Tag Archives: assignment

BOTH QUIET TITLE ACTIONS AND C&E ACTIONS ARE DECLARATORY RULINGS! UPDATE!

(OP-ED) — The author of this post is not an attorney and thus cannot give legal advice.  However, based on the research contained herein, one can share without retribution; thus, let this be for your educational value only! 

UPDATE … NEW IDEA!  (Please move to the bottom of the article to read my thoughts on this!)

One judgment appears to be a “cheap date”, while the other judgment isn’t.

Which one is cheaper to prove?  Why … the C&E of course!

The “C&E” should become part of everyone’s vocabulary these days.  I can give you over 500-million reasons WHY a C&E is important to every American property owner.  The main one is adverse condition of title to over one-third of every parcel of land in America!  That’s the biggest reason.

How can you consciously sell a piece of property to another human being when there is clear evidence of chain of title issues present, especially when “MERS” is involved?

The C&E has been in the forefront the entire time, albeit not exclusively.  Everyone knows that quiet title actions have been around for centuries. But … and I use this caveat succinctly: Quiet title actions are more than just a simple step in clearing title to a piece of land.  Like the C&E, both matters involve an evidentiary proceeding.  Both are rooted in declaratory relief.  Both require a certain amount of discovery.  However, the C&E requires less discovery because you’re only targeting one suspect document in the real property records, while the Quiet Title Action focuses on the entire chain of title, leading back to the document (usually the mortgage or deed of trust) that plagued the chain of title in the first place!

Back in the days preceding the first financial collapse in 2008, mortgage brokers and their title companies were so quick to file stuff in the land records that: (a.) they submitted the documents incorrectly for recording; (b.) they submitted MERS-originated documents to the county recorder knowing full well that the borrowers encumbering their property had no knowledge their loans were being securitized; and (c.) they did this knowing that a majority of the documents being recorded contained information on loans that were designed to default years later, causing a huge rash of foreclosure actions that plagued the United States from coast to coast.

I can tell you with a certainty (after having lectured to hundred of various county clerks) that a lot of clerks (recorders, registers of deeds, etc.) these days still don’t understand what MERS is and what kind of issues became predominant after MERS-related assignments are recorded.  I have been asked from time to time whether we should sue county clerks and recorders and my answer is “NO” (not just NO but HELL NO)!  These folks are generally elected officials that have a bond.  These folks unknowingly became victimized by the “MERS process” as much as the collective body politic affected by borrowing that was intended to be obtained from the secondary mortgage markets.

In The C&E on Steroids! Attorney Al West and I bring forward the reality of challenging documents through declaratory relief, especially the documents created from 2004 through today.

Yes!  These entities are still “manufacturing” bogus documents and causing them to be recorded in the land records all over the country!

And what’s even more astounding … MERS and its parent have absolutely NO IDEA that the MERS name was being used in these assignments!

The culprits … 

Mortgage loan servicers, third-party document mills and title processing services are the guilty parties!

Secondary to these groups of land record predators are the foreclosure mill law firms prosecuting the foreclosures themselves!

The potential targets … 

All of the above … depending where they’re located.

Again, The C&E on Steroids! describes WHO these targets are … WHAT prompted them to become targets  … WHEN they became targets … WHERE they got involved as targets and WHY they are targets  … and more importantly, HOW the “system” played us in letting them become targets!

Wouldn’t it be nice to know WHO your enemy is BEFORE engaging them in a legal battle? 

This is why is becomes important to understand the principal of declaratory relief.  It allows us to obtain discovery to get at the “root” of the problem.

Most homeowners don’t get that.  They think, “Okay, I’m going to get pissed off and sue everybody!”  They let their emotions get out of whack, failing to recognize the tools available to isolate and attack individual targets to further corrupt a chain of title to the point where a county court HAS TO quiet title title in order to comply with marketability statutes!

California attorney Tim McCandless was recently quoted as saying:

” … the more recent strategy of attacking the assignment of mortgage and seeking nullification of that instrument has met with some success and it should succeed, because you are attacking the facial and substantive validity of that specific instrument and not the entire mortgage or deed of trust. That strategy merely attacks the technical requirements for creation and recording of an an instrument affecting title to real property and attacking the substantive validity of the assignment by revealing that the debt was not transferred to the assignee by a party who owned the debt.”

The success in doing a C&E would seemingly “cut the legs out from under” the perpetrator of any future alleged foreclosure, right?  It would stand to reason that without an assignment being present in the chain of title, the mortgage loan servicer and its counterparts that were probably the culprits behind the very assignment they’re relying on as a tool in their foreclosure arsenal would be affected directly by the “lack of gunpowder” in their magic bullet.  The only thing they’re attorney will say is, “These people just want a free house, your Honor!” because they don’t have anything else they can say that will evoke the emotion of the Court to screw the homeowner one more time!

The beauty of this process is that it can be used at any time prior to foreclosure without bringing the mortgage loan servicer itself into the fray.  And it can be used in both deed of trust and mortgage states!  All 50 states have statutory mechanisms for declaratory relief.  All 50 states have rights to attack phony documents!

Further, there is case law out there that has taught us much in the way of educational value!  That case law is described in The C&E on Steroids! 

In fact, the case law Al West and I discuss in this book and the related course materials SHOW YOU validity past what attorney McCandless previously described!

And it all revolves around a simple and concise declaratory relief action. Yet, homeowners will continue to go out and make a “mountain out of a molehill” (go overboard in citing every cause of action under the sun, thinking they’re entitled to damages), when a simple action designed to knock these bogus assignments out of the land record create a precedent of bad behavior on the part of those who would undertake the illegalities of trying to steal your homes!  This is not a pipe dream process.  This process has been used countless times and has been successful because of the patience and effort put into drafting the proper complaint against the proper parties, isolating them in such a way as to keep the matter in county court!

Federal courts will generally NOT hear these types of cases.  Suing the wrong party in a C&E will get your case removed to federal court, where the judge is likely to dismiss it, because federal law has already declared declaratory rulings to be discretionary.  In state court, judges do not have that option.  They HAVE TO hear that complaint.  This is why Al West and I decided to get to the bottom of the root causes for doing a cancellation and expungement action and extrapolate the material into something useful for the average American consumer and put it into an 8-DVD/book weekend training kit. America has to know there is a remedy out there that can be used to attack phony documents!

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

UPDATE!:  While I was having a conversation with an aggrieved party, the thought crossed my mind as to the type of attorney that would be GREAT to utilize for the C&E when the opposing law firm is your target … 

Who can you think of that isn’t intimidated by prosecuting attorney misconduct and malpractice? 

Legal Malpractice Attorneys (they prosecute malpractice for a living!) … add that to your arsenal (just Google them … they’re out there)! 

I found at least a dozen in the Dallas-Fort Worth area alone! 

If your own attorney screws you in the process, it may be that your defense attorney is “working for the bank/servicer” under a silent agreement to feed you to the wolves.  Why not prosecute BOTH ends of malpractice if you’re going to attack one for failing to defend your case adequately.  

Just a thought.

 

2 Comments

Filed under OP-ED, Securitization Issues

FDCPA CAN STILL APPLY TO NON-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURES!

(OP-ED) — The author of this post is the author of The FDCPA, Debt Collection and Foreclosures … and posits the following for educational purposes and for your consideration in the paradigm shift that has now become the focus of thousands of consumers.

I’ve noticed an uptick in the number of pro-bank/pro-debt collector law firm postings regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s latest narrow ruling in the Obduskey case (out of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals).  I love how these folks like to “pat themselves on the back” for their observations that non-judicial foreclosure proceedings can still be business as usual, despite the caveats their posts now contain.  Why on earth would they post “caveats” to the debt collection industry (which includes law firms like the one Dennis Obduskey filed an FDCPA action against) if they were so sure of themselves in being able to just walk all over borrowers they claim are in default?

Despite the fact the nation’s highest court resolved the federal circuit split on whether non-judicial foreclosures can continue as “business as usual”, the ruling was “narrow in scope” regarding the enforcement of security interests as defined under 15 USC § 1692f(6), which is what the Court focused on in its decision: Obduskey v McCarthy & Holthus LLP, 586 U.S. ___ (2019)

What Congress intended … 

Creditors used to love the idea that they could open up a can of “whoop ass” on debtors any time they felt like it, even late-night, repetitive or threatening phone calls (“I know where you live” and “your mommy’s going to jail” and “we’re going to sue you if you don’t pay” or “we’re going to bomb your office building if you don’t come down here and pay this bill” or “you !@)#(%^!”.)  The caveats I’m seeing in these law blog posts still make reference to the fact that the latest FDCPA-related ruling DOESN’T mean “business as usual”.  It simply means that debt collectors trying to enforce deeds of trusts have to be extra careful NOT to step over that well-defined line of intended “abuses” that do in fact, fall under the FDCPA!

Enforcing a recorded security interest (deed of trust, security deed, HELOC, etc.) in a non-judicial state means just that.  If a third party (the trustee, NOT MERS) intends on using the terms of the security instrument to act as the third party in taking back collateral, the collection activity has to specifically and purely involve that process.  The narrow ruling still prohibits abusive debt collection practices, whether or not a non-judicial foreclosure is still the intended outcome.  The abusive debt collection practices fall under 15 USC 1692d and 15 USC 1692e, as well as portions of 15 USC 1692f (1) through (5) and (6)(B)(C) and (7) and (8).  See here for clarification: FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 09-1996

If you have a case … you have a case … 

Every time the debt collection industry scores a narrow victory, they pontificate their accomplishments as soon as humanly possible, almost to the point of bragging rights (see, I told you so … lemme rub your nose in it) kind of stuff.  This is typical of the legal profession, especially the kind that can operate unchecked when it comes to carrying out enforcement actions.

One of the more remarkable things I find is that all non-judicial foreclosures are assumed to be legal unless otherwise challenged.  One of the things I put forward in the book (mentioned above) is that careful analysis of the debt collection laws needs to be strictly adhered to (the letter of the law), which you are attempting to assert was violated.

How the “chain of title” points to potential suspect violations of 15 USC 1692e(5) … 

Here’s where the latest ammo we’ve been sharing on the C&E comes into play.  Cancellation and expungement (C&E) actions are used to disable and destroy the authority these debt collectors rely on to even enforce a security instrument.  Under “False or misleading representations” (§ 807 of the FDCPA), section 5 prohibits false, deceptive or misleading representation in threatening “to take any action that cannot legally be taken” … which would mean to me that if you could strip away the lies contained within the assignments that generally precede the initiation of a non-judicial foreclosure action through a C&E, the authority of the debt collector would be void and the debt collector’s representations would then be false and misleading, which IS a violation of the FDCPA!

Champagne budget … Beer Belly Pocketbook! 

A C&E action is definitely a cheaper way to wage war on an unsuspecting servicer (who is really behind the scenes of the debt collection/non-judicial enforcement proceeding), stripping away whatever rights it thinks it has to steal your house on behalf of party or parties unknown (which could be Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, lest we hold the GSEs unaccountable in the end) than waging an all-out FDCPA battle in federal court, which costs substantially more money.  Try to keep the emotions in check for the moment while I finish.

The document the servicers are creating is the assignment of deed of trust (much like the assignment of mortgage), which they claim gives them the authority (on behalf of the alleged “lender”) to appoint a substitute trustee to initiate a non-judicial foreclosure.  Do you have a contract with the mortgage loan servicer?   (Didn’t think so.)  However, servicers have Limited Powers of Attorney, which they claim give them the authority to do whatever they want, including wading into the shark-infested waters of violations created under the FDCPA.  Strip away their authority under the assignment as void … they’re like “chum in the water”.

This is why I’m releasing a two-day training video DVD set with the latest book by attorney Al West and myself, The C&E on Steroids! in very short order.  What better a way to deal with America’s tainted real property records than to fight the good fight head-on in state court, rather than wage a flimsy, unsupported war in federal court without first demonstrating the ultra vires behavior of the trustee thanks to a phony assignment, which you’ve knocked out FIRST in a C&E action!

2 Comments

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED

DEFEATING DIVERSITY IN FORECLOSURE ACTIONS

(BREAKING NEWS — OP-ED) — The author of this post is the author of Clouded Titles, The Quiet Title War Manual, The C & E on Steroids!, The FDCPA, Debt Collection & Foreclosures, The Credit Restoration Primer, End Game Strategies, Beyond End Game Strategies and host of The Krieger Files.  The opinions expressed herein are that of the author and should not be construed as legal advice.  For legal advice, seek competent counsel that clearly understands what constitutes diversity jurisdiction.

Even in its most liberal stature, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has again, redefined and re-explained that REMIC trusts can end up costing you lots of money in litigation, fighting a losing battle in federal court by re-constituting an opinion of what constitutes diversity jurisdiction.  See the link below to the 17-page ruling:

Demarest v HSBC Bank USA NA, 9th App Cir No 17-56432 (Apr 8, 2019)

You’ll readily notice in the caption on Page 1 that HSBC and MERS were “incorrectly sued”, which would indicate to me they were sued in the wrong name, as indicated in the caption.

Part of the problem here is that the trustee was also sued (Western Progressive, LLC) and the trustee was also out-of-state as to its “headquarters”, which put all of the Defendants, coupled with the $75,000 required for complete diversity jurisdiction, squarely in federal court.

Again, Hawaii Attorney Gary Victor Dubin, who is again in the crosshairs of the Hawaii Bar (thanks to the banks and their attorneys who don’t like lawyers who beat them in court), likens being in federal court to suicide, which he has succinctly stated that it (suicide) is better than being in federal court.  Yet, a lot of people end up becoming victims within the federal system because of improper and incomplete pleadings.   Couple that with WHO you sue and the numbers of removed cases rise exponentially.

Why sue MERS?

This entity is the “bastard child” of MERSCORP Holdings, Inc., which is now owned by Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (which also owns the New York Stock Exchange).  This newly-acquired entity has the backing of Wall Street.  The ownership of MERS may have changed, but the stupidity of the courts in relying on every tenet of MERS’s flawed business model incorporated within the “MERS® System”, has caused nothing but utter conflict among the state courts and federal circuit courts.

Like MERS says or intimates in its pleadings (among some of the third-person, schizophrenic quotations from its collective counsel and others), “We didn’t do anything wrong!”  “We want to be all things to all people!”  “We are the God of Securitization!”  (sic)  “We are everyone’s beneficiary that names us in their mortgages and deeds of trust!”  “We can be a nominee (agent) and beneficiary at the same time!”  “We can do anything we want, because we’re MERS!”  “We can remove you to federal court because we know your pleadings lack sufficiency and we can get them dismissed!”  “We can be in multiple states at any given moment and the federal judges will do what we say because we own them!” (that’s what they think, seriously).

Knowing you’re dealing with such a filthy, stinking rich entity that kowtows to Wall Street, why in bloody hell would you name them in anything?  Do you seriously have deep pockets?

You’re dealing with a multi-billion-dollar-a-year company here.   Here are some facts you should face:

  1. You signed the mortgage (or deed of trust).  No one held a gun to your head.  You could have walked away from the closing, but you didn’t.
  2. You could have read the entire agreement, asked questions; and when you didn’t get sufficient answers, you could have put off the closing until you got clarification, but you didn’t.
  3. You had no idea that the closing agent and the entity that agent represented knew (or should have known) WHERE the funds were coming from; how the funds were getting to the escrow account that was wiring your funds to the closing agent; and all of the details regarding the validity of the “lender” and “mortgagee of record”.
  4. You had no idea what the acronym “MIN” meant … nor had you any idea of the 18-digit number following that acronym.
  5. You had no idea your loan was being securitized through a Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (REMIC) on Wall Street.
  6. You had no idea that your home loan was being funded by investors unknown to you.

Yet, you got hoodwinked into signing your life away to a life of potential PTFD (Post-Traumatic Foreclosure Disorder), should you fail to make your monthly mortgage payments!

What constitutes diversity jurisdiction?

In order to be able to remove a lawsuit to federal court (which is a court of limited jurisdiction), two things have to occur:

  1. The Plaintiff is a resident of State “A”, while the Defendant(s) are known to be residents of State “B”.
  2. The amount in controversy must exceed $75,000.

Gee … I wonder what would happen if the homeowner showed the caption as:

Joan Demarest and the Registered Holders of Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-HE2 … as joint petitioners … with NO defendants listed … and asked for a declaratory judgment ruling on the merits of WHO got screwed in this deal?  Where’s the controversy then?  (you attorneys can chime in here)

In order to have justiciable controversy (the makings of a proper lawsuit that a court can claim jurisdiction to rule on), you have to have a Plaintiff and a Defendant(s).  If you have “joint petitioners” and NO defendants, how can there be a “controversy” if both joint petitioners agree on the same thing?  Despite the fact that the certificate holders are from all over the world, some of them (To Be Determined) may be in the state you’re residing in (State “A”).   If there’s no State “B”, then why list DOES 1-10, inclusive, like this case did?    I actually litigated a case (while out of state) through the mail, with a co-party, as joint petitioners, and got my ruling from a court in Missouri!  Does that surprise you?

Diversity FAILS if … 

  1. There is no amount in controversy (which is what you have in a declaratory relief case, like a cancellation and expungement action (C&E) over a bogus document in the land records; and
  2. You aren’t naming out-of-state defendants until the in-state defendants respond and lock the case up in state court.

Does this make any legal sense to you?

This is part of what we taught in the C&E Workshop in Las Vegas April 6th and 7th. 

America’s land records are a “crime scene”!

MERS’s flawed business model helped make it that way.  Over 80-million homeowners who unknowingly borrowed investor money through securitized mortgages did the rest of the damage.  It was “intentional” on MERS’s part.   It was ‘unintentional” on the homeowners’ part.

Despite the fact you can beat diversity, certain entities will remove the case to federal court anyway, just to F**K with you and your pocketbook!  MERS is one of those entities.

There is a right way and a wrong way to approach this scenario.  What Joan Demarest did in her case was the wrong way.

The “trustee” is a necessary party in Deed of Trust states!

You should know that if you name the trustee in your lawsuit, it’s likely that the trustee is “headquartered” out-of-state.   The trustee (in this case) was declared by the 9th Circuit panel to be a “real party to the controversy for purposes of diversity jurisdiction when he possess certain customary powers to hold, manage, and dispose of assets for the benefit of others”.

This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on May 27, 2016.  You would think that by then, anyone involved in this case could have figured out what the “end result” could be … but NO!  We have attorneys out there that like to use the “shotgun approach” instead of the “sniper approach”.  This is why California Attorney Al West and I put together “The C & E on Steroids!”   It’s a sniper approach to cleaning up the “crime scene”.   If you clean up the “crime scene”, then what evidence is there that a crime occurred?  What evidence is there that a party has standing to foreclose when the intended “consequence” of an assignment is declared void, cancelled and expunged from the land records?

This is why we found instructional appellate case law to support our research and methodology for doing these types of “sniper approach” end game strategies.  Everyone wants an “end game”.  Getting to that point is why people run into trouble having their dirty laundry removed to federal court where it’s likely to get dismissed on a 12(b)(6) motion.  And the foreclosure happens anyway, because “we’re too pissed to think straight!”

Watch the movie “American Sniper”.  Then, liken that mindset to your approach.  Knowing WHEN, WHERE, HOW and WHY you need to “take out” a target makes all the difference in the world.

Look for The C & E on Steroids!, along with the DVD training video kit, available in early May, only on CloudedTitles.com!

Sniper training at your fingertips!

Leave a comment

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED, Securitization Issues, workshop

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

THE ARROGANCE OF BANKS!?

(OP-ED) — The author of this post is not an attorney and none of this should be construed as legal advice but is put forward for educational purposes only. 

No matter what defensive (or offensive) strategy is seemingly employed by homeowners (as borrowers), not only do we still get the same ‘ol, same ‘ol from bank attorneys (who actually represent the mortgage loan servicer and not the owner of the note themselves) as to their defamatory conjecture from “Your Honor, they (meaning the borrower) just want a free house!” … we still get the continued misrepresentation of the facts in a foreclosure action, whether it be judicial or non-judicial in nature.

In a judicial scenario, the arrogance is blatant. The attorney files the foreclosure action (generally employed by a foreclosure mill that gets paid a low winning bid dollar amount) and puts all of the same, standard “trash talk” about the homeowner (as the borrower), claiming the borrower is in default and that it (the client) is entitled to enforce the security instrument.  This isn’t personal really.  It’s a numbers game and if you’re a borrower who hasn’t made his payments in ages, it does not necessary mean that the burden of proof shifts to you, just because it’s your home and you’ve been served with papers which, nine times out of ten, contain pleadings that have notably false and misrepresentative statements contained within them.  In a judicial state, it’s still up to the alleged claimant-Plaintiff to prove its case or go home. This is why the banks want everything changed to non-judicial in nature, so they don’t have to work so hard to steal people’s homes.

Instead, the borrower opts to defend his position by putting forward an answer and affirmative defenses to the Plaintiff’s assertions.  The very act of this filing and anticipated response immediately gives the court jurisdiction to hear the matter before it (with an assigned case number and recorded lis pendens).  At the point of the recording of the lis pendens, the borrower’s title is slandered (not the filing of the case with the applicable court).  It is the notice of lis pendens that gives the world constructive notice of the proceedings against the property because it is the security instrument that the Plaintiff seeks to enforce.  However, in a judicial state, the Plaintiff must possess the Note, or in the alternative, sufficiently demonstrate that it had the note, but lost it, and made every effort to find it, but couldn’t.  Instead of looking for the note (or dummying one up out of nowhere like we know they do) and presenting a complete case, the arrogant bank and its lawyer press forward anyway and prey on the emotion of the court, backed by the reasoning that since they filed a complaint to foreclose, they must be the lender, right?

Generally, when the Plaintiff can’t produce the note, it produces an assignment of mortgage, which is generally “manufactured” by the mortgage loan servicer’s employees in favor of the servicer.  Half the time, the assignment includes the language “together with the note”, which, if MERS is involved, is a physical impossibility because MERS cannot transfer something it does not own.  This makes the assignment false and misrepresentative.  Instead of questioning the tactics of the servicer, on many an occasion, the banks’ own attorneys just take it and run with it, or even worse, are complicit in its manufacture!  This makes it even worse because the bank’s attorney (and law firm) would be suborning perjury, which, the last time I checked, was a felony.  It’s even worse when they try to rely on the assignment to steal the house.  It is the INTENT that is made known when the misrepresentations within the assignment are orally pontificated upon the court by the bank’s attorney in his arguments … thus, the arrogance of the bank is transferred to its lawyer, who can then claim reliance on the document because the attorney (or the “cover lawyer”, different from the attorney who filed the original pleadings) is now at greater than “arm’s length”position from the transaction and thus will claim plausible deniability (as in “I had no idea, Your Honor.”)

In a non-judicial setting, the scenario is much more deceitful.  If the borrower doesn’t stop the proceeding with something factual that can be proven in court, followed by a temporary restraining order, it is assumed that whoever commences a foreclosure action against the property is going to get their wish because going to court is not required in deed of trust states, except in certain cases, which is why the arrogant banks keep trying to lobby legislatures to change their method of enforcing security instruments to non-judicial, because all non-judicial actions do not require a court’s approval and thus all foreclosure actions are deemed legal unless proven otherwise.  This too is a numbers game of greater proportions because most homeowners in deed of trust states do not have access to competent foreclosure defense attorneys because “the system of things” does not warrant a board specialized attorney (in real property law or foreclosure defense) to come forward and shut the door on the foreclosure.  Most attorneys in deed of trust states really don’t know how to defend against foreclosures but they sure know how to structure a business model to take a retainer, followed by monthly payments, making their newly-found client their newly-created annuity payment.  This is great for business because it boosts cash flow.  But, it doesn’t nothing for the homeowner (as the borrower) unless the homeowner has something in the chain of title worth arguing.

Such is the case in South Carolina, where a MERSCORP attorney has allegedly testified under oath (in a deposition) that MERS cannot act for a “non-functional entity” (which means an entity that has gone out of business and years later, all of a sudden uses MERS (through the actions of the servicer’s own employees or another third party) to cover up the chain of title and bring the note and mortgage or deed of trust from the originating, out-of-business lender, to the present tense, in an attempt to allow whatever party comes in with a claim against the property, to foreclose on it.  Apparently, this same testimony allegedly worked on  a case in New Mexico as well, allegedly.  I use the word “allegedly” here because there’s no attached “oral transcript” or “order” from either court to validate the claims made by attorney Jeff Barnes, who goes into court pro hac vice (a guest of the court, using the resident attorney’s bar license) to help the homeowner (who is paying major dollars to both Barnes and the resident lawyer) get out of their foreclosure jam.

I find it odd that a post, dated October 29, 2018, on Barnes’s website, would make such statements without completing the grandstanding against MERS by actually including “hard evidence” in the form of a transcript or order, don’t you think?  In the New Mexico case, it wasn’t a slam dunk, however, it appears, without verification, that most of the borrower’s affirmative defenses would be sustained based on this new admission of MERSCORP’s own lawyer.  If one wanted to really make themselves appear “credible” with their “victory lap”, don’t you think one should brandish the sword they used as the weapon of choice?  (I put this in here for you Game Of Thrones fans!)  But, seriously, wouldn’t that make logical sense?   So we could read HOW the defeat occurred?

But wait, that would make the grandstanding (to get more business obviously) more plausible and less arrogant, right?  We can’t have THAT now, can we?  We need to further our business model and leave borrowers in the dark, only to surmise that somewhere out there, a MERSCORP attorney was indeed deposed and testified that his client has no right to transfer the note (something I’ve been saying for years) because MERS has no interest in it.  Factually, even if such an order or transcript WERE included, do you really think most borrowers would know HOW to take what they’ve learned from it and apply it to their own scenario?  Not hardly.  Not in today’s court systems.

It should be noted that the claim was made (in Barnes’s website post) that a deposition was taken, which means the only way you’re going to get damning information to shut down the banks’ arrogance, it to get damning information by conducting a deposition.  This is where the rubber meets the road with foreclosure defense attorneys because great discovery wins cases and if your attorney is “lacking” when it comes to getting the right set of facts out of a deposition, you’ve lost not only your home but all those financial resources you could have used to move onto PLAN B. Pro se litigants rarely, if ever, conduct a deposition, let alone a proper and complete one.

In sum, you’re either going to fight the bank’s arrogance with provable facts or you’re not.  The system of things supports more than just an affirmative defense against the bank’s lawyer because of the misrepresentations in his pleadings.  It supports a bar complaint.  I don’t see too many foreclosure defense lawyers putting forward bar complaints based on false and misrepresentative pleadings from foreclosure mill attorneys, do you?  (This is why we focus more these days on “the system of things” and how that plays out!) 

And somehow, the good ‘ol boy network seemingly continues to survive.

NOTE: If you want to hear multiple scenarios explained about why our voting system may be all f**ked up (especially in Florida with the recent negative spotlight put on it), listen to Dave Krieger tonight (6 p.m. EST) on WKDW-FM’s City Spotlight – Special Edition, just by clicking on this link and then clicking on LISTEN NOW!  Joining Dave and co-host R.J. Malloy as their guests are North Port, Florida City Commissioner Jill Luke and outgoing City Commissioner Linda Yates.

4 Comments

Filed under OP-ED