Tag Archives: MERS

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

MERS AND ITS ROLE AS A PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT … OR THE LACK THEREOF!

(OP-ED) — This is an educational overview as to what has taken place in the American legal forums in the last two decades and my take on what it all means:

UPDATE: Please see my comments to Lori’s question in the comments section as to Bank of America’s claimed “successor by merger” BS to BAC Home Loans Servicing LP fka Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP, especially using MERS to hide the real truth!

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

On January 1, 1999, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and its parent MERSCORP, Inc. (“MERSCORP”), surfaced as a new brainchild of the mortgage industry after two previously-failed efforts to put an effective electronic database into useable form.

MERSCORP is the “brain” part of  the “brainchild” … Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is the “child” part of the “brainchild”.

The acronym known as “MERS” was attached to the “brainchild” to further confuse the system of things from being able to specifically identify whether the parent or the baby bastard child is coming into play at any given moment.

According to research done by Robert M. Janes, J.D. (retired attorney) in his work SHELLGAME MERS, Contrived Confusion (available at esprouts.com), the “MERS” known in mortgages and deeds of trust as Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. HAS NO “MEMBERS”, despite what attorneys for “MERS” have told judges all across America.  The entire system of things has bought into this crap.  Our entire judicial system has been permeated with lies.  As Hitler’s propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels stated (paraphrased), “tell a lie long enough and often enough and people will come to believe it as truth.”

MERSCORP however owned everything known as the MERS® System, up until the time that Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (“ICE”, who also owns the New York Stock Exchange) bought MERSCORP and all of its assets and transferred all of the MERS servers to Mahwah, New Jersey, where ICE’s data servers are located.  This happened in October of 2018.  From February of 2012 until October of 2018, MERSCORP was merged into MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. and operated as such until ICE acquired it.

MERSCORP had all of the “Members” who technically are users and subscribers of its “MERS® System”.   They have an executory contract with MERSCORP.  As far as I can tell, when ICE acquired MERSCORP Holdings, Inc., ALL of the databases, memberships and every other facet of MERS went with the sale and transfer to ICE.

These latest developments also beg the question: Do I have to sue Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. if I want to go after MERSCORP Holdings, Inc., since ICE now owns MERSCORP?   That’s a question for counsel to answer; however, I personally wouldn’t sue either one of them, knowing what I know about NOT giving MERS a “leg up” … and given the fact that MERSCORP is now backed by the power of Wall Street funding!

MERS WANTS TO BE “ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE”

Unfortunately for MERS, one State (Tennessee)’s Supreme Court gutted MERS’s business model like a chicken in the Ditto decision.  See attached:

MERS v DITTO_TN Supreme Court rules against MERS!

Unfortunately for the other 49 States, their respective Supreme Courts did not issue a ruling as succinctly as Tennessee’s ruling was.   Only Washington (Bain), Oregon (Niday and Brandrup), Montana (Pilgeram), Maine (Greenleaf and Saunders), New York (Agard, Bresler, Collymore and Silverberg), Kansas (Kesler), Arkansas (SW Homes), Nebraska (Dept. of Banking and Finance) and Missouri (Bellistri) did some damage to the MERS® System, but nowhere near the damage inflicted in Ditto.

Sadly, for the rest of the country, especially in Minnesota (Jackson) and Michigan (Sauerman), where the foregoing cases have propelled the MERS business model into fruition, homeowners in those states (except Minnesota and Michigan, where homeowners are essentially f**cked) have a long, uphill battle against any securitized trust that made use of the MERS® System to do its bidding.

REPUDIATION AGREEMENTS: A POTENTIAL WAY OUT

If you were lucky enough to have a mortgage loan originated by New Century Mortgage Corporation or Fieldstone Mortgage Company, you may have a legal solution as a possibility to consider in maneuvering through the legal pitfalls created by the use of MERS in your mortgage security instrument.

To date, to my knowledge and research, these two entities were the only two entities that had executory contracts with MERSCORP (or any form thereafter) repudiated their contracts with the MERS® System and its owner/parent MERSCORP Holdings, Inc.    See the attached below:

NCMC Notice of Repudiation

The foregoing repudiation was validated in the case of DiLibero v. MERS in Rhode Island.  I like to use this case because the Rhode Island Supreme Court likes to rub homeowners’ noses in MERS’s bullshit every chance it gets because Little Rhody’s lower courts have bought into the lies propounded by MERSCORP-retained attorneys.

See the case here: DiLibero v MERS_2015-13-190

In a previous post, I talked about the positive outcome of using the repudiation agreement as a means to assert the lack of standing of the Plaintiff Bank, unlike what happened in the Cruz v MERS case, where Cruz lost because he didn’t use the repudiation agreement. Duh?  (Was Cruz or his attorney even aware of this?)

See the case here: Cruz v. MERS_2015-12-136

The second known notice of repudiation was filed in the bankruptcy case of Fieldstone Mortgage Company, in a rather voluminous omnibus filing:

Fieldstone Mortgage Bankruptcy

As I teach in my COTA Workshops, repudiation of a contract in a Chapter 11 proceeding is like taking a dump.   Getting rid of excess baggage that could potentially weigh you down as to legal issues coming back to bite you in the ass.

In what I’ve just presented, both entities unilaterally decided they didn’t want to play in the MERS® System any further because they deemed it a potential liability and thus NOTICED MERS that they were ending their relationship with MERSCORP.  This has provided at least one homeowner with an “out”.

In what I deem is a “new twist” to the equation, the New York-based law firm of Jenner & Block (where Neil Barofsky works), issued a memo, dated January (2019), entitled “Recent Developments in Bankruptcy Law”, wherein Section 9 talks about “executory contracts” and where the debtor in possession (of whatever is part of the debtor’s estate or business) does not need court approval to repudiate (or cancel) an executory contract (see below):

NOTE: Click on the picture to see it in full size!

For a full copy of the report (in PDF format): Recent Developments in Bankruptcy Law, Jan 2019 (Jenner & Block)

What does THIS SAY for Chapter 11 petitioners who repudiate MERSCORP executory contracts NOT needing court approval?   How do you know a MERSCORP executory contract with a so-called “MERS Member” was cancelled by the Chapter 11 debtor unless you ask about it (in discovery)?   Would you care to go rummaging through bankruptcy court filings (at ten cents a page)?   The repudiation agreement by the defunct lender or notice of such may not even be in there!

MERS AS A PLAINTIFF

In the states that allow Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. to file a foreclosure action against a borrower, MERS is simply claiming that it’s exercising its right to foreclose per the language in the security instrument.  In some cases I’ve seen, MERS’s attorneys even come in and attempt to claim a surplus after the sale, even though MERS itself receives no payments, incurs no financial harm, etc. (see Restatement of Mortgages, Third § 5.4), which I think the law firm is clearly attempting to pilfer whatever surplus it can get for its own gains and not those of MERS or its parent.

The problem I have with MERS being anywhere near a foreclosure is not so much the contractual angle, but the damage angle, based on the Spokeo v. Robins decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.  How was MERS damaged?    In the Robinson case in California, MERS plead to the 9th Circuit (as part of getting the appellate court to affirm the lower court’s ruling) that its business model would be harmed if the appellate court didn’t rule in its favor.  You see how the lie permeates into the appellate court system?

Sadly, I liken MERSCORP CEO Bill Beckmann and his Board of Directors as a little Hitler and his band of little crony “yes-men”.   They all need to be in jail!  And speaking of Hitler …

MERS AS A DEFENDANT

The main reason that MERS (as Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.) is listed as a Defendant in foreclosure cases is because the Plaintiff REMIC or servicer (posing as the party claiming to have the right to enforce the security instrument) wants to notice MERS in order for MERSCORP employees to check the database to make sure that there aren’t any other “mesne assignees” hiding somewhere within the chain of custody of the electronic trading going on involving that alleged loan, in order to provide a “clearing” of potential unknown Defendants that may come in later and file a claim in the case.

THE SUPREME COURT HAS (TO DATE) NOT ALLOWED ANTI-MERS CASES TO COME BEFORE IT

Writs of Certiorari have tried and failed.  However, I still believe that we will continue to see more MERS-related decisions appealed to the nation’s highest court until the matter of MERS’s flawed business model and the damage it has inflicted on over 80-million homes finally gets resolved.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS STILL THE ASSIGNMENTS: THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS! 

Again, if you go into the back of The Quiet Title War Manual, you will see state-by-state listings of statutes that cover certain elements of law involving quiet title, declaratory relief, deficiency judgment law, etc. … and below that section, three individual paragraphs on actionable statutes and case law involving violation of statute in the recording of documents into the land records which contain false information (many of which are felony-rooted in nature) or violate provisions of state consumer protection act laws.  We are now (based on my past posts) seeing the use of these mechanisms in attacking the banks’ attorney(s) (because sometimes there is more than one attorney or law firm involved in any given foreclosure) in turning a statutory violation into an ethical violation!

When a foreclosure mill attorney is put “at risk” of being suspended or being disbarred for suborning perjury, committing perjury or some other ethical misconduct, do you really think he (or she) is going to want to stay in the fight?   Further, what future substituted law firm would want to step “into the pile of poop” created by the first law firm, knowing it would put itself “at risk” of having its Errors & Omissions insurance policy attacked?

Things To Watch Out For …

  1. Any entity that has filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy before 2010 … as to whether they got court approval to repudiate the MERSCORP executory contract.

This provides you with a potential argument (or at least an affirmative defense to a foreclosure) that MERS and its alleged “agents” (“officers’)  for the “nominee” has any authority that was repudiated by the originating lender (debtor-in-possession);

2.  Assignments dated AFTER the originating lender filed for bankruptcy (easily discovered on Google or Google Scholar).

You especially want to check for language within the assignments (of mortgage or deed of trust) that says, “together with the Note”, because MERS cannot transfer what it does not have an interest in.   Secondly, not many people argue that there is no specific right delegated to MERS to “assign” anything.   Thirdly, NOTES ARE NEGOTIATED … not transferred or assigned; and

3.  Any mortgage foreclosure complaints, notices of trustee’s sale or similar notices that reflect that MERS has any authority to do anything, specific to the state of the union you are in.

Certain states, as I’ve mentioned before, do NOT allow MERS to do much of anything, while in other states, MERS can pretty much steamroller over homeowners.

My question is, why are you still living there?   Or better yet, why haven’t you attacked the assignments in Consumer Protection or statutory claims?

The Devil Is In The Details

Always check the assignment of mortgage or deed of trust for:

  1. Self-dealing (by the servicer and its employees);
  2. Claims that the note was “assigned” in addition to the mortgage or deed of trust by MERS;
  3. Names and addresses of law firms involved in the assignment;
  4. Names and addresses of title companies involved in the assignment;
  5. Names and addresses of servicers involved in the assignment that claim the Plaintiff’s address is in c/o the servicer’s address;
  6. Names of known robosigners involved in the assignment;
  7. Names of notaries participating in the assignment that are acknowledging under PENALTY OF PERJURY;
  8. Phony MERS addresses (like their alleged Ocala, Florida address, which actually belonged to Electronic Data Systems);
  9. Dates of assignments that well post-date the REMIC’s 424(b)(5) Prospectus Cut-Off and Closing Dates;
  10. Post-dating or back-dating of the assignment; and
  11. Documents created in one state that are executed in another state.

Any of these “details” can be used as evidence to go after the law firm attempting the foreclosure!   And THAT my friends … is how the system of things should work!

Coming soon …

P.S.: Hat tip to David A. Rogers, Esq. of Austin, Texas for the Fieldstone materials!

11 Comments

Filed under OP-ED, Securitization Issues

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