Using UDCPA Fair Debt Collection Acts to get Money, Information and Fees

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

RIPE AREA FOR STEADY INCOME FOR LAWYERS REPRESENTING HOMEOWNERS

Editor’s Comment: One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind. You have both a private right of action against the debt collector and the right to apply to the FTC to set up administrative hearings, where these cases should probably be heard by experienced hearing officers who know what they are looking at.

The practice of playing the numbers on debt collection has been around for a long time. Whether the debt is real or not, there is a statute of limitations, bankruptcies and other obstacles to collection. A lot of times the debt is now owed at all, but byb pestering customers, the collection agency gets some money out of them, which they keep because they have already bought the portfolio at pennies or less on the dollar.

This is where servicers and other intermediaries in the fake securitization chain are going to get into hot water. The debt was created when the investor loaned the borrower the money. The intermediaries are by definition debt collectors under the UDCPA and they are, and have been banged for fines many times on individual cases.

This is an instance where the Obama administration is attacking the practice head-on and taking away their toys. So when the pretender lender comes knocking, it isn’t just a RESPA 6 (Qualified Written Request) that you send out, it is a UDCPA letter you send demanding to know both the identity and contact information for the creditor. As you can see from this article, failure to provide you with that information  plus the balance due and how it was computed, is a violation of that Federal Statute.

It might also be a shortcut way of identifying the pretender not as holder of the note but as agent for an undisclosed principal seeking to collect on a note that was defective in the first place because they did not identify the correct creditor (in violation of TILA) and it did not provide you with a proper accounting showing exactly what this “creditor” received that would reduce your loan balance.

The MAIN point here is that the servicer might well be the one sending you the notice of delinquency swhen they have performed zero due diligence as to the creditor’s accounting. Where the servicer itself or some other party is keeping the account current, as is often the case, the loan is neither delinquent nor susceptible to being declared in default — but they do it anyway.

Now that the FTC has declared war on debt collectors who perform illegally, and banged them with this fine, we can invoke the same administrative procedures and grievances with the FTC as to the collection efforts on mortgages where the “collector” is not the creditor and where the money demanded is not actually shown as due.

There is a presumption that if you didn’t make the payment as set forth in the note, then you must be delinquent and you must be declared (at some point) in default. But that is not true in most cases. There can only be a delinquency or default under the mortgage loan if the borrower has failed to make a payment or cure a payment that is actually due. If the payment has been made already, then no such payment is due, regardless of whether it came from the borrower or not.

This is why you need to know the four legs of the stool in order to object, sue, defend, and present genuine issues of fact before a trial court that will have no choice but to allow you to proceed to discovery. Discovery is where these cases settle because the pretenders know they didn’t fund the loan, they didn’t pay for the loan and the creditor has been paid in whole or in part, with a lower or zero balance remaining.

Just for reminders, the four legs of the stool are:

  1. The loan closing papers with the investors under which he agrees to advance funds into a pool in exchange for a note or bond from a REMIC (which is never properly constituted). Here the investors expects that the money advanced will be used for funding mortgages conforming with the standards set forth in the prospectus and pooling and servicing agreement. Note that there is no nexus or connection between the investor and the borrower because the borrower usually does not even exist at that point in time. If a nexus ever arises, it is when the loan is transferred into the pool, something which we all now know was never done until the loan went into litigation or foreclosure — obviously in violation of the cut-off date required by the IRS REMIC statute, and the concurrent cut-off date in the PSA. But more importantly is the money angle — the investors didn’t advance money for loans that were delinquent or in default. They invested their money for good quality performing loans. Thus there is no way that the loans could be transferred into the pools if they were already declared problematic, delinquent, or non-performing. The failure to provide a nexus between borrower and lender (investor) is fatal to the enforcement of the mortgage lien. The creditor has no interest in the loan and doesn’t want one. Any claim from third parties who also have no nexus with the borrower would be on causes of action that are separate or apart from the mortgage lien. (SEE COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION REPORT ABOVE)
  2. The loan closing papers with the borrower(s), which are subject to roughly the same analysis with identical result. There is no nexus between the borrower and the investor because neither one knows the other, despite requirements in the TILA and RESPA laws that require disclosure of parties and their compensation. (SEE FORENSIC ANALYSIS TILA+ REPORT on Livinglies-store.com) The note does not describe the actual monetary transaction between the investor lender and the borrower. Instead it inserts a straw-man as “lender” and a straw-man as “beneficiary”. This usually takes the form of a new animal in mortgage lending called an “originator” who is a paid fee service provider whose sole duty is to pretend to be the lender, even though they never funded the loan, never bought the loan and never had any interest in the debt, the note or the mortgage. This is deemed by many in the title industry as a corrupted document that breaks the chain of title if any action was taken on such a loan in foreclosure. 
  3. The actual money trail which varies from both the requirements set forth in the paperwork with the investor lender and the paperwork with the homeowner borrower. A full accounting would show that the parties in the middle without any interest in the loan, bought, sold, transferred and used those fabricated, forged documents to initiate foreclosure and eviction proceedings. Under the investor documentation, the pretenders are allowed to use a legal PONZI scheme in which the investors money is used to pay him his interest income, although it is not reported as such. The servicer also has the option of taking money from other revenue and pools and paying certain investors in complete  violation of the explicit requirements of any standard promissory note from a borrower requiring that payments be credited to the account of the borrower. Instead, they make the payment and do not credit the borrower or they receive the money and they pay neither the investors nor the give credit to the borrowers. (see Loan Level Accounting REPORT on Livinglies-store.com). The servicers and intermediaries and attempting, with some success to take over the position of the investor without an assignment from the investor, and enforce a mortgage to which they are not a party.
  4. The Fourth legal of the stool arises from the false representations made in court or foreclosure proceedings. These representations made by people who purport to be authorized to substitute trustees, or file notice of defaults, notice of sales, notice of evictions, or lawsuits for all of those in judicial states, turn out to be at variance with all three of the other legs of the stool — the investor paperwork, the borrower’s paperwork and the actual money trail. 

Using a service like Elite Litigation Management services or others to present the matrix, which we also offer at livinglies-store.com, dial 480-405-1688, and you can present a poster-size board that shows a number of the discrepancy between all four legs of the stool, thus giving rise to the question of fact necessary to get to the next step in litigation. remember, if you go in thinking you have a magic bullet that will end your case, you are dreaming of a better worked than the one we have.

F.T.C. Fines a Collector of Debt $2.5 Million

See Full Article on New York Times and Firedoglake.com
By

The Federal Trade Commission signaled on Monday that it would continue to crack down on debt collectors who harass consumers for money they may not even be legally obligated to pay.

In the second-largest penalty ever levied on a debt collector, the F.T.C. said that Asset Acceptance, one of the nation’s largest debt collection companies, had agreed to pay a $2.5 million civil penalty to settle charges that the company deceived consumers when trying to collect old debts.

The settlement is part of a broader effort to patrol the industry, agency officials said.

“Our attention to debt collection has increased over the past couple of years because the complaints have been on the rise,” said J. Reilly Dolan, assistant director for the F.T.C.’s division of financial practices.

Consumer complaints about debt collection companies consistently rank as the second-highest category among all complaints at the agency, behind identity theft. But in 2010, complaints jumped 17 percent to 140,036, which represented 11 percent of all complaints in the commission’s database, up from 119,540, or about 9 percent of complaints, in 2009.

Asset Acceptance, based in Warren, Mich., was charged with a variety of complaints, including failing to tell consumers that they could no longer be sued for failing to pay some debts because the debts were too old. The company’s collectors also failed to inform consumers that paying even a small portion of the amount owed would revive the debt — in other words, making a payment would extend the amount of time the collector could legally sue.

Debt collectors have only a certain number of years to sue consumers. The statute of limitations varies by state, but typically ranges from two to 15 years, Mr. Dolan said, beginning when a consumer fails to make a payment. But borrowers often do not realize that making a payment on the old debt may restart the clock.

Among other things, the complaint also contended that the company — which buys unpaid debts for pennies on the dollar from credit card companies, health clubs and telecommunications and utility providers and tries to collect them — reported inaccurate information about the consumers to the credit reporting agencies. It also said that Asset Acceptance failed to conduct a reasonable investigation when it was notified by one of the credit agencies that a debt was being disputed. Moreover, the complaint says that the company used illegal collection practices and that it continued to try to collect debts that consumers disputed even though the company failed to verify that the debt was valid.

The proposed settlement with Asset Acceptance requires the company to tell consumers whose debt may be too old to be collected that it will not sue. It also requires the company to investigate disputed debts and to ensure it has a reasonable basis for its claims before going after the consumer. It is also barred from placing debt on credit reports without notifying the consumer.

The penalty “is certainly a slap on the wrist and probably a little bit more, but it really depends on what the F.T.C. does to enforce this in the coming months and years,” said Robert Hobbs, deputy director at the National Consumer Law Center and author of “Fair Debt Collection” (National Consumer Law Center, 1987). But “it is a great step forward. It is not self-enforcing, and it has a mechanism for the F.T.C. to follow up.”

Still, while the settlement requires the company to take more responsibility for checking the statute of limitations before it contacts consumers, he said most states did not require debt collectors to do that. That means it is up to consumers to know the rules on the statute of limitations, which, he said, can be “an enormously complex legal question.”

In a statement, Asset Acceptance said that the settlement ended an F.T.C. investigation that began nearly six years ago, and that the company did not admit to any of the allegations. “We are pleased to have this matter behind us, and to have clarity on the F.T.C.’s policies and expectations of the debt collection industry,” said Rion Needs, president and chief executive of Asset Acceptance.

In March, another leading debt collection company, West Asset Management, agreed to pay $2.8 million, the largest civil penalty ever levied by the F.T.C., to settle charges that its collection techniques violated the law. The commission charged that West Asset’s collectors often called consumers multiple times a day, sometimes using rude and abusive language, about accounts that were not theirs. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the F.T.C. now share enforcement authority for debt collection companies, though the new bureau has a power that the F.T.C. did not: it can write new rules for debt collectors. But F.T.C. officials said that debt collection enforcement would remain a top priority.

 

20 Responses

  1. Neil did you or your computer have a few to many to drink. First time offense, but I can hardly read what you are really saying. Please check typos. I do it a lot, but I am a prose and can get away with it.

  2. Good morning;
    Is anyone knows of any attorney in CA who can utiliize the fair debt approach to fight foreclosure?
    Thank you.
    Feel free email me at tmze1968@yahoo.com

  3. OK. please comment on this standard Wells Fargo bogus demand letter.

    WF letterhead… states… This letter is for informational purposes only. This is not a demand for payment.

    … Above loan referred to attorney to begin… foreclosure…

    You are hereby notified that, due to the default under the terms of the mortgage or deed of trust, the entire balance is due and payable.

    Then attorney address…

    Then FDCPA disclosures…

    OK. this is a standard WF letter. OK i realize this letter is BS. But I dont see how they can get away with not specifically following the mortgage (this is FL) and just sending me a proper NOD with a proper amount due.

    It seems meant to only intimidate and total BS.

    I sent QWR and debt validation letter ages ago. Seems like this attorney should get a DVL and ask for the damned creditor and copies of my prior letters.

    WF sends this same letter all over the USA BTW.

  4. Can we do a special thread on how to beat up on Fannie and Freddie???

    Please.

  5. Neil, how can i send you a photocopy of the new demand letter / fdcpa letter the lawyers are sending out when they are foreclosing on the Freddie loans. You gotta see how they are wording it to protect themselves and still not mention that Freddie Mac, the taxpayer owned Freddie Mac, is the real party foreclosing.

    No mention of GSE Cert’s, half loan number, and no creditor name at all.

  6. I like the idea of filing small claims. In Florida you can file for about $300 in fees on a claim up to $7500 or so.

    I beat State Farm once and collected a cool $6500. Cost me $50K in my time but it was the principle of the deal!!!!!

    For $2500 or so I don’t think the servicer will defend. Problem is keeping all that TILA stuff limited to keep it from going Federal, but then again I know nothing.

  7. The FDCA statutes do not apply to servicers at the time of default I believe. Please comment.

  8. Just let the phone ring and forget about them.
    Why would you talk to them???

  9. @Carie

    “@joann…..any ideas?”

    Obviously not an attorney and obviously don’t even have an attorney to even ask questions. Obviously digging out what I can by myself. I could be in your shoes any day now.

    This long post is for you and I hope no one here minds the length. I would appreciate any feedback from anyone on this thinking too.

    Search the codes below – it isn’t true that a note cannot be produced in CA – it just has to be done timely and you were deprived of that by never having received notice of the beneficiary or change of beneficiary. The NOD was not declared by the beneficiary now named in the public record and foreclosing on the home. This beneficiary never notified you of his existence. You were never able to receive the verification you are due by law of his ownership and verification you are due by law that the party who transferred this ownership to him had the right to do so. Continue reading CA codes and UCC codes that provide homeowners with this protection and verification of who it is that is foreclosing.

    Thinking you can still file in federal court for VIOLATION OF TRUTH IN LENDING ACT, 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g) LIABILITY OF ASSIGNEES. You were never notified within 30 days of the so called sale and transfer of beneficial interest to the so called new beneficiary (assuming you got an ADOT from the “collector” to a trust as almost everyone does right before foreclosure). There is a statutory penalty of $4,000 approx (have to look it up) give or take for this and it is not dependent on proving harm or further damages. ( It puts it directly in federal court which has jurisdiction over other statutory claims for respa and udcpa ect and jurisdiction for any other claims that are pendent on the federal claims). There is harm and further damage from TILA , 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g) though. You were unable to request in timely fashion the REQUEST FOR BENEFICIARY STATEMENT Pursuant to California Civil Code 2943 and UCC 3-502 and the REQUEST FOR PAYOFF DEMAND STATEMENT Pursuant to California Civil Code 2943 and UCC 3-502 because you were not notified of the identity of the beneficiary who is now foreclosing or who has already foreclosed. The claims for wrongful foreclosure (false filings, false ownership, clouded title, origination straw man, can be made at the same time it seems to me and with even greater punch because now a crime of unlawful foreclosure has taken place not just an attempt to stop an unlawful foreclosure (obviously just trying to figure this out myself – attorneys don’t seem to ever post on these things here these days and would probably point out many thigs wrong with my thinking).

    California Civil Code Section 2943(b) and UCC 3-502 says a promissory note is not dishonored until the maker refuses to pay it when presentment thereof is made. “Presentment” is defined by the UCC as “a demand to pay the instrument made by a person entitled to enforce an instrument.” “Upon demand of the person to whom presentment is made, the person making the presentment must 1) exhibit the instrument” (UCC 3-501(B)(2)(a)). Without presentment the “obligation is suspended to the same extent the obligation would be discharged if an amount of money equal to the amount of the instrument were taken, and the following rules apply:…2) In the case of a note, suspension of the obligation continues until dishonor of the note or until it is paid.” (UCC 3-310(b)). The borrower is not in default until the lender can exhibit the instrument, proving dishonor. Delinquent payments are not the same thing as “Default”. Default is a refusal to pay after presentment has been made and a Default must include an exhibit of the instrument.

    Servicers will say they did not have to provide notice of the change of beneficiary because they are servicers (even though the servicer pretender beneficiary made the assignment!). The kicker is though that the “new” beneficiary, the trustee bank for the trust ( the trust is the “new” beneficiary with a trustee bank named to speak for them) will say in court that he is just like the trustee on the DOT and has no beneficial interest and therefore no liability as per TILA , 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g) to notify the homeowner. In a recent North CA federal court ruling Vogan v Wells Fargo (and trust ect) the judge made the distinction and said the trustee for the trust did have that liability (which means that is the real party of interest to contact for beneficiary statement – it is not the servicer or the trustee on the deed of trust, it is the trustee bank for the trust. The opinion makes the distinction between the two types of trustees and then referring to the trustee for the trust says “Under the common law of trusts, a trustee is subject to personal liability to third persons on obligations incurred in the administration of the trust to the same extent that he would be liable if he held the property free of trust. Restatement (2d) of Trusts § 261.”

    California Civil Code 2943….
    …(b) (1) A beneficiary, or his or her authorized agent, shall,
    within 21 days of the receipt of a written demand by an entitled
    person or his or her authorized agent, prepare and deliver to the
    person demanding it a true, correct, and complete copy of the note or
    other evidence of indebtedness with any modification thereto, and a
    beneficiary statement.
    (2) A request pursuant to this subdivision may be made by an
    entitled person or his or her authorized agent at any time before, or
    within two months after, the recording of a notice of default under
    a mortgage or deed of trust, or may otherwise be made more than 30
    days prior to the entry of the decree of foreclosure.
    (c) A beneficiary, or his or her authorized agent, shall, on the
    written demand of an entitled person, or his or her authorized agent,
    prepare and deliver a payoff demand statement to the person
    demanding it within 21 days of the receipt of the demand. However, if
    the loan is subject to a recorded notice of default or a filed
    complaint commencing a judicial foreclosure, the beneficiary shall
    have no obligation to prepare and deliver this statement as
    prescribed unless the written demand is received prior to the first
    publication of a notice of sale or the notice of the first date of
    sale established by a court.

    I think a case can and should be made that the Request For Beneficiary Statement (including the presentment and the note as per UCC also) and the Payoff Demand Statement must be produced directly from the beneficiary and from the records of the beneficiary (not DOT trustee using computer login to servicer debt collector transaction records – third or fourth party entities with no access and no authority to state what is owed the trust beneficiary). They are not authorized agents of the beneficiary. You have never been given a contact number for the beneficiary (try ever digging out the address for a trust administrator) as to where to send the Request For Beneficiary Statement ect. in addition to never having been notified who that was until their name appeared on a notice of sale or sale (I am not there yet). The ADOT to this beneficiary gets recorded without any notice at all to the homeowner.

    More from CA Code 2943 re payoff demand says “beneficiary” not servicer not DOT trustee says “preparation by the beneficiary”

    You were deprived of this right because of the violation to TILA , 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g Liability of Asignees. Had you received this notice you would have been able to show that an unlawful foreclosure was proceeding not because of mere prodedural errors (presumed fixable with tender and bond required) but false (fraudulent) filings by non beneficiaries (no bond or tender required). Read the Vogan case, there is much insight.

    (5) “Payoff demand statement” means a written statement, prepared
    in response to a written demand made by an entitled person or
    authorized agent, setting forth the amounts required as of the date
    of preparation by the beneficiary, to fully satisfy all obligations
    secured by the loan that is the subject of the payoff demand
    statement. The written statement shall include information reasonably
    necessary to calculate the payoff amount on a per diem basis for the
    period of time, not to exceed 30 days, during which the per diem
    amount is not changed by the terms of the note.
    (b) (1) A beneficiary, or his or her authorized agent, shall,
    within 21 days of the receipt of a written demand

    In a recent case in Oregon, which is a non- judicial state like California, Wells Fargo, et al v. Michelotti, Hood River County Circuit Court Case No. 11-0015FD, a circuit court judge considered the title issues in a post foreclosure eviction and said :

    “Those issues give credence to Defendant’s argument that this case is better brought as one to quiet title then for ejectment. Plaintiff’s counter argument to the effect that ‘if Defendant had paid the mortgage we wouldn’t be here’ does not prevail at this junction because the question remains: are the right we here?”

    Even circuit court judges get it right sometimes.

  10. @joann,
    Maxim of Law:
    # Whoever pays by mistake what he does not owe, may recover it back; but he who pays, knowing he owes nothing; is presumed to give.

    If you ever affirm that you payed them because you thought you owed them, then you owed them by your own affirmation.

    That’s one of those lessons Judge Judy teaches on her show.

    it goes something like this.

    Q: Did you pay them in January?
    A: Yes.

    Q: Did you pay them in February?
    Z: Yes.

    Q: Did you pay them in March?
    A: Yes.

    Q: Did you pay them in April?
    A: Yes.

    Q: Did you pay them in May?
    A: No.

    Q: Did you pay them in June?
    A: No,

    Q: Why did you stop paying them?
    A: Because I didn’t owe them any money.

    Statement: You established the agreement when you started paying them. They are expecting payment, you cannot stop paying them just because you don’t want to. They’ve come to rely on your payments.

    Or something similar to that.

    I think it falls into one of those contracts by gesture, like a handshake or transferring title to land by receiving colored beads.

    By gesture One could pay someone they don’t owe, and establish an agreement to owe them. That’s why it’s a good idea that as soon as you realize you don’t owe them, you question the authenticity of the debt and then take actions, but you don’t fall into dishonor.

  11. Here is a list of trusted attorneys. Not all the states are represented (alas!) but, for some people looking for help, it may be where to start.

    @Carie,

    I know you tried everything… but so long as there is any life left, there is action to be taken.

    See if that can help…

    http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/trusted-attorneys/

  12. Carrie,

    1 last thing. What about researching a fidelity bond? A fidelity bond is kind of like an insurance policy that protects the business from the “wrongul” acts of their employees. I’ve combed through my PSA and verified they have one but it doesn’t say who the carrier is only they will have 1.

    I don’t know how to go about researching the carrier? I think if you were able to figure this out you maybe able to submit a claim for any robosigning directly to the insurance company rather than the servicer. You will not be protected under the policy but…I bet the servicer would start talking to you if you threaten to open this can of worms.

    I would think an employee of the servicer pretending to be an employee of MERs would be false representation. In Arizona, obtaining money or property by falsely impersonating another is punishable as for larceny.

    Just my thoughts. Again good luck.

  13. Hello Carrie,

    Hope you are doing well. I’m glad you are sticking around.

    I don’t know how to go about getting money out of these liars!. In my letter I sent to my servicer I stated that I believed they were servicing the loan for the originator. They told me I agreed to MERs loan by signing my dot. They won’t answer the question about who is the creditor. I guess their position is they don’t have to tell me since I signed a MERs loan and the MERs database shows deutsche is the “owner”.

    They will tell you who the owner is, however the owner and creditor are 2 different things. Lets not forget the owner (Deutsche) is the trustee who sold and bet against the loans in the trust. (Assuming of course the loans made it into the trust). How the f can the trustee be allowed to have a stake in the outcome? How is this not a conflict of interest.

    Could this be why they always do a substitute trustee? They don’t want the liability? It’s all BS. Good luck and I hope you figure out how to recoup some $!

  14. Ah Neil, thank you.
    You’ve re-enforced so much of what I needed to know and thought I knew.

  15. Correction to my previous post wondering if you affirm a transfer of beneficial interest to a servicer who is now claiming this ownership if you pay him (see quote from Chase demurrer in post below):

    “I am blown away by that statement. So if you pay a servicer you have “acknowledged and ratified the transfer of interest”? “ Change it to “acknowledged and ratified the transfer of interest” to the servicer? “ (see quote from Chase demurrer in post below)

    Chase never identified itself to be any other than a servicer to the homeowner. No transfer of interest was ever recorded in the public record. There was never an assignment from WAMU or the FDIC. The Purchase and Assumption agreement was never sent to the homeowner. The Purchase and Assumption agreement never listed any loans or transfer of deeds and notes and most if not all were sold to trusts and paid in full years before the assumption and the P and A is irrelevant. The last owner of the mortgage before the trust was WMAAC the depositor not WAMU the originator and not Chase the so called “Successor” and “Purchaser” and it wasn’t the trustee bank for the trust either (relates to bogus POA’s party with no ownership cannot give another party with no ownership POA to assign anything).

    Chase describes itself this way:

    “JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, as purchaser of the loans and other assets of Washington Mutual Bank, formerly known as Washington Mutual Bank, FA (the “Savings Bank”) from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, acting as receiver for the Savings Bank and pursuant to its authority under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d).”

    The FDIC says this on their website:

    “WAMU Bank FA “Merged with government financial assistance and subsequently operated as part of JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association in Columbus, Ohio.”

  16. I’m researching taking my servicer debt collector to Small Claims. In AZ Max I can be awarded is $2500. It only costs $12 to file. Procedure is much easier and I’m fairly confident I can go prose in Small Claims.

    My credits been damaged by the servicer, I’ve been denied lower interest rates, and My lines of credit I’ve had for over 20 years have all been reduced even though I wasn’t late on these accounts.

    I think small claims might be an avenue where you stand a good chance of prevailing. I realise this is peanuts but If my wife and I have separate claims that is 5 g towards funding my QT state suit.

  17. @joann

    I did all that…asked all the questions…demanded proof…problem is—they lie to you, and they get away with lying…and then they get away with taking your house…especially in California…

    What I would like to do now is figure out how to sue the servicer for all the money I paid to them that they had no rights to…any ideas?

  18. Wondering if debt to a pretender is affirmed if you continue to pay him.

    This case has many enlightenments but on this one issue there is a quote from the bankster attorney that interested me and seems to be a very good reason not to pay if you are going to challenge his ownership as in assignment or otherwise and authority to foreclose or accept payment (and thereby it affects issues of tender and injunctive relief if alleging that there is no debt is owed a party with no ownership).

    Leon Taylor vs. JPMorgan Chase. The case files are posted including the lengthy demurrers which this judge rejected:

    http://dtc-systems.net/2012/01/jpmorgan-wamu-dismissal-overruled/
    The quote I found interesting in this context is probably often used by Chase in cases:

    “In addition, Plaintiff acknowledged and ratified the transfer of interest to JPMorgan by making their payments due under the Loan to JPMorgan for the three years from 2008 until his default in March 2011.”

    I am blown away by that statement. So if you pay a servicer you have “acknowledged and ratified the transfer of interest”?

    It’s time for people to stop the presses and stop paying mortgages in mass. Demand to know who it is that is receiving the benefit of their payments and who is not getting paid that has a right to be paid. Who they owe and who they do not owe. How much they owe and how much they do not owe.

  19. […] Read More: Using UDCPA Fair Debt Collection Acts to get Money, Information and Fees […]

  20. Not one penney more will they get out of me!!!When they call don’t be nice tell it to them like it is:not paying it quit wasting my time and yours note the file do not call again.If you do will turn you over to the state Utilities and Trasportation system for telephone harrasment.This carries a felony conviction in a lot of ststes.Better yet just hang up!!

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: