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

What Now? Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez Leaves Toxic Foreclosure Titles Unclear

by Rich Vetstein

Post image for What Now? Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez Leaves Toxic Foreclosure Titles Unclear


No Easy Fix For Defective Foreclosure Titles After U.S. Bank v. Ibanez Ruling

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its opinion today in the much anticipated Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez case considering property owners’ rights when they are saddled with defective titles stemming from improper foreclosures in the aftermath of the landmark U.S. Bank v. Ibanez ruling last January. (Text of case is embedded below). Where Ibanez consider the validity of foreclosures plagued by late-recorded or missing mortgage assignments, Bevilacqua is the next step, considering what happens when lenders sell defective foreclosure titles to third party purchasers. Previously, I discussed the oral argument in the case here and detailed background of the case here.

The final ruling is mix of bad and good news, with the bad outweighing the good as fixing defective Massachusetts foreclosure titles just got a lot harder and more expensive. But, contrary to some sensationalist headlines, the sky is not falling down as the majority of foreclosures performed in the last several years were legal and conveyed good title. Bevilacqua affects those small percentage of foreclosures where mortgage assignments were not recorded in a timely fashion and were otherwise conducted unlawfully. Bevilacqua does not address the robo-signing controversy.

The Bad News

First the bad news. The Court held that owners cannot bring a court action to clear their titles under the “try title” procedure in the Massachusetts Land Court. This is the headline that the major news outlets have been running with, but it was not a surprise to anyone who has been following the case. Sorry Daily Kos, but the court did not take away a property from a foreclosure sale buyer. The buyer never owned it in the first place. If you don’t own a piece of property (say the Brooklyn Bridge), you cannot come into court and ask a judge to proclaim you the owner of that property, even if the true owner doesn’t show up to defend himself. It’s Property Law 101.

The Good News

Next the good news. The court left open whether owners could attempt to put their chains of title back together (like Humpty-Dumpty) and conduct new foreclosure sales to clear their titles. Unfortunately, the SJC did not provide the real estate community with any further guidance as to how best to resolve these complicated title defects.

In the larger scheme, however, we are now seeing full scale real estate nuclear fallout from the banking crisis. As Barry Ritzholz eloquently states, “a deadly combination of MERS, robo-signing, and illegal shortcuts have created a horrific situation. A bedrock of our society — the ability for the owner of a piece of real estate to confidently convey that property, along with all associated property rights — is now in danger.” This problem is not unique to Massachusetts, and in fact, in harder hit states could be significantly worse. So the bigger question remains where do we go from here and what are banking regulators and attorneys general going to do about it?

Background: Developer Buys Defective Foreclosure Title

Frank Bevilacqua purchased property in Haverhill out of foreclosure from U.S. Bank. Apparently, Bevilacqua invested several hundred thousand dollars into the property, converting it into condominiums. The prior foreclosure, however, was bungled by U.S. Bank and rendered void under the Ibanez case. Mr. Bevilacqua (or presumably his title insurance attorney) brought an action to “try title” in the Land Court to clear up his title, arguing that he is the rightful owner of the property, despite the faulty foreclosure, inasmuch as the prior owner, Rodriguez, was nowhere to be found.

Land Court Judge Keith Long (ironically the same judge who originally decided the Ibanez case) closed the door on Mr. Bevilacqua, dismissing his case, but with compassion for his plight.

“I have great sympathy for Mr. Bevilacqua’s situation — he was not the one who conducted the invalid foreclosure, and presumably purchased from the foreclosing entity in reliance on receiving good title — but if that was the case his proper grievance and proper remedy is against that wrongfully foreclosing entity on which he relied,” Long wrote.

Given the case’s importance, the SJC took the unusual step of hearing it on direct review.

No Standing To “Try Title” Action In Land Court

The SJC agreed with Judge Long that Bevilacqua did not own the property, and therefore, lacked any standing to pursue a “try title” action in the Land Court. The faulty foreclosure was void, thereby voiding the foreclosure deed to Bevilacqua. The Court endorsed Judge Long’s “Brooklyn Bridge” analogy, which posits that if someone records a deed to the Brooklyn Bridge, then brings a lawsuit to uphold such ownership and the “owner” of the bridge doesn’t appear, title to the bridge is not conveyed magically. The claimant in a try title or quiet title case, the court ruled, must have some plausible ownership interest in the property, and Bevilacqua lacked any at this point in time.

The court also held, for many of the same reasons, that Bevilacqua lacked standing as a “bona fide good faith purchaser for value.” The record title left no question that U.S. Bank had conducted an invalid foreclosure sale, the court reasoned.

Door Left Open? Re-Foreclosure In Owner’s Name?

A remedy left open, however, was whether owners could attempt to put their chains of title back together and conduct new foreclosure sales in their name to clear their titles. The legal reasoning behind this remedy is rather complex, but essentially it says that Bevilacqua would be granted the right to foreclosure by virtue of holding an “equitable assignment” of the mortgage foreclosed upon by U.S. Bank. There are some logistical issues with the current owner conducting a new foreclosure sale and it’s expensive, but it could work. That is, of course, if the SJC rules in the upcoming Eaton v. FNMA case that foreclosing parties do not need to hold both the promissory note and the mortgage when they foreclose. An adverse ruling in the Eaton case could throw a monkey wrench into the re-foreclosure remedy.

In Bevilacqua’s case, he did not conduct the new foreclosure sale, so it was premature for the court to rule on that issue. Look for Bevilacqua to conduct the new foreclosure and come back to court again. The SJC left that option open.

Other Remedies & What’s Next?

The other remedy to fix an Ibanez defect, which is always available, is to track down the old owner and obtain a quitclaim deed from him. This eliminates the need for a second foreclosure sale and is often the “cleanest” way to resolve Ibanez titles.

Another option is waiting out the 3 year entry period. Foreclosure can be completed by sale or by entry which is the act of the foreclosure attorney or lender representative physically entering onto the property. Foreclosures by entry are deemed valid after 3 years have expired from the certificate of entry which should be filed with the foreclosure. It’s best to check with a real estate attorney to see if this option is available.

The last resort is to demand that the foreclosing lender re-do its foreclosure sale. The problem is that a new foreclosure could open the door for a competing bid to the property and other logistical issues, not to mention recalcitrant foreclosing lenders and their foreclosure mill attorneys.

Title insurance companies who have insured Ibanez afflicted titles have been steadily resolving these titles since the original Ibanez decision in 2009. I’m not sure how many defective foreclosure titles remain out there right now. There certainly could be a fair amount lurking in titles unknown to those purchasers who bought REO properties from lenders such as U.S. Bank, Deutsche Bank, etc. If you bought such a property, I recommend you have an attorney check the back title and find your owner’s title insurance policy. Those without title insurance, of course, have and will continue to bear the brunt of this mess.

More Coverage:


Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced real estate litigation attorney who’s handled numerous foreclosure title defect matters & cases in Land Court and Superior Court. Please contact him if you are dealing with a Massachusetts foreclosure title dispute.

Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez; Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court October 18, 2011

36 Responses

  1. Hi, i think that i saw you visited my website so i came to “return
    the favor”.I’m attempting to find things to improve my website!I suppose its ok to use a few of your ideas!!

  2. Thanks for your publication. What I want to say is that when you are evaluating a good on the
    web electronics go shopping, look for a website with full information
    on important factors such as the privacy statement, security
    details, any payment options, and various terms along with policies.

    Often take time to look at help along with FAQ segments to
    get a better idea of how a shop is effective, what they are capable of doing for you, and the way you can use the features.

  3. I have learned some new items from your website about desktops.
    Another thing I have always believed is that computer systems have become an item
    that each residence must have for a lot of reasons. They provide convenient ways
    to organize homes, pay bills, shop, study, tune in to music and even watch shows.

    An innovative method to complete all of these tasks is by using a notebook.
    These pcs are mobile, small, strong and transportable.

  4. Super-Duper website! I am loving it!! Will come back again.
    I am taking your feeds also.

  5. […] Like this: Like Be the first to like this post. Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor,Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: | bankruptcy, borrower, countrywide, disclosure,foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, foreclosures, fraud, LOAN MODIFICATION, modification, quiet title, rescission, RESPA, securitization, TILA audit, trustee,WEISBAND « Mortgage Documentation Issues Close to Home LAWYERS TAKING NOTE OF TITLE PROBLEMS AND HOW TO FIX THEM » […]

  6. Uh, Charlie looks like you actually commented on the article, and I agree with you. It doesn’t mesh with the theme around here, that the foreclosures were all fraudulent like the loans themselves. Every now and then there’s some sideways stuff like this and it confuses the issue! Maybe the point is that not every author knows which way is up. This guy obviously doesn’t. To suggest that some of the foreclosures are “valid” is quite a leap. To suggest that the situation can be layered with more fraud to fix it is rediculous. It shows that we’re still a ways off from literally everyone knowing the truth of what the banks did, which was rip off everyone!
    They ripped off the “borrowers”, the insurance companies, the investors, and anyone who had a buck they could part them from. Until we set the record straight as to what actually happened in the robbery of America’s wealth, we’re just gonna flounder around, and until the banks are no longer able to buy our legislative branch, we are going to suffer from their hubris.
    We need to set up and run our own major network, an antidote to their poisonous propaganda that doesn’t allow stuff like this article through the filter.



  8. @ cubed

    “The Indians lost because the white developed weapons greater than bow and arrow.”

    Nonsense. What the whites had in spades that the Indians didn’t trifle with was greed, and the lust for ownership of land. That concept was unknown to native Americans and I’d be willing to bet it’s realized for its folly by the large majority of whites on their death beds too. The Indians also had no place for usury, like most sane people before us. The entire planet would be much better off if we’d stayed at Plymouth Rock just long enough to eat some corn on the cob and get our bearings before returning east, explaining to those back home that the land was already spoken for.

    I was talking with an older native American this week at my local occupation. He expressed very succinctly how many of us whites are now beginning to understand how he and his ancestors felt after first meeting up with whites. Our lands are being taken and the lack of court room justice is overwhelming, as was the case a couple of hundred years ago with the Indian bureaus.

    My thoughts turn to Jamie Dimon. Is scalping still a crime?

  9. @enraged

    and I agree, why borrow at all.

    But who wants you to borrow. Not me, it is the federal reserve system of banks that you to borrow. They have the power to raise or lower interest rates.

    raise or lower interest rates.

    What does that mean?

    That means to get people to borrow money based on interest rates.

    Well, I tell you my friend. the federal reserve has kept interest rates very low now for quite some time. Why is that.?

    You do a google search on debt based money system, money as debt, compound interest, monetary system, central banks, and so on. And don’t forget to do a google search on Securization and MBS, ABS—–asset backed security, mortgage backed security………

    and once you get your wits around those things………….

  10. @enraged

    thank you. I stand corrected.

    Never borrow for consumption items…………that are of little in value once you buy them, or they reduce in value once used. Like you state more or less.

    But, like you said, you had to borrow for a car, a home…………

    so, why couldn’t you do that with a friend or friends?

    Why pay a bank 10% compound interest? Why not pay family, friends or whoever the interest money on straight interest? Why not help a friend by giving him the interest amount, which is more than he will get for putting his money in a savings account at a bank or CD or Money Market account?

    The difference is borrowing for a big ticket item or a consumable item.

  11. SHOCKING VIDEO- US Marine Critically Wounded By Police For Exercising The Freedoms He Fought For…
    October 26th, 2011 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.
    SCOTT OLSEN. You need to know and remember that name.

    If you haven’t seen the videos yet, you need to. The police in Oakland California engaged in a violent attack on peaceful protestors.

    They threw live explosives into a crowd of unarmed citizens.

    In an absolutely terrifying scene, watch this video….played in slow motion that shows a cop throwing an explosive device into a crowd of people who came to the aid of an injured man

    Why is it that you will not find this footage on United States Network Television?

    Take a look at the streets, they are a War Zone.

    And now learn that Scott Olsen, a United States Marine was critically wounded when he was fired upon by Oakland Police.

    Do you hear that Marines? Do you hear what they did to your own?

    OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) — The clash between Oakland police and Occupy Wall Street protesters left a Marine veteran who completed two Iraq tours in critical condition Wednesday after he was struck by a police projectile, a veterans’ group said.

    Scott Olsen, 24, suffered a fractured skull Tuesday as he marched with other protesters toward City Hall, said Dottie Guy, of the Iraq Veterans Against the War. The demonstrators had been making an attempt to re-establish a presence in the area of a disbanded protesters’ camp when they were met by police officers in riot gear.

    Several small skirmishes broke out and officers cleared the area by firing tear gas.

    It’s not known exactly what type of object struck Olsen, currently a systems network administrator in Daly City, or whether he’ll need surgery, Guy said.

    “It’s still too early to tell,” Guy said. “We’re hoping for the best.”

    Curt Olsen, a spokesman for Highland Hospital in Oakland, confirmed that the veteran was in critical condition but could not release any more information.


  12. @cubed

    Something troubles me about your posts. You keep talking about not borrowing from banks (I agree), payday shops (I agree) and credit card companies (I still agree). Where I don’t agree is on borrowing from family and/or friends (best way to lose both) or even to borrow at all. Why the need to borrow?

    When I came to this country, I had never borrowed a cent from anyone: the way I grew up was either I could afford what I wanted to get and I paid cash or I couldn’t and I had to save until I could. It took this country 25 years to sucker me into debt. For the longest time, I used a credit card for the convenience of not having to write too many checks but I paid it off every single month. One of the first things I learned here is that I had to have “good credit” (whatever that means). And I was told by banks, firends, bosses, etc. that in order to “build” my credit, I had to have a credit card and use it. So, I did, paid it off and “buit” my credit. I first borrowed when I bought my house. Then, and because i had moved from an area where public transportation exists and is very well run into an area where it is almost inexisting, I had to get a loan for a car in order to go to work. My kid had to go to college and I borrowed for that too. Lots of loans for very good reasons… or at least I believed it. I found myself where everyone in this country finds himself: overextended.

    Borrowing is never a good idea. I learned the hard way that my parents were right. I had always known they were but, to be completely frank, when I saw that this country appeared to be thriving on debt, I let my guards down. In fact, I doubted the wisdom of what I had been taught.

    Borrowing in the US is deadly. Sooner or later, it will catch up with you. It will never happen again to me. I can’t save so I’ll do without a lot. Big deal. I’d rather be flat broke and free than carry around those chains. And I hope that, if anything, our kids are learning from our mistakes.

  13. LOOK

    If you don’t you don’t borrow from banks and credit card companies and pay day loans,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    and if you borrow from others,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,why you are not caught up in their game…………….

    pretty simple…………..and that is FREEDOM and LIBERTY………….

    don’t you thinK?

  14. fork tongue………….contracts on the legal level to get you to get involved in the legal system…………………

    And who controls the legal system…………..lobbyists…………and who pays lobbyists………banks and wall street…………..

    get money out of politics…………………

    who changed the latest bankruptcy laws. lobbyists, who paid the lobbyists?

    Answer—-junk (defaulted and written off and collected via insurance) debt buyers, debt collectors, who are started and are funded by ,,,,,,,,,banks & wall street……………round and round it goes……….the rich get richer

    but, if you DO NOT borrow from banks and credit card companies,,,,,,,,,why you are out the system……..that is your liberty, your freedom……………..don’t you think?

  15. stay away from the banks——————–and credit card companies,,,,,,,,,,,,pay all cash

    all media on TV and Print is all designed to get you to borrow from banks………………..

    when in fact you can borrow from friends and family and whoever…………………..

    all negative media implying borrowing from friends and family members is designed to get you to not trust your family and friends and get them to not trust you……………….so you can borrow from the banks………….

    fork tongue………….contracts on the legal level to get you to get involved in the legal system…………………

    Believe me, your freedom is not dependent on the legal system, your freedom is between friends and family members, and if you have a problem, you can work it out as people are basically good, they are not evil,,,,,,,,,,,,,only 1% are……………think about it.


    The phrase “speaks with a forked tongue” means to deliberately say one thing and mean another or, to be hypocritical, or act in a duplicitous manner. In the longstanding tradition of many Native American tribes, “speaking with a forked tongue” has meant lying, and a person was no longer considered worthy of trust, once he had been shown to “speak with a forked tongue”. This phrase was also adopted by Americans around the time of the Revolution, and may be found in abundant references from the early 19th century — often reporting on American officers who sought to convince the tribal leaders with whom they negotiated that they “spoke with a straight and not with a forked tongue”

  16. Is this article a joke? i mean come on now!!!!!, the “suggestions” on how to remedy the fraud with more fraud are totally incomprehensible!! WTF?????????

  17. @Marie

    you said

    “Being meek avails one ….NOTHING
    There will be no justice. Don’t count on divine intervention. Look what happened to the Indians Their lands stayed lost. Ours will too”
    The Indians lost because the white developed weapons greater than bow and arrow.

    they lost on trying to enter into contracts, which they did not fully understanding because white man speak in double talk, fork tongue. Here is your proof, just read UCC codes.

    It is now the same. Poor, uneducated, american signing contracts thinking those presenting the contact are working for their interests and are fair, when in fact those presenting contracts for another party, those presenting contracts are working for their own survival to get a commission or money, and when the deal is done, they get paid,

    but poor american signing the contract, thinks all is well, but it is written with such language that nobody really understands,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    thus one must go court to understand, but that has been corrupted,,,,,,

    and then you have case law that supposedly now rules, but nobody knows it on an educated point of view………….it all becomes hidden and confused…………….

    and on and on it goes.


  19. This article does not make sense to me either. Fruad and fraud upon the court has no statutes of limitatations. What about adverse possession and the Castle law and the three year statute of limitations for unsecured debt, and the six years in Wa state less in others and slughtly more in other states that have (like Wa state) a six year statutes of limitations to collect a debt for promissory notes that include mortgages. What about the economic crime, tort and felonys that have been documented. Who is this person trying to mislead?

  20. Does anybody know how many guns the citizens of the United States own?

    I pitty the the fools (Banksters) and their friends.

    The stupid police chief of New York The lawsuits for police brutality will amount to 20 times or more than the $4.5 million donation by Chase.

    Crime does not pay

    I am only the messenger.

  21. Ian

    Yes. But, the problem is that the DOJs and government agencies have done — and continue to do — nothing. And, in fact, 46 Attorney Generals want to sign a “settlement” — without investigation.

    Courts are influenced by what the government has failed to do — failed to protect the victims.

    But, thank you to New York, California, Delaware — and — believe Illinois? Attorney Generals – for standing up to the fraud.

    New York will — eventually — get the job done.

    Right now — politics controlling the rest of the country.

  22. I mean no disrespect in this reply.

    Indians entered contracts. At least their Chiefs did. Whether it was land for pretty beads and of course they had no idea of what they were entering into, they did.

    We did not enter into any contracts..big difference and being meek is what matters.

    There is the Lieber Code and other things in effect.
    There is a duty to protect peaceful inhabitants and there is an oath that protects We the People not ‘presumed to be persons’. There’s also the enforceability of unconscionable contracts.

    Overlooking Fraud doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist just like a tree falling in a forest and no one hearing it, doesn’t mean it didn’t fall.

    When we point to where the fault is, we’ll get our remedy.

    The Trading with the Enemy act has no enforcement against One who is not an enemy.

    If you paid attention to Ibanez and the current case, the homeowner was not there for either and judgment was still in their favor.

    Pulling back the veil and seeing who did what is where we find our remedy. I am not going to point to a bank (by name) nor it’s building. It has someone who represents all actions done, and that’s the CEO, CFO, and Board of Directors. Pointing at a law firm (by name or building) will not provide our remedy, but naming the attorneys who placed their signature on documents that cause us to have our property stolen and to name the judges that signed documents that sent a hired gun to our home to place public notices and make us leave so someone else could squat and benefit from our homestead is where we’ll find our remedy.

    Anyone that acts like there is no solution to this either don’t know or is impatient.

    Patience is a virtue, and if you knew ‘who you are’…you’d totally understand why ‘all men are created equal’ even when the ones who pretend to be deciding our fate do things that affect us in a negative way.

    It is only by consent that my home should be stolen. Only by consent and that did not happen. They know this and are dragging their feet on the remedy but the remedy will come.

    There will be a balance and I expect a lot of people to go to jail, including judges who are only immune (to man’s law) in their actions in certain circumstances.

    Divine law is everywhere. We are Divinity. If thy right hand offends thee, cut if off kind of divinity. They have already created their karmic energy. I’m not mad; just calling it like it is.

    You can’t hid from ‘yourself’.

    A judge would know what I meant by that. They are supposed to be illuminated enough to know about the ‘I AM’.

    Light and Love,
    Trespass Unwanted, life, corporeal, jure divino (by divine right)

  23. Being meek avails one ….NOTHING

    There will be no justice. Don’t count on divine intervention. Look what happened to the Indians Their lands stayed lost. Ours will too

  24. This article makes no sense..No sense.
    Someone who does not have clear title to a home, because someone else stole it via a fraudulent conveyance (called foreclosure when there was no obligation or assignment) has an option to to re-foreclose on the property to clear the title? Really?
    Someone who has no assignment nor right to someone’s property can gain clear title via “Foreclosures by entry”, where foreclosure by entry are deemed valid after 3 years have expired from the certificate of entry which should be filed with the foreclosure. Really?

    No. There is no statute of limitations on fraud.

    There is a statute called Statute of Frauds where certain items have to be in writing. There was no assignment of Deed in many foreclosures and sometimes the assignment happened after the fraudulent conveyance of property and the assignment was by an entity that did not have a ‘security interest’ in the property. You cannot go back and re-foreclosure on a bad foreclosure.

    In some cases foreclosures were done by law firms for the benefit of companies that no longer existed when the foreclosure occurred, a non-existent entity did not have a security interest in a property because it was long gone.

    The Notice of Default is the first step, but there’s enough paperwork trail in the public to reveal what was done and if a search online does not lead to identifying the chain of title, a trip to the county clerk to view the real estate records will show there is a broken title and once broken it takes a quiet title action to fix it.

    Land court knows who owns the property.
    A properly filed foreclosure has to list the property as it is written on the Deed of Trust, exactly. The theft that occurred with my property has a different description. Where the Deed says Sec 2C Blk A, the documents to foreclose and transfer Special Warranty Deed say Section 2C Block A.

    The only way to fix a bad foreclosure is before you foreclose.
    Once the State, which is of the People and represents the People is noticed that a fraud has occurred, they ‘must’ protect the People.

    A judge cannot impair the obligations of contracts.
    A judge cannot make a decision about property rights where none exists.
    A judge has usurped their powers when the documents before them inform them of the fraud and they legislated from the bench and create a new law conveying someone the right to remove someone from their land.

    A judge cannot legally convey squatter’s rights to another who has no right to the property. All revenue generated from an unlawful conveyance of squatters rights belong to the rightful property owner who was forced to leave their homestead by a ‘hired’ gunman (the local sheriff).

    There was a bright green notice posted on my property that noticed any hired gunman in the state, the right to appear on my private property on a particular day at a particular time and gave them immunity for the trespass and conveyed the right to touch my living body and my living offspring body and to touch my private property and remove us from our land.

    That notice was a public contract in writing informing all who could see that if I stayed, I agreed to be handled by a man with a gun and I agreed to allow my creations (my offspring) to be handled by a man with a gun, and I agreed to allow the man with the gun to handle my private property, because public notice was made that it would happen and if I’d chosen to stay it would have happen.

    I know about contracts. Someone made a contract that was unconscionable and I ran rather than be harmed by their unconscionable contract.

    The land court should never give clear title to anyone no matter how many foreclosures upon foreclosures upon foreclosures happen.

    There was a Warranty Deed issued to the original owner. The fraud foreclosing entity issued ‘Special Warranty Deeds’. Not the same thing.

    This is smoke and mirrors is just hoping the real owners think we don’t have rights to our property and through some process we just give up and go away and someone can always make money on it and never pay us our due – because we are never, ever, ever expected to come back to make our claim for what is rightfully ours.

    There are laws on the books that should have protected us.
    Those that don’t enforce the laws and imprison those that did the wrong are part of the problem and need to be imprisoned too.

    There is a divine cleansing coming. Then the meek will not have to deal with the thievery of our inheritance that came not from a corporation’s CEO and Board of Director members, nor from a law firm of attorneys. The inheritance. The right to life. The right to be free is given to all men…all are equal…and those that violate that universal law need not worry about punishment from an equal, Karmic law will let them feel what they’ve done while playing the ‘Human Game’.

    Rules of the game are, if one does not want to contract, you cannot force them into one. Judges did not listen. Lawyers went before judges and got them to enforce the contracts CEO’s, CFO’s, and Board of Directors entered the people into to take their homes.
    The people who were forced into unconscionable contracts had their properties stolen.

    Then they wanted the peaceful people to ‘fight’ them in court over the theft.

    Peaceful inhabitants do not want to fight. They want to remain peaceful.

    The system needs to fix this financial war and provide restitution to the peaceful inhabitants who were robbed by the bandits who used men with guns to steal our right to live peacefully where we lay our head at night. We did not sell our land for pretty beads. Our signatures are not on any of the agreements that purportedly conveyed our property away from us. New signatures do not wipe out the standing signature that owns the property.

    The writer of this article is either ignorant (I mean that in a legal sense), or there is another motive for spewing this pack of lies to the public. Doesn’t change what is. What is…is.

  25. No funding. No mortgage “loan”.
    An alleged “debt” does not a “mortgage” make.
    Fraud at origination.
    Come on, Neil…please get to and expose the whole truth—we need you on the side of the people—not just the “investors”.

  26. Anonymous

    A bankster apologist wrote the article?

  27. Please add me to your list so I can get your daily postings.
    Thank you,

  28. ANONYMOUS- my thoughts exactly, “what makes anyone think that recorded assignments are valid?”. Most, if not all, of the recorded assignments undermining our land records are fraudulent, for a variety of reasons. Assignee has no right to assign what they don’t own. And they don’t now, nor did they ever, own anything. It is just window dressing, nothing more. It is a presumption of validity based on pre-securitization mortgage practices, whereby one could unequivocally guarantee that all recorded documents are valid. If only the judges, the county recorders, the DAs, and the public at large could be brought up to speed on the horrific fraud that is devastating our nation and her citizens.

  29. Neil has ALWAYS said to question EVERYTHING and assume NOTHING! I did that yesterday while in mediation in a post-foreclosure case I am handling. At the beginning of the mediation I told the mediator that we needed to establish some “grouund rules” to ensure everyone is acting in good faith. I addressed the 2 attorneys representing MERS, Aurora, and Homecomings and asked them “are your clients aware that you are representing them today in mediation?” Each of them, and simultaneously FREAKED OUT. Neither would answer and “none of your business” was the heated and infuriated response I received. These are folks who are normally calm, cool, and generally flat line personalities. Have I struck a nerve yet?

  30. “I come here to immediately pick up my pension € 300. Who knows what else happened today. My money is safe only when it is at home” said Pensioners Evagelos Dimitros age 73.

  31. Actually, I see this decision as a good thing. It exposes the nightmare of bad assignments and bad documents and how buyers must beware of buying foreclosed properties. It throws still another wrench in the foreclosure/bad title mess and exposes it to the light. You can’t sell what you don’t own. I see Bevelacqua suing the bank. Just saying…

  32. Is this new Nevada Law a significant Law? Is it good for our Cause?

    It sounds good

  33. Quote — “Bevilacqua affects those small percentage of foreclosures where mortgage assignments were not recorded in a timely fashion and were otherwise conducted unlawfully.”

    What makes anyone think that recorded assignments are valid???

    Know robo-signing is not addressed — but, robo-signing is the symptom of a much larger fraud.

  34. It must be a mistake that he said “owners cannot bring a court action to clear their titles”
    Of course they can IF THEY ARE THE OWNERS.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: