Has Your Credit Rating Suffered Due to Foreclosure or Bankruptcy?

Restore your score and more!

Your credit score is the key to lower cost on automobile insurance, mortgages, credit cards, other insurance, even getting a job.
In this session you will learn vital information that can help you drive up your credit score.
Join Dave Krieger and real estate and credit expert Lou Brown for tonight’s important session.
​Please register for Restore Your Score and More! on Mar 23, 2017 8:00 PM EDT at:


As a subscriber to this blog, I want to update you on new developments.

A few months ago I learned that one of our associates had found a company that did an amazing job restoring her credit. Not everyday, run-of-the-mill credit. I’m talking foreclosure, bankruptcy, tax liens, the works – as she was a victim of the historic economic downturn.

I want to share with you some important information about credit and about how you and your family and your friends and your business prospects can benefit from higher scores.
Register now
See you on the call at 8:00 PM ET!

Leave a comment

Filed under Breaking News, Financial Education



The case of Daniel and Darla Robinson has now been docketed with the United States Supreme Court, Docket #16-1127.

The 66-page Writ of Certiorari can be viewed here: 1. Petition for Writ (re USCA9 Case No. 15-55347)

The key question presented here is:

Whether Respondent, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., which is identified in most mortgages and deeds of trust as a “beneficiary” or “nominee” of the lender, possesses an interest in a borrower’s property sufficient to establish Article III standing.

To date, MERS nor its parent, MERSCORP, which is also “MERS” according to Rule 1 § 1 of its own 2009 Membership Rules, has confused courts all over the country and the author of this post is encouraging everyone to contact their attorney or institution of higher learning to facilitate support for this Writ in the form of an amicus brief in support of the nation’s highest court accepting this Writ for official hearing and review by the Court.  The deadline, according to Supreme Court rules, is April 17, 2017 to have all submissions in.

This case resulted in a very narrow ruling, albeit unpublished, by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, consisting of 3-1/2 pages.  Everyone needs to get behind this case because this is the only way we are going to get a real determination of what MERS is or isn’t, or claims it is or isn’t. Further, in reading this brief and in looking at other similar cases, not once has MERS ever proved it suffered an actual damage or injury to justify Article III standing (see Spokeo v. Robins, an earlier Supreme Court decision).

On behalf of all homeowners whose chains of title has been affected by MERS and its parent, you owe it to yourselves to circulate this Writ and get action on it.  Forward it to your Congressman, Senator, County Clerk, anyone you think will be effective in convincing the Justices to accept this case.  It is anticipated that the banking industry will pummel the Supreme Court with amicus briefs, as will MERS in its answers, which still prove nothing more than what has been made a conflict between the federal circuits and the state supreme courts across the country.  It’s about time this matter was put to rest.



Filed under Breaking News



Why do the majority of distressed homeowners think they can act as their own counsel, especially when it comes to filing an appeal in their case?

Is this part of Plan B?  In other words, if Plan A doesn’t work … and you lose in state court, representing yourself in any capacity, should you continue this folly by use of the same pattern of thinking in an appeal?  Resoundingly: NO!

I can appreciate the fact that homeowners who got dissed in some way, shape or form by a lender are attempting to do what they believe is right, but there comes a point in time when Plan B ruins it for everybody else.  In both of the instances you’re about to read here … everyone loses because these opinions are published and can be referenced by the courts and opposing counsel in other similarly-situated cases.  That’s why homeowners who choose to litigate their own cases have two choices:

  1. Either be pissed at themselves because they weren’t in their right minds when they chose to litigate the case themselves; or
  2. Be pissed at themselves because they did not comprehend that the definition of “insanity” is repeating the same uneducated nonsense in a court case that got you into trouble in the appeals court, expecting different results.

Let’s face it folks, pro se/pro per litigants are not attorneys.  They are pissed off homeowners.  They want their pound of flesh because they got their ass beat in the lower courts.  Rather than coming up with Plan B, meaning, restructure your financial position and live to fight another day, they turn around and appeal their case, without legal knowledge or foundation and then expecting that the higher court will show them mercy against the “big, bad bank”.  Sadly, what you’re going to read here is procedural error, an error that could have been prevented by retaining decent counsel.

The mindset however is that pro se/pro per litigants do not trust attorneys or they think they can take on the burdensome task of litigating the matter themselves, regardless of the consequences to themselves AND EVERYONE ELSE!  When a pro se/pro per litigant fails in court, it sets bad case law for the rest of us!

Don’t feel bad for these people.  They should have known they were getting in over their head by doing this.

While I am not in favor of what these banks have done to Americans nationally, I am pissed at the lack of common sense in thinking that the average, pissed off homeowner can fight a mega-bank that spends millions, if not billions of dollars a year in litigation costs against whoever comes against it.  Bank of America, N.A. reportedly spends $2-billion a year in retaining counsel to fight its battles.  It is nothing for them to squash you like a bug, especially with their research teams vetting your educational ability prior to “launching a full spread” against you, knowing you don’t have “countermeasures” (to use specific submariner’s terms).

It is rare … and there are a few singular cases … where a pro se/pro per litigant has become the “David who slew Goliath”. This is the exception rather than the rule.  One person who I know personally, who is an absolutely brilliant researcher, won her case in bankruptcy court in Illinois. The other, who won against MERS (who also possesses a multimillion dollar legal war chest), was in Tennessee, namely Carlton J. Ditto.

When you read the following cases, please come to the realization that 99% of average American homeowners who got suckered into these securitized mortgages: (a.) do not have the legal acumen to fight their cases themselves; and (b.) do not have … and never did have … the financial resources set aside, vis a vis a legal fund, to take up the fight on behalf of the rest of us. No one expected these results to occur, yet they did.  Lessons learned at the expense of the legal system.

Ivanoff v Bank of America, Cal. 2nd App Dist No B271035 (Mar 13, 2017)

McCullough v CitiMortgage, Inc. Sup Ct Ind. No 71S03-1605-MF-272 (Mar 14, 2017)


From time to time, I hear about pro se/pro per litigants attempting to take matters into their own hands by going “outside of the system’s own parameters” and using their own quasi-legal devices to retaliate or effectuate a legal outcome.  A majority of these battles end miserably.

I have had numerous homeowners contact me and inform me that they are utilizing what are known as “administrative processes” or “UCC-1 Statements”, to thwart the bank’s attempt at foreclosing on their homes.  As you will read in the following decision … use of these so-called “self-defeating” methods will land you in prison:

US v Jordan, 5th App Cir No 15-20454 (Mar 14, 2017)

It’s not giving legal advice when I don’t have a good feeling about what these folks are doing.  It’s just another way to protest what many Americans believe is an unjust legal system.  I get that.  However, the system has its own set of tools for dealing with these issues.  When these issues become insurmountable … and you mind yourself out of funds … no longer able to sustain … it is time to put your thinking cap on and realize that what you do in the future may cause unintended harm to others … and to amass what financial resources you may have at your disposal and find other digs, even if you have to move to another market or another state entirely, to start over.  This is what the settlers did when they came to America to escape persecution from the King.  They knew it was futile to fight, so they moved and started over.  History does repeat itself in very finite ways.

As Sean Connery stated in the movie, The Hunt For Red October, “… when Cortez reached the new world, he burned his ships, so his men became highly motivated.”

Burning bridges doesn’t mean giving up.  It means surviving.  We are Americans.  That’s what we do.  No matter what.

Rethink Plan B!


Filed under Breaking News

Clouded Titles Author Dave Krieger Live On-Air Tonight!


Happy St. Patrick’s Day! 

Join Clouded Titles author Dave Krieger with retired attorney (and WKDW-FM station manger R. J. Malloy) on WKDW-FM, 97.5, North Port, Florida.  You can hear them live, on this special St. Patrick’s Day edition of City Spotlight, streaming over the internet, at kdwradio.com!   Simply click LISTEN LIVE to join in at 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time.  Hear the latest news and information about debt collection, foreclosures, legal issues and related information.  Send your questions and comments on the program to info@kdwradio.com.

1 Comment

Filed under Breaking News, Chain of Title Education, Debt Collection and Foreclosures, FCRA Education, FDCPA Education, Financial Education, Quiet Title Education



Whether you’ve caught wind of this or not, Missouri Attorney Greg Leyh will have a shot in front of a rural Missouri county jury to convince them that Wells Fargo’s (and others’) actions in wrongfully foreclosing against David and Crystal Holm of Clinton County warrant serious money damages.

See the Missouri Supreme Court opinion here: holm-v-wells-fargo-mtg-inc-et-al-sup-ct-mo-no-sc95755-feb-28-2017

Because of Wells Fargo’s evasive actions to thwart discovery, the county judge sanctioned Wells Fargo by striking their pleadings and preventing them from (1) presenting any evidence at trial; (2) objecting to the Holms’ evidence; and (3) cross-examining any of the Holm’s witnesses.  Wells Fargo maintained it never waived its right to a jury trial.  The circuit judge denied their request, held a bench trial, and entered judgment in favor of the Holms, quieting title to their home.

The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the quiet title action, but refused to vacate the sanctions award, and further held that the wrongful foreclosure “was supported by substantial evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence.”  What the new trial by jury will determine is what the Holm’s damages are for the wrongful foreclosure.  A recent trial in Clinton County resulted in a $4.7-million jury award.  The Holms were originally awarded $2.92-million in punitive damages as part of their overall award.


The issue here is how a jury is going to treat Wells Fargo, given the recent spate of bad press surrounding the creation of dummy accounts to get the bank’s numbers up.  With the way that most rural folks view banks these days, it’s likely that Wells’s request for a jury trial may get them in more financial hot water than they bargained for, rather than just paying up and taking their loss with grace, lesson learned.  I personally don’t think it’s going to end that way for the bank and I’m sure the quiet title action that was vacated is going to be revisited.


Filed under Breaking News, Op-Ed Piece, Quiet Title Education