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


Is this Clear enough:

I have the original NOTE endorsed in Blank,” Pay To The Order of __________.”with out recourse, signed by the Senior VP of RBMG. I have a sworn affidavit that states a written assignment of the note was never prepared and the SELLER into the securities stated that they WARRANT AND REPRESENT IT HAS NEVER BEEN SOLD TO ANY OTHER ENTITY.EMC(seller) was to sell the note to Bear Stearns which was the depositor into the Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities,inc. Asset Backed certificate series 2003-2. Bear Stearns was to sell/ assign the Note to JP MORGAN CHASE as trustee of the Trust. There has been a foreclosure started on the mortgage on March, 3 2009 by The Bank OF New York Mellon as successor trustee for JP MORGAN CHASE who claims to be the owner and holder of the note. By way Of an assignment which was recorded at the ROD on March 19, 2009, 16 days after the LIS-PENDENS , and the summons and complaint . I have a letter dated July 13 2002 from Mers that states the loan has been removed from the MERS system and the MIN# deactivated. Mers had no authority to do an assignment and the assignment was done by a known “robo-signor” and in the Corporate name of RBMG that not only deactivated the MIN # but also removed the loan from MERS. RBMG was also defunct and has been since 2005 when it was aquired by NETBANK and subsequently shut down by the FDIC in 2007. The BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON produced in discovery two allonges the first was from RBMG to EMC and the second was an allonge directly to JP MORGAN CHASE from EMC. First thing is the PSA ( pooling and service agreement) the governing document of the securities describes in detail the percise chain of title it also describes who is the seller ,the depositor ,the master servicer and the trust. Even though the sworn affidavit produced by the successor trustee stated no written assignment was ever prepared, so the allonges was a direct attempt to decieve the investors and knowingly a misrepresentation which is fraud. BEAR STEARNS was the depositor into the securities. First let start with the allonges both are undated and one is not even signed: according to the UCC an allonge is only used when there is NO ROOM ON THE ORIGINAL NOTE FOR ENDORSEMENT and must be firmly attached as to become a part of the note. AN ALLONGE cannot be used to transfer interest and is invalid if there is room on the note for endorsements and is invalid it not attached. A lost note was produced from EMC but not anywhere in the document is there a conveyance, it is not a valid assignment. Here is an excerpt from the PSA;BEAR STEARNS ASSET BACKED SECURITIES, INC., Depositor EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Seller and Servicer WELLS FARGO BANK MINNESOTA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Master Servicer and Securities Administrator and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK Trustee
(DD) The assignment of Mortgage with respect to a Mortgage Loan is in recordable form and is acceptable for recording under the laws of the jurisdiction in which the Mortgaged Property is located.

Proper perfected chain of title:
Originator to seller:RBMG to EMC
seller to depositor: EMC to Bear STEARNS
depositor to the trust:Bear Stearns to JP Morgan
trust to successor trustee: Jp Morgan to The Bank of New York Mellon

30 Responses

  1. Thanks, ANONYMOUS. I will let you know what happens. Again, an example of THE BEST HUMANITY HAS TO OFFER.

  2. Roger,

    Just make sure all documents are attached — sometimes only partial Exhibit 99 – is attached – with other documents not available. And, make sure they are CURRENT — meaning as of date of foreclosure — and date of bankruptcy (if applicable).

    And, sometimes relevant documents are not even referred to — but they exist. This is particularly the case with entities such as Countrywide – who sold rights via “Corridor Contracts” — and not directly to security underwriters. Whoops — big SEC violation.

    Want to also emphasize here – again — originators have no authority to assign ANYTHING TO any trustee — BECAUSE — they have already sold the loan to the security underwriter PARENT—or corridor contract party. There can be no direct assignment from originator to trustee. And, PSA supports. According to PSAs — only the Depositor – to whom the originator sold the loans to -(also a subsidiary)– can assign loans to the trustee —on behalf of trust that they own— and in compliance with all SEC documented requirements and for all transferred documents and recordings — and in compliance with IRS regulations for REMICs.

    Good luck — Roger — my best.

  3. ANON, thanks. The PSA does provide all the necessary docs. The EX-99,supplemental prospectus, I have them all. I sent Bob my motion to vacate and other docs. Wish I found him sooner.

    Gary, that piece I sent you may help you compact the story.

  4. Roger (usedkarguy), Bob G.

    The courts need evidence (see my post to you Roger – under POISON). If you do not have a “Trustee” under ABC TRUST – I am not referring to you. But, if you do — you have to tear apart the trustee’s standing, the trust, the PSA, the securitization itself. You have to show contradictions as to what was DEMANDED for compliance as to the PSA – including ALL attached EXHIBITS – and what was NOT complied with.

    Now — why a court would grant a foreclosure to an unidentified “creditor” – as the “beneficial security investor” – is beyond me — but they ARE. And, this is even though the FED RES – has said NO — the security investors ARE NOT the creditor.

    Know these trusts are dissolved — at the very least – technically dissolved — simply due to the “trigger event” credit default swap execution. No foreclosure proceeds are being passed onto security investors to these “dead” trusts. But — the foreclosure attorneys are still using this ploy in courts.

    The fact remains that there are questionable remaining and limited beneficial security investors in any of these trusts – other than the bank who owns the trust and certificates to begin with —(as their security underwriter subsidiary purchased them) — or the U.S. government who purchased any remaining “unmarketable” tranches from the banks —- to save the banks.

    The real party is either the bank who purchased the loans from the originator via CERTIFICATE PURCHASES BY THEIR SECURITY UNDERWRITING SUBSIDIARY (an accounting gimmick). – or a distressed debt buyer/hedge funds who purchased collection rights.

    Most pass-through investors have been bailed. The non-performing loan is either now sitting on the acquiring bank’s balance sheet (as a non-performing loan) – or sold elsewhere to a distressed debt buyer/hedge fund who now owns collection rights.

    But, you will not easily get this information. You have to deal with what they are falsely claiming — that the trustee (to ABC Trust) will pass on the foreclosure proceeds to beneficial security investors. This is IMPOSSIBLE – as foreclose proceeds ARE NOT CURRENT — and, therefore, cannot be part of security pass-through.

    The PSA is loaded with stated compliance, The affidavits/assignments/ POAs – being presented in court — DO NOT match the stipulations of the PSA. If they do not match – there is no standing – and — also alerts the court to securities fraud – maybe IRS fraud — which the court has an obligation to report to authorities.

    You need to show — that things were not in order from the onset. And that the party standing in front of the court – is false — not the real party.

    No one likes to read PSA/Prospectus — they are boring — tedious – and a “chore.”. And, though many are nearly identical — some will deviate –some will be different. For those that are different — there may be additional agreements – that you may know nothing about. Including what BOB G asked about — A “Corridor Contract Counterparty” — ie. swap provider.

    Government KNOWS this — but — they have to chose the lesser of 2 evils —- protect the banks and derivative contract holders — or protect the people. There is much more liability at stake IF they chose to protect the homeowners. Because these were CONTRACTS — and courts could kill them on this — and including severe International consequence.

    But, courts still have an obligation to justice. They are not (or should not) be there to support a government agenda. They are there to uphold the truth. And, the PSAs show — there is not much truth in the current endorsements/assignments/POAs/affidavits etc. – that are being presented to courts.

    And, Bob G — trying to get the truth out of Fannie/Freddie – is nearly impossible.

    This is a simple investigation for AGs – if they want to find out what is really going on. IF they do not, — this country will remain in “FORECLOSURE/HOME/PROPERTY/TITLE ———–LIMBO.

  5. will work. Thanks Bob. I can speak for many here who appreciate your participation.

  6. Here’s another good research tidbit:

    The plaintiff bank states in their complaint that they are the owner/holder of the note and mortgage. So now you go and check Fannie and Freddie’s website and see if they claim that they own the note. If they do show that they own the note, bring a motion to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff’s counsel is going to ask the court for time to respond. Usually this will be two weeks. As that date approaches, they will ask for another extension, and then another.

    Your job is to show the court that even if the court granted them a 100 year extension, they still wouldn’t be able to undo the fraud that they have perpetrated upon both you and the Court. You move to dismiss and/or amend your pleadings to counterclaim for fraud, wrongful foreclosure, and quiet title. Also raise the stakes and ask for punitive damages in excess of a million dollars and a jury trial.

  7. roger

    provide me with an offsite email address and i will get in touch


  8. hey Bob, send me an e-mail address. I’ve got a beauty for ya.

  9. Mary

    Time for you to make a motion to strike plaintiff’s complaint. Attach your discovery requests and the purported responses as exhibits to your affidavit in support of your motion.

    Now it will be the judge that has to decided the adequacy of the responses, and this will certainly get the plaintiff’s attention. Plaintiff will oppose, you submit your reply affidavit in further support of your motion, then sit back and see what happens.

  10. To Bob G.

    Yes, Request for admissions, twice, answered vaguely, no attachments of proof of authority, documents,etc.

    Interrogatories answered with objections of privledged information, overly broad, blah, blah, blah. Judge ordered them to answer and to date have answered the same way.

    I have brought the inconsistencies to the attention of the court to no avail. I have brought to the attention of the court that my due process is being blocked to defend myself, again to no avail.

    So this is were I’m at..

  11. oh yes, a court reporter will be there.

    Thanks for the response back, appreciate it very much.

  12. remember and get a court reporter during the court appearance. This is very helpful for your appeal!

  13. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by kim thomas, USA Advocate. USA Advocate said: THE POWER OF RESEARCH: […]

  14. I am in Florida

  15. Bob it simple, the parties involved are not he real party in interest, lack standing and have acted in a concert of action to conspire against me and in an attempt to hide the discrepancys in the securities series. I am the only true Owner and Holder of the Note as I have the original Blue Ink Note in my hands endorsed in Blank.

  16. Mary

    Keep pointing out the inconsistencies to the judge via letters if necessary. Have you served interrogatories or notices to admit? You can always make a motion to preclude any evidence at trial that they refuse to turn over to you via a discovery request. Also, in NY a lawyer or even a pro se litigant can make a discovery request, but if you are pro se, it is better to have the judge sign the subpoena duces tecum, so as to make it a judicial subpoena. This way, when they object or refuse to comply, they are taking a direct slap at the judge. This will piss him off, which is exactly what you want. Further, he might end up sanctioning them or holding them in contempt.

    What state are you in?

  17. Pro se: Complaint does not list actual trust and does not plead plaintiff capacity, other than National Association as trustee. Lost Note count and Owener and holder count. No assignment recorded. Copy of Mortgage. Mortgage has a stamped signature of employee, as vp records management, pay to order ___blank without recourse. Almost all discovery requests objected to. Two months after suit filed an assignment filed in county records, servicer as mers vp for bankrupt lender whom has beenout of business to …National association as successor by merger to >>>as trustee under the pooling and servicing agreement dated….HE2. No actual securitization trust name. They try and slip the name of securitized trust in months later in responses here and there. Now wants to correct scrivenor’s error. I oppose and also file lack of capacity MTD. They now file alleged original wet ink note, with NO endorsement, at all.

    PSA closing date 2 years prior to alleged assignment.

    Why do you think they now are filing alleged wet ink note with no endorsement???

    (Also found letter to closing agent, in my stack of closing documents which shows where the funds came from for closing and states they hold interest in….) Which by the way is not the same lender on my note and mortgage.

    Any words of wisdom anyone???

  18. ANONYMOUS, that was me saying that “issuing a security”. I agree “standing” is the issue solely to be pursued by borrower. I did raise the “Greatest Fraud on Earth” in original pleading, and then some. At this point, I’m pushing to vacate on fraudulent affidavits, and that’s all I can say about that. But I did want a legal view (not legal advice). I’m judicial, so successfully vacating a judgment allows claims maturing after pleading. It’s 4th quarter, I’m down 6 points. I’m on the 2 with 4th and goal. NO PRESSURE, REALLY!

    The point I wanted addressed, and Bob was clear, was whether or not “securitization to fail” transactions will ever provide a cause of action.

    Sounds like a firm NO. And that’s the information PRO-SE defendants need. The securitization search provides the background, but the issue is standing via chain of title. Period. Agreed? Thanks, gentlemen.

  19. Anon & Bob,

    Neil has referred to this particular ‘lenders’ product as being a ‘wild’ mortgage.

  20. Anonymous or Bob,

    If the original loan docs have a multiple significant errors and MERS is not empowered by the ‘lender’, just named as nominal beneficiary, how the hell does anyone fix that mess? No proper chain of assignment was ever attempted, just a single ‘A->D’ attempt that is riddled with problems.

    IF the ‘lender’ is not a lender plus other problems, how can anyone claim they can do anything to put a ‘fix’ in on these particular messed-up loans?

  21. Well, all I can say is that my entire Assignment of Mortgage is fraudulent especially since American Brokers Conduit did not exist as of the time of the Assignment. If you do not exist, you cannot assign anything to anyone. Of course, the rest of the Assignment has notary fraud, robo-signing, was not recorded as of the time of the lis pendens, and the witness was able to be in two places at the same time–South Carolina and Texas.

  22. ANON

    Right, I was just quoting Roger Rinaldi’s post below, and trying to point that out to him that it would be pointless to try and make that argument. Might even be considered frivolous if made in a motion and thus sanctionable.

  23. Bob G

    ole friend — very good advise – especially — “Question is, who is the real creditor entitled to foreclose? ”

    But your statement — “If you explain to the judge that you were indeed defrauded into issuing a security that resulted in the creation of credit default swaps and other contingent obligations and that the originator /sponsor/servicer had a huge gain on your failure to perform, you open the door to the discovery that yields proof of fraud.” .

    … Borrowers do not issue securities – this is what I am trying to tell you — we have nothing to do with banks business of securities. Simple obligation to stated lender/creditor and successor in interest to whole loan. All we use the securitization docs is to show — that the securitization was flawed – and the real party is not standing before you in court – has no right to foreclosure.

  24. Thanks, Bob.

  25. Roger

    I’d stick with the broken chain of title argument. State court judges “get that.” Start going with RESPA and TILA and inducement via bad appraisal coupled with fraudulent underwiriting/closing/servicing practices, and their eyes glaze over. They don’t really want to deal with Federal stuff. Moreover, courts are likely to say that the mortgagor had an affirmative duty to check things out before he signed up for the deal.

    When you’re in a judicial foreclosure state, you simply make a counterclaim for wrongful foreclosure and quiet title to which the plaintiff bankster must tender a Reply. You tell the plaintiff and the judge that you reserve the right to have any purported original note produced examined by a forensic document specialist. You include stories from national newspapers and other judge’s decisions in your papers. Like I’ve said previously, when YOU tell the judge, it sounds like rap music to him. When the NY Times says the exact same thing, it sounds like Pachabel’s Canon to him.

    As for your statement that “If you explain to the judge that you were indeed defrauded into issuing a security that resulted in the creation of credit default swaps and other contingent obligations and that the originator /sponsor/servicer had a huge gain on your failure to perform, you open the door to the discovery that yields proof of fraud.” Well, I’m just not buying that, and neither will a judge. Your grandkids will be old and gray before you can educate, convince and persuade a judge that that is what happened.

    I would stay away from the “he defrauded me” argument. The borrower got the house and borrowed the money to buy it from someone. Question is, who is the real creditor entitled to foreclose? Then, even if the real creditor shows up, you can then go into the arguments that the creditor has been made whole from collateral sources of payment, or that it intentionally destroyed the note, etc.

    Judges feel comfortable dealing with these kinds of issues cuz there’s plenty of case law to support them. Trying to get them to rule on these novel and esoteric MBS arguments is just asking for trouble. They don’t know what’s going on, and they’re not about to stick their neck out and rule in your favor and then get reversed at the appellate level because they didn’t know what they were doing down at the trial level. The confused mind always says “No.” And who has more resources to bring an appeal? You or the banksters?


  26. Bob G., let me cut to the chase. If you can blow a hole in the chain of title, can the debtor/defendant NOW state a claim against the (mystery plaintiff) debt collector at bar? MAYBE THEY CAN, MAYBE THEY CAN’T.
    Defendant/borrowers continues to lose for failure to state a claim against collector/trustee bank named in the instant action. The inducement via bad appraisal coupled with fraudulent underwiriting/closing/servicing practices surely presents valid defenses, but they can’t be brought against the plaintiff in the foreclosure suit. THIS IS THE PROBLEM. If there is no proper “holder in due course” to bring a proper complaint, where do you break through paper curtain?

    You sound like you know something, so I am interested in your answer. Or any other esteemed legal mind.

    It seems to me the path is now clear and distinct. If you attack standing and they convince the bench their claim is valid, you’re done.

    If you explain to the judge that you were indeed defrauded into issuing a security that resulted in the creation of credit default swaps and other contingent obligations and that the originator/sponsor/servicer had a huge gain on your failure to perform, you open the door to the discovery that yields proof of fraud.

  27. Get it?

    “Once again, We the People are the tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property from a Sovereign in the guise of the Federal Reserve Bank. We the people have exchanged one master for another. .”

  28. From a speech in Congress in The Bankruptcy of The United States United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303. Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House:

    “Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any liens or mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913) “Hypothecated” all property within the federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve – in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title. The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a “beneficiary” of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their “subjects,” the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System.

    In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend THE FEDERAL United States CORPORATION [emphasis added] all the credit “money substitute” it needed. Like any other debtor, the federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the federal United States didn’t have any assets, they assigned the private property of their “economic slaves”, the U.S. citizens as collateral against the unpayable federal debt. They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, national parks forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit organizations, as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been transferred as payment to the international bankers.

    Unwittingly, America has returned to its pre-American Revolution, feudal roots whereby all land is held by a sovereign and the common people had no rights to hold allodial title to property. Once again, We the People are the tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property from a Sovereign in the guise of the Federal Reserve Bank. We the people have exchanged one master for another. .”

  29. Here is Patsy Campbell court full dockets.

    OKEECHOBEE COUNTY, Fla.—Patsy Campbell could tell you a thing or two about fighting foreclosure. She’s been fighting hers for 25 years.

    The 71-year-old retired insurance saleswoman has been living in her house, a two-story on a half acre in a tidy middle-class neighborhood here in central Florida, since 1978. The last time she made a mortgage payment was October 1985.

    And yet Ms. Campbell has been able to keep her house, protected by a 105-pound pit bull named Dodger and a locked, rusty gate advising visitors to beware of the dog.
    “They’re not going to take this house,” says Ms. Campbell. “I intend to stay in this house and maintain it as my residence until I die.”

    Ms. Campbell’s foreclosure case has outlasted two marriages, three recessions and four presidents. She has seen seven great-grandchildren born, plum real-estate markets come and go and the ownership of her mortgage change six times. Many Florida real-estate lawyers say it is the longest-lasting foreclosure case they have ever heard of.

    The story of how Ms. Campbell has managed to avoid both paying her mortgage and losing her home, which is currently assessed at more than $203,000, is a cautionary tale for lenders that cut corners and followed sloppy practices when originating, processing and servicing mortgages. Lenders are especially vulnerable in the 23 states, including Florida, that require foreclosures to be approved by a judge.

    Various lenders have been trying to repossess the home since 1985.Ms. Campbell has challenged her foreclosure on the grounds that her mortgage was improperly transferred between banks and federal agencies, that lawyers for the bank had waited too long to prosecute the case, that a Florida law shields her from all her creditors, and for dozens of other reasons. Once, she questioned whether there really was a debt at all, saying the lender improperly separated the note from the mortgage contract.
    She has managed to stave off the banks partly because several courts have recognized that some of her legal arguments have some merit—however minor. Two foreclosure actions against her, for example, were thrown out because her lender sat on its hands too long after filing a case and lost its window to foreclose.

    Ms. Campbell, who is handling her case these days without a lawyer, has learned how to work the ropes of the legal system so well that she has met every attempt by a lender to repossess her home with multiple appeals and counteractions, burying the plaintiffs facing her under piles of paperwork.

    She offers no apologies for not paying her mortgage for 25 years, saying that when a foreclosure is in dispute, borrowers are entitled to stop making payments until the courts resolve the matter.

    “This is every lender’s nightmare,” says Robert Summers, a Stuart, Fla., real-estate lawyer who represents Commercial Services of Perry, an Iowa-based buyer of distressed debt that currently owns Ms. Campbell’s mortgage and has been trying to foreclose. “Someone defending a foreclosure action can raise defenses that are baseless, but are obstacles for the foreclosing lender,” he says, calling the system “an unfair burden” for lenders.

    While Ms. Campbell is an extreme case, more homeowners in trouble are starting to use similar tactics and are hiring defense lawyers to challenge their foreclosures, hoping to drag out the foreclosure process long enough to reach a settlement with the lender.

    Nationwide, there were 2.1 million mortgages in some stage of foreclosure as of October, according to research firm LPS Applied Analytics. The average loan in foreclosure—the process typically starts when a loan becomes 90 days past due and a bank files a complaint—had been in default for 492 days as of October, up from 289 days at the end of 2005, according to LPS. In Florida, one of the states where foreclosures are handled by courts, the average loan in foreclosure has been delinquent 596 days.

    Okeechobee County, a rural jurisdiction of 40,000 known for bass- and perch-fishing festivals, hasn’t experienced a foreclosure problem as intense as in many coastal regions of the state. Ms. Campbell’s house—which has vinyl siding, boards over the windows (to protect it from storm damage, she says), a crumbling backyard swimming pool and an old sedan rusting in the driveway—stands out among the manicured lawns, stucco ranch houses and cattle pastures interspersed among the houses.

    In the town of Okeechobee, the county seat, signs of a local economy dependent on agriculture abound: stores selling pre-fab barns, animal feed and lumber line State Road 710 leading into town.

    Lawyer Robert Summers, below, who represents the current owner of her loan, has faced seven appeals of the foreclosure action from Ms. Campbell since 2000.Brian Whitehall, Okeechobee’s city administrator, says unemployment in the area is hovering around 14.5%, slightly higher than the statewide average of 12% in September. Foreclosure filings have nearly doubled each year since the state’s housing market peaked in 2006, with 617 filed in 2009. But the national housing slump and the area’s economic woes aren’t immediately apparent in Okeechobee’s quiet neighborhoods.
    “We’re not like the Port St. Lucies of the world, where entire subdivisions are empty and it’s like a ghost town,” Mr. Whitehall says.

    Court records outline the rocky road Ms. Campbell’s loan has taken over the past 32 years. In 1978, Paul Campbell purchased the house on SW 19th Lane, a few minutes’ drive from the small pharmacy he owned, using a $68,000 mortgage from First Federal Savings and Loan of Martin County. He married Patsy in 1980, and died later that year from emphysema, leaving the property to his wife.

    In 1985, Ms. Campbell stopped making mortgage payments because of an illness that caused her to lose income and get behind on her bills, she says.

    By then, the savings-and-loan crisis had begun to take hold. First Federal merged with First Fidelity Savings and Loan, which assumed ownership of the Campbell loan. In 1987, First Fidelity sold the mortgage to American Pioneer Savings Bank, an Orlando-based lender that collapsed in the early 1990s.

    The loan would change hands four more times, and four different lenders would try to foreclose on her. But every lender that held her loan either merged or collapsed. Each time ownership of the lender changed, the foreclosure case against Ms. Campbell would be dropped.

    The loan eventually made its way to the Resolution Trust Corp., the federally owned asset manager that liquidated assets of insolvent S&Ls, and later, to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

    In June 1998, the FDIC sold the mortgage to Commercial Services of Perry, which filed to foreclose in 2000. After another illness, Ms. Campbell deeded the house to her daughter, Deborah Pyper. Years later, after Ms. Campbell recovered, the house was deeded back to her. Ms. Pyper declined to comment.

    Ms. Campbell’s early briefs in the case were strongly worded and colorful, drafted with the help of a now-retired Okeechobee County lawyer.

    The briefs presented dozens of reasons why Ms. Campbell thought the bank didn’t have the right to her house: Paul Campbell’s signature was forged on the original mortgage, she said, and the original sellers never received money from the bank. At other times, she said the mortgage was never properly conveyed between banks and federal agencies, and she demanded paperwork that they were unable to immediately produce.

    Attorneys’ fees and court costs from previous cases hadn’t been paid, or the amounts were wrong, she argued. One brief said that “Defendant Campbell specifically denies the existence of any ‘debt.'”

    In 2007, a trial-court judge tossed out all but two of Ms. Campbell’s defenses, calling the case an “unnecessary paper chase which has been an unproductive and unnecessary use of judicial resources.”

    Commercial Services paid a court-determined amount to settle court costs from previous cases, and moved to take the foreclosure to trial, with a date set for early October 2010.

    In response, Ms. Campbell filed for bankruptcy, effectively blocking the foreclosure until a stay is lifted by a bankruptcy-court judge.

    Her filing lists $225,000 in real-property assets, and lists a secured creditor’s claim of $63,801, which is equal to the unpaid principal on her mortgage. In previous court arguments, she had maintained that no lender held a secured claim against her because the note was improperly assigned.

    A stern, confident woman who can quote Florida civil-procedure statutes by reference number, and who adores cooking Southern food and listening to classic Grand Ole Opry-era country music, Ms. Campbell steadfastly believes she is right. Her most recent argument in the case is that under Florida homestead law, the bank can’t seize her house because it is exempt from liens and forced sales.

    “Commercial Services of Perry is in the business of doing this. They win some, they lose some,” she says. “If they had a case, they would have already won it, years ago.”She maintains that at this point, no one owns her mortgage note, and that because of fraud and paperwork mistakes by the banks that transferred it over and over again in the 1990s, the debt has been made void.

    Mr. Summers, the lawyer for the lender, calls the case “the foreclosure from hell.” He says Ms. Campbell has appealed the case seven times since he took it on in 2000, and all of her arguments are just stalling tactics.

    “It’s almost like clockwork. You know you’re going to get another three-inch stack of documents every month or so, and you have to take the time to read through it,” Mr. Summers says. “That is a burden on the courts, a burden on lawyers to decipher it, and it has enough meat in it that it’s not all void.”

    For example, according to Mr. Summers and to court filings, in 2007, when a judge remanded the case to the trial court, a court clerk failed to issue a mandate establishing the lower court’s jurisdiction. Ms. Campbell appealed the case on those grounds.

    The bankruptcy should take about four months to adjudicate, Mr. Summers says, at which point he intends to take the foreclosure to trial. According to Commercial Services of Perry’s latest filings, Ms. Campbell owes the $63,801 in principal plus $148,000 in interest.

    “All she’s got to do is pay what she owes: the principal, the interest, plus court costs and attorneys’ fees,” Mr. Summers says. “But she doesn’t get a free ride.”

  30. Tony –

    No this is not clear enough. Please clarify, connect the dots, and tell us just exactly what it is that you are trying to establish, as well as provide support for your conclusions.


Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: