WASHINGTON STATE LEGISLATURE TRIES END RUN AROUND PROPERTY LAW AND CHAIN OF TITLE

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

SUBMITTED BY

Jay Weeldreyer

MEGA BANKS COMING THROUGH THE BACK DOOR AT STATE LEGISLATURES

EDITOR’S COMMENT: This bill tires to give the mega banks what they want — a FULL PARDON and reversal of hundreds of years of property law and civil procedure. They still use the word beneficiary, and they try to paper over the fact that even though ANYONE AT ANY BANK COULD SUBMIT THE SAME AFFIDAVIT (leaving us with the same problem we have now with corrupted title) that this will be sufficient “evidence.” Well maybe it is some sort of evidence — if signed by a person with personal knowledge and is otherwise competent to testify, but it isn’t PROOF.

THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF MEGA BANKS USING THEIR LOBBYING STRENGTH TO SCREW THE NATION’S ECONOMY AND TITLE SYSTEM.

The Washington State Legislature is currently considering the Orwellian-ly described Substitute SB 5275, “Protecting and Assisting Homeowners from Unnecessary Foreclosure.”
Along with the meaningless, and completely impossible sections regarding mediation, and the seeking of other alternatives (remedies which no party of interest has any right or legal ability to engage in) is this gem (found on page 4):
“7 (a)  That, for residential real estate property, . . . . . . . . . . . . .  A declaration by the beneficiary (bank) made under penalty of perjury stating that the beneficiary (bank) is the actual holder of the promissory note or other obligation secured by the deed of trust shall be sufficient proof as required under this subsection.”
I don’t understand how substituting an actual record of a transaction, a note, with a declaration by an employee of a bank that may or may not be the holder/owner is going to facilitate protecting the property rights of homeowners in Washington State.
Ridiculous.
JW

21 Responses

  1. I do not even understand how I ended up right here, but I believed this publish used to be great. I do not recognize who you’re but certainly you’re going to a famous blogger in case you are not already. Cheers!

  2. This bill isn’t horrible, for WA, believe it or not it is a small step in the right direction. It simply doesn’t address the heart of the problem.
    The verbiage that ALL the blogs JUST caught onto has existed for quite some time as already pointed out in the previous posts.
    The main problem in WA is that for a homeowner to defend against an unlawful non-judicial action.
    They 1st have to find a violation of the EXTREMELY pro-lender statutes. (Which most often the violations do exist, however one must possess the knowledge to find them…$$$ and/or time & research).
    Then, the homeowner MUST EFFECTIVELY SUE ($$$) for Injunction Relief, this means surviving opposing counsel’s objections (which include technical arguments)
    Then the Judge must Grant the Injunction based on the MERITS of the case ordering the enjoining of the sale. This can also and typically does require the Homeowner to pay into the court registry the amount due as if the default had not occurred ($$$/mo).
    Finally this all has to occur prior to the sale occurring or the Homeowner has waived most all of their rights to regain the property. 61.24.050 ““…After a trustee’s sale, no person shall have any right, by statute or otherwise, to redeem the property sold at the trustee’s sale.”
    The WA Deed of Trust Act has made the fight in WA extraordinarily difficult, as the SHOW ME THE NOTE argument under the law isn’t available unless the homeowner can succeed in showing the current party most likely doesn’t have the rights and/or authority they claim to have.
    I like many of the others who follow these Blogs and are assisting homeowners to navigate this fight. Are overwhelmed with the amount of FRUAD, LIES, DOWNRIGHT UTTER DISREGARD for the well being of homeowners and GREED coming from the foreclosing banks, etc.
    I think the BLOGS are a great service and forum of sharing information. I wasn’t even aware of this bill until I received an email from 4closurefraud as I have been working around the clock in the trenches of this battle for myself and many others who have come to me for information. I do think they need to make sure the BLOG administrators need to make sure the articles that are posted and CALLS TO ACTION have the correct message.
    In this particular case that was a little lacking, as this bill does, a little, help the homeowners, but like mention by Karen Pooley, doesn’t go nearly far enough in correcting the HUGE Problems in WA State.
    Karen and anyone else in WA feel free to contact me the more we work together the more power we will have.
    Thanks.

  3. @Marla,
    Well, thank you. But Neil Garfield and 4closurefraud have totally eliminated any credibility I have worked on gaining in our Washington Legislature.

    I have been working on an amendment to SB5275. And now, it looks like the bill might totally be scrapped.

    This fucking pisses me off. One solid year’s worth of work and it can be eliminated by two blogmasters who don’t research the whole fucking story.

    the action alert should be:

    “I SUPPORT SB 5275, PROVIDED AN AMENDMENT CAN BE ADDED TO INCLUDE A CLEAR CHAIN OF TITLE BE REQUIRED TO PROVE OWNERSHIP OF THE NOTE.”

    Thanks Neil, Thanks, Michael.
    You both are going down in my books as a couple of assholes.

  4. @Karen Pooley

    Karen, thank you for all your hard work.

  5. Washington Law is terrible. It does NOT protect homeowners and neither do the Courts in Washington. Getting past the rubber stamp gavel is nearly impossible. There is very little good case law coming out of Washington and the Legislature is just making it worse. The language of the bill is absurd as is the language of the Deed of Trust Act. Washington is a strange place politically. It is run by a democrat party that serves its paymasters.

  6. @Looking for Cites
    THIS DECLARATION IS VERY BAD LAW. The banks are hiding behind yet ANOTHER document that is either robo-signed or just bullshit.

    I am working diligently to get this RCW OFF THE BOOKS. I don’t want to see this bad law FURTHER embedded into more bad law.

  7. Neil we must focus on the puppeters not the puppets. David stern was a puppet that came to life to be the puppeter. Or maybe to big for his briches when he went public pulling in investors and sheding some light into a avenue of huge profits.Neil can we finally form a homeowners or homestead association like a union powerful with a voice like aarp or nra. We have enough attorneys listening. Cant we hire some bottom feeding lobbyists just like mba does. Lets play on a even playing field logical arguments from a quantity of human will maybe slow down the greed of these foreclosure buyers or trashout buisnesses. Let the buyer realise that bottom is the day that bush took office .What your house was worth in january 2000 add a small appreciation is a that its worth.Bush was a green light for fraud and they went on every crevice of america.

  8. Look to your state and its actions. To think WA would do anything to screw their voters is unlikely. Wisconsin, sure. They elected someone that appears to be a fascist sympathizer, as he uses the tactics gracefully. How long do you think he is going to survive in WI? Remember, the little people in state government are like the people in the army that will have to chose between shooting their neighbors or not.

  9. Neil I belive washington state is were william patrick foley was born from fidelity. His family has history and power in this state maybe he figures its easier to start with a state that he can bully a little .He resides in jacksonville fl and santa barbara Ca but he focuses on states were he can get away with massive fraud not including arizona were he got his start wathching the fraud roll out. He took advantage of a vulnerable situation outdated land records properties should be like cars titles vin numbers or property numbers. But now we are paying the price uninterested americans until they steal our property legaly as they want to play it.

  10. You know, though, that Washington state law is a real drag. On its face, it certainly is going to work against the less sophisticated. While not an attorney, I am a little knowledgeable and I would have to take some time to properly frame an argument that the key word in that statute is “beneficiary”, and I can promise you more than one attorney wll look no further than its recitation to erroneously call something a day. It’s one more stupid thing borrowers are going to have to argue about, one more layer. Grrrr.
    I also think it’s bench law, even though it’s legislative. ‘Bench law’ is what it’s called when a judge interposes her own belief or bent over the law. (Judgeis on the bench – get it?) Bench law is necessary for the pretenders because the laws as there are today when properly applied will not get them what they want.. The bad news is that mostly only 500 dollar an hour attorneys know how to see to it that the existing law is upheld and they are working on zillion dollar deals, and do not come down in the trenches with us homeowners. Or they are strictly appeals’ guys and then it cost a million dollars for them to ‘catch up’ on a case. It’s like one attorney told me – attorneys get paid to read by the word. I dont’ mean to assail attorneys in general. They’re not obligated to come down in these trenches.
    So that leaves us. Here’s a link to my take on the obligations of the deed of trust trustee, which include those to you, the borrower:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/49456517/Foreclosure-and-Breach-of-Fiduciary-How-and-Why

    I wish a couple attorneys would deign to comment.

  11. Oh, dang. Is there no end to this?
    Just when I thought I’d seen it all, I found a document in a bk case wherein a MERS’ member claimed to be the agent of MERS! Did you get that?!
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/49520736/MERS-member-Aurora-Loan-Services-claims-it-is-Agent-for-MERS
    Now as to that law, note it says the beneficiary may sign a declaration. If you’re not the beneficiary, then I guess you can’t sign a declaration, right? So I don’t see how this changes anything. We’re still battling as to whether or not ABC is the beneficiary
    entitled to execute such a declaration.
    That’s a dumb law in its execution. There is still the standard of proof imposed by other law. Since many, many of these jokers file bogus declarations, you can just add perjury and rule 11 or 9011 violations to the litany of their sins.

  12. Don’t panic – this is obviously written by someone not familiar with the Washington statutes. The wording in the new bill regarding “proof” of the beneficiary owning the note is identical to the statute that’s been in effect since July of 2009 – and essentially it’s a good thing. The reason is that in Washington supposedly no trustee may initiate a nonjudicial foreclosure without proof that the named beneficiary owns the note.

    One area where the statute falls short is that the only way you can get that trustee to show their “proof” is to take them to court – and then, unless someone’s doing something way out of line you’re not likely to get a sympathetic ear. As with many states, the only way to force their hand is to file a Quiet Title action. In Washington you still have your deed to the property – if anyone wants to contest it they will have to show that their deed of trust has teeth.
    Unfortunately the restructuring of loans programs have been a failure nationwide (the banks are not into charity), and it is doubtful that the current efforts by the Washington Legislature will have much effect other than to simply make the whole process more expensive.

    WHERE THEY CAN MAKE IMPROVEMENT, however, would be to re-word 61.24.030(7)(b) to make a lack of good faith by either the beneficiary or trustee be sufficient cause for them to have to reveal their records – and have that good faith extend to anyone with a legitimate interest in the property. The way it is now, the bank can be a total crook, but unless the trustee has not been honest it makes no difference.

    Here is the current statute wording – which again, is identical to what is being proposed:

    RCW 61.24.030(7)(a) That, for residential real property, before the notice of trustee’s sale is recorded, transmitted, or served, the trustee shall have proof that the beneficiary is the owner of any promissory note or other obligation secured by the deed of trust. A declaration by the beneficiary made under the penalty of perjury stating that the beneficiary is the actual holder of the promissory note or other obligation secured by the deed of trust shall be sufficient proof as required under this subsection.

    (b) Unless the trustee has violated his or her duty under RCW 61.24.010(4), the trustee is entitled to rely on the beneficiary’s declaration as evidence of proof required under this subsection.

  13. My Testimony Before the House and Senate:

    Dear Senator Murray, Senator Kilmer and the other ranking members of this Committee,

    My name is Karen Pooley. I am a consumer foreclosure advocate. I am a responsible homeowner who is at risk of losing my home, and therefore this proposed legislation has an extreme effect upon me, personally. I am honored to stand before you today to submit this testimony on behalf of homeowners across our state that may be facing the loss of their home. These are the people I implore you to protect.

    I have been very involved and very instrumental in assisting Jim Sugarman, AGO in the Attorney General’s investigation. Some of the documents I submitted to the Attorney General’s office were very instrumental in bringing into the investigation the trustees of this state. I have submitted over 300 pages of documents throughout many counties of Western Washington. I also have submitted documents of homeowners who are not currently in default, trying to show that the fraudulent documents in our land records go way beyond just the issue of foreclosures. This fraud is rampant and consistent throughout our land records. The fraud consists of robo-signed documents, alleged forgeries, notary fraud, conflicts of interest regarding the behavior of our trustees and in some instances NO SIGNATURES OR NOTARY AT ALL, the pages were sent to our Recorders blank. Our land records are hopelessly corrupt.

    I have met with some Senators regarding this and other bills that did not make it out of committee. I must admit that I have not always understood the process of laws and how they move through the legislature in Olympia. I have made some mistakes, which I am very sorry for. However, those mistakes have brought me to this point, where I am now standing before you. I am before you to ask for your assistance to protect the constituents of this state who are facing foreclosure.

    While mandatory mediation (which this bill addresses) is an excellent protection to homeowners, there are two sentences in this bill, the way it currently is written, that will be very detrimental to the homeowners who are in distress. These sentences are as follows:

    “(iii) Proof that the entity claiming to be the beneficiary is the owner of any promissory note or obligation secured by the deed of trust. Sufficient proof may be a copy of the declaration described in RCW 61.24.030(7)(a);”

    Sufficient proof should NOT be this declaration. The declaration [as described by
    RCW 61.24.030 (7)(a)] is very poor law, as it allows the pretender lender to fraudulently file just one more additional legal document to claim ownership of the note. As the bill stands now, we are further embedding this bad law passed last session into yet another piece of legislation. We need to eliminate RCW 61.24.030 (7) (a). To bring the correct party in interest to the mediation table, we should adopt the language Arizona just passed in their SB1259. Which reads:

    “A. FOR ANY BENEFICIARY WHO IS NOT THE ORIGINATING BENEFICIARY ON THE DEED OF TRUST, THE BENEFICIARY SHALL RECORD A SUMMARY DOCUMENT REGARDING THE BENEFICIARY’S LEGAL INTEREST IN THE DEED OF TRUST THAT CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER:
    THE FULL NAME AND ADDRESS OF RECORD OF EVERY PRIOR BENEFICIARY ON THE DEED OF TRUST.
    THE DATE, RECORDATION NUMBER OR OTHER UNIQUE DESIGNATION OF THE INSTRUMENT, AND A DESCRIPTION OF THE INSTRUMENT THAT CONVEYED THE INTEREST OF EACH BENEFICIARY.
    THE SUMMARY DOCUMENT PRESCRIBED BY THIS SECTION SHALL BE RECORDED AT THE SAME TIME AND PLACE THAT THE NOTICE OF TRUSTEE’S SALE IS RECORDED PURSUANT TO SECTION 33-808 AND A COPY OF THE SUMMARY DOCUMENT SHALL BE ATTACHED TO ANY NOTICE OF TRUSTEE’S SALE THAT IS REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED AS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 33-809.
    C. FAILURE TO PROPERLY RECORD THE SUMMARY DOCUMENT THAT DEMONSTRATES EVIDENCE OF TITLE FOR THE FORECLOSING BENEFICIARY AS OF THE DATE OF THE TRUSTEE’S SALE AS PRESCRIBED BY THIS SECTION RESULTS IN A VOIDABLE SALE.
    D. ANY PERSON WITH AN INTEREST IN THE TRUST PROPERTY MAY FILE AN ACTION TO VOID THE TRUSTEE’S SALE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS SECTION AND IS ENTITLED TO AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES AS WELL AS DAMAGES AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW IF THE PERSON SUBSTANTIALLY PREVAILS, INCLUDING AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES FOR ANY INJUNCTION OR OTHER PROVISIONAL REMEDIES RELATED TO THE CLAIM.”

    I am witness to robo-signed documents, including robo-signed signatures of these declarations. Isn’t the point of this mandatory mediation to bring the REAL parties in interest to the table so there CAN be an effective mediation? Why would the entity that is claiming to own the note not want to be protected as well? We have all read about two entities trying to foreclose the same piece of property. We also understand that these mistakes made should not occur, but have. Therefore, if proof is not just another piece of documentation that any entity can hide behind by forging yet another signature, why would we allow this to be sufficient proof?

    Nationwide, homeowners have learned that the contracts we entered into when purchasing our homes were not really mortgages, but security instruments involving parties unknown and undisclosed to us. These mortgages have been endorsed and assigned to parties unknown and undisclosed to us and not recorded, often many times over. Such endorsements and assignments were conducted without proper recordkeeping, possibly making identification of our true creditor impossible and therefore, valid lien release upon payoff, also impossible. The banking industry allegedly avoided proper recordkeeping intentionally to bypass having to pay local recording fees. This lost revenue, which could tally into the millions of dollars, has robbed our local economy and contributed to the financial crisis that our state is in. Credit enhancements and insurance policies were attached to our mortgages without our knowledge, financially enriching parties unknown and undisclosed to us in the millions of dollars if we went into default. Often times, we were targeted for such default at loan origination. Or we were targeted for our good credit scores, which were sought after to disguise the poor credit scores within the same traunch of securities. We have learned that because our titles are now clouded due to securitization, documents may have been falsified to fabricate a perfected chain of title allowing parties with questionable standing to foreclosure on our homes. And finally, we have learned that our creditor or creditors have likely been made whole already through various insurance policies, credit default swaps, and when all those funds were exhausted, bailout money from our tax dollars.

    I implore you to consider this small change to this bill. It would be eliminating the declaration from providing the proof and it would bring the REAL parties in interest to the mediation table that should be there. This small change would protect the homeowners as well as the entity claiming ownership of the note. I see no reason why we would not want to adopt this language to protect both parties.

    Thank you for this opportunity to testify before you. I am thankful of your time. I am thankful that our legislature understands the gravity of this legislation before you and the effect it will have across our great state.

    Sincerely,

    Karen Pooley

  14. There were two homeowners yesterday testifying before our Washington House and today there were three of us testifying to our Senate. This bill is not done. We are trying to convince them to get rid of the declaration and go with language that ONLY accepts proof of ownership regarding proof of a clear chain of title. We, homeowners, are working on this!!! Very diligently. We won’t let our legislature be bought.

    McKenna’s office continues to tell us that they won’t let them get away with it. They said that in most investigations, evidence is very hard to come by. In this case, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence. Don’t count out Washington to protect our constituents!!! We are working very very hard.

  15. I missed this one ,,,
    http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mozilo-20110219,0,3665171.story U.S. drops criminal probe of former Countrywide chief Angelo Mozilo

  16. Keep your eyes on your state legislatures folks. Banks, or their attorneys and lobbyists, are burning the midnight oil trying to pass similar in every state.

  17. This is totally obsurd!

    You do not need to “substitute the legal note”, if you are in possession of it. If you possess the original “blue ink note” you then have he law on your side to collect.

    What has happened to the lawyers and judges ability to logically follow the exsisting law. We DON”T NEED NEW LAWS. Follow the ones in exsistance and all will turn out right!
    2 thumbs up for Neil Garfield!!!!

  18. If the rule of law gets in their way, well, just change the law. Seems simple enough!

  19. Wow….this is TERRIBLE legislation. And from the same state where the Attorney General, Rob McKenna, just this last October sent out a letter to ALL trustees performing non-judicial sales warning them that their procedures were “ignoring laws” and “using some of the same questionable practices used by national banks” in the foreclosure process. The banks must have really felt the heat on this one. But to come up with something like this? Pure evil.

  20. I believe that a few months ago on this website somebody posted saying that the mega banks would be trying to go to the state legislature and change the laws regarding real property in their favor. Here it is. It is very sad that our constitutional democracy is no longer working. Who sponsored that ridiculous bill, so we can “out” him/her.

    Recently, I have seen that the protests are moving to Ohio, and Ohio has sent out a press release that the StateHouse will be closed off to the public. Well, well, the statehouse belongs to the public. The public paid for it. They cannot keep you from entering the statehouse legally. State business must go on. That’s the law. Don’t fall for that BS. YOU HAVE BUSINESS AT YOUR OWN STATEHOUSE.

    “Enter the public entrance of the Ohio Statehouse through the set of sliding glass doors on the green level of the parking garage.
    The Ohio Statehouse is handicapped accessible and senior friendly.
    Welcome to the People’s House!”
    Burmese8@yahoo.com

  21. What a deterrant, just look at all the lawyers, notaries and other robosigners have been jailed for perjury in FL and elsewhere….NOT.

    Truth

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: