Repossession hell: 5 extremely wrongful foreclosures

Editor’s Note: The primary reason for foreclosing on the wrong house is that the wrong party (not the creditor) is initiating the foreclosure and therefore lacks sufficient information about the loan, the property or the debtor.

These events are corroboration of stories previously published showing that loans were placed in “pools” even though they never closed and therefore didn’t exist. The mere application of a loan was sufficient for “assignment” of the “loan.” And let’s not forget that the “assignment” typically violates even the terms of the PSA either as to time cut-off or the requirement of recording or recordable form.

Repossession hell: 5 extremely wrongful foreclosures

The Pittsburgh woman whose bank ‘accidentally’ took everything she owned—even her macaw parrot—plus 4 more homeowner horror stories

posted on March 19, 2010, at 12:00 PM
Home  foreclosures: The opposite of the American dream.

Home foreclosures: The opposite of the American dream. Photo: Corbis

A Pittsburgh woman is suing the Bank of America after it wrongfully foreclosed on her home, ransacking her possessions, cutting power lines, padlocking her doors, and confiscating her pet parrot. Angela Iannelli, 46—who was away when repo men made off with her beloved blue macaw, Luke—says she’s now “afraid to set foot in her house.” She’s filed a civil suit claiming that bank representatives refused to reveal Luke’s “whereabouts” and told her they “were tired of hearing from her.” (Watch an ABC report about Angela Iannelli’s foreclosed home.) Here, four more victims of erroneous repossession:

They took her wedding dress
Last December, Nilly Mauck, 31, came home to find her décor brutally simplified. Contractors assigned to repossess condo No. 1156 had mistakenly emptied No. 1157, her Las Vegas apartment of two years. Though she’s demanded “$100,000 to $200,000” in compensation for them taking, well, everything (including her wedding dress), the Realtor has offered only $5,000. Mauck says she’s seeking legal advice and learning “to live with the clothes on her back.”

Wrong house, but thanks for rotten halibut
Dr. Alan Schroit got a “putrid” surprise when he arrived at his Galveston, Texas, vacation home last October. Bank of America (“with which he has neither a relationship nor a mortgage”) had repossessed his home and turned off the utilities, leaving 75 pounds of frozen salmon and halibut (spoils of an Alaskan fishing trip) to rot in the fridge. Schroit, who’d been planning to grill the fish for 30 guests the next night, is suing the bank.

Luckily, he was not in a mood to swim
Kissimmee, Fla., resident Denroy Bell was living in London, England, when a confused Kissimmee bank attempted to foreclose on his Florida home in 2008. The sloppy institution, Citi-Residential, changed the locks and drained the swimming pool. “It was like an army came up and took over the house,” said Esther Goshop, Bell’s neighbor. Unusually gracious, Bell has asked only that Citi-Residential refill his pool and restore his locks.

Promises, promises …
A jury punished Countrywide Home Loans in January 2009 for failing to notice that it was repossessing and selling the wrong Las Vegas condo back in 2003. Sgt. Gerald Thitchener and his wife, Katrina, absent at the time, were awarded $3.4 million in damages. “[Countrywide] never even said they were sorry,” noted one juror, “[though they did say] it would never happen again.”

28 Responses


    We had an Unlawful Detainer Hearing this morning for which I was fully prepared to defend against Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee their capacity to sue, service of process issues, fraudulent documents, etc.

    Get this…

    At the beginning of the hearing…their “Attorney” asked the Judge to DISMISS THEIR OWN EVICTION CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE…


    When/if they do decide to refile I will be fully prepared to argue their capacity to sue, etc.

    I have them by the balls as they are not even Registered with our Secretary of State to do business; nor are they registered with the Department of Commerce…


    Eventually they will tie themselves in knots that they can’t get out of!!!

  2. to “foreclosurefight:”

    Since you did not file a lis pendens on the land title records, the new owner had no “Notice” that there was a dispute on the title. Without Notice, he is an “innocent purchaser.” In actuality, probably not all that innocent, but it still is a problem. That is precisely what the lis pendens is for – to provide Notice of challenges to or problems with the Title.

    If you can find out that the purchaser is a “pro,” someone who buys at sales and flips the properties, then he has much less defenses to innocence as to attacking his ownership.

    If you have someone else already sitting in your house, how do you propose to eject him?

    Another gambit is to now file suit against the purchaser, assuming he is not yet sitting in your house. Your claim is that he is a speculator and that he knew, ought to have known, or could reasonably have foreseen that there was a controversy as to title. If he is a speculator, even a part-time one dabbling in real estate, then your case is bolstered by the simple fact that anyone who is a “pro” would have done a search of the case dockets at the court house, and found a caption of your Quiet Title suit, and would have known of the proceedings. A lot thinner than if you have a lis pendens, but better than nothing. .

    When you sue the buyer and accuse him of participating in a fraud on property titles, then the fun is out of the stunt of buying up other people’s houses. Something to think about.

    If he has not “closed”, then I would file the lis pendens right away, just to have one more round in your clip to fire away with.

    Also, file suit against the vendor, including the trustee and the bankers, alleging fraud, unfair trade practices, and so forth. With a QuietTitle suit, you are not putting the big guns to them. If they lose, they have already sold your house, so then they lose nothing -it becomes the title company’s headache. If they have nothing to lose, then why should they settle with you on favorable terms? They are holding all the cards.

  3. That is exactly what I have been complaining about to our Lawyer for weeks now….

    Why/How Could the Sale occur when these defects/issues have been raised in a Quiet Title???

    We filed the Quiet Title in October and the Sheriff Sale was in November…

    Our Lawyer DID NOT file a Lis Pendens when he filed the Quiet Title…after asking him why he said it “wasn’t needed”.

    Deutsche was then allowed to go ahead with the Sale in November and then record their Certificate of Sale…thus transferring a Title that is “Clouded”.

    Shortly after the Sale occurred, Lawyer began the discovery/interrogatory phase and then set that aside after finding “facts that could support a Motion for Summary Judgement” forgetting to mention that there MUST be “no issues of material fact” in order to obtain the Summary Judgement.

    Of course we were pretty much laughed out of Court and denied the Summary Judgement, and proceeded to thoroughly piss off the Judge who will be overseeing our Trial. That was last week. In the Judges eyes were are freeloaders looking for a free ride.

    Lawyer has now also been REALLY trying to push the issue of sitting down with Deutsche prior to the Trial set for September. At this point in time I can’t blame him, since it is becoming more and more obvious that he screwed up BIG TIME!!! After practicing for 20+ years we were wrong to assume he knew what the hell he was doing!!!

    No way in hell…

    If the Court needs to provide an ORDER to Clear the Title…isn’t that a PROBLEM???

  4. to Foreclosurefight:

    Keep in mind that if the Title “need cleaning up” by “settlement with Deutsche Bank” then the converse to that is that the Title is sufficiently opaque that nobody can foreclose. An “unclean title” works against the Lender, more so than the borrower.

    If you find you cannot sell the house due to title defects, have you tried a Title Insurance Co? Alternatively, you end up living with no further payments to anybody, or if you cannot sell, then you just rent it out and pocket the rents. After 40 years, any Mortgage claims are vacated if not pursued by the lender. A long time, to be sure.

    Also keep in mind that if DB wants to “settle” and issue a new Note and Mortgage, all your defenses to the imperfect one vanish. Also, DB may not even own the Note any more, or the Note may well have been paid by a credit-default swap, so they are just enriching themselves twice over – at your expense. Happens all the time. I would hazard a guess that perhaps 1,200,000 “mortgages” being foreclosed had Notes that were paid off by credit-default swap counterparties, such as AIG. the Notes just never got stamped as Paid. Just lovely.

  5. foreclosurefight

    I am really suspect as to Deutsche’s interest at all here. If your attorney is talking settlement with Deutsche – make sure he gets copies of insurance liability contracts from Deutsche ‘s —“attorneys.” Your attorney is entitled – see how Deutsche responds.

  6. Here is a direct link to this particular “Trust”…

    The PSA is contained within the 330 page Prospectus (424B5). I have not found any of the other relevant “Purchase Agreements” …

    This “Trust” has quit reporting to the SEC in 2007 yet is still actively providing monthly payments to the Investors according to the Deutsche Bank Investor Site:

    1. Click on RMBS on the left side…

    2. Click on Ameriquest…

    3. Click on Ameriquest Mortgage Securities…

    4. Click on 2006-R1

    There you will find ALL monthly reports/statements for this “Trust” Deutsche is claiming to be “Trustee” of.

    This is still an “Active” Trust without having any oversight by the SEC!!!

    On a Side Note, I have also discovered today that when we filed our “Quiet Title” action in October 2009, our “Attorney” never even recorded a Lis Pendens which would have prevented them from even completing and recording the Sheriff Sale Certificate…he told me it “wasn’t needed”.

    Any thoughts???

  7. foreclosurefight,

    You said you have your ENTIRE “Pooling and Service Agreement”?

    I cannot promise any result. But I would like to look at that “Document”. I am trying to analyze those filings for “fatal defects”. Can you send it to me? I am hoping that you found also these documents allied with your PSA:
    Critically important “Agreements”:
    1) Assignment and Assumption Agreement
    2) Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement
    3) Mortgage Loan Repurchase Agreement

    Please post links here on livinglies or email to me as soon as time permits.

    deontos dot is at g mail dot com

  8. to foreclosurefight:

    The reason attorneys are so fond of settlement is that then they do not get sued for negligence or malpractice. After all, you settled.

    The other reason is that, typically (though not in your case) they get paid out of the settlement.

    Here’s an interesting gambit (to borrow from the chess world): have your atty approach Deutsche to “explore settlement” and have him obtain the Note for review. You should go see the Original Note (and get a copy) which you should be able to do in the bank’s atty’s law offices. What you are looking for is:

    staple holes not matched by a current staple, in any part of the Note.

    Allonge(s) with extra staple holes.

    Missing “power of attorney ” Original Forms Notarized attached firmly to the Note (UCC Sec 302/2).

    Holes or check marks on the Note.

    match the copy of the Note to what you see in the Original.

    If they do not give you the Original to look at, then settle for now for a photocopy, and look for all the above except of course you will not be able to see the staple holes. If there is any “blank space” after your signature on the Note including the back page of that last page of the Note, AND there is an “allonge” stapled on the Note, then the Indorsement on the Allonge is Invalid. They have to use up all the blank space first.

    If the allonge is invalid, then the proper Owner of the Note is that last Indorsed party on the body of the Note (but yes, you have to convince the Judge). Note that I said “owner,” not “holder.” A “holder” has to both have the Note in personal physical possession AND have the authority to enforce. Since the last Indorsed party has since sold his interest, he has no authority to enforce any more. So your Note becomes unsecured, and you can prevail on the Quiet Title Action – on this grounds alone.

    Des this help?

    game plan: present yourself as sweet and reasonable, get your information, and aboslutely Hammer the bloodsuckers. And then when the dust settles also sue those bank lawyers in State Court for perpetrating fraud.

  9. We are in Minnesota…

    We discharged the note in Chapter 7 and are now trying to get rid of the “lien” through a Quiet Title…

    Our Attorney is now STRONGLY recommending (after 15 months and $15,000 in his pocket) that we “settle” with Deutsche by having the Court “clean up the title” so we are able to get a new loan to reaffirm with Deutsche, as we cannot currently redeem by either selling the house or obtaining new financing.


    We NEED a new Attorney but feel “Stuck”

  10. to foreclosurefight:

    What you are missing in your attempt to analyze this is that you are trying to follow the “mortgage,” not the Note. the reason you are doing this is that only the “mortgage,” as the Security Instrument, is being recorded on the land records – so it is all you get to see.

    the reason your adversaries, whoever they really are, “withdrew” from the relief from Stay Motion in the BK Court is that they do not have the Note. Somebody else does. And you have no clue as to who that is.

    You have to start by determining what has happened to the Note, and how the Indorsements on the Note flow. And you have not seen the Note, not in years, so the raw truth is that you have no clue.

    the “mortgage” never went into any “Trust.” Mortgages do not go into trusts. Only the Note (“maybe”) went into a trust – and only if it had proper Indorsement. Since Deutsche is involved, you can safely bet that it did not. Deutsche is NOTORIOUS for perpetrating fraud on the Courts and by fabricating documents. You may assume that EVERYTHING that Deutsche shows up with is a fraud, and has been fraudulently fabricated, typically in their offices on Liberty Street in Downton Manhattan NY.

    What is missing in your convoluted chain of title is that there was a ton of other parties iinvolved in setting up that “Trust”, including some Delaware sham entity known as the “Depositer,” and then another sham known as the “Seller,” and more. When you burrow through that Prospectus you will find those entities listed. Now you have to dig out the Note, and find if those entities are individually and sequentially listed on the Note by consecutive Indorsements. Since Deutsche had their sticky fingers in the pie, you already know that they did not.

    What State are you in? Yes, you need new counsel. You should never have gotten into this with old counsel.

    You can still defeat them, but you probably will have to go file in District (Federal ) Court. You will have to sue Deutsche. Think in terms of suing them in the USDC for the Sou.Distr. NY, in White Plains, NY. Now you are not tangled up in the State-Fed politics of your local judges.

    You cannot ask for Quiet title as you are asking for that in the State Court. You have to go in with entirely new grounds or they will not hear your case. So you sue them for fraud in interstate commerce. Try the “Commerce Clause” in the US Constitution (Amendment 16? I forget), to try to get “jurisdiction.” You get “venue” easily as Deutsche Bank is in NY. You do not need to show up; you just file and do your papers by mail. If yo ask for enough money, e.g. 40 million, then DB has something to start worrying about.

    Right now, DB has no downside. If they lose, all they lose is some paper on some worthless piece of property in some state that is flooded with empty foreclosed houses that nobody can sell. So what do they care? DB probably does not even know or care that your lawsuit is going on; you are just dealing with lawyers that are running up their tab with DB, and DB has so many tabs that they do not try to keep track of it all. So you have to expose them to some serious hurt. A gigantic lawsuit is a good place to start.

    You may assume that everything DB and those attys produce is utterly fraudulent. I have seen documents produced where the entire Trust Agreement was fabricated, and notarized by a notary who did not even get his first commission until two years after he swore that the parties were standing in front of him. Welcome to Wall Street banks – the international predator banks.

    Besides Deutsche, Credit Suisse is also notorious for this type of flagrant fraud upon our Courts.

  11. foreclosurefight

    What a mess – but this is not unusual given what I have seen.

    I will say this – you are right to ask “is it safe to “assume” that the mortgage was not even in the Trust???”

    Many mortgages that were not MERS were “scratch and dents”, that is mortgages that never it made to the trust due to “missing documents, early payment default (often manufactured as loan was not really in default), and breach of representation. It is very likely that your mortgage was a “repurchase” by Ameriquest. – and subsequently sold as a “scratch and dent” (however, Ameriquest had it’s own “scratch and dent” trust – called “Quest” – so maybe they retained for themselves – but all of these were either sold or acquired by CItigroup when Citigroup took over Ameriquest/Argent. “Scratch and dents” were securitized into a trust – but this would not be the trust they are naming. This is because “scratch and dent” securitizations were not really securitizations because they could not obtain the ratings necessary for mortgage-backed securities.

    I would definitely question whether or not your loan was a repurchase/scratch and dent. You need discovery for this.

    Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer and this is not meant to be construed as legal advise but only for educational purposes.

  12. This information helps…thank you!!

    Here is what is happening…PLEASE help me to “connect the dots” as something is obviously being missed. This transaction does not even involve MERS which is miraculous all by itself!!!

    We received a Ch. 7 Discharge in August 2009. Deutsche tried to Lift the Stay but the day before the scheduled hearing they “withdrew” their Motion and we received a discharge. Immediately after the discharge Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Company is acting as “Trustee” for this particular “Trust” which is a “cut off date” of Feb 1, 2006. I had no problem locating the Prospectus/PSA on the SEC site for this particular Trust.

    We filed a Quiet Title Lawsuit back in October 2009 before the Sheriff Sale. Deutsche was able to do the Sheriff Sale as we were denied the TRO due to “title not changing hands until the end of the six month redemption period” which is set to be over in May. The Judge was “concerned and eyebrows were raised” that we could be possibly win this case and receive our house “Free and Clear”…the Judge thinks it “just can’t be” according to our Attorney. We are scheduled to go to Trial in September for the Quiet Title and I hope and pray that Deutsche is not allowed a UD before the Trial.

    The only recordings at the Recorder’s office are the (1) Original Mortgage by Ameriquest; (2) “Limited POA” given to Citi Residential from Ameriquest dated Sept 6, 2007 and (3) a DOCX “Assignment” dated March 4, 2009. That’s it.

    Here is where the confusion comes in.

    Back in the BK Deutsche presented “extraneous evidence” (which is not in the Title Record) in their Motion to Lift the Stay trying to support their case.

    The first was a ” Resolution” authorizing employees of DOCX (Linda Green/Tywanna Thomas) to act on behalf of Citi Residential as Asst VP/Asst Sec . But this document only authorizes RELEASES and not assignments of mortgages!!

    When this “discrepancy” was brought to the attention of Deutsche they have miraculously pulled another “Resolution” out of thin air “ratifying” all previous actions, now authorizing assigments of mortgages.

    As previously mentioned, the “Limited POA” that is recorded is dated Sept 6, 2007. The SECOND document provided by Deutsche is a “Certificate” dated Jan 28, 2009 which lists several “POA” given by various entities to Citi Residential Lending. The “POA” given to Citi from Ameriquest dated Sept 6, 2007 was not on the list!! The one on the list is dated OCTOBER 2, 2007!!!

    ONCE AGAIN, miraculously Deutsche marched into Court with ANOTHER “POA” dated OCTOBER 1, 2007 AND NOT OCTOBER 2, 2007, WHICH WAS NOTARIZED ON OCTOBER 2, 2007 which they even recorded prior to the hearing, further screwing up the Title…STILL not the correct date!!!!

    It looks to be a photocopy of the first “POA” and that they have just changed some dates!!!

    Up to this point, the Court has not demanded them to provide any Originals…nor has our Attorney asked for them!!!!

    With all that said, would it be safe to “assume” that the mortgage was not even in the Trust??? If it was in fact within the “Trust”, then why in the hell are these “POA” even needed between Ameriquest/Citi…did Ameriquest not lose all rights to this when it went in to the Trust???

    We were making payments to Citi until September 2008, where in the hell was our money going???

    In addition, the simple fact is that Citi Residential Lending was not in business on March 4, 2009 when they “assigned” this over to Deutsche!!!

    What is being overlooked/what am I missing here???

    We have used the same Attorney that did our BK thinking that this would have to be brought back into the BK Court. After soaking us for $15,000 (after just completing a Bankruptcy) up to this point, he is now “waffling” and not dealing with these issues at hand and not putting a stop to this madness!!!

    I feel that we are too far in to start over with a new Attorney and he knows that too!!! He needs to clean up his mess!!!

    I just can’t even imagine our family being out on the street. This is the ONLY home our three small children know, and just what is this world coming to if just “anyone” can STEAL the safety and security of your HOME!!!

    Please Help!!!

  13. to foreclosurefight:

    If you have an assignment of mortgage and stated on that is the notation “by xxx as attorney in fact” then there should be documentation attached to the assignment that establishes the authority. E.G. a notarized power of attorney Form physically attached to the document it is legitimizing. Since that Form, and it has to be an Original together with the Original of the Mortgage Assignment, is apparently missing, you have a “transfer” without legitimization. That is a problem (for the alleged new creditor).

    If you have a document that is “dated” March 04 then that is the date it was signed (apparently), as one would conclude from the face of the document. If the Company was “out of business” on that date, then you again confront a problem with authority to transfer.

    Given these circumstances, you should have a good argument that the “assignment” is invalid, and hence the “mortgage” still is of record to the previous party, the assignor. But, if they have been paid (e.g. no longer hold the Note), then it looks like you have a separation oft eh Note from the security instrument, the Mortgage, and you end up with an unsecured promissory Note. And tat assumes the Indorsement on the Note itself is timely dated and properly signed, by an “Officer” of the assignor.

    Those are all lovely problems.

  14. foreclosurefight

    Here is what I know. Citigroup, Inc. bought the remnants of ACC Capital Holdings and it’s business practices of Ameriquest and Argent in August/September 2007, At this time Argent Mortgage became Citi residential. Not aware that Ameriquest servicing practice also became part of Citi – but it could have.. Only the practice of “servicing” by Ameriquest, and Argent’s wholesale mortgage practice, survived by the Citigroup acquisition. Citi residential did not do very well. And, at the beginning of Jan 2008, Citi residential became Citi Mortgage. (see “Citi shakes up its Mortgage Business” by Eric Dash – NYT Jan. 8, 2008.)

    Also, if Citi Residential/Ameriquest was acting as servicer, who gave them “attorney in fact” – power of attorney. Only a trustee can grant power of attorney under a Trust. – and questionable if trustee grants POA to itself.

    Hope this is helpful.

  15. Could someone PLEASE tell me the date that Citi Residential Lending officially went out of business???

    I have a “DOCX/Linda Green/Tywanna Thomas” Assignment of Mortgage from “Ameriquest by Citi Residential Lending as Attorney in Fact” to Deutsche Bank as Trustee of “Bogus” Trust…blah blah blah…

    This “Assignment” from Ameriquest/Citi is dated March 4, 2009 with an EFFECTIVE DATE of 02/28/09.

    From what I have researched, Citi Residential Lending went out of business on MARCH 1, 2009, thus making this assignment a glorified piece of toilet paper, even without addressing the whole “DOCX” approach…

    Any information would be appreciated!!!

  16. PJ

    Know of a couple who is foreclosure. The town typically sells tax liens to debt buyers after the taxes have not been paid for a year. Town does not care where the mortgage is – they want their money.

    The couple was notified that debt buyer had bought the tax lien BEFORE the trustee for trust came in for foreclosure. There is an action against the foreclosure (which has not been completed but case is stalled). Thus, couple has good evidence the trustee for trust was not the real party because the taxes have not been paid by the servicer to the trustee for trust. Rather, the debt buyers have the tax lien. And, as I understand, tax liens have priority over mortgage liens (could be wrong on this but this is what I am reading).

    Wells Fargo may have been acting as the servicer but it appears they had the wrong property.

    Disclaimer – I am not an attorney and this is not meant to be construed as legal advise but only for educational purposes.

  17. to PJ:

    Anybody can make a property tax payment on any property just by going down to the tax office in your town and making the payment. So what? If Wells does that, then they have made you a nice gift. Same as if your Auntie did.

    If they did it by mistake, and intended the payment for yet another property in which they have a recordable interest, then in theory “maybe” they “might” have a colorable claim for “unjust enrichment” on your part, and could “in theory” file suit under that theory for recovery. But because they are a financial institution with their own claims to expertise in these matters, they would have their problems. As a practical matter, I suspect they would be chagrined and write it off. Lucky you.

    The interesting question is who gets the tax deduction for the payment….

  18. Wells Fargo attempted to make a property tax payment on a property they have no financial interest in, which is owned free and clear, how can that be?

  19. further to “repossession hell” :

    There is not one case on that horror list that I would not sue and ask for $6 million for, as a base number.

    And I would sue them all: the Bank, the goon squad that broke in and trespassed, the possessors of the goods on theft by conversion theory, the trucking company they hired, and their insurers on a wanton recklessness count. Sue them all. And also I would have filed Complaints alleging Grand Theft with the local police. What is wrong with these policemen? Don’t they “get it”? Hey, it’s burglary!

  20. to “foreclosure fight;”

    It seems to me that your situation would call for what is generically known as an “Interlocutory Appeal.”

    This type of Appeal attacks only the specific Ruling or Order that is causing problems and allows the Appellate Panel to determine narrowly if what the lower-court Judge did was appropriate, or arbitrary. Usually, but not always, an “Interloc” would or should stop all further progress in the case until the matter of the Interloc is resolved. After that, then the case again continues to proceed.

    Since the timing is such that your Trial on the Merits would come after the party plaintiff would have run out the 6-month lapse period and you would be both evicted and deprived of your Home, an Interloc should be granted on the premise that you have no other adequate remedy at law. maybe that works, maybe not.

    Once again, you see the problems in the Court System. the Courts are the last vestiges of a feudal fiefdom, and the Judge can do whatever he wants to. it’s his personal playpen…

    Look into the viability of an Interloc in your State rules of Practice. You may be “out of time;” not to worry, just file your Motion to accept Interlocutory Appeal Out of time, and since you are a pro-se party, they really should bend the rules just a little bit. Again, maybe yes, maybe no….

    Let us know how you make out. Best wishes to you.

  21. Foreclosurefight,

    If it’s not already in your pleadings, attack the assignment. Expose DOCX and Tywana Thomas for the fraud they’ve committed. I’m not a lawyer for anyone but myself, so take that advice for what it’s worth.

    That’s what I’ll be doing, is attacking the assignment. It’s the one time in a lot of these cases where the soft underbelly of the securitization scheme is fully exposed because even though these assignments are written in such a way as to SEEM legal, when you really look at who signed what and who the signers actually work for, the fraud becomes glaringly obvious.

    You may also want to ditch the lawyer–save yourself some money. My lawyer was far too polite and protective of his perceived livelihood. Meaning that he was very reluctant to piss off the judge or even come close to it–and what he seemed to think would upset the judge was me fighting for my rights. I have no such qualms and do not have to fear for my livelihood if a judge doesn’t like me. The judge works for us, not the other way around, and I plan to remind him of that if only by asserting my rights to the fullest extent.

    I’m not in this suit to play footsie with the judge or to make nice with everybody. This is about making sure that “the ladder of law has no top and no bottom.”. Having said that, I have no intention of being openly hostile to the judge. But I won’t back down, either.

  22. zureharrh:

    I completely forgot to mention that we already received a Ch. 7 Discharge in August 2009 and the NEXT month AHMSI started foreclosure once again but now AHMSI is no longer a party to this lawsuit. We filed the Quiet Title Action in October 2009 in State Court and the Sheriff Sale was in November 2009.

    This issue never came up in the BK and I’m not sure why???

    We are using the Attorney that did the BK for the Quiet Title to get rid of this “lien”. It is becoming more and more apparent that he is “taking us for a ride” but we are too far into this to start over.

    Deutsche is claiming it has a valid “chain of title” by way of not one but TWO companies that are no longer in business: Ameriquest and Citi Residential Lending.

    They clearly don’t have anything, that is why they had to get “DOCX” involved to make a bogus assignment.

    What am I missing???

  23. Foreclosurefight,
    I don’t know anything about a redemption period, but it definitely sounds like the judge is buying in to the bank’s narrative. Do what I’m planning to do–go to trial, get a judgment. Appeal it if it’s unfavorable. Since the “legal” system is probably going to let you get screwed over, at least you can make it and the bank WORK to do it. Worst case scenario, the judgment stands, so you declare bankruptcy and discharge it.

    As Alex Jones is fond of saying, “Resistance IS victory.”

  24. They ARE all wrongful foreclosures. Interestingly enough, Bank of “America” began its life as the Bank of Italy in 1904. Neither here nor there, just sayin’…

  25. Feedback would be greatly appreciated on this one…

    We filed a Quiet Title Action in October 2009 after the break was found in the Chain of Title when Citi Residential Lending acting on a Limited POA for Ameriquest assigned Mortgage directly to Deutsche Bank/Trustee for Asset Backed Securities Pass Through Blah Blah Blah…

    This “assignment” from Ameriquest to Deutsche was a DOCX/Linda Green/Tywanna Thomas job.

    Foreclosure was scheduled for November 2009 and TRO was “denied” because the Judge did not see harm in allowing the foreclosure to proceed since actual Title “does not transfer until the end of the six month redemption period” and the sale was allowed to happen. We are in Minnesota.

    Trial is scheduled for this upcoming September for the Quiet Title and our “Redemption Period” runs out in May…

    Here is my question…

    Has the “redemption period” actually even began since there is no marketable title???

    We cannot sell in order to exercise our redemption due to the title defect…

    We could not obtain new financing to exercise our redemption due to the title defect…

    Technically we are being denied Due Process and the ability to redeem and “cure”…

    Would the UD even be allowed with pending litigation???

    Any Thoughts???


  27. They’re ALL wrongful foreclosures … everywhere.


  28. un-freekin-believable!

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: