Tag Archives: Clouded Titles

Quiet Title Actions, Multiple Scenarios and Suspected Court Overreach

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

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

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

You can read the case file here:

A lot of different ideas came to mind.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 Comments

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

Vindication Comes In Small Packages

(BREAKING NEWS) — The author of this post is also the author of the Forensic Examination of the Osceola County, Florida public records. The Examination was conducted in July of 2014 by an 8-member team, with the information compiled and delivered to the Osceola County Clerk of the Circuit Court, Hon. Armando Ramirez (now retired) by the author of this post on December 30, 2014 by DK Consultants LLC of Texas. The examination was supervised by a bar-licensed attorney, Allen D. West, Esq. (Redondo Beach, California) and paid for out of Osceola County funds. The results are made a part of this post. This is a report, not an indictment; however, the author has been getting calls from attorneys and homeowners all over the U.S. who have downloaded this report and discovered similarities between the information contained in this report and their own legal scenarios. The author of this post serves as a consultant to homeowners and their attorneys in foreclosure and title matters.

NOTE: The report does not constitute legal advice and the exhibits that were attached to this report are voluminous; thus, any request by the readers of this post for viewing of the exhibits should be sent to cloudedtitles@gmail.com. Because some of the exhibits are NOT in PDF format, there may be a charge assessed for procurement of certain exhibits.

The reason for the article on vindication is due to recent events occurring within a court case in the State of Kansas in the U.S. District Court, Wichita Division, where the Osceola County Forensic Examination was cited, under protest, with a motion to strike made by attorneys for the Bank of New York Mellon, which was denied by the Court. This means the Osceola County Forensic Examination sticks as evidence in the case. Needless to say, the lawyers for BONY Mellon were not happy. The Amended Complaint is shown below:

The interesting thing about court cases is that homeowners get discovery. The author of this post sees certain things he would have suggested been done differently. The author is expecting a call from chief counsel for the Plaintiffs. This attorney (at one time) was the U.S. Attorney for the District of Kansas, so he clearly understands the national gravity of the gravamen of this case.

This is not the author’s only audit of county land records. See below:

Ever since the 49 states attorneys general inked an agreement with the mortgage loan servicers, who were found to be the overseers of the suspect document manufacturing that most homeowners and their attorneys deem suspect, not soon after the ink was dry the servicers started up these fraudulent practices again. The only thing servicers understand is the threat of jail time. They have so much in their war chests they can fight multiple lawsuits in multiple venues. This worked in a case this author put together for an attorney in Florida, where the Lee County Circuit Court judge was directed (through a prayer in the pleadings) to order the Clerk of that Circuit Court to produce certified copies of the assignment of mortgage and power of attorney and submit it to the State’s Attorney for criminal referral and investigation. Soon after the counterclaim was filed, the homeowner’s attorney moved for depositions of the Defendants (the actual author, signer and notary of the assignment). This prompted a move by the servicer’s attorney to move for a settlement, which included a withdrawal of the counterclaim with prejudice. What scared the servicer and its attorney is that they faced implications as accessories to the fraudulent documents complained about. The actual complaint was only 11 pages, plus 6 pages of exhibits. Do you think a judge would actually be in favor of reading such a short complaint? Easily explained. Easy to get through. No bitching. Just stated facts supported by two publicly-recorded documents and citations of the law supporting the action and requests for criminal referral. THAT is what scared the other side into submission.

By virtue of the fact (Paragraph 67 of the Amended Complaint shown in this post) that the Osceola County Forensic Examination was cited and allowed to remain in the complaint (which didn’t go far enough (IMHO) in going after the actual perpetrators themselves) clearly demonstrates vindication for all the crap the author and his team took in bring the Forensic Examination to light. The Kansas Court chose to recognize the report’s value, even though the bank’s attorneys referred to it (similarly to what Florida attorney Matt Weidner referred to it as on an Orlando TV station interview) as, “not worth the paper it was printed on.”

Again, the similarities contained in the report and the assertions made of the suspect fraud contained within the records themselves was enough to convince a federal judge to allow the report to remain on the record. Again, the 758-page report is a “report”, not an indictment. It was a legitimate report, considered fully legitimate by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Osceola County, Florida, to be published on his website during his tenure in office. That report and the attorney opinion letter accompanying that report is still on the Clerk’s website, even though the Clerk changed hands when Hon. Armando Ramirez (84) retired. The new Clerk, Kelvin Soto, kept the documents in place, including the warning about filing false documents that pops up on the website (osceolaclerk.com) when you access it, which the author of this post helped to draft. Whether the filing of fraudulent documents in that county’s records still continues would be the subject of another forensic examination.

This is one of the reasons that this post’s author and attorney Allen D. West, Esq. taught a class in Las Vegas on The C & E on Steroids! which contains a book and an 8-DVD educational set with accompanying notes and templates on how the author and attorney West constructed the actual declaratory relief complaint. There are only 18 copies left of this kit (hint, hint). This author will not reprint any more of them. Those who are serious about pursuing this option will entertain its legal value.

Every aggrieved homeowner wants to see the signers of these fraudulent documents “hung from the gallows”; however, this will not happen unless you actually make the signers and creators of these documents themselves actual targets. They will “sing for their supper” and rat out their supervisors if put in the hot seat. It’s a small price to pay to see justice done, isn’t it? If you want to see a potential criminal RICO action spawn out of something so trivial, then entertaining an option like this might be well worth your time, effort and expense.

Most people don’t care about a single homeowner’s foreclosure action; however, this case in chief is not that. The homeowners paid off their mortgage! It’s WHO they paid is what’s at issue. They may have paid the wrong party! They can’t even get a legitimate satisfaction of mortgage! A title company examiner claimed their recorded release was suspect! How can they have marketable title? No reasonable person would buy their home, knowing that the wrong party might have been paid and that another party could come back in the future and attempt foreclosure on that same property. Slander of title is an actual damage. A criminal referral within such a case is more than just a slap on the wrist to a mortgage loan servicer. It’s damning and could open a Pandora’s Box the likes of which the servicing industry has yet to see but is all to necessary to vindicate everyone whose mortgage loans were securitized.

The foreclosure mess created by the banks is still plaguing the courts. The political corruption within the court systems in America continues to be exposed with the challenge by homeowners of each of their foreclosure cases, even bringing forth corrupt justices who continually side with the banks despite the overwhelming evidence of suspect documents being offered. The number of lawsuits, according to L. Randall Wray, Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City (in his past article, “Memo to Banks: You are Toast”), has exposed the fact that “the banks are getting sued from here to Pluto by homeowners, soldiers and sailors, Fannie and Freddie, PIMCO, the NYFed, and just about anybody with access to a lawyer. And, increasingly, the banks are losing.”

Even though this article was published in 2011, the suits continue and banks don’t want to lose more cases. They would rather settle than create bad case law for themselves. Can you blame them for not wanting to go to jail in addition to pay out fines and restitution. The day of real judgment is coming.

Vindication, no matter how small, is still sweet.

Dave Krieger is also a national talk show host on The Power Hour, which airs Monday-Friday from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. (Central Time) on radio stations across America, as well as rebroadcasted worldwide on shortwave (7.490 mHz) and streaming live on The Power Hour’s website. Programs are archived daily on the website.

5 Comments

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