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

In a recent case in California we saw the debtor lose a Motion to Lift Stay under circumstances where the failure of the debtor to PROPERLY raise issues and the attempt by the debtor to use the word “securitization” as though it was the equivalent of “murder” resulted in a negative outcome. I made some comments about this case and replaced the name of the real person with the name “SMITH.”

Comments on SMITH decision

  1. There was an adversary proceeding, which is to say a lawsuit was filed, answered and fully litigated and SMITH lost. Whatever the issues were in adversary they can’t be re-litigated. Unfortunately, that is what SMITH attempted to do with predictable results. The result here in granting relief from Stay would have been the same no matter what she raised — if it had been litigated or was in the scope of what was litigated in the adversary proceeding.
  2. Debtor bases her position on the claim that her mortgage loan had been bundled — it is her belief that securitization makes the mortgage unenforceable. This would not be true in any circumstances. Securitization has been around under one name or another since the dawn of finance. This is what I have been talking about in terms of evidence, procedure, strategy and tactics. In essence SMITH tried to do to the Banks what the banks were doing to SMITH, except the banks got there first and the banks are, in the minds of Judges, far more credible than one individual homeowner. SMITH was trying to use a blanket statement that simply wasn’t true and never could be true. If the loan had been properly securitized and if the Banks had presented proper evidence of ownership, the foreclosure could well have been proper. So her basic premise, at least as the Judge heard it, was wrong.
  3. The Court found that the loan was not securitized. Since this was a World Savings account, the loan was possible a portfolio loan at origination and then securitized later when Wachovia took over World Savings. But it is also possible that the loan was not securitized. In any event, the Court’s finding was in the adversary and barring an appeal from that decision, the finding that it was not securitized was cut in stone. SMITH was simply wrong in the way the opposition to the Motion for Relief from Stay was presented.
  4. The Court goes on to say that the Forensic Audit has a complete lack of any information that would indicate that the loan was in fact securitized. This represents a challenge that could have been overcome in the adversary. We would have known one way or the other had discovery been attempted directed to this issue. At this point the only thing left is for SMITH to file for a “review” in accordance with OCC guidelines that require an audit of her loan account, and any evidence of securitization, to wit: to whom were payments being made at the time she was making the payments? Were they forwarded to anyone? who? why?
  5. The auditors statement that the loan was probably nevertheless securitized in a private label transaction is not supported by any data showing that this was the case for World Savings loans in 2007. Had such support been noted, then the Court might have taken notice and allowed discovery — and the implication is that the Court might have allowed it even though the matter had been litigated because the question goes to one of standing, which is jurisdictional. Jurisdictional issues ordinarily can be raised for the first time anytime.
  6. Then the final nail in the coffin is the SMITH assertion that no money is owed because of the magic word “securitization.” SMITH might just as well have asked the court to rule against the debtor. No Judge is going to agree with the premise that securitization as a  mere word invalidates a debt or does anything to it at all. If the debt was paid down by third parties in loss mitigation payments that were not subject to agreements allowing subrogation, the debt was not reduced by one penny — although the third party payment might have transferred the debt from one creditor, secured, to another creditor, unsecured thus removing the right to foreclose on the mortgage or deed of trust. Again, without specific facts applying to this loan or the parties to this loan, there is no case for the borrower or debtor.
  7. Debtor objected to admission of the note and mortgage. No grounds were stated in the Order but it is unlikely that any allowable grounds were stated int he objection. Again SMITH was trying to use magic instead of proper procedure, evidence and trial procedure. If SMITH had objected on the grounds that the note and mortgage don’t tell the whole story, and that if allowed discovery the whole story would be revealed, then the objection might have been sustained or partly sustained in that the Judge might have admitted the note and mortgage (assuming they were originals — real originals instead of printed originals). So there were several objections that if framed properly would have made a record fro appeal if overruled. It is likely that the Judge here overruled them because of the fact that “Objection!” is no substitute for oral argument on what is wrong with the evidence being proffered.
  8. Cause exists for granting relief because of the debtor’s failure to make 12 payments. The presumption is that those payments were due. In fact, if the debtor had obtained the data to perform a loan level accounting it is highly probable that the servicer was continuing to make payments to the real creditor (if the loan had been treated as securitized by Wachovia or Wells Fargo).

This is not simple stuff. There typically is a difference between (1) the CLAIM that is made by the would be forecloser, (2) the documents in the title chain, (3) the documents in the securitization chain, and (4) the money trail often all leading to different results. The COMBO, the Forensic analysis, the loan level analysis all help with providing the data necessary but they are no substitute for a lawyer or to be more specific, they are no substitute for proper presentation. In this case I would have ruled the way the Judge did even though I know that the borrower probably had some points that were valid but were not properly raised. The Judge is not allowed to make up the case for one side or the other.


45 Responses

  1. too many blanks here—who is the present servicer—-who did the robosigning work? if it is one certain pair then since there is no honor among thieves they are already at each others throats—was the loan listed in any trust loan schedule filed with sec?

    look for example at AHMSI vs LPS —and AHMSI vs FHA—may not be determinative but for sure the FHA position vis the servicer claim is something to look at closely in application to all servicers

  2. @PAT et al

    I stopped by an OWL group out in midamerica this past weekend and was chatting with them—-and was discussing one’s parents’ home foreclosure. Out of the blue a somwhat older fellow about 30 overheard and came over and stated he was a veteran of the afhgan war recently returned. It was his 3rd deployment. About a month after he left this time his wife threw in the towel under financial pressure and took off with another guy. A couple weeks later–he got the letter from his servicer/collection agency—“you are being foreclosed etc” —-all of his possessions –furniture–family albums business records –everthing were either stolen by the “preservers” or trashed. So he returns, no wife, no home, no possessions, lives in his grandparents’ basement.

    This seizure was against the law—-but law is meaningless to these people–its penalties and consequences are all that matter to hem –and there are none–so a toothless law is no law at all—so i ask a simple question of you Pat—in what way did this fellow become complicit?

    please respond. Im curious how effective your advocacy is. Are you a realtor Pat? You sound like one–somebody with knowledge and a deep need to justify what you did as you sold overpriced homes and pocketed the oversized commissions. Did you help that market out with a few related party sales to pump the market too? Some broker friends that came in behind and called the neighbors and induced them to refi into predatory loans? You sound guilty Pat—-lets have your name Pat.

    tell us why you are out here Pat—why? are you paid –or is it guilt?

  3. To Tell The Truth;

    Pat, whoever you are…may the Lord have mercy on your soul. You have what appears to be very little information ( which in itself is dangerous) and little understanding of what the issues really are. And I was just thinking that perhaps you picked up a couple comments on here and decided to run with it,,, you will need to follow all the comments and all the issues before you make such statements.

    There are a handful of purchasers, I will agree that took advantage of the fraudsters offer, not knowing fraud was committed against them also…mmmm and then the home owners who really believed in the American Dream…and now want the nightmare to be over. Homeowners who purchased their homes purchased them with the intention of either living in it for live or as an investment for a larger home and not to loose their homes. If they had such intent many would not have committed suicide or live in shame and poverty right now. Please do not make statements that will add more offense to the existing situation in ,many of these families’ lives.

    Banks always have alternatives if they are operating with integrity and honesty and truly want people to own their homes. So, now given the public display of options they now have with our tax dollars and other incentives they are still not trying to help the homeowner. The ones who are finally dragging their feet but modifying a few here and there are doing it to protect themselves as every modification is assuring that bank that they can create an original loan all over again…go figure…

    Anyway, be careful, everyone has a day in court, be it this earthly one or the heavenly one…and as to refinancing or equity loans, well, I was told that owning my home was like a forced savings and that I would be building equity and could have that equity/savings to use whenever I needed to so it is simply our own money and not an atm as you suggest…sometimes I think some people like you forget that it cost not only a down payment, but closing cost and a lot of other fees to get the mortgage in the first place…and the interest that is paid up front is so much , hardly touching the principal…go figure…anyway, not all cases are the same…and I appreciate this weblog to allow us to share with each other hoping to help one another and not condemn each other…

  4. presumably “knowingly” ——-if an atty does it so anywhere its supposed to be his license—ignorance–or blind recklessness seems to be a useful defense

  5. The A Man, you said
    “Once Nevada made it a crime (a felony) to file improper paperwork with the courts, subject to 10 years in jail and fines of $10,000 per violation…
    Foreclosures stopped.”
    I missed this, apparently. Any more info? Source material?

  6. @carrie -the thought they were fighting for you—how can you help fight for them?

  7. @DCB

    Disgusting. We need to get the truth to the soldiers. This is total insanity. What have they been fighting for, anyway??? A country where Congress is bought and Wall Street/Banks get away with unchecked raping and pillaging???

    This is the time of the end.

  8. @tony

    Exactly how would one apply your jurisdiction idea in a non-judicial state?
    Thank you.

  9. can anyone get an OCC claim form? These things must be done en masse asap————-every foreclosed person should be assisted encouraged to make the claims as a defensive matter——then be very wary what the actual closer is –whether one is expected to waive their right to breathe air in order to get $50

    but starting point with any govt agency is —-filling in the form–what is required —

    iv already encountered priblems in interviews with servicemen in iraq /afghan that were foreclosed while in these hell holes—and every last thing they owned was thrown out by the field assets etc people –inlcuding their loan books–they have difficulty just figuring out the loan numbers–so occ wont send the letters—–on request–and lacks teir current addressess—its a series of catrch 22’s

    please get off your personal issues and think about these vets –the stories are just awful–the servicers took greatest aDVANTAGE OF THE SOLDIERS –they were not here to go defend themselves–even move their furniture out–their family albums–anything–all went into “preservers” box trucks as booty–or dumpsters–have you people no compassion?

  10. Tnharry,

    Stop with your weak game. Jurisdiction is the meat of the matter and you know it. People like you want to throw people under the bus. What I write shouldn’t be taken as advice but make people search for the truth. I give case law so people will look at it and understand it for them-self. You say one thing then another. Lets not forget when we were talking in rem vs personam and you said don’t use state cases, then pulled state case to state your side of the conversation. You always flip flop or muddle the waters.

    I never tell anyone to contact me, why because this is a blog for conversations, not who can make money off of people.

  11. DCB

    Nicely put. Look — it is absurd for Pat to think homeowners were knowingly complicit — knowingly knowing that they could very well lose their homes by such a risk. Even IF homeowners took “some” risk (and i greatly dispute this) — homeowners always knew they had 2 options —- 1) sell the home 2) refinance. Both of these options were quickly taken away from the homeowners by financial crisis fall-out. Neither option was any longer available. Bailout to banks was available — but, no help to homeowners — only “solution” — was fraudulent foreclosure.

    Pat — do you REALLY think — that homeowners were complicit to believe that signing on the dotted line (to a contract that homeowner had no idea was fraudulent at the time) —- was a homeowner perpetrated scam??? What homeowner would risk their home — by being “complicit” with fraud????? Answer — NONE. I do not even think “speculators” would do this — and speculators were minority. This is an absolute idiotic conclusion on your part. First — Homeowners would not want to risk losing their home 2) homeowners had NO SAY in the loan granted to them.

    Unless that homeowner came in with a gun and demanded a loan more favorable to him/her than the banks —- the homeowners HAD absolutely no say in the approval of the loan. The homeowners relied on the banks — relied on the asset appraisal — relied on being able to refinance — and relied on being able to sell the asset.

    Your premise may have some merit —IF and only if — homeowners were able to get out of the fraudulent loan — or sell their home — but, they could do neither. In this case, it is not complicity — but, rather — a solution to the homeowner. Ridiculous to think that homeowners would be complicit to harm themselves in such a manner as to which they had no alternative — but to be a victim of fraudulent foreclosure.

    But, that is all irrelevant — because the fraud in the “mortgages” — and for subprime — these were not even mortgages — was so widespread — so corrupt — so fraudulent — that those who gained on these so-called “mortgages” – should be in jail. And, if the government were not so intent upon saving face — they would be.

  12. Maybe homeowners knowingly borrowed a principal amount which with interst turned out more than they could repay Pat—but you overlook 2 facts.
    1) the value was pumped by the predatory lending including in house appraisals. So when a person signed up she THOUGHT that she could simply sell if it got out of hand. If a lender used in house appraisals or otherwise knowingly used suspect appraisals, then is not the borrower entitled to rely to some extent on that purported professional expert opinion for which they were charged? Was the appraisal negligent then?
    Or the brokers were cooperating with realtors to pump in more aggressive fashion–deception? And I pose the question: who should better know the true values, the one time borrower or the guys that do business every day?
    2) The homeowners with ARMS which are the most likely predatory loans
    were certainly not able to predict that interest rates were going to run away as they did 2004-2005. The lenders and investors on the other hand are in business to predict the rates–and investors paid a premium to acquire the ARMs on the assumption thart the sucker homeowner was going to have to pay more than she expected. Who is at greater fault the ignorant person that cant predict rates–or the counterparty that bet the rates were going to rise–but did not expect the sucker to default? And lets not forget the big banks sit on the rate-setting boards in a manner which in any other industry would be monopolistic price fixing–in banking its called Federal Reserve. The homeowners were as guilty of complicity as the banker who happens to get hanged by a mob. Maybe thats not a good example–the banker could be said to more reasonably foreseee his end.

    in my view we need that general that was fired for speaking truth in Afghanistan as our chief executive—–its time for a man on a white horse.

  13. Pat you are so wrong! And quite obnoxious too!

    People who “cashed” on their house are not the majority. “Income stated”: most of us didn’t know what that meant when we refinanced: we all agreed to sign an authorization to obtain our past 3 years of tax returns. We weren’t looking to get anything other than a lower interest rate which we were promised. Lenders lied to us. Lenders lied on the paperwork. Most of us didn’t even understand exactly what we were looking at.

    Are you really saying what I think you are saying? That when grandpa and grand’ma got conned into a reverse mortgage, they were “profiting” from the system?

    Let me tell you about a simple book I refer to all the time: the Bible. it just happens that my Bible clearly states that the temptor is always guiltier then the temptee. The law (interestingly enough…) states the same: the expert who cons the ignorant bears the greater responsibility.

    Don’t reverse the roles and the responsibilities.

    On this site people don’t seem to care much about you. i think I’m starting to see why. Big mouth with a nasty attitude.

  14. “ANONYMOUS, on November 5, 2011 at 7:12 am said:
    Cannot go forward — until you fix the fraud in the past. And, it is going to quite some time to fix all the fraud — and even longer to fix mortgage title fraud.
    Borrowers complicit?? You are kidding — right?? Maybe some wheeler/dealers like you —- but, NOT regular borrowers. And, you just have no idea of the real level of fraud — no idea.
    Remember — I am not in foreclosure — but, from what I know — the subprime mortgages and foreclosures — are the biggest scam this country has ever seen. And, eventually — ALL will be exposed.”









  15. The case is at the Post Trial Motion stage, so I cannot reveal all details. But, the broker was very specifically found to have engaged in fraudulent actions.

    Borrowers being complicit? Hell yes!!!!

    All the refinances where people took money out of the homes, time and again, using the home as an ATM. Now, they claim that it was the lenders fault. “Protect me from myself”.

    Those of you who bought investment properties, and now claim you had no idea what you were doing.

    Those who bought using stated income loans, when they knew that they could not qualify otherwise. Now, they complain about being taken advantage of.

    Everyone of you bragged about how much you made each time a home sold in the neighborhood at a higher value. You were all happy then. Some would run out and refinance. When values fall, now you are mad and you blame everyone but yourselves.

    One person here posted how she took out a Line of Equity. That meant that she took equity out of her home for some purpose, likely to pay off bills or some other such event. Bet she did not put it back in her home as improvements.

    Then, she can’t make the payment. Servicer tries to collect. She sends a stupid letter and they stop collecting. She claims that it is because there was no “true debt”. Here is why they are not pursuing her.

    She has no money, so they would have to foreclose. If they foreclose, then they must make the loan payments to the first mortgage. If the home is underwater, then they would not foreclose because they would have to make the monthly payments on the first mortgage. Why throw good money after bad?

    Do all of you know why you are not getting respect from the courts or the government? It is because they know that you were just as complicit as they were, and as the lenders were. Only in a very few cases were people legitimately defrauded. Most were “willing victims” at the least.

    There are ways to correct what has happened, but it would never meet with any approval from persons here. That is because it does not involve giving each of you free homes. And no matter what you say, your actions show otherwise.

  16. Pat
    Cannot go forward — until you fix the fraud in the past. And, it is going to quite some time to fix all the fraud — and even longer to fix mortgage title fraud.

    Borrowers complicit?? You are kidding — right?? Maybe some wheeler/dealers like you —- but, NOT regular borrowers. And, you just have no idea of the real level of fraud — no idea.

    Remember — I am not in foreclosure — but, from what I know — the subprime mortgages and foreclosures — are the biggest scam this country has ever seen. And, eventually — ALL will be exposed.

  17. @Carie,

    I missed your comments on this post by Neil. Of all the people, I really thought you’d be the first to write on it…

  18. Pat—your statement is puzzling:

    “I don’t take most homeowners because I must believe that the homeowner was not complicit in what happened, which is a difficult standard to reach.”

    “complicit in what happened”???

    Why don’t you for once say what really “happened”???

    How on earth can a homeowner be complicit when they sign a contract that is fraudulent and they have no idea of this fact?

    And don’t play like there was no fraud…you know EXACTLY what I’m talking about.

  19. @ Pat, care to enlighten us as to the case that you so brilliantly won? Bets are on that you won’t, can’t, or will suddenly disappear like you always do when challenged.

  20. Question for the smart people out there—the OCC lists 24 servicers as to which claims can be raised. I have attempted to obtain a copy of the “claim” form from the OCC via the phone so I can see what is required etc—to get the ball rolling—-they REFUSED to send it to me because I was not a victim of a named claimee. OUCH! This is who is going to administer this? This denial was today.

    I am an attorney and am working with a crew of OWLs to help the victims–and OCC is already blocking me.

    I do not understand why there are 24 on the list–but only 14 consented–and the non-consents were handled in our cases by LPS/DOCX and MERS of course—–they consented or confessed howver you want to look at it–but OCC is blocking ability to get the form much less take claims on non-consents

  21. Question for the smart people out there—the OCC lists 24 servicers as to which claims can be raised. I have attempted to obtain a copy of the “claim” form from the OCC via the phone so I can see what is required etc—to get the ball rolling—-they REFUSED to send it to me because I was not a victim of a named claimee. OUCH! This is who is going to administer this? This denial was today.

    I am an attorney and am working with a crew of OWLs to help the victims–and OCC is already blocking me.

    I do not understand why there are 24 on the list–but only 14 consented–and the non-consents were handled in our cases by LPS/DOCX and MERS of course—–they consented or confessed howver you want to look at it–but OCC is blocking ability to get the form much less take claims on non-consents


  22. Pat you are very entertaining.

    Just ask Bill Black, he will explain the situation

    Anonymous thank you


  23. Need advice from some of the brillant minds on this site. refi loan in 2007 broker to originator day 1 mers of course deed of trust .Servcing rights sold in 2009. Sent a 20 page qwr to present servicer only received back a payment history with black lines through it. according to the SEC website the orginating bank sells there loans for cash retains MSRS. Loan must be sold PRIOR TO MSRS. msrs are separate for the loan bank only buys back loans on rep and warranties.4 attorneys later i found one that requested full accounting in district court going for quiet title. attorneys for banks responded saying that everyone associated with title says present servicer in holder I say they only bought servcing rights because the originating bank sold the loan into 2007a1 trust. I have the psa my attorney says legally there is not much more he can do. Finding a competent attorney as been my biggest challenge. The banks mentioned above only use robomills signers no paperwork no chain of title.

  24. BTW,

    In Nevada, today there were 156 NOD’s, NOT”S & Trustee Deeds filed. Yesterday, there were 53 filed.

    I guess that Nevada is again foreclosing.

  25. As to no one foreclosing again in Nevada, they are simply trying to meet the requirements of the new regulations passed by Nevada. It will start again.

  26. A Man

    TNharry can be your best friend, if you let him. He understands this stuff better than anyone else here. He knows how the arguments will go in court, and if you ask him, he will probably tell you how to structure your arguments for more effective presentation.

    You are completely wrong about me. I have worked for attorneys representing homeowners in foreclosure since 2007. Some of the best arguments that attorneys use in CA regarding YSP has been the result of my breaking down the YSP argument into simple terms. CA Appellent Courts have ruled that that my arguments resulted in a Fiduciary Duty issue for brokers.

    I testified last month in case on the side of the borrower against the broker and the borrower won. In Feb, I am back in court again representing another borrower. In Jan, I will be representing one lender against another lender. I don’t do lender v homeowner actions.

    I don’t take most homeowners because I must believe that the homeowner was not complicit in what happened, which is a difficult standard to reach. Reach that standard and I will work to move Heaven and Earth for the homeowner.

    Right now, I am working to resolve what has frozen the housing and lending market. I am putting together working solutions that will at some point free up the ability to lend again to homeowners. Now, for me, it is about meeting the needs of the future. Leave the present to others.

  27. The A Man,

    Greatly respect Bill Black. And also respect — you The A Man — we go back — quite awhile now.

    NEVER AGAIN — Thank you.

  28. Anonymous it should be Occupy the White House Obama and Holder are letting the banksters get away with it, according to Bill Black.

    Anonymous the answer to your question. America is Economically Bankrupt Broke Capoot which leads to being moralee bankrupt. It is difficult to function when your stomach is empty.

    Pat and Tnharry are just like the Banksters
    Pat has problem with disclosures (he works for the banksters)
    Tnharry has problem with Disclosure and has no standing, giving free advise is worth the amount you paid for the advise. a big fat 0 zero.

    How come nobody is forecosing anymore in Nevada?
    Huh Pat and Tnharry


  29. Tnharry is one of the most knowledgeable people who post here. All would do well to pay attention to him.

    Of course, since Confirmational Bias is rampant here, people will ignore him.

  30. @Johngault,

    Excellent advice: go sit in courtrooms for a few days or even a few weeks. Watch the pros at work. Watch how judges have a very short threshold of tolerance for hipshooters. Who knows: you may even meet the guy who will help you fight and win your case.

  31. The A Man,

    What really did happen to Obama??? How and why has he allowed so much fraud??? Such a great disappointment to so many. Who is controlling him??? The people he appointed??? The bank campaign donors???

    I can not even watch him anymore —he makes me sick.

  32. Nevada’s Catherine Cortez Masto
    – is the epitome of a state Attorney General
    Bank CEOs Lying When They Say They’ve Stopped Robosigning
    Once Nevada made it a crime (a felony) to file improper paperwork with the courts, subject to 10 years in jail and fines of $10,000 per violation…
    Foreclosures stopped




  34. What OCC guidelines? Since when does OCC have any guidelines???

  35. Thanks, Neil, good advice as always. Sure food for thought. I have a couple questions-
    1. When a case is dismissed without prejudice, how long can it remain thus before the plaintiff refiled a new case or can he reopen the old one?
    2. What is the statute of limitation once a case is dismissed without prejudice for the homeowner to file for quiet title and what does that involve?
    3. What happens to the recorded alleged “original note” the bank filed over a year after the law suit was filed to foreclose and that alleged note recorded as an original without the defendant allowing to view the so called original one and then the judge dismissing the case without prejudice because the bank did not take the time to replace the foreclosure mill attorney it was using?
    4. How can I find out if and when the alleged loan documents and alleged original note that was recorded with the clerk of the court was actually returned to the bank by the foreclosure mill attorney who recorded the alleged original just before he was ‘busted’ and refused to return docs to the client banks until they pay him his fees? And who had also used the robo signer for some documents regarding the same case?
    5. How can I get that so called original copy of note removed from the record? Do I make a claim or what do I do? It is definitely not an original that I can prove if needs be but meanwhile, it was filed as such without me being able to view the original due to the issues mentioned above with the foreclosure mill attorney and their bankster clients.

    Thank you.

  36. Beware of the Person who offers his services for Free.

    Tnharry your advise is worth the price. Zero


    Neil Garfield “Be Strong and Courageous”


  37. a link to the case he’s basing the article on would be insightful. and almost entertaining how he works in an ad for the combo audit product at the end…always be closing Neil. good salesmanship

  38. @Tony – as much as i hate to get into it again with you, i can’t reconcile your last statement with your oft-repeated information about challenging jurisdiction. you preach that almost as much as other people preach their pet theories…

  39. Don’t get your advice for anyone that you can not find the info yourself. Even if the person claims they are a lawyer. Just because they say something it is not golden.

    The problem is the many people take this site for there legal advice, this is crazy.

  40. well now Neil said it so it must be right…

  41. Maybe some true professionals will weigh in on this:
    A while back I posted a thought about filing a “Notice of Intent”. In truth, a lis pendens should only be filed when one has filed a law suit, I believe. I have to reach way back to remember a Notice of Intent, but as I somewhat recall, isn’t this a document which apprises another party of one’s intent to bring suit at some time in the future? I thought it favorably impacted the statute of limitations regarding the claims , also. Last time I looked, I couldn’t find any helpful material. Still, isn’t a Notice of Intent to File Suit a doc which functionally operates to notice and preserve claims which will or could be brought at a future date? If I got any of this right, a bankster and or title company would know title would be subject to the claims noticed and would retard the otherwise allegedly clear title, at least for some time, until any legal expiration of the Notice of Intent if the suit is not ultimately brought.
    Because it’s recorded in public records, any buyer of the property will take title subject to the Notice and its recitations /preservation of issues. Unlike a lis pendens filed by itself, a N of I cannot be expunged by a court, again as I recall. Anyone remember anything about the Notice of Intent?

    Everyone has a right to go to a court and listen to arguments. Courts’ dockets are generally listed at their websites. You may have to hunt and peck to find them, but they’re there. Contested motions for relief from stay, say, would be informative. May also tell you who the homeowner defense attorneys are making the good impressions with the court. Don’t forget your pad and pen.

  42. Exactly what a few people on this blog have been saying over and over (and have been lambasted, insulted and ridiculed for): it is not enough to know how to scream “fraud”, “securitization”, “unsecured debt”, etc. Those words mean absolutely nothing absent the proper format under which to raise the issues… and those issues may very well be completely irrelevant to a very large number of foreclosures!

    “Smith” made a slew of sweeping statements with nothing to back them up. Didn’t do her one bit of good, did it? There is real danger in shooting off one’s big mouth without a thorough understanding of how the system works… There is a very real danger in taking for granted a lot of statements thrown about by unrepresented homeowners on this site. Get your advice from the true professionals. Especially if you’re on your way to the courthouse…

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: