Livinglies's Weblog

COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS PAY MONTHLY

Judge it is as simple as this — the borrower signed a note and the lender received a bond. Those are two different things. If you let them continue with this fraud you are giving houses to brokers who never put up a dime for the funding of the loan.

This will be a subject of the telephone conferences for members.

Judges are never going to like an argument, that essentially says “look, I know I owe the money, it’s just that I don’t think I should have to pay it because these are bad people.” That’s not law, that is directly provoking a judge to say “get out of here.”

If litigants are attempting to get judges to say they don’t have any requirement to pay on an obligation that obviously came into existence, then they would even lose in front of Boyco, Shack, and Burford. That isn’t law, that is policy. It isn’t litigation it is lobbying. Judges don’t make the laws they enforce them, or at least that is what they are supposed to do. The problems I keep seeing from some parts of the country is that lawyers don’t know their rules of evidence, they don’t know trial tactics, and they don’t understand securitization.

Keep it simple!! And now you have the added burden of clearing up a hostile environment. These lawyers are arguing philosophy when they should be arguing evidence. Understanding securitization is only part of the battle. Securitization information gives you the certainty of knowing what to look for. It doesn’t prove anything in and of itself. If the affidavit is not from a competent witness it is inadmissible regardless of whether the loan was securitized or not. Securitization tells us that the affidavit is virtually NEVER from a competent witness. Competency is OATH—PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE FROM PERSONAL PERCEPTION—MEMORY— AND COMMUNICATION. If the affidavit does not specifically tell the story of what the witness knows, how they know it, and without relying upon what other people told them, then it is not admissible.

If opposing counsel says he represents xyz trust and you have information showing that the trust doesn’t exist, you got him. If a notice of default is sent out and you have the records that show that these same people are reporting to the investors that the loan is fully performing and they are making payment to the investor on that loan, then it isn’t it default or it raises a question of fact (including the existence of co-obligors). You can’t argue theory to a judge with a calendar that is already too full you must argue LAW that the Judge is already familiar with and can’t argue with. Something that is incontrovertible, with a court reporter in the room so that if he the Judge goes the wrong way you can go up on appeal.

I know it isn’t fair or right and probably not even legal or constitutional to put the burden on the borrower of coming up with facts that controvert presumptions in the Judge’s mind — where no evidence has been presented by the party seeking affirmative relief (foreclosure). But that is it. When the objection is raised it must be raised timely, succinctly and with a SHORT explanation of why you think it should be sustained. At this point you need to go in with the transcripts and rulings of a dozen judges who were ruling “just like you judge” because they also thought this was a crock and that the borrowers were trying to get out of a legitimate debt. But each one of these Judges changed their minds and suddenly realized they have been rubber-stamping fraudulent foreclosures.

Each of of these Judges realized we were not saying there was no obligation. Each one realized that the paperwork was not done properly and that they probably had the wrong party seeking foreclosure. One of the Judges picked up on it himself when he realized the same property was being foreclosed on the same note and mortgage by two different parties claiming to be lenders each having the right to foreclose. We have the evidence that we should not be required to produce and they don’t have the supporting evidence or witnesses that they SHOULD be required to produce. It isn’t justice or due process to grant their motions just on the theory that they wouldn’t be here if they didn’t have the right to foreclose.

We’re not entitled to any presumption that the chain of title is broken. And they are not entitled to any presumption that the chain of title is clear. They must provide the proof. We’re not saying we don’t owe money, we are saying we don’t know how much and to whom, because they won’t give us a full accounting of the entire transaction nor the names and contact information of the people who actually funded the loan. And they are committing fraud upon this court when they represent themselves otherwise. But Judges are believing them because they have the word “Bank” in their names or some other official sounding institutional name.

Judge it is as simple as this — the borrower signed a note and the lender received a bond. Those are two different things. If you let them continue with this fraud you are giving houses to brokers who never put up a dime for the funding of the loan.

SUBSCRIBE TO LIVINGLIES FOR DISCOUNTED SERVICES, NEWSLETTER AND FREE TELECONFERENCES

ORDER LOAN SPECIFIC TITLE REPORT, COPIES OF DOCUMENTATION AND ANALYSIS HERE

ORDER SECURITIZATION REPORT COPIES OF DOCUMENTATION AND ANALYSIS HERE

Filed under: foreclosure |