BKR Courts Buying time with “Haphazard” Modifications: What to Do

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary

The following is my own opinion and reactions to things I observed in court. This is for general information purposes and not legal advice which can ONLY come from an experienced licensed attorney in the area in which your property is located.

REFLECTIONS ON AN AFTERNOON IN COURT:

Listening to the docket one afternoon, virtually every one of the Motions to Lift Stay were subject to court-imposed restrictions that the parties seek modifications. The Judge noted that he could not detect any rationale for when the modifications were granted or denied and used the word “haphazard” to describe the results. The Judge noted the current news stories and congressional hearings regarding the foreclosure proceedings. It seemed quite obvious to me that the Judge was biding his time waiting for things to sort out a little bit more before taking a stand on whether the issue of ownership of the mortgage would be treated seriously.

The particular Judge I heard made the comment from the bench that “someone” must be entitled to foreclose if the borrower had missed payments. This echoes hundreds of similar reports I have heard. The answer to that, I think, is that “someone” lent the money and has a claim, but it is by no means a matter of evidence in the record that the loan was properly documented, recorded or the lien perfected. Nor is there any evidence in the record that any of the parties seeking to lift the stay or go forward with the foreclosure or sale is entitled to actually collect anything or bid on the property as anything other than a bona fide  purchaser for value — i.e., with money. Specifically a credit bid from anyone, must be accompanied by proof that they are in fact the creditor to whom the money is owed.

The Judge should be encouraged, if he or she is inclined to grant the lift stay motion, to add something to the order that this is not a finding that this movant is in fact a creditor from whom the auctioneer may accept a credit bid. It is only a finding that the bare essentials for lifting the stay appear to be present and does not address any other findings of law or fact. The pretender lenders are using these orders lifting stay as evidence that they are the creditor when no such finding was made.

It was also obvious that the stories were all the same. Lack of call backs, improper procedures, sometimes multiple banks seeking foreclosure on the same property, and ridiculous explanations for why modification was denied, which most of the time was the case. On the other hand it was also obvious that there is still forward momentum on these cases and while they have been slowed down, the foreclosures have not been stopped.

From my perspective it looked like an adversary proceeding was required to be filed by the borrower if they wanted to stop the foreclosure. It also occurred to me that a notice letter should probably be sent to the Trustee in non-judicial states, and to the Court Clerk in judicial states that objects to a credit bid being accepted from anyone other than the creditor. If the Trustee or Clerk proceeds, there is a possible cause of action for injunction and mandamus regarding the use of the credit bid to get around the issue of standing that was fudged in the prior actions or proceedings.

PROOF OF CLAIM AND OBJECTION TO CLAIM: This is nit-picky stuff but it could have far-reaching consequences. Check the rules and statute for the requirements of a proof of claim to be filed. If there is anything wrong with it the proof of claim is defective. You can also file an objection to proof of claim, which probably ought to be done in virtually all foreclosure cases involving securitized loans. Your objection, could be that the party claiming to be a creditor is not a party to whom any money is owed by the debtor. Attached to your objection is the original mortgage and note which presumably names someone other than the the party filing the proof of claim and the motion for relief from stay.

All of this goes back to my original promise that attorneys might be committing an error that they and their client will regret if they list anyone other than the parties of record as creditors. That would be limited to solely the payee on the note. It would seem that naming MERS or any other pretender lender would be used against you as an admission against interest. The current software used by bankruptcy attorneys pretty much picks up all possible names, including the servicer, to whom no debt is owed. In my opinion, lawyers should think before they add a party to the creditors list whom they may later want to challenge as not having the standing of a creditor.

33 Responses

  1. John

    All of what you say is why all is in question right now. The courts were duped – along with borrowers. If you were a victim – should be suing for restitution.

    See other posts on blog as to why your argument does not hold water.

  2. Be careful challageing the bank in BK court if you plan on keeping home if you lose because of attorney fee language in the Deed of Trust.

  3. B Davies,
    That motion to extend the time for discharge is worse than useless.
    Once the property was abandoned from the bkc estate, the automatic stay ended permanently.
    Delaying your discharge won’t re-instate the automatic stay.
    You have to file an adversary proceeding and ask for an injunction to stay the foreclosure.
    You’ll actually have a problem retaining bkc jurisdiction because the property is no longer property of the estate. Should have been started before the property was abandoned.

  4. Bad Advice Garfield.
    To really put the “creditors” in a bind, list them all as unsecured creditors with claims that are disputed, contingent, and unliquidated. List the claim as $0.00 in amount.
    Such creditors have no allowable claim against the estate unless and until they prove their claim. If they do not file a proof of claim timely, their claims are disallowed as a matter of law.
    Listing such entities in this manner saddles them with the burden of proof.
    Listing them is no admission whatsoever by the debtor.

  5. Anonymous…..This would be the banks MTD
    1) debtor needs to get their own appraisal..Ca law
    2) debtor knows best what he can afford…Ca law
    3) loan was not table funded…Plaintiff must plead proof
    4) did not charge premium
    5) 5.75% is not usury Plaintiff cannot use TILA in face of foreclosure without tender of loan….Ca law
    Case Dismissed with attorney fee’s to defendant because it’s in the DOT.

  6. Brian – not necessarily so on the “no POC needed in CH7”. If the claim is challenged/disputed, i.e., “unknown amount,” the pretender lender must file a POC.

  7. Anonymous: Could you contact me through my e-mail.

    xbrooklynite21@yahoo.com

  8. Neil & ANONYMOUS,

    Thank you for you post.The both of you
    have great points.

  9. Any judge that states “someone” must be entitled to foreclose if the borrower had missed payments”
    Not so if that someone is a victium of fraud.
    In this case 95% of the borrowers are the victims and these judges expect the borrower to pay for the crimes comitted by others. Bull $hit. These judges need to charged with treason and deported to Nigeria.

  10. I will never again pay for the crimes committed by others.

  11. Just to clarify on the Brian Davies post here: in a Chapter 7, after 60 days past the conclusion of the 341 Hearing, with no assets in the case and no adversary proceedings to finalize, the Court typically “discharges” the debtor, thus vacating all the creditor claims encompassed in the discharge Order (usually, everything).

    A “discharge” is different from a “dismissal,” as Brian Davies characterized it. Once “discharged,” the debtor owes no more, and any assets abandoned by the Trustee (including hard assets like house and car) become the property of the Debtor.

    If the Petition is “dismissed,” then it is like it never existed, and the creditors are free to crank up their seizure efforts, including repo of your car and trustee Sale of your house. Dismissal typically happens if you miss a court deadline or file something wrong, or the Trustee or US Trustee Motions the COurt to dismiss for some cause.

    The problem area comes when, in some circumstances, a creditor asserts it is “secured” on property such as a house and just bides its time until after the discharge, then proceeds “in rem” against the house (but not against you). Unless you have challenged their claim to the house (either in an Adversary Proceeding or in Objection to Proof of Claim or in State Court in Quiet Title), then they just carry on and hold a sale, even though they may not have any rights to do so. You avoid this problem with a Motion to extend Discharge date and continue the automatic stay. But you still have to do some positive Proceeding somewhere to dispose of the lien claim, or when the extension runs out, you are back to were at the start.

    Since this is a little tricky, be sure to seek expert advice if you get to this point.

  12. John

    To answer your question – (and this is not directed at “You” – it is just to answer your question)

    Because you used fraud to lend the money – that is, if you actually lent any money at all since prior mortgage may not have been even paid off – and/or funding/lending may have violated securities law and federal law designed to protect borrowers from your fraud. .

    And, the fraud has many legs including

    1) falsely telling borrowers the asset (house) was worth far more that it really was.
    2) predatory lending – telling borrowers that they qualified for a loan based upon the (falsely) valued home asset – and not upon the borrowers income
    3) Violating RESPA by not informing that the loan was table-funded – thus, concealing yourself as the actual lender – in violation of federal law
    4) Violating TILA by charging yield-spread premiums for no work that was ever done.
    5) Violating TILA by charging egregious loans terms – with near usury rates – and by failing to adequately disclose the terms – and hoping the borrowers – not as sophisticated as you – just would not notice.

    All of this – and claiming the loan was securitized – when no documents support securitization. Losing documents and attaching false affidavits to cover up what was never done in the first place..

    If you were lender/investor – who now claims money is owed to – then every party involved in the fraudulent process above – acted as your agent – because you concealed yourself.

    And, by the fraud, a financial crisis was caused by your actions – blocking every homeowner from GETTING OUT of the fraudulent contract and/or by selling the home to resolve the situation.

    You, as a concealed lender/investor cannot now come back – after all the damage and fraud you have done – and claim “But, you still owe me the money.” And, you cannot hide yourself, and with fraudulent documents, to then try to foreclose upon the homes – when you have to right to do so..

    “You” – should be in jail.

  13. Innocent until proven guilty, this was not a problem until now.
    The pretender lenders are guilty from start to finish, they did things that were unthinkable and were getting away with it all.
    Now they have been caught red handed and they are still getting away with it all.
    Why?
    Nobody but us believes, BELIEVES THAT THEY COULD BE GUILTY OF SUCH CRIMES!
    They get the benefit of the doubt!
    They get to carry on while we struggle and fight to be heard!
    They come off as the good guys being treated badly by a few deadbeat borrowers with a scam to get a free house!
    Even when they admit there is a problem they phrase it to sound trivial and easily solved, just a minor paperwork glitch.
    IT’S ALL MARKETING AND BRAINWASHING!
    It seems like we need lawyers that get it but a bunch of Madison Ave ad writers too! We need a marketing plan of action. Even the president believes we are deadbeats with an axe to grind.
    Trying to play by the rules, to find a legal leg to stand up on is buying us time but not a victory.
    Instead of paying lawyers, maybe we should be buying off senators? How do you get to be a lobbyist?
    I’m beginning to think that maybe, just maybe the best way to win is to surrender.
    I mean, let them foreclose, and then buy your house back at the sheriff’s sale. Or sit tight until it goes back on the market and then buy it back at a better price.
    Or wait till they come to evict you put your stuff in storage a few days and then come back, knock the padlock off the door and move back in.
    That is what I did, it was 2 years before they came back to put the house on the market, by then I’d saved up enough to move out of state and start over.
    You do what you gotta do to survive, if they don’t care about abiding by the laws, why should we?

  14. ONEWEST CAUGHT IN ANOTHER BEHIND THE SCENES DEAL. THIS TIME TALF.

    John Paulson, whose hedge fund firm Paulson & Co. made large profits betting against subprime mortgages, also was an indirect beneficiary of the government’s rescue programs. OneWest Bank, a Pasadena, Calif., bank previously known as IndyMac, which now counts Mr. Paulson and his firm among its private-equity backers, borrowed $34.4 million from TALF in July 2009 to buy securities backed by mortgage-servicing advances, the Fed data show. It repaid the money a few months later.

    PAULSON IS A SMART GUY WHO I FEEL IS A WHITE COLLAR CRIMINAL. I DONT KNOW HOW MUCH FIRE HE CAN PLAY WITH BEFORE HE GETS BURNED.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/44529701/Hedge-Funds-Tapped-Rescue-Program-WSJ-ONEWEST-BANK-TAPPED-THIS-LITTLE-KNOW-FUND-TALF

    TALF borrowers also included New York distressed debt investors such as Angelo, Gordon & Co. and Siguler Guff & Co. Pension funds such as the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the municipal pension plan of Milford, Conn., took part, as did scores of little-known funds set up to invest in securities using money from TALF.

  15. CHANCES ARE THEY WERE MEMBERS SINCE THERE WERE 20,000 OFFICERS. WE HAVE FOUND NDEX WEST LLC A COLLECTION AGENT, AND SUBSIDIARY OF DOLAN MEDIA (TICKER DM) SIGNING AS A MERS MEMBER.

    SLOWLY WE WILL UNWIND THIS RICO MESS. THE BANKS ARE STRONG.

    IF K & L GATES can come in and tell the world that the attorney in the New Jersey Kemp case was wrong and that the testimony in front of everyone from someone who worked 10 years dealing with loan documents from Country Wide didnt know that the documents were there and that they were sent as the psa determined, then I believe the Statue of Liberty is gone after David Copperfield made it disappear.

    It insults the Courts, and the US people that this marketing ploy is even out there. Now K & L GATES

  16. There are some very sad reasons why most of the lenders are pushing so hard to foreclose on as many homes as possible as quickly as possible.
    One possible reason is that the Feds are demanding payback money for saving AIG’s ass from the fire.
    AIG wasn’t supposed to be in the business of using clients money to buy MBS to try to make some extra bucks, but they did and got burnt by it.
    The Feds stepped in and bought this toxic junk and fully expect to be paid back. To Quote the New York Times:
    “Most of the mortgage-backed securities are now rated as junk, but the Fed says it is collecting income on them and expects to recover their full value.”
    The full article is here:

    Fresh Details on the Fed Rescue of A.I.G.’s Insurance Units

    By MARY WILLIAMS WALSH
    Published: December 1, 2010

    The documents released by the Federal Reserve on Wednesday provide new details of how close to the precipice some insurance subsidiaries of the American International Group came in 2008.
    They also show just how far Fed officials veered from their usual duties to keep those subsidiaries from toppling, delving into an industry not regulated at the federal level. The state regulators responsible for their oversight could not see the insurers’ whole problem, which spread across a number of states.

    A.I.G. also faced a crisis in its financial products group through derivatives transactions with an array of banks and others worldwide, and the prospect of its failure posed a threat to the financial system.

    The insurance business, however, is often overlooked in reports of the financial crisis. In fact, 11 of A.I.G.’s life insurance units were caught in a risky investment pool that broke down in September 2008, feeding the turmoil. About 40 percent of the money the Federal Reserve Bank of New York lent to A.I.G. was tied to those companies.

    The life insurers had been letting hedge funds and other traders borrow securities from their investment portfolios. Because the insurers took collateral in return, the practice had been considered safe.

    Instead of holding the collateral, though, A.I.G. chased higher yields by reinvesting it in mortgage-backed securities.

    This web of lending and reinvestment was conducted entirely off the balance sheet, by insurers in half a dozen states. So state regulators were unaware of the program’s total size or the degree of risk until too late.

    The value of the mortgage-backed securities plunged in September 2008, leaving A.I.G. and its insurance units billions of dollars short of what they needed to settle with those who had borrowed their securities.

    The Fed had to jump in, lending A.I.G. $20.5 billion in cash just to settle those securities-lending trades. As collateral, the new documents show, the Fed took about $24 billion of the insurance companies’ assets.

    This arrangement was highly unusual. Insurance assets are held to secure policyholders’ claims and are not supposed to be encumbered or pledged. At one point, the A.I.G. Annuity Insurance Company, of Texas, had more than $10 billion of its assets under Fed control, the new records show. That subsidiary is now known as Western National.

    The securities lending program was terminated in 2008. The insurers handed over the offending mortgage-backed securities to a special-purpose vehicle created by the Fed, and then they got their assets back.

    Most of the mortgage-backed securities are now rated as junk, but the Fed says it is collecting income on them and expects to recover their full value.

    Fed officials declined to comment on their foray into the insurance world. State insurance regulators said they did not believe any subsidiary was ever insolvent, though some came close. They have since tightened the rules on securities lending, requiring it to be shown on the insurer’s balance sheet.
    A version of this article appeared in print on December 2, 2010, on page A4 of the New York edition.

  17. Question:

    Does anyone know if Avelo Mortgage was a Mers Member in 2007-2008?

    On Mers website, they state welcome to our newest members and list them and others, in helping with a mod program, but in 2007, they were not listed as a mers member and would like to know when they did in fact become a mers member.

  18. john:
    If you lent the money then prove it. If you did lend the money out of your own pocket, then prove it and prove it didn’t violate any rules or laws in doing so.

    When the person asked you for money, it was in good faith, prove you got the money in good faith and it was a cut and dry clean honest dealings in doing so.

    If you have been paid back in many ways, from multiple sources, why do you think you are entitled to any more if my account with you has been paid.

    When you lent the money and the iou states so, then you are entitled to the money in my opinion. But when you deceived many by actually acting like a big shot, saying you lent the money and had ill intentions from the beginning of the deal, and hide behind multiple actual creditors in a scheme, that have been paid t,hen don’t bi**h you want more.
    If you created a chain legally under rules, then play by them. It is called fairness. It is called rights owed to a person.

    Dont use counterfit money in the deal and demand more good money and property when you and your creditors were paid by others on my account.

    That’s just wrong, own up and move on. Unless you can prove 100% you are owed money as the actual creditor, followed all rules in doing so and that you have not been paid at all from any party, then that’s when you can talk. If at all.

  19. I have read everything you have posted and it is good however I lent you money to buy your house and I want it back! Explain why I am not intilled to it….

  20. to the A man….you said nothing in your last rant…
    \

  21. There is a difference between owning and renting

  22. I am going to see how this exact subject plays out in my case. I had an in house-mod done by litton in ’08 for a “trust” and then fell behind and they started a foreclosure in ’09 but assigned the mortgage to the “trust” 3 days prior to the summons and complaint.
    So how is the judge going to view that litton wrote a loan mod for a “trust” that didnt own my mortgage until 18 months later?

  23. Another thing did anybody think that a Superior court judge or a Bankruptcy judge with all due respect is gonna take on the Banksters all by him/herself? With all due respect they are the lowest on the totem poll. They take orders from their superiors.

    They are not gonna going to put their careers on the line for us.

    We must fight for our rights.

  24. The Consumer Attorneys have sold us out for the last 15 to 20 years.

    Very few Consumer Attorneys like Neil Garifield Richard Fine (71 or 72 years old) are still on our side.

    The rest of them sold out to the devil (Big Corporations).

    What the Corporations dont realize is that they would make more money if they did have a good resistance. Because at the end of the day sooner or later they are gonna be wiped out. Canabalism is very limited resources. Very short term.

    Sad but True. Alot of blame to go around. This is one big mess. And only the Government and the “We the People” can undo this.

    The good part is that the Politicians our pissed at the banksters.

    Be Strong and Courageous

  25. Neil – you are right on target with this post. It is the consensus in courts – as you state – that judges conclude – “someone” must be entitled to foreclose if the borrower had missed payments.” I have also heard stories about judges saying – “If this is not the real party – I will find the real party.” Unfortunately, courts are ignoring the law – the real party MUST be before the court to enforce the foreclosure. But, real parties are not coming forward due to deregulation that allows them to remain concealed. Thus, foreclosures are – simply – invalid.

    udges can not – and should not – project their own personal bias into decisions which allow ANY concealed real party to remain concealed. Further, judges should be allowing full discovery to investigate fraud in the origination of the mortgage in question. – and, whether or not these were were even “mortgages” (secured) to begin with. No party should owe any mortgage loan that was fraudulently originated, fraudulently funded – if funded at all, and fraudulently solicited. And, we should not have to be “jumping through hoops” – to make the courts realize this. The courts role is not debt collection for undisclosed parties. The courts role is to uphold the law. For those not well versed in court procedures, securitiztion, and all other aspects of valid challenge – (including Neil’s aid) – these people are doomed. They will never even KNOW that they have been defrauded.

    As to modifications, the reason modifications are not being properly granted is because the party claiming to “modify” – is not the real party in interest and has no authority to modify any loan – never mind sign a new contract. with you. A modification is simply a modification of the original contract. But, if the original party with whom the contract was signed is gone (as most are) – there CAN BE NO modification without disclosing the identity of the new creditor. Over and over, again, I will state – security investors are not CREDITORS – and neither is a servicer. NO CONTRACT CAN BE DONE IN THE SERVICER NAME (unless they purchased the loan – in that case, they must tell you.)

    In addition, the goal with modifications is to keep borrowers in a “trial” modification – just long enough to sell collection rights to a third party. If a permanent modification is – by chance – granted, the terms are so egregious that no borrower should be signing on the dotted line. Included in these terms, are full payment of invalid fees- that likely keep accruing, extended terms, and a complete signing off of any future rights.

    However, most disconcerting about Neil’s post – for which he is absolutely correct – is the judge’s personal bias that these fraudulent loans and foreclosures – must be accounted for and paid forby YOU. This has been the standard attitude in courts (and without any legal justification) across the country. And, why we face such difficulty in courts.

    I revert back to Mr. Henry Paulson who promoted this attitude from the onset of the financial crisis. And, IT IS a crisis – not just to taxpayers – but to every homeowner who has lost – or is losing – his/her home to the fraud.

    Our judicial system is gone – and with it – goes America. We can scratch our head all we want – but if something is not done…….. we all will lose.

  26. THIS IS THE ADVERSARY ISSUES WHEN THE MOTION FOR RELIEF IS IN QUESTION AND THERE ARE FRAUDULENT DOCUMENTS PROFFERED. FROM GREGORY BRYL

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/44500609/Burden-of-Proof-in-Non-Judicial-Foreclosure-States-1-GREGORY-BRYL-VIRGINA-ATTORNEY-ADVERSARY

  27. Nice find on the Step by Step, good for an exhibit

  28. Fed Governor Wants National Foreclosure Standards
    PrintEmailReprintsFeedback
    Share |
    Wednesday, December 1, 2010
    Revealing that federal banking agencies have found significant “structural problems” in the mortgage servicing industry, Federal Reserve Gov. Dan Tarullo is calling for the creation of national foreclosure standards.

    While Tarullo said it should be left to Congress whether those standards would preempt state laws governing foreclosures, he said ongoing issues warrant the creation of some kind of federal rules.

    “In light of the range of problems already encountered, and the prospect of further changes in the industry—including the possible migration of more servicing activity to non-banking organizations—it seems reasonable at least to consider whether a national set of standards for mortgage servicers may be warranted,” he said.

    Testifying before the Senate Banking Committee on Wednesday, Tarullo acknowledged that such a move would be a gigantic change to the current system, but said it is clear servicers are struggling to comply with various local rules.

    “It has been increasingly apparent that the inadequacy of servicer resources to deal with mortgage modifications—an area that was a point of supervisory emphasis—was actually a reflection of a larger inability to deal with the challenges entailed in servicing mortgages in many jurisdictions and dealing with a complicated investor base,” he said. “For example, foreclosure procedures are specifically the province of real property law governed by the states, and can vary not only by state, but also within states and sometimes even within counties.”

    Residential servicers—both nonbanks and depositories alike—have been swamped by the foreclosure crisis with most firms unprepared for the tidal wave of delinquencies swamping the system.

    Some banks are now reassessing their commitment to amassing a large amount of MSRs, and may become net sellers of servicing rights over the next few years, industry advisors told National Mortgage News recently.

  29. WHERE IS THE OTS, FDIC, AND AG–CRIMINAL “SCIENTER” FRUAD

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/44499547/Documents-Reveal-One-Bank%E2%80%99s-Plan-to-Squeeze-Customers-for-More-Overdrafts-ProPublica

    In recent months, rules from the Federal Reserve have made it harder for banks to impose hefty overdraft fees when customers try to make debit transactions or ATM withdrawals without enough money in their checking accounts.

    Before the rule change, banks could automatically sign up customers for what they often referred to as overdraft coverage or overdraft protection. The so-called “protection,” it’s worth emphasizing, isn’t from overdraft fees themselves—it’s from the potential embarrassment or hassle that comes when a transaction is rejected due to insufficient funds. The “protection” also allows the bank to collect hefty fees for covering such transactions.

  30. YES.
    NOD IN CALIFONRIA CC 2924. NO PROMISSORY NOTE IS NEEDED. 9TH CIRCUIT SECURITY FOLLOWS THE NOTE. MRS IF DENIED AND TRUSTEE ABANDONS OR ABANDONS AFTER MOTION FROM DEBTOR AND BEFORE AN ADVERSARY, THE CHAPTER 7 IS DISMISSED APPROXIMATELY 60 DAYS AFTER THE 341 UNLESS AN OBJECTION. CHAPTER 7 NO POC IS NEEDED.
    NON JUDICIAL IS A STATUE TO STEAL BY THE BANKS. THE COURT CASES WERE BOGUS THAT SET THE APPEALS CASE LAW. THIS IS CRIMINAL ESPECIALLY WHERE THE AG HAS PUT HIS HEAD IN THE SAND. CALIFORNIA IS A LARGE STATE. ITS RESIDENTS ARE TREATED POORLY IN THE FORECLOSING PROCESS. IS THERE NO WONDER INDYMAC GREW SO FAST AND COUNTRY WIDE PROSPERED.

  31. This is after the NOD is filed so I know who they are using as creditor to foreclose. Correct?

  32. http://www.scribd.com/doc/44497761/MOTION-TO-DELAY-DISCHARGE-OF-DEBTOR-IN-CHAPTER-7-UNSECURED-DEBT

    A TIP FROM GREGORY BRYL MAY HAVE SAVE ME FROM THE DOOM OF STATE JURISDICTION. THANKS TO PAUL NGUYEN, JAN VAN ECK, DANIEL EDSTROM, DENOTOS AND OTHERS.

    THIS TIP IS CRITICAL IF ONE FILES CHAPTER 7 UNSECURED DEBT AND THE TRUSTEE ABANDONS THE PROPERTY. THESE BANKS HAVE HAD MOTION FOR RELIEF DENIED, FOUGHT IN STATE COURTS, LIED, CHEATED, AND MANUFACTURED DOCUMENTS. ONE MUST FILE THIS DOCUMENT IN THE BK COURT WHERE NON JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE ARE GOVERNED BY THE STATE.

    THANKS GREGORY–

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: