MOST POPULAR ARTICLES
GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE — EVIDENCE COUNTS!!!
NEIL GARFIELD, GARFIELD CONTINUUM SEMINARS, LIVINGLIES VINDICATED IN FULL
NO MERIT TO FORECLOSURE ACTIONS, PAST PRESENT OR FUTURE UNLESS THE REAL CREDITOR IS PRESENT.
BURDEN OF PROOF SHIFTS TO PRETENDERS
-
“IN THIS CASE, ONE COMPONENT OF PRUDENTIAL STANDING IS PARTICULARLY APPLICABLE. IT IS THE DOCTRINE THAT A PLAINTIFF MUST ASSERT ITS OWN LEGAL RIGHTS AND MAY NOT ASSERT THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF OTHERS. SPRINT, 554 U.S. AT 589; WARTH, 422 AT 499; OREGON V LEGAL SERVS. CORP, 552 F. 3D 965, 971 (9TH CIR., 2009).
-
“Civil Rule 17(a)(1) starts simply: “An action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest… The modern function of the rule… is simply to protect the defendant against a subsequent action by the party actually entitled to recover, and to insure generally that the Judgement will have its proper effect as res judicata.”
-
“The party asserting it has standing bears the burden of proof to establish standing. Sumers v Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009)
-
“Real party in interest analysis requires a determination of the applicable substantive law, since it is that law which defines and specifies the wrong, those aggrieved, and the redress they may receive. 6A Federal practice and Procedure sec 1543 at 480-481
ILLUSION OF SECURITIZATION IS FALLING APART
COLLATERAL BENEFIT TO HOMEOWNER
RESULTING FROM DEFECTS IN PRETENDER LENDER CASE
IS NOT A REASON TO RULE AGAINST THE HOMEOWNER-BORROWER
In a decision filed June 10, 2011 — one year after oral argument — the BAP carefully analyzed the position of the borrower and the alleged creditor and came up with nothing to support the allegations that there was a creditor in the room. Standing being a jurisdictional issue wiped out AHMSI and Wells Fargo.
This one is for publication, which means it is controlling precedent for all bankruptcy Judges in the Ninth Circuit. In a nutshells, the claim of “holder” is not enough, even for a motion to lift stay where the burden is extremely light. Thanks to a growing number of bankruptcy lawyers who understand these issues and thanks to their skill in presenting it, Bankruptcy Judges are realizing two things (1) lifting the stay is misused by the movant by creating the appearance that the merits of the case have already been heard and decided and therefore are engraved in stone under the doctrine of collateral estoppel and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and (2) nipping abuse of process in the bud is the proper way for the courts to handle the pretender lenders.
It is very clear that this represents a sea change in the judicial attitude toward the pretender lenders. The documents don’t add up. So if anyone wants to come in to a court alleging that they can foreclose on the property or collect on the debt, they need to have real evidence which means live witnesses testifying under oath that they have personal knowledge and can authenticate the documents and other evidence proffered by the pretenders. These people don’t exist.
The bottom line is that there is no claim, an objection to the proof of claim will obviously be upheld in view of this ruling, and the homeowner is going to get their home free and clear of any encumbrances or debts unless the real creditor shows up — which is unlikely since the investors are busy suing the investment banks that sold them the bogus mortgage bonds.
LAWYERS ARE SHARPENING UP THEIR PENCILS GETTING READY TO FILE MOTIONS FOR REHEARING AND RECONSIDERATION IN AND OUT OF BANKRUPTCY COURT.
QUOTES FROM THE CASE:
“We hold that that a party has standing to seek relief from stay if it has a property interest in, or is entitled to enforce or pursue remedies related thereto, teh secured obligation that forms the basis of its motion.”
“We hold that a party has standing to prosecute a proof of claim involving a negotiable promissory note secured by real property if, under applicable law, it is a “person entitled to enforce the note” as defined by the Uniform Commercial Code.”
“The Dorchuck letter is just that; a letter, and nothing more. Mr. Dorchuck does not declare that his statements are made under penalty of perjury, nor does the document bear any other traditional elements of admissible evidence.”
“No basis was laid for authenticating or otherwise admitting the Dorchuck letter into evidence at any of the hearings in this matter.”
“Wells Fargo presented no evidence as to who possessed the note and no evidence regarding any property interest it held in the Note.”
“the purported assignment from Option One to Wells Fargo does not contain language affecting the assignment of the note. While the Note is referred to, that reference serves only to identify the mortgage. Moreover, the record is devoid of any indorsement of the Note from Option One to Wells Fargo. As a consequence, even had the second assignment been considered as evidence, it would not have provided any proof of the transfer of the note to Wells Fargo. At most, it would have been proof that only the mortgage, and all associated rights arising from it, had been assigned.”
“given the carve out of the Note at the beginning… the relative pronouns “therein”, “thereto” and thereon” more naturally refer back to the obligations contained in the mortgage, such as the the obligation to insure the property, and not to an external obligation such as the Note…. Although the clauses might be sufficiently vague to permit parol evidence to clarify their intended meaning, no such evidence was offered or requested.”
“STANDING is a threshold question in every federal case, determining the power of the court to entertain the suit.”
“Prudential standing ” ’embodies judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction.'” Spring, 554 U.S. at 289 (quoting Elk Grove, 542 U.S. at 11); County of Kern F. 3d at 845.
“IN THIS CASE, ONE COMPONENT OF PRUDENTIAL STANDING IS PARTICULARLY APPLICABLE. IT IS THE DOCTRINE THAT A PLAINTIFF MUST ASSERT ITS OWN LEGAL RIGHTS AND MAY NOT ASSERT THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF OTHERS. SPRINT, 554 U.S. AT 589; WARTH, 422 AT 499; OREGON V LEGAL SERVS. CORP, 552 F. 3D 965, 971 (9TH CIR., 2009).
“Civil Rule 17(a)(1) starts simply: “An action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest… The modern function of the rule… is simply to protect the defendant against a subsequent action by the party actually entitled to recover, and to insure generally that the Judgement will have its proper effect as res judicata.”
“The party asserting it has standing bears the burden of proof to establish standing. Sumers v Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009)
“Real party in interest analysis requires a determination of the applicable substantive law, since it is that law which defines and specifies the wrong, those aggrieved, and the redress they may receive. 6A Federal practice and Procedure sec 1543 at 480-481
Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: 9TH CIRCUIT, AHMSI, ARTICLE 3, ARTICLE 9, Bank of America, bankruptcy, BAP, borrower, countrywide, creditor, disclosure, Eviction, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, fraud, lender, Lender Liability, MERS, mortgage meltdown, motion to lift stay, NINETH CIRCUIT, note, Option One, PROOF OF CLAIM, PRUDENTIAL STANDING, quiet title, REAL APRTY IN INTERST, rescission, securitization, standing, TILA audit, trustee, UCC, UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, Wells Fargo |
It’s WILBUR Ross, not Walter Ross.
@ Trucly P, Veal attorney, etal
On info and belief:
American Home Mortgage Servicing went bankrupt thru the Delaware Bankruptcy courts in 2007. Its name and other assets were liquidated and purchased by Walter Ross. He created a new corporation with the same name but without any assignment of mortgages from the old unrelated corporation to his new and entirely different corporation. Walter Ross had purchased Option One from H&R Block and Option One was dissolved as an independent corporation. Without any assignment of any mortgage Option One ceases to exist though ‘some’ of its assets were purchased by Walt Ross who formed an entirely different corporation with the same name, Option One. The AHMS and the Option One corporations in the Veal case are NOT the same corporations to whom Veal owed the money. Walt Ross is pulling a fast one here.
[…] game-over-veal-case-vindicates-every-point-reported-on-livinglies […]
[…] GAME OVER? VEAL CASE VINDICATES EVERY POINT REPORTED ON LIVINGLIES MOST POPULAR ARTICLES GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE — EVIDENCE COUNTS!!! NEIL GARFIELD, GARFIELD CONTINUUM SEMINARS, LIVINGLIES VINDICATED IN FULL NO MERIT TO FORECLOSURE ACTIONS, PAST PRESENT OR FUTURE UNLESS THE REAL CREDITOR IS PRESENT. BURDEN OF PROOF SHIFTS TO PRETENDERS 57568003-IN-RE-VEAL-w “IN THIS CASE, ONE COMPONENT OF PRUDENTIAL STANDING IS […] […]
I’m sorry, I didn’t get the web addresses copied correctly.
http://www.bigbeargrizzly.net/articles/2010/12/31/news/doc4d1a8b383a4b3903363097.txt
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/04/homeowner-beats-bank-of-a_n_804171.html?view=print
This will take you to the Small claims court story where someone won $7,500 from BofA
p. 11 from the OCC Securitization Handbook 1997 says that the borrower
is indeed a party to the securities transaction… why aren’t more judges getting this?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/37604610/OCC-Asset-Securitization-1997
Two opinions on the same day. One By Judge Haines (Veal) which hit the mark. And another by U.S. Magistrate David L. Martin (Fryzel) which somehow reaches the exact opposite opinion of Judge Haines.
Forgetting for a moment that in Rhode Island an assignment is a conveyence of Real Estate, Magistrate Martin concludes (in my interpretation) that anything and everything that takes place after the original alleged mortgage transaction is simply none of the alleged borrower’s business.
Further, he attempts to bolster his opinion by leaning on Rule 18 based on a Michigan Law. Michigan is a Lien theory state. Duh.
I expect the bankers and their dapper mill attorneys will be carrying him around in a chariot feeding him grapes…lol.
http://www.foreclosurehamlet.org/profiles/blogs/a-tale-of-two-cases-veal-vs?xg_source=activity
This one made me think of The A Man:
“There are more of us than there are of them and it can only be a matter of time before the masses who live locally overwhelm all pretenses of the paper indicating ownership. Ultimately, the will of the people cannot be denied. John Kennedy told us that those who make peaceful change impossible, make violent revolution inevitable . What will our leaders (sic) do when it becomes all too clear that there are crowds baying for their blood?”
(Never Again)
http://blog.chinkinthearmor.net/?p=897
@John
Isn’t it interesting how the wrongdoers act when the shoe is on the other foot:)
And, by the way (I’m sorry to take up so much space), during the grueling 4 months of hammering out a settlement (after filing the Small Claims Suit) and getting all the poison pills out of their documents (refusing to sign the first modification), BofA’s management “higher ups” called the State Attorney General of New York’s office in Albany to whine about how mean, bad and unfair we were being to them!!! At the time, when an Assistant Attorney General called my wife, it gave us quite a lift to receive SUCH RELIABLE CONFIRMATION that we WERE being tough enough to make BofA’s key management people squeal!
I also went into Small Claims court because my attorney, well that is the only attorney I could afford to talk to thought it was a plausible choice for me to make. “My Attorney” as a certain Assistant Attorney General for the State of New York.
I put it out on the table and I paused. I waited for him to say something. He didn’t say anything to discourage me. I GOT the message.
I would suggest that it is time for a revolution if all our institutions have failed us. We will not know for at least 5 years if that is true. Patience. Revolution is hardly the main thrust of this blog as far as I can see. This blog is simply the best blog on the subject of WINNING IN COURT THAT THERE IS ANYWHERE. I’m so happy that my genius wife found it for me in time for me to win what I wanted in my case. I don’t believe FOR ONE MINUTE our friend from Cubetopia’s CREDIT CARD people have not notified credit reporting agencies. That is a significant event in anyone’s life, I believe.
I had a choice to go for Quiet Title or for a Settlement. In my case it would have been impossible to commit the TIME to deal with all the attorney’s that BofA WOULD HAVE HAD to put up against me to delay, perhaps, for a 10 year period, a single FREE HOUSE decision. No one has gotten a FREE HOUSE from BofA yet (that I’m aware of)! Besides, I was not pursuing a LEGAL matter. I wanted a settlement, not a house for FREE or an exciting LEGAL PRECEDENT. I am a Taliesin trained architectural designer, not an attorney!
That said, I believe that 1,000 attorneys must get their clients houses for FREE if the banks and government are NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING! Either that or we start shooting. If someone on this blog isn’t prepared to begin a civil war, then: Can we stay on point?
Everyone here, who isn’t convinced it’s time to fight, faces the same choices, i.e., move for Quiet Title and take the Settlement every bank will always offer, because (1) you will be in Court and (2) they certainly won’t want to be there. And, that’s because our “civil wars” in this Republic (you know, established for the “General Welfare” and all that), the Court is our bloodless BATTLEGROUND WHERE THINGS DO GET SETTLED!!!
Bank of America has to guarantee for the life of my mortgage that I don’t have to pay for my house TWICE. I’m happy with that and the Courts that may rule in my case in the future will be happy with that. If I had not gotten that protection, I might pay for my home twice. Some “investor” somewhere, sometime, could prove in Court (as they surely will be able to do) that BofA didn’t really own my Note or Mortgage. If some “investor” does, I’m going to be happy to get any standard attorney, to fight my rather standard court case against BofA. (Actually, because of many little “wins” BofA in future reality, will face a different event.)
I’m positive that they don’t have the (negotiable) Note or the (supporting) Mortgage. I am positive, they know they don’t own either of them. (They all jumped off the MERS cliff.) So, again, what do you want to do? The AG’s collectively lack character and guts to do anything. Congress is owned almost completely outright by the banks. The President is either in the same position or HE HAS SOME LONG TERM PLAN that, in the meantime, puts all of us on our own. I believe that a person has to be equally owned by our financial culture, ignorant or fearful and spineless not to AT LEAST GO INTO COURT. I only chose Small Claims, because I knew everything would be kept so simple and BofA’s high powered lawyers would be powerless against me there.
@cubed2k
Thanks! Dogs offer unconditional loyalty and love. What ya see is what ya get.
Unfortunately, not so with humans.
Yeah, but…..it doesn’t say with whom you obtained that loan on your home. It’s not saying yes I owe you, servicer. Just that you got a loan with your home as collateral.
It does seem superfluous, tho, so in that regard it does seem to send a red flag. It can only be ‘used against you’ to the extent that it’s an admission, I guess, that you got A loan. I don’t think this statement closes any doors on defenses to that note / dot. It would make me nervous – we have no reason to trust those guys and it’s their own doing.
But I mean, there are defenses or there aren’t against the original loan. I just don’t think this statement is some kind of affirmation of the loan that is harmful. But I’m not an attorney – just my opinion, as usual. Your recorded deed of trust, for instance, if introduced properly shows you got a loan, right? (course they need the note, too, because that’s the debt)
I know where you’re coming from – just not sure that serves to reaffirm anything
harmful.
My friend, as I’ve said, crossed out something he didn’t like, so they told him to eat a rock. But then, they were back and I don’t know what he then signed, but he’s in a trial ‘modification’, read subsidy. (I’m gonna keep saying that) They had filed a notice of default and not withdrawn it, so I expect he’ll get one of those surprise foreclosures. But in his case, it’s pretty clear they don’t want his property.
It’s a condo seriously underwater. And they’d have to pay the homeowner dues on top the monster (purported) loss. So even if you don’t sign it, they may be back at you, like my friend. I guess you could type up a disclaimer and send it and see what happens?
john, by signing a piece of paper that says in the fine print, for a loan modification mind you
““I obtained a mortgage loan secured by the above-referenced property”
By signing this piece of paper that says the above is true, that says while I am applying for a loan mod, I am also saying the prior loan was not false or doesn’t matter. because I am now re-affirming it. the loan.
In other words, why on earth would you need to state that statement of ““I obtained a mortgage loan secured by the above-referenced property”. Why would one need to state that? It seems obvious if one is seeking a loan mod, the original loan would be secured? Why would one need to include that clause?
I will tell you why, because the loan servicer is a debt buyer, in my case, and they do not have a contract with me. So they insert that clause so as to get me to agree that I “I obtained a mortgage loan secured by the above-referenced property” so they can collect on it or foreclose on it. They want me to agree with them, which confirms the debt to them but not the creditor, as the servicer in my case was just a debt buyer.
There have been no assignments of mortgage or deed of trust in the land records for my case. The original creditor is recorded in the land records, but he is out of the picture.
Hence I will ignore all communications from my servicer at this point in time as they are pretenders. And have no standing. Why should I engage with them. I have not engaged with any of the credit cards I defaulted on 2.5 years ago and nothing has occurred.
John, they are saying they do not know, and they want me to confirm it.
john gault:
“I obtained a mortgage loan secured by the above-referenced property”
That is clear statement of fact that they want me to RE- affirm the debt.
The above quotes is on the paperwork, form, my servicer sent me.
Do you realize what that is saying?
@cubed2k, well I guess it means that when you receive a notice of default and acceleration of your note, you must be apprised that you still have the right to bring your loan current, for one thing (reinstate by bringing current). Default triggers acceleration of the entire amt due on the note (see acceleration clause), so when the loan isnt’ then brought current, or reinstated, they go after the collateral, your home. I think, but am not positive, one may bring a note current up to the f/c sale, i.e., reinstate it. Course by then they will have added a zillion dollars in fees.
It’s also telling you that you have a right to say no, my loan’s not in default because of xyz, and that you have a right to fight the f/c action in court. I guess this would be called a common law right, (the right to bring suit / opposition) but someone decided the borrower needed to be informed of this right in the dot. But, one doesn’t need permission to exercise his rights. IMO if a bankster who has no right to f/c nonetheless attempts to do so, in addition to the other ‘stuff’ I go on about, it’s also an abuse of process. *I don’t think but can’t swear that abuse of process can’t happen outside a lawsuit, in court. In other words, even though no court action is going on in non-judicial foreclosure, there’s still an abuse of the foreclosure process by the bankster who is really ‘nobody’ trying to f/c on you. Abuse of process is a cause of action. *I sometimes can’t keep all this ‘stuff’ straight.
I think each state mandates what disclosures must then also be made in a notice of default (disclosures not necessarily found in the dot). Everyone should check their own state laws. Chances are all the required disclosures are not being given. Like there are some provisions even on the type size of certain statements in the notice, enough to render the notice legally ineffective and at a minimum, the bankster should be made to ‘start over’.
Katheryn,
” Once you file BK your credit is wrecked and it will be hard to rent. We have 3 dogs that are like our kids and that is another big issue if we don’t own.”
Not true. Credit is wrecked but you’d be surprised to find it doesn’t matter now a days. Make the decision, make the decision it will not be a problem.
You’d be surprised nowadays that banks are not trusted=credit, yes people know. Realize these banks, jacked up everybodies credit card interest rates to 30%, yes, even good customers, realize people are a little pissed about this although they do not state it. State it for them, remind them, times got tough, and what did banks do, why they raised your credit card interest rates………………..remember
Sell the kids b/4 the dogs. Trust me on that. : )
@leapfrog, I don’t know what to make of all that stuff in the letter to you. I doubt I would sign it, but that’s just me. I do think that first line is an admission which could be used against a person. But that seems inevitable if one is trying to get subsidized aka ‘modification’…? Not sure. I just wanted to remind you that if you do file suit, one may ask for alternative relief and one may say this isn’t so for more than one reason. Like, I think, “it isn’t so because of X, or alternatively because of Y, or alternatively because of Z, or any combination of these.” If I remember correctly, HAMP agreements state that even parties in litigation may get ‘modifications’, so maybe that door doesn’t get closed. I’ve got Wells Fargo’s HAMP agreement at scribd. I’m sure there are others out there online.
But one must also consider not only the financial, but the human cost of litigation.
Once we go down that road, it’s hard to turn back or say you know what it because we have become so invested. I’m not trying to dissuade anyone for standing up for their rights. I’d never do that. But I am speaking from experience regarding the human cost. Course, my deal was in 2008 when there was little headway in these cases.
I have found that putting words on paper is helpful in determining if you can state a case. Thinking about it just doesn’t have the same result. I have also found that writing can be an inspiration, helps me remember things, but then, I like to write. So you might spend some time trying to formulate your complaint and see how that works out.
At this point in time, cubed2k will be utilizing his poker face, and maybe I will bring lady gaga into court, and maybe a Weiner will expose himself because he can not resist his out-ethics, his out-morals:
I will let you know my outcomes.
http://www.kovideo.net/poker-face-video-lady-gaga-475730.html
I READ SOMEWHERE ON FORECLOSURE CASES PEOPLE JUST HAD OVER THE KEYS, THEY DON’T KNOW. THE MAJORITY JUST DON’T KNOW.
WHERE’S MY MIDDLE FINGER
cceleration; Remedies: ……………..The notice shall further inform Borrower of the right to reinstate after acceleration and the right to bring to bring court action to assert the non-existence of a default or any other defense of Borrower to acceleration and sale……………………..
the right to bring to bring court action to assert the non-existence of a default
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TNHARRY, JOHN GAULT, SAVEAMERICAONE, ETOLLE, NEIL GARFIELD, O MAX GARDNER, ETC
“I obtained a mortgage loan secured by the above-referenced property”
That is clear statement of fact that they want me to RE- affirm the debt.
What say you tnharry or anybody else????????????????
John gault,
I smell a rat in my case and I will follow your advice. I will file a law suit or put on the record as you say, forget the term now. Doesn’t matter.
Mortgage servicer says we have to pay up by 21 June, been 1 year with no mortgage payment, and if we don’t they “may” proceed with foreclosure. Funny, cuz all of the sudden we get several pieces of mail telling us help is available by contacting HAMP, HOPE NOW, etc. They, servicer sends us a form to fill out asking us for all our financial data on assets, income, etc. Then to top it off, states
at the very bottom:
“I obtained a mortgage loan secured by the above-refereced property. I certify all information presented herein as well as attachments are true, accurate and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand submission of this information in no way obligates my mortgage servicer, owner of my mortgage or insurer to provide assistance to me.
By signing this financial statement, I hereby authorize the owner of the mortgage, my mortgage servicer and/or mortgage insurer to: 1) obtain credit reports from my credit reporting agerncy; 2) obtain a current property value review at my expense; 3) discuss with my real estate agent and/or credit counseling service representative and provide any information (regarding me or my loan); release information regarding this or any other liens on any mortgaged properties.
THIS FINANCIAL STATEMENT IS FROM A DEBT COLLECTOR AS WE SOMETIMES ACt AS A DEBT COLLECTOR……………….”
WOW, that is some disclosure and rights we give up. WOW dude. Reread the above quotes.
I believe at this point in time I will not submit to there request for us to get a modification, not with that statement above. Jeepers.
There is clause no. 22 on your Deed of Trust, California MERS FANNIE MAE/FREDDIE MAC, pretty standard. Which I learned today, as luck would have it,
Acceleration; Remedies: ……………..The notice shall further inform Borrower of the right to reinstate after acceleration and the right to bring to bring court action to assert the non-existence of a default or any other defense of Borrower to acceleration and sale……………………..
I believe at this point in time, based on the above Acceleration; Remedies clause ———I will indeed ignore the servicers threat to foreclose. I will not provide them with any financial data, I will sign nothing.
If they attempt to foreclose, I will file a court action to assert the non-existence of a default…………….
thanks Leapfrog. we all have to keep fighting. very unhappy that the mortgage mess was barley touched upon. i wonder if they are all warned not to speak about it?
This story was a major inspiration to me. And, of course, primarily this web site.
2http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/04/homeowner-beats-bank-of-a_n_804171.html?view=print
3http://www.bigbeargrizzly.net/articles/2010/12/31/news/doc4d1a8b383a4b3903363097.txt
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/04/homeowner-beats-bank-of-a_n_80417
2http://www.bigbeargrizzly.net/news/article_2625ab59-2ae1-5615-a7a9-03f1630a6582.html?mode=print
saveamericaone.
thanks. but what are you specifically pointing to? on the link, which I am aware of.
leapfrog you are an inspiration. Keep on truckin’
@John – that is an amazing, amazing story.
Bob G,
Thanks for posting the link to BONY v. Silverberg. The Court’s ultimate conclusion gives me hope:
“This Court is mindful of the impact that this decision may have on the mortgage industry in New York, and perhaps the nation. Nonetheless, the law must not yield to expediency and the convenience of lending institutions. Proper procedures must be followed to ensure the reliability of the chain of
ownership, to secure the dependable transfer of property, and to assure the enforcement of the rules that govern real property.”
Thank you LeapFrog. That was nice.
Thank you John Gault for the trustee info. BOA’s attorney was taunting us that the trustee would disapprove of us and be on the bankster’s side – that kinda blew up in her face. She also stated that who owns the loan is none of our business and we basically better pack our bags! Then in the next answer they are claiming it – when we know better. Their sails are deflated though – the judge took the wind out of them when he allowed our case to proceed. Its true what Neil said about BOA: In-your-face intimidation, then ignore you, then cave. We haven’t gotten to the cave yet, but we are on the second step – eventually we will get there.
Katheryn, just keep on plugging along and educating yourself. Just be real careful and try to have a back-up plan/attorney who can go to bat for you if needed. I know what you mean about the dogs. I have 4 myself, cats and horses – all rescues and it will be hard to find a home – although there are rentals out there – but my credit is ruined too thanks to BOA’s HAMP modification lies and the eventual BK – luckily though, this is a small community and we are good friends with quite a few people. I could also do like you are planning – go the mobilehome route if I have to.
and “Just” John: Your story about spending only $20 in the fight and getting what you wanted was terrific! Quite inspiring! I love it. : )
My wife and I applied for a home modification. Of course, this led to a foreclosure action beginning some 10 months later. I sued in small claims court, inspired by a San Bernidino County, CA BofA customer.
I knew that Small Claims DIDN’T HAVE THE JURSIDITION under New York State law that I was bringing up and the case would be transferred to another court. However, I needed to move against them in a court someway before they took the house and this was all I could afford. Available Justice of some kind has to be guaranteed, even to the poor, in New York State (and everywhere else too, really).
As soon as I sued, BofA started to respond by stopping the Foreclosure and fixing our credit rating that THEY had trashed (we never missed any payment of any kind to that bank or to ANYONE ELSE) over the previous months. After more than 200 phone calls TO THEM over nine months, we received our FIRST PHONE CALLS FROM THEM.
Eventually we got a cash settlement, indemnification of the deed of trust and original note (because we knew that none of the banks have either). BofA didn’t want to go INTO ANY COURT. I told them we would move for Quiet Title or they could settle. They settled.
A high powered New York City law firm handled the case for them.
The reason that our case is interesting is that we were able to judicially raise issues against BofA for $20. I can honestly say that we got everything from them we wanted (and deserved)…over a four month period during which they repeatedly “continued” the case while negotiating with us mostly in good faith…for a change!
We now have a good working borrower’s relationship with the bank that has the best internet site in the World.
John
My wife and I applied for a home modification. Of course, this lead to a foreclosure action beginning some 10 months later. I sued in small claims court, inspired by a San Bernidino County, CA BofA customer.
I knew that Small Claims DIDN’T HAVE THE JURSIDITION under New York State law that I was bringing up and the case would be transferred to another court. However, I needed to move against them in a court someway before they took the house and this was all I can afford. Available Justice of some kind has to be guaranteed, even to the poor.
As soon as I sued, BofA started to respond by stopping the Foreclosure and fixing our credit rating that they had trashed over the previous months. After more than 200 phone calls TO THEM over nine months, we received our FIRST PHONE CALLS FROM THEM.
Eventually we got a cash settlement, indemnification of the deed of trust and original note (because we knew that none of the banks have either). BofA didn’t want to go INTO ANY COURT. I told them we would move for Quiet Title or they could settle. They settled.
A high powered New York City law firm handled the case for them.
The reason that our case is interesting is that we were able to judicially raise issues against of BofA for $20. I can honestly say that we got everything from them we wanted…over a four month period during which they repeatedly “continued” the case while negotiating with us mostly in good faith…for a change!
John
@leapfrog
well their attorney learned from the best…lol
The trustee gave the impression that we didn’t stand a chance…however, he knew no details nor did he want to know of our case. I was hoping that BoA would file the first motion and I feel more confident with an affirmative defense. Whatever they would file I feel fairly confident that I could handle it as things would fall into place with them in the lead. My indecision comes from not being sure what the best attack is and what court is best suited. Now we throw in the BK issue and I can’t do anything until I hear from the trustee. All I can do is keep reading and educating myself and hopefully things will fall into place and I will know the right course. Thanks for the link. Good article. I really don’t care about the house itself but I need to live somewhere. Once you file BK your credit is wrecked and it will be hard to rent. We have 3 dogs that are like our kids and that is another big issue if we don’t own. I may revisit the rescission issue again. I know that the courts are then demanding payment prior to rescission and refunding monies paid etc. Problem – we no longer have any money. I figure I will give them the keys for cash so that I can purchase an inexpensive home or a kinda reversed engineered mod., where any monetary award is used to reduce the loan balance where the payment is now affordable. There are so many different senerios and causes of actions, it gets overwhelming even when you think you understand it all fairly well. If anything comes along I think is of help I will pass it along.
@leapfrog – It’s been my observation that these AP’s proceed more smoothly, shall we say, when the trustee joins. In fact, I can’t find the dang paper, but bk trustees
have their own fiduciary to see that the right party gets any kind of relief or payment and this is often overlooked by the trustee and the court. I’ll publish the paper if I can find it. It was written a couple years ago after a national convention of bk trustees about bk trustees duties.
@tnharry – touche, but one can’t really control comments. But, ftr, I did address the case and I thought I addressed YOUR initial comments, as well. Don’t I also note that you haven’t addressed my comments regarding Veal? Would you care to?
There is a big hoopla about this case, the merit of which has escaped my pea-brain. I see this case as merely another with some more or less esoteric or at least not typical circumstances. No one alleged possession, let alone substantiated it. The note was not properly endorsed.
As I said, I seed a need for comments / info about rule 17 provisions when they collide with the UCC’s ‘bearer’ note provisions, because that is the name /shape of things to come: the bearer note. Servicers are getting their hands on (one way or another)notes endorsed in blank for the benefit of another party (should have been endorsed to trust, but the crafters with design made changes in favor of ends in blank), but will demand and are nonetheless demanding enforcement for/on their own account.
I certainly invite anyone to set me straight about what I may have missed in Veal, or anything for that matter.
MERS claimed in a case I have that articles 3 and 4 of the UCC don’t even apply to promissory notes secured by interests in real property – claimed it is only article 9 which applies.
Yet, courts will rely on at least 3 in upholding right to enforce a bearer note. In addition to estoppel, as applicable at least as to MERS, I think this warrants some ‘conversation’. It may be that it was just convenient for MERS’ network attorney (read: attorney for bankster) to make that claim in that particular case. It’s not on this computer, or I would cite exactly what they said. But here, in Veal again, we have a court citing at length his conclusions about who may enforce pursuant to article 3, I believe it was.
For those who may file a Notice of Intent to File Suit, there is a provision in Rule 26, I think it is (don’t know the state statute for this, but surey there is one) which allows
a party to engage in discovery even before a suit has been filed. I wish someone
way ahead of me would address this issue, for instance.
Katherine: Trustee did officially abandon my case, but then when we filed AP trustee joined our case shortly after our lawyer notified him. BOA had responded with all these threats about how they didn’t have to prove this or that and we should just take their word and in a nonjudicial state we had no rights and the trustee would be against us and blah, blah. The bluster was kind of funny actually. I don’t mind a bit that trustee joined the case against them. Turns out BOAs attorney is in trouble for a Ponzi scheme and had to withdraw.
Here ya all go. NY Appellate Case just handed down.
http://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/BONY-v-silverberg-MERS-no-standing.pdf
@leapfrog
Our unsecured was about the same as yours. Law firm Blank & Rome sent us a letter end of March representing BAC Home Loans and denied our request for a rescission. May 5 got lan NOD from Morris/Harwick/Schneider representing BAC Home Loans, LP FK Countrywide Home Loans Servicing demanding $403,313. I wrote back asking them with which law firm should I communicate with, that we are pro se with regards to the house and they should communicate directly with us, that we had the 341 meeting June 2 and this was the 3rd written notice that we dispute the debt and that if they planned on attending the 341 meeting they best make sure that they could prove legal standing to be there. Nothing from them since then.
The whole bankruptcy thing seems very convoluted to me. I don’t know, is it up to the trustee to decide if in response to my letter he gets involved or sticks with the abandonment. I would think that if he will stick with the abandonment and we proceed with litigation in another court, the bankruptcy aspect is a moot point. I could be wrong though.
I will let you know what response I get from the trustee and please let me know what goes happens on your end. You never know what little piece of information may help you down the road. Fight the Good Fight. They are criminals.
This has taken an unbelievable toll on me. Its like a very condensed crash course in law along with not knowing when you’ll be thrown out on the street. For months I was working full time and then working on this full time. The job was taking a back seat so it had to go while I fight this battle. I’m sure we are all feeling the same way.
Dear cubed2k David Krieger got that one covered on the clouded titles we all need to understand to have any chance of being on-point before a judge for what a court of equity may rule over.
http://www.cloudedtitles.com
Katheryn: Here is some info for you – don’t know if you have seen this. It discusses the timing of an AP.
http://www.ehow.com/info_7921177_bankruptcy-discharge-affect-adversary-proceeding.html
Katheryn: On your schedule did you file that the amount was disputed or unknown? I was told that a creditor does not have to file a proof of claim in a standard CH7, UNLESS…the amount is disputed/unknown – then they should file a POC. BOA did not file a POC in our case and we listed as unknown amount. We filed an AP, but we are not pro se, and our lawyer timed it at the appropriate time. The trustee has also joined our case on our side against BOA. We did not have a great deal of debt, mostly just the house. We have a student loan and a car and some back taxes, but are paying through, so our amount seemed higher than it was. We maybe had 25K in unsecured. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Even if trustee does want money for the unsecured claimants, we could probably get a hard money loan to pay or dip into the 401K and pay off whatever it is the trustee wants. From these discussions, I don’t understand how a creditor who is found to have no standing by the court can become an “unsecured creditor” and the trustee could then sell the house to pay this no-standing “unsecured” creditor off. That doesn’t make sense to me.
most of the comments and discussions are helpful in one regard or another. most of us really need the guidance to at least point us in the right direction. thanks to all.
@tnharry
here is the ltr. sent to the BK trustee. i hope this will cover our rear ends!
VIA: CERTIFIED MAIL
RE: Chapter 7 Bankruptcy – Case No.
Dear Mr.
This letter is in regards to our Chapter 7 Bankruptcy case and the 341 Meeting held on June 2, 2011, referenced above.
We are in receipt of the “Notice of Abandonment” filed by you with an effective date of 14 days from mailing date. Our Bankruptcy Petition indicated that we were contesting the security lien on our home. We thought that Bank of America (BAC Home Loans) might file an objection with which we would then file an adversary proceeding which would be heard in the Bankruptcy Court thus the start of litigation. They did not nor have they filed a proof of claim therein allowing us to file an objection through the court. To date, we have received a debt collection letter demanding payment of approximately $404,000.00 that we believe we can prove is incorrect. Bank of America was notified via written notice in January and February this year and pursuant to applicable laws of the errors with regards to our loan. As was expressed at the hearing, we further believe that we can prove Bank of America has violated many state and federal laws with reference to our original and subsequent refinance of our home. We intend to continue researching any remedies available to us at law.
I am not a lawyer. I don’t pretend to be one nor do I know much about anything related to the law. However, I do know that many people have been wronged and hurt by the major banks. I could challenge them in an adversary proceeding in Bankruptcy Court; however, they have not filed anything to challenge. I am not sure whether a suit can be brought against Bank of America in Bankruptcy Court. I want to protect our rights with regards to proper procedure as to not be barred at a later time in State or District court based on the preface of a potential future claim not indicated on our schedule. Our potential claims would encompass violations of both state and federal laws and statutes.
Interesting side note here, I read that Attorney General Bidden is seeking a review of the major banks and Wallstreet in their securitization of mortgage loans. Praise to God that Mr. Bidden has recognized the moral obligation to the people with regards to the possible fraud that has brought our country to its knees. Until the mortgage
mess is resolved, this country will continue to decline and it is truly a sin because it is based on pure greed and power. The sad fact is if the legal system does not step in to put a stop to these practices and punish those who profited on the backs of hard working taxpayers, this great country will continue its decline.
Unfortunately, we have been unsuccessful in finding a Delaware attorney willing or able to represent or at least provide us guidance. Mr. was retained and paid to handle a straight bankruptcy and does not wish to be involved to any further extent nor has he been paid for such services. Should we need to file a “Motion to Delay Entry of Discharge” or need to do anything else to preserve our future right to bring suit, please so advise. Thanking you in advance for your time and assistance, we are,
Sincerely,
has anyone else noticed that all too often the cases don’t really say what the post titles suggest and that the comments section just rolls along on the topics that people want to discuss anyway? really wish Neil would make a forum that would facilitate ongoing discussion better than the current wordpress model. just as a conversation really gets going, the post is “bumped” down the page and lost to the world
@tnharry – I see said the blind man to the deaf woman on the telephone!
Yes, I know about the estoppel issue and it is often used successfully. There’s been some interpretation (or maybe it’s just a fact) that if the debtor puts in the amt of 1k on the schedule, the debtor has an interest in the future lit, that it doesn’t belong to the bk estate. Maybe that’s apples and oranges and I suppose I know just enough to be dangerous, which is why I rec experienced bk attorney for those trying certain strategies.
@johngault – the unsecured thing I keep talking about in this post and others depends on what grounds the claim objection is made and how it is successful. if it’s entirely on standing, then they shouldn’t have an unsecured claim. if it relates to defects in their chain of title or defects in recording, etc, then they may have an unsecured claim. there are several other scenarios that could lead to a mortgage becoming unsecured. the point I’ve tried to get across is to think about and know what the endgame is. if the homestead exemption where you are is too low, this may not be for you. if you are in one of the places where it is huge, then maybe these methods help you. too often I’ve seen commenters talk about using Bk to accomplish some of these goals without any real idea of what could happen in the context of a BK proceeding with a large, unencumbered asset.
and @johngault – what I was referring to is estoppel. it’s the interplay of swearing under oath that you’ve listed all your assets (and not listing claims against BofA) and then later filing a suit seeking a ton of money from them. their lawyers will point out the contradiction in the motion to dismiss. it doesn’t always work, but it is a motion you shouldn’t have to defend at all if you plan ahead accordingly.
Looks like Game Over for MERS in NY?
http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2011/06/13/bank-of-new-york-v-silverberg-ny-2nd-appellate-division-mers-does-not-have-right-to-foreclose-or-assign-if-not-holder-of-note/
That was good advice for K and others from tnharry. It’s complicated and I am not the one to explain it well, but courts rule any claim you have which existed on your bk date belongs to the bk estate. There’s more to it, but I’m not the guy. Maybe there’s an online bk forum?
Kathyrn brings up an interesting point. Is a chapter 7 debtor powerless to try to
save her home? I dont know much about 7’s, except they’re no asset cases, which means no home to be kept? Isn’t it that the homeowner is giving up the house because no income to support payments? Can’t ‘fight’? tnharry? anyone?
@tnharry – I have never seen a wholley unsecured lien stripped result in an unsecured
claim…..Probably, and if for no other reason, because the alleged holder of that claim has missed the bar date.
@tnharry et al, That’s why you file a homestead on your home. If unsecured debt were to be found, it would at least protect the homestead dollar amt from the clutches of the bk trustee, who would otherwise snarf that amt for the benefit of any unsecured creditors (incuding a finding a note is unsecured).
If you are fighting a claim and there is ANY possibility unsecured debt will be found as to your note, or even if it imay be found there is NO debt to the bankster, you can make a deal or otherwise get the trustee to ‘abandon’ the claim you are making against the bankster, that is, the bk trustee will abandon interest in your home. This should be done BEFORE you have succeeded in your claim because after you succeed, the bk trustee will stick his hand out. This needs an experienced bk attoney.
What I’m saying is 1) homestead your home and 2) before you win your suit against the bankster, get the trustee to cop a deal with you or otherwise abandon his claim of interest in your home. He will make a deal if he thinks you will fail. If he won’t abandon the claim against your home, then force him to join you in your action opposing the banksters claim, at least. Like I said, these strategies would be best served by an
experienced attorney. But the homestead is a filing fee of about 20.00 and anyone can do that.
@Henry – as to non-judicial states, when a homeowner gets a notice of default, the homeowner can file an action in state court contesting the validity of any proposed foreclosure. Judges are to consider the pro se status of litigants in their pleadings. The thing the judges don’t like isn’t poor form. It’s lack of cause of action, so you have to articulate one.
And / or call or write your trustee when you get that notice and ask exactly what documents have been provided to the trustee by the bankster to support 1) the veracity of the dollar amt and 2) the veracity of the identification of the foreclosing party, and ask for copies. If you write the trustee, file the Notice of Intent to File Suit with the recorder in your county. Don’t forget to include your parcel number.
When the trustee will not give you or what he does give you does not support the
f/c initiator’s right to do so, you have a basis for suit, not only against the initiator, but against the trustee for breach of his fiduciary. He breached it by not ascertaining that the party telling him to foreclose had the right to do so.
I’m sorry there aren’t more non-profits to take this on for homeowner’s. It would mean a lot if there were. Even if it were just to navigate the communications suggested here and preserve the issues for suit. A non-profit could have form letters / notices for homeowners struggling to find some footing. Hint hint. Or attorneys could charge a flat fee for the minimal assistance in providing the form letters / notices. Really, those with the law degrees could include disclaimers if they feel the need (that they are only providing the forms) and not representation.
As to those who have already lost their homes to improper claimants, it’s unfortunate that the wheels of justice turn slowly. But there are good and intelligent and well-meaning attorneys working on post-foreclosure avenues to getting these homes back. I think it’s important to file the Notices of Intent to File Suit to notice and preserve your rights for when those avenues are more clearly defined, even if you have already llost your homes. You will cloud title and the Notice probably may not be expunged until the matters alleged therein are actually litigated when you file the suit.
It’s been 3 or 4 years since Judge Boyko in Ohio changed the face of litigation for homeowners. One of the attorneys for the bankster, think it was Deutsche, made the mistake of saying to the judge, “Judge, you just don’t understand how these things work.” Well, yes he did, and he socked it to them in 19 cases.
Well, there is a downside to finding an unsecured debt generally, and that is the amt of the unsecured debt might put a debtor over the limits of unsecured debt for a chapter 13. In that case, he might have to qualify for 11?
tn harry, how did you arrive at the conclusion that this made the debt unsecured?
I don’t find this. No debt was actually found at all, at least no proper claimant was found making a claim to the debt. And Bk does not provide for enforcement of promissory notes. If an unsecured note WERE found by the court, the holder could
get pennies on the dollar like every other unsecured creditor and upon completion of the plan, the debt would be discharged.
I read this case the other day and I don’t see the yahoo moment. It’s the blank endorsements coming we need to be concerned with, when the banksters come up with them (one way or another) and demand enforcement of ‘bearer’ notes.
I’m stilll waiting for a court to address Rule 17 and constitutional and prudential standing in regard to an alleged bearer note. The note in this case was not endorsed in blank and as I recall, there was no ‘allegation’ of possession.
It may be that the assignment purported to assign the note as well as the deed of trust and the judge properly shot that down. If that’s the case, it’s a good and noteworthy decision for that reason.
@tnharry
Thank you for the info. BofA did not, as yet, file a claim and I was prepared for that. I will look further at the possibility of future state court actions being barred due to non-disclosure on the petition. My BK attorney does not know anything about this stuff so he says. Thanks again! Too bad the legal system does not allow a party to seek and pay for legal advice from an out of state attorney who can advise when there is no in state attorney available or willing.
@Katheryn – you may need to file a motion to delay entry of discharge in your case to accomplish the other matters that need to be done. Have they filed a claim? If so, object to the claim if you have the documents to back it up. If the claim objection is successful, then you can avoid their lien via 506(d) via adversary proceeding. If, for whatever reason, those steps aren’t successful, you still may be able to use any of your defenses or claims in state court later. One caveat – you could find your state court claims barred if they weren’t disclosed on your BK petition as an asset (even though they were only potential claims), so discuss amendment with your atty to preserve your rights.
@tnharry
Your thoughts would be very much appreciated. I am making this very brief so much of the information is missing but just needed an experts thoughts. Filed chapt. 7 had 341 meeting 3 weeks ago. Have a BK attorney but he won’t advise or have anything to do with the house or all the fraud etc., that makes the case.
Received a letter of abandoment from the trustee with regards to the house as well as ordered it is a no asset case.
Listed the house on the schedule but notated that secured interest was contested.
BK trustee did not bring up this fact at the 341 hearing.
Received collection letter from BofA’s attorney that they have been told to proceed with foreclosure. Received another letter stating an amount owed to cure default with no breakdown of charges. Sent two very specific QWR’s in January and February which included asking to verify the payoff amount they used in our refi of 2010. It appears that they never gave us credit for that payment which makes all of the figures incorrect as far as disclosures. They responded to some of the issues with garbage and didn’t answer the pertinent questions asked. No surprise there, howerver, their debt collection letter obviously states an incorrect amount.
I have spent months studing and preparing to file suit against them but I am not sure whether to bring the suit in the BK court as an advesary proceeding or use the district or chancery court, however, I don’t want to try to go around the BK court as though I’m avoiding them.
I did get a forensic audit done through this site, FDG which confirmed many of the issues I thought through my extensive research. I have also called numerous law firms to just pay for some advice, but my state is notorious for not wanting to get involved with foreclosure defense. Any help would be much appreciated. Thank you.
New Jerseyans : (New) Affidavits instead of Certifications.
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/notices/2011/n110610f.pdf
Another positive note This is a win against Wells Fargo the bankster that the government with the help of Warren Buffet has been getting away with Crimes against humanity.
Every elected person to local, state and federal governments needs to learn the Constitution of the USA by Rote Learning or Chinese School just like I learned the multiplication tables when I was in Grammar school. These people need to know it cold, verbatim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rote_learning
tnharry this could also mean that the banksters and their attorneys will not pursue these cases anymore. Because the next step are criminal charges against the attorneys for the banksters.
Just ask Brain Cave’s Attorneys
A good bankster is a jailed bankster.
It’s a possible outcome is all I’m saying. A finding that they don’t have standing to pursue a motion for relief doesn’t equate to them not having standing to file an unsecured claim at all. Similarly, “stripping their lien” because they can’t prove up their secured claim via documentation may likewise result in an unsecured claim.
I realize this is OT, but this is unbelievable!!!!!!!!!!!
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=188025
I’ll sell the house before they go after me.
tnharry what you say does not make sense to me. If the debtor does not have standing how can the debtor make a claim on your house? or anything else?
Yes I am and have practiced bk law for almost 20 years. CH 7 would be terrible because the trustee would sell the house out from under you if you get it to the point that it’s free and clear in order to pay your creditors, the largest of whom is your mortgage company who recently became unsecured. CH13 would still pose a problem because creditors have to be paid at least what they would have gotten in a CH7 context, so the trustee and court would require that the value of the asset (the free and clear real estate) be paid to the creditors (unsecured included) during the life of the plan. BK can be a great tool, but it can also bite you in the &*# if you aren’t adequately represented.
http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2011/06/fannie-responds-to-hawaiis-new-foreclosure-law-says-were-out/
All other states need a SB651
Great news.Doesnt Chapter 7 wipe out all unsecured debt? I am not an attorney just asking.
Tnharry are you an attorney?
It’s not that I am not appreciative of those in the legal profession who are finally getting to the root of these issues…I am…but I’m starting to believe all of this has little to do with we the millions who have already been robbed. It may help some in the future…if you have the means to fight the banksters…and, of course, the lawyers that fight these cases will finally be paid…but what of the billions, or is it trillions, the banks have already taken from us and paid out in bonuses to their executives? Another small fine in relation to the profits already posted and spent? And what of the non-judicial states where there is no proof required? The police and the judges and the jack-booted thugs that work for the banks will continue to simply come to your house and throw you into the street with little if any recourse. And, as Thomas Jefferson suggested, if We the People take up arms against our oppressors, the present-day power of the police, the National Guard, and our mighty military have more than enough resources to stop any and all who oppose them, and the only ones who will be punished will be the oppressed. At least we will have a roof over our heads instead of tents.
well, I’m afraid in my area home prices have dropped to 1995 levels———
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/home-equity-sinks-lowest-point-world-war-ii/story?id=13807274http://abcnews.go.com/Business/home-equity-sinks-lowest-point-world-war-ii/story?id=13807274
“” I have no idea To this day what those two Italian ladies were singing about. Truth is, I don’t want to know . Somethings are best left unsaid.” —
“I tell you those voices soared, higher and farther than any one in a great place dares to dream. It was like some beautiful bird flapped into our drab little cage and made those walls dissolve away. And for the briefest of moments, every last man at Shaw Shank felt free!”
Morgan Freeman- aka Red
Shaw Shank Redemption.”
“”If mortgages were not properly transferred in the securitization process, then mortgage-backed securities would in fact not be backed by any mortgages whatsoever,” Adam J. Levitin, a bankruptcy expert and professor at Georgetown University Law Center, said at a House panel last November. Levitin said the problem could “cloud title to nearly every property in the United States” and could lead to trillions of dollars in losses.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/13/bank-of-america-mortgage-investigation-schneiderman_n_875681.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009
“Game Over”?? One was reversed and remanded and the other was vacated and remanded. Wins, but far from over still.
But what Neil, is the effect of a successful claim objection in a Ch13? The debt is unsecured, but the property is unencumbered, meaning that the Ch13 debtor likely must pay 100% of the unsecured debt in the plan over 60 months through the Ch13 plan. Not only is this nearly impossible for most people to do, but this puts them in a worse position. This is exactly what I meant in my comment last week about be careful what you ask for. If you have a huge real property exemption in your state then this could be great. If not, then this could be a real problem for you.
Kaboom! This is huge!
[…] Source: Livinglies’s Weblog […]