’s take this show on the road…..

    Thursday APRIL 21ST 5:00 P.M.
    Madison Area Technical College.
    3550 Anderson Street, Madison, WI 53704

    per my friend Scotty K.: “there is also a meeting this Thursday at the MATC in Madison at 5:00. I am meeting Tom Wuensch from La Cross. I believe you and he have spoken a few times.”

    Yes, looking forward to it. Stan, can you make it?


    Our friends at Greenpath are offering a free foreclosure workshop for people in and around Dane County. Please see the information below.

    What: Foreclosure Answer Clinic – a FREE walk-in legal clinic

    Who: For homeowners who have received a Foreclosure Summons and Complaint

    When: 11:00 am – 1:00 pm, Thursday, April 7, 2011

    Where: City-County Building, Room 354, 210 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.


    Thank you for your help in disseminating this vital information.

    Dane County homeowners facing foreclosure have access to a free legal clinic staffed by volunteer lawyers and law students. The Foreclosure Answer Clinic is held the 1st and 3rd Thursdays of each month from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on the 3rd floor of the City-County Building, 210 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd, Madison. The clinic operates on a walk-in basis, no appointments are necessary. Homeowners should bring their Summons and Complaint as well as any other relevant paperwork.

    The purpose of the clinic is to provide homeowners in foreclosure with basic legal information. Time is of the essence as homeowners generally have only 20 calendar days from the date they receive the initial lawsuit papers to file a formal response. The goal of the program is to increase access to the legal system. A recent sampling of court filings shows that in 85% of cases in Dane County homeowners face foreclosure without the benefit of legal counsel. The clinic will help those who are unrepresented become more engaged in the process. Experience shows that homeowners who engage in the process early have better opportunities for a positive outcome.

    The Foreclosure Answer Clinic is a collaborative effort of the Dane County Foreclosure Prevention Taskforce, the Dane County Bar Association and the UW Law School, with grant funding provided by the State Bar of Wisconsin and other support provided by Dane County.

    Who We Are. The Dane County Foreclosure Prevention Taskforce is a coalition of public agencies, non-profit service providers and other community partners working together to develop sustainable alternatives to foreclosure in Dane County. For more information, please visit daneforeclosurehelp.org.

    Our Mission. To develop and implement a coordinated response to the current foreclosure problem in Dane County.

    Ellen Bernards

    Community Relations & Education Specialist

    GreenPath, Inc.

    (608) 576-8658


  254. Court: Busted Securitization Prevents Foreclosure
    By ABIGAIL FIELD Posted 6:25 PM 04/01/11 Columns, Bank of America, Real Estate
    Comments Print Text Size A A A
    Print this page|EmailShare on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on DiggShare on Lifestream
    On March 30, an Alabama judge issued a short, conclusory order that stopped foreclosure on the home of a beleaguered family, and also prevents the same bank in the case from trying to foreclose against that couple, ever again. This may not seem like big news — but upon review of the underlying documents, the extraordinarily important nature of the decision and the case becomes obvious.

    No Securitization, No Foreclosure

    The couple involved, the Horaces, took out a predatory mortgage with Encore Credit Corp in November, 2005. Apparently Encore sold their loan to EMC Mortgage Corp, who then tried to securitize it in a Bear Stearns deal. If the securitization had been done properly, in February 2006 the trust created to hold the loans would have acquired the Horace loan. Once the Horaces defaulted, as they did in 2007, the trustee would have been able to foreclose on the Horaces.

    And that’s why this case is so big: the judge found the securitization of the Horace loan wasn’t done properly, so the trustee — LaSalle National Bank Association, now part of Bank of America (BAC) — couldn’t foreclose. In making that decision, the judge is the first to really address the issue, head-on: If a screwed-up securitization process meant a loan never got securitized, can a bank foreclose under the state versions of the Uniform Commercial Code anyway? This judge says no, finding that since the securitization was busted, the trust didn’t have the right to foreclose, period.

    Since the judge’s order doesn’t explain, how should people understand his decision? Luckily, the underlying documents make the judge’s decision obvious.

    No Endorsements

    The key contract creating the securitization is called a “Pooling and Servicing Agreement” (pooling as in creating a pool of mortgages, and servicing as in servicing those mortgages.) The PSA for the deal involving the Horace mortgage is here and has very specific requirements about how the trust can acquire loans. One of the easiest requirements to check is the way the loan’s promissory note is supposed to be endorsed — just look at the note.

    Sponsored Links
    According to Section 2.01 of the PSA, the note should have been endorsed from Encore to EMC to a Bear Stearns entity. At that point, Bear could either endorse the note specifically to the trustee, or endorse it “in blank.” But the note produced was simply endorsed in blank by Encore. As a result, the trust never got the Horace loan, explained securitization expert Tom Adams in his affidavit.

    But wait, argued the bank, it doesn’t matter if if the trust owns the loan — it just has to be a “holder” under the Alabama version of the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code), and the trust is a holder. The problem with that argument is securitization trusts aren’t allowed to simply take property willy-nilly. In fact, to preserve their special tax status, they are forbidden from taking property after their cut-off dates, which in this case was February 28, 2006. As a result, if the trust doesn’t own the loan according to the PSA it can’t receive the proceeds of the foreclosure or the title to the home, even if it’s allowed to foreclose as a holder.

    Holder Status Can’t Solve Standing Problem

    Allowing a trust to foreclose based on holder status when it doesn’t own the loan would seem to create yet another type of clouded title issue. I mean, it’s absurd to say the trust foreclosed and took title as a matter of the UCC, but to also have it be true that the trust can’t take title as a matter of its own formational documents. And what would happen to the proceeds of the foreclosure sale? That’s why people making this type of argument keep pointing out that the UCC allows people to contract around it and PSAs are properly viewed as such a contracting around agreement.

    I’m sure the bank’s side will claim the judge was wrong, that he disagreed with another recent Alabama case that’s been heavily covered, US Bank vs. Congress. And there is a superficial if flat disagreement: In this case, the judge said the Horaces were beneficiaries of the PSA and so could raise the issue of the loan’s ownership; in Congress the judge said the homeowners weren’t party to the PSA and so couldn’t raise the issue.

    But as Adam Levitin explained, the Congress decision was procedurally weird, and as a result the PSA argument wasn’t about standing, as it was in Horace and generally would be in foreclosure cases (as opposed to eviction cases, like Congress). And what did happen to the Congress proceeds? How solid is that securitization trust’s tax status now anyway?

    In short, in the only case I can find that has ruled squarely on the issue, a busted securitization prevents foreclosure by the trust that thinks it owns the loan. Yes, it’s just one case, and an Alabama trial level one at that. But it’s still significant.

    Homeowners Right to Raise Securitization Issue

    As far as right-to-raise-the-ownership issue, I think the Horace judge was just being “belt and suspenders” in finding the homeowners were beneficiaries of the PSA. Why do homeowners have to be beneficiaries of the PSA to raise the issue of the trust’s ownership of their loans? The homeowners aren’t trying to enforce the agreement, they’re simply trying to show the foreclosing trust doesn’t have standing. Standing is a threshold issue to any litigation and the homeowners axiomatically have the right to raise it.

    As Nick Wooten, the Horaces’ attorney, said:

    “This is just one example of hundreds I have seen where servicers were trying to force through a foreclosure in the name of a trust that clearly had no interest in the underlying loan according to the terms of the pooling and servicing agreement. This conduct is a fraud on the borrower, a fraud on the investors and a fraud on the court. Thankfully Judge Johnson recognized the utter failure of the securitization transaction and would not overlook the fact that the trust had no interest in this loan.”

    All that remains for the Horaces, a couple with a special needs child and whose default was triggered not only by the predatory nature of the loan, but also by Mrs. Horace’s temporary illness and Mr. Horace’s loss of overtime, is to ask a jury to compensate them for the mental anguish caused by the wrongful foreclosure.

    Perhaps BofA will just want to cut a check now, rather than wait for that verdict. (As of publication BofA had not returned a request for comment.)

    No one is suggesting the Horaces get a free house; they still owe their debt, and whomever they owe it to has the right to foreclose on it. Wooten explained to me that the depositor –in this case, the Bear Stearns entity –i s probably that party. Moreover if the Horaces wanted to sell and move, they’d have to quiet title and would be wise to escrow the mortgage pay off amount, if that amount can be figured out. But for now the Horaces get some real peace, even if a larger mess remains.

    Much Bigger Than A Single Foreclosure

    The Horaces aren’t the only ones affected by the issues in this case.

    Homeowners everywhere that are being foreclosed on by securitization trusts — many, many people — can start making these arguments. And if their loan’s PSA is like the Horaces, they should win. At least, Wooten hopes so:

    “Judge Johnson stopped a fraud in progress. I am hopeful that other courts will consider more seriously the very serious issues that are easily obscured in the flood of foreclosures that are overwhelming our Courts and reject the systemic and ongoing fraud that is being perpetrated by the mortgage servicers. Until Courts actively push back against the massive documentary fraud being shoveled at them by mortgage servicers this fraudulent conduct will not end.”

    The issues stretch past homeowners to investors, too.

    Investors in this particular mortgage-backed security, take note: What are the odds that the Horace note is the only one that wasn’t properly endorsed? I’d say nil, and not just because evidence in other cases, such as Kemp from New Jersey, suggests the practice was common. This securitization deal was done by Bear Stearns, which other litigation reveals was far from careful with its securitizations. So the original investors in this deal should speed dial their lawyers.

    And investors in bubble-vintage mortgage backed securities, the ones that went from AAA gold to junk overnight, might want to call their attorneys too; this deal was in 2006, and in the securitization frenzy that followed processes can only have gotten worse.

    Some investors are already suing, but the cases are at very early stages. Nonetheless, as cases like the Horaces’ come to light, the odds seem to tilt in investors’ favor — meaning they seem increasingly likely to ultimately succeed in forcing banks to buy back securities or pay damages for securities fraud connected with their sale. And that makes the Bank Bailout II scenario detailed by the Congressional Oversight Panel more possible.

    The final, very striking feature of this case is what didn’t happen: No piece of paper covered in the proper endorsements –an allonge — magically appeared at the eleventh hour. The magical appearance of endorsements, whether on notes or on allonges, has been a hallmark of foreclosures done in the robosigning era. And investors, as you pursue your suits based on busted securitizations, that’s something to watch out for.

    My, but the banks made a mess when they forced the fee-machine of mortgage securitizations into overdrive. The consequences are still unfolding, but one consequence just might be a whole lot of properties that securitization trusts can’t foreclose on.

    See full article from DailyFinance: http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/real-estate/court-busted-securitization-prevents-foreclosure/19900530/?icid=sphere_copyright

  255. NOTICE
    March 24, 2011
    A. John Voelker
    Acting Clerk of Court of Appeals
    This opinion is subject to further editing. If
    published, the official version will appear in
    the bound volume of the Official Reports.
    A party may file with the Supreme Court a
    petition to review an adverse decision by the
    Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
    and RULE 809.62.
    Appeal No. 2010AP1909 Cir. Ct. No. 2008CV2441
    APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Rock County:
    JAMES WELKER, Judge. Reversed.
    Before Vergeront, P.J., Lundsten and Blanchard, JJ.
    ¶1 LUNDSTEN, J. This appeal involves a foreclosure action initiated
    by Aurora Loan Services against David and Nancy Carlsen. Following a court
    trial, the circuit court granted judgment of foreclosure in favor of Aurora, finding
    that Aurora is the holder of the note and owner of the mortgage and that the
    No. 2010AP1909
    Carlsens were in default. We conclude that the circuit court’s finding that Aurora
    was the holder of the note, a finding essential to the judgment, is not supported by
    admissible evidence. We therefore reverse the judgment.
    ¶2 Aurora Loan Services brought a foreclosure suit against David and
    Nancy Carlsen, alleging that Aurora was the holder of a note and owner of a
    mortgage signed by the Carlsens encumbering the Carlsens’ property. The
    Carlsens denied several allegations in the complaint and, especially pertinent here,
    denied that Aurora was the holder of the note. Aurora moved for summary
    judgment, but that motion was denied.
    ¶3 A trial to the court was held on June 9, 2010. Aurora called one of
    its employees, Kelly Conner, as its only witness. Aurora attempted to elicit
    testimony from Conner establishing a foundation for the admission of several
    documents purportedly showing that Aurora was the holder of a note that
    obligated the Carlsens to make payments and that the Carlsens were in default. It
    is sufficient here to say that the Carlsens’ attorney repeatedly objected to questions
    and answers based on a lack of personal knowledge and lack of foundation, and
    that the circuit court, for the most part, sustained the objections. Aurora’s counsel
    did not move for admission of any of the documents into evidence. After the
    evidentiary portion of the trial, and after hearing argument, the circuit court made
    findings of fact and entered a foreclosure judgment in favor of Aurora. The
    Carlsens appeal. Additional facts will be presented below as necessary.
    No. 2010AP1909
    ¶4 It is undisputed that, at the foreclosure trial, Aurora had the burden
    of proving, among other things, that Aurora was the current “holder” of a note
    obligating the Carlsens to make payments to Aurora. Because Aurora was not the
    original note holder, Aurora needed to prove that it was the current holder, which
    meant proving that it had been assigned the note. There appear to be other failures
    of proof, but in this opinion we focus our attention solely on whether Aurora
    presented evidence supporting the circuit court’s findings that “the business
    records of Aurora Loan Services show … a chain of assignment of that … note”
    and that “Aurora is the holder of the note.”
    ¶5 As to assignment of the note, the Carlsens’ argument is simple: the
    circuit court’s findings are clearly erroneous because there was no admissible
    evidence supporting a finding that Aurora had been assigned the note. The
    Carlsens contend that, during the evidentiary portion of the trial, the circuit court
    properly sustained objections to Aurora’s assignment evidence, but the court then
    appears to have relied on mere argument of Aurora’s counsel to make factual
    findings on that topic. We agree.
    ¶6 We focus our attention on a document purporting to be an
    assignment of the note and mortgage from Mortgage Electronic Registration
    Systems to Aurora. At trial, this document was marked as Exhibit D. Although
    Aurora’s counsel seemed to suggest at one point that certain documents, perhaps
    including Exhibit D, were certified, the circuit court determined that the
    No. 2010AP1909
    documents were not certified. Under WIS. STAT. § 889.17,1 certified copies of
    certain documents are admissible in evidence based on the certification alone.
    Aurora does not contend that Exhibit D is admissible on this basis.
    ¶7 Aurora argues that Conner’s testimony is sufficient to support the
    circuit court’s finding that Aurora had been assigned the note. Our review of her
    testimony, however, reveals that Conner lacked the personal knowledge needed to
    authenticate Exhibit D. See WIS. STAT. § 909.01 (documents must be
    authenticated to be admissible, and this requirement is satisfied “by evidence
    sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent
    claims”). Relevant here, Conner made general assertions covering several
    documents. Conner either affirmatively testified or agreed to leading questions
    with respect to the following:
    · She works for Aurora.
    · She “handle[s] legal files” and she “attend[s] trials.”
    · “Aurora provided those documents that are in [her] possession.”
    · She “reviewed the subject file” in preparing for the hearing.
    · She declined to agree that she is the “custodian of records for
    · She “look[s] at documentation … [does] not physically handle
    original notes and documents, but [she does] acquire
    · “Aurora [is] the custodian of records for this loan.”
    1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2009-10 version unless otherwise
    No. 2010AP1909
    · She is “familiar with records that are prepared in the ordinary course
    of business.”
    · She has “authority from Aurora to testify as to the documents, of
    [Aurora’s] records.”
    As it specifically pertains to Exhibit D, the document purporting to evidence the
    assignment of the note and mortgage from Mortgage Electronic Registration
    Systems to Aurora, Conner testified:
    · Aurora has “possession of Exhibit D.”
    · Exhibit D is “an assignment of mortgage.”
    With respect to possession of Exhibit D, Conner did not assert that Exhibit D was
    an original or that Aurora had possession of the original document. For that
    matter, Conner did not provide a basis for a finding that any original document she
    might have previously viewed was what it purported to be.2
    ¶8 Thus, Conner did no more than identify herself as an Aurora
    employee who was familiar with some unspecified Aurora documents, who had
    reviewed some Aurora documents, and who had brought some documents,
    including Exhibit D, to court. Although Conner was able to say that Exhibit D, on
    its face, was an assignment, she had no apparent personal knowledge giving her a
    basis to authenticate that document. See WIS. STAT. § 909.01.
    2 Our summary of Conner’s testimony omits several assertions Conner made that were
    stricken by the circuit court. Similarly, we have not included examples of the circuit court
    repeatedly sustaining hearsay and foundation objections. For example, the court repeatedly
    sustained objections to Aurora’s attempts to have Conner testify that Aurora “owns” the note.
    Aurora does not and could not reasonably argue that the Carlsens have not preserved their
    authentication objections. The Carlsens’ attorney repeatedly and vigorously objected on hearsay,
    foundation, and authentication grounds. The record clearly reflects that the Carlsens were
    objecting to the admission of all of Aurora’s proffered documents on the ground that Conner
    lacked sufficient knowledge to lay a foundation for admission.
    No. 2010AP1909
    ¶9 Aurora points to various provisions in WIS. STAT. chs. 401 and 403,
    such as those relating to the definition of a “holder” (WIS. STAT.
    § 401.201(2)(km)), to a person entitled to enforce negotiable instruments (WIS.
    STAT. § 403.301), and to the assignment of negotiable instruments (WIS. STAT.
    §§ 403.203, 403.204, and 403.205). This part of Aurora’s argument addresses the
    underlying substantive law regarding persons entitled to enforce negotiable
    instruments, such as the type of note at issue here, but it says nothing about
    Aurora’s proof problems. That is, Aurora’s discussion of the underlying law does
    not demonstrate why Exhibit D was admissible to prove that Aurora had been
    assigned the note and was, under the substantive law Aurora discusses, a party
    entitled to enforce the note.
    ¶10 Similarly, Aurora discusses the relationship between a note and a
    mortgage and, in particular, the equitable assignment doctrine. But here again
    Aurora’s discussion fails to come to grips with Aurora’s failure to authenticate
    Exhibit D, the document purporting to be an assignment of the note to Aurora.
    Aurora points to testimony in which Conner asserted that Aurora acquired and
    possessed Exhibit D, but possession of Exhibit D is meaningless without
    authentication of the exhibit.
    ¶11 Aurora argues that we may look at the “record as a whole,”
    including summary judgment materials, to sustain the circuit court’s factual
    findings. Thus, for example, Aurora asks us to consider an affidavit filed with its
    summary judgment motion. In that affidavit, an Aurora senior vice-president
    avers that the note was assigned to Aurora, that the assignment was recorded with
    the Rock County Register of Deeds, and that Aurora is the holder of the note. This
    argument is meritless. Aurora was obliged to present its evidence at trial. It could
    not rely on the “record as a whole” and, in particular, it could not rely on summary
    No. 2010AP1909
    judgment materials that were not introduced at trial. See Holzinger v. Prudential
    Ins. Co., 222 Wis. 456, 461, 269 N.W. 306 (1936). For that matter, even if Aurora
    had, at trial, proffered the affidavit of its senior vice-president, the affidavit would
    have been inadmissible hearsay. See WIS. STAT. § 908.01(3) (“‘Hearsay’ is a
    statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or
    hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.”).
    ¶12 In sum, Aurora failed to authenticate Exhibit D, the document
    purporting to be an assignment of the note. Thus, regardless of other alleged proof
    problems relating to that note and the Carlsens’ alleged default, the circuit court’s
    finding that Aurora was the holder of the note is clearly erroneous—no admissible
    evidence supports that finding. Aurora failed to prove its case, and it was not
    entitled to a judgment of foreclosure.
    By the Court.—Judgment reversed.
    Not recommended for publication in the official reports.

    This is a ghreat case–and we should more for publication

    I and others have tried to get mods from the bank . They will pull every trick in the book even with Fannie Mae loans. They employ attorneys in Wis. to foreclose; Illegally if necessary. WF has a robosigner operation with ASC in SC. I have a letter from the Office of the President that Robosigning is ok with a Judicial State because the papers are overseen by a judge. I wrote the Wis AG and they wrote back and told get an attorney. We do not represent individual cases. They never give a reason or tell you they pulled your credit report violating FCRA. They don’t care unless they are squezed into a corner and then they will make an undisclosed settlement. It is sickining to read 3 pages of foreclosures in Racine’s Newspapers and most of the Plaintiffs are Wells Fargo and all the cases get rubberstamped by the judges. I am going to appeal and ask for money. If the judges won’t do it I will ask for a jury trial and cite RICO so damages can be awarded.
    Stan Putra
    Racine, Wi




    January 20, 2011


    This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports.

    A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10 and RULE 809.62.

    Appeal No. 2010AP477 Cir. Ct. No. 2007CV242












    APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Jefferson County: JACQUELINE R. ERWIN, Judge. Reversed and cause remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

    Before Vergeront, P.J., Lundsten and Blanchard, JJ.

    ¶1 PER CURIAM. Diane and Mario Cano appeal a foreclosure judgment. The Canos contend that (1) the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in granting the Bank of New York’s motion to reopen its foreclosure action against the Canos; and (2) the court erred in granting summary judgment to the Bank. We conclude that the court properly reopened the foreclosure action, but that the Bank did not establish a prima facie case for summary judgment. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.


    ¶2 The Bank filed this foreclosure action against the Canos in April 2007. The circuit court dismissed the action without prejudice in August 2008, but reopened the case on the Bank’s motion in February 2009.

    ¶3 The Bank moved for summary judgment in October 2009, attaching affidavits by its attorney and a loan servicing agent stating that the Canos had not made the required payments on their mortgage. At the summary judgment hearing, the court granted the Canos additional time to respond to the summary judgment motion. In December 2009, the Canos submitted an answer to the motion for summary judgment. The answer included a statement by Diane Cano that she had made all of her necessary mortgage payments, but her statement was not notarized.

    ¶4 The circuit court initially denied the Bank’s summary judgment motion. The bank moved for reconsideration on December 28, 2009, and the court granted the motion the next day, thereby granting summary judgment to the Bank. The Canos appeal.


    ¶5 The Canos contend that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by reopening the Bank’s foreclosure action under WIS. STAT. § 806.07(1)(h) (2007-08),(1) which authorizes relief from a judgment for “any reasons justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” They contend that the court erred by failing to consider the following factors set forth in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Brunswick Corp., 2007 WI App 221, 305 Wis. 2d 400, 740 N.W.2d 888:

    1. Whether the judgment was the result of the conscientious, deliberate, well-informed choice of the claimant;

    2. Whether the claimant received the effective assistance of counsel;

    3. Whether relief is sought from a judgment to which there has been no judicial consideration of the merits and the interest of deciding the particular case on the merits outweighs the finality of judgments;

    4. Whether there is a meritorious defense to the claim; and

    5. Whether there are intervening circumstances making it inequitable to grant relief.

    Id., ¶7 (citation omitted). The Canos contend that the circuit court erred by relying on the fact that the Canos did not oppose the reopening of the case at the motion hearing rather than analyzing these factors. Additionally, they contend that the court’s finding that the Canos did not oppose the reopening of the case was erroneous because Mario Cano stated in court that he opposed the foreclosure action on the merits, and Diane Cano subsequently wrote to the court stating that she objected to the reopening of the case.

    ¶6 The Bank responds that relief from the dismissal order is properly analyzed under WIS. STAT. § 805.03 rather than WIS. STAT. § 806.07(1)(h), because the court’s order dismissing the foreclosure action was not on the merits. See § 805.03 (a dismissal for failure to prosecute or comply with rules or court orders that is not on the merits “may be set aside by the court for good cause shown and within a reasonable time”). The Bank argues that the court’s dismissal was expressly not on the merits, and that the Bank moved to reopen the case for good cause within a reasonable time after the Canos did not cure their default as contemplated under the dismissal order.

    ¶7 We conclude that the circuit court’s decision to reopen the foreclosure action is properly analyzed under WIS. STAT. § 806.07(1)(h). Section 806.07(1)(h) is a “catch-all provision” that “gives the [circuit] court broad discretionary authority and invokes the pure equity power of the court” to grant relief from judgments, orders, and stipulations. Sukala v. Heritage Mut. Ins. Co., 2005 WI 83, ¶9, 282 Wis. 2d 46, 698 N.W.2d 610. In contrast, WIS. STAT. § 805.03 applies when dismissal was “[f]or failure of any claimant to prosecute or for failure of any party to comply with the statutes governing procedure in civil actions or to obey any order of the court.” Here, the court dismissed the foreclosure action based on the parties’ agreement to work on repayment rather than for a failure to prosecute or to comply with rules or court orders. Accordingly, § 805.03 does not apply. Instead, the request for relief from judgment in this case falls within the catch-all provision of § 806.07(1)(h).

    ¶8 Next, we conclude that the record supports the circuit court’s discretionary decision to reopen the foreclosure action under WIS. STAT. § 806.07(1)(h). See Sukala, 282 Wis. 2d 46, ¶8 (“Whether to grant relief from judgment under WIS. STAT. § 806.07(1)(h) is a decision within the discretion of the circuit court.”). While the Canos correctly point out that the court did not expressly consider the Allstate equitable factors before allowing relief from judgment, our review of the record reveals that the facts in the record support the court’s decision. See State v. Kirschbaum, 195 Wis. 2d 11, 21, 535 N.W.2d 462 (Ct. App. 1995) (We will uphold a circuit court’s discretionary decision, even if the court did not explain its reasons on the record, if our review reveals that the facts support the court’s decision as a proper exercise of discretion.).

    ¶9 The court originally dismissed the Bank’s foreclosure action without addressing the merits based on the parties’ agreement to work on repayment, stating: “The parties have worked out a payment agreement. If Defendant Diane G. Cano defaults on the agreement, Plaintiff may reopen this case to have judgment entered.” The Bank later moved to reopen the case, asserting that the Canos were not meeting their payment obligations under their mortgage. At the hearing on the Bank’s motion, the court asked Mario Cano whether he objected to the motion.(2) Mario Cano stated: “Well, I’m against the fact to put it in foreclosure because we didn’t do anything wrong. They have not taken our payments because the other mortgage company had the payments.” The court found there was “no active opposition” to the motion, and ordered the foreclosure action reopened. Diane Cano subsequently sent the court a letter objecting to the court reopening the case, stating that she had made all her payments and had previously provided that documentation to the court.(3) Thus, while the Canos asserted that the Bank was not entitled to foreclosure, they did not assert that there was insufficient reason that could justify relief from the operation of the judgment in the foreclosure action. Accordingly, we discern no erroneous exercise of the court’s discretion to reopen the case.

    ¶10 Because we conclude that the court properly exercised its discretion in reopening the foreclosure action, we reject the Canos’ corollary argument that the Bank was required to serve a new summons and complaint to commence new foreclosure proceedings. We turn, then, to the summary judgment proceedings.

    ¶11 We review summary judgment de novo, applying the same methodology as the circuit court. See Green Spring Farms v. Kersten, 136 Wis. 2d 304, 314-16, 401 N.W.2d 816 (1987). We first examine the pleadings to determine whether the plaintiff has stated a claim. Id. at 315. The Bank’s complaint asserts that Diane Cano entered into a mortgage agreement with Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as a nominee for S&L Investment Lending, Inc., in July 2006. It asserts that the Bank is the current holder of the mortgage and Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., is the servicer of the mortgage. It states that the Canos failed to make their mortgage payments from January 2007 to the date of the complaint in April 2007. Thus, we conclude that the complaint states a claim for foreclosure. Diane Cano answered, denying that she had failed to make the payments.

    ¶12 Our next step in the summary judgment methodology is to examine whether the summary judgment submissions establish that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See id. We begin by examining the Bank’s summary judgment submissions to determine whether it has established a prima facie case for summary judgment. See Palisades Collection LLC v. Kalal, 2010 WI App 38, ¶9, 324 Wis. 2d 180, 781 N.W.2d 503 (citation omitted). Only if the Bank has made a prima facie case do we turn to the Canos’ submissions to determine if there are any material facts in dispute. See id.

    ¶13 The Bank submitted two affidavits to support its motion for summary judgment: one by an attorney for the Bank, and one by an agent for BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., f/k/a Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P.

    ¶14 The attorney averred that Diane Cano executed a note secured by a mortgage on her property in July 2006; that an assignment of the mortgage to the Bank was recorded in June 2007; and that the Canos had failed to make the January 2007 and subsequent mortgage payments, leading the Bank to file this foreclosure action in April 2007. The attorney attached the following documents to his affidavit: the mortgage assignment; a statement of the Canos’ mortgage payment history for September 2006 to May 2009 generated by Bank of America Home Loans on June 2, 2009, and indicating that the Canos’ last mortgage payment was for December 2006; and a notice of default and acceleration Countrywide sent to Diane Cano in February 2007.

    ¶15 The BAC agent averred that he had access to the financial records for the Canos’ mortgage; that Diane Cano executed a mortgage to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., acting as nominee for S&L Investment Lending, Inc.; and that the Canos had failed to make their January 2007 and subsequent mortgage payments. The agent did not attach any documents to his affidavit.

    ¶16 We conclude that the Bank’s affidavits do not establish a prima facie case for summary judgment. Affidavits supporting a summary judgment motion must be based on personal knowledge and “set forth such evidentiary facts as would be admissible in evidence.”(4) WIS. STAT. § 802.08(3). Nothing in the attorney’s affidavit indicates that the attorney’s averments as to the Canos’ payment history are based on personal knowledge. To the extent that the affidavit relies on the attached payment history with Bank of America, we conclude that the affidavit does not set forth the facts necessary to establish a prima facie case that the bank’s purported payment history would be admissible at trial.

    ¶17 As we explained in Palisades, an affidavit must establish a prima facie case that attached payment statements are admissible evidence under an exception to the hearsay rule to support a motion for summary judgment. See Palisades, 324 Wis. 2d 180, ¶11 & n.3; WIS. STAT. § 908.01(3) (defining “hearsay” as “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted”) and § 908.02 (hearsay generally inadmissible). Here, the only arguably applicable exception to the hearsay rule is the exception for business records under WIS. STAT. § 908.03(6) (records “made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, all in the course of a regularly conducted activity, as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness” are not excluded by hearsay rule). Thus, for the statement of the Canos’ payments to support a motion for summary judgment, the affidavit must establish that the affiant “is qualified to testify that: (1) the records were made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge; and (2) this was done in the course of a regularly conducted activity.” Palisades, 324 Wis. 2d 180, ¶15. The attorney’s affidavit contains no such averments.

    ¶18 The BAC agent’s affidavit is similarly flawed. The agent avers that his knowledge of the Canos’ default on their mortgage is based on his access to the financial records for the Canos’ mortgage, yet no financial documents are attached to the affidavit. Even if we assume the BAC agent is referring to the statement attached to the attorney’s affidavit, the agent’s affidavit fails to set forth the necessary facts to establish a prima facie case for the admissibility of the statement. The agent’s affidavit does not contain any facts to show that the agent is qualified to testify that the statement generated by Bank of America on June 2, 2009, was “made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge,” or that “this was done in the course of a regularly conducted activity.”(5) Id. We conclude that the Bank has not established a prima facie case for summary judgment.(6) Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

    By the Court.–Judgment reversed and cause remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

    This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(1)(b)5.

    1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2007-08 version unless otherwise noted.

    2 The transcript of the hearing indicates that only Mario Cano appeared at the hearing, although Diane Cano later implied in a letter to the court that she was present at the hearing, as well.

    3 In initially opposing the Bank’s foreclosure complaint, the Canos submitted documents indicating the Canos made their mortgage payments to S&L Investment Lending, Inc., through April 2007. While those documents are in the record, they were not submitted to the court in response to the Bank’s motion for summary judgment.

    4 In Palisades Collection LLC v. Kalal, 2010 WI App 38, ¶¶12-15, 324 Wis. 2d 180, 781 N.W.2d 503, we declined to resolve the parties’ dispute over whether our review of the circuit court’s decision on the admissibility of the summary judgment material was de novo or discretionary, because no reasonable view of the affidavit established that the evidence was admissible. We reach the same conclusion here.

    5 In addition, the assignment attached to the Bank’s counsel’s affidavit shows that the alleged default from January to April 2007 occurred prior to the mortgage assignment to the Bank in May 2007. Thus, a reasonable inference is that the agent for the Bank’s servicer, BAC, did not have personal knowledge of how the payment records for January to April 2007 were made.

    6 Because we conclude that the Bank has not established a prima facie case for summary judgment, we need not examine the Canos’ summary judgment submissions. Additionally, we need not address the Canos’ argument that the circuit court erred by granting summary judgment upon the Bank’s motion for reconsideration without providing the required twenty-day notice under WIS. STAT. § 802.08(2).

  258. Mortgage assignment held inadmissible
    POSTED: Thursday, March 17th, 2011 at 9:36 am
    BY: David Ziemer
    Tags: 2010AP4772010AP60Bank of New York v. CanoPalisades Collection LLC v. KalalPHH Mortgage Corp. v. Kolodziejsec. 889.17sec. 908.03(6)Section 909.02(12)
    Hon. Margaret Vergeront
    For the second time this year, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals opinion has made it more difficult to foreclose on property when the holder of the mortgage is not the original lender.

    On Jan. 20, the court held that a bank could not prove default based on records of nonpayment before it purchased the mortgage.

    In Bank of New York v. Cano, No. 2010AP477 (unpublished), the court held that the mortgage holder could not prove default because its affidavit “does not contain any facts to show that the agent is qualified to testify that the statement generated by [the original lender] … was ‘made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge,’ or that ‘this was done in the course of a regularly conducted activity.’”

    As a result, the court held that the statements documenting the default were hearsay and did not fit into the exception for business records under sec. 908.03(6).

    Now, on Mar. 10, in an opinion not recommended for publication, the court went further, holding that the assignment of the mortgage itself is inadmissible, without first-hand evidence of how the assignment was made.

    In 2006, Citizens Bank secured a mortgage on property in Lac du Flambeau owned by Marcella Kolodziej. When Kolodziej died, her estate stopped making payments on the mortgage. PHH Mortgage Corp., which had bought the mortgage from Citizens, initiated foreclosure.

    On motion for summary judgment, to prove it was the holder of the mortgage, PHH submitted an affidavit from a vice-president that it owned the mortgage and the loan was in default.

    PHH also submitted an affidavit from its record custodian that the mortgage had been assigned to it.

    The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of PPH, but the Court of Appeals reversed, in an opinion by Judge Margaret Vergeront.

    PHH argued that the only documents necessary for a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case that it holds the mortgage are the mortgage, the assignment of the mortgage to it, and the promissory note.

    But the court disagreed.

    PHH contended that the assignment of the mortgage was admissible evidence either as a record of regularly conducted activity under sec. 909.02(12), or as a record of a land conveyance under sec. 889.17.

    Section 909.02(12) provides that a record of regularly conducted activity is self-authenticating if the custodian certifies, “[t]hat the record was made at or near the time of the occurrence of the matters set forth by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge.”

    But the court held this rule did not apply, citing Palisades Collection LLC v. Kalal, 2010 WI App 38, 324 Wis.2d 180, 781 N.W.2d 503. The facts in Palisades were substantially similar to those in Bank of New York v. Cano, except that Cano involved credit card debt that had been assigned, rather than a mortgage.

    Absent first-hand knowledge how the assignment was made, the court concluded, “The fact that [the affiant] is the custodian of the mortgage assignment and that the assignment is part of PHH’s regular business is insufficient to authenticate the assignment under sec. 909.02(12).”

    The court also held that the records were not admissible under sec. 889.17, which provides that, “[e]very instrument entitled by law to be recorded or filed in the office of a register of deeds, and the record thereof and a certified copy of any such record … is admissible in evidence without further proof thereof.”

    The copies submitted by PHH were not certified, so the court held they were not admissible absent further proof of their authenticity.

    On remand, however, it will be easier for PHH to cure the problem, when the issue is the validity of the assignment, rather than default prior to the purchase the loan.

    G. Michael Halfenger of Foley & Lardner, who represented PHH on appeal only, said in an interview, “As I read the court’s decision, plaintiffs only need to file a certified copy of the assignment.”

    Note: The opinion in Bank of New York v. Cano is an unpublished per curiam opinion and thus, cannot be cited, even for persuasive authority, although it indicates how the District IV Court of Appeals regards the issue. The opinion in PHH Mortgage Corp. v. Kolodziej is not recommended for publication, but is authored, and thus, can be cited for persuasive authority, even if it is not ultimately published.

    What the Court Held

    Case: PHH Mortgage Corp. v. Kolodziej, No. 2010AP60

    Issue: When an assignee of a mortgage forecloses on the property, is the assignment sufficient to prove ownership of the mortgage.

    Holding: No. An assignment is not a record of regularly conducted activity.

    Attorneys: For Plaintiff: G. Michael Halfenger, Erik G. Weidig, Brian M. Quirk, Milwaukee; For Defendants: Steven C. Garbowicz, Eagle River; Shawn M. Govern, Kevin C. Scott, Brookfield

    David Ziemer can be reached at david.ziemer@wislawjournal.com.


  260. Gena Hummel


  261. Gena Hummel
    Call me.
    Racine, WI.
    262 672 2543

  262. Roger
    Can we wait untill it gets a little warmer? Who represents me as a taxpayer or property taxpayer?
    Where is our union? The Homeowner’s Union.


  264. I also have a FHA loan but it does not show up in fannimae or freddimac.

  265. Hello, I have a few questions. I am in WI. My home is in foreclosure. Chase Home Finance LLC. is the one foreclosing. JP Morgan chase is the original lender. Can Chase Home Finance even be the one that forecloses? The lawyer is going to file a motion for summary judgement. Now that I think about it the lawyer only showed me one page of assignment. I cannot remember if it was the note or mortgage, but there was only one. Tried the mortgage modification but it did not go through, got the whole run around etc.

    We are also going to be filing bankruptcy. I am not sure if we should just let the house go or do we try to fight it? I am not sure if we should surrender the house under the bankruptcy or not. My bankruptcy lawyer said I should just let the house go.

    I am just really unsure what to do about all of this. It would be easier to just let it go but on the other hand, it would be nice to get back at the banks for breaking the law.

  266. Great, everyone wants to start a support group but it seems like no one wants to follow through. I will meet anywhere in the state. Just need a time and address.
    Before we meet we should all do some homework first.
    1) I would suggest that everyone contact the title company that closed on your home loan and ask for a copy of the confirmation of wire that funded your home loan and a copy of all the checks that were dispersed from these funds. The title company is going to ask you why do you want this. Your reply is simple. I just want to confirm who funded my home loan. It is your right to know. UBS Warburg probably funded most of your loans but they are not listed on your promissory note as the lender. Also you may be surprised to find out that the dollar amount of the wire is less than your loan amount. The question is if your home loan was for $100K but the wire that funded your loan was only for $97K why are you paying for monies you never received.
    You need to go to your register of deeds office and print out a copy of your promissory note and a copy of your mortgage along with any and all assignment of your promissory note and mortgage. You will find that there will be no recordation of any assignments of the promissory note but there may be a copy of the assignment or multiple assignments of the mortgage. This is very important as property law states that the conveyance of property must be publicly recorded. This is important because the pretend lenders are only recording the assignment of the mortgages and not the promissory notes. This means the public record at the register of deeds shows that the promissory note is still with the originating pretend lender, (mortgage broker) and the mortgage has been assigned to a different pretend lender. The pretend lenders just separated the note from the mortgage making both the note and the mortgage voidable, unenforceable. The mortgage will always follow the assignment or transfer of the promissory note. But the promissory note will never ever follow the assignment of the mortgage. Please see US Supreme Court Decision CARPENTER V. LOGAN, 83 U. S. 271 (1872). “The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity.” For that, they cite Jackson v. Blodget, 5 Cowan, 205; Jackson v. Willard, 4 Johnson, 43.V”.

    , U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Ibanez, No. SJC-10694 (January 7, 2011) , The Court did not address the question of whether U.S. Bank and Wells Fargo were the holders and owners of the notes, but held that, under Massachusetts real property law, the mortgage does not automatically follow the note and must also be assigned to the foreclosing lender prior to the foreclosure sale.

    • Connecticut: The Appellate Court of Connecticut, in LaSalle Bank, N.A. v. Bialobrzeski, AC 30911, 123 Conn. App. 781; 3 A.3d 176 (September 21, 2010), discussing the applicable state statute (bold text is my emphasis, other alterations in the original):
    “[Section] § 49-17 permits the holder of a negotiable instrument that is secured by a mortgage to foreclose on the mortgage even when the mortgage has not yet been assigned to him. . . . The statute codifies the common-law principle of long standing that the mortgage follows the note, pursuant to which only the rightful owner of the note has the right to enforce the mortgage. . . . Our legislature, by adopting §49-17, has provide[d] an avenue for the holder of the note to foreclose on the property when the mortgage has not been assigned to him.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Chase Home Finance, LLC v. Fequiere, 119 Conn. App. 570, 576-77, 989 A.2d 606, cert. denied, 295 Conn. 922, 991 A.2d 564 (2010).

    • Arkansas: Leach v. First Cmty. Bank, CA07-05, 2007 Ark. App. LEXIS 671 (Ct. App., Div II, 2007) (unpublished) (bold text is my emphasis):
    Arkansas has long followed the rule that, in the absence of an agreement or a plain manifestation of a contrary intention, the security of the original mortgage follows the note or renewal thereof, i.e., instead of there being a presumption of payment or settlement of the original indebtedness by the execution of the renewal note, and thereby a release of the security, the presumption is that, upon the execution of the new note or bond, the same security is available for its payment. Simpson v. Little Rock North Heights Water District No.18, 191 Ark. 451, 86 S.W.2d 423 (1935). This is in keeping with the weight of authority holding that, because the renewal of a note does not change the identity of the debt represented by the obligation, the validity or operation of an assignment as security is not affected by the circumstance that a renewal note is executed to replace the original note. See generally 3 LEE R. RUSS ET AL., COUCH ON INSURANCE § 37.50 (3d ed. 2005).

    • Minnesota: Jackson v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., A08-397770 N.W.2d 487 (2009):
    We have held that, absent an agreement to the contrary, an assignment of the promissory note operates as an equitable assignment of the underlying security instrument. First Nat’l Bank of Mankato v. Pope, 85 Minn. 433, 434-35, 89 N.W. 318, 318-19 (1902).

    • Texas: Nicholson v. Washington Mut., NUMBER 13-00-394-CV, 2001 Tex. App. LEXIS 6119 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi [13th Dist.], 2001) (bold text is my emphasis).
    The mortgage of a property is an incident of the debt; and as long as the debt exists, the security will follow the debt. J.W.D., Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., 806 S.W.2d 327, 329-30 (Tex. App.-Austin 1991, no writ); Lawson v. Gibbs, 591 S.W.2d 292, 294 (Tex. Civ. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1979, writ ref’d n.r.e.). Accordingly, while the deed of trust may never have been assigned to Lehman, it followed the debt. Because the Nicholson note was indorsed in blank by American and delivered into Lehman’s constructive possession, Lehman became the holder of both the note and the deed of trust which followed the note.

    • Florida: WM Specialty Mortg., LLC v. Salomon, 874 So. 2d 680 (Fla. App. 4th DCA, 2004): A Florida appeals court, quoting from the state Supreme Court ruling in Johns v. Gillian, 134 Fla. 575, 184 So. 140, 143 (Fla. 1938) (bold text is my emphasis):
    However, it has frequently been held that a mortgage is but an incident to the debt, the payment of which it secures, and its ownership follows the assignment of the debt. If the note or other debt secured by a mortgage be transferred without any formal assignment of the mortgage, or even a delivery of it, the mortgage in equity passes as an incident to the debt, unless there be some plain and clear agreement to the contrary, if that be the intention of the parties.

    • Landmark Natl Bank v. Kesler, No. 98,489, by the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas, (August 2009). Access Landmark here: [Landmark Decision]
    (98489 — Landmark Nat’l Bank v. Kesler — Rosen — Kansas Supreme Court)
    2) Everyone should visit http://www.fanniemae.com and http://www.freddiemac.com and click on the links that asks, Do we own your mortgage. If Fannie or Freddie owns your mortgage. Again who cares if they own your mortgage you should be concerned with who is the HOLDER IN DUE COURSE OF YOUR PROMISSORY NOTE. But if you look at it from the pretend lenders point of view if the mortgage is assigned to them they have the right to foreclose. If there way of thinking was correct you would have to ask why isn’t Freddie and Fannie the plaintiff on over 80% of the foreclosures in this country.
    3) Everyone should get a Securitization Audit. If your promissory note was securitized than the promissory note by SEC regulations no longer exists. Now we are back to the Promissory Note and the Mortgage being separated again making both voidable and unenforceable again. You can be 99.99% sure your mortgage was securitized if the trustee listed in your mortgage states they are the trustee to a collateralized Asset-Backed Bonds, Series 200?-?.
    4) The pretend lenders file for foreclosures using copies of the original promissory note and a copy of the latest assignment the obtained from the register of deeds office. They are not lying. In order to present these documents to the court as true and correct copies all they have to do is have a clerk and the register of deeds stamp the copies as true and correct copies and this is all they need to foreclose on your property. But based on what we know now the courts should never allow this to happen. In fact what the courts should be doing is issuing a ruling in favor of the defendant / homeowners with prejudice. Why you ask. The pretend lenders submitted true and correct copies of the promissory note and of the mortgage. The promissory note is still in the name of the original pretend lenders name with no endorsements or attached allonges and the mortgage has been assigned to the foreclosing pretend lender. Based on US Supreme Court Decision CARPENTER V. LOGAN, 83 U. S. 271 (1872) alone all these cases should be dismissed with prejudice. The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity.” The best thing about is that once the promissory note and the mortgage has been separated they can never be reconnected.
    There is more regarding Blank Endorsements and the difference of a Holder of the Note and a Holder In Due Course of the Note. But that could be the topic of our second meeting. Please let me know when and where the meeting will be.

  267. send this to everyone in office, if you know the head of the unions email addresses send it to them, head of county boards anyone you can think of that has influence in government, news papers, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Milwaukee State Journal, Capital Time ex, CNN, CNBC. I sent this to the governor and all the state senators and their staff. Next is their email addresses. Simply click and past the addresses in the BCC.

    Rep.ziegelbauer@legis.wisconsin.gov; Rep.zepnick@legis.wisconsin.gov, Rep.Zama@legis.wisconsin.gov; Lauren.Schroeder@legis.wisconsin.gov; Lucas.Vebber@legis.wisconsin.gov; Chris.Reader@legis.wisconsin.gov; Shawn.Lundie@legis.wisconsin.gov; Sen.Zipperer@legis.wisconsin.gov; Paula.McGuire@legis.wisconsin.gov; Jennifer.Bishop@legis.wisconsin.gov; Steven.Gillitzer@legis.wisconsin.gov; Sen.wirch@legis.wisconsin.gov; Craig.Summerfield@legis.wisconsin.gov; Jennifer.Hammernik@legis.wisconsin.gov; Scott.Kelly@legis.wisconsin.gov; Sen.Wanggaard@legis.wisconsin.gov; dean.cady@legis.wisconsin.gov; Jason.Rostan@legis.wisconsin.gov; Matt.Adamczyk@legis.wisconsin.gov; Joshua.Hoisington@legis.wisconsin.gov; Sen.Vukmir@legis.wisconsin.gov; Joel.Nilsestuen@legis.wisconsin.gov; Linda.Kleinschmidt@legis.wisconsin.gov; Benjamin.Larson@legis.wisconsin.gov; Sen.Vinehout@legis.wisconsin.gov; Eric.Peterson@legis.wisconsin.gov; Deidra.Edwards@legis.wisconsin.gov, Revelle.Walls@legis.wisconsin.gov; Aaron.Collins@legis.wisconsin.gov; Sen.taylor@legis.wisconsin.gov; Stephanie.Louis@legis.wisconsin.gov; Tom.Jackson@legis.wisconsin.gov; jonathan.klein@legis.wisconsin.gov; Todd.Allbaugh@legis.wisconsin.gov; Anthony.Rallo2@legis.wisconsin.gov; Sen.schultz@legis.wisconsin.gov; Terry.Tuschen@legis.wisconsin.gov; Dianne.Cieslewicz@legis.wisconsin.gov; Sarah.Briganti@legis.wisconsin.gov; Sen.risser@legis.wisconsin.gov; Mary.Pluta@legis.wisconsin.gov; Sarah.Archibald@legis.wisconsin.gov; Tara.Baxter@legis.wisconsin.gov; mary.boario@legis.wisconsin.gov; Cari.Lee@legis.wisconsin.gov; Sen.olsen@legis.wisconsin.gov; Lauren.Clark@legis.wisconsin.gov; Rebekah.Culotta@legis.wisconsin.gov; Nathan.Duerkop@legis.wisconsin.gov; Elise.Nelson@legis.wisconsin.gov; Sen.Moulton@legis.wisconsin.gov; Nathan.Halbach@legis.wisconsin.gov; Beth.Bier@legis.wisconsin.gov; Zac.Kramer@legis.wisconsin.gov; Heather.Libbey@legis.wisconsin.gov; Michael.Browne@legis.wisconsin.gov; Bridget.Esser@legis.wisconsin.gov; Jamie.Kuhn@legis.wisconsin.gov; john.anderson@legis.wisconsin.gov; Sen.miller@legis.wisconsin.gov; Jeff.Weigand@legis.wisconsin.gov; Katy.Prange@legis.wisconsin.gov; Sean.Stephenson@legis.wisconsin.gov; Lucas.Moench@legis.wisconsin.gov; Sen.leibham@legis.wisconsin.gov; Ben.Voelkel@legis.wisconsin.gov; Andrew.Hanus@legis.wisconsin.gov; Tricia.Sieg@legis.wisconsin.gov; Sen.lazich@legis.wisconsin.gov; Teresa.Lueth@legis.wisconsin.gov; Danielle.Wilson@legis.wisconsin.gov; Mark.Knickelbine@legis.wisconsin.gov; jessica.kelly@legis.wisconsin.gov; Sen.lassa@legis.wisconsin.gov; Jon.Kruse@legis.wisconsin.gov; Isaac.Orr@legis.wisconsin.gov; John.Vanderleest@legis.wisconsin.gov; Sen.Lasee@legis.wisconsin.gov; Shannon.Powell@legis.wisconsin.gov; Justin.Sargent@legis.wisconsin.gov; Ashley.Siefert@legis.wisconsin.gov; Sen.Larson@legis.wisconsin.gov; Michelle.Osdene@legis.wisconsin.gov; Katie.Scott@legis.wisconsin.gov; Doug.Wheaton@legis.wisconsin.gov; Dan.Johnson@legis.wisconsin.gov; Sen.kedzie@legis.wisconsin.gov; Rose.Smyrski@legis.wisconsin.gov; Abby.Luchsinger@legis.wisconsin.gov; Hannah.Huffman@legis.wisconsin.gov; Melissa.Manke@legis.wisconsin.gov; Sen.kapanke@legis.wisconsin.gov; Jeff.Buhrandt@legis.wisconsin.gov; Stephanie.Wilson@legis.wisconsin.gov; Sarah.Barry@legis.wisconsin.gov; Steven.Kulig@legis.wisconsin.gov; Sen.jauch@legis.wisconsin.gov; Rebecca.Hogan@legis.wisconsin.gov; matt.phillips@legis.wisconsin.gov; Andrew.Evenson@legis.wisconsin.gov; Danielle.Murray@legis.wisconsin.gov; Sen.Hopper@legis.wisconsin.gov; Elizabeth.Novak@legis.wisconsin.gov; Brandon.Strand@legis.wisconsin.gov; Ian.Shannon-Bradley@legis.wisconsin.gov; Susan.Meinholz@legis.wisconsin.gov; Sen.Holperin@legis.wisconsin.gov; Brittany.Lewin@legis.wisconsin.gov; Katie.McCallum@legis.wisconsin.gov; Scott.Nelson@legis.wisconsin.gov; Matt.Woebke@legis.wisconsin.gov; Sen.harsdorf@legis.wisconsin.gov; Charles.Schultz@legis.wisconsin.gov; John.Wagnitz@legis.wisconsin.gov; Jay.Wadd@legis.wisconsin.gov; jessica.lundquist@legis.wisconsin.gov; Sen.hansen@legis.wisconsin.gov; Jolene.Churchill@legis.wisconsin.gov; lance.burri@legis.wisconsin.gov; Regina.Kolbow@legis.wisconsin.gov; Jamie.Julian@legis.wisconsin.gov; Margaret.Delaporte@legis.wisconsin.gov; Sen.Grothman@legis.wisconsin.gov; Nicholas.Perrine@legis.wisconsin.gov; Jennifer.Esser@legis.wisconsin.gov; LeRoy.Jonas@legis.wisconsin.gov; Sen.Galloway@legis.wisconsin.gov; Rob.Richard@legis.wisconsin.gov; John.Hogan@legis.wisconsin.gov; Andrew.Welhouse@legis.wisconsin.gov; Cindy.Block@legis.wisconsin.gov; Tyler.Foti@legis.wisconsin.gov; Daniel.Romportl@legis.wisconsin.gov; Tad.Ottman@legis.wisconsin.gov; Sen.fitzgerald@legis.wisconsin.gov; Tryg.Knutson@legis.wisconsin.gov; Julie.Laundrie@legis.wisconsin.gov; Kelly.Becker@legis.wisconsin.gov; Sen.erpenbach@legis.wisconsin.gov; Lynn.nelson@legis.wisconsin.gov; Michael.Boerger@legis.wisconsin.gov; Kurt.Schultz@legis.wisconsin.gov; Kay.Reetz@legis.wisconsin.gov; Sen.ellis@legis.wisconsin.gov; Kristen.Wall@legis.wisconsin.gov; Jelena.Radich@legis.wisconsin.gov; Andrew.Potts@legis.wisconsin.gov; Connie.Schulze@legis.wisconsin.gov; James.Emerson@legis.wisconsin.gov; Heather.Smith@legis.wisconsin.gov; Sen.darling@legis.wisconsin.gov; Will.Johnson@legis.wisconsin.gov; Barb.Nelson@legis.wisconsin.gov; Kelley.Flury@legis.wisconsin.gov; Sen.Cullen@legis.wisconsin.gov; Katie.White@legis.wisconsin.gov; Dana.Mundell@legis.wisconsin.gov; Ryan.Smith@legis.wisconsin.gov; Sen.cowles@legis.wisconsin.gov; Jana.Williams@legis.wisconsin.gov; david.defelice@legis.wisconsin.gov; Sen.coggs@legis.wisconsin.gov; Russell.DeLong@legis.wisconsin.gov; stuart.ewy@legis.wisconsin.gov; Nathan.Schwantes@legis.wisconsin.gov; Sen.carpenter@legis.wisconsin.gov;

    If the banks and lenders followed Wisconsin statutes for recording property transfers Wisconsin would have a surplus instead of a deficit. Please read the rest of this message.


    BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TARGET FOR RECOVERY TO COUNTY REVENUE: We have had several discussions with the County recorder in many states wherein a plan has emerged, with our help, to recover recording fees, documentary stamps, fines, penalties and damages from parties filing foreclosure actions under “cover” of supposed securitization.

    The emerging plan takes each foreclosure action and computes the number of intermediaries that were the alleged recipients of an interest in the mortgage or deed of trust and than computes the recording fees and other costs that should have been paid in those transactions. The plan only applies to those cases where the property is in foreclosure proceedings, and is being examined by both judicial and non-judicial state recording offices.

    LUMINAQ http://WWW.LUMINAQ.COM is the new site for the Livinglies store. ProTitleUSA, a partner in LUMINAQ, recently completed a massive project for the FDIC involving thousands of homes. LUMINAQ will provide a tailored COMBO title and securitization report that provides the necessary documentation to support the County Recorder’s claim. A tailored loan level accounting report will assess the fees, costs and penalties.

    For those properties currently in foreclosure, clear title cannot be obtained by the bidder or any subsequent holder without proof of payment of the outstanding amounts due. While the foreclosing parties might resist the imposition of these costs, the resistance is likely to be tepid at best, because of the delays in completing the foreclosure and the ability to pass on the costs in the computing the bid for the property at sale. Local rules provide the enforcement mechanism.

    For those properties which have already been subject to a foreclosure sale, clear title cannot be obtained by a subsequent buyer without payment of the outstanding amounts due.


    With Wisconsin and other states going into gridlock and turmoil over budget disputes, it is projected that the recovery will significantly ease the budget short-falls on the local level. On State levels, Attorney Generals and Treasurers are taking a sharp look at their tax codes and considering similar plans for the recovery of even more money for unpaid income taxes, intangible taxes, registration fees, penalties, fines and other costs.


  268. ZZ TOP, let’s get it going. I’m good for TUESDAY, FRIDAY, or SUNDAY.

    Mid State, Southeast, Milwaukee, let’s do it!

    I’d like to get an attorney there. I’m going to work on it.

  269. hey guys,
    i encourage anyone who has been on this wisconsin living lies link to become part of a group to further this thing. i can set it up and coordinate it if that helps. we could have weekly or bi-weekly conference calls, or meetings. whatever it take to get some results. please respond to this message if it sounds like a go or not. if we do not start sharing our information and experiences this is not going to work. thanks

  270. ZZ
    In today’s paper was a picture of over 60000 of Gov Walker’s supporters. In Racine the property taxes to run the schools are higher than the taxes to run the
    City. The Unified schoold system has 108 administrators more that the number of teachers
    Walker need to direct the Att General to go after the MERS money Wis needs. Also all the small state banks are going broke while Wells Fargo flourishes
    Without paying a dime of state tax. We need to bombard them in Madison with letters tons of them.
    Racine WI.

  271. hey guys,
    just looking for a group of like minded individuals to chat with in regards to banking issues in wisconsin. i’ve read the posts here and on other sites and feel the need to organize and start combining our knowledge. if you feel the same way and would like to really make a difference, reply to this email. ITS TIME TO TAKE THIS THING TO THE NEXT LEVEL!

  272. Big News! We won the motion to Quash the Sheriff Sale and Set aside Summary Judgment, this is the First Time that I am aware of this happening in Wisconsin. We have until June 1st for Discovery, and other motions must be done by Oct 7th hearing. Motion to Strike affidavits, worked and the Plaintiff Attorney, is the exact same Attorney the lost the BoNY case on the front page of this blog.

  273. Roger – drop me a email again so I can give you my info, had some system problems but get them fixed…

  274. Hey Tom, great to hear from you. The fight continues, but I took a loan mod (illegal as hell) to regroup. Other claims are coming. Thanks for tip. You’ve got my numbers. Stay in touch. Roger

  275. Hi Wisconsinites!
    It’s Tom in Wisconsin, I haven’t posted since Roger Said he was done fighting…so I haven’t stayed in touch. My case is going on 3 years, we have a status hearing Feb 1, 2011 in LaCrosse Co Circuit Court
    I normally only review the front page of Neils Blog, so I was unaware this Wis Law section has become the unofficial Wisconsin chat room on the site.

    I just read all the statutes that have been posted for Wisconsin peoples review. I will ad a tidbit of advice to all in Wisconsin: When anyone that you know, receives the Foreclosure Complaint, along with Affirmative Defenses, Motion to Deny Summary Judgment, everyones priority should be to Motion for Discovery, Production of Documents, Interrogatories, and Request to Admit.( this should be done at least 10 days PRIOR to SJ hearing.

    If you have raised any issues, with your answers, and affirmative defenses, the Judge can not grant Summary Judgment (Green Spring Farms v Kersten) 1987. They can not get summary judgment while a case is in Discovery also.

    I have been hired to do consulting work for Foreclosure Defense in Florida. Obviously Florida has many more foreclosures going on, so there are more attorneys that “get it” BUT Florida is a Judicial and Lien Theory State, like Wisconsin, so much of the legal theory is similar.
    I have found an attorney in Western Wisconsin that is trying really hard to “Get It” Terry Davis of Rice, Heitman, and Davis in Sparta, WI.
    He has a case that is up for Sheriff sale Feb 1 as well. I found some material issues, that he used to petition the Court to Quash Sheriffs Sale and Set aside Summary Judgment, there will be a telephonic conference Feb 8th to schedule a hearing, so the Sheriffs sale has been cancelled for now.
    I would like to network with others….I’ve talked to Roger by phone and emails, but not anyone else from Wisconsin, my email is foreclosurefraud1@gmail.com

    I will stay in touch

  276. Use Chapter 13 as a delaying tactic. I filed Chap 13 3 times and it was dismissed 3 times. It doesn’t cost you to file to get a stay for several months. After my properties were advertised in the paper for several weeks, at 11AM the day of the sheriff’s sale the sale was at 1 PM, I have my initial paperwork date stamped at the Fed Courthouse. What did this do? It bought me 5 month’s time since the had to advertise in the paper and set up for another sheriff’s sale. I don’t recommend that you wait so close in case there is something wrong with your paperwork. I wanted the sale to go thru to see what the Bank would bid. You can file electronically and the court helps you file.

  277. Here is another area to check. Go to the title company that closed your loan. Ask them to provide you with a copy of the wire that funded the loan. It has to be the same entity that signed as lender.

  278. Fellow Wisconsinites.
    Best wishes for the Holidays.
    There were two people that email or call me. Please do so again. I apologize for not returning ur calls

  279. I took in an 01 Toyota Solara Coupe, silver, SLE V-6, only 68k miles. $5995
    I talk to Nell on Wednesday A.M. I’ll let you know what happens.

  280. Roger
    Do you hear anything with Nelle? Daughter is looking for a safe car got anything u want to wholesale out?

  281. e-mail me with a number again, Neyko. Thanks.

  282. Stan, usedkarguy, Roger Rinaldi

    I have found a attorney, and there isn’t any spinning of wheels with Chase, as I have them on cold hard fraud and thensome……..Roger email me your contact information as well as a brief outline of your issue.

    Very Respectfully,

    Fighting CHF

  283. Neyko
    I told your lawyer what I had. You are spinning your wheels with the refusal to give you a loan mod. There was a case that said chase can decide whether or not to give you a mod. Talk to used kar guy

  284. Neyko, you found a lawyer? Great. e-mail me, would ya? thanks, Roger

  285. Stan,

    I talked with the atty, that I gave the info to you. She is going to get me atty info of someone she knows in Racine. I will get that to you asap. She is filing in a week or less, with what I gave her thus far.

  286. The fraudulent documents are flying.

    Please forward your documentation to:

    State of Wisconsin, Department of Justice
    Nelle R. Rohlich, Asst. Attorney General
    17 W. Main Street/P.O. Box 7857
    Madison, WI 53707-7857
    Phone 608-267-8901 Fax 608-267-2778

    If you have a problem with a judge, try this:

    Wisconsin Judicial Commission
    110 E. Main Street, Suite 700
    Madison, Wisconsin 53703

    Phone: 608-266-7637
    Fax: 608-266-8647

  287. We are at a precipice. One cannot act only for the benefit of himself. Some things are just too important. Therefore, I AM GOING PUBLIC. I’m out of the closet now (so to speak):

    Roger Rinaldi
    22311 121st Street
    Bristol, WI 53104

    If you are fighting a foreclosure in Wisconsin (STAN!) please contact me. I have been talking with a gal over at the AG’s office in Madison, and I believe we have their ear. Now let’s get some documentation in front of these people so they can go after these banks.,

    Thank you for your support.

  288. Hey, Studly! did you get that number?

  289. Used Kar Guy

    Nelle told me she would rather recieve a call. She wants my info about the robosigner in Wi. What the foreclosure firms in Wis do is fabricate the foreclosure. People have given up the fight so I don’t think the Judges are corrupt but lazy and trusting.
    Do you know how to reach an agent at Fannie Mae Level two

  290. rohlichnr@doj.state.wi.us

    I won’t post her number so she doesn’t get pestered, but she is genuine.

    I don’t know who gave me the name of Elizabeth Parr at U.S. DOJ last year or so, but her e-mail is dead.

    Stan, I’ll e-mail you the number.

    Roger can you put up her email anf phone number.
    I think if we have evidence that the Foreclosure Case against us has been fabricated to fool the Judge. This should also light a fire un the Judge. That particular firm will be put on notice

    I have the utmost respect for Dr and Congressman Ron Paul. He commented on the Homeowner Advocate Occice that was created by the Wall Street Bill. Ron Paul said this was another level of government we don’t need. Question Just what has the Dept. head Elizabeth Warren done for us. I had heard that she has 40 people under her. You think that someone could be put on my case?

    I have two people that are interested in getting together for training.

    I am going to talk to Ayy Ertl about a class action against MERS in WI..
    Look for an Email.

    Racine, WI.

    Ms. Nelle Rohlich
    Assistant Attorney General
    17 W. Main Street
    P.O. Box 53707-7857
    Madison, WI 53707-7857

    Here’s some for you to contact in Wisconsin.


    Senator Herb Kohl (D- WI) 202-224-5653

    Senator Russ Feingold (D- WI) 202-224-5323

    Representative Paul Ryan (R – 01) 202-225-3031

    Representative Tammy Baldwin (D – 02) 202-225-2906

    Representative Ron Kind (D – 03) 202-225-5506

    Representative Gwen Moore (D – 04) 202-225-4572

    Representative F. James (Jim) Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R – 05) 202-225-5101

    Representative Tom Petri (R – 06) 202-225-2476

    Representative Steve Kagen (D – 08) 202-225-5665

  294. test post

  295. Suzanne
    You are doing great ! You are alive and you still have your home. We are trying to start a Wis group and would welcome your input. I would be reluctant to pay anyone for a loan mod. Please email me with ur phone and the details of your situation. I have been ill and need to return two calls.

  296. I am interested in finding out how to deal with these thieves. How do I get more info on an atty that really understands these matters. Andy Gause spells out nicely on oneradionetwork.com, and even provided me some documents and such.

  297. I have poured over several pages of several websites, blogs, articles desperatly serching for help. The week of OCt 5th 2010 was my 3rd year of fighting to keep my home and trying to keep my job and family together and stay somewhat sane. I lost my mom and best friend very suddenly and I am barely able to get out of bed in the morning. I know we got an illegally generated loan the more I have looked into things, we were with Quicken in o7 then Country Wide & now Bank of America and we have had MERS all along I just found out. I know we have an illegal loan and the borker who got us our loan disappeared. I need someone to help and explain what I should do, I have hired a modification firm because after 3 years I could no longer handle it alone. HELP!

  298. Roger
    I propose we initiate the Wis Forclosure League .org. I volunteer to take the minutes of the first meeting. You are a salesman Roger SELL IT! There are many places like the VFW or such that will rent meeting rooms for $25. (dues)?
    Brat Stop is good. I am free any time after these next two weeks. We have severl foreclosure Mills that are using fraudulent affidavits etc.
    Racine Wi.

  299. This is not legal advise. This is some stuff I found on the internet after doing research.

    Wisconsin is a state which follows the lien theory of mortgages. In other words, the mortgagee does not have legal title in the mortgaged premises Section 708.01 Wis.Stats. See also, Mutual Fed. S. & L Assoc. v. Wisconsin Wire Works., 58, 58 Wis. 2d 99, 104, 205 N.W2d762 (1973). The mortgagor retains full ownership in the property, which consists of equitable and legal title, while the mortgagee’s interest is that of a lien holder. Therefore, the mortgagee’s status is that of a holder of a security interest Osborn, Mortgages, sec. 127 at 208.See also, Bank of Commerce v. Waukesha County, 89 Wis. 2d 7155, 279 N.W.2d 237 (1979).

    “A foreclosure suit has been said to be merely a proceeding for the legal determination (emphasis added) of the existence of the mortgage lien. The ascertainment of its extent, and the subjection to a sale of the estate pledged for its satisfaction.” 55 Am. Jur. 2d Mortgages sec. 553 (1971).

    Wisconsin Statute 706.02 Conveyance of Real Property; Recording; Titles Formal Requisites (1) Transactions under s. 706.001 shall not be valid unless evidenced by a conveyance that satisfies all of the following:
    (a) Identifies the parties; and
    (b) Identifies the land; and
    (c) Identifies the interest conveyed, and any material term, condition, reservation, exception or contingency upon which the interest is to arise, continue or be extinguished, limited or encumbered.

    Wisconsin Statute 806.07(1) On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court, subject to subs. (2) and (3), may relieve a party or legal representative from a judgment, order, or stipulation for the following reasons:

    806.07(1)c Fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party.

    gotta go. How about the BRAT STOP. Something more central? I’ll drive to Madison or Green Bay. Wherever the highest concentration of partcipants is. Maybe we do it in Madison en masse. Or Milwaukee Federal Courthouse.
    Cardboard pitchforks.

    Todd? Are you out there? Todd the appraiser? you were quite knowledgable.
    bye for now

  300. Roger
    I am in. All the tools seem to be listed here. After I read all the blogs I am burnt out. There is power in numbers, plus I need motivation. I have called people and have tried to help them and I don’t hear from them again. Let’s get 5npeople and we will meet somewhere or do a video conference.
    Remember the Banks we cite on this website comes up under google.
    Racine Wi

  301. Stan, Neyko, anybody who is on this blog in Wisconsin. It really is time to move on this. As pro-se litigants, we are burning daylight. We need to get some names together and pick a cause of action.


    Roger Rinaldi

  302. @ brewman, @ Stanley Putra,
    I you two are still in the fight, I need you to contact me. I got the ball rolling and the papers for the Class are getting ready to be filed.


    Fighting CHF

  303. To everyone that reads the posts under the Wisconsin title here on LivingLies. We currently have our attorney’s rolling up their sleeves, getting their boxes or pens and note tablets ready, as we have notified them to proceed with the Class Action against Chase Home Finance.

    We need not only your help Neil, but the help of everyone on this post that is either a homeowner, or knows a homeowner in Wisconsin that is having problems with Chase Home Finance and the HAMP trial modification.

    I graciously ask that you refer those homeowners to Fighting CHF’s blog: fightingchasehomefinance.blogspot.com, as well as have them email us at fightingchf@gmail.com

    This is so they can tell their story as well as include current contact information so these attorneys can contact them with regard to the class action.

    Most of you know me by Neyko, and I have been fighting these banksters for almost 3 yrs. Now we have them, with their pants down, and we’re looking for a nice flexible switch.

    Time is of the essence, and for some WI homeowners, that may mean only days!!!!

    Thank you Neil, and all the warrior lawyers, and homeowners for helping to recognize the bank’s wrongful ways. and grossly poor conduct. TOGETHER, WE THE MASSES WILL BRING DOWN THESE GIANTS!!!!!!

  304. Here you go!

    Wisconsin Statutes 806.07 – Relief from judgment or order

    Wisconsin Statutes > Civil Procedure > Chapter 806 > § 806.07 – Relief from judgment or order

    Current as of: 2009
    Check for updates
    806.07 Relief from judgment or order.
    (1) On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court, subject to subs. (2) and (3), may relieve a party or legal representative from a judgment, order or stipulation for the following reasons:

    (a) Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

    (b) Newly-discovered evidence which entitles a party to a new trial under s. 805.15 (3);

    (c) Fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party;

    (d) The judgment is void;

    (e) The judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged;

    (f) A prior judgment upon which the judgment is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated;

    (g) It is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or

    (h) Any other reasons justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.

    (2) The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and, if based on sub. (1) (a) or (c), not more than one year after the judgment was entered or the order or stipulation was made. A motion based on sub. (1) (b) shall be made within the time provided in s. 805.16. A motion under this section does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation. This section does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from judgment, order, or proceeding, or to set aside a judgment for fraud on the court.

    (3) A motion under this section may not be made by an adoptive parent to relieve the adoptive parent from a judgment or order under s. 48.91 (3) granting adoption of a child. A petition for termination of parental rights under s. 48.42 and an appeal to the court of appeals shall be the exclusive remedies for an adoptive parent who wishes to end his or her parental relationship with his or her adoptive child.

    Yes, that’s right. You have to give the judge a reason.

  305. 2nd Question for people of knowledge.

    706.08 Nonrecording, effect.

    706.08(5) – (5) When a conveyance purports to be absolute in terms, but is made or intended to be made defeasible by force of another instrument for that purpose, the original conveyance shall not be thereby defeated or affected as against any person other than the maker of the defeasance or the maker’s heirs or devisees or persons having actual notice thereof, unless the instrument of defeasance has been recorded in the office of the register of deeds of the county where the lands lie.

    I could use some help with this one. In layman terms does this mean that if someone records an item that is intended to be defensible (canceled? Altered?) by a different security instrument that it must also be included in that filing? Would that then mean that Assignments of a previous mortgage note/rights to MERS should also have the Mortgage Investors side of the security interest included with the recording? If it doesn’t does that void the Assignment of Mortgage?

  306. Questions for people of knowledge.

    WI 706.05(9) – Does this require a mortgage holder to make a new recording within 7 days of partial satisfaction including documents supporting the rights to satisfy such claims?

    If my mortgage is current but I just found out it was assigned to MERS from PHH Mortgage and is now serviced by Citi Mortgage inc.. Would I send this request to MERS the last holder of record who is the assignee?

    Would MERS then be unable to provide such documents because they have no interest? The MERS registration system says the note is owned by Fannie Mae but the search of records show no assignments filed showing Fannie Mae.

    How do I know that I am paying my mortgage to the right person if MERS is listed on an Assignment?

    What if they don’t respond. How do I go about seeking damages for clouding my title?

  307. Hash: SHA1,

    True no statue of limitations in FEDERAL COURT on fraud. But once you find out the clock starts…..say you found out last month in CA, then I have three years from last month to file in US. FED COURT DISTRICT of CA. Hope this clarifies your information.
    As for documents check the WI Rules of Court and notary requirements for such.
    “Nowhere on the document is her/his Wisconsin NOTARY COMMISSION NUMBER, or NOTARY COMMISSION EXPIRATION DATE as required by law for affidavits/property instruments (see D below).”
    Wisconsin Statute § 706.07(7)(a)
    (a) A notarial act must be evidenced by a certificate signed and dated by a notarial officer. The certificate must include identification of the jurisdiction in which the notarial act is performed and the title of the office of the notarial officer and may include the official stamp or seal of office. If the officer is a notary public, the certificate must also indicate the date of expiration, if any, of the commission of office…

    (a) Every official act of a notary public shall be attested by the notary public’s…..acknowledgments of deeds and other conveyances,
    23. CUCC 3-309(a) grants the plaintiff the right to have his rights clarified by a court of law regarding the validity of the contracts allegedly executed with the defendants

  308. Remember, the elections are in less than a month. The AG is trying to get re-elected. His opponet has come out in support of homeowers. I’m going to send the AG a mesage, that I cannot consider giving him my vote if he doens’t take strong action against these banks, law firms, attorneys, and judges who have looked the other way.

  309. Stan, I got a letter from Nell Rohlich yesterday in the AG’s office. She told me that, and I quote: “The lack of publicity regarding DOJ’s work in this area should in no way be interpreted as inaction or disinterest.”

    I do believe they are working on this, but nothing will be resolved to our satisfaction. It’s been left up to us to defend ourselves against a banking system that has made a mockery of all our laws.

    Keep fighting!

  310. Stan, the WI AG finally joined other states. Everyone in WI need to write to hime and soon. He’s is running for re-election and needs to know what we think. Also, what with Alabama. The rps from there need to be investigated. They were the last state to join the investigation and thier rep spearheaded the notary bill.

  311. Does anyone know if the Wis AG is awake? Is he one of the 40 AG’s?
    Are ther any Lawyers in Wis? I have all the forged documents. I think I will start my own Class action with 60,000 clients Pro Se
    Stan Racine WI

  312. I am “working with” WF on a repayment plan. I made the three payments and sent all info. I am about to make my third additional payment following completion of the initial 3. WF has not communicated payment information to me since the September 1 bill. I am hesitant to send this month’s “payment.” I’ve already come to terms with the fact that my payments are nothing more than rent and will not likely reduce my debt.

    My husband and i were unemployed with no benefits for 10 months. we are again working, earning about half what we were prior to 3/2009. last summer, HSBC filed foreclosure, listing MERS as an additional defendant. When we went back to work, we contacted WF and the FC was apparently halted. WF denied having foreclosed and we moved ahead with the repayment.

    My question is where do we go from here? We clearly need the help of a lawyer with any modification. I’d rather pay a lawyer to end this than continue to send money to WF with no resolution. Is there a Madison lawyer who “gets it?” How do we start the process of dectecting potential fraud? Why was HSBC suing MERS when we pay WF?

  313. BANK OF ELMWOOD Crooks Racine Wi. The headlines say Fed rips BOE. The headlines in The Racine Journal Times.
    Racine Wi

  314. rohlichnr@doj.state.wi.us

    Send her an e-mail. Let know how you feel.. EXPRESS YOURSELF!

  315. Neil
    What about us pro se litigants that have been banging their heads against the wall? I have been begging lawyers to take my cases. We all have been laughed at in court-undergoing such rudeness by judges, their clerks. I have had on one lawyer respond to me.
    I have good cases where banks have stolen from me. I am in Wis. Trying to start my own class action against Wells Fargo. I want to be first in line when Wells Fargo writes the checks. Now you says I should kiss some lawyer’s *ss that wants to take my case and learn from it? No contingencies for these lawyers I will scrape up my $500 a month for flat fees. P*ss on them.

    Stanley Putra
    Racine, Wi.

  316. The Circuit Courts here don’t care about the note. I just lost a house where summary judgment was given to Lasalle Bank trustee for Lehman series…… in Oct of 2007. The assignment was made to Wells Fargo to Lasalle Bank in March of 2008. The only help I can get from a lawyer is from Milton Emmertsen who is recovering from a stroke and he tries to quide me. Milton said to file that the court didn’t have jurisdiction to grant the Judgement. My 91 year old blind Mother’s house I lost to Fannie Mae with one of those phoney MERS letters from the foreclosure mill. They probably did 1000’s more Some lawyer can make alot of money on a class action and maybe I can get her house back and some damages. The stress is killing me. I volunteered for the draft in 1971 and those chemicals they used gave me cancer. If you ask me the lawyers are as greedy as the Bankers and the Lawyers should know better. Produce the note? I have written letters for 2 years and the judge says before he takes my 2 houses, says the judgments are 2.5 years old. Why did I waite till the last day to ask????
    Racine, Wi.

  317. Hope this helps: Has anyone tried sending the ‘Produce The Note’ for proof of ownership? I understand this is being sent by USPS Certified Mail and templates are online at http://www.send-certified-mail.com.

  318. Help my 91 year old Mother that I care for is being evicted. I am at the motion for recosideration point then I will appeal to appellate court. I have fraudelent affidavits from the foreclosure mill concerning a MERS assignment. MERS is really being hammered in other areas of the country. Why isn’t there a class action here in Wis? My loan was a Fannie Mae loan and the servicer Wells Fargo said no it is not a Fannie Mae so I don’t qualify for a Fannie Mae mod.
    262 880 3879

  319. Used Car Guy
    Is that firm in Madison doing you any good. I have an option for you. Give them your house back but keep your crediy file good enough to get a loan and buy the place back for $100K less.
    Phone is out

  320. Neyko – I understand your concerns. I will post a summary of my story hera and on your site. In 2004 I entered into a mortgage/note with Chase Manhattan Mort Corp. Chase Home Finance filed foreclosure complaint in 2008 but did not attach the note to the complaint and did not provide evidence of transfer to CHF, FYI – no assignment was recorded either. A default judgment was entered and I tried to reopen (pro se) without success. I filed bankruptcy twice, the first tiem I was treated poorl shit by the trustee and told by the judge to get an attorney. I hired an attorney withdrew the b/r and refiled after reciving notice of sheriff sale. I refused to pay post petition pmts and CHF filed a MLS. My attorney is basically trying to get me to comply with CHF instaed of fighting the fight. I need an attorney in Milwaukee who wants to help.

  321. In response to Stanley of Racine, WI and also Brewman, everyone in this blog is working together to stop the banks in their tracks, from unlawfully taking homes.

    I have a great deal of appreciation to all the attorneys, paralegals, Judges, and such, that post information in Living Lies that helps bring into light the hidden laws that aren’t readily available to homeowners.

    As well as the hidden actions these banks, servicers, and foreclosure mills try to use to Snow our court system into believing they are the victim, when in all reality they are the attacker.

    Stanley & Brewman I have a site where homeowners that live in Wisconsin can post their stores regarding HAMP, MERS, and illegal foreclosure mill practices, which will allow the attorney that I am working with the ability to have all Wisconsin homeowners in one central location.

    Please visit http://fightingchasehomefinance.blogspot.com/
    and post your story. I will contact you and point you to the attorney I am working with in Milwaukee. As stated in other parts of this blog, we all know that the banksters and their attorney watch sites such as Living Lies and others to try and get the upper hand, but those days are long gone.

    If there are WI attorney’s “that get it”, please feel free to post as well. Because a conglomerate of WI attorneys ‘That get it” will be hard for these banksters to fight.

    I share Living Lies Blog with attorneys and homeowners all over the country that are working to stop the lies these banksters have tried so hard to keep a secret.

    Very Respectfully,

  322. Walworth County Sheriff refuses to accept notice of Bankruptcy Stay – Evicts Roger W. Holmes. I called the US Marshall’s office to report this crime.


  323. Andrew
    You are here someplace. I am in Racine . Let’s band together
    Stanley Putra
    Racine Wi
    I am in the book but my phone has changed

  324. Neyko – What’s the name of the attorney in Milwaukee?

  325. Good Job Neyko
    I was thinking of filing against WF and MERs. They are more flagrant. I can keep you posted on people that are being foreclosd upon in Racine County.
    God Bless
    Racune WI

  326. I’m looking for residents of Wisconsin that are having problems with Chase Home Finance and the HAMP modification. I am trying to compile a list for a Attorney here in Milwaukee for a Class Action Suit against Chase Home Finance on the grounds of : Breach of Contract, Breach of Covenant, Breach of Implied Contract in the Alternative, Promissory Estoppel, In the Alternative, Fraud, Negligent Misrepresentation.

    These attorneys are looking for a case that will make precedence in Wisconsin with regard to the HAMP modification program. There is an Attorney in MA that currently has a Class Action filed against Chase Home Finance and is willing to assist the attorneys here should there be enough homeowners that come forward to join this Class Action.

    The attorney in MA:
    Gary Klein of Roddy Klein & Ryan, 727 Atlantic Avenue, 2nd Floor, Boston, MA 02111, 617-357-5500, Ext. 15

    klein@roddykleinryan.com , http://www.roddykleinryan.com

    Current Class Action Case in MA:

  327. What happened to all you Patriots in WI.?
    Racine, WI.

  328. Thanks Scott for the chat. I received a $30 speeding ticket in Jefferson County. I had used up an hour of the court’s time in arguing motions. That the speed gun was in violation of my 4th amendment rights against illegal search and seizure. Keep in touch about your case. We should get a seminar going in Wisconsin.
    The sex comments that the Senior VP of Goldman are all over the place.
    Twitter, The news….

  329. Hi Stan, yes I called you and left a couple of messages.


  330. Scott
    Did you call me? I didn’t recognize the number?
    Stanley Putra
    Racine, Wi

  331. Thanks usedkarguy. I am in Beaver Dam

  332. Great Scot, gotta make this quick. The note is the financial instrument you signed upon closing. The MORTGAGE is an additional document that SECURES payment of the note with a PLEDGE of the PROPERTY to secure the NOTE. All would assume that the mortgage follows the note. However, the discussion here is that if the lender sells the note, assigns the note, the proceeds of the note are PLEDGED to a trust, obtains insurance and default swaps on the note the borrower signed, the ASSIGNMENT OF THE MORTGAGE should ALSO be recorded in the county records in the name of the TRUST. That doesn’t happen.

    By the way, where are you in Wisconsin?

  333. Can anyone tell me how a mortgage and a promissory note are connected.

  334. Christopher-Joseph
    You need to move fast I have the name of an attorney in Milwaukee that gets it 6000 N Lisbon Email me please.
    Stanley Putra
    Racine Wi.

  335. Thanks for responding Stanley Putra. The Sheriff’s auction is May 3rd. I am on the county of Milwaukee and the auction was published in the Daily Reporter. The confirmation of sale is May 17th. I am trying to find out if I can stay in possession after May 17th until I get a hearing.

  336. Joseph Cnristopher
    You have to start now. When is the sherif’s auction? Use the term Sherif’s auction. The bank will open the bidding with a reserve NOT A BID. If there are no bids then the bank will get it. Did they publish in the paper? What City are u in?
    Stanley Putra
    262 672 2543

  337. Can someone please answer me this: If I refuse to leave my home after the auction and confirmation of sale, does the bank have to file an unlawful detainer action to remove me?
    I am trying to stay in the home as long as possible because I might prevail on a motion to vacate void judgment amongst other things. I don’t want to lose my home AND go to jail.


    A QWR has to be acknowleded within 20 days. You have to send it to the servicer certified mail return receipt . I have a very shortened version. I will send it to you. I am putting together a Pro se kit Supply store. Have they advertised your home in the paper?
    Stan Putra
    Racine Wi
    People need to fill in the blanks and file pro se with the court. If you want to keep your house and don’t have the money to hire a lawyer. Fighting foreclosure is like fighting a speeding ticket. You also want to object the other attorney’s request to appear by phone.

  339. UsedKarguy
    Don’t give up! there are no gains without sacrifice. I think Wis is just around the corner to stop this madness. There is strength in numbers. I contacted my State Senators, etc with some of Neil’s articles and asked then to contact the State Attorney General to stop the foreclosures because the vast majority of them were foreclosed by entities that had not the right to foreclose because they had no legal standing to do so.
    Go Fight
    Racine Wi

  340. Bankruptcy Law, Foreclosure Litigation

    Briane F. Pagel, Jr.

    Krekeler Strother, S.C.

    15 N. Pinckney Street, Suite 200

    Madison, WI 53703

    (608) 258-8555/ fax 258-8299


  341. Hello all!

    This might get you an answer on your loan account a little faster than a QWR:

    Wisconsin Statute 138.052(7s)
    (7s) A person who receives loan or escrow payments on behalf of itself or another person shall do all of the following:

    (a) Respond to a borrower’s inquiry within 15 days after receiving the inquiry.

    I’m gonna send some letters!

  342. Andrew
    Then we have to file summary judgement with the Civil Court judge and then appeal the finding. The Court of Appeals does not mess around. Neither does Federal Court.
    Stan Putra
    Racine, Wi.

  343. Usedkarguy
    Are you going to see the new lawyer this Wed.?
    I would like to look over your paperwork.
    Stan Putra
    Racine, Wi

  344. Attys won’t do TILA violations because they feel the judges are all ignoring the law. It’s the typical bias against giving “a free house” to the plaintiff. Plus, there is the issue of legal tender and the Yamamodo decision that freaks them out. Sad but true.

  345. Todd, where are you at again?

  346. Stanley, David took the time to get to know my wife and I, and also understand the situation we are facing. I believe he thought it best for us, as a family, financially and emotionally, to forgo further litigation efforts because of the legal landscape we were bound to encounter. He knew the judges, both in the local circuit and the BK circuit. He though it best, since we were not facing any further costs relating to the foreclosed property, to walk away. Not enough debt. I understand his point of view. I am just not sure I am ready to give up. This has taken a huge toll on my wife. Everyone suffers when this happens.

  347. UsedKarGuy
    I have contacted David and as you know he will not handle TILA violations anymore. Even though my daughter has a creampuff case. Read todays blog about allonge. I don’t think allonges are used in Wis.
    Gray and Assoc. filed the assignment of Judgement and Rights and had the judge approve it under summary judgement. Roger you met with David, do you concur that he has lost touch with the working man?

    Racine Wi

  348. Todd, I checked the Wisconsin Statutes and even did a search for the words Red Ink. I did not find anything. Specificly which statute are your referring to that states the contract must have this phrase in Red Ink.

  349. Scot: check Wisconsin Statutes.

    Stanley: call David Leibowitz @ 847-249-9100: Lake Law in Waukegan, Kenosha, Chicago. He’s the best I can find. Ed Harness on this list only works locally and led me toward BK13 ideas which I ignored. David has 35+yr experience and may help, but he’s not cheap

    UsedKarGuy: I’ve fraud/forgery on 5-of-7 pages (Deed and Note) then they used my signature to claim all pages were read by me (no, or I would have signed them) yet I’m having trouble even having the FBI in Wausau take it serious as a crime (used to steal my home and entrap me into terms I did not agree to, as the last pages of D & N have my signatures). Time to get atty to send QWR for originals (UCC Article-3) and maek the lender confront in court (Constitution) at their cost increase. Make it time & cost consuming for them as they will still lose $ over the time to foreclose and/or resell and you have time to repurchase.

  350. We might look into agent and agency law. Alan David is an expert in California Law and discusses on the 2010 March 23rd show about how attorneys must have a Power of Attorney document filed to sue.

    An Agent represents the principal. Law of Principal and agent and research of deeds of trust If you are interested in foreclosure law, you might listen to this broadcast. It’s live right now, we hope we will be able to have an archive linked on the web page soon. http://nahls.net

  351. NEWS FLASH!
    There aren’t any good attorneys wanting to fight in Wisconsin. A local Bank here succums to the FDIC two weeks after The Bank of Elmwood steal my properties and then sell them for 10 cents on the $$ to their “friends” in the industry with FDIC approval. The Racine Journal Times quoted the auditors of the bank saying a private audit done in Aug. 2008 had “numerous legal and financial violations” The FOIA won’t give me the audit to help my case. I found out that if a third party finds TILA violations they are not required to report them as long as the Bank promises not to violate TILA again!!!! FDIC paid Tri City $100 million to take over the failed Bank. ISN’T THERE AN ATTORNEY THAT WILL HELP ME AND OTHERS GET OUR PIECE OF THE PIE?????
    Stanley Putra
    Racine, Wi

  352. Todd where exactly in the Wisconsin Consumer Law does it state a contract must have a warning statement in “RED INK”. I have check their website and cannot find anything that mentions “RED INK”

    Todd, on February 12, 2010 at 10:48 am Said:

    Wisconsin consumer law states that “IN RED INK”, the contract must have a warning statement that the signer .. may be obligating himself in debt transaction. Thus ‘buyer beware’ must be labeled IN RED INK.
    Look over your originals or those returned to your QWR

  353. Thanks Todd
    The Attorney for the plaintiff requested adjornment for 30 days. I am supposed to get a loan mod package from the office of the President of Wells Fargo. Since the assignments are not current, I read somewhere that it either makes the mortgage an unsecured debt or we were going to sell the property to my brother at what was bid at the auction $80K. They want me to pay
    $112K. The officer is checking with Lehman Bros to see if they were insured and paid. I received another letter from Wells Fargo that said the property was sold but the idiots don’t realize there is a confirmation in Wi.
    Stan Putra
    Racine, Wi.

  354. Wisconsin consumer law states that “IN RED INK”, the contract must have a warning statement that the signer .. may be obligating himself in debt transaction. Thus ‘buyer beware’ must be labeled IN RED INK.
    Look over your originals or those returned to your QWR

  355. Wells Fargo just turned down my 5th loan mod request. The house goes for sale tuesday Jan 19, 2010. Wells sends me the same letter. They just come up with figures that they pick out of nowhere. Mod denied because income is $800 expenses $7000 a month. They sent the denial Jan 8 , so when I call the only way to stop foreclosure is to subit another modification request. I don’t know where they get these numbers. The say we will help you with a short sale or deed in lieu of. The lawyers in this area will only take big money cases or they want big money up front. What is the use?
    Racine Wi

  356. Hello,yes i am in wi.I am still fighting litton on there 2nd foreclosure attempt.They have refussed to produce original mortgage documents.and have now filed a les pedens with the court.Also since then through an error i am sure on Equi-credts part they have sent me my original mortgage document stating it is the original and it is signed off by equi-credit as paid in full.I am going to introduce the document to the court at my next hearing and we shall see what happens then.

  357. I am called “Joseph-William:Baker” though I have no name.

    Yes, Stanley, you can cloud the title by rescinding your signature from the mortgage contract. Then notice the Title Insurance companies the seller, the realtor and put a sign up in your yard indicating a Title Dispute such as the one you can print out and assemble at http://dcresearch.com . I need to add in the first memo in this thread to the letter of rescission. That’s a powerful law now that I look at it again. People don’t seem to be able to comprehend that banks invent the credit they sell you. Go back and re-read that last sentence 10 times. PLEASE. Look at yourself in the mirror and repeat it.

    They did not lend you money, they lent you credit, that they invented- they are ALL likely in violation of the law sited at the beginning of this thread – do you think they have gold to back up the credit they sold you – not a chance – this law needs to be shepharded to determine if it has been voided or if exceptions have been sited in case rulings.

    Once you rescind your signature from the mortgage contract for reasons such as those on my web site, then you are free from the waiver you signed over the rite of presentment of the note. So now you can demand to see the note also.

    Another site to digest is http://nahls.net


  358. Joe Baker
    Do you have a way to cloud the title?
    I have sheriff’s sales coming up in December. I have been applying to Wells Fargo Mortgage for loan Mods 5 times this year alone. Joe did you find an attorney in Wis. that Gets it?
    Stan Putra
    Racine, Wi. 53406

  359. any luck finding an attorney in Wisconsin that gets it. Please response to kenso14@aol.com thank you. The judge granted the JP Morgan foreclosure and as of today I have 3 months to figure something out before I loose my home. PLEASE HELP. any info links, referrals would be a blessing.

  360. Sir/Madam

    You could really make the news and help alot of people if you help me take on the Bank of Elmwood. The Bank has have more legal and financial errors than any other bank in Wis History. They would load me up with loans to buy property and then steal the property back with foreclosure leaving me with defiency judgements.

    They gave me a heloc to divide my 1 and 1/2 acre into 3 lots worth $80K each. I split 1/2 acre and sold it for $96K then they reduced my heloc to $116k to split the 1 acre into two. I got sick and requested help thru hardship. They snubbed me signed a judgement for $140K said the lot could not be split without harm to the parties. I tried to stop them with a 13 to no avail They bid $60K at sheriff’s sale. I missed the confirmation due to a problem with my medication. I have survey’s appraisals, I called two hours after the confirmation hearing. I had proof the lots were worth $80K each $160K The judge confirmed the sale at $60K and quickly sold it to the lot’s neighbor for $47K. and modified the judgement to an $80K deficiency judgement. They pulled this 5 day notice crap. They use certified mail. The statutes say hand delivery or Registered mail. I worked for the Post Office for 33 years. Registered mail is better than certified but their lawyer said so what??

    How many people have lost their properties thru their deception. Look at the deal they cut with the fed(attached) How many Tila or Respa violations were they cited for but the audit was sealed. They took 3 more properties a week ago now I owe them a deficiency of $140K. They just approved I hope my house for Obama HAMP. Can you do some contigency for now this could be a big class action? For you.

    Stanley Putra

    Racine, Wi

    262 554 6041

    Hash: SHA1

    I’d do it even if they sold the damn thing. Cloud up the title.
    The buyer should have the right to cancel the sale within a certian time period.

    This might also stick it to the title insurance company big time.

    The idea is to parade that notice at the sale and give a copy to everyone there.

    If you post the address of the house, yours can be one of the first houses I list for clouding titles. You have to agree with the Items I set forth in the rescision document though.

    – -Joe Baker
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
    Comment: Use GnuPG with Firefox : http://getfiregpg.org (Version: 0.7.9)


    Hash: SHA1

    Did they sell the house?

    Do one of these:

    And then pass something out like this at the sale:

    Dispute the Title!
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
    Comment: Use GnuPG with Firefox : http://getfiregpg.org (Version: 0.7.9)


  363. Can anyone suggest a lawyer in or close to Racine Wi? They confirmed my sale whil I was waiting for a loan mod I had made 4 payments and they are evicting me on the 15th.
    Stanley Putra
    Racine Wi

  364. Hey Larry, can you tell us about your law from the 1600’s? Are you in Badgerland?

  365. Hello,nice to know.I have been fighting litton loan servers for the last 10 years.Am now in 2nd foreclosure from them.I am currently using the produce the note.They are walking all around that and am now filing motion to compel.Will be looking into fraud aspect most def.I stopped the sale of my home the last time day of sheriffs sale by showing the sheriffs dept.that there was a conflict of ownership involved with my mortgage.Sale stopped common law dating back to early 1600,s concerning promissary notes of all kinds
    Our current laws are based on that.

    Hash: SHA1

    I have heard that it is widely known that there is no statute of limitations on fraud.

    I am seeking to write a letter of rescission on the waiver of presentment of the note for fraud. We are seeking to identify if other mortgages use the same “standard language” in the waiver of presentment. In a GMAC mortgage loan we find it as section 10.

    I’ve been told that they mis-define what presentment of the note means here. And that UCC law itself defines what “presentment of the note” means. This smells of fraud with intention to “double dip” by collecting mortgage payments and selling the note and having other financial institutions deposit the note in such a way to leverage it’s value as if it were cash deposits – inventing 10 times the note’s face value in credit.

    If this is true, it would be good to prepare a rescission of signature for fraud document and serve it upon the mortgage lender ASAP.

    In California the state law does not allow “unlawful detainer” actions if the title is clouded with even an informal rescission of signature document served. Sale of the homes is invalidated by such rescission of signatures in cases where banks sell the house.

    Is this mostly a Wisconsin blog? I have a mortgage in Wisconsin that I wish to vacate.

    sovereign man on the land
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)


  367. Hello to all! I am looking for borrowers who have found falsified asset statements in their origination or closing documents. Pursuing WOCCA/RICO charges against WFHM. Wisconsin Organized Crime Control Act provides cause of action under Wisconsin Law. Contact me at usedkarguy@yahoo.com if you have had this experience or are simply fighting a foreclosure in Wisconsin involving HSBC/Wells Fargo Bank. Thanks, Roger

  368. WISCONSIN RESIDENTS: Keep in mind that fraud statute of limitations and contract statute of limitations is 6 YEARS IN WISCONSIN, not the customary 3 years.

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: