Don’t Hold your Breath: New York’s Cuomo will make Reverse Mortgage reform a priority — really?

http://nypost.com/2017/01/15/cuomo-will-make-foreclosure-reform-a-priority-finally/

Gov. Cuomo and state lawmakers are finally making reverse-mortgage foreclosure reform a priority this year — following continuing coverage of a crisis by The Post.

Last week, the governor announced plans to provide reverse-mortgage holders the right to a mandatory foreclosure settlement conference with their lender, overseen by the court, just as traditional mortgage borrowers have, and to update regulations to prevent reverse-mortgage foreclosures.

The governor announced these measures amid a raft of new proposals in his State of the State speeches. His reverse-mortgage proposals have similar intent as legislation introduced last year by Assemblywoman Helene Weinstein and state Sen. Jeff Klein in the wake of a July report by The Post about a dramatic spike in foreclosures on reverse mortgages — risky home-equity loans made to senior citizens.

“Attention has been focused, by The Post particularly, highlighting some tragic situations individuals found themselves in, and it has really bumped the problem of reverse-mortgages to one of the top agenda items as we go into the legislative session,” Weinstein said.

Reverse-mortgage loans were created to allow seniors to tap equity in their homes without selling, but have turned into a nightmare for legions of New Yorkers, including Howard Beach homeowner Frederick Feil. Last July, The Post covered Feil’s struggles with his lender, Finance of America Reverse, and servicer, Reverse Mortgage Solutions, to allow him to catch up on payments missed due to illness, and keep his home.

After the story, Finance of America Reverse worked out a deal with Feil and his attorney at JASA Legal Services for the Elderly. His loan has been reinstated and he is up-to-date on property tax payments, but Feil says he’s still in foreclosure hell because Reverse Mortgage Services has not officially discontinued the foreclosure.

“You get nervous wondering what’s going on, is it settled or not? Until I get complete paperwork in my hand … the mortgage company is still driving me nuts,” Feil said.

A spokeswoman for Finance of America Reverse said she expects the necessary paperwork to be completed “in the very near future.” Reverse Mortgage Solutions did not respond to a request for comment.

Klein is drafting other bills aimed at better regulating marketing and origination of reverse mortgages, and improving default procedures. Both he and Weinstein are working on legislation to provide seniors with clear, comprehensive information before they take out reverse mortgages.

With the governor’s support, stronger protections for reverse-mortgage holders — which failed to pass last year — are likely to finally become law. But it’s unclear who will underwrite free legal services like the ones JASA provides once money from the 2012 National Mortgage Settlement — a major source of nonprofit foreclosure-prevention and assistance funds — runs out this fall.

While legislative efforts heat up, the New York State Department of Finance continues its probe of Reverse Mortgage Solutions and Champion’s reverse-mortgage operations in New York state, launched after The Post’s story last July.

Lawsuit Seeking Disgorgement Might Not Be Barred by Statute of limitations

What is apparent here is that the Courts are coming to terms with the possibility that those relying upon a statute of limitation as a defense to various claims might NOT be protected by an otherwise applicable statute of limitations.

The premise enunciated in a decision that seeks affirmation from the U.S. Supreme Court, is that disgorgement is not monetary damages or a penalty. It is an equitable finding that a party has been unjustly enriched and therefore has no present right to hold onto ill-gotten gains. The decision could result in elimination of the statute of limitations as a defense for the banks.

Get a consult! 202-838-6345

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.
 
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-
This is a potential thrust to the heart of the bank strategy to create a vacuum, fill it with illusory claims on behalf of complete strangers to the transactions, and walk away with a free house after submitting an utterly fraudulent “credit bid.”.
The SEC is asking the Supreme Court to affirm the Tenth Circuit’s decision in SEC v. Kokesh, which held that “disgorgement is not a penalty under [28 U.S.C.] § 2462 because it is remedial” and, therefore, is not subject to the five-year federal statute of limitations in § 2462. see https://www.findknowdo.com/news/01/04/2017/sec-urges-supreme-court-affirm-disgorgement-not-subject-statute-limitations?utm_source=Mondaq&utm_medium=syndication&utm_campaign=View-Original
A favorable SCOTUS decision would have the effect of recasting the suits for damages as instead suits for disgorgement because neither the servicers nor anyone they represent had any right to collect or enforce the putative loan by an undisclosed and probably unknown creditor. This would have the same ultimate effect as TILA rescission which the courts have steadfastly resisted despite the clear language of 15 USC §1635 and SCOTUS in Jesinoski v Countrywide.

The Neil Garfield Show: Standing and Tender in Foreclosure with California Attorneys Patricia Rodriguez and Charles Marshall

radio

Live at 6 pm

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

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

Los Angeles Attorney Patricia Rodriguez returns again to discuss CA SB 900 (known as California’s Homeowner Bill of Rights), current law, pre litigation planning, wrongful foreclosure, rescission, and nonjudicial resolutions like short sales, short pays, large cash for keys settlements, loan modifications, and obtaining additional time/money in the property.  Click here for more information: CA SB 900

San Diego Attorney Charles Marshall will co-host the show this evening.

Pre-litigation and litigation concerns include:

1.) Wrongful foreclosure

2.) California’s  Homeowner Bill of Rights (SB 900)

3.) Rescission

Possible resolutions may include short sales, short pays, large cash for keys settlements, loan modifications, and additional time/money in the property.

Attorney Patricia Rodriguez

Foreclosure Defense

Website: www.attorneyprod.com

Call: 626-888-5206

1492 West Colorado Boulevard Suite 120
Pasadena, CA 91105

-and-

Charles Marshall, Esq.

Law Offices of Charles T. Marshall

415 Laurel St., #405

San Diego, CA 92101

cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com

Phone 619.807.2628

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

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

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

Get a consult! 202-838-6345

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Defunct (Bankrupt) Mortgage Lenders Network USA Keeps Showing up on Assignments

Dan Edstrom, senior forensic analyst, points out that what happened in Chase-WAMU and IndyMac-OneWest, is replicated in hundreds of other “chains.” It is peculiar to say the least that regulatory authorities call foreclosures “faulty” when the foreclosing party was relying upon an entity that did not exist executing documents long after the entity went into bankruptcy. We have often seen documents executed on behalf of an entity that never existed. That’s not faulty. It is criminal if it was done with full knowledge of what was happening. And how could they not have known that the nonexistent entity on whose behalf the foreclosing party directed the drafting of fraudulent documents to prepare a random bank or servicer to foreclose?

Your article today was right on point for other cases.  Mortgage Lenders Network USA, Inc. (“MLN”) went into a chapter 11 liquidation in February 2007, the plan was confirmed in February 2009 and the plan became effective in June 2009. At that point MLN ceased to exist and all assets and claims were transferred to the liquidating trust.
 *
A declaration filed in that bankruptcy states that all loans owned and/or serviced by MLN were sold in the ordinary course (and some not in the ordinary course) prior to the liquidation and that at the time of liquidation MLN did not own or service any mortgages whatsoever.
 *
And yet in July 2009 [one month after confirmed plan was effective] a 2nd assignment was executed and recorded from MLN to US Bank, NA as Trustee (without specifying a trust).  This conflicts with the first assignment executed and recorded in February 2009 where MLN assigned it to some bogus entity.
 *
And then during the homeowner’s previous bankruptcy, in October 2013 [4 years after the MLN BKR was completed] MLN again assigned the loan to a new and different party. They ceased to exist in 2009 so how could the 3rd assignment possibly be anything other then an attempt to perfect a pre-petition lien in violation of 11 USC 362(a)?
 *
All they have to do to prove us wrong is produce an actual financial transaction between a valid grantor and grantee where the transaction happened after May 15, 2012  (BKR filing date) and the date of the 3rd assignment.  Then we lose.

Chase-WAMU Letter Reveals”Expungement” and “Assignments” of Alleged Mortgages ” Not on the Books and Records of WAMU”

There is an old saying on Wall Street that “Bulls make money, Bears make money but Pigs never do.” The obvious circumstances of Chase claiming ownership to nonexistent loan portfolios contained within WAMU coupled with the admission in this letter to the FDIC, shows just how arrogant Chase felt when they informed the FDIC that they wanted to get paid by the FDIC for expunging documents and fabricating other instruments for “loans” that were not on the books and records of WAMU at the time of their purchase and sale agreement wherein Chase acquired the WAMU estate.

Get a consult! 202-838-6345

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.
 
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-
see Letter from Chase to FDIC: chase-letter-to-fdic-2014
*
Hat tip to Bill Paatalo who reminded me of this letter that surfaced in the dispute over FDIC indemnification of Chase for the takeover of WAMU operations. Chase expressly admits to defects in the chain of title and erroneous mortgage documentation.
*
It has been central to the defense of foreclosures based upon alleged “loans” originated by Washington Mutual (WAMU) that Chase never acquired any loans. It is obvious from the the transaction where Chase agreed to pay around $2 Billion to the estate but received more than that in a tax refund due to the WAMU estate. So the consideration was zero.
*
Yet Chase has persistently asserted claims of ownership and direct or indirect authority to foreclose on loans that were not in the books and records of WAMU at the time of the FDIC sale to Chase.
Along with several others, I have stated the fact that Chase (1) acquired no loans (2) because they were not in the WAMU portfolio and that (3) a check of the WAMU books and records in the bankruptcy court will not show the loans that Chase says it acquired from WAMU. If WAMU didn’t own them then Chase could not have acquired them from WAMU.
*
In order to perpetuate this farce we have alleged that Chase was directly involved in the fabrication and forgery of documents to create the illusion of loans that didn’t exist on WAMU books and records and schedules in the receivership and schedules in bankruptcy.
*
Even a non-lawyer can see the problem for Chase. The letter in the link below clearly shows the lawyers asserting a claim for expenses in expunging records (i.e., destroying them) and fabricating other records which obviously leads to the issue of forging since the document itself was knowingly fabricated at the expense of Chase.
*
Somehow Chase came to the conclusion that having paid for the destruction of documents and having paid for fabricating documents, they were now entitled to call themselves owner of the “Loan portfolio” which according to the schedules never existed.
*
They admit to fabricating documents to create the illusion of a chain of title. Now they want payment from the FDIC to cover the expense of fabrication and forgery. Perhaps more importantly they admit “errors in mortgage documentation occurring prior to September 25,2008.”
  • Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to stop Foreclosure Fraud.

    Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to stop Foreclosure Fraud.

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

Email from Bill Paatalo:
Neil,
Have you seen this letter? The collusion between JPMC and the FDIC could not be any more transparent.
Excerpts from letter in italics:

The additional matters giving rise to JPMC’s indemnity rights relate to costs incurred in connection with mortgages held by WMB prior to September 25,2008. These costs have resulted from aspects of-and circumstances related to- WMB mortgages that were not reflected on the books and records of WMB as of September 25, 2008, and include:

[HERE IS A DIRECT ADMISSION THAT THERE IS A SCHEDULE OF LOANS “NOT REFLECTED ON THE BOOKS AND RECORDS OF WMB.” IF NO SCHEDULE EXISTS SHOWING WHAT WAS “ON THE BOOKS AND RECORDS,” THEN WE SHOULD NOW INQUIRE AS TO THE SCHEDULE SHOWING THOSE LOANS NOT REFLECTED ON THE BOOKS AND RECORDS.]

(a) Costs incurred by JPMC associated with individual assignments of WMB mortgages. Where JPMC has initiated foreclosures on properties associated with mortgages that were held by WMB prior to its Receivership, JPMC has performed individual assignments of the associated mortgages/deeds of trust and allonges to comply with a recent appellate-level court decision in Michigan so as avoid potential additional expense and/or liability. In so doing, JPMC has incurred additional recording and legal fees, Limited Power of Attorney costs, as well as quantifiable costs associated with increased staffing to address these issues.

[THIS IS A DIRECT ADMISSION THAT ASSIGNMENTS AND ALLONGES ARE BEING EXECUTED BY JPMC (AS BENEFICIARIES AND MORTGAGEES) FOR WMB LOANS THAT WERE “NOT REFLECTED ON THE BOOKS AND RECORDS OF WMB.”]

(c) Costs incurred by JPMC to expunge records associated with WMB mortgages as a result of errors in mortgage documentation occurring prior to September 25,2008, including erroneously recorded satisfactions of mortgages and associated legal fees and disbursements.

[“EXPUNGING RECORDS ASSOCIATED WITH WMB MORTGAGES AS A RESULT OF ERRORS IN MORTGAGE DOCUMENTATION?” THIS IS A DIRECT ADMISSION THE JPMC HAS DESTROYED RECORDS RELATED TO WMB MORTGAGE FILES.]

(d) Costs incurred by JPMC to correct various defects in the chains of title for WMB mortgages occurring prior to September 25, 2008, including recording and legal services fees.

[WHAT “CHAINS OF TITLE?” JPMC TAKES THE POSITION THAT THESE LOANS WERE NEVER SOLD BY WMB. THIS IS A DIRECT ADMISSION THAT JPMC IS ATTEMPTING TO CORRECT DEFECTS IN THE CHAINS OF TITLE FOR WMB LOANS THAT WERE NOT REFLECTED ON THE BOOKS AND RECORDS OF WMB. THESE “CORRECTIONS” UNIVERSALLY INVOLVE ASSIGNMENTS OF BENEFICIAL INTERESTS FROM THE FDIC, AND/OR BY VIRTUE OF THE PAA.]

At the time of WMB’ s closure, the above liabilities were not reflected on its books and records.

Bill Paatalo
Oregon Private Investigator – PSID#49411

BP Investigative Agency, LLC
P.O. Box 838
Absarokee, MT 59001
Office: (406) 328-4075

MERS/GMAC Note and Mortgage Discharged

If only all courts would entertain the possibility that everything presented to them should be the subject of intense scrutiny, 90%+ of all foreclosures would have been eliminated. Imagine what the country would look like today if the mortgages and fraudulent foreclosures failed.

The Banks say that if the mortgages failed they all would go bust and that there is nothing to backstop the financial system. The rest of us say that illegal mortgage lending and foreclosures was too high a price to pay for a dubious theory of national security.

Get a consult! 202-838-6345

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

I received the email quoted below from David Belanger who, like many others has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that persistence pays off. (BOLD IS EMPHASIS SUPPLIED BY EDITOR)

Besides the obvious the big takeaway for me was what I have been advocating since 2007 — if any company in in the alleged chain of “creditors” has gone out of business, there probably is a bankruptcy involved or an FDIC receivership. Those records are available for inspection. And what those records will show is that the the bankrupt or insolvent entity did not own the debt that arose when you signed documents for the benefit of parties other than the source of funding. It will also show that the bankrupt or insolvent entity did not own the note or mortgage either.

This is instructional for virtually all parties “involved” in a foreclosure but particularly clear in the cases of OneWest, whose entire business plan depended upon fraudulent foreclosures, and Chase Bank who bet heavily on getting away with it and they have, so far. BUT looking at the bankruptcy and receivership filings of IndyMac and WAMU respectively the nature of the fraud was obvious and born out of pure arrogance and apparently a correct perception of invincibility.

All such bankruptcy proceedings and receivership require schedules of assets right down to the last nickle in bankruptcy. Belanger simply looked at the schedule, knowing he never took the loan, and found without surprise that the bankrupt entity never claimed ownership of the debt, note or mortgage.

The big message here though is not just for those who are being pursued in collection for loans they never asked for nor received. The message here is to look at those schedules to see if your debt, note or mortgage is listed. Lying on those forms is a federal felony punishable by jail. Those forms are the closest you are ever going to get to the truth. Odds are your loan is nowhere to be found — even if you did get a loan.

And the second takeaway is the nonexistence of the “trust.” In most cases it never existed. Your “REMIC Trust” was almost certainly formed under the laws of the State of New York or Delaware that permit common law trusts (i.e., trusts that don’t need to be registered with the state in order to exist). BUT uniform trust laws adopted in virtually all states require for the trust to be considered a “person” it needs to have these elements — (1) trustor (2) trustee (3) trust instrument (PSA) and (4) a “thing” (res in Latin) that is committed to the trust by someone who owns the thing. It is the last element that is wholly absent from nearly all REMIC “Trusts.”

And now, David Belanger’s email:

JUST WANTED TO TELL YOU ALL SOMETHING,  THAT I JUST GOT DONE , FROM MERSCORP!  ON OUR PROPERTY THERE WAS A 2d MORTGAGE ON IT, IT WAS A LINE OF CREDIT THAT WE DID NOT DO, AND WE DID REPORT IT TO THE RIGHT AUTHORITY’S, BACK IN 2006/2007. NOW THE COMPANY WAS GMAC MORTGAGE CORP.

OVER THE YRS, FROM 2006 TILL NOW, IT REMAINED ON PROPERTY, UNTIL JUST LAST WEEK, WHEN I DEMANDED THAT MERS DISCHARGE IT.  AND AFTER THEY FOUND OUT IT WAS NEVER ASSIGNED OUT OF MERS, THEY HAD TO DISCHARGE IT. BECAUSE GMAC MORTGAGE IS DEAD.  NOW THIS GO TO WHAT WE ALL HAVE SAID HERE.

ANY ASSIGNMENT THAT HAS NOT BEEN DONE, OR RECORDED AT REGISTRY OF DEEDS, OUT OF MERS, AND THE MORTGAGE COMPANY IS A DEAD MORTGAGE COMPANY. THEN MERS WILL DISCHARGE IT . I HAVE A COPY OF THE DISCHARGE IN HAND.

AM STILL FIGHTING, BECAUSE OF THIS NEWS,  I HAVE ASK MY ATTORNEY TO NO AVAIL TO DO A QWR ON THE COMPANY THAT RECORDED AN ASSIGNMENT IN 2012, EVEN THOUGH GMAC MORTGAGE CORP WAS IN BK AND AFTER GOING THROUGH ALL BK RECORDS OF EACH ENTITY, THAT HAD TO FILE ALL ASSET OF THERE COMPANY, AND FOUND THAT NO ONE IN GMAC HAD THE MORTGAGE AND NOTE, 3 MONTHS PRIOR TO THE ASSIGNMENT BEING PUT ON MY RECORD.
https://www.kccllc.net/rescap/document/1212020120703000000000033

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW …
http://www.kccllc.net
Southern District of New York, New York In re: GMAC Mortgage, LLC UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT Case No. 12-12032 (MG) B6 Summary (Official Form 6 – Summary) (12/07)

THIS IS AGAIN THE REASON, THIS FRAUD TRUST  DOES NOT EXIST, AND I DO HAVE ALL SECRETARY OF STATES, INCLUDING ALL STATING THAT  THIS FRAUD TRUST IN FACT HAS NEVER
BEEN REGISTERED IN ANY STATE. LET ALONG THE STATE OF DELAWARE, THE STATE THEY SAY IT IS REGISTERED IN.  THE SECRETARY OF STATE SAID NO. AND HAS NEVER BEEN A LEGAL OPERATING TRUST, EVER. SIGNED AND NOTARIZED BY THE SECRETARY. THE FRAUD TRUST NAME IS AS FOLLOWS.
GMACM MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-J1,

%d bloggers like this: