Uptick in foreclosures ??? This means war!

BREAKING NEWS —

National Mortgage News is regurgitating figures from Black Knight Financial Services that foreclosure starts, notably in Texas and Florida, are now on the upswing, now that the moratoriums imposed from Hurricanes Harvey and Irma have expired.  In February there were 46,700 foreclosures starts, while March’s foreclosure figures totaled 52,100 (according to Black Knight).  This means that between the two states alone there were nearly 65,000 foreclosures started up against homeowners, many who have no knowledge as to how to defend them.

Hence, the balance of the breaking news …

Clouded Titles author Dave Krieger (also a title consultant to attorneys) has put together a FORECLOSURE DEFENSE WORKSHOP to meet the increased demand for information, which will feature succinct input from three different attorneys (from different parts of the U.S., all well versed on foreclosure defense in both mortgage and deed of trust states) on various foreclosure defense topics that are designed to help homeowners “fight the good fight”.

The FORECLOSURE DEFENSE WORKSHOP will be held on Saturday, July 28th and Sunday, July 29th (2018) from 8 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (both days) at the Hampton Inn & Suites Orlando Airport (5460 Gateway Village Circle, Orlando, FL 32812). The hotel offers complimentary WiFi and free breakfast and airport shuttle for those attending the event or staying at the hotel during the event.

Stay tuned for more information about group rates for sleeping rooms and for the particulars about what information we’ll be sharing at this exciting, emotionally-charged event!   This is the “heads up” for all of you faithful Clouded Titles Blog readers to give you advance notice of this event.  We will be putting out the particulars on this event, including the registration forms and flyer information, within a week.  If you need advance information besides what’s been posted here, please feel free to email us at cloudedtitles@gmail.com.

At this workshop, we will be featuring our new “secret weapon” which has been improved upon since the last workshop a year ago.  There’s always something new to learn (a new strategy, a new defense, a new tactic, a new means of potentially winning your foreclosure case) at this class, so we hope you’ll be joining us in July!  (We heard some of you may even be visiting Disney World while you’re here … but you’ll find no “Mickey Mouse” games at this workshop!)

The fee to attend is $695 for single admission and $895 for married couples (or couples with provable, shared title interests to their property). This is a “cheap date” to save your home, compared to what you’re going to learn in an effort to save on shelling out gobs of money in legal fees.

There will be handouts provided at the workshop.  Save money on time spent researching by attending this class! We did the work for you!

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under BREAKING NEWS

FLORIDA: To Defeat Bartram, One Must Defeat the Default Claim

OP-ED (NOT LEGAL ADVICE) — 

The author of this post is the author of several books, all of which can be found on the Clouded Titles website. The author is not an attorney but rather a disenfranchised political enemy of the United States Government and consults attorneys on actions involving real property law and consumer issues. 

I was rummaging through some recent cases when I found a case involving HSBC Bank USA, NA who was acting as a Trustee for a REMIC, which got me thinking (which for me, can be dangerous at times) about the idea that every new missed payment constitutes a new default date and thus a new cause of action.  This is the downside of Florida’s infamous Bartram case.

See the referenced case here: HSBC Bank USA NA v Sanchez et al_4D17-1085 (Feb 28, 2018)

While perusing the above-referenced case, it suddenly dawned on me that this was a case involving a REMIC (Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit). Being the researcher that I am, I decided to take a look at the Prospectus for this REMIC … and what do you think I found?  Not the Prospectus?  You’re right about that.  (Why does this NOT surprise me?)  What I was looking for was a 424(b)(5) Prospectus because it would have probably contained information regarding the cut-off date, the closing date … and especially the distribution date (to the investors, of money paid by the servicer, which in the above case was probably Wells Fargo Bank, NA).  Why is this important?

If the investors are getting paid every month, then how are they harmed?  What right does HSBC have to go into court and collect on behalf of the certificate holders of the Luminent Mortgage Trust 2007-2 if distribution payments to the investors were being paid every month?  Wouldn’t that defeat a default date?   How would we know if we didn’t know what to ask?   It is highly likely none of this was considered in the defense of the Sanchez borrowers.

The Trustee “allegedly” came into court claiming that the Borrowers missed multiple payments before, during and after the pendency of the proceedings. Being the dutiful Senior Judge that the Hon. Barry Stone allegedly is, he misapplied Bartram, found for the Bank, and subsequently got reversed by the 4th DCA.  Notice also from the last paragraph that the 4th DCA couldn’t find where Judge Stone made a determination that the Trustee Bank was damaged and remanded the case back to his court.  This was a per curiam decision (which means all judges on the appellate panel agreed one the same sticking points). This would mean (to me) that the servicer’s attorneys “didn’t get it right” in their contrived pleadings.

My whole point here is this:  If a REMIC is involved, wouldn’t it be nice to find out about the ADVANCES section?   This is the section of the REMIC’s own governing regulations (NOT THE PSA), contained in the Prospectus, wherein the servicer (or in the alternative, the Master Servicer), is mandated to make the Borrower’s monthly payments to the investors if it reasonably believes it can collect the payments from the Borrower.  The Distribution Date of almost every REMIC occurs between the 20th and 25th of every month and the payment is made to them as the Borrowers within the tranches of the REMIC pay the servicer (who distributes the payments).  When the Borrower misses a payment, the servicer makes the payment anyway.  So how are the investors harmed?  How was HSBC harmed?  How was there a “default” when the servicer was continually required to make and thus would keep making the payments?

Wait a minute!

WHO is actually paying the law firm for the Trustee to foreclose?  The REMIC?  Nope.  U.S Bank has admitted in its own brochures that, as a Trustee for a REMIC Trust, does NOT know when borrowers are in default (probably because they get reports showing the servicer has been making the payments for the borrowers when they can’t make them).  We have come to find that the servicers are the entities paying the law firms to come into court and misrepresent the payment schedules.  I am only aware of a handful of cases where attorneys have seen payments actually made by the servicer show up on a loan payment schedule where the servicer complied with the terms of the Prospectus, signed under penalty of perjury under Sarbanes-Oxley.  So then … why are we nitpicking at “when’s the last time the borrower made a payment” when we should be nitpicking at “when’s the last time the servicer made a payment on behalf of the borrower to prevent the distribution date from being interrupted”.  This IS a big deal!

The allegations made by all servicers is that the Borrower is in “default”, all the while the servicer is hiding the fact that the servicer made the payments to the investors, who have been getting paid religiously.  You see, the servicers have a Servicing Agreement with the REMIC.  They get to go into court and attempt to recoup the payments they’ve made on behalf of the borrowers to the investors.  Do you have a contract with the servicer?  Nope. Didn’t think so.

Your mortgage was signed by you, representing a unilateral adhesion contract with the originating lender (who is probably using Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. to securitize the mortgage loan), NOT the servicer.  The REMIC sets up credit default swaps, default insurance, PMI, LPMI and requires the seller to pay for a title policy to insure the chain of title, when in fact, the falsely manufactured assignments we see in most cases is a clear attempt by the servicer to commit perjury upon the land records (F.C.C. § 817.535).  When the lawyers for “the Bank” come into court and regurgitate all of these allegations, they are part of the conspiracy to commit felony perjury on the court because they are employed by the servicer, who is trying to recoup payments they made on behalf of the Borrower, NOT the Trustee.

IMHO, this case bears a lot deeper “digging” through discovery in a new cause of action against the servicer and the law firm bringing the case on behalf of the wrong party.  The REMIC has probably been paid off several times over when the Borrower actually did miss a payment.  The REMIC then went in and “cashed in” on the aforementioned policies and collected on those policies so it could continue to make payments to the certificate holders.  There is no mention of this in the foreclosure Complaint, is there?

The servicer then files an Affidavit through its representative, claiming that the REMIC Trust, the certificate holders and the Trustee have been harmed because the borrower missed making the mortgage payments, all the while it has been meeting the Distribution Date deadlines set forth in the Prospectus.

By the way, this REMIC filed a 15d6 notice with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on January 25, 2008 (BEFORE the financial crash), claiming that it had less than 3oo investors and was no longer required to file reports to the SEC: SEC Info – Luminent Mortgage Trust 2007-2 – ‘15-15D_ on 1:25:08   This would indicate that distribution payments are probably still being paid on ALL of the loans that allegedly were put into the tranches of the REMIC Trust, which can be found HERE: SEC Info – Luminent Mortgage Trust 2007-2 – ‘FWP_ on 4:24:07 re: Lares Asset Securitization, Inc.

Notice that Lares Asset Securitization, Inc. is listed as the Depositor?  I guarantee you that nowhere is this Depositor mentioned on any assignment, endorsement or allonge anywhere in the Sanchez’s paperwork.  THIS would be in violation of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA), which is part of the Prospectus.   What generally happens is that the servicer is doing the foreclosing (by written Power of Attorney with the Trustee) in order to collect all of those “missed payments” it had to make up by paying the investors when the borrower didn’t make them.  It would appear that despite the REMIC’s collecting on all of those insurance policies, it profited from the collection of those policies to the point where it could continue to reinvest those profits as capital, avoid paying taxes because of its pass-through tax-exempt status and continue to make the payments to the certificate holders (investors) every month.  There is no proof that Lares put that Note and Mortgage into the Trust pool, is there?

So, to be honest … yes … the borrower indeed may have missed their mortgage payments, but are they really in default if the servicer made the payments for them?   The results of this case obviously beg for more “behind the scenes” attention (discovery) to WHO is coming to collect and why, followed by the appropriate civil and criminal action against those responsible.  In Florida, Florida Criminal Code § 817.535 has a civil remedy as well as a criminal one.

And here … we’re arguing about default?

To find out more inside detail, read this Report: OSCEOLA COUNTY FORENSIC EXAMINATION

Hear Dave Krieger every Friday night at 6:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) on WKDW-FM!

 

2 Comments

Filed under OP-ED

SIX YEARS LATER … AND THEY’RE STILL ROBOSIGNING!

OP-ED — 

In March of 2012, all of the major servicers and the 49 States Attorneys General (except Oklahoma) inked an agreement wherein the servicers would stop the then-common practice of “robosigning” documents.  Six years later and it’s still going on.  I thought it best to clarify a few things before discussing where we are today.

Robosigning was a term referenced often by the late Kings County, New York Judge Arthur Schack, wherein he described the act of affixing signatures to documents in such a manner that: (a.) the signatures were illegible; (b.) the signatures could have been affixed by anyone [also known as surrogate signing]; (c.) contained information that was grossly distorted or misrepresentative [in HSBC v Taher_Schack, he noted that the address of the REMIC was at the same address as that of Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC in Palm Beach County, Florida], and now Ocwen Financial is acquiring PHH Mortgage, which was notorious for carrying on the same process that prompted the AG settlement.

Typical aspects (I call them “markers”) of robosigning include: (a.) scribbled signatures; (b.) varied signatures of the same name; and (c.) signatures different from the indicated name typed underneath the signature line.

Surrogate Signing came to light in the wake of the discovery of Linda Green, whose name was so easy to sign that everyone at DOCX was doing it: THE NEXT HOUSING SHOCK

As you may know, the President of DOCX ended up in Club Fed.  This conviction (of Lorraine M. Brown) was the only significant “slap on the hand” for bad behavior (of a document mill officer) that resulted in the loss of millions of homes in foreclosure actions through fraudulently-manufactured-then-publicly-recorded documents.

Typical markers of surrogate signing can be found on documents generated prior to 2012, that are commonly (and still) relied upon to tie together a chain of title for the purposes of “stealing” a borrower’s home.  Just because the borrower signed a note and mortgage doesn’t give the banking cartel the right to be sloppy about the way they followed their own procedures involving securitization (or the lack thereof).

Notary Fraud can occur in a multitude of ways.  Each state has specific regulations governing the commission of notaries public.  One doing any kind of research however, will need to pay attention to the regulations of certain states, which have (for all intents and purposes) watered down the obligations and governing regulations of notaries.  Some states do not require a notary bond.  Some states do not require notaries keep a journal of every notarial acknowledgment they perform.  Some states don’t even require that the notary physically witness the signature of the person executing the document.  What those in state government do not understand is that they are complicit in the very behaviors they put Lorraine Brown in prison for because local prosecutors do nothing to stop any of the foregoing behaviors for fear of putting their own political asses in a sling.

Some states (like California) require the notary to sign under penalty of perjury.  Perjury is a criminal matter, which can result in jail time.  Local prosecutors could easily make short work of handling a notary fraud case, simply by investigating the notary … it only takes one conviction to send a message … but they don’t.

As a “marker”, notary fraud could be the result of: (a.) acknowledging a signature that wasn’t affixed by the party claiming to have executed the document; (b.) acknowledging an execution when the party affixing their signature wasn’t present at signing; (c.) acknowledging an execution of a document as a party to a group of signers who routinely manufacture assignments of mortgage or deed of trust (similar to what went on in Simi Valley, California between 2012 and 2016 at Bank of America, N.A.’s robomill); (d.) participating as a notary in any document manufacturing scheme wherein the information placed within the document is false and misrepresentative and was placed there intentionally (civil conspiracy) wherein the notary was directed to participate as part of the signing process with the knowledge that what the notary was doing was illegitimate; and (e.) pre-acknowledging documents and affixing a seal with no signatures placed upon the document.

Self-Assignment is a common marker of the major banking institutions who can’t find paperwork, so they have their own employees (whether the major bank is servicing the loan or not) make stuff up out of thin air.  An example of this follows (with my analysis).  This is also included in the scheme of document manufacturing.

All of the foregoing “markers” are part of a scheme called “Document Manufacturing”

I talk about this extensively in the book Clouded Titles, which has undergone several updates between its original publication in December 2010 and its final “Mayday Edition” on May 1, 2016 because of newly-discovered information pertinent to investigations by this author through Chain of Title Assessments (COTAs) this author has conducted.

Document Manufacturing is the process by which multiple parties are retained by a mortgage loan servicer to act in a capacity of a bank official, using Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (on many an occasion) to further “dilute” the chain of title by obfuscating the path of ownership from the originating lender (many of which were bankrupt and out of business at the time the document was executed) to the current “alleged” owner of the mortgage loan.  Most of this process takes place within ninety (90) days AFTER a borrower allegedly stops making their mortgage loan payments.  Customarily, most of this scheme takes place within the walls of the mortgage loan servicer’s own document manufacturing plant or at a contractor-based, third-party document mill.

The scheme may involve witnesses also attesting to the signature of the alleged “officer” signing the assignment. Many times, these witnesses are notaries (who should know better).  Many times, these witnesses simply sit around the signing table, shuffling documents from person to person, all affixing their signatures to a pre-determined spot on the document.  All of these documents are then bundled up and taken to a different part of the building and placed on the desk of a notary who will then acknowledge the documents and affix the notary seal to each one, claiming the signers “personally appeared” before them, when in fact, THAT did not happen!

The scheme is designed to place everyone in the manufacturing chain at better than “arms length” away from the servicer, as a means to reduce liability.  This would bring this author to an obvious conclusion that it would be more difficult to seek out and depose those who participated in the scheme because of costs and time involved, making it virtually impossible to defend one’s property from theft by document fraud.

AND HERE IT IS … 2018 … AND …

… we still have not gotten past being dishonest about providing solid proof of effective transfer of the promissory note in conjunction with an assignment of a mortgage or deed of trust.

As the result of the OSCEOLA COUNTY FORENSIC EXAMINATION, we learned that having local law enforcement investigate matters of this nature was way over their heads (let alone their pay grades).  They are either in denial or superbly arrogant about having to investigate what they said were “victimless crimes”.  The investigation involved the examination of documents in the land records from June 1, 2012 (after the AG settlement was reached) and June 1, 2014 (a 2-year span).   Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. was used as a research guide, because it led the examination team directly to all of the securitized RMBS documents, which contained continued patterns of everything I’ve described in this article.

As a means of education (because I can’t give legal advice) … let’s examine a couple of recently-filed documents:

In Osceola County, Florida, where we previously conducted an examination of their land records, paid for with Osceola County taxpayer dollars, I happened to find this recently-manufactured self assignment:

In the foregoing instance, I analyze the following suspect issues for your evaluation: 

(1.) This assignment of mortgage was done by JPMorgan Chase Bank’s own employees in their document manufacturing plant in Monroe, Louisiana on January 10, 2018.

(2.) The document could have been executed to Chase by Standard Pacific Mortgage, Inc., without the use of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Standard Pacific Mortgage, Inc. is still in business in Irvine, California. Why then did Chase employees, in a civil conspiracy with Nationwide Title Clearing, Inc. in Florida, have to then create this document?  Why didn’t the originating Lender create and execute the document?

(3.) If you’ll notice, “Judy G. Jackson”s printed name appears to have been inserted into the document by the party creating AND executing it.  The notary did not even fill in the space provided.

(4.) In this instance, the notary claims that Judy G. Jackson was “personally known, who did say that he/she/they” (the notary is too lazy to delineate for gender and plurality to make the document appear more legitimate). Nowhere in the document does it say that Louisiana Notary Amy Gott, who has a lifetime commission, actually “personally witnessed” Jackson’s signature.

(5.) There is no proof of authority anywhere on the document, indicating that Jackson had the authority to execute the instrument, which was signed on January 10, 2018.

(6.) The document misrepresents the mailing address for the lender as that of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.’s post office box in Flint, Michigan.

(7.) Notice that the Assignment of Mortgage ONLY “conveys” the Mortgage (and NOT the Note)?

(8.) The document was further obfuscated by the return address (after recording) as that of Nationwide Title Clearing, Inc. (“NTC”) in Palm Harbor, Florida (one of the companies targeted as a third-party document mill in the Osceola County Forensic Examination).  Why send it to NTC in the first place, unless NTC had something to do with its manufacture?

(9.) Notice the 1999 corporate seal for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.?  The employees at JPMorgan Chase Bank misrepresented their authority using “MERS” to obfuscate the chain of title.  NTC obviously has a document manufacturing, archive contract with Chase, which could be further played out through discovery.

(10.) You will notice from doing your own research that the use of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. to obfuscate the chain of title with a “place card-type” position of the “nominee” (agent), has been used for so long that our very own United States Government and County Clerks and Recorders (who are blind, or reprobate, or both) simply choose to let this lie proliferate.

EXAMPLE #2: 

In the foregoing instance, I analyze the following suspect issues for your evaluation: 

(1.) This assignment of mortgage was done by a third-party document mill in their document manufacturing plant in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on February 21, 2018.

(2.) The originating Lender (IndyMac Bank, F.S.B., now out of business) obviously used Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. to transfer its loans within the MERS® System via the use of a third-party mill, who couldn’t even be bothered to put the 1999 Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. corporate seal on the document.

(3.) If you’ll notice, the party signing the document is using a non-designated “official title” for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.?   Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. only allows signers to use the titles of “Assistant Secretary” or “Vice President” (not as shown).

(4.) The pre-printed document contains the name of the signer in the notarial execution in all capital letters, which means it was inserted into the document using computer software.  The signer couldn’t even sign her own name in full.

(5.) Geez … every other Florida assignment I’ve seen had two (2) witness signatures contained within the document.  I guess these third-party doc mills don’t care if they follow Florida law or not, right?

(4.) Knowing how third-party document manufacturing plants behave, I would debate the use of the words “personally appeared”, given what we know about signing plant floor plans.

(5.) There is no proof of authority anywhere on the document, indicating that Salicce (the signer) had the authority to execute the instrument in that capacity, let alone have personal knowledge of its contents (robosigning).

(6.) The document doesn’t even list the mailing address for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., even though it claims to have an interest in the Assignment (as the “Assignor”) … pretty blatant huh?

(7.) Notice that the Assignment of Mortgage ONLY “conveys” the Mortgage (and NOT the Note)?

(8.) Notice that since IndyMac was out of business, a third-party document mill had to use Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. to obfuscate the chain of title to convey the mortgage (ONLY) into the REMIC directly, which by the way, had a cut-off date of June 1, 2005 and a Closing Date of June 15, 2005, in violation of the governing regulations for that REMIC, which can be found here: http://www.secinfo.com/dqTm6.z1en.htm.

(9.) Also notice that the name of the REMIC is incorrectly listed.  According to SEC records, the official name of the REMIC is the Indymac Home Equity Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Trust, Series Inabs 2005-B.  As far as I can see, there are are least three (3) distinct misrepresentations under Florida Criminal Code § 817.535 in the forgoing document.

(10.) Do we have possible notary fraud here?   Do you not see in the notarial execution where the notary claims to have acknowledged that Salicce (an employee of Visionet Systems Inc.) was an “Assistant Vice President” of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. when in fact, there is no such designation?  And from the scribbled signature of the notary, is it possible she executed this document without the signer being present and does this often enough to get writer’s cramp signing scribbled signatures a lot?  It might merit requesting her notary application from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to see if that signature (on her application) matches the signature on this document.  Also notice the acknowledgment says nothing about “personally appeared” either.

By the way, the bold-faced type you see in the foregoing assignment is part of the boiler-plate software template used by document mills to create these suspect documents.

THIS BEHAVIOR ALSO COVERS “RELEASES OF MORTGAGES” AND “DEEDS OF RECONVEYANCE”

If you think that the foregoing behavior only applies to assignments, you should look at Releases of liens as well. Of particular note is the issue of potential unauthorized practice of law, which is a felony in Florida and most other states, for executing and recording documents known to contain false information (perjury) without attorney supervision.

I have successfully participated in removing (by expungement) a bogus Release of Mortgage out of the land records in Hillsborough County, Florida and the existing “alleged pretender lender” has absolutely no idea it now has a competing lien ahead of its foreclosure attempts.  This is why foreclosure law firm attorneys are so imbecilic when it comes to “getting their story straight” when they try to foreclose on a mortgage without FIRST checking the chain of title for competing liens … which brings me to my next point:

Any lawyer for the banks that comes into court and regurgitates these misrepresentations is likely to have committed not only felony perjury and potential multiple ethics violations … but any subsequent law firm will not be able to continue their tirade on the property once the initial violations have been exposed.

Perhaps it is now time to go after the foreclosure mill lawyers instead of just their clients!

My final parting shot goes against the state district and circuit attorneys who refuse to criminally prosecute these people.  Don’t yell at me!  You elected them!  You and I can both probably think to ourselves what worthless POS these people are if they aren’t going to do what’s right.

If you don’t know your rights … you don’t have any!

Dave Krieger is the author of the book Clouded Titles and has a weekly radio show on WKDW-FM in North Port, Florida covering consumer issues. He serves as a paralegal and chain of title consultant to attorneys as well as performs chain of title assessments for consumers as well as  forensic examinations and audits of county land records, despite the fact he is a disenfranchised citizen of whatever you want to call this economically messed up country you live in.

Coming soon … How to deal with the next financial collapse in America! 

2 Comments

Filed under OP-ED

THINKING OF PLEADING TILA? THINK TWICE!

BREAKING NEWS — OP-ED — 

The U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has just affirmed the U.S. District Court’s decision (for the District of Minnesota) on the Jesinoksi case once and for all.

Why am I not surprised? 

See the Opinion here: Jesinoski v Countrywide Home Loans Inc et al, 8th App Cir No 16-3385 (Feb 28, 2018)

It did not fare well for the Jesinoksis TILA claims, which were narrowly ruled upon by the U.S. Supreme Court and sent back down to the U.S. District Court for further determination.

There are a lot of folks out there who are caught up in mortgage loans of their own making, now realizing that they “coulda, shoulda, woulda” when it came to disputing whether or not the lender of their mortgage complied with all of the regulations in the Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA).  The facts of the case are pretty much self-explanatory, but very narrow in interpretation, so I’m not going to belabor the point by regurgitating the pain of explaining it again.

If you’re going to plead TILA, read this case first and realize what the court accepted and what it didn’t.  If you didn’t comply with ALL of the requirements of TILA, you will find yourself in the same boat as the Jesinoskis.  I hate to make an example of them, but as the result of this case, a lot of wannabe paralegals and attorneys have fleeced homeowners for money, claiming they can help them file a TILA case on their behalf, only to find themselves in more legal hot water than they bargained for.

First, TILA is a federal regulation.  That means it has to be litigated in federal court, where judges are bound by this decision.

If your attorney has never successfully litigated a TILA claim, then why did you choose that attorney?

Filing a rescission does NOT mean you get a FREE HOUSE!  I don’t give a damn what these well-meaning “pro se paralegals” tell you.  If someone makes that assertion, run like hell in the opposite direction!  With TILA cases, there are strings attached … and because there is a mortgage loan involved and the homeowner inured to the benefit of that loan, then there will be hell to pay when the homeowner has to solely rely on TILA claims instead of looking for real “red meat”, like the fact that the loan started out with America’s Wholesale Lender (“AWL”), which Bank of America, N.A. claims is its subsidiary, when in fact, there is no recorded proof in the New York Secretary of State’s office that indicates that AWL was a “New York Corporation” at the time it allegedly made the Jesinoski’s loan.  The focus of the Jesinoski Complaint was that they did not receive the required number of TILA-related copies, which the Court found to be inaccurate.  If this is the best one can do … not getting the right number of copies … (I’m shaking my head now) … this just set precedent as well as a learning curve for others.  It appears that a non-existent New York Corporation (vis a vis the lying bastards and thieves at Bank of America, N.A.) just stole the Jesinoski’s home and no one even bothered to contest whether AWL was actually a legitimate entity at the time the loan was executed.  Of course, MERS and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. were involved.  Both Delaware corporations were involved in ALL AWL TRANSACTIONS!  The whole thing was a sham based on a sham corporation.

Don’t believe me?  Look here: US Bank v Dimant_2013-CA-001130

When you don’t look at the whole picture, this is what happens to you.  Learn from the Jesinoski’s mistakes.  Federal judges are NOT big fans of American homeowners!  Do your research before jumping in with both feet.

This was a very expensive case to litigate all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court and back.

It started at the U.S. District Court level (the District of Minnesota, a Torrens State, which does NOT favor homeowners and loves MERS).  The State of Minnesota enacted the “MERS Statute”.  And you want to live there?  Seriously?  This should have been an indication that in Minnesota, you either pay your mortgage or you’re homeless … or you move elsewhere.  If MERS is in your chain of title, it doesn’t matter about Torrens issues, your title in Minnesota is still shit!

Then it went to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled against the Jesinoskis, who then appealed it to the U.S. Supreme Court, who narrowly ruled on the law and sent it back down to the U.S. District Court, who correctly determined that the Jesinoskis were incorrect in their assumption of the TILA regulations.  They then appealed THAT ruling to the 8th Circuit again, which affirmed the lower court and now the rest is history.  Unless the Jesinoskis attack the real culprit, the phony AWL New York Corporation, they might as well pack their things and find a new place to live.

Don’t let this be YOUR “hard lesson”.

Listen to Dave Krieger, Clouded Titles author, on WKDW-FM, 97.5, North Port, Florida, Friday Night at 6:00 p.m. EST on City Spotlight, Special Edition (with co-host R.J. Malloy, retired attorney and former Clerk to a U.S. District Court judge), streaming live on kdwradio.com.  Click “LISTEN LIVE” to join the broadcast.  Dave will be talking about a variety of consumer-related issues, including this one!

4 Comments

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED

Those who implicitly trust in the legal system will get screwed by it!

(OP-ED) — 

The author of this post is an author and consultant to attorneys (and a paralegal) on real property matters and his comments (especially in this post) are of his own opinion and not that of others in the legal system.  Those who wish to obtain legal advice must ferret out competent legal counsel and retain them while monitoring the activity of those representing them in the maze of confusion we call “the American legal system”.  This is his humble opinion and not legal advice. 

I am constantly getting letters and emails from people who are “getting nowhere” using the services of attorneys.  They’re either being overcharged or under serviced, sometimes both.  What’s “fair” (a liberal term) in the “legal system” (conservative in nature, for the most part) will not be achieved a majority of the time. Many litigants (or wannabe litigants) attempt a feeble shot at going pro se, which can spell doom if you later decide to retain counsel after you’ve already screwed things up.

The legal system is rigged to benefit those who can afford to play in it.  I don’t care what any attorney tells you, if you don’t have money to pay them, what justice is “served” becomes limited in nature.  I have only found a handful of attorneys that I would consider to be “competent” to handle real property law matters and I’ve been researching this area of law for over 10 years.  That doesn’t make me an expert either.  I actually have an attorney who IS an expert witness in real property matters that many attorneys who are litigating foreclosure cases will NOT call to the stand to testify because it “might upset the judge” which they have to appear before regularly.  So the client loses his foreclosure case.  This happened last month in a courtroom in Tallahassee, Florida.  The attorney for the homeowner clearly had the bank and its witness in a vice, then opted NOT to “close the door” using his own witness to “slam the bank’s lawyers” for bringing false and misrepresentative statements on the Court.  This is what happens when attorneys DON’T DO A THOROUGH JOB because they lack the smarts, the sensitivity or at least, common sense, as to HOW TO “tighten the noose”.  Remember, most winning cases have to be appealed. Cases which have implications of criminal behavior by opposing counsel may never see an appellate court (but may rather be settled out of court, many times to the benefit of the homeowner) … or even the light of day, if they are litigated properly.

In other cases, clients are paying attorneys a monthly fee (in addition to a hefty retainer) and not getting proper billing statements as to WHAT work is being done and HOW many hours it took to accomplish said work.  Some attorneys take fees specifically to conduct depositions and then don’t take them (for whatever reason).  Whenever the client asks the attorney to supply them with a statement on account, the attorney rebukes them, makes them feel like a debtor in a debt collection action, or strong-arms them in a legal stranglehold of the attorney’s own making.  Justice benefits those who work in the “system”.  If an attorney is holding you “hostage”, you may wish to consider replacing them.

It’s no wonder I’m seeing an uptick in pro se litigation.  It’s no wonder I’m seeing more and more pro se litigants lose.  Pro se litigants generally did NOT go to law school.  They don’t trust attorneys … but they’ve never argued a case.  They are like electricity (they want to take the path of least resistance).  As long as there are banks out there trying to steal peoples’ properties, the American legal system will be afflicted with burgeoning dockets and implicit behaviors, both from the bench and the attorneys’ tables. Pro se litigants wandering into these venues uninformed are more than likely going to get crucified.

The American judiciary (both state and federal) have various “agendas”.  I have found that you have to research the judge you’re appearing in front of (what cases they’ve ruled on; how many were appealed and reversed; are they pro-bank, etc.).  You will never know whether you or your attorney “coulda, shoulda, woulda” been able to have succeeded unless you know who the referee is.  If the referee pays monthly on his mortgage, you can bet they’ll want you to do the same.  You then have to be able to handle “agenda questions” like:

(1.) When’s the last time you made a house payment? and

(2.) Are you in default?

When you hear questions like this from the bench, the judge’s agenda is: “This is my courtroom and I will find facts to determine WHO loses their home today!”  Most if not all pro se litigants will blindly think that the judge is entitled to these answers and will freely give them, not realizing that the judge’s agenda is to “clear his docket” as quickly as possible and/or is pro-bank.  The judge will get YOU to admit to these questions so he can “close the door” on you and move onto the next case.

I have read numerous cases where the court record indicates that the homeowner admitted they were in default.  What horseshit is that?  HOW do they know they’re in default?   Is it up to them to prove they’re in default or is it up to the bank to prove they are in default?  If a REMIC is involved, I’ve seen court records (and talked to attorneys who have seen court records) wherein the BANK’S SERVICER actually made the payments for the homeowner when the homeowner couldn’t make them, so then, WHEN and WHO made the house payment becomes an issue that most homeowners (pro se) and their attorneys (who aren’t in the know because they don’t have, or take, the time to do their research) miss that argument altogether.  Did you get that?  THE SERVICER MADE THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST PAYMENTS FOR THE HOMEOWNER, then went into court and lied to the judge and told the judge the homeowner was in default, when in fact, the REMIC’s investors were getting paid every month!

Cases are won and lost based on a series of arguments, misstatements and missteps.   If the judge in your case is largely moved to rule against you based on emotional ploys by the bank’s attorneys (use of the term “deadbeat”; “They’ve lived in this house for 10 years without making a payment your Honor and we want our house back now.” … that sort of thing), then you are sunk before you walk in to their courtroom.  It helps to attend trials in their courts if at all possible (some judges don’t allow anyone but the actual litigants on the docket to appear in their courtroom for a reason) to see how they act and react to the various arguments.  Conversely, if you don’t do your homework (or your attorney doesn’t do his), you’ll lose anyway.  This is why over 95% of all homeowners who are facing foreclosure RUN AWAY!  This is why we have so much shadow inventory.

Not all attorneys are competent and honest. If it’s your house we’re talking about here, then the question becomes, “What are you willing to do to protect it from unscrupulous or unlearned attorneys?”  If an attorney that was representing me called me “out of the blue” and said I needed to send him $5,ooo right away, I’d ask them what the money would be used for.  If I didn’t get what I paid for, I’d demand the money back or get another attorney.  Attorneys should provide billing statements to their clients; however, most sole practitioners have no time for that, which is the “downside” to retaining them.  I would not want an attorney who only specializes in personal injury cases to represent me in a foreclosure matter because they haven’t won any cases in those kinds of forums; it isn’t their specialty; and they lack the knowledge to be able to defend against unscrupulous bank attorneys in those “shark-infested waters”. That’s like hiring a dentist to do brain surgery on your next of kin.

I am not an attorney referral service.  Most states require you to be licensed to have an attorney referral service.  Most people do not ask an attorney how many cases they’ve won in a particular area.  I can recite the names of attorneys who have won quiet title actions; however, when you then dissect how many were tax deed cases versus the harder-to-accomplish quasi in rem foreclosure cases, the number of successful attorneys diminishes ten-fold (at least what we know from the court record).  You have to vet the attorney to make sure you’re getting what you pay for. You have to discuss with them how many cases they’ve won based on what causes of action.

Many cases don’t make the court record (by design).  We already have learned this through other honest attorneys’ publications, where they have challenged certain legal publications’ decisions to only put in cases that favor the banks and not pro se homeowners (or in the alternative) or the more competent attorneys’ wins.  This is another unwritten fallacy of American jurisprudence.  As a result of closed-door settlements and sealed pay-offs, most homeowners do not know WHO won the foreclosure cases and why (because they were deliberately hidden from public view).  A classic example is that of Bank of America trying to get a federal bankruptcy judge to “delete” the massive case against them, which the judge refused to do Sundqvist-Memo-Opinion and rightfully so.  Here, we have an honest judge that wants to do the right thing by not just the homeowner, but also the public at large.

Pro se litigants not only miss filing deadlines … but when it comes to pleading cases, they don’t know how to plead cases.  Take for example one appellate decision out of Texas:  In this particular instance, the author of the pleading (the homeowner) decided to make use of quotes out of my book Clouded Titles, which is a book, not a legal primer in which to quote diatribe to bolster your legal arguments:

Brown v BANA_Tex 5th App Dist No 05-12-01382-CV (Nov 25, 2013)

It does not bother me that the Texas 5th Appellate District knows who I am, but the fact the homeowner extensively quoted my research (as shown on Page 4 of the ruling) even stymies me.  What’s worse, the term “robosigning” has more of an emotional connotation to it, sort of related to fraud claims, which have also fallen on deaf ears in the courts, as in the Texas case of Reinagle v. Deutche Bank National Trust CompanyReinagle v Deutsche Bank Natl Trust Co, 5th App Cir No 12-50569 (Jul 11, 2013)

I put this stuff in here to show you the following:

(1.) Homeowners get so bent out of shape that they use stuff in their pleadings that they shouldn’t;

(2.) They do not attack the sufficiency (or the lack there0f) of the other side’s pleadings;

(3.) They express their complaints using meaningless allegations, rather than defeat the other side’s attempts in making unfounded declarations without objection; and

(4.) They quote from my book, which is like letting stuff out of your research arsenal that is meaningless to the Court.

To prove a suspect robosigning issue, one would have to take depositions of everyone involved in the creation and execution of the document to see who ordered it; who acknowledged it; who typed it up; where it went to after it was recorded; what powers of attorney are connected to it, etc.  Taking timely depositions in a court case is vital to its success.  Generally, I’m seeing civil conspiracies pop up as the result of document manufacturing; however, failing to depose all of the involved parties will prove fatal in knocking out an Assignment of Mortgage or Deed of Trust from the land records in a Cancellation & Expungement action (C&E).   We managed to succeed in a Tampa, Florida case in getting a Release of Mortgage cancelled and expunged from the land records. Now the end game claimant has more hurdles to jump over in attempting foreclosure.

The bottom line here … knowledge may be power … but not having the wisdom to use it may cost you more than it’s worth.

3 Comments

Filed under OP-ED