COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

“The battle liens are drawn: either the pretender lenders with nothing at stake except satisfaction of greed or the homeowner -borrowers who were duped by fraudulent appraisals and other predatory and fraudulent lending practices are going to get a free house. The tide has turned in favor of the victim (homeowner-borrowers) and against the pretender lenders who simply have no skin in the game).” — Neil Garfield


These “show me the paper” cases have been winding through the courts for several years. But in recent months, some judges have been siding with borrowers and stopping foreclosures after concluding that banks’ paperwork problems are more serious than previously thought and raise broader ethical questions.

This year, cases in California, North Carolina, Alabama, Florida, Maine, New York, New Jersey, Texas, Massachusetts and others have raised questions about whether banks properly demonstrated ownership.”

EDITOR’S COMMENT: When the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg start questioning the viability of the mortgages, they are questioning the viability of the mortgage bonds. Since the money was always intended for parties other than those disclosed at the closing with the homeowner-borrower, it is obvious that the mortgage lien was not only not perfected, it didn’t exist at all because the paperwork describes a transaction that never occurred. This in turn means that the megabanks are now at the point of the cliff where they can’t go back and if they go forward they cease to exist in their present form.

Investors and traders are starting to get the complexity of this but they are also simplifying it down to the essentials, “where’s the beef?” If there isn’t any substance to these transactions, and the investors who were the source of the funds are suing on exactly that premise then you have a confluence in which both creditor and debtor are saying the same thing: there is no debt, there is no lien.

That being the case, there is a magnificent trading opportunity in shorting the bank stocks, and it turns out that both puts and shorts are increasing. From my own experience, traders make their own reality and companies live or die based upon the conventional wisdom amongst those companies and investors who make their money in the liquidity portion of trading activity — day trades, speed trades by supercomputers etc. My opinion is that the bank stocks are i for a fall not unlike the GM and that they are headed for bankruptcy and resolution whether anyone likes the idea or not.

It is also apparent that the holy grail for homeowners is coming within reach. In 2010 there were 2.9 million households that received foreclosure papers. The Obama administration claims over 600,000 successful permanent modification (many of which went back into foreclosure). The parties to those modifications, just like the parties to the enforcement of the obligation, just like the parties to would-be foreclosures are the same parties as those whose claims to standing and real party in interest have essentially been repeatedly struck down by every court that looked at the documentation and simply applied basic rules of law and basic rules of evidence, which is also law.

Since neither the pretender lenders nor the actual creditors (investor-lenders) have taken any steps to reform the transactions (and for good reason, because their proof would be lacking) that leaves a void where there would ordinarily be a creditor claiming damages from the the failure or unwillingness of the homeowner to pay on a debt that was fraudulently stated, in a transaction that never occurred. In plain language, the millions of foreclosures numbering some 7 million households, are subject to and should be reversed restoring the homeowner to ownership of the home without the existing liens of record — i.e., by having the courts clear the existing liens off the title registry in a quiet title action.

The battle liens are drawn: either the pretender lenders with nothing at stake except satisfaction of greed or the homeowner -borrowers who were duped by fraudulent appraisals and other predatory and fraudulent lending practices are going to get a free house. The tide has turned in favor of the victim (homeowner-borrowers) and against the pretender lenders who simply have no skin in the game).

Banks Hit Hurdle to Foreclosures


Banks trying to foreclose on homeowners are hitting another roadblock, as some delinquent borrowers are successfully arguing that their mortgage companies can’t prove they own the loans and therefore don’t have the right to foreclose.

These “show me the paper” cases have been winding through the courts for several years. But in recent months, some judges have been siding with borrowers and stopping foreclosures after concluding that banks’ paperwork problems are more serious than previously thought and raise broader ethical questions.

This year, cases in California, North Carolina, Alabama, Florida, Maine, New York, New Jersey, Texas, Massachusetts and others have raised questions about whether banks properly demonstrated ownership.

During the fall, banks temporarily suspended foreclosures to address so-called robo-signing problems, where employees were approving legal documents without properly reviewing them. They said that in weeks they could fix what they considered to be simple clerical errors. But borrowers are uncovering new types of document problems, further delaying banks’ efforts to get foreclosures back on track.

In some cases, borrowers are showing courts that banks failed to properly assign ownership of mortgages after they were pooled into mortgage-backed securities. In other cases, borrowers say that lenders backdated or fabricated documents to fix those errors.

“Flawed mortgage-banking processes have potentially infected millions of foreclosures, and the damages against these operations could be significant and take years to materialize,” said Sheila Bair, chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., in testimony to a Senate committee last month .

Last month, the Maine Supreme Court reversed the foreclosure of Dana and Robin Murphy of Auburn, Me., after concluding that the mortgage company, a unit of HSBC Holdings PLC, filed “inherently untrustworthy” documents. An HSBC spokesman declined to comment.

The case began in 2008 when HSBC filed to foreclose on the Murphys, who hadn’t made a mortgage payment in two years. A trial judge initially rejected HSBC’s foreclosure because the bank couldn’t show it owned the promissory note—in effect, the borrower’s IOU. The court later granted the foreclosure after HSBC submitted new paperwork.

However, the Murphys found discrepancies and alleged that the documents were backdated. The court voided the foreclosure and sent the case back to the lower court to determine potential penalties.

Attorneys for borrowers reject the view that they are using arcane legal rules to secure free houses for clients who aren’t paying their bills. Efforts to gloss over incomplete or falsified evidence “can’t be tolerated by a free society,” says Thomas Ice, an attorney in Royal Palm Beach, Fla., who has a similar case before the Florida Supreme Court. “This is a huge assault on our legal system” that risks “turning us into a banana republic.”

Laurence E. Platt, a banking-industry lawyer at K&L Gates in Washington, concedes that banks may have been sloppy. But he says “the real assault on the legal system” are efforts by judges and local officials to strip lenders of their rightful ownership and make foreclosures impossible.

In March, an Alabama court said J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. couldn’t foreclose on Phyllis Horace, a delinquent homeowner in Phenix City, Ala., because her loan hadn’t been properly assigned to its owners—a trust that represents investors—when it was securitized by Bear Stearns Cos. The mortgage assignment showed that the loan hadn’t been transferred to the trust from the subprime lender that originated it.

Specific deal agreements required Bear Stearns to assign the loan within three months of the securitization. Because it failed to do so, Alabama Circuit Court Judge Albert Johnson determined, the trust didn’t own the mortgage. “The court is surprised to the point of astonishment that the defendant trust did not comply with the terms,” of the securitization agreement, he wrote.

The ruling is one of the first in the nation to strip a mortgage trust of an asset it thought it owned. A similar case earlier this year was decided in the bank’s favor when it held that the borrower wasn’t a party to the securitization agreement.

Nick Wooten, the lawyer for Ms. Horace, says the case won’t necessarily influence other decisions unless it is upheld by a higher court. But he says it is “another brick in the wall of trial-court-level cases that clearly show the wheels fell off the bus in the securitization industry during the bubble.”

J.P. Morgan Chase hasn’t appealed the case. A bank spokesman declined to comment.

Curing incomplete mortgage assignments can be tricky because many lenders that originated subprime loans are still listed as the owner but have gone out of business.

Bill Dallas, former chief executive of subprime lender Ownit Mortgage Solutions Inc., receives between 200 and 300 pieces of mail every month at his former company’s California headquarters from companies looking to correct ownership flaws. “Am I surprised? Absolutely not,” says Mr. Dallas, who founded and ran the subprime lender until its collapse in late 2006. “I knew this assignment problem was going to be an issue.”

Loans with botched assignments or no assignment are “really problematic” because “the person that originated the loan is gone, the person that funded it is gone, and your servicers are confused,” he says.

Write to Nick Timiraos at

37 Responses

  1. Ian

    Great advice!!!

  2. ANONYMOUS- some homeowners are finding additional mortgages on their credit reports. This is true, and is far more widespread than previously thought. When an originator figured out that the homeowner would no doubt default, and less than 1% of homeowners would defend themselves in a F/C action, the originators piled on the “double-funded” mortgages unbeknownst to the homeowner. Sold to Fannie and Freddie, who checked nothing.
    HINT: the easiest way to persuad a judge that you in fact did not take out these phantom mortgages nor received any proceeds, produce checking acct. statements from 30days before the “funding” to 30days after the “funding”. It will be apparent to anyone that the purported funds never reached you. Furthermore, if this bogus mortgage is inserted into your chain of title, and “paid off” by an actual later “refinance” then your ‘refinance’ is paying off a mortgage that doesn’t exist, which is unconscionable fraud. This was ofter done earlier on in the ponzi scheme when notes were paid off by 3rd parties before purchase of collection rights. So the note would be dead in the water, then resurrected by the bogus mortgage.

  3. Pat

    Some homeowners are even finding that credit reports show duplicate “mortgages” owed.

    Same broker?? Trouble. “Loan” never paid off.

    Steve —

    Reason for changing loan number.

  4. Hanna L,

    So Wall Street hustler takes note that insurer #1 doesn’t stamp or shred. Then creates another fake default loan to collect from insurer #2

    Is what your saying is that Wall Street hustler just looks for a loan number that is highly ever unlikely to default in the future then copies and pastes the number to the old note saying that it did. So when insurer #2 looks to see if its one their own they’ll say the loan number matches so o.k. here you go. I’m trying to visualize what security measures are taken when a servicer goes to collect on a default.

  5. wow…I am doing this EXACT same thing right now……
    When I bought my house it was through FINANCE America in Irvine (now out of business)…..Lehman Brothers Bank was the “lender” (also out of business) then to Lehman Brothers Holdings….to Structured Assets Securities Corporation (or SASCO also a Lehman Brothers entity in BK)….Aurora Bank bought Lehman Brothers bank…..
    Chase and US BANK stole my house…….with no docs. An assignment of deed of trust was done in August 2007 (notice of default from July 2007) with a sub of trustee from August 2007……BUT THE TRUST closed in Nov 2006 WITH NO ASSIGNMENTS from ANY of the LEhman entities ….
    It is a tangled mess but am in for the LONG HAUL.

    I filed a Lis Pendens and CHASE/US BANK resold my house already after they wrongfully foreclosed…
    1st foreclosure was Jan 2009; i filed suit….they continued to litigate through the end of 2009 EVEN THOUGH THEY FILED A RESCISSION OF THE FORECLOSURE and never notified me, my attorney OR THE COURT (think FRAUD upon the court???); then i filed appeal…..
    THey filed 2ND FORECLOSURE in may 2010 and EVICTED me (August 2010) and now I have 2nd suit going….dismissed the appeal BASED ON ALL THIS NEW evidence I could not put in the appeal…..
    And now will be moving to VACATE THE UD etc.

    Fun times here in Los Angeles…..

  6. Here’s another question: Are student loans going into a massive default? Yes.

    Time for a jubilee.

  7. “Hey banker-people… people aren’t buying homes because you broke the bond market… that’s right… no one buys your mortgage-backed… and I use that term very loosely… IN-securities anymore because of the bang-up job you did defrauding them only a few years back. I don’t know when investors around the world will be ready to try them again, but my guess would be that they’ll give you another shot with RMBSs and the like, about the same time I’m ready to take a flyer on a dot-com IPO with no profits or customers who’s heralding the dawn of a “new economy.”

  8. carie

    They should be — but not sure what the government will do – the fraud is so large-scale. They cannot continue as is — doing nothing. 50 state AGs not competent to negotiate a settlement — they have done little investigation.

    neidermeyer, Marie, saveamericaone — etc.

    The subprime fraud (includes Alt- A) – and any loan “refinanced” with an “originator” associated with subprime lending – and may include jumbo loans.
    These were loans that did not qualify for Freddie/Fannie refinance – for one reason or another (largely blemished credit), thus, did not qualify as valid MBS. The subprime market took over what Freddie/Fannie could not do. And, to get you out of Freddie/Fannie — banks (servicers) would “manufacture” default — allowing only collection rights to survive. When you got the refinance — the collection rights to false default debt would be sold to banks and reaffirmed — by the borrowers – by the so-called “refinance.” Insurance paid to GSEs. GSE, in turn, invested in the “synthetic” subprime securities (got triple A rating by creating many layers of credit enhancement). Subprime — a gold mine — interest rates high – much better than traditional market. .

    If you refinanced again — the prior refinance would not be paid off to a prior (shell/sham) subprime trust. Insurance would again get in to the shell trust. And, borrower simply reaffirms collection rights again. As far as mortgage title — there is none — home is not vendible.

    The process would continue until borrower is in actual default — then foreclosure takes places.

    Recorded Discharges (thanks to LPS and Docx and others) — false — invalid numbers, invalid format, robo-signed, etc. There is no way title companies were not aware. Credit reports may show “Paid” — for prior refinance/loan — but, not paid by you. And, if examine carefully — will find flaws in credit reporting.

    Payoff checks, by refinance, likely “cleared” by depository bank clearing house bank (derivatives). But, funds not paid to “trusts” — because insurance paid-out. All the while borrowers thought they were getting a new mortgage.

    Only when foreclosure takes place is Collection rights assigned (assigned is different from SOLD) (this is where you see them scurrying about trying to get docs in order — trying to show that Note went to trust). But, note could NEVER have gone to trust — note was NEVER a valid note..

    But, just because someone else pays out by insurance — does not mean borrower does not owe the money. However, since mortgage was not valid to begin with — that would be the reason do not owe the money.

    At very least, BK should allow discharge of all unsecured debt (refinances that were not really refinances) — but, Congress has voted down BK reform TWICE. WHY??? All would eventually be be disclosed.


  9. Never had so much trouble with a loan in my 35 yrs as a homeowner.

    Anonymous your posts make me question my loans.

    I had ALT- A Jumbo Option Arm with Countrywide on a new purchase in 2004 and then refinanced in 2007 to avoid reset. Same broker did new loan and now I see two robo signers from Docx on my PAID in FULL at courthouse for Countrywide loan. If this document is false then we have even bigger issues!

    If ALT-A’s Option Arms are consider predatory were they lumped in with suprime by the banks and then sold off to a debt buyer probably one they control under another idenity ?

    If that is right that is a problem?

    Based on the recent articles by Neil It could be very possible that my original loan satisfaction due to my refi may not have really been paid off?

    New loan was Alt -A Jumbo Option Arm but not with Countrywide with Chevy Chase. (not an easy bank to work with!)

    Both loans were MERS and securitized loans this post makes me think could the loan now on this home and the one I sold in 2004 all be caught in this mess!!!

    This is making my head spin and my blood pressure boil..I am just a homeowner who wanted a place to raise my family and have peaceable occupancy..The last three years have been a nightmare!! I am not an investor, I know nothing about the stock market I feel like I am in a bad dream and want it over!

    If what you are saying is making any sense I as a homeowner could be exposed to two different sets of investors who could make a claim in the future if they wanted to. This goes for all who are paying or not paying of loans through MERS.

    Heaven Help all Americans if what Neil and others have uncover is true.!!

  10. The Government is not going to let BofA fail after it basically forced tehm to buy Merrill and then with BofA buying COuntrywides mess.

    WHY is no one talking about Fannie Mae; they are government owned and are not offering any significant programs to help keep loans from foreclosing. Is it becuase all the loans are uneforceable too?


    What do you think will eventually happen with homeowners? Do you think that the fake, fraudulent “mortgages” will be declared a null and void contract?

  12. This was written by Jan van Eck in the Wall Street Journal in May: ( on I & O)

    “What you folks have missed is that, in cases of Indentures and “securitized mortgages” sold into trust pools, the Wall Street entities that did this ALSO purchased “insurance” in the form of “credit-default swaps” on the pools. When the “Obligor” on the “Note” (to the extent it can even be identified) fails to remit for three months, the Trustee of the Trust demands payment of the entire principal from the insurer (which is why AIG and Radian Insurance went bust). As these contracts were “non-recourse,” i.e. without subrogation onto the Note, the payment did not require that the “Note” be handed over to the insurer. So what happens? The “note” is fully paid (by the insurer), but is not stamped “Paid.” So the Wall Street hustlers then set up some subsidiary outfit (for example, DLJ Mortgage Capital, a paper front for Credit Suisse) and dump the “Note” in there, and then go file a foreclosure, representing to the Court that the Note is not paid. In fact, the Note is fully paid, just not by the homeowner. So what? It matters not under the U.C.C. who pays the Note: you, your rich uncle, your church group, whatever: “Paid” is still “Paid.” The guys who are laughing literally at the Bank are the guys who foreclose and flip the house, stuff the fresh cash into big bonus checks for themselves, and collect twice on the same Note. Sometimes, they have figured out how to collect THREE TIMES on the same Note.”

    I told my judge this in 2009. Guess he didn’t get it.
    One couldn’t prove it without discovery, anyway.

    Don’s fall for the buzz word ”sub-prime’

    Mortgage Loans bank owners benefitted from really were Alt-A loans. ‘conforming’ or ‘agency’ mortgages
    Ones guaranteed by Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSE’s) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    Alt-A Alt-A loans should be not be confused with alternative documentation loans.

    US mortgage products defined by how they qualify for ‘conforming’ or ‘agency’ mortgages, ones guaranteed by Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE’s) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    Alt-A loans are alternatives to the standard of conforming GSEbacked mortgages.

    Alt-A borrower would have sufficient financial profile to qualify for a ‘conforming’ mortgage but if for (one) factor.

    Borrower property and loan characteristics meet agency guidelines Fannie and Freddie automated preapproval systems grant reduced doc features automatically at no extra cost.

    How many consumers were charged more who had no idea they were charged more benefitting the broker, agent, dealer, distributor?

    Consumer simply charged more for ‘label’ they had no control over affixed to their ‘mortgage loan application.’

    Consumers now labelled they are ‘sub-prime’ fact is we were not sub-prime when we started but banks created spin and labelled us subprime to justify paying $100 for the property they claim to own and recycle.

    Alt-A and subprime differ in that, generally speaking, an Alt-A borrower would have had a sufficient financial profile to qualify for a “conforming” mortgage, if only it weren’t for one of the factors

    Subprime borrower would suffer from exceptionally weak credit, income or asset characteristics

    ‘Mortgage Broker’ who took application ‘positioned consumer (by creating the loan application and controlling the appearance of a consumer) qualify for the ‘more expensive Alt-A or subprime loans in order to expedite their applications (placed onto the purchase order sheet of a Master Servicer’s pipeline).

  14. oh you puny humans, you humanoids, the madder I get the stronger I get – the Hulk. Where’s Superman – truth, Justice and the American Way (oh, I just read he went Global – Wake up Dude.

    Headlines – Banks Stocks Stumbling ————–

    Lets compare some data, as a datum is only as valuable as you can compare it to another.

    Ie. WOW he’s a millionaire!!!!!!!!!! Headlines!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Compared to he’s a millionaire, but he’s one in a population of 100, and those other 99 are Billionaires.


    Bank stocks tumbling————-lets look.

    Chart of BAC vs GS.

    When was Glass-Steagall repealed – 1999.

    When did housing really start to grow in prices?

    When did housing start to crash in prices? Note stock prices between BAC and GS.

    Please NOTE Volume increase from 2008 to present.

    Please note stock price does not correlate to pay and bonus.

    So, where’s legal in all this?

    Oh, by the way, do you remember High Frequency Trading in the middle of all this? Where are the Headlines regarding that?

    Welcome to the new world order where the make believe market (Wall St) based on trading digits and info, MERS, Stock Certificates, Signatures – are real, but main street, the real world is left to trading dollar bills hard money I guess????????????? which are now not real. Say, What’s on your computer screen? Got a problem – press 1 for english, press 2 for spanish, press 3 for brits speaking english but can’t understand them cuz of accent, press 4 for india translation, press 5 for china version, press 6 for legal translation, press 8 to speak to an operator but hold for 2 hours, do not hang up otherwise you have to start over.

  15. Annomymous: What ’causes of action’ may a Plaintiff as’consumer’ claim that the court may provide remedy when the refinance mortgage signed is a right to collect payments for ‘purpose’ on HUD form, and consumer benefitted $1.

    Point of your discussion bears fruit that in bad faith lender did not pay off the mortgage and is alleged to have filed falsified documents by LPS and DOCX for example, kept the existing loan in existing pools, and sold another loan(s) to Issuing Entity..

    Banks specifically turned us down for a credit increase said had to do a new mortgage.

    Banks would not provide credit increase using their own money. Always used a third party agent, broker, dealer, distributor’s credit line.

    LOOPHOLE SIGNIFICANT remains unaddressed by Congress.

    Disclosure provided to sign indicating received “Right to Cancel Increase” never noticed that before. We did request to cancel night documents presented and asked to rip up documents and were told we could not unless we paid $30K (back in 2006).


    Echoing Neidermeyers question with differences:

    Bought my property for cash in 2004; cashout late 2005, a new loan. Did my loan from nominal lender Option One follow your refinance debt theory or might it have followed another
    path. Haven’t found mers in my loan history although I haven’t done a formal audit. In theory it went option one then Ahmsi claimed to be successor in 2009, transferring to deutsche bank,


    Mers Cease and Desist Order on All Foreclosures:

    The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has recently signed a Cease and Desist settlement agreement with MERS Corp (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems). Among other things, the Cease and Desist order finds,

    “We have identified certain deficiencies and unsafe or unsound practices by MERS and MERSCORP that present financial, operational, compliance, legal and reputational risks to MERSCORP and MERS, and to the participating Members.” (OCC No. AA-EC-11-20; Board of Governors; Docket Nos. 11-051-B-SC-1,11-051-B-SC-2; FDIC-11-194bOTS No. 11-040; FHFA No. EAP-11-01)

    Noted attorney Philip Kramer, a senior partner at the law firm of Kramer & Kaslow provides insight, “MERS Corp is the owner of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS), one of the cornerstones of the current banking crisis.

    In order to cut up loans and move the pieces around the world at the speed of electronics again and again and again, until no one is sure who owns what, financial institutions have been using MERS as the “beneficiary”, a legal term which in practical terms means they are entitled to foreclose on behalf of the lender – except MERS is nothing more than an electronic database. They are often named as beneficiary.

    However in order to legally be named as beneficiary they would have had to put up funds on the loan. Not to mention the fact that the recordation itself is not even official. BUT most importantly, MERS is never a Holder in Due Course.”
    Philip Kramer goes on to observe that, “We’re a nation of laws.

    Everyone knew that MERS didn’t have the right to appear as a beneficiary, but it would have been inconvenient to act on this because MERS was in widespread use throughout the banking industry. It was wrong, wrong, wrong, but everyone was doing it.

    All Foreclosures Associated with MERS must Cease and Desist… NOW!

    Sign Our Petition to Stop all MERS Foreclosure NOW!


    Please explain the refi not new loan business for me .. here’s my situation … 1998 “new money” loan with National City Mort. , in 2003 filed ch 13 BK , this loan was in the BK and in 2007 I cash out refi’d with Option One to pay off BK… To my thinking these were unassociated companies and I can’t see how the Option One loan isn’t seperate from the old loan that was extinguished / satisfied.


  19. Neil

    Thanks for always keeping on top of things.

    Only problem with your post — is those darn “investors.”. The investors in the subprime refinanced “loans” — were the debt buying banks!! Not mortgages because — already was a (false) default loan – at – or before — so-called “refinance.”

    How do you think market share changed from GSEs to the banks during the decade of subprime “refinance” fraud??? There was no magic marketing — all orchestrated — GSEs complied by purchasing the false “MBS” to their false charged-off debt — falsely represented as mortgages — but actually just collection rights that can only be transferred by assignment — as there is no valid NOTE. And, falsely securitized as “MBS.” Only security investors to the false MBS were also victims — not the “investors.” And, of course, the security investors have been paid back their principal investment.

    Thank insurance — as to why homeowners — just never knew.

    All subprime “refinances” — fraudulent from onset.

    Government cannot hide forever. .Economy will not survive.

  20. Is this the new stance by the administration???

    Too little too late, idiots…

  21. I am and have been comfortable about my property ownership since I met Neil Garfield and believed in him from June 2007, I am a pro-se litigant that i fought the Supreme Court of New York, the Appellate Division Second Judicial department, the Court of Appeal in Albany New York, these courts improperly dismissed my case, and I filed a complaint in the USA Distric Court of New York, I precluded and stop the foreclosure procedure three times , I told them… then in 2007 what was going to happen and they did not believed me, instead they dismissed my allegations that where travesty and miscarriage of justice, now my case is pending decision in the Federal District Court of New York , the pretender lenders filed a motion to dismiss under …..MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint pursuant to Rule 12 of the F.R.C.P. by GMAC Mortgages, Homecomings Financial, U.S. Bank National Association. (Attachments: # (1) Notice Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 12.1, # (2) Declaration of Robert M. Guttmann P.C. # (3) Exhibit A, # (4) Exhibit B, # (5) Exhibit C, # (6) Exhibit D, # (7) Affidavit of Service) (Guttmann, Robert) the fact of the matter is the affidavits from five Attorneys are not valid, because Honorable Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto ordered that the case is non-dispositive, meaning that these cases are other cases which also in fact affects the Defendants motion to dismiss as Non-Dispositive these motions are all other motions, including but not limited to discovery, third party practice, temporary relief, intervention or amendment of pleadings, and now they are facing Attorney General Eric Schneiderman who in fact is going after the Banks. millions of foreclosures that have already been “booked” are fraudulent and subject to being reversed,

  22. I haven’t seen this many worried faces on Wall Street since the fall of 2008…

  23. Administrations that have failed us for years since Nixon–all of them. Of course, at the top of that list is Congress. Seems like the people earning $200,000 to $1 Million (members of Congress) who are holding up the taxes on the wealthy. The wealthy have said they will pay more taxes. Congress sux.

  24. Neil

    We just bought the title/sec combo analysis. We have a couple of questions, could you please have one of your staff get in touch w/us?
    Thank you so much

  25. Actually the quote I just posted is from Bob Andres—President and CEO at Merion Wealth Partners.

    Bank stocks are in a freeeeee faaaaalll!!!!!!!!!!!!

  26. One thing that bothers me about the two opposing forces that are battling over whether or not foreclosing on mortgages is enforceable is that no attention is being devoted to people who HAVE equity in their home but are not working and therefore cannot tap into it.

    Banks have provisions set up to protect themselves against homeowners taking out too much equity and then disappearing, so there is very little risk to the banks.

    The upside would be money would flow from those who were unemployed to pay bills which would actually help other banking customers who have small businesses and want to be paid for their products and services.

    The alternative is the home is short saled, which inevitably hurts the homeowner, or the home is foreclosed upon.

    This hurts the community at large, yet very little time is devoted to this HUGE GROUP of homeowners.


    That my friends iS a direct quote from the talking heads just NOW on CNBC TV.


  28. If only this was on the streets 3 mnths ago.

  29. tnharry go back to work. Make some money

  30. “We do the document preparation for much less, but have attorneys if you prefer representation” – sounds awfully close to the unauthorized practice of law. Of course, rules and regs differ from state to state, so don’t mind me. I’ll be in the corner waiting for carie to kick me

  31. I wonder if Bill Clinton is having second thoughts at this point about getting rid of Glass-Stegall…

    Nah…why start having a conscience now???

  32. Well who didn’t see this coming?The banks and the servicers thats who,they just figured they could get away with this like they always have.What a bunch of simpering idiot sticks they are!!My question is if Mr. Dallas saw this coming and knew it was going to be a problem then why did he not step to the plate long before now with the issue at hand?Seems to me day late dollar short as usual in this industry.There all just as corrupt and complicit as one can get.

  33. Great article to make borrowers feel better.

  34. thank you neil!!!!!

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: