Tag Archives: foreclosure

IN NEVADA, TIMING IS EVERYTHING … ESPECIALLY IN QUIET TITLE ACTIONS!

(BREAKING NEWS – OP-ED) — The author of this post offers this information for your educational value and not as legal advice; however, the court in this instance, the Supreme Court of Nevada, clearly screwed U.S. Bank, N.A. in favor of SFR Investments Pool 1 … reversing the summary judgment against SFR and ruling in SFR’s favor as to quiet title!   See the case below:

SFR Investments Pool 1 LLC v US Bank NA, 135 Nev 45 (Sep 26, 2019)

Key Takeaways:

  1. The early bird gets the worm … yet sometimes gets to fight over who gets to eat it.
  2. The appellate process worked all the way to the Supreme Court of Nevada, who saw reason to reverse it.
  3. The decision was per curiam.
  4. Retroactive annulments of bankruptcy stays are key to jumping in with both feet; hence, timing is everything.
  5. SFR used Nevada statutes to prove its case (and its right to sell the property at an HOA sale) was compliant with the statute.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under BREAKING NEWS

THE REAL REASON THE REMIC WANTS YOUR HOUSE …

(OP – ED) — THE BIGGER LIE …

I wonder if you can actually put a figure to what you’ve been paying attorney(s) to defend your foreclosure, thinking the REMIC is just going to roll over and play dead and you’re going to get a free house.  I’ve got some startling news for you … news that has never been posted online by me before.

REMICs will not agree to a short sale!

It’s one thing if your property has seriously negative equity.  It’s quite another (these days) when it doesn’t matter what the foreclosure sale nets.  Why?

The REMICs want the foreclosure (and this comes straight from the REMIC’s attorneys mouths) is … wait for it …

If they accept a short sale, the Trustee (Administrator) of the REMIC has to pay the difference between what the property sells for and its face value (the value of the note).  If the Trustee forecloses, and the property sells for whatever, the investors who actually funded the REMIC “take it in the shorts”!   Thus … by foreclosing, the REMIC will not have to pay out any sums (or any of its profits) for losses incurred upon foreclosure.

Now you know why the REMICs want your home!  Now you know why it doesn’t matter what the securitization audit says or what claim you might have to the relationship between the REMIC and the Investors who funded it (and actually funded your loan).

We’re back to the dirty land record paper however … and this is why you need this workshop!   Not only do you need to learn HOW TO overcome the paper trail … and if you should even bother … you also need to know how to recover from foreclosure, because 9 times out of 10, the REMIC is going to win.  The REMIC will not let you do a short sale.  It has no incentive!

So what excuse are you going to give me for spending all that money getting that securitization audit done?  All of those little fancy boxes on the page are nothing more than …

Boilerplate Bullshit!

We can discover the same thing analyzing the chain of title.  The bottom line is … if the document contains false and misrepresentative information, there’s a right way and a wrong way to go about attacking it.  The bottom line is maximizing time and cash flow and homeowners who are being foreclosed on seem to think they have both when in fact (1) their days are numbered; and (2) they’ve been using the wrong mindset to overcome foreclosure.

Leave a comment

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED, Securitization Issues

NOTE TO INVESTORS: WHAT THE GREEN EMERALD CASE HAS TAUGHT US

(OP-ED) — The commentary provided within this post is not legal advice.  The author of this post leaves it up to the reader of the material contained herein to determine its educational value and to always conduct due diligence prior to assuming you have rights that may not have been afforded to you, either in the chain of title … or in litigation. 

For some reason, this case was seared into my conscience.  I’ve seen a lot of investor cases, but this one … this one really spells it out for investors and third parties who attempt to acquire properties AFTER a foreclosure case has commenced, instead of BEFORE (as were the facts supported by this case):

Green Emerald Homes LLC v 21st Mtg Corp, 2D17-2192 (Jun 7, 2019)

Yes, I know it’s a Florida appellate case; however, it can be said that the facts contained within the case provide a complete measure of justice for investors throughout the entire State of Florida, the third most populated state in the U.S.

Notice that Florida Bar-suspended attorney Mark Stopa first litigated this case?  He was later replaced by the listed attorneys and their respective firms.  Notice Greenspoon Marder is representing the Defendant Bank (as Appellee)?  Put them on your radar as a definite “foreclosure mill law firm”.

This case also represents that Florida Circuit Court Judges are notorious for quickly granting judgments of foreclosure. Of course, in Stopa’s disciplinary hearing before the Florida Bar, a judge who testified in Stopa’s favor admitted that judges were getting pay raises based on their ability to clear their dockets of foreclosure cases, courtesy of the Florida legislature. So not only is is apparent that Florida judges have a conflict of interest, their pension funds are vested in the very securities they grant foreclosure judgments for. This makes every Florida judge (and virtually all other state judges throughout the country) susceptible for recusal based on a conflict of interest.  Most states allow recusal for cause.  Some states allow recusal of a judge without cause.  You have to do your homework.

My point on this case is found in the citations listed throughout the ruling. There are oodles of case citations from every appellate district in Florida that support the arguments being propounded by the 2nd DCA!  These cases feed directly into the reasoning this appellate court took in noting that Green Emerald (the investor) took title BEFORE the filing of the Lis Pendens notice, not AFTER!

Further, notice the caveats (to investors) within the concurring-dissenting opinion filed by one of the judges.  ALL of the sticking points for safe investing are found there!  This case was full of “nuggets”, which is why I suggested reading it in the first place, especially BEFORE you drop a dime on any investment.  Believe me, if I were in Green Emerald’s shoes, I would have researched the chain of title to check for “hiccups” in the chain that could be attacked.  It’s always the dirty assignments, which is why C&E’s are so useful in attacking their false and misrepresentative statements.  Defeating assignments (whether you recognize it or not), knocks the “standing” legs out from under the Plaintiff bank (through its mortgage servicer), while placing unwanted scrutiny on the bastards that created the document and under whose direction!  You’ll find the foreclosure mills in many instances are directly tied to the creation of the phony documents they intend to rely on at trial (or in deed of trust state by advertisement and sale) for the prosecution of foreclosures.

Taking property “subject to” could mean one of two things … (1) you either want to continue to pay on the note and keep the mortgage “in play” until it’s paid off; or (2) you ignore the note and mortgage and prepare to spend thousands of dollars defending your position in court when the foreclosure suit is commenced.  In either case, it pays to have your name on title BEFORE the SHTF!  The other aspect NOT PURSUED here, noticeably, is that Green Emerald didn’t present any evidence that it had an assignment of the borrower’s litigation rights bestowed upon them (another key ingredient to having standing to litigate a foreclosure complaint.

And that’s all I have to say about that.

1 Comment

Filed under 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

THE SYSTEM OF THINGS: ANOTHER MINI-VICTORY IN FLORIDA!

(BREAKING NEWS — OP-ED) — This is not legal advice!  The author of this post is bringing you the latest mini-victory courtesy of Florida Criminal Code § 817.535 … and its applicability to defeating the banks’ servicer’s motions!  Read these briefs for your own educational benefit and understand that we are using “the system of things” to move the cases forward! 

(VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA) — A judge in Volusia County Circuit Court has DENIED the Defendant’s Motion to Strike in a mortgage foreclosure case.

SEE THE COURT’S ORDER HERE: motiontostrike-denied

The arguments posited in this case deal with what I’ve previously discussed on this blog site … statutory violations!

Not every state has the same kind of statutory components as Florida (some do) that offer a civil component that could bolster a homeowner’s claim that the bank and its servicer AND its law firm knew of should have known that what they proffered to the court through their pleadings and exhibits could come back to bite them.

Whether you are an investor who is faced with a legal conundrum  over an acquired property or a homeowner who is facing foreclosure, you should understand that there are statutes, which I explain in detail in the back end of THE QUIET TITLE WAR MANUAL, on a state-by-state basis, that covers statutory violations as well as your common law right to bring an action under consumer protection act statutes or based on a criminal component that could be brought into the mix in the civil realm.   For example, perjury is a felony.  If you are in a civil trial and you commit perjury giving false testimony, the matter now becomes a criminal matter … subject (of course) to the discretion of the court.   If the attorney representing the bank or the servicer lies to the court and misrepresents the truth or relies on false and misrepresentative exhibits as part of their presentation and pleadings, then what do you think the court should do to them?   It happens all the time in court yet homeowners’ attorneys seem to turn a blind eye to it.  Well, not EVERY foreclosure defense attorney turns a blind eye to it, but a lot of them do because (after all) we can’t “rat out the brotherhood now, can we?”

If an attorney for the bank tells the bank’s witness to misrepresent the truth on the stand (or in a deposition) and it is discovered through an evidentiary hearing that the attorney suborned perjury … well, that’s a felony too!

If you’ve read my posts on “Gutting the Underbelly of the Beast” … I’ve explained the process of what happens (and what’s available) by running a misconduct complaint up to the state bar’s disciplinary board.  You (as a pro se litigant) will NOT have the same results as a bar-licensed attorney who files the same complaint before the tribunal.  Statutory violations can thus be turned into ethical violations when the bank’s attorney doesn’t play fair and doesn’t tell the whole truth or misrepresents the truth in his pleadings and exhibits.

Now for the real slice and dice … 

Here’s the motion put forward by the homeowners, as Plaintiffs, which prompted the bank’s motion to strike:

amend_cc_08.20.18

This is WHY the judge denied the motion to strike and placed this matter for trial.

The way I’m reading this, it’s the perfect set-up for the ethical violations and eventual reporting to the bar of the charges so the bank’s attorneys would stand to be disciplined.  It’s the way the system of things is supposed to work!

1 Comment

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED