62 MILLION HOMES ARE LEGALLY FORECLOSURE -PROOF

EDITOR’S NOTE: YES IT MEANS WHAT IT SAYS — WHICH IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR THREE YEARS. BUT JUST BECAUSE SOME JUDGES REALIZE THAT THIS IS THE ONLY CORRECT LEGAL INTERPRETATION DOESN’T MEAN ALL OF THEM WILL ABIDE BY THAT. QUITE THE REVERSE. MOST JUDGES REFUSE TO ACCEPT AND CAN’T WRAP THEIR BRAINS AROUND THE FACT THAT THE FINANCIAL  INDUSTRY THAT SET THE LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PERFECTING A SECURITY INTEREST IN RESIDENTIAL HOME MORTGAGES COULD HAVE SCREWED UP LIKE THIS.

THE ANSWER OF COURSE IS THAT THEY DIDN’T — WALL STREET DID IT. I KNOW FOR A FACT AND HAVE SEEN THE INTERNAL MEMORANDUM WRITTEN IN 2003-2006 THAT LAWYERS WHO WERE PREPARING THE SECURITIZATION DOCUMENTS KNEW AND INFORMED THEIR CLIENTS THAT THIS COULD NOT WORK.

THIS DOES NOT MEAN YOU GET A FREE HOUSE. BUT IT DOES MEAN THAT AT THE MOMENT ANY HOUSE IN WHICH MERS WAS INVOLVED DOES NOT HAVE A PERFECTED SECURITY INTEREST AS AN ENCUMBRANCE. AND THAT MEANS THAT ANY FORECLOSURE BASED UPON DOCUMENTS OR PRESUMPTIONS REGARDING MERS ARE VOID. AND THAT MEANS THAT IF YOU FALL INTO THIS CLASS OF PEOPLE — AND MOST PEOPLE DO — IT IS POSSIBLE AND EVEN PROBABLE THAT YOU COULD BE AWARDED QUIET TITLE ON A HOME THAT WAS FORECLOSED AND SOLD EVEN YEARS AGO.

BUT BEWARE: JUST BECAUSE THEY SCREWED UP THE PAPERWORK AND THEY DON’T HAVE THE REMEDY OF FORECLOSURE IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE DOESN’T MEAN THAT NOBODY LENT YOU MONEY NOR DOES IT MEAN THAT YOU DON’T OWE ANY MONEY NOR DOES IT MEAN THAT THEY COULD NOT CREATE AN EQUITABLE LIEN ON YOUR PROPERTY THAT COULD AMOUNT TO A MORTGAGE THAT COULD BE FORECLOSED. BUT THAT IS STRICTLY A JUDICIAL PROCESS EVEN IN SO-CALLED NON-JUDICIAL STATES.

WE ARE NOW CLOSING IN ON THE REALITY. THE INEVITABLE OUTCOME IS PRINCIPAL REDUCTION WHETHER THE BANKS LIKE IT OR NOT. EVEN IF THEIR LIEN WAS PERFECTED AND ENFORCEABLE THEY STILL CANNOT GET ANY MORE MONEY THAN THE HOUSE IS WORTH. WITHOUT THE ENCUMBRANCE, THEY ARE FORCED TO NEGOTIATE A WHOLE NEW PATH WITH ONLY THE PARTIES THAT ARE NOW LEFT HOLDING THE BAG ON THE LOSS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ORIGINAL LOAN ON YOUR PROPERTY, AFTER ADJUSTMENTS FOR PAYMENTS RECEIVED BUT NOT RECORDED OR ALLOCATED.

IN ORDER TO HOLD THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE, YOU HAVE TO KNOW THE ORIGINAL SECURITIZATION SCHEME AND INSIST ON PROOF OF WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THE INITIAL SECURITIZATION PLAN WAS PUT IN PLACE. REMEMBER THAT THIS IS NOT A FIXED EVENT. THIS IS SINGLE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE BORROWER AND AN ONGOING PROCESSION OF SUCCESSORS EACH OF WHOM HAS QUESTIONABLE RIGHTS TO THE NOTE, MORTGAGE OR EVEN THE OBLIGATION SINCE THEY WERE ONLY ASSIGNED A RECEIVABLE FROM A PARTY WHO WAS NEITHER THE BORROWER NOR THE ORIGINATING LENDER.

A Homeowners’ Rebellion: Could 62 Million Homes be Foreclosure-Proof?

  • The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

Ellen Brown
Web of Debt
August 20, 2010

Over 62 million mortgages are now held in the name of MERS, an electronic recording system devised by and for the convenience of the mortgage industry. A California bankruptcy court, following landmark cases in other jurisdictions, recently held that this electronic shortcut makes it impossible for banks to establish their ownership of property titles—and therefore to foreclose on mortgaged properties. The logical result could be 62 million homes that are foreclosure-proof.

securities.jpg
Victims of predatory lending could end up owning their homes free and clear—while the financial industry could end up skewered on its own sword.

Mortgages bundled into securities were a favorite investment of speculators at the height of the financial bubble leading up to the crash of 2008. The securities changed hands frequently, and the companies profiting from mortgage payments were often not the same parties that negotiated the loans. At the heart of this disconnect was the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, or MERS, a company that serves as the mortgagee of record for lenders, allowing properties to change hands without the necessity of recording each transfer.

MERS was convenient for the mortgage industry, but courts are now questioning the impact of all of this financial juggling when it comes to mortgage ownership. To foreclose on real property, the plaintiff must be able to establish the chain of title entitling it to relief. But MERS has acknowledged, and recent cases have held, that MERS is a mere “nominee”—an entity appointed by the true owner simply for the purpose of holding property in order to facilitate transactions. Recent court opinions stress that this defect is not just a procedural but is a substantive failure, one that is fatal to the plaintiff’s legal ability to foreclose.

That means hordes of victims of predatory lending could end up owning their homes free and clear—while the financial industry could end up skewered on its own sword.

California Precedent

The latest of these court decisions came down in California on May 20, 2010, in a bankruptcy case called In re Walker, Case no. 10-21656-E–11. The court held that MERS could not foreclose because it was a mere nominee; and that as a result, plaintiff Citibank could not collect on its claim. The judge opined:

Since no evidence of MERS’ ownership of the underlying note has been offered, and other courts have concluded that MERS does not own the underlying notes, this court is convinced that MERS had no interest it could transfer to Citibank. Since MERS did not own the underlying note, it could not transfer the beneficial interest of the Deed of Trust to another. Any attempt to transfer the beneficial interest of a trust deed without ownership of the underlying note is void under California law.

In support, the judge cited In Re Vargas (California Bankruptcy Court); Landmark v. Kesler (Kansas Supreme Court); LaSalle Bank v. Lamy (a New York case); and In Re Foreclosure Cases (the “Boyko” decision from Ohio Federal Court). (For more on these earlier cases, see here, here and here.) The court concluded:

Since the claimant, Citibank, has not established that it is the owner of the promissory note secured by the trust deed, Citibank is unable to assert a claim for payment in this case.

The broad impact the case could have on California foreclosures is suggested by attorney Jeff Barnes, who writes:

This opinion . . . serves as a legal basis to challenge any foreclosure in California based on a MERS assignment; to seek to void any MERS assignment of the Deed of Trust or the note to a third party for purposes of foreclosure; and should be sufficient for a borrower to not only obtain a TRO [temporary restraining order] against a Trustee’s Sale, but also a Preliminary Injunction barring any sale pending any litigation filed by the borrower challenging a foreclosure based on a MERS assignment.

While not binding on courts in other jurisdictions, the ruling could serve as persuasive precedent there as well, because the court cited non-bankruptcy cases related to the lack of authority of MERS, and because the opinion is consistent with prior rulings in Idaho and Nevada Bankruptcy courts on the same issue.

What Could This Mean for Homeowners?

Earlier cases focused on the inability of MERS to produce a promissory note or assignment establishing that it was entitled to relief, but most courts have considered this a mere procedural defect and continue to look the other way on MERS’ technical lack of standing to sue. The more recent cases, however, are looking at something more serious. If MERS is not the title holder of properties held in its name, the chain of title has been broken, and no one may have standing to sue. In MERS v. Nebraska Department of Banking and Finance, MERS insisted that it had no actionable interest in title, and the court agreed.

An August 2010 article in Mother Jones titled “Fannie and Freddie’s Foreclosure Barons” exposes a widespread practice of “foreclosure mills” in backdating assignments after foreclosures have been filed. Not only is this perjury, a prosecutable offense, but if MERS was never the title holder, there is nothing to assign. The defaulting homeowners could wind up with free and clear title.

In Jacksonville, Florida, legal aid attorney April Charney has been using the missing-note argument ever since she first identified that weakness in the lenders’ case in 2004. Five years later, she says, some of the homeowners she’s helped are still in their homes. According to a Huffington Post article titled “‘Produce the Note’ Movement Helps Stall Foreclosures”:

Because of the missing ownership documentation, Charney is now starting to file quiet title actions, hoping to get her homeowner clients full title to their homes (a quiet title action ‘quiets’ all other claims). Charney says she’s helped thousands of homeowners delay or prevent foreclosure, and trained thousands of lawyers across the country on how to protect homeowners and battle in court.

Criminal Charges?

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t

Other suits go beyond merely challenging title to alleging criminal activity. On July 26, 2010, a class action was filed in Florida seeking relief against MERS and an associated legal firm for racketeering and mail fraud. It alleges that the defendants used “the artifice of MERS to sabotage the judicial process to the detriment of borrowers;” that “to perpetuate the scheme, MERS was and is used in a way so that the average consumer, or even legal professional, can never determine who or what was or is ultimately receiving the benefits of any mortgage payments;” that the scheme depended on “the MERS artifice and the ability to generate any necessary ‘assignment’ which flowed from it;” and that “by engaging in a pattern of racketeering activity, specifically ‘mail or wire fraud,’ the Defendants . . . participated in a criminal enterprise affecting interstate commerce.”

Local governments deprived of filing fees may also be getting into the act, at least through representatives suing on their behalf. Qui tam actions allow for a private party or “whistle blower” to bring suit on behalf of the government for a past or present fraud on it. In State of California ex rel. Barrett R. Bates, filed May 10, 2010, the plaintiff qui tam sued on behalf of a long list of local governments in California against MERS and a number of lenders, including Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo, for “wrongfully bypass[ing] the counties’ recording requirements; divest[ing] the borrowers of the right to know who owned the promissory note . . .; and record[ing] false documents to initiate and pursue non-judicial foreclosures, and to otherwise decrease or avoid payment of fees to the Counties and the Cities where the real estate is located.” The complaint notes that “MERS claims to have ‘saved’ at least $2.4 billion dollars in recording costs,” meaning it has helped avoid billions of dollars in fees otherwise accruing to local governments. The plaintiff sues for treble damages for all recording fees not paid during the past ten years, and for civil penalties of between $5,000 and $10,000 for each unpaid or underpaid recording fee and each false document recorded during that period, potentially a hefty sum. Similar suits have been filed by the same plaintiff qui tam in Nevada and Tennessee.

By Their Own Sword: MERS’ Role in the Financial Crisis

MERS is, according to its website, “an innovative process that simplifies the way mortgage ownership and servicing rights are originated, sold and tracked. Created by the real estate finance industry, MERS eliminates the need to prepare and record assignments when trading residential and commercial mortgage loans.” Or as Karl Denninger puts it, “MERS’ own website claims that it exists for the purpose of circumventing assignments and documenting ownership!”

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

MERS was developed in the early 1990s by a number of financial entities, including Bank of America, Countrywide, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, allegedly to allow consumers to pay less for mortgage loans. That did not actually happen, but what MERS did allow was the securitization and shuffling around of mortgages behind a veil of anonymity. The result was not only to cheat local governments out of their recording fees but to defeat the purpose of the recording laws, which was to guarantee purchasers clean title. Worse, MERS facilitated an explosion of predatory lending in which lenders could not be held to account because they could not be identified, either by the preyed-upon borrowers or by the investors seduced into buying bundles of worthless mortgages. As alleged in a Nevada class action called Lopez vs. Executive Trustee Services, et al.:

Before MERS, it would not have been possible for mortgages with no market value . . . to be sold at a profit or collateralized and sold as mortgage-backed securities. Before MERS, it would not have been possible for the Defendant banks and AIG to conceal from government regulators the extent of risk of financial losses those entities faced from the predatory origination of residential loans and the fraudulent re-sale and securitization of those otherwise non-marketable loans. Before MERS, the actual beneficiary of every Deed of Trust on every parcel in the United States and the State of Nevada could be readily ascertained by merely reviewing the public records at the local recorder’s office where documents reflecting any ownership interest in real property are kept….

After MERS, . . . the servicing rights were transferred after the origination of the loan to an entity so large that communication with the servicer became difficult if not impossible …. The servicer was interested in only one thing – making a profit from the foreclosure of the borrower’s residence – so that the entire predatory cycle of fraudulent origination, resale, and securitization of yet another predatory loan could occur again. This is the legacy of MERS, and the entire scheme was predicated upon the fraudulent designation of MERS as the ‘beneficiary’ under millions of deeds of trust in Nevada and other states.

Axing the Bankers’ Money Tree

If courts overwhelmed with foreclosures decide to take up the cause, the result could be millions of struggling homeowners with the banks off their backs, and millions of homes no longer on the books of some too-big-to-fail banks. Without those assets, the banks could again be looking at bankruptcy. As was pointed out in a San Francisco Chronicle article by attorney Sean Olender following the October 2007 Boyko [pdf] decision:

The ticking time bomb in the U.S. banking system is not resetting subprime mortgage rates. The real problem is the contractual ability of investors in mortgage bonds to require banks to buy back the loans at face value if there was fraud in the origination process.

. . . The loans at issue dwarf the capital available at the largest U.S. banks combined, and investor lawsuits would raise stunning liability sufficient to cause even the largest U.S. banks to fail . . . .

Nationalization of these giant banks might be the next logical step—a step that some commentators said should have been taken in the first place. When the banking system of Sweden collapsed following a housing bubble in the 1990s, nationalization of the banks worked out very well for that country.

The Swedish banks were largely privatized again when they got back on their feet, but it might be a good idea to keep some banks as publicly-owned entities, on the model of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. For most of the 20th century it served as a “people’s bank,” making low interest loans to consumers and businesses through branches all over the country.

With the strengthened position of Wall Street following the 2008 bailout and the tepid 2010 banking reform bill, the U.S. is far from nationalizing its mega-banks now. But a committed homeowner movement to tear off the predatory mask called MERS could yet turn the tide. While courts are not likely to let 62 million homeowners off scot free, the defect in title created by MERS could give them significant new leverage at the bargaining table.

40 Responses

  1. Loan Mod sucessful or not, is a way to help MERS to get away because we have to sign a waiver as it is a new loan with “wet ink”, is it right?

  2. Where are these understanding Judges? Not in MA. We didn’t miss any payments our lender refused to accept them and sold our home to someone within the bank. We had an expert witness, all the proof and the bank never gave us our closing papers until after they forclosed and never abided by chapter 244 section 14. We never received a notice from the bank and it was never advertised in the paper. Over $40,000 later and the Judge deciding with the bank that could not proove itself. The Judge was corrupt and di not take into ins decision the expert witness who dealt with the bank and the depositions that admitted the guilt of the bank. Where do we go next when all of our funds are gone?

  3. JUST IN…

    ‘NO PROOF’ MERS assigned BOTH Mortgage and NOTE to HSBC

    http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/08/26/no-proof-mers-assigned-both-mortgage-and-note-to-hsbc/

  4. CLASS ACTION AMENDED against MERSCORP to include Shareholders, DJSP

    http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/08/26/class-action-amended-against-merscorp-to-include-shareholders/

  5. I’m not in the same dire situation as so many commenters on this page, having paid off my mortgage before the s*^t hit the fan.
    However, I did try to object to the clause in my mortgage that allowed my bank to split my mortgage via securitization to other investors. My reasoning was that not only should a lender be able to choose their borrowers, but a borrower should be able to choose their lender, even if the terms ostensibly don’t change. In fact, I specifically chose (what I thought) was a reputable lender, based on size, reputation (at the time), and, finally, terms. I specifically did not want any of the fly-by-night lenders that flooded my spam folder in those days (thankfully, these seem to have disappeared).
    However, my RE lawyer said I had no right to object to securitization because “they all do that.” So, reluctantly, I signed the contract with that clause. It turns out that the bank did, indeed, securitize my loan, and virtually all others, but I paid it off in full shortly after anyway.
    I still maintain that a borrower has a full right to decide to borrow from one party and not another.

  6. gwen, i would like to consult you i am already in court djwynn059@yahoo.com

  7. BSE, you know there will, as in what happened to Brooksley Born. Both of these ladies would have prevented the majority of these problems if handed the ball and allowed to run. They will try and harm Warren, even if just by smear. But you know she’s been vetted far and wide already.

    Here’s the link to tell Obama that Warren’s the one for the job:

    http://mainstreetbrigade.org/

  8. E. Warren might be the ticket ..Hope she helps the homeowners. However I am reserved to be doubtful. If positioned, there may be orders to put her under the immediate cross hairs of the macro scope. Her hands may be tied.

  9. BSE, I too feel that way. I believe that’s why Geithner is worried about E. Warren becoming consumer protection head. Insiders claim he’s afraid she’ll push the banks too hard, which leads me to believe that they’re possibly tetering on the brink.

    Even with reported best quarterly profits ever, there’s still no transparency as to what happened to all the trillions poured on them by the feds.

    William Black says they’re all insolvent. If we were allowed to stick it to them it just might be the final straw. Between the investors poking from the top, and the borrowers picking at their wounds from below, their time in the sun might just be about over. Stick a fork in them, they could be done. Which would explain why Obama et al have done exactly nothing to aid the homeowners involved.

  10. NEXT OUTRAGE “TAX ASSESSMENT INCREASES”
    UP 21%

    THE NEW TAX ASSESSMENT I JUST RETRIEVED FROM THE MAIL BOX WENT UP 67K MEANING 2010 BILL
    APPROACHING 5K FROM 3.7K IN 2009.
    ADJUSTED “DUE TO STRUCTURE CHARACTERISTICS RECORD CORRECTED, PROBLEM IS THE ZIP CODE IS NOT CORRECT AND IN ANOTHER TOWN.
    WISH I COULD SAY WHAT COUNTY IN GA. IT IS FROM!

  11. I fear this shell game is deeper than we think as this is one reason the judges are ignoring the law. It is not about the homeowner as we are not part of the picture. This is about the puppets that work the agenda. What if the US dollar implodes, the Euro gains more strength and what if OPEC decides to trade oil in their own currency ? There is not enough gold or silver to support any paper currency. Maybe they will use copper. Better save some more pennies!

  12. LivingLies said “DOESN’T MEAN THAT NOBODY LENT YOU MONEY NOR DOES IT MEAN THAT YOU DON’T OWE ANY MONEY”.
    Have you or anyone actually researched where the money comes from? A lot of people have said ‘follow the money’, but does anybody actually have any clue about what the deal is that NO MONEY WAS EVER LENT. Smal example
    15 U.S.C. § 1610(c) Disclosure as evidence – In any action or proceeding in any court involving a consumer credit sale, the disclosure of the annual percentage rate as required under this subchapter in connection with that sale may not be received as evidence that the sale was a loan or any type of transaction other than a credit sale.
    Large Omission – YOUR PROMISSORY NOTE WAS DEPOSITED BY THE BANK AS A DRAFT AND USED TO CREDIT THE TRANSACTION. THEY NEVER PAID A DIME. THEY CHARGE YOU INTEREST ON MONEY THAT WAS NEVER THEIR’S. THEN ON TOP OF THAT THEY PROFITED AND DISPOSED OF LIABILITY BY SELLING THEM OFF TO WHOEVER. WHY WOULD ANY BANK NEED A SECURED NOTE WHEN YOUR HOUSE IS ALREADY SECURED AND NOWHERE IN TILA IS THERE ANY PROVISION WHICH CONNECTS PROMISSORY NOTES WITH EXTENSIONS OF CREDIT!!!!!!!!!!!

  13. Neil has a grasp, intellect and the writing skills so we can all understand this crazy mess. I have been trying to save my home for almost two years now but have come to the conclusion that it will be a fight to the end. I also found a great company that gets home owners and business owners principal reductions for almost any loan out there. Call Robert Ponte to find our more 860-599-5557. Great job Neil!

  14. SUPPORT ELIZABETH WARREN—new rap video

  15. The judicial tyranny has got to be stopped! I do not fear the banksters, but is the the judicial system I fear most. I am outraged.

    To you judges,
    Apply the law and the rules of evidence now!!! You are denying us our constitutional right to a fair hearing.

  16. @ foreclosureblues

    It’s not fair, and it’s just plain wrong, that judge, and all others, who are obviously to unwilling to follow proper law, and rules, have absolutely no right to be practicing it, let alone enforcing anything. That judge, and all like her should be immediately fired!!

    I have no respect for liars, cheaters, stealers, and traitors.

    That judge, and all her ilk should be immediately removed from office and or position, as they are the sole reason this pathetic show of a judicial system we have is making our country the laughing stock of the world!!!

    This country makes me sick!

  17. JUDGE ENTERS FINAL FORECLOSURE JUDGEMENT PRIOR TO HEARING
    Posted on August 20, 2010 by Foreclosureblues
    THIS FROM FORECLOSURE FREEDOM FIGHTER ATTORNEY MARK STOPA IN FLORIDA

    BELIEVE ME, THIS IS UNBELIEVEABLE……CHECK OUT THE MOTION TO DQ THE JUDGE.

    HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND……..

    http://foreclosureblues.wordpress.com/

    When do judges decide who wins a foreclosure case?

    Today, August 20, 2010, 2 hours ago | mstopa
    Yesterday, I had an experience in court that has absolutely rocked my world, causing me to wonder:

    When do judges decide who wins a foreclosure case?

    Do they evaluate each case on the merits? Or do judges see “foreclosure case” and automatically decide, in their minds, that the bank is going to win (but refrain from announcing such until entry of final judgment)? In other words, is the outcome of these cases predetermined by some judges? As a zealous advocate for homeowners, I’d certainly like to think not – particularly in cases where judges see my name. After all, I’ve been in courtrooms throughout Florida for a long time now, fighting to help homeowners avoid foreclosure, and I’d like to think I’ve developed a good reputation as an aggressive foreclosure defense attorney.

    My experience yesterday, though, as outlined in this Motion to DQ Judge, makes me wonder, not about myself, but about the thousands of cases in Florida where homeowners don’t have an attorney. I strongly encourage you to read the entire Motion to DQ Judge, as it’s a matter of public record, but here’s the cliff notes version.

    On August 19, 2010 at 9:30, a summary judgment hearing was set on a mass-motion calendar. My clients were pro se until just a few days prior, so the documents I filed in opposition to summary judgment had not yet made it into the Court file yet. As such, the Judge thought my clients were pro se. At or before 8:15 a.m. on August 19, 2010, the Judge entered conformed copies of a Final Judgment of foreclosure even though the summary judgment hearing was not scheduled until 9:30 a.m. that day. That’s worth repeating:

    The judge entered a Final Judgment of foreclosure more than an hour BEFORE the scheduled hearing.

    Sounds impossible to believe, but it’s true. I learned about this, in fact, only by happenstance – my associate went to the courthouse to review the court file before the hearing, and, upon review of the court file, saw conformed copies of the Final Judgment in the file. The hearing was not set to begin for more than an hour, yet the Judge had already made copies of the executed Final Judgment, to be mailed to all parties.

    If that sounds too hard to believe, click here – you’ll see the judge’s stamp on a Final Judgment of foreclosure, dated August 19, 2010. The pictures aren’t great (as they were taken by my associate via his cellphone at 8:15 a.m.), but they clearly show the judge’s stamp on a Final Judgment of foreclosure on August 19, 2010, before the summary judgment hearing had begun.

    At 9:30, when the hearing began, I voiced my concern about this to the Judge. She was obviously caught off guard, but it quickly became apparent to me that her “procedure” is to make conformed copies of the Final Judgment, to be mailed to the parties, prior to the hearing (and to send out those copies to all parties immediately upon conclusion of the hearing). Essentially, she’s already made up her mind before the hearing, is holding the gavel in the air, and is ready to throw it down as soon as the hearing starts.

    In my view, the obvious problem here is that the Judge is pre-judging the outcome of the case even before she’s heard what the homeowner has to say. Apparently, she’s unwilling to wait to see what happens at the hearing – she’s so convinced the bank is going to win, she’s made copies of the Final Judgment and envelopes to mail the judgment to the parties. Essentially, the axe is in the air and she’s ready to drop it as soon as the hearing begins.

    I’ll let you draw your own conclusions about this. I’ve set forth mine in the Motion to DQ Judge. Suffice it to say I’m very troubled. What’s really scary is that, prior to this hearing, I had thought this Judge was one of the more friendly judges as far as foreclosure defense goes, which begs the question – if a friendly judge is doing this, what are the other judges doing?

    If there are any judges reading this, particularly in Florida, then let me say this. I know the volume of cases with which you’re dealing is frustrating. But you owe it to the people whose homes you are foreclosing upon to give them all a fair chance, whether they’re pro se, represented by Stopa Law Firm, or represented by some other lawyer. Everyone is entitled to a neutral and detached judge. Respectfully, if you’re making conformed copies of a Final Judgment before a hearing even begins, that’s just not fair.

  18. I have a WHAT IF that if someone could steer me in the right direction I would be extremely grateful.

    Have a California home purchased in 2006. All payments are current, never late. All loans 30 yr fixed. Great Credit.

    Original stated lender was Countywide. Refinanced in 2008 with Taylor, Bean & Whitaker.

    Several servicers over the last 4 years and MERS from the beginning.

    Looking at refinancing to lower rate, but wondering the ramifications of doing so if the possibility of the chain of title is dirty with MERS, etc.

    Also, is anyone out there choosing not to pay their mortgage (even though you can) with the house value still more than the loan value, where it is a strategic decision to force an action to have a full accounting and possibly file a quiet title action.

    How would the TITLE & SECURITIZATION reports help in this situation?

  19. …Dave Aronberg is not the champion of homeowners some think he is. As it turns out, he voted to allow windstorm insurance rates to increase hundreds of dollars per year for individual homeowners, which would drive many into foreclosure who weren’t already there. He’s also voted to allow insurance deregulation and major increases in telephone rates, which is why a major newspaper called him one of “the most anti-consumer candidates” running for Attorney General. Democrats have a better choice in the primary: Senator Dan Gelber, a prosecutor who has actually fought mortgage fraud as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for nearly a decade. Lets remember who actually has experience in fighting back against foreclosure and mortgage issues when we vote on Tuesday – Dan Gelber.

  20. TO THE JUDDGES THEY DONT WANT TO LISTEN.
    JUST LIKE PHAROAH. THE SHEAR NUMBER OF FORECLOSURES IS ENOUGH PROOF.

    LIKE I SAID BEFORE WHEN AN F-16 CRASHES FOR NO REASON AND THEN ANOTHER ONE CRASHES THE WHOLE F-16 FLEET IS GROUNDED UNTIL THE REASON FOR IT CRASHING IS FOUND OUT.

    IF THEY DID THAT WITH THE MORTGAGES THEN NEIL GARFIELD YOU ARE CORRECT. THEY DIDNT THEY CHOSE TO CONTINUE THE ROUTE OF CRIMINALS.

    IF YOU CANT DO THE TIME DONT DO THE CRIME.

    JUDGES OF AMERICA

    LET MY PEOPLE GO

  21. NEIL YOU ARE TOO KIND TO THESE BANKS.

    CO MINGLING OF FUNDS IS A SERIOUS CRIME

    NEVER AGAIN

  22. THE BANKS AND WALL STREET ARE CANIBALS

    IT JUST DOESNT WORK

    JUST THE ECONOMIC DAMAGE, THE EMOTIONAL DAMAGE ETC….. THEY REALLY OWE US 4 HOUSES.

    THEY RIPPED OFF NEW INVESTORS THAT BOUGHT THE HOMES FROM THE FORECLOSED PERSON ETC……… THEY OWE THEM ECONOMIC DAMAGE

    IF YOU CANT DO THE TIME DONT DO THE CRIME

  23. Forgot the “snip”

    MERS was developed in the early 1990s by a number of financial entities, including Bank of America, Countrywide, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, allegedly to allow consumers to pay less for mortgage loans. That did not actually happen, but what MERS did allow was the securitization and shuffling around of mortgages behind a veil of anonymity. The result was not only to cheat local governments out of their recording fees but to defeat the purpose of the recording laws, which was to guarantee purchasers clean title. Worse, MERS facilitated an explosion of predatory lending in which lenders could not be held to account because they could not be identified, either by the preyed-upon borrowers or by the investors seduced into buying bundles of worthless mortgages.

  24. And let’s not let it out of sight that Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac , that is tax payer funding , were the impedes to set up MER’s in the first place, do not think for one second that that this outfit could not be formed without the “public-private” funding of the GSE’s !

  25. Florida Residents – It is important to elect a new Attorney General who fights for Homeowners and Foreclosure Defense Attorneys – Dave Aronberg
    ———————————————————————
    Hi,
    > Please elect Senator Dave Arronberg for the post Florida Attorney General.
    > We are excited that Office of Florida Attorney General is investigating Foreclosure Mills frauds Senator Dave Aronberg will continue this ongoing investigation as our new Florida Attorney General.
    >
    We all remember that on April 21, 2010, Homeowners and Foreclosure Defense attorneys went to Tallahassee to protest the now defunct bill HB 2270 . If > the bill was passed, the bank can foreclose our homes without going to Court. We had a press conference at the Capitol court yard in front of the
    Supreme Court Building to protest the bill. Senator Dave Aronberg was the ONLY Senator stepped out the Senate House, joined us at the press conference,
    spoke to us Homeowners and Foreclosure Defense attorneys to offer his sympathy and his support for our cause.
    > He declared that he is our Partner in Justice.
    >
    Let’s put him in the Attorney General Office so he can continue to investigate the Foreclosure Mills Frauds and protect Homeowners. He is fearless and not influenced by the Banks. I do not take political side.
    Senator Dave Aronberg already show his support for Homeowners and Foreclosure Defense Lawyers during our April protest. It’s time for us to give him our support. Thank you for your consideration.
    >

  26. FORECLOSURE MILL COMMENT FROM FORECLOSURE BLUES READER
    Posted on August 20, 2010 by Foreclosureblues
    Comment In Response To
    Author Comment In Response To
    FROM BARBARA @ LAWGRACE

    http://foreclosureblues.wordpress.com/
    65.0.51.87
    2010/08/20 at 1:31 PM
    (posted @ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/lawgrace/weekly-audit-foreclosure_b_677068_57349461.html)

    Unscrupulous foreclosure mill activities are more criminally exploitive than what becomes reported –not only in Florida. Appalling collection abuses have resulted in mill lawyers (or their affiliates) obtaining ownership of fraudulently foreclosed properties via purported bids at “simulated” auctions. Certain fraudulently auctioned properties become “flipped” illegally to Freddie Mac. Some mill lawyers file into court records fee-making pleadings (summary judgments, etc) when Freddie Mac is not party to cases, and they bill $$$$ fees pretending to represent Freddie Mac. As manifest throughout my http://www.lawgrace.org website, mills have cooperation and applause of federal and state courts.

    Through falsified Bankruptcy Court pleadings, some foreclosure mill lawyers wrongfully, illegally impede homeowners’ restructuring debts, and discovery of the actual owners of mortgage notes. Such lawyers file falsified bankruptcy “Lift Stay” motions in names of either defunct lenders or lenders with no ownership of property notes. To the contrary, bankruptcy “lift stays” should not be granted where there’s no “standing” since “ranking” and “secured debt” factors come into play. False bankruptcy pleadings not only help illegal property repossessions, any other creditors whom debtors owe, becomes deprived wrongfully of entitled shares of proceeds from those auction frauds; and ILLEGITIMATE “deficiency judgments” ; and third party debt-buyers seeking money after unfairly low bids resulted in large debt balances are also problems.

    Plus, foreclosure mills work in concert with Wells Fargo. Among other things, Wells Fargo has tax advantage from fraudulent foreclosure proceedings after placing distressed homeowners’ names / social security numbers on false IRS (acquisition) form 1099-A’s, even when no lawful “acquisition” of properties occurred; such homeowners wrongfully become forced to explain these turn of events to the IRS after surprise receipts of tax bills.

    People who think that people who can no longer afford their mortgage should pack up and move out, ignore that it is unjust to render people homeless by use of intentional, dishonest, illegal foreclosure proceedings. Foreclosure mill illegalities like Attorney David J. Stern’s actually accounts for “illegal foreclosures” and “Tent Cities” which could be Anyplace, USA. Consider: Former homeowners Lawrence and Linda Elin, gave up their home after becoming victims of Bernie Madoff. (Former Wells Fargo executive Cheronda Guyton held parties after the Elins moved out; and astonishingly, “Collin Equities” permitted Guyton personal, free access to that home. A foreclosure auction had not occurred which made “Collin” proprietor of property that supposedly ‘went back’ to Wells Fargo (how did Collin get it?) The point being, it is possible that the Elins unwittingly aided a foreclosure fraud which displaced them –people unknowingly do it all the time! These situations are salient reasons why foreclosure fraud (on farmers, businesses, as well as residences) MUST be investigated;” it can cripple peoples’ abilities to move forward. . .”

  27. by the way i am in florida, with a mers indymac mortgage, i was able to get a modification in march of 2008, which i have been paying, but it was no help. i am strapped each month. my house mortgage is not even close to what the house is worth now. before indymac was countrywide, which is another fraud mortgage company. So what does one do, stop paying and hope i get justice or simple ask give me a mortgage mod on what the true value of the home. This is sure a dilema, but for years i was given high interest mortgages, probably illegal, with arm’s and indymac finally gave me a modification but i am still struggling each month. Any advice out there. oh by the way my modification has never been filed with the county court. and the original mortgage was mers indymac that was probably fraud mortgage. How do modifications hold up in a court of law, that has yet to be filed with the county clerk and the original, who knows if that was done legally. doubt it..

  28. I am not behind on my mortgage, but I have a mers, and over the years had been charged with outrageous interest fees. I was given a modification in march of 2008 by IndyMac. Now, what can I do, my house it not worth what they once claimed it was, i am over extended and skimping by just to try and pay. Would it be beneficial to stop paying and take this to court.

  29. Gwen,

    Again thanks! Also, I completely agree with you….Dave Krieger is AWESOME! He sees things in all of this that MANY miss! As a matter of fact, some of his strategies will probably be like a brand new type of stealth cruise missle!

    Also, you could not be closer to the truth about settlement agreements, QTA’s, etc. The way you write it will prevent things from rearing up in the future!! This is another gem I learned from Dave. I like it….creative legal writing!!

    Seeking Remedy

  30. In reply to a few posts that reply to my post I will say the following:
    First, I am not licensed anymore so I don’t give legal advice but am giving you general principles of law based upon my past experience as a trial lawyer
    Second, have not researched Wells Fargo situation, post a comment to Dave Krieger who is a fabulous paralegal and pay him some money to do your reserach==he does it exceptionally well–better than a lot of attorneys.
    Third, when you do get to settlement, if you are pro se and they want to settle, hire a lawyer and not “uncle fred who does traffic court or your local PI guy who has not got a clue” but someone from the American Trial Lawyers Association or even the National Employment Lawyers Association to write the settlement agreement or review it in light of the principles I set forth. These lawyers are well educated and know what they are doing generally as they deal in complex litigation. Also, settlement agreements, quiet title actions, foreclosure actions (nonjudicial v. judicial states) are state specific and even jurisdiction specific as to what they allow and require. Don’t get to the end of the line and then don’t reduce it to writing correctly and get you know what by the big banks and mers. This is not easy stuff that can be reduced to one page.

  31. Gwen,

    What do we have in the area of case law on improper assignments and such where it involves Wells Fargo , they didn’t generally use MERS but they did the same thing internally with all the same issues.

    Thanks..

  32. OK–so it was infowars.com; same difference! Just posted a link on my Facebook page.

  33. Love that you posted this from prisonplanet.com. Alex Jones is a must-listen! Neil, you need to go on his show. Alex knows the score about the criminal banks and the corporate takeover. I think it would be a big step towards liberating us all if you could go on the show even once–or become a monthly or weekly guest like Bob Chapman, Max Keiser, Gerald Celente, and so forth.

  34. Gwen,

    Excellent post to follow up on this gem of a post by Neil. I am sure some of this is going in Dave’s book! 🙂

    I noticed in the article in this blog post stating assignments and California Law that MERS cannont assign. I think this will play HUGE into Quiet Title Actions, while allowing it to stay in State Court and not having it removed to Federal Court as the pretenders would like.

    The sun is out and shining!! What a beautiful day it is and the forecast is looking better for all of us in this fight!!

    ~Seeking Rememdy

  35. TRUST THEM NOT, I get it!

  36. Let us get rid of the FREE HOUSE expression, what we all want is justice, and if that means you are given the house as damages for the fraud and other crimes they committed against you and all of us, then so be it.

    There is no free lunch, but we can all claim the house as proper compensation for damages. I sounds more realistic.

    It is not a free house. My mortgage was over $8,500 monthly and I have been paying for over seven years, this hardly would qualify as a free house if you do the math.

  37. No a quiet title does not automatically get you a free hosuse–what gets you a free house or near free house is the following: first, can they prove they have the original note with original signatures. No original note the courts are finding they can’t come in and claim on it–See In Re Box June 6 before Judge Federman in the Western District of Missouri Bankruptcy Court. Unless they can prove they have the original note and not some affidavit saying someone saw it as Federman said, they cannot collect on the note–that is a separate issue from quieting the title. There are similar decisions on the Eastern District of Missouri Bankruptcy court it is my understanding. Next, let’s assume they can produce the note–are the signatures valid or are they subject to handwriting analysis for fraud. Third. they have the note but we don’t know the value of the note. They have to prove that the note has value–it was not written down by insurance, tarp, fannie or freddie or written off–at this point settlement may be worthwhile but only AFTER they produce the note itself—not before. As part of that settlement keep in mind they should quiet the title at this point in the process so that you don’t have any phantom owners of the note coming forward. That means the house is in your name subject to the first mortgage by whoever. If there is a second or even a third mortgage, negotiate to wrap them in one mortgage at a 3 or 3.5 rate which is the going rate right now so there is a clearer title and one payment. Next make sure that the settlement agreement indemnifies you against a phantom owner coming back at a future date –if that happens you may still owe the whole note so you want to make sure whoever you settle with is going to pay that person off. Finally, another reason you want the note written down is for tax purposes. If the note is really only worth $100,000 rather than $300,000 that is huge in terms of taxes. A write down might cause you tax liability on $200,000 and you don’t want that. It should be written in such a way in the settlement that the defendants admit the note is really only worth $100,000 otherwise the irs may come after you. Be sure too that you make the defendants do the quiet title action as part of the settlment and as part of the quiet title action that they publish according to your state rrules for the appropriate amount of time. Also make sure that they remove from your credit rating any and all foreclosure attempts and bad references those banks gave you so that is off your credit–I did that several years ago againts NOVASTAR when they tried to get me and they ended up paying a lot and cleaning up my credit because of all the bad things they did. Finally, get the title policy to inure to YOUR benefit as well as the lenders after the quiet title is done so that you know the title is clear when you go to sell it.

    I’m a trial lawyer of some 30 years but no longer practicing–I have written 100’s of settlement agreements and my clients never got done in by anything I wrote because I made sure it covered all the bases. Your settlement is going to have to be confidential and make sure it is MUTUALLY CONFIDENTIAL –THE DEFENDANTS MAY LEAK IT AND THEN CLAIM YOU LEAKED IT AND COME AFTER YOU–
    gOOD LUCK

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: