Notes on Hearings I Attended


W. David Merrill was sworn. He said that he worked for American Home Mortgage Servicing as a senior loan consultant working in mitigation, mediation, and litigation. Hence, the witness only entered the picture long after the loan was declared in default, a notice of default was served, and a notice of sale was served. By definition, his personal knowledge was limited to that point in time when the case was handed over to him for mitigation, mediation, or litigation. More likely, his first brush with the case occurred shortly before the hearing in the afternoon of June 23, 2010 before Judge Hollowell.

Debtor’s attorney raised an objection based upon lack of personal knowledge. The judge overruled the objection. Debtor’s attorney further objected to the copy of the document that was allegedly signed as requiring foundation. The lack of foundation derives from the lack of competence of the witness.

The witness stated that AHMS was the service or for Deutsche Bank. By a written agreement, which was not produced, the witness stated that AHMS was the successor to America West. All objections were overruled.

The witness stated that he was the records custodian for AHMS. However, no foundation for that statement was offered, nor could the witness adequately answer questions on cross examination that were directed at the so-called business records and directed at the witnesses claim that he was in fact the records custodian. Anyone with familiarity of securitized loans knows very well that the servicer is not the records custodian. The attempt by Debtor’s attorney to raise this issue was overruled. In fact, earlier that morning in another case, the judge threatened Debtor’s with contempt of court.

The judge in both cases declared that she was using the doctrine of a colorable claim as she understood it to apply to a motion to lift stay.

The so-called business records were admitted in evidence over objection. The pooling and servicing agreement was admitted as Exhibit 6, but the terms of the pooling and servicing agreement were ignored. Based upon the naked assertion by AHMS, it was presumed that the substitute service or was properly authorized, and that issues raised by the expert  (me) were irrelevant to the preceding and that a very low threshold was required for the movant to obtain relief from stay.

Adding to the confusion, the judge herself stated on the record that the witness was not competent.

The judge was clearly viewing the claims raised by the debtor as a mere stalling tactic.

The concepts repeatedly introduced by Ryan in his pleadings and by myself as an expert witness were completely ignored. The judge refused to seriously consider the possibility that the multiplicity of parties who were in plain sight within the pooling and servicing agreement could present a problem of standing, real party in interest, whether the MOVANT was a creditor,  whether a proper accounting had been rendered, and us whether the balance due as claimed in the notice of the fault was correct or had material deficiencies, to wit:  (1) the identity of the beneficiary, trustee, and servicer was not properly stated and (2) the amount claimed to be in default was  fictitious.

The moving party presented a witness who attempted to justify the filing of three promissory notes as evidence of the obligation, each of which was different. The last and final promissory note was first shown to the expert witness for the  first time on the day of the hearing. This last note showed endorsements which were not apparent on previous “original” notes filed with the court. The Court expressed concern about this.

The testimony and the evidence both pointed to the same practice in both hearings.  For reasons relating to the securitization practices on Wall Street including but not limited to the repackaging of loan portfolios, mortgage-backed bonds, and the creation of collateralized debt obligations which in turn were sold as mortgage-backed bonds, the securitizations of the loans required that no actual formal assignment, endorsement,  or delivery be executed until the instructions were received from the lawyer for the investment banker that was the underwriter of the original series of mortgage-backed bonds. This was the testimony of the witness for the Movant.

Thus,  the legal owner of the loan remains the original party identified as the lender on the deed of trust (or the mortgage) until those instructions are received. Evidence from the industry including but not limited to the statistical probability that a particular loan or bond will be in litigation, strongly suggests that at least 97% of all securitized loans have never been the subject of a legal transfer of the obligation, note and mortgage as required under applicable state law regarding the transfer and recording of interests in real property, and the assignment and endorsement of the note.

In fact, the securitization parties were merely trading in an “expectation” of receivables generated through several channels, each of which depended upon the existence or stated existence of a performing loan. In actual practice, therefore, it may be fairly stated that in nearly all cases involving securitized loans, only the revenue streams arising from all parties and co-obligors were the subject of any trading or transfer activity.

Thus  the status of nearly all securitized loan could be fairly described as legally owned by the originating lender, who in all cases was not left with a receivable upon the closing of the loan transaction. The public records in which property interests are recorded clearly corroborate the conclusions stated herein. The only party that shows on those public records as having an “interest” in the loan is the originating lender. Since the originating lender has been paid in full –an uncontroverted fact– the obligation from the borrower to the originating lender was both created and satisfied at the time of closing.

Since the actual source of the funds that were borrowed by the debtor or borrower came from a remote source (a group of investors) who received a bond from a third party rather than receiving the note executed by the borrower, it is difficult to justify the position that third-party payments are irrelevant. It is equally difficult to construct a scenario under which anyone other than the originating lender had a legal claim under the original loan documents. However, there appears to be an equitable claim by the remote source of funds (the group of investors) for recovery of all payments made and received from all parties in the securitization chain. As to parties other than the borrower in the securitization chain, it appears that the remote source of funds (the group of investors) probably also have legal claims against the various parties in the securitization chain that created, sold and managed debits and credits attributable or allocable to the investor and to the loan accounts of the borrowers.

In the hearings I attended, many documents were offered in evidence that are not normally found in any type of foreclosure proceeding, nor would they be accepted in a judicial foreclosure proceeding without expensive foundation an explanation for their use. Limited powers of attorney, designation as limited signing officer, ratification of prior acts that don’t appear to have ever occurred, certificates of limited authority for certain named individuals to act as officers (obviously raising the question as to whether or not these individuals were ever officers of the entity in any other respectful), substitutions of trustee, endorsements from nonexistent entities, and other documents executed by parties outside of the chain of title, together with the use and confusion between assignments, endorsements, allonges.

Before the era of securitization of mortgage loans it was extremely rare to find any such documentation clouding the chain of title in a foreclosure proceeding. In this case ALL of those documents are present, as they are in millions of other foreclosure proceedings. Judges who have scrutinized these documents have universally arrived at the conclusion that the documents invariably suggest fabrication, forgery, unauthorized signatures, breaks in the chain of title, and frequently all of the above.

In this case, as in all cases where I have been an observer, no person or witness has been willing to testify that they know where these documents came from, when they were created, by whom they were created, or that they know the individuals who executed said documents. In my opinion, this corroborates my conclusion that no such documentation exists in nearly all cases. And further court corroborates my conclusion that any such documentation offered in support of a foreclosure was prepared after the declaration of the fault, after the notice of default, and after the notice of sale.


36 Responses

  1. Wednesday 14 July 2010


    I have not had to pursue PSA in pleadings, but from what you say, I would definitely be objecting to the judge denying your due process right to be heard in a meaningful way. The PSA agreement will show limitations on what the lender can do with regards to your loan.

    Because you did not object at the time the judge denied the PSA, I would add an objection in the pleading to get it in the record, for appeal. You have to state why you object so the judge and appellae court cannot ignore it. Judicial bias is certainly a basis, as is denail of due process, a biggie.

    It is a show of bias in favor of the plaintiff and prejudice against you as the judge precludes you from defending yourself. Do not worry about provoking the judge. He/she is not in your corner, and you would be demonstrating a legitimate challenge that may even gain you a bit of reluctant respect. Even if not, you need to protect your interests, and the judge has put you on notice that he/she is an adversary, in addition to the plaintiff.

    As I think about it, I might even argue that you have a contract with the lender, and the lender, or one claiming to be the holder with rights to foreclose, cannot be using your contract as a basis for engaging in other contracts without your knowledge and consent.

    Do not let them get away with anything, or you will be left with nothing.

  2. Dave Krieger,
    Thank you in advance … Can you teach me how to do a “background” on my Judge and opposing counsel? Please contact me at

  3. Neil,

    Being in that courtroom, watching all that go down … and not necessarily what we feel is on the side of truth but more so on the side of justice … is certainly in line with the fact that the Federal Reserve Transparency Act was defeated by the very people that are keeping the powerful banking interests right where they are and keeping the hands of the truth-seekers completely tied behind our backs. This is why I’ve been advocating that it’s necessary to background ALL of the judges in the United States that could hear any kind of foreclosure case.

    If MERS is on their own personal Deed of Trust, they are are much a party to vet out the truth about what MERS’ real role in all of this is as we are. Applying those standards, with what MERS itself professes to be far-reaching tentacles into our recordation system, most judges would be ordered by the lender’s attorneys to recuse themselves when confronted by this conflict of interest in open court.

    Further, if you have a scenario that is exposed as to the likes of the involvement with banks (i.e. stocks, partnerships, etc.) to the likes of Hon. Meena Sasser in Florida, more motions to disqualify would have to be applied in order to constitute fairness in the justice system, otherwise, it allows judges to turn a blind eye (kind of ironic that lady justice wears a blindfold over both eyes) to the truth in the name of either expediency or old school reasoning.

    We need to start telling these people that HAMP modifications do not work. These are merely a time-wasting ploy to further drive the borrower into a condition of economic duress and place them further into default where foreclosure is then incentivized. Then we get to watch … every single time … that AFTER a default is noticed, a string of documents magically appears at the local county courthouse, draped in fraud, with signatures of “certifying officers” or “authorized agents” or “assistant secretaries” transferring (assigning) without recourse (or attempting to do such) what they believe to be the note AND deed to a third-party, so the original “trust” on Wall Street can avoid capital gains due to a write-down, devoid of any FASB standards.

    As long as these folks are not individually sought out and prosecuted (which I am advocating) this madness will continue. If there are any prosecutorial arms out there reaching into this blog, one certainly does not need to go way out on a budget limb investigating the 3 or 4 parties who all signed each one of these assignments, and asking themselves the simple question, “Which color prison jumpsuit do you think they might like?” Until the local authorities take this seriously, the entire system of justice is in jeopardy. Again, when the justice system fails to vet out fraud and seek the truth, the sacrifices that follow it in the course of history are inevitable.

  4. edgetraderplus,

    The law is largely interpretative in all courts. Conflicts is why we have the US. Supreme Court – as final decider.

    Sounds like your loan was not securitized. Meaning it was directly sold to a third party. In this case, securitization would have no bearing on your case. I do not recall all comments here – and where they come from. But, if no one has mentioned a Trust – and the foreclosure was not done under the name of a Trustee to a Trust – you really do not have to know about securitization.

    You need to know who really owns your loan. You need REAL discovery. Sounds like you are handling this exactly the way you should.

  5. Saturday 10 July 2010


    I did stipulate my post was not directed at you, but merely using some of the information to add a few points that one may expect to encounter.

    Equity is not bound to follow law, strictly. How else do different results come out from the same/similar issue in various courts? Azize was a win against MERS. A few other courts went opposite in their decision under similar circumstances, finding that MERS could be the plaintiff in foreclosure. Unlike a court of law, a court of equity is interpretive and can rule however it wants. I do not make this stuff up.

    I am not “arguing” with any premise/information you put forth, nor am I disagreeing. I look forward to what you contribute here. If I am having difficulty digesting a lot of this securitazation process, so are others, so I try to get a fifth grader’s explanation, as it were, which is not to diminish the complexity of the topic.

    Then again, maybe I am the only one who does not comprehend the securitization process. On a different thread, I did ask you how to find out/locate a PSA, which you said was easy. Not for me. How would I even know if there were one if no mention has ever been made, and no trust is involved in my own case?

    Accredited Home Lenders, an originator, to be sure, and same filed for BK, May 2009, is the plaintiff in my
    now 3 and 1/2 year old case. My fighting ability that has prolonged this case has uncovered yet ANOTHER entity making a claim that it is the creditor for the same loan that has already been subject to a judgment against me, exposing me to double jeopardy.

    Further, the attorney handling the Accredited BK tells me that its client has had no interest whatsoever in my case since AHL sold off all of its intererest over two years ago, and she said they are not even aware my case exists. My property was sold at auction in February, with AHL being the only bidder, and a credit bidder, at that. Yet, she confirms that AHL did NOT bid on my property, nor did it PAY for it, as required.

    It will be interesting to see how the judge handles this newly discovered information as I seek to have the judgment voided. It is apparent that the foreclosuremill
    “law firm” handling this case is doing so fraudulently, even the AHL BK court is unaware of the case, yet the burden of proof is totally on me. It is apparent to me that the judge is favoring the plaintiff. I can assure you that contract law has already been disregarded, and I know how and when to object.

    If a PSA will help, I renew my request as to how to find out about it, or locate it, and I know Accredited is NOT the creditor, but cannot attack it that way. So I keep to the basics, and I include law, but in equity, the judge is not so restrained.

    I do not need anyone to help me fight my case, but I am always open to any information that will help.

    Cheers to you, and know I am not in opposition.



  7. edgetraderplus,

    I am not attorney – do not direct anyone as to the law – only gives ideas as to securitization (for which I have some background). I stand by my premise that courts have not caught up to the flaws of securitization that caused the biggest financial crisis in our country since the 1930s. And, it will take a long time for the courts to catch up. This is because securitization was intended to be complicated. However, the law is not stagnant – it keeps evolving – and the courts will gradually incorporate the past decade – and it’s fallout – into their decisions.

    What dots are you trying to connect? Securitization left a path of unconnected dots.

    Courts of Equity involve many issues – including probate, and as we know – foreclosures, and other issues. These issues are all subject to the law. And many appeals are won or lost on the finer points of the law. Again, the law evolves. If what you are saying is true, then a judge could simply instill his personal opinions for the law. The law regarding mortgages and foreclosures are clearly evolving – for example – the new TILA law has only been tested in a couple of courts – with decisions likely coming down shorty. This law demands identification of the creditor – and a creditor is not a trustee to a dismantled Trust. These will be very important decisions and probably, eventually, put a new face on foreclosure issues across the country.

    In the 1970s – (and the 80s and 90s for that matter) – is that you knew your creditor. And, if you were foreclosed upon – at least you knew the party who was foreclosing. As stated in the above post, that party also had the documents to prove it. That is not the case today. And, to try to say this past decade has the same principles of the past decades – regarding foreclosures and incorporation of the law – is just wrong. Past law was not written to anticipate the “Panic of 2007.” In fact, many laws were changed which helped promote the mortgage fraud. These past laws are now a subject of financial reform – and will also document – a change in law. No longer will anyone be granted the same type of mortgage you were likely given. Judges must remain current.

    Further, dismantling of QSPEs – and consolidation onto bank’s balance sheet – demonstrates the falsity of foreclosure assignments to a Trust that is now gone. Thus, the court must also recognize changes in accounting and understand balance sheets.

    If you do not understand securization, as you admit, how would you ever recognize whether a argument is cogent or not? You have to understand what happened – in order to apply to the law – and challenge the law. You have to know what happened when you signed that mortgage loan agreement – what happened before – what happened after – and what will happen now. And, the fight is not easy – but do not let them make a foreclosure easy. Be prepared.

    The derivative security investors are ahead of us – they are coming out of the woodwork to sue the banks for fraud.

    Catch up – read the financial journals – read the PSAs and prospectus. It is very important that you do understand everything about what happened to your mortgage loan.

    I understand that is is difficult – and an attorney once told me it was extremely draining to read this stuff. But, that attorney now knows how important it is.

    We will encounter difficult judges like the one Neil encountered – but these judges will also learn by experts like Neil. They will remember – and they too will evolve.

    We will win this – but it will be a slow process – and we will lose many along the way. And, that is why I also emphasize to group together – and speak a whole.

  8. Saturday 10 July 2010


    A few quotes from your post from the POV of one who has the capability of attacking the oposition in court like a pitbull, and respond on their own level, sometimes even better. I can wrote a pleading as well as most lawyers. Not bragging, just acknowledging a reasonable effort that exceeds most “self-represented.”

    “This is a risk many of us may encounter in court – and judges have much leeway to direct proceedings in whatever way they see fit -right or wrong. Have to keep finding a way to get legally get past this – challenge them. ”

    Foreclosures take place in courts of equity. In equity courts, judges can decide whatever the hell they want!
    It does not matter if a judge’s decision is a right or a wrong one, it will stand. THAT is how courts of equity function. It is not about any judge being caught in a 1970’s time warp. And no one can appeal a decision soely on the basis that it can be proven to be a wrong decision!

    Understand this, everyone…anyone going to court expecting fairness is not likely to see it. This is not to say that it does not happen, for there are many, scratch that, a few cases being posted here that show some judges care.

    After spening 5 hours at the law library, today, doing research, anyone who uses the LaSalle Bank v Ramy
    case out of NY will waste their time. The motion in the case is listed as being denied in searchable records. End of story.

    In the Azize case in Florida, while it ruled against MERS, there is another case, in fact a few, that have the exact opposite ruling and acknowledge the ruling
    is in opposition to Azize, so be aware that some of these case cites are not the panacea many may think.

    In five hours, those were the only two cases I could get
    to for results. I had planned to research many others. The rest of the time was spent in finding cases that relate to Illinois law. All I can say is, it is an uphill battle.

    “This is why I have emphasized FASB 166 and 167 and the TILA Amendment that mandates identification of the creditor (Judge HOLOWELL – ignores this in the video The A MAN posts).”

    That was in my notes of “to do,” but did not get to it. It
    was interesting enough to me when I first read about it, and I need to look into it further. I believe it is federal,
    and I know, at least in Illinois, federal decisions are not always binding on individual states. Jurisdictional argument is one of them.

    “But, there is more. Securitization is extremely complicated – way beyond the comprehension of judges such as Judge Holowell.”

    It is even beyond my comprehension, [which does not say much, so consider the source], and quite frankly, I have yet to see a cogent argement made for it that would carry weight in a courtroom environment, from my limited POV. Jan van Eck alleded to it on a different post, and I asked for more, but nothing has been forthcoming, not that it is his obligation to respond.

    “In effect, Mezzanine tranches are “locked out…..”

    “Because default were occurring at high levels …”

    “Now, this has been covered many times by Neil as to the fact that the loans have already been paid…:”

    Covered so many times in so many posts by so many people. So far, I do not see any connecting of the dots,
    just more “information” being piled on but no practical way to get any court to move on it…certainly not by one who is defending him/herself.

    Aside: None of this is directed at ANONYMOUS. I am simply responding from an idiot’s POV that seeks to make practical application of particular information presented on this site, in court.

    “To everyone – keep the action alive – no matter what way you can. Things WILL change – TIME is your friend. And, hopefully, judges who are still living in 1970 – will acknowledge their limits.”

    Cheers to that!

  9. One more thing – SOMEBODY get this case to the press.

  10. Choose this post by Neil – to comment – because, to date, it is the most disturbing to me.

    What I take away from Neil’s recitation of hearing is that although judges may be willing to question ” fabrication, forgery, unauthorized signatures, breaks in the chain of title, and frequently all of the above” – this judge was not willing to question anything.

    This is a risk many of us may encounter in court – and judges have much leeway to direct proceedings in whatever way they see fit -right or wrong. Have to keep finding a way to get legally get past this – challenge them. .

    As Neil points out, these documents were are likely created long after the Trust was ever established – quote from Neil – “no person or witness has been willing to testify that they know where these documents came from, when they were created, by whom they were created, or that they know the individuals who executed said documents.”

    Still remains apparent to me that the Trust – for which these post-dated fabricated documents support – is long gone. And, that is the crux of the problem is to prove this in court.

    This is why I have emphasized FASB 166 and 167 and the TILA Amendment that mandates identification of the creditor (Judge HOLOWELL – ignores this in the video The A MAN posts).

    But, there is more. Securitization is extremely complicated – way beyond the comprehension of judges such as Judge Holowell. And, although there are numerous journal articles – most are unfocused as to the borrower – and fail to adequately describe the mechanisms of securitization in layman’s terms. There is something in securitization called “cumulative loss trigger event” or “delinquency event” – and “lock out period.” It is very technical.

    In effect, Mezzanine tranches are “locked out” from principal return for a certain number of years – which could be as long as ten years (if this is the case – these mezzanine tranches were locked out – long before their time – because the market collapsed – the TRIGGER). There are Trigger events which are tapped when cumulative losses on mortgages are higher than certain levels – and a “delinquency event” occurs when the rate of delinquency over a three-month period is above a certain level. Under these conditions – M subordinate tranches are not paid – as principal payments are sequential – to senior tranches. These trigger events were the 2007 crisis – it happened.

    Because default were occurring at high levels – not only did the trigger events occur – but, as a result, swap payments were executed. Thus, senior covered tranches were paid – and nothing remained for M tranches (who were already getting nothing because they were locked out).

    Now, this has been covered many times by Neil as to the fact that the loans have already been paid. But, it has not been covered that the Trusts – have been dissolved – as no payments are owed to any tranche (certificate) holders or derivative (synthetic) security holders. Thus, how can any fabricated documents be formalized to a TRUST after dissolution of the TRUST? How can a trustee represent a dissolved Trust as the creditor? Not only are these documents fabricated – but they are fabricated documents to a Trust that no longer functions. And, for which the Trustee duties have been terminated.

    There are no currently no distributions to any certificate holder, derived security holders, or any related cohort – even for CURRENTLY PAYING mortgagors. Their payments are not being directed to the original designated trust – why? – because trigger events caused it’s demise.

    One of the best explanations of what happened is found at: – “Panic of 2007” – and particularly from about page 20 on – ignore complex formulas.

    Also see “Credit Ratings and the Securitization of Subprime Mortgages” – by John Hull – May 2010.
    Look carefully at the figures depicted on page 18 to 20. It is clear from these depictions that the certificate holders (security underwriters) used the certificates to formulate “triple A” – CDOs – which were then passed onto the synthetic security investor victims. It is also clear from this article that the pass-throughs – original or derived CDO were only for receivable pass-through. There are no more receivables – not only for defaults – but not even for the currently paying victims. The receivables – are gone, gone, gone -with the wind.

    Bottom line – your life is left in the hands of the likes of a judges who still live in 1970? and have no concept of current securitization- and it’s fallacies? Is this why objection were overruled?? Their goal was to keep it simple – well it ain’t simple.

    Fight back – appeal – and do everything you can to show – the TRUST IS GONE. – and there can be no fabricated documents to a Trust that no longer functions. Go as far as you can – these judges are a far cry from the legal academic.

    To everyone – keep the action alive – no matter what way you can. Things WILL change – TIME is your friend. And, hopefully, judges who are still living in 1970 – will acknowledge their limits.

    Special to Raja and The A Man – always love your “God Bless.”




  12. Neil – how does the homeowner even get the PSA entered into evidence. In the last 10 cases I’ve been involved in with homeowners the Judges have ruled that the homeowner is not a party to the PSA and therefore can not use it as evidence that the Note does not comply with the PSA as far as the required intervening endorsements (generally found in Sect/Article 2 of the PSA). The Judges are comparing this to contract law and that the homeowner is not a party to the contract, only the certificate holder and the seller of the Note. The homeowner is not a party to the PSA and therefore can not use it as evidence.

    Please advise.


  13. The A Man

    Watched the video – Judge Hollowell talks about the “creditor” – not once does she define creditor – or advise that you have a right to know who your CURRENT creditor is!!! This is critical in bankruptcy issues. She fails – in my book.









    Thanks and Be Safe.


    The case you just cited is pretty horrific. I am very aware that North Carolina has an extremely strict UPL law. IMHO, a Clerk deciding legal issues would be UPL. This case makes no sense whatso ever.

  18. Yes Raja!!

    Another problem is this – we are bringing up numerous issues that should really be investigated and challenged by the Department of Justice – including state DOJ. But, they have done nothing. And, what happened to all those supposed FBI investigations?

    The government has rubber stamped the foreclosures – by doing nothing to help the people. The judges know they are well-protected and that the media, Congress, and the government – are on their side.

    And, Ian is right too as to judges – “well, I have already railroaded through about 5000 foreclosures like this one, can’t change course now due to this person who dares to show up and insist that I’m dead wrong- how would I look then?)”

    We are not just battling individual foreclosures – we are doing what the DOJ has failed to do – investigate – and what the government has failed to do – modify with principal reduction. This is a tall order.

    And, look at excerpt from case below – since when does a CLERK OF THE COURT decide initial issue of a valid debt?????


    No. 4:09-CV-181-D


    2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67176

    July 7, 2010, Decided
    July 7, 2010, Filed
    Under North Carolina law, a court presiding over a foreclosure proceeding must decide whether the foreclosing party is the holder of the debt. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 45-21.16. Specifically, at the outset of a foreclosure proceeding, before the clerk of court authorizes the “mortgagee or trustee to proceed under the instrument,” the clerk of court must find, inter alia, the existence of (1) a “valid debt of which the party seeking to foreclose is the holder,” and (2) a “right to foreclose under the instrument.” Id. Here, the Hyde County Clerk of Court considered and decided these issues in Deutsche’s favor. See Gilbert, No. 09-CVS-70, at P 2 (Hyde Co. Super. Ct. Oct. [*10] 9, 2009).
    Issues that “the clerk of court decides at a foreclosure hearing as to the validity of the debt and the trustee’s right to foreclose are subject to res judicata and cannot be relitigated.” Merrill Lynch Bus. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Cobb, No. 5:07-CV-129-D, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109010, 2008 WL 6155804, at *3 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 18, 2008) (unpublished) (interpreting North Carolina law); Phil Mech. Constr. Co. v. Haywood, 72 N.C. App. 318, 322, 325 S.E.2d 1, 3 (1985). Rather, if dissatisfied with the clerk’s determination, a party must appeal to the Superior Court within ten days. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 45-21.16(d); Phil Mech. Constr. Co., 72 N.C. App. at 322, 325 S.E.2d at 3. In this case, the clerk’s judgment that Deutsche may enforce the note has been affirmed. See Gilbert, No. 09-CVS-70 (Hyde Co. Super. Ct. Oct. 9, 2009) (order granting preliminary injunction and recognizing that Deutsche is the proper foreclosing party). Accordingly, res judicata bars plaintiffs from relitigating whether Deutsche has authority to enforce the note. See, e.g., Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. Beverley, 404 F.3d 243, 248 (4th Cir. 2005) (describing requirements needed to establish res judicata); Resolute Ins. Co. v. State of North Carolina, 397 F.2d 586, 589 (4th Cir. 1968) [*11] (“This case is a thinly veiled attempt to thwart the process of dispensing justice by relitigating matters which have been decided in a court of competent jurisdiction.”).

  19. If Any judge does this, need to file Judicial complaint. It happened with me in 2008 and I filed Judicial complaints against those two judges. In love and War every thing is right.
    We are at war with these thieves. Remember, “Honor lost in battle field is only restored in the battle field”. Never loose your heart, the days of these thieves have been numbered.

    Please keep helping each other.

  20. Friday 9 July 2010.

    Excuse my siging off in the middle of the post. I wnet back to add a comment, and then signed off, forgetting where I was in the post.

  21. Friday 9 July 2010

    This is not the first time to repeat what I have been saying about those in court for foreclosure. There are two opponents, and the judge is one of them…the first, in fact, and this is a case, above, that amply makes the point.

    Many judges are predisposed to be against one in foreclosure on the simple premise that the “deadbeat” has not paid the mortgage as agreed.
    Look what this judge invoked…the “doctrine of a colorable claim.” In my opinion, the plaintiff never made this argument, so it is an example of judicail bais in favor of the plaintiff and prejudice against the defendant. This is an example of when to make an objection for the appellate process.

    “Objection? The court is showing bias for the plaintiff and prejudice against defendant. The court is advocating for the plaintiff, making an argument on its behalf that the plaintiff never brought up.!

    This is how to make an objection. Object, immediately or you waive the opportunity, and then state why. If you do not justify the objection, the court and the appellate court can, and will ignore it.

    It ain’t easy, but it can be done. It takes focus, diligence, and unwaivering effort. Hey…it’s your home!


    If Mr Gartman, one who not only “gets it” but is behind all of it in exposing the fraud, cannot make an impact in court, the “arguement” – the details of the securitization process – is not the easist one to make.

    I continue to maintain it is easier to go after standing, and trespass unwanted exhorts a similar theme via
    a breach of the mortgage/DOT terms. THAT is an issue anyone, even a judge, can understand.

    Quoting tresspass unwanted:

    “Strange thing about court cases. If you don’t bring it up, you can’t bring it up later. If you challenge things as fraud, you may be able to ‘introduce’ the docs that support your claim later. But if it’s not mentioned and everything is accepted in the first hearing, then that’s what you are left with dealing with. ”

    It may not be “strange” to her, but for anyone who may not get her drift, any issue not brought up at the first opportunity, particuarly in the initial response, then any opposition to the “issue” is waived for forever. This is also an example of how not knowing procedures can be costly for whomever defends oneself.

    Further, be v carefulwhen mentioning fraud. Illinois is a fact pleading state. If one mentions “fraud,” it has to be pled specifically, and that entails five elements that must be a part of the “fraud” one may bring up. Otherwise, the court, and the appellate court will ignore.

    Always remember, when going to court, every step you take should be designed for continuing your case at the appellate level. For that, you have to know what the appellate court will review…errors made by the court to which you made an immediate objection, and also judicial “abuse of discretion.” The latter can be harder to prove, but it is an opportunity.

  22. Neil- as an avid fan of all you have done here at Livinglies, I feel horrible that you were apparently disregarded as an expert witness at the aforementioned hearing. This would be a perfect case of a defendant doing everything right, and the outcome being entirely wrong. The anguish is evident in your commentary. And then again, what is the judge’s agenda? (” well, I have already railroaded through about 5000 foreclosures like this one, can’t change course now due to this person who dares to show up and insist that I’m dead wrong- how would I look then?)
    Do you not think that the best avenue of attack would be through the flagrant violations of the REMIC and REIT trusts IRS statutes? The US Treasury could use about 20 trillion in disgorged profits and fees, and another 60 trillion in treble damages, don’t you think? I really don’t want my kids to be paying for the financial fraud for the rest of eternity, but it looks like they will unless we all find some A to B path to follow. Right now we are drowning in information, with no clear, concise, effectinve,efficient,results-oriented modue operandi to combat this fraud. We need one, and the IRS might be the way to go. You almost need a “dissolved trust” depart,ment, so we can alert the IRS to go after the dirtbags. Let’s have an open dialog on this. I can maybe help. Regards and thanks for the hard work. Ian

  23. The “Judge Hollowell” that Neil is apparently referring to is possibly Judge Eileen Hollowell of Arizona. (US Bankruptcy Court, now of the US Bankruptcy Appellate panel).

    See other of Neil’s Posts herein regarding Judge Hollowell, in particular the case of GMAC in “In Re Barry Weisbrand”.


    Re: NJ Case – Bank-of-New-York-v-Michael Raftogainis

    See below – this was a case that involved wealthy real estate buyers in high value NJ shore homes. It did not involve a primary residence., and the case was not sent to Mediation as required in the state of New Jersey for foreclosures and even for contested foreclosures.

    Case was dismissed “without prejudice” – but, nevertheless, dismissed. It is a step in the right direction – and – Bank of New York’s – TRUSTEE – credibility is in question.

    And, where do the small folk stand???? Do they stand at all?? Do they get a first step???

    Appears that Foreclosure Does Not Apply to the Wealthy!!! Hey, this NJ home is worth far more than the mortgage. No mediation, no current foreclosure – and, yet, Neil is fighting like heck regarding document submission.

    What is blazes is going on here??????. Again, need a rally.

    With mortgage loans increasingly chopped up and repackaged into other investments, lenders must be able to demonstrate they still hold the underlying note before they can foreclose on a property, a Superior Court judge has ruled.In Atlantic City, Judge William C. Todd dismissed The Bank of New York’s attempt to foreclose on a Brigantine house, saying the bank had not adequately documented that it holds the mortgage after a complex trail of financial transactions. The ruling is not binding on other courts, but pulls New Jersey into a trend emerging in other states, what some observers have called a “borrower rebellion.”
    As a tide of foreclosures sweeps the nation, more American homeowners and businesses are asking courts to take a closer look at the sometimes obscure transactions that precede them. Some decisions have required banks to prove they are more than issuers or investors in securities derived from mortgages.
    In August, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that both a secondary lender and a national mortgage registration system used by many banks lacked standing in a foreclosure case.
    In October, a federal court in New York expunged a foreclosure on a home in White Plains, returning it to the borrowers after finding the plaintiff bank also lacked necessary documentation for its claim.
    “This ruling is definitely part of that trend, and it’s the first case in New Jersey,” said attorney Eric Garrabrant, who represented Roman Krywopsuk, a real-estate investor.
    Besides triggering a financial crisis and a taxpayer bailout, the increasingly exotic market in mortgage-related securities has become hard for the layperson to follow, said Karen DiPrima, spokeswoman for Garrabrant’s firm, Flaster/Greenberg PC.
    The new ruling “is ironic, because as the transactions get more complicated, we’ve seen people in foreclosure get confused while trying to find out who holds their mortgages, and now banks seem to be falling into the same little web.”
    Krywopusk and Michael Raftogianis bought the beachfront house in Brigantine in September 2004 as an investment, Garrabrant said. They took out a mortgage of almost $1.4 million from American Home Mortgage Acceptance Inc.

    At the time, “they were buying a number of properties in the area, but then the real estate market did what it did,” Garrabrant said. The two men were not alone in being unable to make payments.
    According to a report today by Lender Processing Services, 12.4 percent of mortgages nationwide were delinquent or in foreclosure through May, the last month for which data was available.
    New Jersey has been spared the worst of the calamity, which has particularly hit western and southern states. But in May, New Jersey crept into 10th place in foreclosure filings as listed by Realty Trac, the Irvine, Calif., firm that tracks the foreclosure market around the country.
    Like others coping with the financial meltdown, though, Krywopusk and Raftogianis were surprised by the foreclosure action.
    “They borrowed money from American Home Mortgage, and then The Bank of New York comes along and forecloses,” Garrabrant said. “People have a right to question.”
    In his ruling, Todd noted the mortgage was the first stop in a lengthy series of transactions. Unbeknownst to Krywopusk and Raftogianis, after they closed on the property, their loan note kept moving.
    The lender elected to out the transaction into the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, the judge said. Member lenders across the country use MERS, a private corporation, to transfer and track ownership and servicing rights in mortgage loans, and can designate it as the mortgagee of record.
    For the banks, this has several advantages, according to the judge. Using MERS, they can transfer their interests in loans without publicly recording the action or incurring fees. Many of these secretive registrations also give MERS the right to assign mortgages for foreclosure.
    But the judge also saw a weakness, because the system “can make it difficult for mortgagors and others to identify the individual or entity which actually controls the debt at any specific time.”
    According to the ruling, the mortgage defined AHMA as the lender, and referred to MERS as “a separate corporation that is acting solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns.” AHMA transferred its interest to an investment partnership, American Home Mortgage Securities LLC.
    Next, AHM Securities established a trust with Wilmington Trust and The Bank of New York. The latter served as “trustee on behalf of the holders of the notes and the insurer,” that is, those who invested in the securitized mortgages. In turn, the trust former a three-party servicing agreement, with AHM Servicing and The Bank of New York.
    Todd described the documents as “typical” of mortgage loan securitizations, “lengthy, complex and difficult to understand.” An attachment that simply described terms used in the indenture ran to 55 pages, the judge wrote.
    But what might be incomprehensible to the average person should have been clear to the financiers, according to Todd.
    “It is apparent that the parties to the securitization did understand that some of the loans being securitized were evidenced by negotiable notes,” the judge said. “Several provisions deal with the handling of notes in very specific terms.”
    When it filed for foreclosure in February 2009, The Bank of New York reported that it was already the owner of the loan note and mortgage, without mentioning any securitizations, Todd said. Krywopusk filed an answer and counterclaim three months later.
    But in February, MERS said that as nominee for American Home Mortgage Acceptance, it had assigned and transferred the mortgage to the bank.
    While that may have been “intended” to transfer the debt, Todd wrote, “it is now apparent that is not what occurred.”
    The Bank of New York needed to show that it was not merely the trustee for investors, but actually held possession of the mortgage note. But that got more difficult as the court asked for documentation.
    A copy of the endorsement provided to the court, intended to show the note had been transferred to the bank, was blank, the judge wrote.
    The bank then submitted a certification from AHM service. But records showing three separate servicing agreements as part of the security sales, without a loan schedule showing whether the Brigantine mortgage had been part of those sales, the judge said.
    In April, the bank for the first time said it had note, Todd said. Instead, it presented another certification, this one from one of its own vice presidents with what he described as a “redacted” loan schedule. It was very heavily redacted, the judge noted dryly.
    The only entry still visible “appears to list the loan at issue here,” Todd said. The context was unclear, and there was no explanation for how and when the bank had found the schedule, the judge said.
    Still missing, the judge wrote, were “any meaningful proofs as to the transfer or negotiation of the note” or when that occurred.
    The dismissal is almost certainly not the end of the case. The Bank of New York did not respond to a request for comment. But Garrabrant acknowledged he would be “surprised” if the bank does not re-file a foreclosure action with some documentation. Even so, he said, this outcome is not a foregone conclusion.
    In the meantime, that beachfront house belongs to Krywopusk and Raftogianis, Garrabrant said, “and it’s for sale.”
    Joe Tyrrell may be reached at


  25. Gwen Caranchini,

    You can raise anything you want. And make sure you raise it initially. I just posted, and it seems they are attempting to deceive you. If you don’t raise it in your first hearing, you can’t raise it later.
    Let a court block you or overrule you or dismiss you, but do not take the advice of anyone else. Raise all the objections and claims you can in your initial appearance. Period. Quiet Title is supposed to make the real party of interest appear or forever abandon their claim, is my basic understanding, which is not worth anything since I know nothing and don’t know legal things so I can’t make legal arguments to support what I just said.

    If there is a sale, and there was no objection as to that party being the party who could do the sale, and you don’t produce your claims in your TRO, then it will be on you, to deal with ‘the devil’ (so to speak) and listen to him again and get fooled again.

    Listen to your heart. It’s beating very fast. There is more than one solution to a problem. The fact you are raising this question is your ‘inner voice’ telling you not to listen to the ‘outside’ because ‘inside’ you want to prevail. So follow what ‘feels’ right.

    You seem to feel good in Federal court, so ‘feel’ good about the advice your ‘inner spirit’ is giving you. The advice that makes you question the ‘non-truths’ you are hearing from others.

    Squeeze in your protections. We have awakened, and these cases are getting harder and harder for them to win, if the sale was so easy, they’d have done it by now. Something about the path you are taking is making them take more time to ‘build’ their faulty case up. Stay the course, and ‘feel’ it in your heart. Don’t let them rile you up and move you from the language of Love. The heart will reveal what you should say and do and accept and believe.

    Light and Love,

  26. Is there anybody out there who has a mortgage with Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, who took over Centex Home Equity?
    There is a multi million dollar lawsuit filed against them from nearly two dozen home loan borrowers for unfair business practices and negligence case. The complaint alleges that Centex Home Equity, LLC was not properly licensed to offer mortgages in the State of California and that it was selling securities without a license before being taken over by Nationstar, which in turn, caused these homeowners to enter into bad loans which resulted in destroyed credit histories, foreclosures and other damages.
    I need a lawyer who gets it and is willing to start a lawsuit in Florida. Were they even licensed to do loans in Florida?

    If anyone else can offer any help please respond.


  27. I know nothing and if I think I know something, I know nothing. I also do not give legal advice because I don’t know legal things.

    I watch Judge Judy. I like watching her show. The basic premise is always, “was there a contract” or “was there a trespass” Then if there was a contract, she determines who breached the contract, or if there was a trespass, who’s the injured party if someone trespasses against another and causes unexpected damage or injury.

    Neil, I read what you quoted above. You said a whole lot about being there, who was speaking and all these documents produced, but for the life of me,all I can determine is there was a contract, because who would go through such trouble to find out when someone viewed documents and whether they were aware of a case from beginning to end, or how they came about to having access to other documents in the course of doing business.

    What I can’t tell is, if there was a contract, was it breached?
    I feel you left me hanging on this one. I can’t tell what the end result was from all of this information.

    If anyone can tell me what Neil is trying to say, please disclose.
    Original lender still owns regardless of what happened behind the scenes. I could buy that if the judge is buying that. But about that contract, I still say all of them are flawed. What is flawed about the contract? Seems this case was about what is flawed about the securitization process. If I open a business and I mess up on the back end, and ruin my business, isn’t that my business. If you have a trust agreement with me and I mess it up, and it’s documented in the trust what you can and can’t do, then wouldn’t a basic argument over that document be sufficient?

    I ask this because…it seems to me…and this is an assumption…that the basis for their claim to the home is that document…..yet…it seems…others basis for not wanting to leave the home is how they managed payments and appraisals, and notes.

    If I were a judge, I would go to the basis which is that document, and see if the party bringing the action has a claim to the home, based on having a record of that Deed on file, and having some servicing agreement for payments, and was the party calling a default and calling a sale. Anything outside of that, left unchallenged cannot be challenged on appeal.

    Strange thing about court cases. If you don’t bring it up, you can’t bring it up later. If you challenge things as fraud, you may be able to ‘introduce’ the docs that support your claim later. But if it’s not mentioned and everything is accepted in the first hearing, then that’s what you are left with dealing with. From this case, it seems one side has established themself with a lot of evidence. Me, I’d enter my Deed of Trust as evidence, so later on I can refer to something in it, if my eyes opened up to some sort of ‘breach’.

    In my case, I could care less what that beneficiary did when I handed them that note, my only complaint is they did not stick around to get paid, and now sharks are circling for a piece of the action. My basic claim is they accepted the ‘risk’ of trying to establish a claim to a document I didn’t ‘create’ with them. And that would be the first thing I’d introduce to the court. ‘I don’t know who these people are!’ ‘I don’t understand why they are suing me.’

    It seems this case, the parties know each other, and if that’s the case, I think all the papers in the world won’t change that fact, so what did one party do wrong that the other party could claim? I feel I either missed something or my brain doesn’t want to wrap around the fact that I know the direction the judge will take because of how I’m asking the questions regarding what I’ve learned thus far from the post.

    In my situation, if you remove all the usury (amortization of interest for 30 years), my Lender of Record was paid in full plus some usury, over the 10 years I’d done business with them. Would that matter? Probably not, if my Lender was taking me to court, but some other entity who bought them out? I’m sure it would help in declaring that’s why the Lender abandoned their claim and sold because they were already paid in full. Purchasing the debt from the original lender, leaves the new party as an ‘unsecured creditor’ or a ‘third party debt collector’. (of course I’m speaking from a non-MERS perspective), the one above seems to be defending against MERS or something since ‘investors’ seems to be an understood element of this case.

    Light and Love

  28. I have an interesting situation. I am in mo and am te debtor. My loan mod with Wilshire had been successfully fulfiled and then the note was allegedly sold or transferred to BAC. They informed me that they would start the process over. I filed suit alleging among other things a quiet title action, lender liability issiues, violation of hamp. No foreclosure had been set. the defendants were BOA, BAS Servincing, MERS, MLMI 2006he-5 and john does 1-000. boa and their servicing company enter an appearance deying all. their lawyer at bryan cave tells me that boa told her to enter an appearance for mers as well. mlmi 2006-he-5 can’t be found–no 10k’s filed for four years, no address that is good and no good address for the trustee or registerd agent. bryan cave says they don’t know where it is although their client is collecting money allegedly for them. anyway, after answering they also file a motion to dismiss claiming essentially that I cannot file this suit in state court becaue no sale or forecloure has been sought. they also give me an email saying they do not intend to foreclose. a little too quickly i might add. i then get a letter saying they are going to forecose and I call the lawyers who promptly tell me no they are not going to do so and send anothr email so stating. i then go to state court to sek a tro because i smell a rat. they refuse to return my calls to set a time. the court calls and says the case is being removd to fed ct. they then send me removal papers claiming as te basis for removal diversity juris based upon amt in controversy NOW known to be in excess of 75,000 because a demand letter THEIR ATTORNEYS SAW FOR TH FIRST TIME ESTABLISHES AN AMT IN EXCESS OF 75,000. no matter that the quiet title action was on a note for 300,000 attahed to the pleadingts. by the way the demand letter was sent to and received (by signed certified mail) before the answer of the defendants but that does not stop this rather bizarre claim for diversity.

    meanwhile the defendants file a motion to dismiss. they now claim that i have no right to seek a quiet title action or make any claims on this loan until they set the house for salw- in mo we are a nonjudicial state so i have 21 days from notice to then do something in a court and file affirmative defenses by a separate lawsuit. defendants claim until they file that or set for sale the house i have no right of any kind to make any claims whatsoever on the title. this is the single most bizarre thing i have ever heard. they claim therefore, no subject matter juris in the lawsuit filed and which they now seek to remove to fedearl ct. (I have objected to the removal claiming the grounds are bogus and merely meant to go to a more friendly juris for them). the objection is pending. meanwhile I filed a separate tro action in state court as the tro which was part of the case now in the removal process cannot be ruled by the state court (as the case is in the process of removal) or in the federal court because they have not decided whether the removal is proper. The new tro action is set for hearing on next tuesday. Again, the defendants claim no subject matter juris in the court in mo to hear any tro or any matter of any kind on this property because no foreclosure has been set for sale. Of course this is all a bunch of hoey and is meant to force me into a corner and also avoid the extensive discovery which was due this week. this discovery picked up on the numerous issues raised in this blog by request for prduction and admission and inter. of course they don’t have to answer athing and the mo fed court is more restrictive than the state court on discovery. the case in fed ct has been immedately set to Judge Maughmer for settlement but the defendants refuse to respond to my settlement offer proffered to the defendants before the attorneys even entered an appearance.

    I cannot believe that any court will say in mo that you cannot raise a quiet title action, issues on the manner in which the loan was handled, violations of state law for consumer issues, fraud unless and until a sale is put in place but apparently that is the bizarre position of the defendants. lastly all of a sudden boa’s lawyer has informed me that MERS is now going to have separate counsel. no such counsel has entered an appearance. boa’s lawyers also claim that they now represent the trustee for the trust (citibank) but not the trust itself MLMI2006-he-5. All of this smacks of collusion and conspiracy and merely trying to push me in a corner. I have 30 years litigating in the federal system in high end litigation so i can hold my own i believe but if anyone has any thoughts let me know.

    has anyone seen this argumet that you can’t raise quiet title or lender liability until after a sale is set????

  29. Just to clarify one thing in my previous post. The “group of investors” is the certificate holders to the trust. Certificates were purchased by the security underwriter(s). It was not just the originator’s receivables that Wall Street purchased – it was the whole loans.

    Securitization always describes sale of loans to the “Depositor” – who is very often a subsidiary of the security underwriter’s parent corporation (BanK). Where are these documents?

  30. Neil

    Very interesting. Believe you are right, it was the intention in securitization, to leave the loans as “legally owned by the originating lender.” If you look back at foreclosure actions pre-mortgage crisis fall-out, actions were often done in the name of the originator – even if the loan was securitized.

    Then, many of these originators went bankrupt – or were taken over by other entities (which is often not admitted). At that point, we started to see servicers initiate foreclosure actions, but courts rejected this. Next, came the Trustee for certificate holders for a Trust borrowers never about. And, entities were hired to insure that the process would be smooth flowing in courts – by whatever means it takes.

    What you describe goes on in many states and courts – if borrower can even get that far. Why the judicial hostility? Cannot figure this out completely – could be for many reasons. But, no judge like to admit they were wrong. If that judge has already let numerous foreclosures go through – and without question – the judge will be very tough on a challenger to make sure no one demonstrates their past practice – as wrong. Proving a court wrong – could mean opening up a pandora’s box of past bad decisions.

    Also, like your term “group of investors” – agree.

  31. Of course they wait until they sell the debt to assign the loans. Boy does Chase take forever doing it as well…I can’t tell you it took months to do their job after being paid as well.

    Once charge off occurs they don’t contact the investor the way they want you to believe. Anything they recoup that’s been taken as a write off is all for their pockets and no one elses…

    Maybe someone should just starting asking ???about my recusals and the judges that have been endorsing their fraudelent behavior…There’s several pieces their all involved in this…There’s just one big coverup on top of another…5 days or less and I can raise a whole lot of dough for us homeowners…But the judges and attys are to corrupt to do anything right!

  32. I wrote about something similar yesterday — I think you have to be prepared to appeal the lower court’s decision. I wonder if the judges really see these tactics as a stalling tactic or if they’re just cooperating with the good old boys network of protecting each other. It’s disgusting. I’m tired of the little guys losing.

  33. Gosh, I realize how unprepared I am for all this. I pray that I will understand all this when my time comes. I hope that the judge in my case will be patient with me. I have dyslexia and dyscalculia and it takes me longer to read material and even longer to digest it. I have visions of the judge scolding me for taking too long to respond.

    For now, I’m still stuck trying to understand what everyone else here already seems to understand.

  34. to Mark:

    Generally speaking, the answer to your question is “YES.”

    If you have grounds (a reason to sue upon), and you have Standing (which you do, as you are the party aggrieved), then you have a right to file a civil action for redress of those harms and losses. Under certain circumstances you can have the foreclosure voided. To ensure these rights, you might consider placing a Notice of Fraudulent Transfer upon the land title records . Also, you can challenge the “eviction” in evictions court or even “regular” circuit court by filing a “wrongful entry and detainer” action if they go change the locks on you. But if they show up with the sheriff I would not advise you to resist physically; you may end up getting hurt.

    DB is not going to “give you a mod” or give you anything at all; they are one of the worst players in the industry. You would have to file suit at this point to obtain any redress.

  35. In Marion County, Florida; Foreclosure project is now listed in clerks records, it seems in cases where MERS and New Century involved.

    Does anyone know why they would go this route? Clerk says they are bringing in Supreme Court judges to look at cases fot a certain judge, due to the back log, but I have seen them with other judges, not just one judge.

    Again, does anyone know what they could be attempting to do? Theses cases are mainly still in discovery and have opposing motions pending.


  36. AHMSI, the trustee, and Deutsche Bank foreclosed on me, and they are kicking me out soon. In the history of the loan, over the last 6 months, they snuck a foreclosure in on me, and it was a battle just finding out who my creditor was, and they did it 5 weeks sooner than they told me, while I was preparing a HAMP loan modification. I have requested all the mortage records, loan docs, and note, since april, and all the while AHMSI stone walled me. Deutsche Bank may honor a redemption, I guess six weeks to plead in AZ. Is there any possibility that they will give me a loan mod, or rescind the foreclosure. This thing was totally strong-armed, with a loan that transferred about 3 times in three years, and I even doubt their math, amongst about 10 other things your site has helped me to realize they legally had to respond to, but they did not. Any recourse for the homeless? Can a citizen file a wrongful foreclosure action in a court?

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: