Fraudulent Threats – By Foreclosure Lawyers

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary SEE LIVINGLIES LITIGATION SUPPORT AT LUMINAQ.COM

EDITOR’S COMMENT: About the only thing the lawyers have left is intimidation and trickery. Don’t believe a word you are told by the pretender lender or the lawyer for the pretender lender. It is all a game to them. The goal is for them to get your house for free. They never loaned you the money and they never purchased the loan. They have nothing to lose by going after your house because nobody is stopping them and nobody is holding them accountable. They don’t even lose anything if they lose the case because the number of cases lost (3%) is less than the normal default rate on valid mortgages. They will use ridicule and outright fabrication and forgery of documents combined with lying in court and introducing witnesses that don’t know a thing about your case. OBJECT!

And when some lawyer tries a collection stunt like this (see below), use it against him every way you can.

Fraudulent Threats – By Foreclosure Lawyers

Yesterday, March 24, 2011, 9:41:13 PM | Mark StopaGo to full article

The Tampa Tribune has a fascinating yet sickening story about a lawyer for BB&T who sent a Florida homeowner a demand letter requiring payment of the balance of her mortgage within 30 days.  Threatening letters like this are common; where this one is so different is that the lawyer attached it to a document that looks like an official court filing in a pending foreclosure lawsuit … only it’s not.

Take a look …

Glen Ables received paperwork from a Tampa Attorney stating his house was entering foreclosure even after he was able to refinance through his bank.

At first blush, this looks like a typical Notice of Appearance by a law firm in a pending foreclosure case.  Closer inspection, though, shows the document has no case number – and every pending lawsuit always has a case number.  In fact, closer inspection of the Hillsborough County clerk’s website reveals there is no lawsuit pending at all against this homeowner; the lawyer just made it appear that way.  Quite simply, as the article indicates, the letter and form are totally bogus!

So the question becomes – did the lawyer create the bogus form intentionally?  Let’s put it this way.  I’ve been a lawyer for ten years.  I’ve represented Plaintiffs and Defendants in thousands of lawsuits of various types.  I cannot fathom a circumstance where I’d sign a paper like that accidentally.  I don’t see how it’s possible.  How does one go about drafting a Notice of Appearance with that homeowner’s name on it, as a Defendant, if there is no lawsuit against that homeowner?  Clearly the lawyer didn’t have copies of a court file or anything to that effect – there was no court file.

Unfortunately, a Florida Bar investigator seemed quick to let the lawyer off the hook, saying ”I could see how with thousands of cases, a mistake like this could happen.”  (BTW, that’s an odd comment to make about what is sure to be a pending investigation.)  Anyway, as a lawyer, how do you sign your name on a court document and not realize there is no lawsuit pending?  How does that form ever get drafted?  Even if the lawyer cut and pasted from a similar form (not uncommon for this type of practice), why did the lawyer write that homeowner’s name as the defendant if there was no lawsuit pending?  I just can’t fathom how it could be accidental.

Another telling factor – the letter attached demanded payment of the mortgage within 30 days.  This is a very typical, pre-suit demand letter.  Most mortgages have a provision requiring notice to the homeowner of the default on the mortgage payments and an opportunity to cure that default prior to filing suit.  If that is the letter that was attached, then the lawyer had to know a lawsuit had not been filed; that’s the entire point of the letter – it’s sent prior to any lawsuit!

Now for a little fun.

Lawyers are generally immune from being sued for actions taken as a lawyer under a legal doctrine called the absolute litigation privilege.  I’m simplifying, but this basically means that a party can’t sue the opposing attorney for defamation, or anything like that, merely because the lawyer is asserting a legal position in a pending case.  However, this doctrine typically applies only to actions taken by lawyers during the course of pending lawsuits.  Here, there was no lawsuit pending, so it seems to me that this homeowner has grounds for a lawsuit against the lawyer, the law firm, and BB&T, if she so chooses!  Or if the homeowner doesn’t want to be a plaintiff in such a suit, it can assert defenses/counterclaims predicated on this issue if/when BB&T files a foreclosure lawsuit!

Mark Stopa

www.stayinmyhome.com

32 Responses

  1. […] YOU’RE WRONG ON THE LAW ARGUE THE FACTS Posted on March 26, 2011 by timothymccandless Fraudulent Threats – By Foreclosure Lawyers Posted on March 26, 2011 by Neil […]

  2. […] View the original article here LikeBe the first to like this post. […]

  3. Stupendous Man is right!

    If this Happened in FLORIDA with any Mtg or Installment loan, Secured or Unsecured, this is a Clear violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act.

    By the way, this happens all the time in FLORIDA! Depending on the type collection, IF you have a attorney who Represents a Bank GO AFTER BOTH!

  4. MSoliman

    Not every foreclosure — by far — involves the FDIC.

  5. “Chain” of representation is as bad as the “chain of mortgage title.”

    WHERE DO YOU GET THESE STRANGE IDEAS FROM ? DO YOU WORK FOR THE MBA – REALLY/ DO YOU? WHY ARE YOU THROWING PEOPLE OFF

    PEOPLE – CALL THE FDIC YOURSELF AND ASK FOR THE LEGAL CONTRACT SERVICERS ENGAGEMENT LIST- THERE YOU WILL FIND YOUR FRIENDLY DEBT COLLECTOR.

    . . . HOWE AM I DINOG RODGER

  6. RECENT REVISIONS – PARTY OVER?
    This is a real death blow to a wrongful foreclosure claim in California

    CALIFORNIA CODES CIVIL CODE SECTION 2920-2944.7 2920. (a) A mortgage is a contract by which specific property, including an estate for years in real property, is hypothecated for the performance of an act, without the necessity of a change of possession.

    (b) For purposes of Sections 2924 to 2924h, inclusive, “mortgage” also means any security device or instrument, other than a deed of trust, that confers a power of sale affecting real property or an estate for years therein, to be exercised after breach of the obligation so secured, including a real property sales contract, as defined in Section 2985, which contains such a provision. 2921.

    A mortgage may be created upon property held adversely to the mortgagor. 2922.

    A mortgage can be created, renewed, or extended, only by writing, executed with the formalities required in the case of a grant of real property. 2923. The lien of a mortgage is special, unless otherwise expressly agreed, and is independent of possession.

    Now things really GET fun. There’s gold in them noodles . Get your charts, graphs and de-listed pooling and servicing audits out for these changes. (I PERSONALLY LOVE IT – TALK ABOUT THE STATE INCRIMINATING THEMSELVES…)

    M.Soliman
    expert.witness@live.com

  7. Attorneys not representing the servicers – or trusts — or trustees. Representing the likes of entities like LPS. They cannot settle a case — even if they wanted to. “Chain” of representation is as bad as the “chain of mortgage title.”

  8. Well, this is not new. These lawyers will come to court or file foreclosure case regardless of whether they have their docks in a row or not, because they know most of us will never fight. The Servicers have already beaten us down, the predatory lawyers, loan modification schemes have already milked the last dollar out of our ever decreasing bank accounts.

    By the time they come to file, we are mostly, financially, morally and emotionally done. Most people have no energy to pursue a battle that can take years.

    That is what most regulators I have talked to have told me. That they know there is fraud, that they know they could be able to put some of these criminals in jail. But in an area of diminishing resources and where the current players in government have a PR war. The last thing they both want is to look bad on TV.

    Our president, even though, he hesitated to send our planes and ships to fight a third rate assassin such as Ghaddafi, to prevent a massacre. Our President , Congress, the regulators both Federal and State, have allowed a financial, moral, and human massacre in our own back yard. Our streets, neighborhoods, towns, counties, states, our whole nation has fallen pray to a group of financiers that have ruined millions of us. They take as an excuse that we indeed may have stopped paying on a loan we may taken out and that some alleged creditor may have a right to foreclose. They stop at that, they do not dig any deeper. These elite will never allow for the truth to come out. I am actually surprised they actually awarded the OSCAR to the documentary “The Inside Job”.

    These people do not care, as long as they either remain in power or acquire it. They will lie, cheat and steal from all of us. However as a people we do not seem to learn, we vote again and again under the same old political scheme the same corrupt and undeserving people to office.

    We need to look deeper and demand more out of those who allege to be our representatives. They do not represent us all. They represent hose who contribute financially to their careers. As long as your campaign contribution check does not have a the name of a major corporation or lobby group on it, they do not care.

    How miraculous has been the recovery of many of these financial criminal enterprises. In less than a year after they were unnecessarily bailed out, not only they were paying off the bail out money with additional undisclosed tax payer gifts. But also reflecting Billions in profits, when most of the nation and the world were in financial distress.

    Where did the hide all the money they made? I which tax heaven was it hidden?

    Now they tell us the economy is growing, and that we are getting rich all over again. Hell no, I have been to hundreds of jobs fairs and the one people employing are security firms doing business with the feds or fast food joints to make America FAT!.

    I am so mad!!!!!!.

  9. She used to work for Kass, Shuler, and Soloman — I have where she filed a Lis Pendens against me when she worked for that firm.

    Now it appears that she has started he own BS Firm !!!

    Must have seen the greenery flowing through the doors of her former employer — Interesting that she is getting exposed so quickly … hopefully more is on the way soon.

  10. cubed2k

    In order to qualify as traditional MBS — need the Triple A rating — that is — the GSE guarantee. If one qualified for Fannie/Freddie loan — the loan was securitized. If exceeded the loan limits – loan was not securitized. If borrower pays all payments — loan stays a F/F – and a mortgage.

    Subprime loans were given to those with poor credit — and, when loans exceed F/F limits — and these loans could not be securitized into traditional MBS. So what they did (Ranieri) was to create layers of credit enhancement — in order to achieve a triple A rating. Those layers were the subordinate tranches in a trust — which provided credit enhancement to senior tranches and were the first tranches sold – to hedge funds/debt buyers. The senior pass-through tranches were kept by the banks — whose subsidiary Depositors purchased the loans from originators. Then the Depositor’s sells the loans to it’s set up trust (Depositor owns the trust) — and coverts loans to securities – which are sold to the bank’s subsidiary security underwriter. The subordinate tranches are combined from multiple trust and sold to CDOs for pass-through – but collection rights remain with subordinate tranche holders. By the credit enhancement tranches – the bank has willing and waiting hedge fund/distressed debt buyer willing to purchase default loans (which are really already defaults) — thus, no problem for bank. Until defaults came so fast — hedge funds/ debt buyers could not accommodate. Really, AIG could not accommodate because the hedge funds/debt buyers insurance swaps they took out to protect them if they had to purchase write-offs in bulk.

    As long as payments are made — the security underwriters parent can make its payments to CDO derivative security “investors”. (CDO – not really a security — but a derivative because it is not derived from the loan itself — but from the trust securities.

    In order for all to work — the banks first had to get their hands on the F/F loans. Thus, they had to solicit refinance in order to get homeowners above F/F limits. And, the banks knew who was already labeled subprime –poor credit risk — as borrowers, most likely, had credit card debt and not so great FICO score. But, the process was not working fast enough for the banks – and not fast enough for the hedge funds/debt buyers who had proprietary relationships with banks.

    So, had to get loans out of F/F faster. Servicers started fabricating default on the F/F loan (most likely through misapplied escrows)– and just before a refinance — bank purchases the loan at discount – and F/F also collects insurance. Discharge is false — and borrower will never get an F/F loan again. F/F complies by purchasing the subprime fabricated securities.

    But, this is not enough for banks — they want more – higher loans and higher interest rates because the demand from hedge funds is rapidly increasing — and mortgage brokers are being paid big bucks to deliver the goods. So banks/brokers keep soliciting for another refinance — famous line — “you did it once — do it again!!.”

    Now — why not a mortgage?? Because you cannot have a new secured mortgage IF you did not pay off your prior secured mortgage lender. And, you did not — someone else did. All you have is an unsecured modification of your already default debt. Each time a refinance is done thereafter, the default debt (modification) loan is earmarked for a new trust. Of course, if loan is not compliant — which it is not — there should be a repurchase. But, no need for repurchase — because these trusts are set-up to absorb the default loan mods anyway (which is why banks did not enforce repurchases – until the crisis hit). .

    And, when loan is refinanced again (default debt reaffirmed) — the trust is never paid off — again, not paid off by you -paid off by insurance.

    All of this means your loan is unsecured — and principal corrections — should be available in BK – without loss of home. This is why lobbyists demanded that Congress vote down BK Reform that would make the process easy.

    Instead, they have to continue to pretend that the loans are secured — that ratings were accurate, that notes were validly conveyed to trusts, that assignments are valid, discharges were valid, etc. etc.

    And, this is why there are huge flaws in the accounting process -including the warehouse lines of credit that supposedly advanced funds for the process. No funds were actually dispersed — these were credit lines that were just “adjusted” after banks purchased the delivered goods from originators.

    The subprime trusts were nothing more than a “shell” to absorb the default debt mods that were F/F rejects. .

    Can the accounting flaws demonstrate this??? Yes. But, those in authority — do not care — not in the best interest of the banks — which is all they care about.

  11. Most debt collection is done without proper proof of the debt. They will try and collect from you even if you are not the correct person to pursue. It has happened to me. YOU MUST ANSWER THEIR FIRST LETTER with a letter of your own (certified mail) that asks for the exact account number, ALL transactions that ever took place and a contract with your original signature on it. You might also print out the definition of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act from Wikipedia and attach it.

    If they can’t come up with the info above, they usually sell the debt to another debt collector who will probably try the same thing. After awhile they give up. Remember, the debt is securitized. What does that mean? The original debt was sold at least once and should be considered retired–dead! Burmese8@yahoo.com

  12. You know, these banksters / servicers have a better gig going than I even gave them (dis)credit for. They make off with your home with a stinking credit bid, which means their out of pocket is zilch. Now where do you suppose the funds go when the house is ultimately sold? They’re keeping it.
    I mean, how do you actually retire one ‘note’ that is derivatives, securities,stocks, whatever ?
    Let’s see…the house sold for 200k net, 200k they got for free…no origination fee, no points, no closing costs, no APR, no overnight rate, no 90 day rate, nada, just FREE. They have to continue the payment stream with their free money, but that’s a trade I’d make if I could. I’d bet a dollar to a donut their exposure on the payment streams turns into the net sales price of the property, also.
    Mr Soliman could probably explain this better. Maybe one day he’ll do so in English or at least in words of one syllable.

  13. “investors” in subprime mortgages are nothing more than (default) debt buyers. Subprime mortgages (debts) were defaults already — and did not qualify as traditional MBS.

    Ah yes, I see, I didn’t see the the whole subprime thing as stated above. Am I correct in saying it was throw in while regular mortgages were happening so as to hide it you might say?

  14. cubed2k,

    Very interesting articles you post. FTC has failed to deal with fraud in debt collection for years. Mortgage foreclosure is nothing but fraudulent debt collection.

    We can look at what accounting should be — but you will find purged records. Prior loans not paid off — by you — but rather intercepted — by debt buyers.

    Accounting relevant if — there was no fraud — prior to refinance — —- but there was fraud BEFORE people even refinanced into subprime loans. Called targeting — and FTC knows it. .

    Complicated system — made fraud — easy.

    “investors” in subprime mortgages are nothing more than (default) debt buyers. Subprime mortgages (debts) were defaults already — and did not qualify as traditional MBS.

  15. “How a Supreme Court ruling killed off usury laws for credit card rates
    A 1978 court case changed the industry — and put cards in everyone’s pockets.”

    From article I posted below.

    Commercials on TV from Capital One – What’s in your wallet?”

    Why it’s a credit card. Should be called DEBT CARD.

    not to be confused with debit card.

  16. oh great, while you good American’s are paying down your debt, guess what, general needed prices are going up, thanks to Wall St. Yep, gas going up, food going up, postal going up, so everybody says got to increase prices.

    Oh, that article did not mention inflation, which means paying down your debt will actually take longer than their forecast of 10-15 years.

    Holly crap oh la, Batman, we just took it up the arse.

    JUBILEE time. LUKE, use the bankrupcy and be done with with, screw the banks.

    Hey Helicopter Ben, we could use some of that cash from heaven, what you say?

  17. from below article, 10-15 years till LTV is normal.

    OK, AG’s of the 50 states, what is your deal with the banks? Will you get principle reduction or will everybody be slaves to the banks for 10-15 years as usual? So you are underwater on your mortgage, but according to Glen Beck you signed a deal. But the MBA walked from their deal?

    “Next we show the aggregate equity position and loan-to-value ratios for homes with outstanding mortgages. For a frame of reference, let’s think about how long it will take for LTV ratios to come back simply to where they were five years ago. This seems like a reasonable yardstick, as this was a period of profligate consumer spending – where the market is hoping we’ll return. Currently the aggregate LTV of all mortgage holders is 88.4%. We are bearish on the outlook for home prices, and, as such, we assume there is unlikely to be any material appreciation, even in nominal terms, for a long time.

    The following example helps explain the significance of this. Imagine that the US encumbered housing market is an analog to one household with one big mortgage. Assume that their home wasn’t going to rise in value for many years. Assume that they have a 30-year mortgage that they’re 3-4 years into at a 5.5% rate. The home is worth $175,000 and they have a $154,700 mortgage (88.4% LTV). Assume they aren’t interested in taking on more debt until that LTV gets back to where it was in 2004-2005, namely in the 60-62% range. Calculating the amortization, you’ll find that it will be 14-16 years before this household pays down its mortgage to levels consistent with a 60-62% LTV. We’re aware that this analysis relies on several key assumptions. The point, however, is that even with modest inflation in home prices it will be many years before these LTVs get back to levels consistent with even those observed in the middle part of this past decade.

    Ultimately, we expect 10-15 years could pass before LTVs get back down to a level where re-leveraging can begin. This conclusion is profoundly different than most other predictions about when leverage will resume.”

    WELCOME to the MIDDLE CLASS, your new world order, let the trading begin.

  18. you go girl, keep paying down the hucksters, and be done with it, All Cash.

    Notice the ramp up near vertical from 2004 to 2008, yahoo, free money, money from the heavens. Lets see interest rates in 2004 about 5%, then jacked up to 30% in 2008, and they stopped giving out credit so you can’t roll over. Let’s pull the rug out and keep interest rates high.

    http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2010/11/10/consumer-debts-wont-return-anytime-soon/

  19. Six words in re how to deal with this:

    Fair Debt Collection Practices Act suit.

  20. […] Mar Fraudulent Threats – By Foreclosure Lawyers Posted on March 26, 2011 by Neil […]

  21. time is running out for you folks in Arizona, soon everybody, and then you will be in debtors prison.

    http://www.yumasun.com/news/debt-68661-credit-years.html

  22. Ask To See The General Ledger And Who Is Booking The Daily Interest.

    We task “Who Is Collecting the Payments?” Is it the Servicer? If no, then who; Then Who Engaged the Servicer? In Your Matter the Parties you’re challenging in Court are a Grab Bag of players. It Does Not Help naming Indispensible Parties to a Misjoinder claim If you cannot target the Culprit.

    Lender “A” Originated & Sold the Loan. It Is A Smaller Bank, Broker, And Builder. Call It The Seller Who Is Likely Out Of Business Or Uninterested In This Lawsuit.

    Party “B” Bank / Warehoused The Loans / Wiring The Funds; It’s The Bank Sitting With Loans That You And Other Borrowers Are Obligated To Pay According To The Promissory Note.

    Party “C” QSPE / Common Trust Stock / Investors Here Is the Qspe Formed To Purchase the Banks Lines Of Credit as a Receivable. The Loans Funded By Lender “A” Were Through A Warehouse Line And Now Represents The Basis In Assets. Common Stock Is Issued In Exchange For The Warehouse Line Used As Paid In Capital.

    Company “D” SPE / Preferred Trust Stock / Investors Purchased At Up To Ten Times the Value of Your Loan. Company “D” Is Formed As An Equity And Debt Trust (Not Qualified).

    Lender “A” Is since exited having transferred its Loans “Whole” At Time Of Funding; concurrently On A Forward Commitment Issued to Company “B” The Bank by Company “C” Who Sold Trust Common Shares.

    Company “B” is a failed bank in receivership. The FDIC is now the conservator.

    Now here is where MERS should not merit at any time as a holder of the notes. The notes that COMPANY “C” bought are transferred under a reverse sale or reciprocal transaction for purposes of avoiding FIERREA need for purposes of Derecognition. The scheme is solely for exchanging “lines” for “loans”.

    COMPANY “C” is the banks holding company owning the cash flow due company “B” the bank. The transferring of liabilities and receivables to COMPANY “C” require an asset to offset the capital structure. The asset is worthless common stock.

    These structured trades are deemed in California as deed for bonds. These assets are not bonds howerever as described nder CA CC 2924. Yet they are offset by liabilities and create an accounting scheme and thus our Premise – common stock is issued against bank lines, not loans, by means and methods known as Derecognition (see FAS 140 GAAP RULES)

    M.Soliman
    Expert.witness@live.com

  23. Are we out numbered in the US? Meaning are there more attorneys working for Banks then there are working for people who are losing their homes?

  24. This is the work of debt buyers — who attorneys refuse to identify. The attorneys debt buyers hire are just as devious as the debt buyers themselves.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: