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

if a family loses a home and then the home stands empty to rot, that’s a waste and a neighborhood tragedy. Having it happen all across the country is a disaster.

EDITOR’S COMMENT: Mr. Yglesias starts off with a correct description of the tragedy of neighborhoods blighted with homes now sitting vacant and abused and he is correct by identifying this as a national disaster, but he completely misses the second and third, perhaps even larger, national disasters for potential home buyers looming on the horizon. It’s good to remember the consequences of massive foreclosures. And it is better to remember that most of these foreclosures are exercises in fraud upon those communities, the borrowers, investors, the Courts and the U.S. Treasury.

The second tragedy is that of a foreclosed home being purchased by a naive buyer anxious to “get a good deal”.  A buyer who in today’s market is underwater as soon as he/she signs the paperwork.  A buyer who is unable to purchase title insurance worth the paper it’s written on.  A buyer who more than likely will never have clear title, or at least not without extensive research, time and legal expense and even then it’s just a possibility.  A buyer who does not understand that he/she has become a willing pawn laughingly used by the pretender lenders, who are banking (pun intended) on his/her pursuit of that “good deal”, to step once again on the backs of the family they just foreclosed on.  How much of a good deal is that?
The third tragedy is slower to happen but is beginning.  Homeowners are coming back for their homes.  That means that the naive buyer described in the paragraph above, will now face, with shock and disbelief, a letter from a lawyer’s office, or perhaps a notice of a court hearing in which he/she will learn that the home that they rushed to get such a good deal on, is not theirs and never was and now they too will be evicted and/or face a long legal battle just like the family before them.
Do you think there will be another buyer in line, anxious to “get a good deal” and repeat the experience?  How many times do we need to hit the repeat button?  Here’s an question to think about…What would happen if we all refused to participate in this game that Wall Street created?  What would happen if no one ever again purchased a foreclosed home?  What if every homeowner wrongfully foreclosed did come back for their home? 

Mike Konczal’s wonky take on the “Occupy Homes” anti-foreclosure offshoot of the Occupy movement reminds me of the first thing I ever wrote about the Great Recession, back before I really understood that’s what I was writing about. I was on staff at The Atlantic in late 2007, and was headed to Miami for separate reasons and an editor there suggested that it would be good to get a piece reported from there on mass foreclosure neighborhoods. I cited a study noting that “every foreclosure reduces the value of all other houses within an eighth of a mile by about 1 percent, as the sight of vacant property scares off potential buyers.” At the time, however, we weren’t anticipating the kind of prolonged vacancies Konczal talks about here:

I don’t think we’ve heard enough from the neighbors of the abandoned homes that were reclaimed in these events.  I talked with one of the neighbors of the house that was reclaimed in East New York as it was happening, and he told me that the house had sat vacant for a few years.  Contractors doing nearby demolition work would come in the middle of the night and dump bags of garbage on the house’s front lawn because they knew it was empty.  There would be broken sinks, glass, bricks and other garbage that couldn’t sit there, since there were many kids in the area.  So the neighbors would have to get together and haul off the materials.

He also brought up that he’d have to shovel the snow in front of the place during the winter, since there were many older folks in the community as well, and the banks weren’t going to keep the sidewalks clear.  He expressed concern that someone with a chemical dependency could set up shop in the house.  As the neighbor put it, “what if at 1 or 2 in the morning the person’s drugs run out?  They step outside, and maybe an older person is walking by themselves down the street.  That could escalate into a bad situation.”  Or maybe a fire started, which spread to the roofs of the other connected row houses?  The Occupy crew that went in to clean the place found extensive black mold – the banks left the place to rot.

These kind of scenarios are of course familiar to those of us who’ve lived for years in urban neighborhoods spotted with vacant homes. Sometimes there’s nothing you can do about this. But it’s tragic and absurd to turn a home from inhabited to vacant against the wishes of its occupants. If a family loses a home and then the home gets sold to someone new, that’s a household-level tragedy. But if a family loses a home and then the home stands empty to rot, that’s a waste and a neighborhood tragedy. Having it happen all across the country is a disaster.

70 Responses

  1. A good video on this situation that has caused ALL our problems with the foreclosure frauds is a documentary called THRIVE. Only seen online….at

    Well worth the $5 to rent the movie.

    There is some very shocking true information in this video. It keeps getting taken down from youtube

    “The cancer stage of capitalism is not a metaphor.
    It is a rigorous description of where we are.” The current financial
    stripping of economies and environments across the world exhibits, in
    fact, all the hallmark characteristics of a carcinogenic invasion. As
    on the cellular level, an uncontrolled rogue sequence of reproduction
    invades and self-multiplies across social borders with no committed
    function to life-hosts. As on the cellular level, the cancer advances
    by not being recognized by surrounding life communities. —John
    McMurtry, Professor of philosophy at the University of Guelph, in Economic Reform, Vol. 11, Number 3, March 1999

  2. @joann – this is, of course, the real value of that decision you cited.
    Nice to see an intelligent distinction being made:

    “Plaintiffs are not saying that U.S. Bank failed to follow the letter of California’s statutory foreclosure law; they are claiming that U.S. Bank did not have standing to foreclose in the first place.”

  3. @e.tolle – right on and left off: thumbs up

  4. @joann – you’re right. I do like it. It’s about time a bankster who is a stranger was told he has no right to tender by the borrower. Banksters are finding out at least here and there the devil is in the

  5. johngault

    Think you would find this recent Nov 16 opinion interesting:

    Vogan and Harold Traupel, Case No. 2:11-CV-02098-JAM-KJN.

    Foreclosure Hamlet and Lynn Szymoniak at Fraud Digest mentioned it.

    Judge makes distinction between trustee on the deed of trust and trustee for the securitized trust when it comes to liability as in TILA, 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g) “Liability of Assignees”. Says trustee for trust has liability as assignee. (bank tried to say they had no liability) Judge says district court has jurisdiction with discretion for all the other state claims including quiet title because pendant on the federal claims. No tender required to pursue complaint: “Plaintiffs are not saying that U.S. Bank failed to follow the letter of California’s statutory foreclosure law; they are claiming that U.S. Bank did not have standing to foreclose in the first place. Thus, relying on Onofrio, requiring Plaintiffs to tender the full amount of the indebtedness to an entity, U.S. Bank, that is allegedly not the beneficiary to the deed of trust in order to protect Plaintiffs’ interest in the Property would be inequitable.” … “Plaintiffs alleged that the recorded assignment was executed well after the closing date of the MBS to which it was allegedly sold, giving rise to a plausible inference that at least some part of the recorded assignment was fabricated. Plaintiffs allege that such conduct, if proven, constitutes a violation of Cal. Penal Code § 532f(a)(4). Compl., at 24.”


  7. “7] In addition, unless the plaintiff merely seeks to rescind the contract, it must suffer actual monetary loss to recover on a fraud claim. (Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn., supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 1108; Empire West v. Southern California Gas Co. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 805, 810, fn. 2 [117 Cal.Rptr. 423, 528 P.2d 31] [fraud without damage furnishes no ground for action]; Home Budget Loans, Inc. v. Jacoby & Meyers Law Offices, supra, 207 Cal.App.3d at p. 1285.) There are two measures of damages for fraud: out of pocket and benefit of the bargain. (Stout v. Turney (1978) 22 Cal.3d 718, 725 [150 Cal.Rptr. 637, 586 P.2d 1228].) The “out-of-pocket” measure of damages “is directed to restoring the plaintiff to the financial position enjoyed by him prior to the fraudulent transaction, and thus awards the difference in actual value at the time of the transaction between what the plaintiff gave and what he received. The ‘benefit-of-the-bargain’ measure, on the other hand, is concerned with satisfying the expectancy interest of the defrauded plaintiff by putting him in the position he would have enjoyed if the false representation relied upon had been true; it awards the difference in value between what the plaintiff actually received and what he was fraudulently led to believe he would receive.” (Ibid.; Salahutdin v. Valley of California, Inc., supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at p. 564; Overgaard v. Johnson (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 821, 823 [137 Cal.Rptr. 412].) “In California, a defrauded party is ordinarily limited to recovering his ‘out-of-pocket’ loss ….” (Kenly v. Ukegawa (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 49, 53 [19 Cal.Rptr.2d 771].)

    [8] In fraud cases involving the “purchase, sale or exchange of property,” the Legislature has expressly provided that the “out-of-pocket” rather than the “benefit-of-the-bargain” measure of damages should apply. (§ 3343, {Page 10 Cal.4th 1241} subds. (a), (b)(1).) fn. 5 This section does not apply, however, when a victim is defrauded by its fiduciaries.* In this situation, the “broader” measure of damages provided by sections 1709 fn. 6 and 3333 fn. 7 applies. (Liodas v. Sahadi (1977) 19 Cal.3d 278, 283-284 [137 Cal.Rptr. 635, 562 P.2d 316]; Gray v. Don Miller & Associates, Inc., supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 504 [plaintiff’s damages suffered because of fiduciary’s misrepresentation measured under section 3333]; Stout v. Turney, supra, 22 Cal.3d at pp. 725-726 [A “clear exception” to section 3343 “has emerged in cases involving fraudulent fiduciaries.” (Italics in original.)]; Ward v. Taggart (1959) 51 Cal.2d 736, 741 [336 P.2d 534] [“In the absence of a fiduciary relationship, recovery in a tort action for fraud is limited to the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff.”]; Salahutdin v. Valley of California, Inc., supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at p. 565.)

    [9] Punitive damages are recoverable in those fraud actions involving intentional, but not negligent, misrepresentations. (Wyatt v. Union Mortgage Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 773, 790 [157 Cal.Rptr. 392, 598 P.2d 45]; Branch v. HomeFed Bank (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 793, 799 [8 Cal.Rptr.2d 182] [no punitive damages recoverable for negligent misrepresentation]; § 3294.) The jury also has discretion to award prejudgment interest on the plaintiff’s loss “from the time the plaintiff parted with the money or property on the basis of the defendant’s fraud.” (Nordahl v. Dept. of Real Estate (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 657, 665 [121 Cal.Rptr. 794]; § 3288.) A plaintiff is not entitled, however, to attorney fees “as an element of damages in actions for fraud in which the defendant is a fiduciary.” (Gray v. Don Miller & Associates, Inc., supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 507.)

    * I maintain and there is some case support that the dot trustee has a fiduciary to the borrower as well as the beneficiary, like this one:

    Lewis v Jordan Investment, Inc., 725 A.2d 4955 (1999):

    “A trustee of deeds has the fiduciary obligation to comply with the powers and duties of the trust instrument, as well as the applicable
    statute under the District of Columbia Code. Perry v. Virginia Mortgage & Inv. Co., 412 A.2d 1194, 1197 (D.C. 1980) (citations omitted). THIS COURT HAS LONG RECOGNIZED THAT TRUSTEES OWE FIDUCIARY DUTIES TO BOTH THE NOTEHOLDER AND THE BORROWER. S&G Inv., Inc. v. Home Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 164 U.S. App. D.C. 263, 270-71 n. 21, 505 F.2d 370, 377-78 n. 21 (1974)”

    I’m thinking if Cal, etc. continues to stand on what I see as a misapplication of a rule to the ‘finality’ of foreclosures, there are still other causes of actions available imo even if you don’t actually get
    your home, your property, back. Buy a new one with your award.
    Nail the trustee for breach of fiduciary and the bankster who encouraged him for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary
    aka third party breach of fiduciary, for instance. There was a monster landmark case regarding third party breach of fiduciary not that long ago with the name green something in it. I lost it. If anyone happens upon it, I would appreciate a copy.

  8. The necessary elements of fraud are: (1) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (2) knowledge of falsity (scienter); (3) intent to defraud (i.e., to induce reliance); (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damage.” (Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092, 1108 [252 Cal.Rptr. 122, 762 P.2d 46]; see Seeger v. Odell (1941) 18 Cal.2d 409, 414 [115 P.2d 977, 136 A.L.R. 1291]; § 1709.)…..

    [6] Reliance exists when the misrepresentation or nondisclosure was an immediate cause of the plaintiff’s (homeowner – sic) conduct which altered his or her legal relations, and when without such misrepresentation or nondisclosure he or she would not, in all reasonable probability, have entered into the contract or other transaction. (Spinks v. Clark (1905) 147 Cal. 439, 444 [82 P. 45]; 5 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1988) Torts, § 711, p. 810.) “Except in the rare case where the undisputed facts leave no room for a reasonable difference of opinion, the question of whether a plaintiff’s reliance is reasonable is a question of fact.” (Blankenheim v. E. F. Hutton & Co. (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1463, 1475 [266 Cal.Rptr. 593]; Gray v. Don Miller & Associates, Inc. (1984) 35 Cal.3d 498, 503 [198 Cal.Rptr. 551, 674 P.2d 253, 44 A.L.R.4th 763] [“[w]hether reliance is justified is a question of fact for the determination of the trial court”]; Guido v. Koopman (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 837, 843 [2 Cal.Rptr.2d 437] [“the reasonableness of the reliance is ordinarily a question of fact”].) “However, whether a party’s reliance was justified may be decided as a matter of law if reasonable minds can come to only one conclusion based on the facts.” (Guido v. Koopman, supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at p. 843.)

    “Negligence on the part of the plaintiff (homeowner – sic) in failing to discover the falsity of a statement is no defense (to the bankster/forecloser as to this line- sic) when the misrepresentation was intentional rather {Page 10 Cal.4th 1240} than negligent.” (Seeger v. Odell, supra, 18 Cal.2d at p. 414.) “Nor is a plaintiff held to the standard of precaution or of minimum knowledge of a hypothetical, reasonable man.” (Id. at p. 415.) “If the conduct of the plaintiff in the light of his own intelligence and information was manifestly unreasonable, however, he will be denied a recovery.” (Ibid.; Gray v. Don Miller & Associates, Inc., supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 503 [“the issue is whether the person who claims reliance was justified in believing the representation in the light of his own knowledge and experience”].) ” ‘If the plaintiff and defendant are in a confidential relationship ( a subject of some debate – sic*) there is no duty of inquiry until the relationship is repudiated. The nature of the relationship is such as to cause the plaintiff to rely on the fiduciary, and awareness of facts which would ordinarily call for investigation does not excite suspicion under these special circumstances.’ ” (Lee v. Escrow Consultants, Inc. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 915, 921 [259 Cal.Rptr. 117].)”

    *The relationship between a servicer and a homeowner is not contractual. There is probably generally not a confidential or fiduciary relationship between the two as a matter of law. However, given that today, the borrower’s only possible point of contact for HAMP modification, say, is the servicer, a court in equity might justifiably impose some version of one or the other.

    I am actually looking at these issues for a homeowner’s reliance on what he is told by banksters and their minion debt collectors (formerly known as trustees) about who is who in regard to his loan at the time of foreclosure and also in that regard to res judicata (the thing decided mol).

    Also from this case in support of my ongoing proposition that a dot trustee has an equal obligation to the other two parties to the deed of trust, the trustor and the beneficiary:

    “In California, the security instrument is most commonly a deed of trust with the debtor and creditor known as trustor and beneficiary and a NEUTRAL third party known as trustee”.

    And lastly to point out that a deed of trust without the obligation it secures is nothing (banksters currently arguing otherwise):

    “A security interest cannot exist without an underlying obligation..”

  9. Does anyone know how to contact Spitfire we are from the same state. Spitfire was going to provided me some attorneys contacts.

  10. From a l995 CA SC decision:

    [So long as the state’s requirements for conducting a foreclosure sale have been met, “mere inadequacy of the foreclosure sale price is no basis for setting the sale aside, though it MAY be set aside … if the price is so low as to ‘shock the conscience OR raise a presumption of fraud or unfairness.’ “].) …..

    The antideficiency statutes have been broadly interpreted to protect the debtor.”


    “Full Credit Bid Rule

    At a nonjudicial foreclosure sale, if the lender chooses to bid, it does so in the capacity of a purchaser. (Passanisi v. Merit-McBride Realtors, Inc. (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1496, 1503 [236 Cal.Rptr. 59].) The only distinction between the lender and any other bidder is that the lender is not required to pay cash, but is entitled to make a credit bid up to the amount of the outstanding indebtedness. (Ibid.; Cornelison v. Kornbluth, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 607.) The purpose of this entitlement is to avoid the inefficiency of requiring the lender to tender cash which would only be immediately returned to it. (Cornelison v. Kornbluth, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 607.) [5] A “full credit bid” is a bid “in an amount equal to the unpaid principal and interest of the mortgage debt, together with the costs, fees and other expenses of the foreclosure.” (Cornelison, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 606, fn. 10.) If the full credit bid is successful, i.e., results in the acquisition of the property, the lender pays the full outstanding balance of the debt and costs of foreclosure to itself and takes title to the security property, releasing the borrower from further obligations under the defaulted note. (See Smith v. Allen (1968) 68 Cal.2d 93, 96 [65 Cal.Rptr. 153, 436 P.2d 65] [“[I]t is clear that the Legislature intended that a properly conducted [nonjudicial] foreclosure sale should constitute a final adjudication of the rights of the borrower and the lender.”].) **

    Under the “full credit bid rule,” when a lender makes such a bid, it is precluded for purposes of collecting its debt from later claiming that the property was actually worth less than the bid. (See Cornelison v. Kornbluth, supra, 15 Cal.3d at pp. 606-607; Passanisi v. Merit-McBride Realtors, Inc., supra, 190 Cal.App.3d at p. 1503 [after full credit bid, lender cannot pursue any other remedy regardless of actual value of the property on the date of sale].) Thus, the lender is not entitled to insurance proceeds payable for prepurchase damage to the property, prepurchase net rent proceeds, or damages for waste, because the lender’s only interest in the property, the {Page 10 Cal.4th 1239} repayment of its debt, has been satisfied, and any further payment would result in a double recovery. (See Cornelison v. Kornbluth, supra, 15 Cal.3d at pp. 606-607.) ”

    ** CA courts are generally citing “the final adjudication of the rights of the borrower and the lender” as a consequence of foreclosure, like that’s it, the end of the line. However, it looks to me like that rule is one intended to preclude the lender from going after the borrower for a deficiency caused by a purposely low-bid by the lender at the foreclosure sale and was not intended to be used as it’s being used – as a door shut on the matter for any reason at all. It appears designed to protect the borrower (not kill him), to preclude a lender from making a low bid and then going after the borrower for a deficiency created as a result of the low bid.

    Also noteworthy in the case:

    “The antideficiency statutes have been broadly interpreted to protect the debtor.” The law now being cited by CA courts appears to me to be one legislated specifically in regard to antideficiency
    claims against the homeowner and not one to preclude every allegation of wrongdoing from the homeowner.

  11. joann, we need our own searchable registry of psa’s, those we have found anywhere. I can’t do it for love or money, that’s for sure. Not my thing – computer guru stuff. Some youngster with time and energy and interest could do it. Need to make it as hacker-proof as possible. The site should link to liquidated trusts, also, as they are found. MERS could have and should have linked to psa’s etc. but chose not to….. As of even 2010, Mers records only showed the stinking servicers far as I can tell. Now they are attempting to show the alleged sec’n trustee but do not identify the alleged trust, again as far as I can tell.

  12. @linda and others (CA)
    “It is a general rule that courts have power to vacate a foreclosure
    sale when…. the sale… is tainted by fraud.”

    B of A etc. Assn v. Reidy (l940), 15 Cal 2d 243, 248, cited in another CA case I’m reading.

    Because fraud must be pled with specificity, it warrants some research and a discussion of what actually constitutes fraud among those interested in post-foreclosure actions to recover their homes. There may well be other sustainable causes of action outside actual ‘fraud’.

  13. @johngault (and Carie)

    “@carie – are you serious? You got an assignment of the dot to a trust you KNOW has been liquidated? Don’t know why I’m surprised….assgt’s are being done as rote today to trusts years after closing dates. Only difference in your deal is that trust is known to be what you call ‘dead’. Is the trustee who issued the NOD a diff trustee than the sub’d trustee?”

    Wish Neil or anyone else would give us a clue – how can you find out if a trust is no longer in operation or empty…is there a list somewhere? Why isn’t there a list? Ought to be a law. That info affects a lot of people, investors and homeowners alike. Seems pretty straight forward – trustee for trust can’t foreclose if trust is dead or empty. No one else (original trustee on deed or SOT) can foreclose using the trust name as beneficiary either right? – And that is setting aside the issue of servicers and or trustee sales companies ie “trustees” (not lenders or beneficiaries) making assignments as if they are lender and beneficiary to trusts closed years ago. No one can make an assignment to a dead person can they?

  14. @neidermeyer

    “10-289 is coming anyday now…”

    Interesting comment…expand…expound…please if possible or so inclined….seeking understanding. What’s next good or bad….what’s needed…..

  15. The the crisis became apparent in some parts of the country six years ago. Prices peaked in spring and summer of 2005 and fell 10% in the winter quarter. Foreclosures in these areas ramped up in the first quarter of 2006. Since then and currently from republicans and democrats and even today from our pres we get – we need to stay foucused on long term solutions (let it roll on – sorry for those suffering but there isn’t anything we can do – its bad weather – not anyone’s fault – can’t do anything about the weather – now back to political arguments about how to look at the long term picture). When there is an emergency, long term solutions don’t work and an emergency left untreated wipes out any future. The patient either dies or is permanently disabled. So was this ever an emergency? Is it an emergency now? When is a tsunami defined as an emergency?

  16. @johngault ,

    10-289 is coming anyday now…

  17. Do you know there are people (good people) walking aournd on this planet who readily understand this trust law, etc.and these machinations / business while we grapple daily and eternally to get to first base? We need some of them to participate here, if incognito.
    We need us some FDIC and like that retirees. Anyone have any idea how we can find and court them?

  18. anyone being ‘bothered’ by select portfolio servicing? I stumbled on some interesting stuff:

    and general info here:

    Bad actors called out twice now – 2004 and 2007. No charges. I’m stunned. I guess there is just no such thing as white collar crime anymore unless you are a solo act, like Madoff.

    Judges aren’t supposed to let bad actors slide, especially when a pattern of ‘bad behavior’ is demonstrated.

  19. @carie – I don’t know, can’t know because the docket I saw doesn’t tell me enough. I just don’t have the kind of info to make assumptions about what the little I saw means. I could read NO pleadings or what not. That’s why I asked you to call that co. linked there tomorrow. Apparently they are the portal to the actual docs. If you get them, I would read them fwiw. Hey, dyingtruth, denizen of that program you ref’d, can you see if any of the docs carie needs are there? I wouldn’t know how just yet. I have no doubt they would be an education for all of us.

  20. @dyingtruth – thanks. I downloaded it. Guess I’ll have to wait til I use Pacer to see what I’ve done? I am pretty computer ignorant. Add it to the list.


    Occupy Our Homes Gains Support Near A Foreclosed House In Brooklyn

    BROOKLYN, N.Y. — Until three days ago, Teresa Bolton didn’t consider herself part of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Bolton is 55 and lives in East New York, Brooklyn, an hour’s train ride from the skyscrapers of Manhattan’s financial district, where the movement was born. But when occupiers appeared on her block this week, as part of a new national campaign to help homeless families move into vacant houses and resist foreclosure-related evictions, she opened her door.

    “Occupy Wall Street came to me. I didn’t go seek it out,” she said, standing on her porch, wearing a navy turban and a pink sweatshirt, large silver hoops dangling from her ears. “I always wanted to be involved in something positive that was beneficial to everyone.”

    The street was relatively quiet on Friday afternoon. The exception: a few neighbors milling about on the sidewalk and a steady stream of white 20-somethings filing in and out of a house down the street. The neighborhood is home to mostly poor African Americans and Caribbean immigrants; Occupy Wall Street protesters are overwhelmingly white. On Friday, those activists were the only white people spotted in the neighborhood, besides the police officers stationed nearby. The house had a large banner stretched across it that read, “BANKS STEAL HOMES,” and a sign perched on the roof declaring, “FORECLOSE ON BANKS NOT PEOPLE, OCCUPY WALL ST.”

    DOWNLOAD THIS FIREFOX EXTENSION You’ll be glad you did

    Better Access to Public Court Records
    RECAP is a free extension for Firefox that improves the experience of using PACER, the electronic public access system for the U.S. Federal District and Bankruptcy Courts. It: Helps you give back: Contributes to a public archive hosted by the Internet Archive
    Saves you money: Shows you when free documents are available
    Keeps you organized: Gives you better filenames, enables useful headers
    …and more

  23. Indymac FSB—now gone.

  24. Isn’t this case: # 30-2009-00300317PR-TR-LJC “solid evidence”?

  25. But, it would be par for the course if they didn’t give a damn…sigh.

  26. @carie – I think you need some solid evidence the trust is toast if it’s the same trust coming after you and others. I believe I’d hit the AG before the recorder…..? Did you get your loan from Indy Mac or one of their brokers? Or?

  27. Or maybe report it to the Los Angeles Dept of Consumer Affairs Real Estate Fraud and Information Program…

  28. I’m in CA, too. The banksters get away with everything out here…it has to end—somehow.
    I would like to go to the Los Angeles register of deeds with this info—think he would even care?

  29. @linda, as I recall your CA judges seem to say no big deal on sub of trustee after some boogie man (now the alleged sub trustee) sent out a NOD. What a crock. The CA judge says sub’g a trustee “late” is ‘substantial compliance’. Bull.

  30. @carie – are you serious? You got an assignment of the dot to a trust you KNOW has been liquidated? Don’t know why I’m surprised….assgt’s are being done as rote today to trusts years after closing dates. Only difference in your deal is that trust is known to be what you call ‘dead’. Is the trustee who issued the NOD a diff trustee than the sub’d trustee? I
    Look at your NOD – if it didn’t spell out the amt of the default, what was necessary to cure it and by when, it is legally and fatally deficient. I don’t have any case on point except the NV DC. But surely something like that is uniform.

    I read LS’s deal. Some more of the banksters’ legally impossible schematics. The fraudulent intent to ‘assign’ notes in already bogus deed of trust assignments makes my blood boil. In a recent case, a bankster got called out for this (altho no one called it what it really is:
    submission to a court of a false instrument and recordation of a false instrument, among other things. Other things because it is submitted and recorded for RELIANCE thereon). Here is what the bankster said in response (when admitting no, MERS cannot assign a note- duh):

  31. Hey, before I forget, I saw a case awhile back – Missouri, as I recall.
    The issue was that the trustee (or was it sub trustee?) was not a resident (whether personal or corporate) of Missouri. Does anyone know if dot trustees in other states are to be residents of the state where the property is located?

  32. Linda—how ’bout this one;

    Notice Of Default recorded…10 months later these 3 fraud docs were recorded on the exact same day:

    Assignment of Deed Of Trust (to dead/empty Deutsche securitized trust)
    Substitution of Trustee ” ” ”
    Notice Of Trustee sale

    What a racket…

  33. johngault, thanks and also the sub of trustee was recorded months after the notice of default (in CA)

  34. carie – your mission which I hope you will accept is to follow the instructions at the website, call Lameroux tomorrow to see about getting the actual docs because without them, we can’t know much of anything.

  35. carie – see if you can get tony to post a link to that case. My pacer bills are still killing me. He’s obviously read it, so he must have it.

  36. More B.S. from your US Government

    What went wrong with foreclosure aid programs?

    By Julie Schmit, USA TODAY

    Updated 4h 49m ago


    Reprints & Permissions

    Steven and Lisa Maultsby lost their Mississippi home to foreclosure this year.

    By John David Mercer, for USA TODAY

    Steven and Lisa Maultsby outside the home they lost to foreclosure while awaiting a loan modification.


    By John David Mercer, for USA TODAY

    Steven and Lisa Maultsby outside the home they lost to foreclosure while awaiting a loan modification.

    Ads by Google

    Wells Fargo Checking
    Your Time is Valuable. Apply for
    An Account in Minutes!

    Top Ranked Global MBA
    Ranked #2 in the World by Financial
    Times. Designed for Top Executives.

    Is He Cheating On You?
    1) Enter His Email Address 2) See
    Hidden Pics & Social Profiles Now!

    At the time, they thought they were being reviewed for a loan modification through the U.S. government’s foreclosure-prevention program.

    A Realtor knocking on their door to tell them to vacate told them otherwise.

    “I’m bitter,” says Steven Maultsby, 51, who works with undersea robots in the oil industry. “We did everything they told us to do.”

    The Maultsbys are angry not only at their mortgage company, but also at the government, and they’re two voices among a discontented chorus.

    The Obama administration’s initial foreclosure-prevention programs, launched in early 2009, were intended to help 7 million to 9 million people. So far, they’ve aided about 2 million, and not all of those are out of foreclosure danger.

    Programs begun later have also faltered. One intended to help at least 500,000 has helped just a few hundred a year after its launch. Another initiative to extend $1 billion to help the jobless or underemployed avoid foreclosure ended in September, obligating less than half of its funds. The unused money went back to the U.S. Treasury.

    As of Nov. 30, the government had spent just $2.8 billion of the $46 billion war chest it had in 2009 to devote to the housing crisis, the Treasury Department says. More has been committed, but only $13 billion will ultimately be spent, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated in March.

    Meanwhile, 2.5 million homes have been lost to foreclosure since 2009, an additional 4 million are in the foreclosure process or seriously delinquent, and home prices are still falling in much of the U.S., shrinking household wealth for millions of Americans.

    “Every program has fallen far short of goals. I can’t think of one that’s been largely successful,” says John Dodds, director of the Philadelphia Unemployment Project, a non-profit that’s been involved in foreclosure prevention for decades.

    The administration’s programs were hampered by design flaws, their reliance on a mortgage industry overwhelmed by the fallout from a historic collapse in home prices, and a brutally extended housing downturn. Nor could they always overcome the conflicting interests of borrowers with too much debt, mortgage investors unwilling to surrender profits and mortgage servicers with sometimes greater financial incentives to foreclose on loans than to permanently modify them, say housing and government policy analysts, consumer advocates and former administration officials.

    Critics also say the administration failed to entice banks and mortgage-finance giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to take bolder steps to address the crisis even though the institutions received billions in government bailout funds.

    “There was nowhere near the effort to help Main Street as there was to help the banks,” says former senator Ted Kaufman, D-Del., who chaired a congressional oversight panel that oversaw $475 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds. Most of that went to banks and the auto industry, but $46 billion in TARP money also funded foreclosure-prevention efforts.

    Administration officials defend their response. They say the scope of the problem was unprecedented — and so were their actions. Federal programs prevented many foreclosures even if they didn’t help as many people as expected, officials say. They say the administration’s efforts will save homeowners billions in mortgage costs.

    They also say the initiatives helped millions of other homeowners by driving service improvements in the mortgage industry and preventing an even worse collapse in home prices. Since the peak of the housing market in 2006, $3 trillion in home equity has been lost, researcher LPS Applied Analytics estimates.

    “It’s too easy to underestimate the scale and complexity of these issues,” Shaun Donovan, secretary of Housing and Urban Development, said in a recent interview, while acknowledging that some administration programs “haven’t reached as many people as we originally targeted.”

    Those shortfalls are most evident in the:

    •Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). Through October, the biggest foreclosure-prevention effort has resulted in 883,076 homeowners getting permanent loan modifications that made their loans more affordable and improved their ability to avoid foreclosure.

    But HAMP was targeted to help 3 million to 4 million homeowners, President Obama said when he announced it in 2009. When it expires next December, it will have prevented fewer than 800,000 foreclosures, Kaufman’s congressional oversight panel estimated in December 2010.

    HAMP “has been a failure,” Neil Barofsky, the former special inspector general for TARP, told a congressional committee in October.

    •Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP). Through September, it’s helped 928,570 homeowners get lower-interest loans even though they lacked the amount of equity usually needed for a new loan.

    HARP was intended to help 4 million to 5 million homeowners. While it was recently overhauled to encourage more refinancings, federal officials now say it will help fewer than 2 million borrowers by the end of 2013, when it expires.

    So far, those getting HARP refis also tend to be people who aren’t deeply underwater — those who owe more on their homes than they’re worth. HARP refis have gone largely to homeowners with some equity or who were only slightly underwater, government data show. It’s unclear whether the recent revamping will significantly change that, says Alan White, law professor and mortgage lending expert at the Valparaiso University School of Law.

    More than 11 million homeowners — more than a fifth of homeowners with mortgages — are underwater, says market researcher CoreLogic. Many are unable to take advantage of today’s historically low interest rates and wring some relief from the ravages of the recession and weak economic recovery.

    Rep. Dennis Cardoza, D-Calif., whose district encompasses Stockton, one of the nation’s worst foreclosure hot spots, says more needs to be done and that the changes to HARP are “too little, too late.”

    •Federal Housing Administration Short Refinance program. Intended to help 500,000 to 1.5 million homeowners refinance into loans with a lower interest rate, the FHA program did fewer than 400 deals through September, a year after the effort’s launch, government data show.

    The program requires mortgage owners to forgive at least 10% of a borrower’s unpaid principal before that loan can be refinanced into an FHA loan at a lower interest rate.

    But mortgage owners have been reluctant to forgive principal, fearing that doing so for some would create a “moral hazard,” leading other borrowers to default to get help, says James Parrott, a senior adviser to the White House’s National Economic Council.

    “The moral hazard concern was stronger than we realized,” Parrott says.

    One big bank says it warned of the program’s limitations.

    Bank of America, which services 12 million mortgages, gave federal officials data showing the program would benefit only 10,000 to 15,000 customers because of its design and the degree of support from investors who owned loans, says spokesman Dan Frahm.

    Almost 1 million modifications

    Administration officials say the programs’ statistics alone don’t fully reflect what’s been accomplished. “You have to look at the ripple effect,” Donovan says.

    HAMP, which most often lowers mortgage payments through interest rate reductions, is approaching 1 million permanent loan modifications.

    That is “not a negligible sum,” Parrott says.

    HAMP also “significantly changed the market,” says Michael Barr, former assistant secretary at Treasury who worked on mortgage issues while in the Obama administration.

    Before HAMP, mortgage servicers had no standard approach to modify loans. HAMP created one and streamlined the process, says Barr, who now teaches at the University of Michigan Law School.

    Since HAMP’s launch, lenders have independently offered more than 2.5 million loan modifications outside of HAMP, staving off foreclosures for many.

    “The overall impact of the (HAMP) program has gone unnoticed,” says Teri Schrettenbrunner, senior vice president of communications for Wells Fargo Home Mortgage.

    HAMP was announced just weeks after Obama took office and at a time when home prices had fallen for 30 months in a row.

    Given the short time the administration took to launch HAMP and HARP, “We knew they wouldn’t be perfect. We knew they’d be as good as they could be given the time we had,” Barr says.

    He says a prime reason that government programs haven’t reached more people is that mortgage servicers “were really bad at doing their jobs.”

    Servicers collect home loan payments for investor-owners. Big banks, such as Bank of America, Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase, are among the largest ones.

    The servicers lacked adequate processes and enough employees to meet the crush of distressed borrowers, Barr says. They took too long to beef up staff. They couldn’t do “basic blocking and tackling” in communicating with borrowers, he says.

    The Government Accountability Office documented problems when it surveyed housing counselors who work with borrowers seeking HAMP modifications. Almost 60% complained that servicers lost documents, 54% said trial modifications took too long and 42% said borrowers felt that they were wrongly denied modifications, according to the GAO’s report in March.

    The Maultsbys weren’t the only ones who lost a house to foreclosure while thinking help was on the way. Others did, too, said Treasury official Darius Kingsley in congressional testimony in October. He called such situations egregious.

    The administration casts much of the blame on the industry, but others blame the government.

    Barofsky says Treasury had to have known that servicers were “totally unequipped” to handle HAMP when it launched. Still, it rushed out a “poorly designed program,” he says.

    Servicers say changing program guidelines made it tough to implement the government programs.

    In a three-month period, Treasury made 100 changes to HAMP, making it “physically impossible” for servicers to keep up, said Barbara Desoer, president of Bank of America Home Loans, in a recent speech to community leaders in San Francisco.

    HAMP provides financial incentives — generally about $4,000 a loan — to servicers to modify loans.

    The goal is to make it more economical for servicers to modify a loan than to foreclose.

    But the incentives weren’t big enough to draw broader servicer participation, says Jared Bernstein, former economic policy adviser to Vice President Biden.

    What’s more, the government made HAMP a voluntary program for servicers, then failed to make sure that participating servicers followed HAMP’s rules, consumer advocates say.

    HAMP ran for two years before financial incentives were withheld from any uncompliant servicer, even though abuses were “widespread,” Barofsky says.

    “There’s been no enforcement or accountability,” says Diane Thompson of the National Consumer Law Center.

    The $1 billion Emergency Homeowner Loan Program was open to homeowners in 32 states who were ineligible for aid from a $7.6 billion fund for homeowners in 18 states hardest hit by the recession and falling home prices.

    HUD took too long to launch the program, which didn’t leave enough time to get applicants through an onerous application process, consumer advocates say.

    Instead of helping 30,000 homeowners as first intended, the program is on track to help fewer than 12,000, HUD’s preliminary data show.

    That “is an absolute disgrace,” says Ira Rheingold, executive director of the National Association of Consumer Advocates.

    HUD officials say it took time to identify contractors to run the program, set up fiscal controls and ensure the program was run fairly.

    “We, too, are disappointed,” Carol Galante, a senior HUD housing official, testified at a congressional hearing in October.

    More but smaller plans to come

    New efforts are underway, but none appear to have the scope of previous plans.

    State attorneys general and federal officials are negotiating a multibillion settlement with major mortgage servicers to help more homeowners.

    If a deal is struck, it will include principal forgiveness on more home loans, Donovan says. That may show loan owners that forgiving principal really does lead to fewer defaults, Rheingold says, and encourage more of it.

    Most of the $7.6 billion in Hardest Hit Funds, too, have yet to reach the market. States have through 2017 to use those funds.

    The Treasury Department also says there are still 1 million homeowners who could be eligible for HAMP.

    “We’re going to keep fighting to fix this housing market,” Donovan says.

  37. and it’s all based on getting you in debt,,,,,,,,,,,,so ultimately you are now controlled……………

    jokes on you.

  38. @jg

    Are you talking about an “unencumbered asset”?

  39. all these stupid rules, UCC’s and federal reserve system of banks, and public consumer agencies,,,,,,,,,,all designed to what? To get people in debt, and then to protect them? Oh my god, what is that?

    It’s all BS. It’s, all the rules, based on debt and credit……….

    so if you are never in debt……………to one of these big banks…………why all the rules don’t matter,,,,,,,,,,,,live in the world of debt free…………and behold the power of debt rules,,,,,,,,,,they don’t matter………….

  40. @carie and tony – there may be a way to list your potential claim against someone in a bk to keep it out of the clutches of the bk trustee. If you don’t do that something, or make a deal with your bk trustee (have him abandon the claim, join your claim, SOMEthing, you will get the rude surprise of finding out your claim belongs to your bk estate, not you.

  41. as you said E.Tolle—

    “We cannot hope to work within the system to completely alter the system. It would be like asking a death row inmate to flip his own breaker sending a million volts into himself. It doesn’t work that way. THEY will not stand for it. THEY have fucked everything up beyond all recognition, and beyond any hope of repair. THEY must be stopped. The system must be euthanized out from under THEM.”


    We cannot hope to work within the system———simple—answer stay away from big banks,,,,,,,move your money and do business with local banks or credit unions not involved.

    They will not stand for it———-of course, thus the constant commercials to go into debt———-answer—-don’t go into debt.

    They must be stopped ——-why they wish to pass more rules, and more regulations,,,,,,,,,,,all based on credit and debt—–solution—do not use credit or debt from big banks……….

    The system must be euthanized out from under them——-simple, as above—stay away from big banks, don’t go into debt, go all cash.


    When I did 2 years ago, to be quite frank about it, it was scary. Like what if something happens, I got no credit, I defaulted on everything prior. Why I tell you life is fun again. We, my wife and I find bargains, we save our money, we are actually having fun again, not worrying about credit bills,,,,,,,and we make it go right………..and it is fun………..everything we make money wise is ours, it doesn’t go to some future obligation, we can create the future and know it is ours to reap the benefits of, as opposed to giving our future income to some debt with compound interest, all designed to keep you in debt for as long as possible…………

    so be it. Last one out is truely fuked.

  42. @E.Tolle and Anonymous———–

    while we fight for being in debt to the these banks,,,,,,,,,,big banks that are global, the big five or whatever………….

    one must realize the ultimate solution is too not borrow from these guys…………..

    It is simple.

    If I had lots of bucks,,,,,,,,,,,,,I would just run ads on TV and local radio saying to bank with your local union and local bank not involved with Securization…………..and bank with a bank that services the local community as opposed to the global market that the big banks are involved with, which all designed to line Wall St and CEO pockets………..

    yes indeed, it is simple————stay away from the big banks……….and if involved, why move on out to your local bank or credit union.

    All banks operate on debt————so get out of debt, somehow, somewhy and/or make it work for you…………..

    Fuk the fraud………….they way to kill it is to not participate……….and if you must, then fight it…..

  43. @jg

    Remember this?:

    “The trusts seem to have sold a list of loans they INTENDED to acquire…”

  44. well, heck. My promise to pay you the other 80.00 at a future date does not entitle ME to collect that 80.00 from the maker of the note. I am only entitled to collect what I actually paid. fwiw, which might be something. But as we all know, good luck finding out.

  45. @johngault

    Did you type in the case # 30-2009-00300317PR-TR-LJC
    after you went to:

    After you click “accept” you type in the last eight numbers…

    Anyway—I got this case information from “tony”—here is his post again from a little while ago:

    “…If you have a former “Indymac” loan, then your loan is dis-chargeable. I would get your attorney to read DBNTC v FDIC # 09-3852 in the California federal district court central division. Then get him to understand what QFC v NON QFC. Have him understand they are debt collectors, servicing for no one, and that the trust is dead. If he thinks that it isn’t true, then tell him that DBNTC went into probate for all trusts so that it could get immunity. This case number is 30-2009-00300317PR-TR-LJC in SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ORANGE COUNTY. Any lawyer should know that you do not go to probate unless something is dead and you are trying to finalize the end issues. Have your lawyer read these issues and then have him write and contact the bank and foreclosure mill and warn then not to take action until these can resolve that they did not do any of this, plus that they were not deemed general creditor by the FDIC. Also have him read MBIA v FDIC # 09-01011 in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. This case MBIA an insurance company for the securitizations for the Indymac trusts filed suit but lost because they were even labeled a general creditor by the FDIC. MBIA says some interesting things in this case to describe how the insurance works when there is a so called default by an home owner.
    If you file BK make sure you label your mortgage as that it is disputed
    contingent on the debt and then again on your assets. That means if you sue them for a million dollars make sure you put that in your schedules, so that they don’t say you didn’t do that and now you’re barred.
    Then when they file for relief of the automatic stay, make sure your lawyer gets them dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Do not agree to let the BK decide on this matter in an adversary matter. Just block them from the automatic stay. When you get your discharge then if you want sue the pants off them,if you want.

  46. But here’s a question: if what I heard is true, can someone else, like the payer of the coupons, decide to liquidate a non-performing trust? Now there’s a shaft for you. I still don’t believe the trusts own the loans. They’re just some kind of cdo, which theoretically should give bond holders a path to them. The bond holders MAY have a right to seize the collateral in ‘cdo’, which if they didn’t, wasn’t a very good bargain, was it? And sometimes I think that’s the real dirty little secret: they don’t. It takes a Harvard degree, actually a few of them, to try to sort this all out.
    And considering that notes are subject to the UCC (at least as default law, right?) and deeds of trust are subject to any number of things, like the statute of frauds, it’s pretty dang complicated.

  47. @carie – Well, I looked fwiw at the probate deal and remember a little of the mbia or like that suit against the fdic re: indymac. Then I called a friend. All I think I learned is that when bonds are in default and not covering the coupon rate to the investors, those bond holders can tell the trustee to liquidate the trust (which was news to me) and then it’s gone. Can they just tell the trustee to liquidate or must they sue? I don’t know. As I get it, this gives the bond holders at least a portion of their money back. But, the money (some percent on the dollar) comes from new parties and the loans are still alive and kicking (and lord knows what kind of misdeeds go on with those sales) Now, if Deutsche were the trustee for that trust in the first place (or even if not), the new buyers of the defaulted as well as the undefaulted debt (the alleged trust assets) could re-appoint Deutsche as an agent, or maybe even as a trustee IF a new trust (not a sec’n trust, just A trust) were formed with the purchased assets. I don’t believe these assets could be re-securitized, but don’t know. The new owners of the old trust assets could foreclose on collateral and they could do so by way of Deutsche with some appt to Deutsche. Fwiw, the new guys are not holders in due course as to any notes purchased which were in default, because knowledge of a note’s default is a hidc-killer. They are still holders, but subject to the borrower’s defenses.
    Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, it’s/they are another stinking layer (the purchaser(s) )of insulation, mol, because there’s someone else to contend with and we still legitimately argue the loans – both the notes and deeds of trust – didn’t make it into the trust in the first place, so how could the trust sell anything? And one way or another as to the deeds of trust, there must be written assignment to the new buyers and a homeowner imo is entitled to Notice. And also fwiw, pursuant to the UCC, if I buy a note from you for 100.00 but have only paid you 20.00 of that, I am only entitled to collect 20.00 from the maker. My promise to pay you the 80.00 at a future date does not entitle you to collect it from the maker of the note, the borrower.
    MERS and securitization have to go. They are portals for crimes. If legitimate lenders don’t have enough dough to loan the polity for homes, then I guess we’ll live with it. It has ALWAYS with very rare exception historically been one way or another: low home prices and high rates or low rates and higher home prices. Didn’t kill us or tear a nation (or the world) apart.
    I’ve probably over-generalized this and that’s even if I got this right. It’s obviously not my thing. Carie contributes a lot here and could use some knowledgeable help, people…….. I’m just saying.

  48. N.Y. Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law

    § 1307. Duty to maintain foreclosed property.

    1. A plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure action who obtains a judgment of foreclosure and sale pursuant to section thirteen hundred fifty-one of this article, involving residential real property, as defined in section thirteen hundred five of this article, that is vacant, or becomes vacant after the issuance of such judgment, or is abandoned by the mortgagor but occupied by a tenant, as defined under section thirteen hundred five of this article, shall maintain such property until such time as ownership has been transferred through the closing of title in foreclosure, or other disposition, and the deed for such property has been duly recorded; provided, however, that if a municipality or governmental entity holds a mortgage subordinate to one or more mortgages on the residential real property, the municipality or governmental entity shall not be subject to the requirements of this section.

    2. Such plaintiff shall have the right to peaceably enter upon such property, or to cause others to peaceably enter upon the property for the limited purpose of inspections, repairs and maintenance as required by this section, or as otherwise ordered by court; provided, however, that if the property is occupied by a tenant, at least seven days notice must be given to such tenant, unless emergency repairs are required in which case reasonable notice shall be provided to the tenant.

    3. The municipality in which such residential real property is located, any tenant lawfully in possession, and a board of managers of a condominium in which the premises are located or a homeowners association if said premises are subject to the rules and regulations of such an association, shall have the right to enforce the obligations described in this section in any court of competent jurisdiction after at least seven days notice to the plaintiff in the foreclosure action unless emergency repairs are required. Any entity acting pursuant to this subdivision shall have a cause of action in any court of competent jurisdiction against the plaintiff in the foreclosure action to recover costs incurred as a result of maintaining the property. The authority provided by this subdivision shall be in addition to, and shall not be deemed to diminish or reduce, any rights of the parties described in this section under existing law against the mortgagor of such property for failure to maintain such property.

    4. In the event the mortgagor of the property commences a proceeding in bankruptcy court prior to the completion of the public auction ordered in the judgment of sale, the duties created by this section shall be suspended during the pendency of the bankruptcy proceeding or until such time as an order has been entered in that proceeding lifting or removing the automatic stay of the foreclosure sale.

    5. For the purposes of this section “maintain” shall mean keeping the subject property in a manner that is consistent with the standards set forth in the New York property maintenance code chapter 3 sections 301, 302 (excluding 302.2, 302.6 and 302.8), 304.1, 304.3, 304.7, 304.10, 304.12, 304.13, 304.15, 304.16, 307.1, and 308.1; provided, however, that if the property is occupied by a tenant, then such property must also be maintained in a safe and habitable condition.

    6. A plaintiff shall be relieved of its responsibilities to maintain the residential real property that is the subject of a foreclosure action for the period that a receiver of such property is serving.

    7. Nothing contained in this section shall diminish in any way the obligations pursuant to any state or local law of the mortgagor of the property or a receiver of rents and profits appointed in an action to foreclose a mortgage to maintain the property prior to the closing of title pursuant to a foreclosure sale.

    8. This section shall not preempt, reduce or limit any rights or obligations imposed by any local laws with respect to property maintenance and the locality’s ability to enforce those laws.

  49. johngault,

    Search Maiden Lane. Maiden Lane is the purchaser of all the security tranches that the banks could no longer hold. Maiden Lane has “restructured” those tranches into one big TRUST, that is now sold to other distressed debt buyers by the management of distressed debt buyer bigwigs. You certainly cannot have pass-through of “cash flows” to the old (dissolved trust) and to Maiden Lane managed by distressed debt buyers.

    But, the problem is that these trusts, dissolved and Maiden Lane, is only for pass-through of current cash flows. They were not, and are not, the current creditor/lender as now defined by the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve has long stated that security investors are not the creditor/lender and that collection rights are not passed along with cash flow pass-through. This is clarified by the Fed Res Opinion (now Rule) to the TILA Amendment. This is quite clear, and as I posted elsewhere, recently clarified by a Federal District Court (as to the Fed Res Opinion and TILA).

    The biggest mistake we have made is to EVER claim that security investors are the lender/creditor. This has been a disaster, in error, and absurd.

    I can only surmise that those that continue to believe the dissolved trusts still exist, and that security investors are the creditor/lender, have a self interest that has been extremely counter-productive to fighting foreclosure fraud.

  50. usedkarguy,

    Testimony??? Yeah, by debt buyers themselves. Is it not ironic that the “goal” by these so called “investors” is to “keep people in their homes?” That should NOT be the “goal”, because “keeping people in their homes” by their terms, means continued victims and continued fraud. The goal should be to expose the fraud and to allow people to rightfully OWN their homes. You cannot promote home ownership by continued fraud. The goal MUST BE to expose the fraud that has been perpetrated by the “investors” and then let the people “KEEP there homes” — not “keep people in their homes” by continued fraud.

    We are not talking securitization of cash flows, that is a separate issue, and those are “security investors” that are not the lender or creditor. We are talking debt buyer “investors” of (fraudulent) collection rights. Debt buyers do not want homeowners to keep their homes because to rightfully keep their homes, the fraud MUST be exposed. And, certainly, debt buyers have no incentive or desire to expose that mass fraud.

  51. @carie – I followed your link and only found a generic disclaimer….?
    Can you please tell me why a sec’n trust is “dead”? I don’t know what that means.

  52. @Stan. saw Michelson at the courthouse the other day. He told me he went to “Max Gardners Bootcamp”. You should give him a call. I am.


    here’s a nice rudimentary read for you “novices”:
    House Financial Services Subcommittee testimony

  54. Now for something completely off-topic: current news…..

    Dec. 9 (Bloomberg) — Wells Fargo & Co. agreed to pay $148 million to settle criminal charges and civil claims aimed at Wachovia Bank, which it acquired in 2008.

    The deal will resolve investigations by federal agencies, including the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department, as well as attorneys general in 26 states, into charges that Wachovia conspired to overcharge state and local governments on investments.

    The case is the latest in a more than five-year investigation into how Wall Street banks conspired with local- government advisers to reap excessive fees on investments sold to public agencies by rigging competitive auctions and carving up the market among themselves. JPMorgan Chase & Co., UBS AG and Bank of America Corp. previously settled similar cases.

    need I say more? what are you expecting them to do for you?

  55. carie,…….. call me

  56. Sorry—here’s the case # 30-2009-00300317PR-TR-LJC

  57. Can someone check this out and tell me what you think?

    It’s the Deutsche Trusts Probate info I was talking about in another post from commenter “tony”.

    So—if the securitized trusts are dead—then when they file a “Substitution of Trustee” for the trust in the county recorders office—and it’s a DEAD TRUST—who do I sue—and/or how to use this info to stop a sale?? Or–do I notify the register of deeds about this fraud? Or do they even care—like Mass ROD John O’Brien does?

  58. See this AMAZING intervention by a group of concerned people, occupiers, and citizen warriors…to keep yet another neighbor, another house, and another family…from disappearing…into the night….and the home would have….????

  59. @linda – imo it’s just not true that one can’t get a home back. It’s all based, I think, on an interpretation that a trustee’s deed is the bomb, is final. Thing is, if the trustee isn’t the trustee for any number of reasons (like being appointed by someone other than the legit beneficiary), than there was no bona fide trustee’s deed, was there?

  60. If you are really going to lose your home and you believe it’s wrongfully so, you might want to record something to give notice (called a notice, actually) regarding your beefs, even generically. Why have the bona fide purchaser argument if you intend to fight it later? If public record discloses your contentions, any purchaser buying your home has notice (because recordation is statutory notice) and cannot imo be found to be a bona fide purchaser without notice. So why have the argument if you need not?
    Better to consult an attorney, like one who has worked for a title company, before doing this. Everyone’s own call. As much as I, a lay person and not an attorney, would personally like to see everyone do this when appropriate (it’s at least some measure of fighting back), I don’t want or mean to give a bum steer. But if I were doing my own, I would write the parcel number on the top left of the page, move down an inch or two to the middle, write “NOTICE” and proceed from there. I’d probably include the correct legal description in the body somewhere along with ‘commonly known as street address’. What I am trying to say is it looks to me like we can all preclude someone from alleging he is a bonafide purchaser who bought the home without notice of “irregularities”. This will NOT solve all our problems by any means, but imo it will at least 86 the bona fide purchaser argument.
    There may be unintended and adverse consequences to doing this.
    I don’t know for sure. Might give the opponent later ammo for saying you knew this and that and should’ve argued it at the time. dunno. That’s why it’s best to consult a knowledgeable attorney to see if there’s any way doing this will shoot you in the foot later IF you decide to pursue action.
    Depends on WHAT your GOAL is. If giving the legitimate Notice queers title and gives pause to f/c, well, then you have accomplished an immediate goal.

  61. Every attorney I talk to says that once the bank has sold one’s home, one cannot get it back. Is that because the attorney’s don’t want to put that much work into it?

    Why not? Why can’t one get one’s home back?
    Especially when one has written to the servicer several times prior to foreclosure and pointed the problems with the loan and has also rescinded the loan, etc.

    Why couldn’t one just name the buyer, the title company, etc., as defendants in a lawsuit?

    I don’t know what kind of suit it would be? But I just don’t see why one cannot get one’s home back.

    (I have already appealed with the OCC and have not heard back yet)

  62. So a vote for Ron Paul will fix it all ? I do not doubt his beliefs – but I have a bridge and MY house that are both for sale , just give me some of the kool-aid you’re drinking and you can have them both .

  63. There’s a real risk in becoming hypnotized by a belief that things will be different with Ron Paul. While it’s obvious he’s a smart and honorable man, there is no place for that in the modern politics of today. There was a paradigm shift while we were all busy working two jobs, and more recently, trying to feed our families and fighting off foreclosure. We cannot hope to work within the system to completely alter the system. It would be like asking a death row inmate to flip his own breaker sending a million volts into himself. It doesn’t work that way. THEY will not stand for it. THEY have fucked everything up beyond all recognition, and beyond any hope of repair. THEY must be stopped. The system must be euthanized out from under THEM.

    Read an excerpt from Robert Fisk’s “Bankers Are the Dictators of the West” in The Independent from yesterday:

    We’ve been deluged with reports of how the poor or the disadvantaged in the West have “taken a leaf” out of the “Arab spring” book, how demonstrators in America, Canada, Britain, Spain and Greece have been “inspired” by the huge demonstrations that brought down the regimes in Egypt, Tunisia and – up to a point – Libya. But this is nonsense.

    The real comparison, needless to say, has been dodged by Western reporters, so keen to extol the anti-dictator rebellions of the Arabs, so anxious to ignore protests against “democratic” Western governments, so desperate to disparage these demonstrations, to suggest that they are merely picking up on the latest fad in the Arab world. The truth is somewhat different. What drove the Arabs in their tens of thousands and then their millions on to the streets of Middle East capitals was a demand for dignity and a refusal to accept that the local family-ruled dictators actually owned their countries. The Mubaraks and the Ben Alis and the Gaddafis and the kings and emirs of the Gulf (and Jordan) and the Assads all believed that they had property rights to their entire nations. Egypt belonged to Mubarak Inc, Tunisia to Ben Ali Inc (and the Traboulsi family), Libya to Gaddafi Inc. And so on. The Arab martyrs against dictatorship died to prove that their countries belonged to their own people.

    And that is the true parallel in the West. The protest movements are indeed against Big Business – a perfectly justified cause – and against “governments”. What they have really divined, however, albeit a bit late in the day, is that they have for decades bought into a fraudulent democracy: they dutifully vote for political parties – which then hand their democratic mandate and people’s power to the banks and the derivative traders and the rating agencies, all three backed up by the slovenly and dishonest coterie of “experts” from America’s top universities and “think tanks”, who maintain the fiction that this is a crisis of globalisation rather than a massive financial con trick foisted on the voters.
    The banks and the rating agencies have become the dictators of the West. Like the Mubaraks and Ben Alis, the banks believed – and still believe – they are owners of their countries. The elections which give them power have – through the gutlessness and collusion of governments – become as false as the polls to which the Arabs were forced to troop decade after decade to anoint their own national property owners. Goldman Sachs and the Royal Bank of Scotland became the Mubaraks and Ben Alis of the US and the UK, each gobbling up the people’s wealth in bogus rewards and bonuses for their vicious bosses on a scale infinitely more rapacious than their greedy Arab dictator-brothers could imagine.

    Read the whole article:

  64. absolutely the right way to go. I will not give up but the courts are trying to make us

  65. […] Can You Find the Fraud? The Judge Did. « Livinglies's Weblog […]

  66. The real disgrace here has two facets: first, a government that would not only condone, but be the principle agent of a system designed to foreclose and evict millions without just cause, and second, a society that would sit on their hands while the above line up millions of empty, padlocked houses on the one side, all the while curbing an equal number of United States citizens on the other side.

    This is exactly akin to having the starving have nots press their gaunt faces and extended bellies into the windows of the restaurant being dined in by the piggish haves among us. It begs for a reckoning, big time. Bring it on.

  67. Ron Paul will not take his Congressional retirement. As a physician he never took anything from Medicare or SS. Why is the Media ignoring him? He is the only honest, consistant man running. Vote Ron Paul!
    Racine WI

  68. vote for ron paul he is the only ONE thats seems to get it, oh i thought judges are not suppose to find the fraud? isnt that what they have been preaching during this nightmare that it is up the homeowner and lawyer to find the fraud and pran be taken andesent it to a judge. that if a forecloure mill presents fraud on the court and the homeowner is not educated like us , does not have a lawyer, or even does not even show (most cases thats fruad anyone with a state drivers lisence should be found to go to court) that the bank who may not even own the home gets the house free and clear, well now we find maybe not clear but free, free to collect from other ignorant buyers (ignorant means unknowingly) . i will not be able to sleep easy until all foreclosures re stopped and ownership needs to be proven in court before a home can be taken and even if proven what about all the other frauds perpertrated to collect credit default swap insurance? denying modifications, losing paper work, moving files so homeowners about to be approved do not??? and the fraud upon a homebuyer application fraud, given free rein to mortgage brokers to put homeowners in a stated income loan. if is put in a stated income loan then prove where is a contract that states that?? that states i am entering into a stated income me loan and any of ramifications of this should be explained to the futurre homeowner. no i was not aware of the stated income loan that my mortgage broker put in and didnt sign anything stating i agreed. i agreed to have my income verified and can i afford this home. and what about appraisal fraud. using straw bought homes and flipped homes as comps to sell the home ????? please help homeowners stay in their homes. fight
    this evil

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: