Bartram: The Missing Links

Why did the Plaintiff lose in its “standard foreclosure”?

The decision on acceleration is essentially this: If the banks do it, it doesn’t count.

While Bartram didn’t turn out the way we want, there are two paths that nobody is talking about — logistics and res judicata.

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.
—————-
The Florida Supreme Court decision in Bartram reinforces the absurd — that after losing in trial court, the pretender lender can sue over and over again for “new defaults.” The court has re-written the alleged “loan contract” to mean that a loss in court means that their acceleration of the entire loan becomes de-accelerated, meaning that acceleration is merely an option hanging in the wind that doesn’t really mean anything. The decision might have consequences when the same logic is applied to other actions taken pursuant to contract. The decision on acceleration is essentially this: If the banks do it, it doesn’t count.
 *
But two things remain outstanding, one of which the court mentioned in its opinion. Why did the Plaintiff lose in its “standard foreclosure”? The issues that were litigated as to the money and/or documentary trail have been litigated and are subject to res judicata. The Plaintiff, if it is the same Plaintiff, is barred from relitigating them.
 *
If Plaintiff failed to prove ownership of the loan and was using fabricated void assignments and endorsements, the lifting of the statute of limitations should not help them in attempting to bring future litigation. Many other such issues were undoubtedly raised in the original case. The Plaintiff would be forced to argue that while the issues were raised, they were not actually litigated and a judgment was not entered based upon those issues.
 *
The Florida Supremes took away the Statute of Limitations, up to a point (see below) but gave us the right remedy — res judicata. Even if a new Plaintiff appears, the questions remain as to how the alleged loan papers got to them remain open, as well as whether the paper represented any actual loan contract absent an actual lender.
 *
And then there are the logistics that I don’t think were considered in its decision. According to the Bartram decision the act of acceleration vanishes if the Plaintiff loses. The statute of limitations does apply for past due payments that are more than 5 years old. That means, starting with the date of the lawsuit (not the demand), you count back 5 years and all payments due before that are barred by the SOL.
 *
So if a Plaintiff loses the foreclosure, it can bring the action again based upon missed payments that were due within the SOL period. Of course if the Defendant won because the Plaintiff had no right or authority to collect on the DEBT, the action should be barred by res judicata. But putting that issue aside, there are other problems.
 *
“Servicing” of a designated “loan account” is actually done by multiple IT platforms. The one used for foreclosure comes out of LPS/Black Knight in Jacksonville, Florida. This is the entity that  fabricates documents and business records for foreclosure. It is not the the actual system used for servicing that deals in reality with the alleged borrower and accepts payments and posts them. It is incomplete. This system intentionally does not have all the documents and all the “business records” relating to the loan. For example there is no document or report that shows who was and probably still is receiving payments as though the loan were performing perfectly.
 *
The decision on when and if to foreclose is always performed by LPS/Black Knight in order to prevent multiple servicers, trustees, banks and “lenders” from suing on the same loan, which has happened in the past. LPS assigns the loan to a specific party who is then named by Plaintiff. And LPS creates all the fabricated paperwork to make it look like that party is the right Plaintiff and that the business records produced by LPS can be presented as the business records of the party whose name was rented for the purpose of foreclosure. It is LPS documents that are produced in court, not the records of the named Plaintiff.
 *
So here is a sample simple scenario that will illustrate the logistical problem created by the Florida Supremes: LPS issues a notice of default letter naming the claimant as XYZ, as trustee for XYZ series 2006-19B Pass Through Trust Certificates. Previously XYZ lost the foreclosure action by failing to prove that it had any relationship with the loan. The Notice of Default and right to reinstate issued by LPS on behalf of XYZ must be for payment that was within the SOL. This action of course waives the payments, fees etc that are barred by the SOL. It also assumes that the date of the letter AND THE LAWSUIT will be within the SOL period. So for example, if the last payment was on December 1, 2006 and the letter refers to a missed payment starting with January 1, 2012, the letter is proper. But if suit is not commenced until January 2, 2017, the letter is defective and the lawsuit is barred by the SOL. Further the doctrine of res judicata bars any cause of action that was litigated previously.
 *
All of this leads to a court determination of what issues were previously raised, when they were raised and whether the Final Judgment in favor of the homeowner means anything.

Why Are Trusts Alleging Holder Status and Not Holder in Due Course?

THEY ARE ADMITTING THEY DIDN’T PAY FOR THE LOAN

THIS CORROBORATES THE ALLEGATION THAT THE TRUST WAS UNFUNDED

IF THE TRUST WAS UNFUNDED IT COULD NOT HAVE ORIGINATED OR ACQUIRED THE LOAN

In situations where the alleged REMIC Trust is the party initiating foreclosure, you will find in most instances that they are alleging that they are the holder. The fact that they are not alleging that they are the holder in due course raises some interesting questions. First, it is an admission that they did not pay for the loan for value in good faith and without notice of borrower’s defenses.

This in turn leads us to the PSA where you can see for yourself that only good loans properly underwritten can be included in the trust based upon the procedures for transfer and payment that are set forth or implied in the trust instrument (the PSA). Remember that the ONLY reason the party is appearing in court as the foreclosing entity is by virtue of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA). Their ONLY authority, as a “holder with rights to enforce” derives from the trust instrument (PSA). So any argument that the PSA is irrelevant is nonsense — it should be an exhibit in court or else the foreclosure should be dismissed. If they want to argue to the contrary, they must reveal the creditor and reveal the alternative authority to enforce apart from the trust instrument. If it has anything to do with the trust or trust beneficiaries however, the document (Power of Attorney) derives its power from the trust instrument as well (PSA).

The way the Banks tell it, an assignment dated not only after the cutoff date, but after the alleged declared default of the loan forces investors to accept that which they specifically excluded in the  trust instrument (PSA) — a bad loan that violates the REMIC provisions of the Internal Revenue Code subject them to adverse tax consequences and economic losses that were NOT built into the deal. How can a state judge in Florida or any other state order or enter judgment that forces a bad loan on investors who specifically called fro a cutoff of any new loans in the pool years before the foreclosure? If the loan was already declared in default. how can the trust beneficiaries be forced to accept a bad loan?

At the very least these John Does must be given notice and since the servicer knows who they are (because they have been paying them) they should give notice to the investors that their rights may be significantly impacted by a court decision in which the servicer or trustee of the REMIC trust is taking a position adverse to the interests of the trust beneficiaries and in violation of the trust indenture.

Since the requirements of the PSA always provide for circumstances that are identical to the definition of a holder in due course, why is the allegation that they are just a holder? The answer is plain: in order to establish that they are a holder in due course their proof would be limited to the fact that they paid for the loan, in good faith and without knowledge of borrower’s defenses. That proof would insulate the trust and trust beneficiaries from borrower’s defenses by definition (see Article 3, UCC). The allegation of only being a holder, exposes the trust and trust beneficiaries to defenses that were intended to be barred by virtue of being holders in due course of each and every loan. Thus this too is an allegation contrary or adverse to the interests of the trust and the trust beneficiaries. Again without notice to the trust beneficiaries that the trustee or at least lawyers for the trustee are taking positions adverse to the interests of the investors and the trust.

What difference does it make? It makes a difference because of money which is after all what this case is supposed to be about. The investors’ money either went into the REMIC trust or it didn’t. If it did, then the trust is the right vehicle for the transaction although most PSA’s say the trust cannot bring the foreclosure action. But if it didn’t go into the REMIC trust account, and the trust was ignored in the origination and/or acquisition of the, loan then the borrower is even more entitled to know what payments the investors (f/k/a/ trust beneficiaries) have received. If there have been settlements, then how much of the original debt is left? If there were servicer payments, was there ever a default and how much of the original debt is left? If there were third party payments to the creditors then how much of the original debt is left?

What seems to be an elusive concept for judges, lawyers and even borrowers is that their debt was paid by someone else. That is what happens when you have fraudulent transactions and the perpetrators get caught. In this case, there was plenty of money available to private settle more than $1 Trillion in claims of fraud from investors and fines that are steadily increasing into the tens of billions of dollars. Because the intermediary banks had essentially stolen the identity of the lenders and the borrowers, they made claims and got paid as though they were the lenders. Now they are using the proceeds of what were disguised sales of the same loan multiple times to settle with investors and settle only with those borrowers who present a credible threat. In the end the banks are wiling to pay trillions because they got illegally trillions more.

The big question is when it will occur to enough enough judges, lawyers and borrowers that they are entitled to offset for those payments that were actually received or on behalf of the actual creditors. It isn’t a difficult computation. Thus the notice of default, the notice of the right to reinstatement, the end of month statements, and the acceleration letter all state the wrong amounts and are fatally defective. They are misrepresentations that are part of a string of misrepresentations starting with the lies told to the managers of stable managed funds who purchased, and kept on purchasing mortgage bonds issued by an apparent REMIC trust whose terms were being routinely ignored.

Thus it is not RELIEF that the borrower is asking, it is JUSTICE. The creditor is only entitled to get paid once on each debt. The creditors are the investors or trust beneficiaries. The demands made on borrowers for the last 7 years have actually been demands from the intermediaries for payment of fees, commissions and advances made or earned by them, according to their story. They are not claims on the mortgage loan, which was either paid down or paid off without disclosure to the borrower. Had the pay down or payoff been recorded and applied, virtually all of the loans that were improperly foreclosed by strangers to the original transaction (no privity) would have been avoided because the amount of the payment could have been dropped easily under HAMP. As stated repeatedly on these pages, this is not a gift of principal REDUCTION. It is justice applying a principal CORRECTION due to payment received — the ultimate defense under any lawsuit for financial damages.

For more information please call 954-495-9867.

The Devil Is In the Details: Summary of Issues

Editor’s note: in preparing a complex motion for the court in several related cases I ended up writing the following which I would like to share with my readers. As you can see, the issues that were once thought to be simple and susceptible to rocket docket determination are in fact complex civil cases involving issues that are anything but simple.

This is a guide and general information. DO NOT USE THIS IF YOU ARE NOT A LICENSED ATTORNEY. THESE ISSUES ARE BOTH PROCEDURALLY AND SUBSTANTIVELY ABOVE THE AVERAGE KNOWLEDGE OF A LAYMAN. CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY LICENSED IN THE GEOGRAPHICAL AREA IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.

If you are seeking litigation support or referrals to attorneys or representation please call 520-405-1688.

SUMMARY OF ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED

 

1)   Whether a self proclaimed or actual Trustee for a REMIC Trust is empowered to bring a foreclosure action or any action to enforce the note and mortgage contrary to the terms of the Trust document — i.e., the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) — which New York and Delaware law declare to be actions that are VOID not VOIDABLE; specifically if the Trust document names a different trustee or empowers only the servicer to bring enforcement actions against borrowers.

2)   Whether a Trustee or Servicer may initiate actions or take legal positions that are contrary to the interests of the Trust Beneficiaries — in this case creating a liability for the Trust Beneficiaries for receipt of overpayments that are not credited to the account receivable from the Defendant Borrowers by their agents (the servicer and the alleged Trustee) and the creation of liability to LaSalle Bank or the Trust by virtue of questionable changes in Trustees.

3)   Whether US Bank is the Plaintiff or should be allowed to claim that it is the Trustee for the Plaintiff Trust. Without Amendment to the Complaint, US Bank seeks to be substituted as Plaintiff in lieu of Bank of America, as successor by merger with LaSalle Bank, trustee for the Plaintiff Trust according to the Trust Document (the Pooling and Servicing Agreement) Section 8.09.

a)    A sub-issue to this is whether Bank of America is actually is the successor by merger to LaSalle Bank or if CitiMortgage is the successor to LaSalle Bank, as Trustee of the Plaintiff Trust — there being conflicting submissions on the SEC.gov website on which it appears that CitiMortgage is the actual party with ownership of ABN AMRO and therefore LaSalle Bank its subsidiary.

b)   In addition, whether opposing counsel, who claims to represent U.S. Bank may be deemed attorney for the Trust if U.S. Bank is not the Trustee for the Trust.

i)     Whether opposing counsel’s interests are adverse to its purported client or the Trust or the Trust beneficiaries, particularly with respect to their recent push for turnover of rents despite full payment to creditors through non stop servicer advances.

4)   Whether any Trustee for the Trust can bring any enforcement action for the debt including foreclosure, assignment of rents or any other relief.

5)   Whether the documentation of a loan at the base of the tree of the assignments and transfers refers to any actual transaction in which the Payee on the note and the Mortgagee on the Mortgage.

a)    Or, as is alleged by Defendants, if the actual transaction occurred when a wire transfer was received by the closing agent at the loan closing with Defendant Borrowers from an entity that was a stranger to the documentation executed by Defendant Borrowers.

b)   Whether the debt arose by virtue of the receipt of money from a creditor or if it arose by execution of documentation, or both, resulting in double liability for a single loan and double payment.

6)   Whether the assignment of mortgage is void on its face as a fabrication because it refers to an event that occurred long after the date shown on the assignment.

7)   Whether the non-stop servicer advances in all of the cases involving these Defendants and U.S. Bank negates the default or the allegation of default by the Trust beneficiaries, the Trust or the Trustee, regardless of the identity of the Trustee.

a)    Whether a DEFAULT exists or ever existed where non stop servicer advances have been paid in full.

b)   Whether the creditor, under the debt obligation of the Defendant borrowers can be allowed to receive more than the amount due as principal , interest and expenses. In this case borrower payments, non stop servicer advances, insurance, credit default swap proceeds and other payments by co-obligors who paid without subrogation or expectation of receiving refunds from the Trust Beneficiaries.

c)    Whether a new debt arises by operation of law as a result of receipt of third party defendants in which a claim might be made by the party who advanced payment to the creditor, resulting in a decrease the account receivable and a corresponding decrease in the borrower’s account (loan) payable.

i)     Whether the new debt is secured by the recorded mortgage that the Plaintiff relies upon without the borrower executing a security instrument in which the real property is pledged as collateral for the advances by third parties.

8)   Whether turnover of rents can relate back to the original default, or default letter, effectively creating a final judgment for damages before evidence is in the court record.

9)   Whether the requirements of a demand letter to Defendants for turnover of rents can be waived by the trial Court, contrary to Florida Statutes.

a)    Whether equity demands that the turnover demand be denied in view of the fact that the actual creditors — the Trust Beneficiaries of the alleged Trust were paid in full up to and including the present time.

b)   Whether, as argued by opposing counsel, the notice of default letter sent to Defendant Borrowers is an acceptable substitute to a demand letter for turnover of the rents if the letter did not mention turnover of rents.

c)    Whether the notice of default letter and acceleration was valid or accurate in view of the servicer non-stop advances and receipt of other third party payments reducing the account receivable of the Trust beneficiaries (creditors).

i)     Whether there was a difference between the account status shown by the Servicer (chase and now SPS) and the account status actually shown by the creditor — the Trust Beneficiaries who were clearly paid in full.

10)         Whether the Plaintiff Trust waived the DUE ON SALE provision in the alleged Mortgage.

a)    Whether the Plaintiff can rely upon the due on sale provision in the mortgage to allege default without amendment to their pleadings.

11)         Whether sanctions should apply against opposing counsel for failure to disclose essential facts relating to the security of the alleged creditor.

Whether this (these cases) case should be treated off the “rocket docket” for foreclosures and transferred to general civil litigation for complex issues

Challenging Deeds Issued After Auction (Sale) of Property

One of the rewarding aspects of what I do is to see more and more people not only hopping on board, understanding securitization, but adding to the body of knowledge I have amassed. In the following article Bill Paatalo, who has done the loan level accounting for many of our readers, expands upon a topic that I have introduced (and of course Dan Edstrom) but not explained nearly as well as Bill does: see http://bpinvestigativeagency.com/time-to-challange-those-trustees-deeds/

EDITOR’S NOTE: I would add that where servicer advances are paid to the creditor (or who we think is the creditor), then there is often an overpayment, which might account for why the “credit bid” is lower than the total amount demanded by the servicer for redemption or reinstatement. This anomaly could void the notice of default and notice of sale and create a problem on the amount required for redemption after the so-called sale.

The legal issue presented by Bill is whether the party who submitted the bid satisfies the state’s legal definition of a creditor who is allowed to submit a credit bid at closing in lieu of cash. This issue is fairly easily analyzed before any order or judgment is entered by a court.

But afterwards, because of the rubber stamping, the judgments mostly state something along the lines that $XXXX.XX is owed by the borrower to the opposing party in litigation. The judgment is final until overturned by appeal or a motion to vacate.

That Judgment makes them a possible creditor and even raises the presumption that they are a creditor when in fact there was no evidence to support that finding in the order or judgment. And ordinarily the courts require that the motion or other attack be verified by a sworn statement from the homeowner. That gets tricky because without having an actual forensic report in your hands, how would the borrower even know about such things?

The judgment can be attacked for fraud because the opposing party had never entered into a transaction wherein it paid value (see Article 9 of UCC) to originate or acquire the loan. Procedural rules vary from state to state on  how this is done and the time limit fro such challenges. In fact, none of the people in the cloud of “securitization” paid anything for the loan, with the exception of the servicer who is credited with having paid servicer advances to the creditor when in fact it appears as though the servicer advances were paid by the investment bank who reserved money out of the pool of money advanced by investors to pay the investors out of their own money. Hence, we see the reason for calling the scheme a PONZI scheme. This is why the issue of STANDING keep bouncing back front and center.

Without an attack on the Judgment I doubt if your state law will allow you to challenge the sale or the sale price. Obviously, before you act on anything on this blog, you need to consult with an attorney who is licensed and experienced in such matters and who practices in the jurisdiction in which your property is located.

For those who are good with computer graphics, here are two drawings I recently made to describe the process of securitization as it played out. The bottom line is that the investment bank diverted the money from the trust and diverted the documentation that was due to the investors to its own strawmen, trading on that documentation and making a ton of money while the investor/lenders and homeowner/borrowers lost either everything or a substantial amount of their wealth that ended up in the pocket of the banks. Anyone who is good with graphics is invited to donate their time to this website and make my hand drawn sketches easier to read and perhaps animated. Neil Garfield Securitization Diagrams 12-20-13

Posted by BPIA on December 18, 2013 bi Bill Paatalo:

For the past couple of years, I have been providing clients with the internal loan level accounting data, which reveals in most instances of private securitization, that all payments “due” on the notes have been paid regularly by undisclosed “co-obligors.” Thus there becomes an issue of fact as to whether or not the “note” is actually in “default.” Word through the grapevine is that this particular argument is gaining some momentum in certain jurisdictions throughout the United States.

Well now it’s time to use the same internal accounting data to attack those dubious “Trustee’s Deeds.” In non-judicial foreclosure states, a ”Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale” or Trustee’s Deed” is recorded after the foreclosure sale. Often, the property is sold back to the supposed creditor into what is called “REO” status. In cases where the subject loans were alleged to have been securitized, the Trustee’s Deed will typically state that the Trustee for “XYZ Mortgage-Backed Trust” was the “highest bidder” at the sale and paid cash in the amount of $………..(whatever dollar figure.) There are many reasons to question the validity of these documents; such as the actual parties submitting the “credit bids,” and whether or not any actual cash exchanged hands as attested to under notary acknowledgment. However, there is a way to provide evidence and proof that no such payment ever exchanged hands.

The following language was extracted from a typical Trustee’s Deed:

Trustees Deed language snip

In this particular case, the alleged amount owed in the “Notice of Default” was roughly $314,000.00. A check of the internal accounting for this particular loan (6-months after the sale) shows the loan in “REO” status with no such payment having ever been applied. In fact, the certificateholders (investors) are still receiving their monthly payments of P&I with the trust showing “zero” losses.

This is good hard evidence that the sale and subsequent Trustee’s Deed filed in this case was a “sham” transaction.

If your loan was alleged to have been securitized by a private mbs trust, and your home sold in similar fashion with a recorded Trustee’s Deed, contact me today (bill.bpia@gmail.com) to see if your Trustee’s Deed matches up with the internal accounting data.

Living lies now offers Expert Affidavits showing what was stated in the Trustee’s Deed as opposed to what has actually occurred behind the curtains. See http://www.livingliesstore.com. Most people ask for consults with me and/or the expert, like Bill, so their lawyer understands what to do with this information.

The Notice Letters and Legal Strategies

Now that I am actively practicing law I see the reasons for the anger and recriminations regarding the conduct of proceedings involving foreclosure. But whether the judge likes it or not the law is very clear regarding a condition precedent to the filing of foreclosure action. The borrower must receive notice. The notice must state that the borrower is in default and must also state the conditions for reinstatement to cure the default. The law is very clear that failure to give proper notice is reason enough to deny the foreclosure. It doesn’t stop the bank from coming back later after giving proper notice, but it does stop the current foreclosure proceeding.

Generally speaking you’ll find the required language in the mortgage in paragraph 22. There are other paragraphs that speak to default have the right to reinstatement —  usually in the preceding paragraphs to the paragraph 22.

Notwithstanding the law, I am finding that there are many judges who consider it to be their political mandate to push the foreclosures through to sale. They may be right as to the political mandate but they are wrong to use it in a court of law. Failure to give proper notice or any other material fact that might be in issue is sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment as long as it is clearly in the record at the time the order on summary judgment is entered. In Florida at least I detect an attitude from the bench which disregards the facts of the case in favor of entering judgment for the banks.

Having the facts and law on your side does not mean that you will be able to stop the foreclosure. This does not stop judges from blaming borrowers for delays in the proceedings despite the fact that it is the obligation of the foreclosing party to prosecute the action. And yesterday I saw a judge enter an order granting summary judgment despite the fact that there were dozens of facts in dispute. His reason appeared to be that the case had been hanging around for four or five years —  during which time the homeowner could have filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute the action at least twice.

Of course homeowners do not know the Rules of Civil Procedure which is why I have stated so strongly and so often why they should retain counsel if they really want to keep their home.

In the course of my research on a related topic I uncovered the information shown below. It is obvious that under federal and Florida law the notice must contain information concerning the right to reinstate the loan and a demand for a specific amount of money required for reinstatement. Some banks have chosen to ignore the right to reinstatement because of their enthusiasm for obtaining a foreclosure judgment. And there are judges that will ignore the issue of notice and enter judgment for the bank. But on appeal there seems to be little doubt that the judges order will be reversed, the sale will be reversed, and the foreclosure action will be dismissed (without prejudice to refile).

Most judges appeared to approach a foreclosure case as a fairly simple matter that is very annoying to them. Instead of asking the attorney for the bank to present his/her case there are several judges who are announcing that everything seems to be in order and so judgment will be entered. While this is wrong I would caution the reader not to draw the  further conclusion that the judge is corrupt or has an agenda designed to hurt homeowners. In the eyes of the judge, based upon actual experience for several years, most defenses that have been presented to judges have been for the purposes of delay. In part this was allowed and even encouraged by the banks who were unready to fully prosecute the foreclosure action because of the potential liability for taxes, insurance and maintenance.

In my firm we generally refer clients who are simply looking for delays to other attorneys whose down payment and monthly payment is far less than what we charge. After years of writing about it I have reentered the practice of law and I am attempting to set a standard of vigorous and aggressive prosecution of the case against the bank. This of course is only possible if the bank has done something wrong. But you are not going to know that without someone going through the entire process starting with the application for mortgage and going through the present time. It also requires discovery in the form of interrogatories, requests for admission, requests to produce, and subpoenas issued to appropriate witnesses requiring them to bring documents with them.

In my opinion the more lawyers that aggressively pursue the case, the more judges will start questioning why the bank is backpedaling. Once you get a judge thinking that you are the aggressor, you have succeeded in taking control of the narrative. Once you have taken control of the narrative you can raise questions in the judge’s mind as to whether or not there might actually be something wrong with this particular foreclosure action.

I don’t deny that there is a value to any homeowner in getting free rent or no mortgage payment and that an attorney might be useful in maximizing the length of time in which the homeowner is not required to pay anything. It might be the only way that the homeowner can recover part of his or her investment. But delay tactics seem to dominate the litigation landscape. So it should come as no surprise that any judge would approach a foreclosure case with the assumption that the debt is valid and that the documents are in order; the only question left is when will the sale take place.

My mission, as I conceive it, is to make some changes in the litigation landscape. Specifically, I think that with proper pleading and discovery, it may be revealed that the party seeking the foreclosure lacks any ownership interest in the loan and lacks any authority to represent anyone with an ownership interest in the loan. I also think that the amount demanded for reinstatement or redemption is also misstated in that the borrower is not getting the benefit of offset from third-party payments that should be credited to the account in which the loan receivable is held. In short, I still believe what I said six years ago, to wit: as crazy as it might seem, the loan was prepaid at the time of origination and then repaid several times over after which it was then sold to the Federal Reserve probably multiple times  and sold two government-sponsored entities multiple times. If the loan is paid (several times over, no less) then there can be action to collect on it, least of all foreclosure.

While the presumption is on preventing a homeowner from getting a free ride, courts have been giving the financial industry the equivalent of corporate welfare with each  foreclosure sale. And in doing so they have actually stripped the true creditor from any collateralized claim and further stripped the true creditor from making any claim at all. The beneficiaries of this idiotic system are obviously the banks. The victims include everyone else including the investors, insurers, taxpayers, borrowers, and the Federal Reserve. Of course in the case of the Federal Reserve, it knows that it is a victim and that it is buying completely worthless paper from the banks who have previously sold the same paper to others. That doesn’t seem to matter to the federal reserve and so far it doesn’t seem to matter to any of the judges sitting on the bench.

http://www.credit.com/credit_information/credit_law/Understanding-Your-Foreclosure-Rights.jsp

http://floridaforeclosurefraud.com/2010/03/notice-of-default-prior-to-acceleration-whats-in-your-mortgage/

http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2011/06/09/fl-2dca-reverses-sj-acceleration-letter-failed-to-state-the-default-as-required-by-the-mortgage-terms-konsulian-v-busey-bank-na/

Wake Up Georgia: Courts Are Opening the Door on Wrongful Foreclosure

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE IN GEORGIA
If you are seeking legal representation or other services call our Florida customer service number at 954-495-9867 (East Coast, including Georgia – the Atlanta Area) and for the West coast the number remains 520-405-1688. Customer service for the livinglies store with workbooks, services and analysis remains the same at 520-405-1688. The people who answer the phone are NOT attorneys and NOT permitted to provide any legal advice, but they can guide you toward some of our products and services.
The selection of an attorney is an important decision  and should only be made after you have interviewed licensed attorneys familiar with investment banking, securities, property law, consumer law, mortgages, foreclosures, and collection procedures. This site is dedicated to providing those services directly or indirectly through attorneys seeking guidance or assistance in representing consumers and homeowners. We are available to any lawyer seeking assistance anywhere in the country, U.S. possessions and territories. Neil Garfield is a licensed member of the Florida Bar and is qualified to appear as an expert witness or litigator in in several states including the district of Columbia. The information on this blog is general information and should NEVER be considered to be advice on one specific case. Consultation with a licensed attorney is required in this highly complex field.

Editor’s Note: For years Georgia has been considered by most attorneys to be a “red” state that, along with states like Tennessee showed no mercy on borrowers because of the prejudgment that the foreclosure mess was the fault of borrowers. For years they have ignored the now obvious truth that the defective mortgages and wrongful foreclosures do make a difference.

Now, reflecting inquiries from Courts below who are studying the the issue instead of issuing orders based upon a knee-jerk response, the State has taken a decided turn toward the application of law over presumption and bias. There is even reason to believe that the door is open a crack for past wrongful  foreclosures, as the Courts grapple with the fact that thousands of foreclosures were forced through the system by strangers to the transaction and thousands of wrongful foreclosure suits have been dismissed because of the assumption by judges that no bank would lie directly to the court. It was a big lie and apparently the banks were right in thinking there was little risk to them.

Look at Pratt’s Journal of Bankruptcy Law February/ March Issue for an article on “Foreclosure Law in the Wake of Recent Decisions on Residential Mortgage Loans: The Situation in Georgia” by Ashby Kent Fox, Shea Sullivan and Amanda Wilson. Our own lawyers have out in front on these issues for a couple of years but encountering a lot of resistance — although lately they are reporting that the Courts are listening more closely.

The Georgia Supreme Court has now weighed in (Reese v Provident) and decided quite obviously that something is rotten in Georgia. Focusing on Georgia’s foreclosure notice statute but actually speaking to the substantive defects in the mortgages and foreclosures, the majority held, as a matter of law, that

o.c.G.a. § 44-14- 162.2(a), requires the person or entity conducting a non-judicial foreclosure of a residential mortgage loan to provide the borrower/debtor with a written notice of the foreclosure sale that discloses not only “the name, address, and telephone number of the individual or entity who shall have full authority to negotiate, amend, and modify all terms of the mortgage with the debtor” (the language that appears in the statute), but also the identity of the “secured creditor” (not required by the statutory language, but which the majority inferred based on legislative intent). the majority further found that the failure to identify the “secured creditor” in the foreclosure notice renders the notice, and any subsequent foreclosure sale, invalid as a matter of law.

Once again I caution litigators that this will not dispose of your case permanently and that such rulings be used strategically so that you are not another hallway lawyer explaining how you were right but the judge ruled against you anyway. Notice provisions can be cured, non-existent transactions cannot be cured. Leading with the numbers (the money trail” and THEN using decisions like this to corroborate your argument will get you a lot more traction than leading with defective paperwork.

As I have said repeatedly, no judge, no matter how sympathetic to borrowers is going to give much relief when the borrower has admitted the debt, note, mortgage and default. These must be denied and lawyers should study up on the subject as to why they can and should be denied, and to persevere through discovery to show that the note, mortgage, default and even the debt have all been faked by strangers to the transaction.

Forcing the opposing side to show that they are a bona fide holder FOR VALUE  will flush out the truth — that originator in nearly all cases was never the lender, creditor or even broker. They were simply paid naked nominees just like MERS, leaving no real party in interest on the note or mortgage, no consideration between the parties stated on the note and mortgage or notice of default, and no meeting of minds between the real lender (who is NOT in privity with the nominee lender) who, as an investor received a prospectus and Pooling and Servicing Agreement and advanced money under the mistaken belief they were buying bonds of an entity that either did not exist or was simply ignored by the investment banker and the other participants in the false securitization scheme that was used to cover-up a PONZI scheme.

Practice tips: DENY and DISCOVER. Ask for proof of payment and proof of loss. The assignments, the note and the mortgage are not proof of the debt, they are potentially evidence of the debt and the security agreement ONLY if the foundation is there (testimony by witness with personal knowledge, with exhibits of wire transfer receipts and wire transfer instructions, cancelled checks etc.) to show that the originator shown as payee and “Secured party” or “beneficiary” was lender of money.

Make them show that they booked the loan as a receivable with a reserve for default. Discover that they actually booked the transaction as a fee for service (shown on the income statement) and never entered it on their balance sheet.

And PLEASE study up on voir dire, objections and cross examination. If you are not quick and ready objections to leading questions and other issues might well be waived unless you interrupt the questioning as fast as you can stand up. If you study up on hearsay and the business records exception to hearsay you will discover that in practically no case were the business records qualified as exceptions to the hearsay rule. But if you don’t raise it, if you don’t have statutory and case law and even a memo on the subject the judge is going to rule against you. We are talking about good lawyering here and not bias amongst judges.

Assignment must exist in writing, even if the court says it doesn’t need recording

Dan Hanacek, who will be at the conference in Emeryville tomorrow, and Charles Cox can be reached through our customer service number 520-405-1688. Dan is a lawyer with whom I am engaged in mentoring and resourcing in Northern California cases and Charles helps people all over the country. The tide is turning. The basic principles of title in place for hundreds of years, TILA in place for dozens of years and RESPA in place for dozens of years will yet win the day. Title analysis and attorney advice is crucial to making the write choices and communication with a party purporting to be either a lender or servicer. Don’t assume you know what they are saying is correct. Not even the original note can be admitted because of the thousands of instances in which the “original” is a Photoshopped version that is not the original note and therefore does not contain the original signature of the borrower.

Editor’s Note:

With Banks and servicers playing fast and loose with the rules of procedure, the rules of evidence and black letter law it well to remember BASIC BLACK LETTER LAW. An assignment without delivery is probably a nullity. An assignment that isn’t even in writing is (a) not proper under most existing laws and (b) requires the allegation of an oral “assignment” to be explained as to why it wasn’t in writing before, just like a lost or destroyed note.

The assignment can only be valid and used if the assignee is capable of accepting it, paying for it and either acceptance is for the assignee or as an authorized agent. The Notice Default does not give the Trustee or even the original mortgagee where there has been an assignment, the right to declare default. Then it becomes the representation of the trustee, who is supposed to be objective and disinterested in the result.

For the Trustee to issue a notice of sale and notice of default on behalf of the supposed beneficiary, means that the trustee is no longer accepting the responsibilities of the trustee to act with due diligence and good faith toward both the trustor and the beneficiary.

Hence the substitution of trustee is an offer which has not and cannot be accepted. Any actions taken by the trustee in a notice of default or any other notice or collection letter is out of bounds. The only reason the banks do this is to hide behind yet another layer of people and entities so when the arrest warrants are issued, they can claim plausible deniability that the wrong procedure was being followed. This is poppycock. The beneficiary supposedly knows whether or not he is the creditor entitled to submit a credit bid at auction based upon the the existence of a properly kept loan receivable account reflected on the CREDITOR’s books.

This is just another example where the banks and servicers have borrowed the identity of the creditor, claimed that said identity is private and privileged, and then used it for their own advantage to the detriment of both the lender-investor and the borrower.

Witness this exchange between two of our golden boys — Dan Hanacak and Charles Cox:

Dan wrote:

1624.  (a) The following contracts are invalid, unless they, or some
note or memorandum thereof, are in writing and subscribed by the
party to be charged or by the party's agent:
   (2) A special promise to answer for the debt, default, or
miscarriage of another, except in the cases provided for in Section
2794.
   (3) An agreement for the leasing for a longer period than one
year, or for the sale of real property, or of an interest therein;
such an agreement, if made by an agent of the party sought to be
charged, is invalid, unless the authority of the agent is in writing,
subscribed by the party sought to be charged.
 
Would this section not require the following:
  1. Assignments must be in writing as they are “…for the sale of real property, or of an interest therein.”
  2. Immediately contradict the Gomes holding as it assumes that the authority of the agent has already been subscribed by the party to be charged and pre-empts any challenge by the injured party to the alleged contract.

And Charles Cox wrote back:

I’ve just been drafting argument against TDSC (in opposition to their demurrer)  for the proposition of their authority (as an agent for the beneficiary) in which (as is common) they attempt to use an agent they have assigned, to record a NOD (usually prior to an assignment being recorded) which I refute as follows:

In P&A p.10:26-p.11:27: TDS wrongfully states a “title company representative as agent for T.D.” could validate a Notice of Default which by the terms of the purported Deed of Trust (“NOD”.)  By the terms of the purported Deed of Trust, a NOD is required to be executed or caused to be executed by the “Lender” not the trustee nor the Trustee’s sub-agent as was done here (see Compl. Exh. 1 p.13 ¶ 22 second paragraph.) TDS’s citations are inapposite relating to “authorized agents” (meaning, authorized by the principal, not by another agent.)  Pursuant to CCC § 2304, an agent cannot act for an agent without the express authority of the principal.  CCC § 2322(b) does not allow an agent to define the scope of the agency (which TDS is attempting to do here).  CCC § 2349(4) requires authorization by the principal.  CCC § 2350 states an agent’s sub-agent is the agent of the agent, not of the principal and has NO connection to the principal.

TDS misstates CCC § 2349(1) as it relates to allowing an agent to delegate acts which are purely mechanical.  The statute actually states:

“An agent, unless specially forbidden by his principal to do so, can delegate his powers to another person in any of the following cases, and in no others:
1. When the act to be done is purely mechanical (emphasis added)”
   Note the statute states “another person” not another agent or sub-agent.  The alleged “notice of default” TDS refers to (Plaintiffs are not sure which one, having not been identified in TDS’s P&A but assume as follows:) was signed by “LSI TITLE COMPANY AS AGENT FOR T.D. SERVICE COMPANY,” NOT merely by “a title company representative”  or “person” as statutorily authorized.  This, notwithstanding that authorizing recording a Notice of Default is hardly “purely mechanical.”  This is yet another attempt by TDS to mislead the Court.  
   TDS’s citation of Wilson v. Hyneck cannot be relied on because it is an unpublished opinion and is inapposite anyway. 
    TDS’s further arguments (P&A p.11:5-27) fail for the reasons detailed above.

Plaintiffs Complaint contains sufficient facts constituting Plaintiffs’ cause of action specifically against TDS.  Nothing stated in this section of TDS’s Demurrer provides available grounds sufficient to sustain Defendants’ Demurrer (see p.2:19-25 above.)

Defendant fails to meet the legal standards to sustain its Demurrer.  See Plaintiffs’ Section III below.

Defendant’s Demurrer is without merit and must be overruled.

Amazing how these guys fail to accept responsibility for anything they do!

Charles
Charles Wayne Cox
Email: mailto:Charles@BayLiving.com or Charles@LDApro.com

 

%d bloggers like this: