Tag Archives: assignment of deed of trust

UPL, FELONY PERJURY: THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF DOCUMENT MANUFACTURING!

OP-ED — The author of this post is a consultant to attorneys on chain of title issues and the system of things. This is not legal advice but rather an exploration down a path that few even think to travel. 

“I was just doing my job.”  

What kind of response do you think you’d get from a robosigner in a deposition when asked how they prepared or executed a recorded assignment?

Part of what I have not discussed in my series on GUTTING THE UNDERBELLY OF THE BEAST is what might inadvertently happen when documents are manufactured by third-party or servicer document mills with the intended purpose of causing them to be recorded in the land records to give standing to a plaintiff in an upcoming (or current) foreclosure case.  For all intents and purposes, the documents were recorded to give some sort of legal force and effect, right?   After all, foreclosure mill lawyers and trustees (in non-judicial settings) rely on these assignments to go on about the business of stealing (uh, er, foreclosing on) peoples’ homes, right?

If I were go back into time (April 3, 2011) and trace the interviews conducted by Scott Pelley on the 60 Minutes segment, The Next Housing Shock, you would see a prime example of how a document mill operates.  These third-party document manufacturers exist all over the U.S. largely in part to excessive demands on the marketplace to produce still-missing documentation, designed to “fit” a specific situation to achieve a desired result.  The actual result was that Lorraine M. Brown (who has since served her time and is out of prison) was convicted for heading up a document mill that operated outside of the “arms-length” purview of the mortgage servicers, as Pelley explained on the broadcast.

Then there were two Florida attorneys working for the Attorney General’s office in Tallahassee: June Clarkson and Theresa Edwards.  Both were basically forced out of their jobs after releasing a detailed report on document manufacturing misbehaviors:

florida ag report_unfair deceptive and unconscionable acts in foreclosure cases

In March of 2012, the mortgage loan servicers and the 49 states Attorneys General came to an agreement NOT to continue the process of document manufacturing unless the documents actually contain legitimate information and are not misrepresentative in nature.  No sooner did the ink dry on that agreement, the servicers and the third-party mills working with servicers were back at it again.

From 2012 until as late as 2016, Bank of America cranked out tens of thousands of documents a year using contract workers in its Simi Valley, California manufacturing plant.  According to one worker there, when he complained to his supervisors that he didn’t feel right about what he was signing, he was told, “You’re lucky you have a job, now get back to work!”   His supervisor was undoubtedly NOT an attorney but rather, an actual employee of Bank of America.

Unauthorized Practice of Law, Explained (in pertinent part)

State Bars from across the country have gone after suspects who violated their statutes by practicing law without a license to do so.  Here’s a couple of examples of those statutes:

TEXAS

As you can see from the following language below, UPL is not just holding yourself out to be a lawyer or doing things only a lawyer could do without being licensed.  This statute applies to a whole range of concerns, which are then determined on an individual basis (I highlighted the pertinent parts):

SUBCHAPTER G. UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW

Sec. 81.101. DEFINITION. (a) In this chapter the “practice of law” means the preparation of a pleading or other document incident to an action or special proceeding or the management of the action or proceeding on behalf of a client before a judge in court as well as a service rendered out of court, including the giving of advice or the rendering of any service requiring the use of legal skill or knowledge, such as preparing a will, contract, or other instrument, the legal effect of which under the facts and conclusions involved must be carefully determined.

(b) The definition in this section is not exclusive and does not deprive the judicial branch of the power and authority under both this chapter and the adjudicated cases to determine whether other services and acts not enumerated may constitute the practice of law.

——-

Could an assignment be that “other document incident to an action or special proceeding”, such as a foreclosure wherein that document is given legal force and effect by the court in the taking of someone’s home?  Texas also has statutes that cover the recording of false documents:

Tex. Pen.Code, Title 7, Ch. 32, § 32.46(a)(1) makes it a felony to cause a forged or fraudulent document to be filed or recorded.

1. Common Law Fraud: To sustain a cause of action for actual fraud, the plaintiffs must prove (1) the defendant made a material representation that was false; (2) the defendant knew the representation was false or made it recklessly as a positive assertion without any knowledge of its truth; (3) the defendant intended to induce plaintiffs to act on the representation; and (4) plaintiffs actually and justifiably relied on the representation and thereby suffered damages. See Ernst & Young, L.L.P. v. Pac. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 51 S.W.3d 573 (Tex. 2001); 2. Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 12.002 allows for recovery of up to $10,000 per fraudulent document; 3. Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 16.003 provides for a 2-year challenge to recorded documents.

——-

Sadly, the two-year challenge to phony documents was probably put there by some self-serving legislators who were bought off by the banks, who knew that at some point, the suspect document might be discovered; however, it appears to run in conflict with the felony penal code’s mandates.  So which carries more weight? The penal code or the civil code?   If the penal code was enforced, the sheriff’s enforcing the laws couldn’t say, “Oh, it’s a civil matter. Take it up with the judge.”, as he’s kicking you to the curb.  A felony action runs longer than Texas’s civil code statute.

FLORIDA

Sadly, Florida Statutes only cover holding one’s self out as an attorney when one is not, but several case studies have presented us (below), with some interesting overviews about real property law:

” … the Court has held that it constitutes the unlicensed practice of law for a nonlawyer to prepare a warranty deed, quitclaim deed, land trusts, leases and mortgage agreements. The Florida Bar v. Irizarry, 268 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1972); The Florida Bar v. Hughes, 697 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1997); The Florida Bar v. Lister, 662 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 1995); The Florida Bar v. Valdes, 464 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 1985).”

UPL in Florida is a third-degree felony.  Florida appears very non-committal in its commentaries on what broadly constitutes UPL; however, as seen below from the General UPL Definitions, document manufacturing without a supervising attorney appears to be a real “gray area” (that needs some attention):

10-2. DEFINITIONS RULE 10-2.1 GENERALLY

Whenever used in these rules the following words or terms have the following meaning unless the use of the word or term clearly indicates a different meaning:

(a) Unlicensed Practice of Law. The unlicensed practice of law means the practice of law, as prohibited by statute, court rule, and case law of the state of Florida.

(b) Paralegal or Legal Assistant. A paralegal or legal assistant is a person qualified by education, training, or work experience, who works under the supervision of a member of The Florida Bar, an out-of-state lawyer engaged in the authorized practice of law in Florida or a foreign lawyer engaged in the authorized practice of law in Florida and who performs specifically delegated substantive legal work for which the supervising lawyer is responsible. A nonlawyer or a group of nonlawyers may not offer legal services directly to the public by employing a lawyer to provide the lawyer supervision required under this rule. It constitutes the unlicensed practice of law for a person who does not meet the definition of paralegal or legal assistant to use the title paralegal, legal assistant, or other similar term in offering to provide or in providing services directly to the public.

——-

Florida also has a felony perjury statute with teeth in it, as it has a civil component attached:

817.535 Unlawful filing of false documents or records against real or personal property.

(1) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “File” means to present an instrument for recording in an official record or to cause an instrument to be presented for recording in an official record.
(b) “Filer” means the person who presents an instrument for recording in an official record or causes an instrument to be presented for recording in an official record.
(c) “Instrument” means any judgment, mortgage, assignment, pledge, lien, financing statement, encumbrance, deed, lease, bill of sale, agreement, mortgage, notice of claim of lien, notice of levy, promissory note, mortgage note, release, partial release or satisfaction of any of the foregoing, or any other document that relates to or attempts to restrict the ownership, transfer, or encumbrance of or claim against real or personal property, or any interest in real or personal property.
(d) “Official record” means the series of instruments, regardless of how they are maintained, which a clerk of the circuit court, or any person or entity designated by general law, special law, or county charter, is required or authorized by law to record. The term also includes a series of instruments pertaining to the Uniform Commercial Code filed with the Secretary of State or with any entity under contract with the Secretary of State to maintain Uniform Commercial Code records and a database of judgment liens maintained by the Secretary of State.

(e) “Public officer or employee” means, but is not limited to:

1. A person elected or appointed to a local, state, or federal office, including any person serving on an advisory body, board, commission, committee, council, or authority.
2. An employee of a state, county, municipal, political subdivision, school district, educational institution, or special district agency or entity, including judges, attorneys, law enforcement officers, deputy clerks of court, and marshals.
3. A state or federal executive, legislative, or judicial officer, employee, or volunteer authorized to perform actions or services for any state or federal executive, legislative, or judicial office, or agency.
4. A person who acts as a general or special magistrate, auditor, arbitrator, umpire, referee, hearing officer, or consultant to any state or local governmental entity.
5. A person who is a candidate for public office or judicial position.
(2)(a) A person who files or directs a filer to file, with the intent to defraud or harass another, any instrument containing a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation that purports to affect an owner’s interest in the property described in the instrument commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(b) A person who violates paragraph (a) a second or subsequent time commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3) If a person is convicted of violating subsection (2) and the owner of the property subject to the false instrument is a public officer or employee, the offense shall be reclassified as follows:

(a) In the case of a felony of the third degree, to a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(b) In the case of a felony of the second degree, to a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(4)(a) If a person is convicted of violating subsection (2) and the person committed the offense while incarcerated in a jail or correctional institution or while participating in a pretrial diversion program under any form of pretrial release or bond, on probation or parole, or under any postrelease supervision, the offense shall be reclassified as follows:

1. In the case of a felony of the third degree, to a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
2. In the case of a felony of the second degree, to a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(b) If a person’s offense has been reclassified pursuant to this subsection, the sentencing court shall issue a written finding that the offense occurred while incarcerated in a jail or correctional institution and direct that a copy of the written finding and judgment of conviction be forwarded to the appropriate state institution or county facility for consideration of disciplinary action and forfeiture of all gain-time or any early release credits accumulated up to the date of the violation.

(5) If the person is convicted of violating subsection (2) and the owner of the property covered by the false instrument incurs financial loss as a result of the instrument being recorded in the official record, including costs and attorney fees incurred in correcting, sealing, or removing the false instrument from the official record as described herein, the offense shall be reclassified as follows:

(a) In the case of a felony of the third degree, to a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(b) In the case of a felony of the second degree, to a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(6) A person who fraudulently records a claim of lien in the official records pursuant to part I of chapter 713 is subject to the fraud provisions of s. 713.31 and not this section.
(7) If a person is convicted of violating this section, the sentencing court shall issue an order declaring the instrument forming the basis of the conviction null and void and may enjoin the person from filing any instrument in an official record absent prior review and approval for filing by a circuit or county court judge. The sentencing court may also order the instrument forming the basis of the conviction sealed from the official record and removed from any applicable electronic database used for recording instruments in the official record.
(8)(a) Any person adversely affected by an instrument filed in the official record which contains a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation has a civil cause of action under this section without regard to whether criminal charges are pursued under subsection (2). A notice of lis pendens in accord with s. 48.23 shall be filed which specifically describes the instrument under challenge and the real or personal property affected by the instrument.

(b) Upon a finding that the instrument contains a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation such that the instrument does not establish a legitimate property or lien interest in favor of another person:

1. The court shall determine whether the entire instrument or certain parts thereof are null and void ab initio. If the court finds the instrument void in its entirety, it may order the instrument sealed from the official record and removed from any electronic database used for indexing or locating instruments in the official record. The court may also, permanently or for a period of time, enjoin the defendant who filed the instrument or who directed the filer to file the instrument from filing or directing a person to file an instrument in the official records without prior review and approval for filing by a circuit or county court judge, provided that as to third parties who may have given value for an interest described or granted by any instrument filed in violation of the injunction, the instrument shall be deemed validly filed and provides constructive notice, notwithstanding any failure to comply with the terms of the injunction.
2. Upon a finding of intent to defraud or harass, the court or jury shall award actual damages and punitive damages, subject to the criteria in s. 768.72, to the person adversely affected by the instrument. The court may also levy a civil penalty of $2,500 for each instrument determined to be in violation of subsection (2).
3. The court may grant such other relief or remedy that the court determines is just and proper within its sound judicial discretion.
(c) The prevailing party in such a suit is entitled to recover costs and reasonable attorney fees.
(d) The custodian of any official record shall, upon payment of appropriate fees, provide a certified copy of the sealed instrument to the party seeking relief under this section for use in subsequent court proceedings; in addressing or correcting adverse effects upon the person’s credit or property rights, or reporting the matter for investigation and prosecution; or in response to a subpoena seeking the instrument for criminal investigative or prosecution purposes.
(e) Upon request, the custodian of any official record shall, upon payment of appropriate fees, provide a certified copy of the sealed instrument to any federal, state, or local law enforcement agency.
(f) If feasible, the custodian of the official record where the instrument is recorded shall record any court order finding that the instrument is null and void in its entirety or in certain parts thereof.
(g) An instrument removed from an electronic database used for recording instruments in the public record pursuant to this section shall be maintained in a manner in which the instrument can be reduced to paper form.
(9) A government agency may provide legal representation to a public officer or employee if the instrument at issue appears to have been filed to defraud or harass the public officer or employee in his or her official capacity. If the public officer or employee is the prevailing party, the award of reasonable attorney fees shall be paid to the government agency that provided the legal representation.
(10) This section does not apply to the procedures for sealing or expunging criminal history records as provided in chapter 943.
History.s. 1, ch. 2013-228.

——-

The foregoing is some pretty substantive stuff, eh?   Now let’s examine a couple of the key items that got Florida foreclosure mill attorney (su casa, mi casa) David J. Stern disbarred:

In Count One of the Complaint that got him disbarred, at Paragraph 6:

During all times material, respondent elevated several staff to managerial/supervisory positions in the Stern law firm, including, but not limited to, attorneys Beverly McComas and Miriam Mendieta, and nonlawyer, Cheryl Samons, who was the office manager of the foreclosure department and/or manager of operations.

Cheryl Samons’ signature (as you may have been aware) showed up on thousands of documents as an Assistant Secretary of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., many times utilizing a notary (Terry Rice) whose commission was not valid at the time of acknowledgment.  These documents were then recorded in land records all over Florida and used to foreclose on unsuspecting homeowners.

Paragraphs 9 , 14 and 16 (of the Bar Complaint further stated:

(9) In their supervisory capacity, Mendieta, McComas, and Samons were accountable and answerable only to David J. Stern as the managing attorney and sole shareholder of the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A.

(14) Ultimately, the firm’s supervisory echelon employees such as Mensieta, McComas, and Samons, due to their extensive supervisory and managerial duties and responsibilities were given annual salaries that ranged from $200,000 to $600,000.

(16) David J. Stern’s lack of supervisory oversight, together with that of the supervisory echelon, contributed to many allegations of misconduct, including many judicial referrals to the Bar, on the part of the Stern law firm and its associates, which included, but were not limited to: (B) Improperly executed and/or improperly notarized documents, including, but not limited to, assignments of mortgage, and affidavits of reasonable attorneys’ fees …”

So if David J. Stern was not directly supervising the activities of Cheryl Samons, she could pretty much do whatever she wanted, including drafting documents that contained false and misrepresentative information (under Florida Criminal Code § 817.535).

Don’t you think that these third-party document mills operate in much the same way?   Without attorney supervision?   Exactly how much did Cheryl Samons get paid?

What is so different from what David J. Stern got disbarred for … and Lorraine M. Brown went to prison for … that these robosigners and their respective notaries can’t be held to the same criminal standards?  All of the depositions I’ve read of Stern Law Firm employees say nothing about how much anyone got paid and none of them appear to inquire as to the accuracy of the information contained on the document, with the exception of authority vested in the signer by MERS.

CALIFORNIA

BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE – BPC

DIVISION 3. PROFESSIONS AND VOCATIONS GENERALLY [5000 – 9998.11]

( Heading of Division 3 added by Stats. 1939, Ch. 30. )

CHAPTER 4. Attorneys [6000 – 6243]

( Chapter 4 added by Stats. 1939, Ch. 34. )

ARTICLE 7. Unlawful Practice of Law [6125 – 6133]

( Article 7 added by Stats. 1939, Ch. 34. )

6125.

No person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active licensee of the State Bar.

(Amended by Stats. 2018, Ch. 659, Sec. 89. (AB 3249) Effective January 1, 2019.)

6126.

(a) Any person advertising or holding himself or herself out as practicing or entitled to practice law or otherwise practicing law who is not an active licensee of the State Bar, or otherwise authorized pursuant to statute or court rule to practice law in this state at the time of doing so, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in a county jail or by a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment. Upon a second or subsequent conviction, the person shall be confined in a county jail for not less than 90 days, except in an unusual case where the interests of justice would be served by imposition of a lesser sentence or a fine. If the court imposes only a fine or a sentence of less than 90 days for a second or subsequent conviction under this subdivision, the court shall state the reasons for its sentencing choice on the record.

(b) Any person who has been involuntarily enrolled as an inactive licensee of the State Bar, or whose license has been suspended, or has been disbarred, or has resigned from the State Bar with charges pending, and thereafter practices or attempts to practice law, advertises or holds himself or herself out as practicing or otherwise entitled to practice law, is guilty of a crime punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code or in a county jail for a period not to exceed six months. However, any person who has been involuntarily enrolled as an inactive licensee of the State Bar pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (e) of Section 6007 and who knowingly thereafter practices or attempts to practice law, or advertises or holds himself or herself out as practicing or otherwise entitled to practice law, is guilty of a crime punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code or in a county jail for a period not to exceed six months.

(c) The willful failure of a licensee of the State Bar, or one who has resigned or been disbarred, to comply with an order of the Supreme Court to comply with Rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court, constitutes a crime punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code or in a county jail for a period not to exceed six months.

(d) The penalties provided in this section are cumulative to each other and to any other remedies or penalties provided by law.

(Amended by Stats. 2018, Ch. 659, Sec. 90. (AB 3249) Effective January 1, 2019.)

6126.3.

(a) In addition to any criminal penalties pursuant to Section 6126 or to any contempt proceedings pursuant to Section 6127, the courts of the state shall have the jurisdiction provided in this section when a person advertises or holds himself or herself out as practicing or entitled to practice law, or otherwise practices law, without being an active licensee of the State Bar or otherwise authorized pursuant to statute or court rule to practice law in this state at the time of doing so.

(b) The State Bar, or the superior court on its own motion, may make application to the superior court for the county where the person described in subdivision (a) maintains or more recently has maintained his or her principal office for the practice of law or where he or she resides, for assumption by the court of jurisdiction over the practice to the extent provided in this section. In any proceeding under this section, the State Bar shall be permitted to intervene and to assume primary responsibility for conducting the action.

(c) An application made pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be verified, and shall state facts showing all of the following:

(1) Probable cause to believe that the facts set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 6126 have occurred.

(2) The interest of the applicant.

(3) Probable cause to believe that the interests of a client or of an interested person or entity will be prejudiced if the proceeding is not maintained.

——-

As you can see from California’s statutes, there really isn’t much in the way of disciplinary punishment for those actually “doing the deed”, other than felony perjury under the Penal Code:

PENAL CODE – PEN

PART 1. OF CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS [25 – 680]

  ( Part 1 enacted 1872. )

TITLE 7. OF CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE [92 – 186.34]

  ( Title 7 enacted 1872. )

CHAPTER 4. Forging, Stealing, Mutilating, and Falsifying Judicial and Public Records and Documents [112 – 117]

  ( Chapter 4 enacted 1872. )

115.  

(a) Every person who knowingly procures or offers any false or forged instrument to be filed, registered, or recorded in any public office within this state, which instrument, if genuine, might be filed, registered, or recorded under any law of this state or of the United States, is guilty of a felony.

(b) Each instrument which is procured or offered to be filed, registered, or recorded in violation of subdivision (a) shall constitute a separate violation of this section.

(c) Except in unusual cases where the interests of justice would best be served if probation is granted, probation shall not be granted to, nor shall the execution or imposition of sentence be suspended for, any of the following persons:

(1) Any person with a prior conviction under this section who is again convicted of a violation of this section in a separate proceeding.

(2) Any person who is convicted of more than one violation of this section in a single proceeding, with intent to defraud another, and where the violations resulted in a cumulative financial loss exceeding one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000).

(d) For purposes of prosecution under this section, each act of procurement or of offering a false or forged instrument to be filed, registered, or recorded shall be considered a separately punishable offense.

(e) (1) After a person is convicted of a violation of this section, or a plea is entered whereby a charge alleging a violation of this section is dismissed and waiver is obtained pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754, upon written motion of the prosecuting agency, the court, after a hearing described in subdivision (f), shall issue a written order that the false or forged instrument be adjudged void ab initio if the court determines that an order is appropriate under applicable law. The order shall state whether the instrument is false or forged, or both false and forged, and describe the nature of the falsity or forgery. A copy of the instrument shall be attached to the order at the time it is issued by the court and a certified copy of the order shall be filed, registered, or recorded at the appropriate public office by the prosecuting agency.

(2) (A) If the order pertains to a false or forged instrument that has been recorded with a county recorder, an order made pursuant to this section shall be recorded in the county where the affected real property is located. The order shall also reference the county recorder’s document recording number of any notice of pendency of action recorded pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (f).

(B)  As to any order, notice of pendency of action, or withdrawal of notice of pendency of action recorded pursuant to this section, recording fees shall be waived pursuant to Section 27383 of the Government Code.

(f) A prosecuting agency shall use the following procedures in filing a motion under subdivision (e):

(1) Within 10 calendar days of filing a criminal complaint or indictment alleging a violation of this section, the prosecuting agency shall provide written notice by certified mail to all parties who have an interest in the property affected by the false or forged instrument, or in the instrument itself, including those described in paragraph (5).

(2) (A) Within 10 calendar days of filing a criminal complaint or indictment alleging a violation of this section, the prosecuting agency shall record a notice of pendency of action in the county in which the affected real property is located.

(B) Within 10 calendar days of the case being adjudicated or dismissed without obtaining an order pursuant to subdivision (e), the prosecuting agency shall record a withdrawal of the notice of pendency of action in the county where the affected real property is located.

(3) The written notice and notice of pendency of action described in paragraphs (1) and (2) shall inform the interested parties that a criminal action has commenced that may result in adjudications against the false or forged instrument or the property affected by the false or forged instrument, and shall notify the interested parties of their right to be heard if a motion is brought under subdivision (e) to void the false or forged instrument. The notice shall state the street address, if available, and the legal description of the affected real property.

(4) Failure of the prosecuting agency to provide written notice or record a pendency of action as required under paragraphs (1) and (2) within 10 calendar days shall not prevent the prosecuting agency from later making a motion under subdivision (e), but the court shall take the failure to provide notice or record a pendency of action as required under paragraphs (1) and (2) as reason to provide any interested parties additional time to respond to the motion. Failure of the prosecuting agency to so notify interested parties under this subdivision or record a pendency of action as required under paragraphs (1) and (2) within 10 calendar days shall create a presumption that a finding as described in paragraph (9) is necessary to protect the property rights of the interested party or parties.

(5) If the instrument sought to be declared void involves real property, “interested parties” include, but are not limited to, all parties who have recorded with the county recorder in the county where the affected property is located any of the following: a deed, lien, mortgage, deed of trust, security interest, lease, or other instrument declaring an interest in, or requesting notice relating to, the property affected by the false or forged instrument as of the date of the filing of the criminal complaint or indictment.

(6) Any party not required to be noticed under paragraph (1) or (5) who nonetheless notifies the prosecuting agency in writing of the party’s desire to be notified if a motion is brought under subdivision (e) to void the false or forged instrument shall be treated as an interested party as defined in paragraph (1) or (5).

(7) The court shall set a hearing for the motion brought by the prosecuting agency under subdivision (e) no earlier than 90 calendar days from the date the motion is made. The prosecuting agency shall provide a copy by certified mail of the written motion and a notice of hearing to all interested parties described in paragraphs (1), (5), or (6), and all other persons who obtain an interest in the property prior to recordation of notice of pendency of action no later than 90 days before the hearing date set by the court. The notice shall state the street address, if available, and the legal description of the affected real property.

(8) At a hearing on a motion brought by the prosecuting agency under subdivision (e), the defendant, prosecuting agency, and interested parties described in paragraphs (1), (5), or (6), shall have a right to be heard and present information to the court. No party shall be denied a right to present information due to a lack of notice by the prosecuting agency or failure to contact the prosecuting agency or the court prior to the hearing.

(9) (A) At a hearing on a motion brought by a prosecuting agency under subdivision (e), if the court determines that the interests of justice or the need to protect the property rights of any person or party so requires, including, but not limited to, a finding that the matter may be more appropriately determined in a civil proceeding, the court may decline to make a determination under subdivision (e).

(B) If, prior to the hearing on the motion, any person or party files a quiet title action that seeks a judicial determination of the validity of the same false or forged instrument that is the subject of the motion, or the status of an interested party as a bona fide purchaser of, or bona fide holder of an encumbrance on, the property affected by the false or forged instrument, the court may consider that as an additional but not dispositive factor in making its determination under subdivision (e); provided, however, that a final judgment previously entered in that quiet title action shall be followed to the extent otherwise required by law.

(g) As used in this section, “prosecuting agency” means a city attorney, a district attorney, the Attorney General, or other state or local agency actively prosecuting a case under this section.

(h) An order made pursuant to subdivision (e) shall be considered a judgment, and subject to appeal in accordance with, paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 904.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(Amended by Stats. 2014, Ch. 455, Sec. 1. (AB 1698) Effective January 1, 2015.)

——-

LAW FIRM PARTICIPATION

When it comes to the actual document recording, you may see the law firm involved in the preparation or handling of the document.  Here are some examples:

As opposed to other law firms who are doing the foreclosing that rely on third-party document mills, title companies and servicer document mills to manufacture standing to keep documents beyond arms-length for the purposes of plausible deniability in the preparation of these suspect documents:

NDEX West LLC is another name for National Default Exchange, which foreclosure mill Barrett Daffin (a North Dallas foreclosure mill with offices on the West Coast) is involved in. At one time, then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris was investigating NDEX West.  It is uncertain whether that investigation has been concluded. NDEX West may or may not even be aware that it was or is currently being investigated (unless someone reads this blog and tells them about it).  I was made aware of the investigation through my corporate attorney, who was contacted by Kamala Harris’s office.

When the law firm participates, one must determine (generally through bona fide discovery … and not just your own personal opinion) whether the law firm actually “supervised” the execution and/or preparation of the document; how much interaction the law firm had with the document’s execution and/or creation; and whether or not the law firm reviewed any alterations to the document (common in third-party document mills), wherein you see a lot of surrogate signing, notary fraud and other suspect issues that have to be vetted, NOT TO MENTION the actual information being false and in violation of statutes like the foregoing California Penal Code and the Florida Criminal Code § 817.535.

It further makes one wonder HOW people can create, execute and cause to be recorded millions of documents (which are separate acts of perjury committed under the statutes) and not get burned by UPL issues because they created documents with the purported effect of representing something of a legal nature in the land records without the review and/or supervision of a licensed attorney.  This is something that the legislatures of all 50 states certainly need to take a closer look at because illicit document manufacturing has not stopped, despite what the servicers say!

Then you’d obviously ask yourself … if Cheryl Samons was allowed to do what she did and her acts constituted suspect felony behavior, why isn’t she in jail too?  Not only did her suspect assignment show up in the Harpster case in Pasco County, Florida, years later one of those same suspect assignments showed up in a Hillsborough County, Florida case! strominger assn_stern

The Strominger case was eventually dismissed.

THE SYSTEM OF THINGS HASN’T BEEN PLAYED OUT YET

In Nevada, two title officers with LPS were taken to task on a 606-count indictment, only to have all of those charges thrown out due to prosecutorial misconduct.

David J.Stern may have been disbarred; however, he still is out of the business with a puttload of money from his ill-gotten gains as the reputed “King of the Foreclosure World”. He had the supervisory capacity to oversee his non-lawyer staff (as mandated by bar rules), yet he apparently chose to ignore them.  If document mills don’t have “supervisory attorneys”, what would the unintended consequences of document manufacturing by companies like Indecomm Global Services, Security Connections and Nationwide Title Clearing be?

The reason Samons and others like her are NOT in jail is because we do not go far enough into “the system of things” to make that happen.  We are simply happy to NOT be foreclosed on and that’s good enough for us right now.   Why spend the extra money?

Maybe at a point in time in the near future … we’ll get there.  But for now, until someone rises to the occasion within a legal proceeding, we’re not there yet.  Keep in mind that it is my suggestion to ALWAYS depose a notary first and make sure to have a copy of the office floor plan.  Most of the leasing agents have access to them, as required under a lease, to illustrate “finish out” details.

Below is an example of one signing room floor plan (allegedly MERS’s address in Ocala, Florida, which really belonged to EDS):

The foregoing illustration was actually used in the promotion of the agent, who referred to this location as ideal for a “document manufacturing plant”.  Where in the hell did he get that idea from?   I generally look at these floor plans to determine the location of where the notaries are located, versus the persons executing the documents.  One of Bank of America’s so-called “employees” chose to admit in an interview that none of his signatures were ever witnessed by notaries when he worked in that document manufacturing plant for over three years.  His documents were collected from him and taken to the notary section to be acknowledged, which contradicts what the notarial execution language says, “under Penalty of Perjury under the laws of the State of California.”   Am I making sense here?  I recently received a copy of an assignment of mortgage signed by this admitted robosiger/contract worker for Bank of America, which goes to show you that the “damage” created by the recording of these documents (to that property’s chain of title, etc.) is on-going, despite what the banks and their servicers may think.

CIVIL CONSPIRACY IN RELATION TO DOCUMENT MANUFACTURING

How many robosigners and notaries does it take to form a civil conspiracy?   One of each.   If a law firm was giving any “direction” or “supervision” to the matter of executing and recording these documents, don’t you think they’ve become part of that “conspiracy”?   We’ll leave that question for a solid answer when someone manages to get proper discovery in a future case.  If you manage this, please let me know!  We’d all like to know.

In most U.S. states, civil conspiracy is not actionable in of itself (as a cause of action); however, according to existing case law, civil conspiracy can be used to prove the intent in an underlying tort (misrepresentation).  This is where we get back into document content and not whether someone had permission from MERS.  In my book, a corporate resolution that the Grantor cannot or refuses to prove had teeth in it (which MERS constantly refuses to prove) in order for someone to sign on its behalf poses an interesting challenge.  Does MERS actually become part of the civil conspiracy because of some alleged authority granted by it?  MERS can’t stay hidden in the woodwork forever.  At some point, the courts (I predict) will determine some sort of liability connected with a criminal proceeding.

Again, the system of things has to come full circle for this to occur.

 

4 Comments

Filed under OP-ED

WHEN THE NOT-SO-OBVIOUS BECOMES OBVIOUS …

(OP-ED) — The author of this post is not an attorney.  I hate having to put disclaimers on here, but some people can’t separate common sense from what might be termed “legal advice”; thus, given the behavior of  “the system of things” to always backfire at some point in time, caveats are always necessary in any walk of life.

Happy New Year!

Being as it’s 2019 still doesn’t change the fact that on many an occasion, mortgage loan servicers are the parties actually conducting the foreclosures both judicial and non-judicial settings.  We’re seeing an uptick in the number of cases where assignments of mortgage or deed of trust show the “assignee” as the benefactor of the mortgage loan (ONLY) which is when the conveniently-manufactured “excuse” for paperwork is discovered in the land records around the time of the foreclosure action.  This does not excuse the fact that you have no contract with the servicer, but the lender does … maybe.  Some sort of authority has to represent what the servicer can do and cannot do; however … no one bothers to check limited powers of attorney to see if such authority was ever granted.  Are we by-passing that evaluation all because of desperation, which causes us to overlook detail?

The Not-So-Obvious … 

Roughly about a year ago, a sailboat waterfront property in Punta Gorda, Florida was sold at auction.  The winning bidder paid the fees and went to closing, only to find out Select Portfolio Servicing, LP, the mortgage loan servicer behind the auction, wasn’t the proper party to be selling the foreclosed home.  The deal fell through.  Who discovered it?   The title company that was trying to close the deal!

The Obvious …

It looked like all the paperwork was there, except when it wasn’t.  And look who discovered it … the title company.  They weren’t going to insure the home because the seller didn’t have the authority to sell it, nor did the seller (SPS) have an interest in it.  How can a party with no interest in foreclosed property sell it?   Which brings me to another point.  Since this foreclosure auction was in Florida, which is a judicial state … in order to get to the point where it went to auction, a final judgment of foreclosure had to be obtained from the circuit court, which it was. This means that someone had to lie to the judge to get the final judgment in the first place!  Did the attorney(s) who made the misrepresentations in court, both in the pleadings and in oral arguments, get sanctioned or punished?  Hell, no!  Why?  Because the Borrowers (who were from Michigan; Florida has a lot of “snowbirds” that own property there that don’t bother to check condition of title when they purchase Florida property) didn’t bring it up … and …

The Not-So-Obvious …

Because Florida judges only care about the bonuses they get from the State Legislature for kicking people to the curb any way they can!  Generally, that’s done through some overlooked procedural process … or in cases where the Borrowers show up in court, the judge then ambushes the Borrowers (and their attorneys) by asking, “When’s the last time you made a mortgage payment?”  or in the alternative … “Are you in default?”  (as if you know the legal meaning of default).  You blindly answer because of intimidation.

The Obvious …

Instead of objecting to the judge’s question by fundamentally answering that the servicer may have been making the payments for you all along, there is no firm proof of when the last payment was made on the account; and there’s no real proof that anyone is in default, except maybe the servicer, for failing to make the payments as part of their contractual obligation to the lender.  No one ever goes there, especially when there’s a REMIC trust involved.  What the judge is doing is trying to justify the foreclosure by side-stepping your due process rights to discovery.  When you let him/her do that, they get a bonus … AND … you get kicked to the curb!

The Not-So-Obvious … 

The banks already know and assume, because it’s a numbers game, that homeowners don’t have the money to fight and that 95% of them will run if given the opportunity, instead of fighting for what’s theirs.  The banks may be aware that the servicer is the real party retaining the foreclosing attorney or law firm, but they simply look at the complaint caption and take what’s written in the pleadings as the gospel truth, when it is far from it.  This is why it’s disadvantageous to live in a deed of trust (non-judicial) state than in a judicial (mortgage) state, where you get your day in court … because all foreclosures are deemed to be legal until otherwise challenged.

The obvious … 

If and when you find yourself with more month at the end of the money and the mortgage payment is going to be late or short in dollar amount, it is certain your account will be red-flagged after the 10th of the following month when the mortgage payment isn’t received.  As per the patterns discovered in the OSCEOLA COUNTY FORENSIC EXAMINATION, it is also highly likely that the mortgage loan servicer will direct its employees to manufacture a phony assignment, using MERS to cover up the chain of title, to convey your property (along with the note, which MERS cannot do since it admittedly doesn’t have an interest in the note) into a REMIC trust.  This will happen within the 90-day period of you not making timely mortgage payments.  This is all done because the servicer wants your home because it’s going to get reimbursed for all of those payments (principal and interest) it made for you!

The Not-So-Obvious … 

What the servicer doesn’t tell you is that when it starts sending you loan modification paperwork, the foreclosure paperwork shuffle affecting your home is already in progress.  It is at this point in time that borrowers are distracted by distress and frustration, all by design planning on the part of the servicer.  This is why there are so many complaints against mortgage loan servicers these days.

The Obvious … 

You have a limited amount of time to prepare … either to run or to fight the good fight.  Your research should include talking to at least two different foreclosure defense attorneys.  Within 90 days to six months, you can expect to get a notice that the proceedings just got traction and are moving forward.  I can guarantee you 100% that if you do nothing, you lose your home.

The Not-So-Obvious … 

Mortgage loan servicers really hate discovery.  They have limited information in the Borrowers’ Collateral Loan Files.  Most Borrowers take the path of least resistance, which is what the servicers are counting on, and send them a Qualified Written Request under RESPA § 6, expecting to get a document dump of everything in their file, which is NOT what the servicer wants to see or hear.  Borrowers seem to forget that a QWR is not real discovery.  Servicers side-step all sorts of issues in answering QWR’s outside of a court case.

The Obvious … 

The chain of title has evidence which you can readily obtain in certified form, especially the assignments!  The devil is in the details and that is exactly where you’ll find your false and misrepresentative statements!   The Borrower should seek out counsel that is versed in discovery in order to craft questions and statements that are likely to have to set the stage for a Motion to Compel to get the servicer to answer them.  No discovery = No truth!

And the truth shall set you free!

 

3 Comments

Filed under OP-ED

UPDATE: PRO-BANK 5TH U.S. CIRCUIT APPELATES TAKE DOWN ANOTHER HOMEOWNER … MAYBE?

(BREAKING NEWS — OP-ED) —  The author of this post is a paralegal and consultant to attorneys in foreclosure matters and issues involving “the system of things”.  None of what you’re reading in this post should be construed as legal advice nor posited to guarantee a legal outcome.  

UPDATE: Now that the legal community has had somewhat of a chance to review the previously discussed Fifth U.S. Circuit ruling (in THIS case), let’s see what one law firm has to say:  5th Circuit Holds Bankruptcy Stay Tolls Statute of Limitations | Weiner Brodsky Kider PC – JDSupra

This will certainly give you an idea of how the other side thinks.

_______________________________________________________

As promised, I bring you the latest relevant case from the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the Big Easy.  But wait … it wasn’t a “big easy” for the borrower, whose case I worked on long ago (in doing a chain of title assessment for) and whose assignments of deed of trust I use in my chain of title workshops to show “document manufacturing gone wrong”.  Wilshire Credit Corporation, used by Countrywide as one of its servicers,  is to blame for that screw-up.

None of what you’re about to read in this ruling appears proper because no one ever attacked the assignments head on, even when it was suggested to do so. Remember, I can’t give legal advice and it’s sad when I have to read rulings like this, knowing what I know that should have been done, but wasn’t.

So … let’s read the ruling first, then we’ll analyze how the homeowner shot himself in the foot because he put his money where it shouldn’t have been put and didn’t put his money where it should have been put:

HSBC Bank USA NA v Crum, 5th App Cir No 17-11206 (Oct 17, 2018)

We’ll do a little analysis on the chain of title and show you what suspect document manufacturing looks like and my perspective on HOW it should have been challenged.  Is it because of attorney ignorance or just plain and simple frustration?

Let’s see how sharp you are in detecting WHAT went wrong here:

ASSIGNMENT NUMBER ONE                                                                                              

NOTE: Click on the assignment to see it in larger print and click the BACK tab on your computer screen to get back to the article.

I put this assignment FIRST for a reason … look at the time (in the upper, right-hand corner) as to WHEN the assignment was recorded … 11:04:32 a.m. on July 14, 2009.   I surmise that this document was manufactured by employees of the servicer, Wilshire Credit Corporation, to create standing for HSBC Bank USA NA as Trustee for MLMI (that’s Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors) Trust Series 2005-WMC1.  It should be clear to you that “WMC” in the REMIC series was a REMIC set up by WMC Mortgage Corporation, which was the alleged original lender.

The 5th Circuit has already ruled that it doesn’t matter if the original lender went bust BEFORE the documents were created.  How could they do that?   Corruption?  Maybe?   Maybe it was given the wrong information in the pleading.  Maybe?   The appellate court can only rule on the information it was provided and I don’t believe that any of this stuff I’m showing you here was properly vetted in discovery, was it?

Notice something else?   The signer executing this document (a known robosigner), claims to be an “Attorney-in-Fact” for MLMI Lending, Inc., however; as I will show you, she’s not acting as an attorney in fact for WMC Mortgage Corporation, is she?   There’s no written evidence of where the Limited Power of Attorney is recorded on this document, is there?

Also notice that Wilshire Credit Corporation (the mortgage loan servicer) prepared this document and after it was recorded, got it back through the U.S. Mail. This will be important to note for future discussion.

This recording was a 3-page document.  Page 2 contained the legal description.  Now … wait until you see Page 3!

What’s wrong with this picture?  These F**KTARDS can’t even do their job right, can they?   The executor of this document prepared this Allonge to show that the Depositor conveyed it into the REMIC on July 6, 2009.  If you look at the Trust’s 424(b)(5) Prospectus (shown below), the Cut-Off Date for assigning the note and mortgage to the REMIC was January 1, 2005, because (according to the IRS’s Start-up Date for the REMIC) the Closing Date of the REMIC was January 27, 2005.  This Allonge was done over 4-1/2 years later … in violation of the REMIC’s own regulations!  Besides, what do $10/hour employees of Wilshire Credit Corporation know anyway, right?   Who investigated this?  I did!  I told the Borrower long ago what happened to his chain of title.  His attorney apparently didn’t care enough to depose anyone.

Here’s what wrong with this picture:

First, you attach an “Allonge” to the promissory note, NOT an assignment!

Second, the executor of the document, a robosigner-employee of the servicer, claiming to be an attorney-in-fact for MLMI Lending, Inc., not WMC Mortgage Corporation, executed this Allonge less than a WEEK PRIOR TO the actual recording of this assignment!   How convenient is that, considering she is NOT the Lender.

Third, WMC Mortgage Corporation, owned by GE, was closed in 2007 due to the subprime mortgage collapse.  So here we have a servicer’s employee, two years later, claiming she has “attorney-in-fact” status, when most powers of attorney expire when the company GRANTING the LPOA ceases to do business!  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out!  AND …

Fourth, the signer of this document and Allonge is claiming she has power of attorney for MLMI Lending, Inc., right?  Would you please look at the above list of Principal Parties and tell me you see MLMI Lending Inc. anywhere in that document as a listed party to the equation?   So where is Treva Moreland’s authority as a $10/hour mortgage loan servicer’s employee attorney-in-fact status for a lender that closed up shop years earlier?  Oh, wait, the Pro-Bank 5th Circuit doesn’t give a shit, do they?   Or was it the Borrower or the Borrower’s attorney’s fault for not checking into this further?

But wait … it gets better!  (That’s an Al West sarcastic remark!) 

ASSIGNMENT NUMBER TWO

I put this assignment SECOND for a reason … look at the time (in the upper, right-hand corner) as to WHEN the assignment was recorded … 11:13:08 a.m. on July 14, 2009. This document was recorded SEVEN MINUTES AFTER THE FIRST ASSIGNMENT!  Again, I surmise that this document was manufactured by F**KTARD employees of the servicer, Wilshire Credit Corporation, to create standing for HSBC Bank USA NA as Trustee for MLMI (that’s Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors) Trust Series 2005-WMC1.  Notice the same Oregon notary (Justin M. Burns) appears on this assignment as well, claiming that on July 6, 2009, the same day as Treva Moreland, the signer of the first-recorded assignment claims to have attorney-in-fact status …

Here comes Melissa Tomlin (another $10/hour Wilshire Credit Corporation F**KTARD employee), claiming she’s an Assistant Secretary for “MERS” as Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. for then-defunct WMC Mortgage Corporation … AND … she’s assigning BOTH the Note and Mortgage to Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending, Inc. from WMC Mortgage Corporation who (now-defunct) is a “valid Assistant Secretary” for MERS … WOW!  MERS’s resolutions must really be legally sound to be able to have servicer’s employees creating shit documents out of thin air using MERS as a nominee for a closed company … Hmmm … I wonder what agency relationship existed between MERS and WMC after GE closed WMC over two years earlier?

This assignment was also 3 pages in length and was prepared and mailed back to Wilshire Credit Corporation after it was recorded.  Page 2, like before, contains the legal description of the subject property.   And now … for the GRAND FINALE … let’s see what’s on Page 3, shall we? (I am chuckling at this juncture, see if you can figure out why):


Notice what’s on the last page?   AN INDORSEMENT STAMP to Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending, Inc. by WMC Mortgage Corporation!   Again, I surmise the following:

First, endorsements belong on either the promissory note or the allonge to note (if the promissory note is full of endorsements and cannot accommodate any more of them) … NOT ON A RECORDED ASSIGNMENT!

Second, the executor of the document, a robosigner-employee of the servicer, claiming to be an Assistant Secretary for MERS as nominee for then-defunct WMC Mortgage Corporation, HAD KNOWLEDGE OF what she signed when she affixed her signature to the document (that the indorsement stamp was affixed to page 3 therein), or should have had knowledge of it, right?

Third, you’d think she’d have every opportunity, being an Officer of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (Assistant Secretary), by alleged resolution ONLY and not attorney-in-fact, that she’d have some smarts about stuff like this. Nope! Doesn’t appear that way, does it?  In fact, I’m not even sure that Melissa Tomlin (after doing several signature comparisons on assignments from around the country) actually was the party executing this document!

Fourth, remember, WMC Mortgage Corporation, owned by GE, was closed in 2007 due to the subprime mortgage collapse.  So here we have a servicer’s employee, two years later, claiming she has an agency relationship with MERS as an Assistant Secretary, when in fact she’s a Wilshire Credit Corporation employee (clearly, a misrepresentation of fact), when the company GRANTING the nominee status to MERS to create an alleged (unproven) agency relationship in the first place, is no longer business!

Fifth, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that when a company goes bust, agency relationships can be challenged!  I don’t ever see that happening in this case, do you?  (If you do, please correct me in the comments section of this post so everyone can see how uninformed I am!)

But wait … it gets better!  (That’s another Al West sarcastic remark!) 

No one knows how this happened … BUT … either the documents were improperly submitted wrong by Wilshire Credit Corporation when they mailed the packet to the Dallas County Clerk’s Office for recording in his Official Real Property Records … OR … the Clerk’s office juxtaposed the documents … SO … here’s what happened (you may have already figured this out … this is a fun example of a brain teaser for you researchers out there) to screw up the borrower’s chain of title with suspect documents (fact check these if you will):

(1) At the time BOTH assignments were executed, WMC Mortgage Corporation was no longer in business (not that the 5th U.S. Circuit really cares).

(2) MERS was used to cover up the chain of title, even though the agency relationship more than likely ended when WMC closed up shop (there was never a repudiation agreement against the MERSCORP executory contract ever filed in WMC’s bankruptcy, if it fact, it filed for such).

(3) In order for the facts to present themselves in proper order, the second assignment SHOULD HAVE BEEN recorded FIRST to reflect the transfer of the Note and Mortgage to MLMI Lending, Inc. from WMC, so MLMI Lending, Inc. could properly convey it into the REMIC Trust.

(4) But wait!  MLMI Lending, Inc. is nowhere to be found in the Prospectus for the REMIC under “Principal Parties”.  The originating lender was subprime mortgage lender WMC Mortgage Corporation.  True sale #1 would have been from WMC to the Seller, Merrill Lynch Mortgage Capital, Inc., an entirely separate corporation from Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors Lending, Inc., right?  So True Sale #1 was F**KED UP!

(5) True Sale #2 should have been from Merrill Lynch Mortgage Capital Inc. to Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc., the Depositor for the trust, who, under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement found in the Prospectus, signed under penalty of perjury under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, would have and should have completed True Sale #3 by transferring it into the REMIC itself, as the Issuer of the Certificates!

(6) All true sales had to be completed before the Cut-Off Date … so in fact we have a violation of the trust agreement and a misrepresentation in the Prospectus, if we are to believe what just happened here was factual.

(7) The misrepresentations contained within the Assignments themselves purport to have transferred everything (in order) from WMC to MLMI Lending, Inc. and from MLMI Lending, Inc. to the REMIC Trust; however, with them being recorded in reverse, it would have been impossible to represent this the other way around, so the entire chain of custody of the note is convoluted and so is the chain of title, creating suspect issues for discovery.

(8) Because MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.) cannot convey Notes because it doesn’t have an interest in the Notes (it only allows lenders to record them in the MERS® System database), then the entire claimed transfer by the servicer’s employee (and NOT the lender itself, who was by then defunct) was also misrepresentative in fact.

(9) Further, all of these misrepresentations appear to constitute violations of the Texas Penal Code and the fact the U.S. Mails were used could constitute felony mail fraud (two counts), which is a 95% slam dunk for the prosecution.  Thus, had “the system of things” played itself out the way it should have been played out, Treva Moreland, Melissa Tomlin and Justin Burns would all be doing time instead of going about their feeble lives doing whatever.

(10) Under “the system of things”, the attorneys for the bank relied on these assignments to steal Mr. Crum’s property and should be disbarred.  The judge in the state court could obviously NOT be held accountable for the fraud on his court, because he wasn’t made aware of it at the time the suit was filed and answered (the Texas Constitution requires all HELOC’s to be judicial challenges under Rule 736 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure).  If the judge was made aware, he could have lost his bond and have been removed from the bench and the headlines would have grabbed national attention!

(11) And now … for the piece d’resistance … the lawsuit filed by the alleged REMIC, for which it got a judgment against Mr. Crum, conveniently alleged that Mr. Crum was in default, when in fact, the REMIC’s own Prospectus required Wilshire Credit Corporation to make Mr. Crum’s payments on the home if he couldn’t make them … see here, see here:

Notice where is says (in Paragraph 2 of the foregoing paragraphs) that the Servicer (Wilshire) is obligated to make such advances with respect to delinquent payments of principal and interest on each Mortgage loan … how then, could Mr. Crum be in default?   If MLMI 2005-WMC1 was never aware of the default, which we know probably didn’t happen since the servicer was making all of the advance payments, then WHO actually was foreclosing on Mr. Crum?

(12) Wilshire Credit Corporation … using what I claim are false and misrepresentative documents!  But I’m not the expert witness here (but I have an attorney who is though).  I still see a mess in the constructive notice to the world of when the documents were juxtaposed.  Improperly recorded documents put the cart before the horse, didn’t they?  Can you see it spelled out now?

Any decent, well-informed, non-agenda’d judge should have been aware of all of this … but then again, they only review what’s put in front of them and what’s challenged and why.   You be the judge as to WHO failed WHO here and why.

I had all the facts in 2011.  Now they’ve come home to roost over seven years later … in a bad way!  I can definitely say discovery was sorely lacking here!

Join Dave Krieger and R. J. Malloy for another exciting segment of City Spotlight – Special Edition on WKDW-FM, 97.5 in North Port, Florida, this Friday night at 6:00 p.m. (Eastern) … the subject matter this week … blockchain, jurisdictional issues, societal breakdown and the latest from the ABA blogs!  To listen to the show, CLICK HERE!

 

 

 

 

 

11 Comments

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED, Securitization Issues

GUTTING THE UNDERBELLY OF THE BEAST – PART 6

(OP-ED, first posted: September 11, 2018) —

The writer of this post is a paralegal and consultant to attorneys on matters involving chain of title, foreclosures and document manufacturing.  The opinions expressed herein are that of the writer’s only and do not constitute legal or financial advice.  Any use of the theories or ideas suggested in this post is entirely at your discretion and will probably result in disaster without the proper legal help.

In my last episode (Part 5) of this series of posts, I talked about risk aversion and the creation of a paper trail.  In this episode, I cover the “why” this becomes necessary.

DOCUMENTATION IN SUPPORT OF A CLAIM

The very first thing I look at (as a title consultant) is the chain of title, especially the warranty or grant deed (proof of ownership), the mortgage (or deed of trust) and any subsequent assignments coming against the chain of title.  All of these documents (in certified form) become the initial evidence in support of any claim I may have against a law firm, a judge or any other party that put that false and misrepresentative information into the public record and then relied on it to steal my property.  After all, in judicial states, where I see most of the atrocities committed, the foreclosure mill attorneys are the ones attaching these documents in their pleadings, as exhibits, or in the alternative, making reference to said exhibits, to be used as evidence to support their complaints to justify the foreclosure.

The pleadings themselves (in original or amended form) also become part of the evidence package in support of my claim, because they contain the language that relies on the false and misrepresentative statements where an assignment was posited or referenced therein as evidence in support of their claim.  This package should include every single document placed within the court docket, including the index sheet … certified copies (and 1 plain copy for review). 

You’re probably asking yourself where the promissory note comes into play here, because judicial states mandate you have to have the original note in order to foreclose. In non-judicial states, possession of the note is not required to foreclose; thus, all foreclosures are assumed to be legal unless otherwise challenged.  This means that if you’re in one of the non-judicial states, you have to institute suit based on the chain of title you have, in order to start the paper trail.  Thus, non-judicial state property owners are at a distinct disadvantage because they must spend the money filing a lawsuit to stop the foreclosure and obtain a temporary restraining order (TRO) and they are limited at best as to what is provable and what isn’t because the other side has not responded to the suit.  You can’t make boisterous claims either, as you will be denied the TRO and that is what you’re seeking to shut down the foreclosure sale.   You see, until the other side responds, they’ve created no paper trail you can assert contains false and misrepresentative statements, which is why I like using a C & E (an acronym for Cancellation & Expungement Complaint) “right out of the gate” if I realize I might not be able to make my mortgage loan payments any more.  Waiting until the 11th hour to file one of these Complaints (in of itself) has been definitely proven to be a waste of time and financial resources.  Filing a wrongful foreclosure action (before the fact) is also a waste of time and financial resources because the foreclosure has not occurred yet (and this is supported by case law).  I mention all of this because your research becomes fundamental as part of creating the paper trail.

Any oral statements made in court have to be supported by some sort of record.  This is why we have court reporters.  Most pro se litigants and uneducated homeowners conveniently forget to retain a court reporter to document everything said in open court to their disadvantage. This means that with no court record, there’s nothing to take up on appeal or challenge because you’ve “stiffed” yourself out of a paper trail.  Besides, having a court reporter has been shown to keep the judge honest.  Don’t think that just because the county can afford to have its own court reporter there means you can simply rely on getting a copy of the transcript from the county’s court reporter.  They are backlogged with work and will take their time getting anything to you, at a time when having a transcript of the proceedings might be timely necessary.  This always works to the homeowner’s disadvantage.  That is deliberate!  Why?  Because the county is using its own court reporter to “cover its own ass” and you can bet stuff will be left out of the record.  Then it’s your word against the county’s.  So, tis better to get your own court reporter!  You need to create your own “timely paper trail” for future use and reference.  This is not a traffic ticket we’re talking about here!

Discovery is vital whether or not you are doing a C & E (which allows you to do discovery of the party executing the assignment and the notary who acknowledged the assignment) or a full-blown complaint to stop the foreclosure.  Discovery responses becomes part of your evidence package … and the “paper trail”!  If you don’t propound discovery on the other side or at least the relevant parties (the ones who created the assignment), you’re on a sinking ship.  All of the discovery (and the responses you get) become part of the paper trail.

Depositions are a must!  These are taken using a court reporter who writes down every single word that is spoken and many of them use video cameras (which is allowed) to take taped statements, which is even more intimidating.  I find that going after the creator of the document, the executor of the document and the notary who acknowledged the document are vital to creating a proper paper trail (not so much the creator of the document, unless you’re trying to solidify that the law firm or servicer was involved in a civil conspiracy with the agents who executed the assignment).  You’re only talking a minimum of TWO DEPOSITIONS here … the executor of the assignment and the notary who acknowledged it.  What authority did they have to execute the document?  Where is the notary’s bond?  Is there even a bond?  Can we attack the notary’s commission even though there is no bonding requirement?  YOU BET!  Attacking a notary’s bond (if there is one to go after) can be a source of cash flow to support your court fight. You can bet the other side will object to everything you ask for because they don’t want anything said on the record that can be used against them in court.

In all matters related to your case, PHONE CALLS DO NOT WORK!  You cannot take phone calls into court!  DO NOT CALL THE NOTARY!  Do not contact the notary by mail!  If you’re sending them a subpoena to appear at a deposition … their deposition … you do it through a process server … which is also a legitimate part of your paper trail!   I have people who have contacted me who do exactly what I just suggested NOT TO DO.  They scare the notary into hiding.  When it does come time to serve them with a subpoena, they can’t be found.  Duh!  And these people actually think they’re doing the right thing?  Seriously?  What part of desperation is incorporated into stupidity?  This is where you have to put your emotions aside and start thinking “common sense”.

THE EXPERT WITNESS AFFIDAVIT AND LIVE COURT TESTIMONY

I’m talking “expert witness attorney” here, not your average forensic loan or securitization auditor (who thinks they’re an expert witness).  Why an attorney for an expert witness?  Allow me to re-arrange your brain’s priorities through the following three reasons:

REASON #1: Litigation Consultant … your expert witness attorney can also serve as a litigation consultant to help you frame some damning discovery centered around statutory violations!  This is important because using the stuff I mentioned previously in The Quiet Title War Manual has nothing to do whether or not you can challenge assignments because you’re not a third-party beneficiary.  That is a bullshit banking argument that has nothing to do with the statute in question!  The statutes speak directly to the recording of documents known to contain false and misrepresentative information!  Separate the two distinctions in your mind because the borrower’s name is in the assignment; the borrower is a party to securitization (if that’s an issue) and because the document involves misrepresentations that may include “MERS” (in whatever form), which claim that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. had something to do with negotiating the instrument (the note), which runs contrary to what’s in the assignment, generally.

REASON #2: Personal Knowledge of the Facts … this happens when the expert witness attorney reviews all of your documents.  He can testify as to their factual basis AND render a legal opinion … BOTH under oath and under penalty of perjury as a lawyer!  This is way different than having a so-called “expert” that’s NOT an attorney testify as to anything factual … they can’t give legal opinions; otherwise, in doing so, their testimony could be impeached or effectively diluted under cross examination. Not only that … because the attorney who serves as your expert witness is sitting in the court (prior to giving his testimony), he actually gleans personal knowledge listening to the other side’s attorney further the false and misrepresentative information to the court … for which the damage is immediate (see In re Wilson, U.S. Bkpt Ct E.D. La No 07-11862, Memorandum of Law in Support of the United States Trustee’s Motion for Sanctions against Lender Processing Services, Inc. and the Boles Law Firm), which says:

“Untruthful statements made in bankruptcy proceedings undermine the integrity of the bankruptcy process. The bankruptcy system relies on the candor and accuracy of information presented by all parties, creditors and debtors alike. To ensure candor before this Court and to protect the integrity of the bankruptcy system, this Court should impose on Fidelity and Boles monetary sanctions and other non-monetary relief as this Court deems appropriate pursuant to its inherent authority to sanction abusive litigants coming before the Court, and pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 105(a).”  And from the following footnote, No. 16):

“Rule 9011 provides a 20 day “safe harbor” in which a party may withdraw the challenged written representations, unless they are contained in the bankruptcy petition. If the challenged paper is withdrawn, it would not be considered by the court in its decision making process. However, there can be no safe harbor for untruthful statements made in open court, because the harm that results is likely to be immediate.”

(I just told you the Expert Witness Attorney would be there to hear all of the “immediate” misrepresentations.)  This is an actual case where Wells Fargo Bank got hit with a $1.3-million sanction!

This is an attorney, namely, the Bankruptcy Trustee, reporting misconduct! He is telling the other side (through his memorandum, they’ve been given fair warning to recant what they’ve placed into the court record).   If you didn’t catch that so far … let me make sure to clarify this in the following “reason”:

REASON #3: Rule 8.3 – Reporting Professional Misconduct … this is a mandated state bar rule (how many foreclosure defense attorneys actually follow it?)

(a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority.

(b) A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge’s fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority.

The foregoing mandates (which is what “shall” means, not “may”) are put there to hold attorneys accountable to report misconduct. What forensic loan auditor or securitization auditor is mandated by the Bar’s own rules to to this?  Come on, think?  Where’s the mandate?

(long pause, heavy sigh)  Come up with one yet? Didn’t think so.

This means that when the expert witness comes into personal knowledge of the facts that the other side’s lawyer has committed felony perjury by making false and misrepresentative statements in open court, he has a mandated duty (for which the State Bar must listen) to report the other lawyer’s misconduct!

This also means that if the judge hearing your case doesn’t give a shit and let’s this scumbag attorney for the bank say whatever he wants and get away with it and hands your property over to the bank AFTER your expert witness attorney advises (through a legal opinion) that the other side’s lawyer, in both pleadings and exhibits and oral statements made, has committed misconduct, not only is the judge exposed and now at risk, but the county he is employed by may also be “on the hook”.

At least bankruptcy judges have the decency to “do the right thing”.  I recently noted the results of the Sundquist ruling in California.  Sundquist-Memo-Opinion

A lot of this depends on how “stacked” your paper trail is and what evidence of misconduct you were able to actually PROVE (not just assert).

EXPOSED RISK FACTORS 

BTW, for those of you “Patriots” out there … a majority of the judges’ oaths of office I’ve seen were actually recorded in the public record in the county they serve in!  This is important to recognize the WHY you’d want a certified copy of their oath of office.   THE PAPER TRAIL!   It’s proof he/she (as a judge) is serving IN THAT COUNTY!

Most counties are self-insured.  The county has either a County Executive or Risk Manager who handles their claims because of something an employee did wrong.  Who would think to tag a judge?   After all, aren’t the judges bonded?   What happens if the bond is attacked, challenged and successfully revoked?   The judge can’t sit on the bench, right?  He will probably be placed on administrative leave while the county investigates what happened.  But that’s not all the county has to worry about.

As a result of the trial or hearing (whether it be evidentiary or just one of those 5-minute “rocket docket” style pieces of crap), there are two other complaints that must be reported … a complaint on the lawyer to the State Bar that can discipline him … and a complaint on the judge to the appropriate judicial authority.  More paper trail to show the County … to give them fair warning that they need to step up or face the consequences!

ALL OF THIS HAS TO BE DONE BY THE EXPERT WITNESS ATTORNEY … WHO IS MANDATED TO “PULL THE TRIGGER”!   PRO SE LITIGANTS (who think they know more than the expert witness attorney) WILL ONLY F**K THIS UP IF THEY TRY TO DO IT THEMSELVES (calling into the county or the bar or the judicial review board and whining about their silly little issues, or filing crap judicial misconduct complaints, which is how the major insurance players in this game will view their cheap efforts to avoid having to pay for an expert witness attorney).  I put this part in the back end of this post as a caveat, because it’s the expert witness attorney who has the “big stick of dynamite with the short fuse” … NOT YOU! 

It gets better … stay tuned for another round of insight into the insurance game in the next segment! The title companies are also in this up to their ears (among other places)!

6 Comments

Filed under OP-ED

THE JOURNEY BEGINS WHEN THE PITY PARTY ENDS … STEP TWO!

Op-Ed — (continued from the previous post) STEP TWO … 

The Internet can be a dangerous thing, especially when doing research, trying to find answers to questions surrounding a potential financial issue that could become a crisis, like a foreclosure.

One of the reasons why I post blogs is because people share them.  Others who are in despair happen to run across these posts and some of them walk away with reason.  The “reason” I speak of is the need to recognize when there is a problem and the HOW TO’s to do something about it. Being in denial solves nothing.  It simply prolongs the problem.  Sometimes, it makes the problem worse.

The bigger part of the problem is the second issue I spoke of in the previous article: Confusion.  Understanding what is happening in its most blatant aspects is that there is the potential of losing one’s home.  The WHY of it all stems from the alleged lender’s assertion that payments were missed and that the loan is in default.

In mortgage states, or states that are commonly referred to as judicial states, you not only get your “day in court”, but the bank has to actually PROVE that you are in default AND that they hold your promissory note AND have the right to enforce the terms of the mortgage (and note).   In all cases, the mortgage FOLLOWS the note.  The mortgage is a recorded security instrument, which is found in the public record in the county in which the mortgaged property is located.  It contains terms and conditions which must be adhered to in order to keep the note holder from foreclosing and taking their “security for the loan” back.

In deed of trust states, or states that are commonly referred to as non-judicial states, you don’t get your day in court unless you file a lawsuit and demand that the court issue a temporary restraining order (TRO), which prevents the lender (or its alleged servicing representative) from advertising and conducting a sale of your property on the courthouse steps at a prescribed point in time.  The deed of trust is also a recorded security instrument, which operates similarly to a mortgage, and if properly recorded, is also found in the public record in the county in which the mortgaged property is located.

You should know that if lenders had their way, EVERY STATE would be a deed of trust state.  That way, the lenders and their henchmen would have nothing to prove when it came to advertising and selling homes on the courthouse steps.  Until they actually bribe every state’s legislature to change over to non-judicial from judicial, homeowners still have their day in court. This is the only way the banks can win.  Knowing of this potential makes me wonder why people are taking out loans to buy property when, if they know there is a possibility of their financial future turning dismal, they don’t just buy a small plot of raw land and “build as they go”.  This would seemingly make more sense and involve the banks less.

Another reason the lenders prefer a deed of trust to a mortgage is that when examining the 2007-08 financial crisis, homeowners were affected to the point where most in financial straits could not afford an attorney let alone keeping food on the table.  Knowing the homeowner won’t fight back increases a successful outcome by the lender of taking the property back without much hassle.  Now that the Dodd-Frank Act has been molested and degraded to the point of history repeating itself, how many potential homeowners will be sucked into taking out mortgages from the mega-banks, which the gutting of Dodd-Frank was clearly designed to benefit.  You can bet the major lenders had a lot to do with those major changes to the most recent passage of the “Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act”.  Because these bills are so voluminous and partisan, they create more “confusion” for the average person on the street who didn’t go to law school.

Your “property” has a chain of title … 

Researching your property’s chain of title is like peeling away the layers of an onion.  The more research you do, the more layers you peel away, leaving the real truth on the table, which, after peeling an onion, leaves most people in tears.  This is why I used the “onion” analogy because peeling onions makes my nose run and my eyes water.  Finding out what really happened to you as the result of your being duped by an unscrupulous mortgage loan officer would make anyone cry, especially when they discover that they made a mistake getting that particular mortgage loan in the first place.  And now, you’ve opened “Pandora’s Box” and found the onion.

Accepting the “truth” for what it is … 

During the times prior to the 2007-08 financial crisis, banks and mortgage companies were loaning money to anyone who could “fog up a mirror”, altering mortgage loan applications, baiting loan applicants with teaser rates tied to adjustable rate, interest-only and negative amortization loans and mortgages that looked normal, only to end up finding one got stuck with a balloon note or interest rates that put their monthly payments out of reach of their paychecks.  This was deliberate and calculated.  The banks played both sides of the coin when they lured the investors into the schemes of securitization and lured the homeowners into loans they neither could afford nor deserved.  The first “truth” you need to recognize is whether you’ve bitten off more than you can chew.  Once you realize what the truth is, it makes it easier to come to grips with and deal with HOW the mistake was made that got you into the dilemma you’re in now.  I went through this “dilemma”.  I got stuck with an “80/20 loan”.  That’s two separate mortgages, wherein the second mortgage (the “20”) had a much higher interest rate and was generally tied to another Wall Street security altogether. I used the foregoing phraseology to describe “securitization”.

It does not take an Einstein to figure out that when there’s more month at the end of the money, you’re not making it.  When you’re even one day late on your mortgage payments, the servicer handling your mortgage “red flags” your account and starts a file on you. The servicer is generally looking for excuses to take your home away from you.  No servicer in today’s times is “nice”; in fact, they’re all common liars from time to time, especially those $9/hour cubicle employees who tell you that you have to be 90 days late before you can apply for a loan mod.  THAT IS THE BIG LIE!  The servicer knows that on Day 91, the REMIC’s credit default swaps, default insurance and any other PMI or LPMI that’s been tied to the loan will be negotiated and the alleged “Lender” will reap over 200% profit off of your mortgage loan … and that’s without even applying for the title insurance payout (the principal amount of the loan less 27% administrative costs) because the chain of title is jacked up (due to the Lender’s own ineptness).

The next major ploy of disbelief is the then-servicer (on or before DAY 90) has its employees dummy up an assignment of mortgage or deed of trust and cause it to be recorded into the land records in the county where your home is located so they can “structure” or “manufacture” standing to foreclose.  The term “standing” in of itself intimates that the lender (or its servicer) has the right to do what it’s doing to you. Most attorneys I know assert “lack of standing” in almost every foreclosure defense, because the simple statements of the servicer (who claims to represent the real party in interest) are not sufficient enough to prosecute a foreclosure.

If your loan is in the MERS® System, it is likely to have been securitized, which means that the chain of title is really messed up an there is likely a REMIC (Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit), a tax-exempt entity that soaked investors for loan money, who has no idea you’re in default (the servicer knows!) and the servicer comes in disguised as the Lender, retains an attorney, obtains a foreclosure, sells the house post-judgment and runs away with your earnings.  This is why mortgage loan servicers are in business.  You make gobs of money when 95% of the homeowners run away and leave their homes to the servicer and their law firms, who split the booty, post-sale. MERSCORP (in whatever form) and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. were created to bolster lighting fast transfers of loans electronically, that have allegedly been securitized (paid for with investor money instead of the bank’s own money) and sold and re-sold multiple times on Wall Street.  This can only happen if the loan is securitized.  MERS IS NOT (AND SHOULD NOT BE) USED IN PORTFOLIO LOANS!

If you just understood what I just said … the REMIC does NOT know when you are in default because the servicer is required to make your payments to the investors, even when you don’t.  When people realize this, they get really pissed off because all along they thought it was all their fault.  The “noose” was tightened around your neck when you signed the mortgage loan in the first place!  Speaking of fault … did you come to realize the word “fault” and “default” are similar?  How do you know you’re actually in “default” if the servicer has been making your mortgage payments all along?   This is the “power over” debt collection game they play with you when you’re late on your mortgage payments.  All this time, the servicer has been making the payment for you and you never knew it.

These are only a fraction of the “truths” I teach at my workshops!

Homeowners who think they’ve been defrauded want to sue everyone tied to the mortgage loan.  THAT is the first big mistake that homeowners make.  That’s because their confusion has caused them to become angered (the third phase of foreclosure) for all the wrong reasons, to the point where they lose all rational consciousness in making proper decisions about litigation. Listening to people putting forth information and then acting on that information (without first vetting it just because it supports some sort of rational argument they have in order to make a living steering people down rabbit holes) accomplishes nothing either.  This is why many people become confused. Once they enter the cesspool of foreclosure cases looking for answers, they get so overwhelmed they don’t know where to turn or who to trust.

My research shows me that if the banks and mortgage companies were conniving and calculated enough to pull one over on you at closing, then the obvious objective is to give them their just desserts in return.  “Wise as serpents, harmless as doves.”  Going out and filing big lawsuits against lenders without a reason or any “litigation logic” using that same rationale is futile and fatal.  Why waste your money and your time?  The fact you are being foreclosed on brings an undue psychological burden on the mindset, which in turn induces stress, which in turn affects both your mental and physical health.  This is why 95% of homeowners “run away” and don’t fight.  This is why America can easily be “taken over” by the “party elite”, because most do not know HOW TO fight, let alone WHY.  If you knew HOW TO fight, wouldn’t the WHY develop into something more logical?   This is like taking karate or some other form of martial arts training.  There’s no “false hope” here because you are confident you stand a chance of winning.  You either choose to fight or you don’t.  You can still walk away from a fight and save your mental and physical anguish by formulating an alternate plan (otherwise known as PLAN B).

Everything from taking out the mortgage loan to fighting the alleged “lender” in court has a certain amount of risk.  Some of this risk is calculable.  Some of it is not.   You chose the path you are on for a variety of reasons and now you must choose the right reasons to either run and hide from your creditors or to get educated, stand up and fight them.   Filing bankruptcy only aggravates your struggle and to that end, I will explain that in the next step.

The journey begins with the chain of title … 

There is only one place that you’re going to be able to locate the foregoing and that is in the office of the clerk or recorder of your county records.  These folks get paid to help you search out the necessary documents.  If you live in a rural area with an underdeveloped county recording system, it’s highly likely that you will have to search all of this by hand through the index, which is organized by last name, then first name until you locate the recorded copy of your warranty deed.  This is your proof that title has been vested in you and no one else.

As a title consultant for many years, I can safely say that in most instances, this is your starting point.  You do not need certified copies of everything, just regular printed copies you can scan and mail to others who may have more research knowledge than you.  Getting together with other homeowners to discuss your findings after a visit to the land records may expose you to more research truths, which you need to begin your quest to justice.

You MUST collect the entire chain of title for your property in order to be able to fully analyze it (or have someone else that is more formally trained analyze it).  Skimping to only obtain the first couple of pages of a mortgage or deed of trust is just plain penny wise and pound foolish.  You need to see the whole document to see HOW you got screwed.  The devil is in the details!

Mortgage = Payments until Death  (Duh … “mort” … in several languages, means “Death”)

STAY TUNED FOR STEP THREE!  (I will discuss HOW the chain of title is used to formulate your case for trial!)

For more information on the Foreclosure Defense Workshop, click on the link!

I’m only doing this once this year!

For more information on Dave Krieger’s information library, CLICK HERE!

NOTE: Foreclosure defense attorneys are attending this Workshop!

4 Comments

Filed under OP-ED, Securitization Issues, workshop