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:
- Either be pissed at themselves because they weren’t in their right minds when they chose to litigate the case themselves; or
- 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)
IN OTHER NEWS —
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!