Monthly Archives: May 2022

Winning an FCRA case on the back end of a foreclosure … on appeal in the 9th Circuit

(BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED)– The author of this post is a paralegal and consultant to attorneys on foreclosure defense and consumer issues. The case posited above is for your educational benefit only and any commentary presented here does not portend to convey any legal advise whatsoever.

The U.S. District Courts never cease to amaze this author given the blatant facts and allegations presented by the Plaintiff (Gross) in his FCRA case against CitiMortgage, Inc. The lower court justices nearly always rule for the banks no matter what. Could it be because the federal judges are vested in these banks and are conflicted out? This is why Judicial Watch puts out a list of financial records (those that have been obtained) of the federal court system’s judges’ for all to see and review (at the following link): https://www.judicialwatch.org/judge . And the cause and effect situation expressed here is exactly why we have appellate courts. The downside to this equation is the amount of money the Plaintiff had to spend litigating it before the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

CASE NOTES

Understand that Gross (the Plaintiff) lost his home to foreclosure and to add insult to injury, Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc. (as the second lien holder in a deed of trust state) used the three major credit bureaus as a punching bag against Gross, tagging his credit reports with erroneous, derogatory trade line items showing Gross being multiple times delinquent when in fact, the second mortgage was extinguished in the foreclosure under Arizona law. Gross challenged Citi’s behavior after disputing it with the three credit bureaus, all of which supported Citi’s continued erroneous reporting of derogatory information on Gross’s credit reports. The lower court dismissed all other defendants from the suit except Citi and then ruled in Citi’s favor. Gross then appealed the matter to the Ninth Circuit.

This 13-page ruling goes into great detail on the purpose of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and what it allows a consumer to do in the way of litigation. The author found this case useful in providing enough detail to overcome a 12(b)(6) dismissal in the way that prima facie evidence is discovered or provided at the onset of the case. The case was reversed and remanded back for a jury trial. Thus, the U.S. District Court judge in this case (Roslyn O. Silver) is going to have to deal with it the way it should have been done in the first place.

AUTHOR’S COMMENTARY

The author specifically wrote a book called The Credit Restoration Primer (now in its 5th Edition) for a reason. It is still highly likely that 85% of information being reported on a consumer’s credit report is erroneous and disputable under the law. This is why the author also included all of the dispute letters he used to rid his credit file of unwanted and erroneous information so as to further his future exploits.

It is sad that the banks and third-party debt collectors continue to beat up on consumers like they do, given the fact America is facing a “social credit scoring system” if the current powers that be continue to push their liberal, leftist, Marxist policies. Italy is already in the process of implementing such a system and this will not bode well for those under its iron fist.

Given the current scenarios, it would be wise to check on your credit reports often (pull them twice a year) and make sure that all negative information is disputed, especially if it’s erroneous. In Gross’s case, he was trying to get another mortgage and Citi’s erroneous and derogatory information plagued any attempts by him to “move forward” after the loss of his property. While this case certainly serves as a learning curve, it also presents a sad history of how the banks continually screw consumers at every turn, when “we” all just want to “get ahead in life”.

On another note, according to recent reports, GenZ’ers are getting themselves into a lot of credit card debt, all this in the face of not wanting to work and live at home with their parents. This author could only wonder what mommy and daddy would say when the dunning phone calls start coming during the dinner hour about junior’s delinquent credit card bills. With the rising cost of homeownership and rising mortgage interest rates, this stupid reliance on credit cards to finance these impudent pups’ spending habits are likely to implode and wreak future havoc on American society. No pot to piss in and yet they all vote for politicians that give them handouts from a government that was not designed to give handouts.

The author is a nationally-syndicated talk show host on The Power Hour. See him live at the Clay Clark’s Reawaken America Tour in Myrtle Beach, SC by clicking on this link!

6 Comments

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED

Quiet Title Actions, Multiple Scenarios and Suspected Court Overreach

(BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED) — The author of this post is a paralegal and trial consultant to attorneys on chain of title issues. The article is designed to educate and is not to be construed as legal advice or to attempt to draw any legal conclusions of law.

A Supreme Court of Iowa case came into my inbox this morning and after reading its 14 pages, it became a relevant topic for discussion here.

In this suit, the tax deed holder (ACC Holdings LLC), twice tried to sue the owner of record (Rooney). The Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure only allow for two “bites at the apple” (IRCP 1.943) and the second voluntary dismissal operated as an “adjudication on the merits” (in other words, by dismissing its own case twice, it blocked the Plaintiff from suing a third time by creating case law, based on a third filing of the same claim). One would begin to wonder exactly what the attorneys for the Plaintiffs were thinking.

You can read the case file here:

A lot of different ideas came to mind.

First, the property owner could have set up a payment plan with the County Treasurer to pay his past due tax bills, but didn’t.

Second, even failing to set up a payment plan, when the homeowner’s property went up for tax deed sale, the homeowner even had a 90-day chance to redeem the property; yet, he didn’t do that either. Most folks would look upon this guy as a tax cheat who should get his comeuppance.

Needless to say, the investor/Plaintiff obtained a tax deed. Anyone playing this game (like the author) knows that you have to quiet the title in order to make the property marketable. Instead, the Plaintiff served the homeowner with a notice to quit, followed up by a small claims court forcible detainer action, alleging the homeowner was a tenant at sufferance after the issuance of a valid tax deed.

This time, the homeowner fought back by moving to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim based on the small claims division not having jurisdiction over tax deed actions. The fact the homeowner fought back caused the investor/Plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss its action, but not before filing its second action in district court (instead of small claims court). The mistake the Plaintiff made was using the same, previously-dated, notice to quit that had accompanied the first petition and after seeing the mistake, voluntarily dismissed the second forcible detainer action, which triggered the Rule of Civil Procedure, making a third action moot.

Third, rather than read the Rules of Civil Procedure, the investor/Plaintiff filed a third action for forcible detainer in the district court with a new 3-day notice to quit attached. The homeowner, whose attorney knew what was going on with the IRCP, filed an answer asserting 3 defenses. As usual, no matter how many valid arguments a homeowner might posit, the district court judge doesn’t care and awarded the homeowner’s property to the investor/Plaintiff. The homeowner appealed and the Supreme Court reversed and remanded with instructions, but not without a gob of explanation.

Fourth, a lot of analysis (worth the read) went into the rendering of this opinion. There are some genuine “nuggets” in the analysis that any homeowner looking at quiet title/tax deed issues should examine.

Fifth … and most shockingly … the Iowa Supreme Court sua sponte, took it upon themselves to bring up the discussion of a quiet title action in the form of a question. If this isn’t a “tip-off” to the investor/Plaintiff, what is? However, Pages 10 – 14 had more “teeth” in it for the investor/Plaintiff’s attorneys to chew on. You can bet they won’t make the same mistake twice after reading the Court’s ruling, which dismissed the Plaintiff’s case with prejudice.

Sixth, NOW … the Plaintiff’s attorneys can use this case material as a reference to bring a quiet title action, wherein the Court even ruled that the Plaintiff could bring such an action. By legally posturing the entire case for the Plaintiff, one must ask whether or not the Court exceeded its judicial boundaries by “stepping outside” of the case to submit its own remedy which benefitted the Plaintiff in its future endeavors to evict the homeowner (who claimed he had a disability).

Disability or no disability, one could have made a deal with the taxing authorities to make payments on the tax debt, even at the rate of $100 a month. Now, due to the Court’s “extended ruling” sua sponte, the disabled homeowner is soon going to be kicked to the curb with all of his possessions. Given this Court’s nature as well as the nature of the lower courts, don’t be surprised if the Plaintiff’s attorneys don’t ask the homeowner to pay attorney’s fees when they prevail in court, using the Supreme Court’s template as their basis to quiet title.

Sadly, one must also consider why the homeowner decided to fight (and retain counsel) instead of paying his taxes (which would have been considerably less expensive). Part of the problem with many homeowners is the misguided effort to fight the wrong battle. It would have been better to pay the taxes than pay an attorney and lose the home anyway.

One must also ask … is it worth taking the matter to the Supreme Court of the United States and asking the nation’s highest “conservative” Court whether the Supreme Court of Iowa’s extended ruling violated the civil rights of the Defendant homeowner for educating the Plaintiff’s attorneys in how to obtain the Property? Nope. This homeowner couldn’t afford it anyway. It’s over $15,000 just to file the damned case in the U.S. Supreme Court and there’s no guarantee the Court will hear the case anyway.

And this is why these scenarios are put forth. Homeowners in trouble generally do not pay their hazard insurance or property taxes. That’s the first sign they’re in financial straits. And this is one way that the investors are going to grab up properties to rehab them and turn them into rental properties, which brings to the forefront this author’s key argument that this nation is being turned into a nation of renters because of the lack of homeowners’ financial education.

It is for this reason the author wrote the book Clouded Titles.

2 Comments

Filed under I'm not posting any more stuff on here!