Tag Archives: U.S. Supreme Court

U.S. SUPREME COURT NARROWLY OPENS ANOTHER DOOR TO PUNISH FALSE EVIDENCE!

(BREAKING NEWS – OP-ED) — The author of this post is a paralegal and consultant to trial attorneys on foreclosure matters; deals in cancellation and expungement actions and chain of title issues and thus, the material discussed here, while appearing to be a “breath of fresh air” for homeowners fighting foreclosures, is still an opinion NOT to be considered legal, nor should it be construed to guarantee any type of legal outcome or advice.

On June 20, 2019, the United States Supreme Court opined (through Justice Sotomayor) in McDonough v. Smith (see the ruling here: McDonough v. Smith) that the 3-year statute of limitations for bringing a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not begin to run until the case against McDonough was terminated.  All of the legal pundits have thus jumped into the argument, declaring that this ruling could also apply to foreclosure cases, while others say the ruling only applies to law enforcement officials acting under color of law.

The case surrounds an attack by McDonough (a New York county elections commissioner) against prosecutor Youel Smith for allegedly fabricating evidence (testimony) used to indict him before a grand jury.  The trial ended in a mistrial. Smith then allegedly elicited fabricated testimony again in a second trial, which ended in December of 2012, with McDonough being acquitted of all charges (of forging absentee ballots in a Troy, NY election).

Again, the Supreme Court (as it did in Obduskey) narrowly ruled on the matter.  In this case, it was the statute of limitations for bring a civil rights claim for deprivation of rights, ONCE THE CASE HAS CONCLUDED.  In short, this post’s author deems it necessary to posit that the intention of the Supremes was to indicate that one cannot bring an action (involving a foreclosure matter) until the case has reached Final Judgment.  Then, and only then, can the matter go “federal”.

In this case, McDonough was deprived of his liberty, because he was falsely arrested and detained; thus, depriving him of his liberty (because he was charged using false testimony, which he later discovered).  Thus, when acquitted, he brought the civil rights claim against the prosecutor.   This is where some in the legal community say that a deprivation of rights brought under “color of law” only applies to “law enforcement”.

However, was the prosecutor also an “officer of the court”?  For that matter, aren’t all attorneys licensed by their respective state bar associations “officers of the court”?   Courts address matters at law and in equity.  “In equity” clearly points a finger at foreclosures and that slippery slope we call, “phony assignments”, fabricated for use in getting a positive outcome for the bank’s servicer bringing the foreclosure action.

It’s bad enough that this case exposed wrongdoing by the prosecutor, but to say this doesn’t apply to fraudulent documents placed within the land records of all 3,141 boroughs, counties and political subdivisions across America is at best, only slightly diminished based on the violation of criminal statutes.   In this instance, the validity of the claims against McDonough, even though he was acquitted, are still claims.  There is no doubt that the false testimony was later discovered and applied to the case, resulting in a mistrial.  On the second go-round, these same factors resulted in an acquittal.

In this case, McDonough alleged Smith falsified affidavits, coached witnesses to lie and orchestrated a suspect DNA analysis to link him (McDonough) to relevant ballot envelopes.  Now … apply that to foreclosure mill lawyers, who are also “officers of the court” in relying on suspect assignments that could be shown to contain false and misrepresentative information, in order to wrongfully obtain a final judgment of foreclosure (in a mortgage state); or in deed of trust states, to claim their Trustee’s Deed was valid and forthright … obtained without blemish.

The question in this case is WHEN the statute of limitations began to run.

The case mentions nothing about applying civil rights claims to foreclosure actions.

You can be sure that the bank’s attorneys will bring this up if you attempt a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (or § 1985) claim against the attorney, an officer of the court, for allegedly bringing forward (relying on) evidence later shown to be false and misrepresentative.  Further, the attorney for the bank/servicer brings forward (through his/her own mouth) continued disparaging remarks about the “deadbeat homeowner”, to elicit an emotional response from the judge, who then pronounces judgment in the bank’s favor, because, well, we can’t let phony documents stop “the system of things” from screwing homeowners out of their properties now, can we?

Prosecution of a foreclosure is an in rem action that sounds in equity, while the introduction of fabricated evidence (the phony assignments and affidavits produced in tandem with the foreclosure complaints) smack of “common-law malicious prosecution”, defined in this case, as deprivations of a “Constitutional right”, caused by the prosecutor’s malfeasance (of office) in fabricating evidence.   When applying this to foreclosures, is an “officer of the court”, appearing on behalf of any entity, political or otherwise, still an “officer of the court”, bound by the same code of ethics as criminal prosecutors?

This case was a criminal proceeding, not a civil matter … but …

Another argument for the legal pundits to say this case only applies to “law enforcement”; however, on the back end of the ruling, the following statement appears:

“The better course would be to dismiss this case as improvidently granted and await a case in which the threshold question of the basis of a “fabrication-of- evidence” claim is cleanly presented. Moreover, even if the Second Circuit were correct that McDonough asserts a violation of the Due Process Clause, it would be preferable for the Court to determine the claim’s elements before deciding its statute of limitations.”

The foregoing statement came from the dissenting opinion of Justices Thomas, Kagan and Grouch.  If we were to apply that standard, and deep-dive into the elements of the cause of action itself, then we would have to squarely apply the law (42. U.S.C. § 1983) as it was written:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

The foregoing federal law specifically says, any “person”.  Does that single out “law enforcement”?  Or does it mean, a foreclosure mill attorney too?
Notice how the word “citizen” in line 2 of this statute is in lower case.  Now, now … you Sovereigns that think that everything that starts with a Capital “C” means you and anything that doesn’t, does not apply to you … this statute applies to everyone.  That’s what our Founding Fathers and Congress intended for it to mean … ANYONE living within the jurisdiction where the crime was committed that was used to deprive (steal) their property.  If you’re going to maintain that Sovereign crap, you’re going to lose anyway.  Federal judges can apply state law too.  And they do.
Now … let’s examine the C&E as it applies here (and to those pesky assignments). 
If you do your homework in applying the foregoing statute, it clearly says you have “redress”, except when the action is brought against a “judicial officer” acting in their “judicial capacity”.  That could mean a foreclosure mill lawyer or a judge presiding over a foreclosure court.  BUT … and I mean to be clear here … it only applies if you brought an action for declaratory relief and the judge, knowing full well there was an issue with the document you allege is phony, and told you to piss off!   Then, it would appear that a “declaratory decree” (as described in the foregoing statute) “was violated”, NOT that it wasn’t available.  The C&E is rooted in (inter alia) a declaratory relief action.
This is why folks who recognize the viability of the C&E are buying up our DVD training kit and learning what’s involved in a C&E!  Understand that bringing this action, whether in an original petition or as a compulsory counterclaim (which in certain instances involving a foreclosure in the judicial realm becomes radically necessary), involves the issuance by a judge of a “declaratory decree”.  The right to bring a declaratory judgment action is available in state court.  If a judge is so inclined as to tell you that you can’t bring this action, when in fact it was available, does not appear to discount the applicability of this statute, to sue the judge for telling you to piss off.
The federal court would have to determine that: (a.) you are a citizen as described in the statute; (b.) this is a suit in equity and at law (if a tort was in play); (c.) a final judgment was issued against you that (d.) relied on a false document; and (e.) you brought a claim for declaratory relief and were told to piss off or that that kind of relief wasn’t available when in fact, it really was … THEN … AFTER THE FACT (that’s when the “damage” was done) … you have a right to bring the action in federal court.
The U.S. Supremes may have opened a narrow door for you (3-year statute of limitations) to reverse what happened; however, can you imagine the costs involved?   Given the heightened pleading standards invoked by the rulings in Iqbal and Twombly, you can’t just amble into court with lame-ass pleadings and expect to get anywhere.  You have to bring your action with “all your ammo” on the table.  You need hard proof.  Declaratory rulings can be utilized in federal court as well.  Even though federal law makes it “discretionary”, if you were to couple that cause of action with a claim for tortious “slander of title” (under state statute) and 42 USC § 1983, then you might have something plausible to go on.
A 42 USC § 1985 claim only applies to conspiracies involving multiple actors and would be harder to prove, unless you were suing the law firm, the robosigner and the notary who acknowledged the document.  The effort would be more expensive because you have more parties to serve and more pleadings and answers that have to be drafted and served.
The matter of “injunctive relief” may be hard to fathom in unwinding a foreclosure where the title to the property was transferred and sold to a third-party buyer.  Hence, you may only end up with “damages” as the result of the improper taking based on fraudulent documents.  Again, just walking into court and telling the judge the assignment is fraudulent doesn’t prove anything.  You have to do your due diligence and build a case.  You have to target the right individuals in order to procedurally succeed in the matter.

The C&E (cancellation and expungement) action is a game-changer (like this case), if properly utilized.  This is why attorney Al West and I put the training kit together.   You can view that kit on the Clouded Titles website shop and get one for your very own.  Heck … go ahead and share it with your attorney.  Everyone needs to know what we know.   We actually give you proof that it works!

And no … my response to this ruling is not an opportunity to push my training kit … however, 42 USC 1983 does in fact talk about declaratory relief issues, which is what C&E’s are couched in.  Something has to matter.  Otherwise, why fight at all?

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED, Securitization Issues

HAWAII SUPREMES TELL U.S. SUPREMES TO PISS OFF … AND OTHER STUFF!

(BREAKING NEWS — OP-ED) — The author of this post does not posit legal advice here.  It’s is food for thought for your own educational value! 

Honolulu … Gary Victor Dubin has done it again!   This time, it’s a rehash of the Reyes-Toledo case “perfected”!

Bank of America, NA v Reyes-Toledo et al, Hi Sup Ct No SCWC-15-0000005 (Oct 9, 2018)

I know it’s a week old case, but it’s worth the commentary because of something the Hawaii Supreme Court basically told the U.S. Supreme Court (who basically came up with their own “plausibility” pleadings scenario when they ruled in Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal.  It basically gave attorneys that represent the banks the opportunity to get 12(b)(6) dismissals of foreclosure cases simply by removing them to federal court and citing the two foregoing cases, which basically … in layman’s terms … requires a pleading to contain facts that are totally “fact”, enough to substantially prove their case.  That also meant (in Hawaii) that their “Notice” pleadings weren’t sufficient.  In the foregoing ruling, the Hawaii Supremes said otherwise!   That is significant for homeowners living in Aloha because the judicial foreclosures commenced there (because Hawaii is a mortgage state) get to review cases that have minimal allegations instead of having to write a non-fictional “book” every time an attorney had to answer or file a complaint to shut down the other side’s foreclosure attack.

In the foregoing instance, the Hawaii Supremes told the Hawaii Appellate Court and the Circuit Court, “You BOTH got it wrong!”

First, understand that the entire merger scenario presented by Bank of America, N.A. is false.  It did NOT happen that way.  Every time Countrywide Home Loans is mentioned (in any form), Bank of America conveniently neglected to mention Red Oak Capital or any other entity involved in the actual acquisition of Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.  That in of itself is false and misrepresentative and Bank of America had to have relied on an Assignment of Mortgage that was “manufactured” to create standing in order to bring its claim in the first place!  Therefore, B of A’s attorneys should be brought up on charges to the Hawaii Bar and either get heavily sanctioned for wasting the Court’s time or face disbarment for committing repeated ethical violations!  Yes, Hawaii does have “Misconduct” as a section in its Rules of Professional Conduct that mirror the ABA’s own set of rules.

Page 3 of this 44-page Ruling clearly cites how the Appellate Court applied the “plausibility” standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court, when in fact, Hawaii has its own set of pleading standards!  Page 4 at Paragraph 2 REJECTS the plausibility standard.  If this doesn’t send a clear message to all of the Circuit Court justices in Hawaii, nothing will.  In fact, this Ruling should be shoved up every one of their asses until they “get it”!  Otherwise, the system of things could see to it that each county in the State of Hawaii “pays dearly” out of its own coffers and each circuit judge is removed from the bench.  This is why we have Appellate Courts (because Circuit Judges do not always, in fact almost always, DON’T DO THE RIGHT THING!) and in this case, the Appellates applied the wrong standard as well.

As to where MERS is concerned … I don’t believe that any Court in the land has been tasked with having MERS and its representatives answer to HOW an agency relationship was established and HOW MERS had any right to transfer a mortgage loan, given the fact that on its own website (owned now by ICE), MERS declares that it has no interest in loans and doesn’t take any monthly payments.  Only one judge in Florida (that I am aware of) did the RIGHT THING in knocking out a servicer’s phony document from the land records because MERS never gave any rights to HSBC Bank USA N.A.!  How then can MERS transfer interests it doesn’t have?  It’s the phony document scam again.  It always has been.  And the banks’ attorneys keep relying on these phony documents to foreclose and no one does the right thing to expose the document for what it is and hold the attorneys liable.

You see, great discovery is like an enema.  It’s supposed to help flush out the shit!   Can I be any more succinct than that?

The problem is, MERS hardly answers any of the discovery propounded against it.  And now that MERS is owned lock, stock and server by the parent company of the New York Stock Exchange, how much of a conflict of interest is there in our court systems now?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?  MERS and its counsel seemingly don’t believe they have to answer any of the discovery served upon it.  If it does, it’s with an objection.  Homeowners would rather waste thousands of dollars plying discovery on MERS rather than go after the notary and the executor(s) of the phony document that contains the false representations the bank’s attorneys keep relying on!   It’s no wonder they’re losing!  Sadly, in one particular case I’m personally aware of, an attorney was paid $6,000 (by his client) to take the depositions of a notary and a robosigner that clearly lied on the assignment … and he took the money and spent it and did nothing.  In fact, the attorney didn’t even plead the phony document was phony!  When you have homeowner’s attorneys that can’t or won’t do their jobs properly, you wonder how homeowners are getting wins at all!

Such was the case in Alabama.  The attached case made its way to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Jackson v Bank of America NA, 11th App Cir No 16-16685 (Aug 3, 2018)

Needless to say, the attorney for the homeowners in this case is in real trouble!  To my personal knowledge, this is not the first case he’s had that has been mishandled or improperly filed.  (Let’s see what the 11th Circuit does!)

The foregoing represents a sheer waste of homeowner money and resources.  The foregoing represents a delay game gone wrong.  The foregoing represents clear attorney misconduct.  The foregoing represents an opportunity for a federal appellate court to really mete out a severe punishment hefty enough to put the attorney out of business for good without even having to bring him on on State Bar ethical violations!

The irony of the fact that both cases involve Bank of America NA … and they ended up with different results.

The system of things worked superbly in one instance … and clearly failed in the other.  Ah, the “learning curve” we all must face.  At least the Hawaii Supreme Court appears to have its stuff straight!

For those dealing in Bank of America merger issues, it’s all going to be about the assignments and all of the false and misleading statements contained within them!  Chase isn’t much better with its self-dealing assignments.  Sadly, title companies and the U.S. government are all “in bed” with them.  This is what happens when we move away from the truth and the liars are allowed to get away with it.  They get arrogant and believe they can keep doing the same thing over and over again.

History Repeats Itself … get ready for another round of subprime mortgage lending … a New York attorney just sent me the linked article.  Read it and weep.

SUBPRIME MORTGAGE LOANS BACK ON MARKET … 

Listen to Dave Krieger on City Spotlight – Special Edition on WKDW-FM, 97.5 FM, every Friday night at 6:00 p.m. Eastern.  This week, Dave will be discussing the attached article with co-host, R. J. Malloy (retired attorney and former Clerk to a U.S. District Court judge), along with Jacob Gil regarding Florida’s Amendment 2 campaign.  If attorneys and judges are listening to Dave’s show, you should too!  In fact, over 7,000 listeners dial us up every week on kdwradio.com from all over the globe!  Knowledge is power!

 

 

4 Comments

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED

THINKING OF PLEADING TILA? THINK TWICE!

BREAKING NEWS — OP-ED — 

The U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has just affirmed the U.S. District Court’s decision (for the District of Minnesota) on the Jesinoksi case once and for all.

Why am I not surprised? 

See the Opinion here: Jesinoski v Countrywide Home Loans Inc et al, 8th App Cir No 16-3385 (Feb 28, 2018)

It did not fare well for the Jesinoksis TILA claims, which were narrowly ruled upon by the U.S. Supreme Court and sent back down to the U.S. District Court for further determination.

There are a lot of folks out there who are caught up in mortgage loans of their own making, now realizing that they “coulda, shoulda, woulda” when it came to disputing whether or not the lender of their mortgage complied with all of the regulations in the Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA).  The facts of the case are pretty much self-explanatory, but very narrow in interpretation, so I’m not going to belabor the point by regurgitating the pain of explaining it again.

If you’re going to plead TILA, read this case first and realize what the court accepted and what it didn’t.  If you didn’t comply with ALL of the requirements of TILA, you will find yourself in the same boat as the Jesinoskis.  I hate to make an example of them, but as the result of this case, a lot of wannabe paralegals and attorneys have fleeced homeowners for money, claiming they can help them file a TILA case on their behalf, only to find themselves in more legal hot water than they bargained for.

First, TILA is a federal regulation.  That means it has to be litigated in federal court, where judges are bound by this decision.

If your attorney has never successfully litigated a TILA claim, then why did you choose that attorney?

Filing a rescission does NOT mean you get a FREE HOUSE!  I don’t give a damn what these well-meaning “pro se paralegals” tell you.  If someone makes that assertion, run like hell in the opposite direction!  With TILA cases, there are strings attached … and because there is a mortgage loan involved and the homeowner inured to the benefit of that loan, then there will be hell to pay when the homeowner has to solely rely on TILA claims instead of looking for real “red meat”, like the fact that the loan started out with America’s Wholesale Lender (“AWL”), which Bank of America, N.A. claims is its subsidiary, when in fact, there is no recorded proof in the New York Secretary of State’s office that indicates that AWL was a “New York Corporation” at the time it allegedly made the Jesinoski’s loan.  The focus of the Jesinoski Complaint was that they did not receive the required number of TILA-related copies, which the Court found to be inaccurate.  If this is the best one can do … not getting the right number of copies … (I’m shaking my head now) … this just set precedent as well as a learning curve for others.  It appears that a non-existent New York Corporation (vis a vis the lying bastards and thieves at Bank of America, N.A.) just stole the Jesinoski’s home and no one even bothered to contest whether AWL was actually a legitimate entity at the time the loan was executed.  Of course, MERS and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. were involved.  Both Delaware corporations were involved in ALL AWL TRANSACTIONS!  The whole thing was a sham based on a sham corporation.

Don’t believe me?  Look here: US Bank v Dimant_2013-CA-001130

When you don’t look at the whole picture, this is what happens to you.  Learn from the Jesinoski’s mistakes.  Federal judges are NOT big fans of American homeowners!  Do your research before jumping in with both feet.

This was a very expensive case to litigate all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court and back.

It started at the U.S. District Court level (the District of Minnesota, a Torrens State, which does NOT favor homeowners and loves MERS).  The State of Minnesota enacted the “MERS Statute”.  And you want to live there?  Seriously?  This should have been an indication that in Minnesota, you either pay your mortgage or you’re homeless … or you move elsewhere.  If MERS is in your chain of title, it doesn’t matter about Torrens issues, your title in Minnesota is still shit!

Then it went to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled against the Jesinoskis, who then appealed it to the U.S. Supreme Court, who narrowly ruled on the law and sent it back down to the U.S. District Court, who correctly determined that the Jesinoskis were incorrect in their assumption of the TILA regulations.  They then appealed THAT ruling to the 8th Circuit again, which affirmed the lower court and now the rest is history.  Unless the Jesinoskis attack the real culprit, the phony AWL New York Corporation, they might as well pack their things and find a new place to live.

Don’t let this be YOUR “hard lesson”.

Listen to Dave Krieger, Clouded Titles author, on WKDW-FM, 97.5, North Port, Florida, Friday Night at 6:00 p.m. EST on City Spotlight, Special Edition (with co-host R.J. Malloy, retired attorney and former Clerk to a U.S. District Court judge), streaming live on kdwradio.com.  Click “LISTEN LIVE” to join the broadcast.  Dave will be talking about a variety of consumer-related issues, including this one!

4 Comments

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED

U.S. 9TH CIRCUIT RULES ROBINS HAS ARTICLE 3 STANDING!

BREAKING NEWS — 

For those of you that haven’t been keeping track of the differences of opinion between the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Spokeo v. Robins case, the 9th Circuit panel has issued an opinion that the Plaintiff (Robins) did in fact allege a “concrete injury”.  I posited this dilemma in my book FDCPA, Debt Collection and Foreclosures to some extent.  Now it appears that the 9th Circuit’s holding played in fact off of the Big Top’s decision, which was narrow, wherein a violation of the FCRA (according to this decision), an acronym for the Fair Credit Reporting Act, was enough to include this in an FDCPA action to establish that when servicers (who act as lenders) wrongfully put information on your credit report or in the alternative, debt collectors report things to the credit bureaus that are known to be false (or wrongfully reported by servicers during a period of time wherein a Qualified Written Request is pending), prevents the consumer from moving forward by hampering their credit scores, which results in future credit damage, which is an actionable injury, enough to establish Article III standing.

As you may remember, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a May 16, 2017 ruling declaring that the 9th Circuit failed to address whether the statutory provisions at issue were established to protect Robins’s concrete interests, as opposed to purely procedural issues. The 9th Circuit responded that the FCRA was created to protect consumers’ interests in mandating that credit reporting agencies issue truthful and accurate credit reports, which affect a consumer’s future lifestyle changes, the ability to obtain credit and employment potential.

The 9th Circuit remanded the case back down to the Central District of California for further action.  For those of you in the 9th Circuit states, you should be jumping for joy, because the little guy has won another round.  To see the opinion, click the link: Robins v Spokeo Inc, 9th App Cir No 11-56843 (August 15, 2017)

It stands to reason that we will be discussing this in more detail in our third of four FDCPA webinars, coming soon to the CloudedTitles.com website.

In the meantime, for those of you continuing to fight foreclosures pro se, you may wish to pay attention to the following and inquire about attending our upcoming foreclosure defense workshop in Orlando, Florida:

Download the Registration Form here: FDW ORLANDO REGISTRATION FORM

3 Comments

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, webinar

SECOND FDCPA WEBINAR FEATURES ACTION AGAINST OCWEN!

BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED — UPDATE (JUNE 19, 2017)

The uniqueness of “kicking someone when they’re down” doesn’t even come to mind here, even in light of the dilemma I created for myself when I delivered a copy of the two-volume, 778-page OSCEOLA COUNTY FORENSIC EXAMINATION to the Clerk of the Circuit Court, Armando Ramirez on December 30, 2014.

This is one of the reasons why bad press is still “press”.  Maybe Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC is delighting in all of this unwanted attention.   As of today, it’s stock is still trading.  I wish I’d have known in advance of the issues confronting the mortgage loan servicer would come to a head on April 20, 2017, as I would have seriously shorted Ocwen’s stock and made thousands of dollars doing it.  Darn!

However, given the issues surrounding Ocwen’s reliance on one of its affiliates, Altisource (headquartered conveniently in Luxembourg) and Ocwen’s REALServicing platform, you can bet that there’s a good chance that any time Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC sends you a Monthly Mortgage Statement, it’s riddled with accounting errors.

Significantly, these errors can result in demands for payment which are erroneous and subject to civil liability under the FDCPA.  If you are actually paying Ocwen money for these errors, based on these statements, later discovering you overpaid or your payments were misapplied to someone else’s account to make up for Ocwen’s accounting shortfalls, this could warrant a case for disgorgement.

I find it incredibly interesting that Ocwen Loan Servicing’s “Sweet 16” (who I call the Florida notaries who sat around a table in West Palm Beach, Florida and took turns “dummying up” documents that would be recorded in real property records all over the United States, further creating issues of clouds on titles to millions of pieces of real property all over America.

Turning to a recent post on this blog, I note that Ocwen’s “Contract Managers” and “Contract Coordinators” have that same ability to “dummy up” affidavits that claim Ocwen has the authority to do “this, that and the other”; however, without a Limited Power of Attorney to back up the significant claims that Ocwen employees make on these affidavits, one would be virtually in the dark on what actual authority Ocwen has to do anything.

RESEARCH NOTES:

(1) You can locate all of Ocwen’s Limited Powers of Attorney (“LPOA”)by going to the Palm Beach County, Florida Clerk of Court’s website and searching for “Power of Attorney (POA)” with Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC as the GRANTEE.

(2) You need to reach every single detail of these powers of attorney when you locate the appropriate one, as there are over 800 of them recorded in the Clerk’s database.  Use the GRANTOR name to isolate your search (e.g., Bank of New York Mellon, U.S. Bank, HSBC Bank USA, N.A., etc.) and hone in on the LPOA that fits your date and time scenario, which specifically states WHICH REMIC is being represented in the LPOA.  You may be surprised to find that Ocwen is limited as to what it can do (e.g., only manufacturing documents and not actually commencing a foreclosure proceeding).  You may also find the LPOA has expired.  It doesn’t mean they’re not still in the public record … it’s just that they’re expired.

(3) You need to specifically research the REMIC on the SECINFO.com website.

Get a complete copy of the 424(b)(5) Prospectus and SEC Form 15d and save them to file.  In the search bar for the particular REMIC, run the name OCWEN in the search engine and see if anything pops up.  Run the term “Sale and Servicing Agreement” and see what pops up.  If you don’t find specific notations to any event relating to Ocwen, it means two things:

(a.) you will need to locate an LPOA that contains such an Agreement; and

(b.) if you can’t find the Agreement listed in the public record, you’ll have to obtain it in discovery under Request for Production of Documents.

This my friends, is legal research and case strategy, NOT legal advice.  If you’re going to jump down rabbit holes, you’d better be prepared to dig deep!

If Ocwen is NOT allowed to enforce the terms of a Mortgage or Deed of Trust because you can show lack of authority vested to it … and you see the customary FDCPA language on the form they send you … then that would indicate, in asking for a sum certain, that they are in the business of collecting debts and thus are subject to the FDCPA. (This of course, has to be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction! I am not the KING of any Court, unlike some on the Internet that would posit such!)

When it comes to suing mortgage loan servicers like Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, be aware that they have multiple sources to dip into when it comes to fighting their legal battles, even if it means dipping into other peoples’ escrow accounts for that money!  This is why Ocwen wants your house!  They will purposefully rack up so many servicing fees that by the time the house sells and they recoup their expenses, the entire proceeds of the sale is gone and the alleged “lender” Ocwen is supposedly representing, gets nothing.

But wait!   The alleged “lender” got money from credit default swaps, default insurance and title insurance. In fact, we guesstimate about 6 different sources of loss reimbursement, not to mention the FDIC if that corporate federal agency is in play.  Then, there’s the taxpayer.  We won’t go there, for now.

So let’s say we sue Ocwen, for the sake of argument.

UPDATE: The second of four FDCPA webinars on the subject has been re-scheduled for Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 8:00 p.m. EDT.  We will be doing something different in this Webinar, as R. J. Malloy will be walking through the process with me, step by step as we discuss pleadings development and purpose.  This is truly a webinar you DON’T want to miss!  For those of you who are confused about the price … EACH WEBINAR is $39.95!  I cannot do all 4 for that price because of costs.  If I did a live event in Orlando, you’d have to pay anywhere from $495 to $895 to attend a 1-day event, plus airfare and hotel, instead of paying a total of $159.80 for all 4 online workshops and this is a huge savings to you for the same education.

In the second of four FDCPA webinars, we have some new news to update you on about applications of the U. S. Supreme Court’s Spokeo, Inc. v Robins et al_ decision … you have to prove you suffered economic harm in order to make an FDCPA action stick.  I know, it’s the nation’s highest court’s way of impeding class-action lawsuits!  In a class action lawsuit, ALL of the Plaintiffs in the class have to have suffered a similar economic harm before the court will approve the class!

Look for signup information on the CloudedTitles.com.

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED, webinar