Livinglies's Weblog

CLICK HERE TO COME TO SANTA MONICA WORKSHOPS 9/3-9/4

EMERGENCY DEFENSE PROCEDURES IN CALIFORNIA:
Check with local counsel before making any decision or taking any action.

garfields-checklist-for-foreclosure-offense-and-defense1.pdf

securitization-flow-chart-dougal

letter-of-objection-to-trustee-in-non-judicial-sale-states
california-statutes1.pdf
garfield-memo-on-single-transaction-and-step-transaction-doctrine.pdf

necessary-and-indispensable-parties
interrogatory-form.pdf
florida-motion-to-vacate-judgment.pdf
oh-stayforeclosuresale.pdf
oh-memosupport.pdf

annoted-example-of-asignment-and-assumption-agreement

standard-and-poor_s-classification-of-home-loans-and-predatory-rating

florida-m-dismiss-jurisdiction-standing.pdf — to challenge them from even defending, you say that they have no right to be there. Your objective is to force them to go to judicial foreclosure from non-judicial on the basis that (1) they have no interest, ownership or authority to foreclose and (2) because the loan was securitized and the real parties in interest are the ones who provided the funding for the transaction and to whom the note and mortgage have been transferred through their ownership of certificates of asset backed securities (the asset backing them being your mortgage). If they have no problem producing the real parties in interest then they should have no problem with doing a judicial foreclosure. But their problem is going to be that there are about dozen links in the chain of blame and each link has acquired rights and obligations with respect to the title to the note and mortgage and the stream of revenue. Some of the links not only collected money but are obligated to pay it — thus putting the case at issue as to whether the investor has in fact been paid the monthly payments or more.

Bottom Line: Trustee owes duty to borrower too; Trustee knows that lender was paid in full plus a fee of 2.5%. Lender has ordered foreclosure anyway, thus seeking not only the money which they have had from the beginning, but the property too plus unauthorized fees and costs. You want to position yourself to be saying that you are preventing a windfall to the Trustee and the nominal lender who is giving the instructions to foreclose on the property. Avoid the argument that YOU are seeking the windfall by saying that at this juncture, although we have plenty of defenses, we are not contesting the existence of the note and mortgage nor of the obligation — we are contesting whether THESE people trying to foreclose are entitled to get the property in addition to having already been paid by a third party —- and that the third party might have the same claim against the same borrower (you), which is why their is an absence of necessary and indispensable parties and why they MUST go into judicial foreclosure.

predatory-lending-practices-cardozo-law-review-ssrn-id929118

Filed under: CDO, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Mortgage | Tagged: foreclosure defense, foreclosure freeze, foreclosure offense, foreclosure sale |