Quiet Title is No Magic Bullet


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


Beware of those who promise you perfect salvation, especially when they lack the garments and training of clergy. If there was a magic bullet that would end foreclosures or get all the houses back, it would already be done. Hundreds of lawyers and thousands of pro se litigants have been adding quiet title to their quiver of arrows to fire at the pretender lenders. It is true that the “free house” myth gets in the way of lawyers understanding the goals in quiet title actions and the same “free house” myth raises the hackles of most judges, but it is something I recommend you discuss with competent legal counsel and not someone who knows someone who knows someone. (especially if they are asking for money).

Quiet title is a lawsuit you need to prove. As Darrell Blomberg ably pointed out last night, there are three main categories that can give rise to a lawsuit in which you ask the Judge to quiet title: cloud on title, unmarketable title and defective title. Ken McLeod showed a knowledge of procedure and thinking about strategy and tactics can certainly give the advantage to homeowners in quiet title actions. But in all cases, the situation is taken case by case, and mere pleading and quoting some less than thrilling authority is going to narrow the focus of the order quieting title at the very least or get your case dismissed.

The major point that needs to be made here is that there is no quiet title action in which it is guaranteed that you will win and even if you did, the only thing you will have accomplished is to uncouple the mortgage (deed of trust) from the note (which is probably defective as well). In a quiet title action the most that a Judge will say that as to the people you sued, you have title free and clear of any encumbrances they might assert.  In a quiet title action, the Court will hardly, if ever, mention the status of the obligation or note.

Quiet title actions, as the name implies are all about title not liability. But in many cases, the decoupling of the security instrument from the obligation could result in the pretender lender holding an enforceable obligation because of homestead exemptions and other laws. Don’t think for a minute that Judges don’t understand that your attack on the title proffered by the pretender lender is anything less than an part of an overall plan to get rid of the liability for the loan. But without properly alleging your case and proving it with witnesses, you are just another “deadbeat” trying to get out of a “legitimate” debt.

There is some confusion out there that has led people to assert and believe that mere pleading of the requirements for quiet title will or might get you the order you are seeking. That can only happen if the other side doesn’t answer and you get a default. If they defend, then you are in for a fight. So you will need a witness or other evidence that is accepted by the court as evidence to show that the party seeking to oppose your quiet title claim has no interest in the title to the property — and that had better not be based upon the fact that the loan was paid off by bailout, insurance etc. Those factors are currently deemed irrelevant in determining title.

It is true that if the loan was paid off or waived, then you have a right to demand the satisfaction and sue for it if that is the case — bot that is not exactly the same thing as a quiet title, although it could be coupled with it.

64 Responses

  1. short story…
    I filed a chapter 13 which I eventually converted to a 7 on myself only and not my wife.
    Upon filing Ch. 7 the servicer Aurora loan servicing filed a removal of stay. My first motion to dismiss was granted due to Aurora had not filed anything with the recorders office and therefore they had no legal claim.
    Aurora them filed a second motion to dismiss and this time filed a corporate assignment with the recorders office and with the new BK motion to remove the stay.
    The corporate assignments date was DECEMBER 5, 2006 (approximately 30 days after my closing) and was notarized and attested on that same date. However, upon inspection the notary stamp had an expiration date of March 2012, and in the state of Nebraska where this was notarized has a four (4) year term. Therefore this notary stamp could not have existed until 2008.

    I filed a motion to reconsider based upon fraud and at the court hearing the other party failed to show up and my motion accepted. My debt with this servicer was discharged however my wife was not.

    There have been 5 additional assignments filed by the servicer and three foreclosure attempts and each time prior to the sale I have filed an injunction stopping them with the foreclosing party failing to respond and injunction granted.

    The latest filing shows a new servicer Nationstar mortgage (6th corporate assignment) and they have now filed a quite title to try and take possession. I am needing legal help to fight my legitimate claim. I intend to answer their petition and file a counter claim for quiet title. Are you aware of any legal representation in MO that might be of help to us?
    Looking for help in Springfield MO

    Thank you for your efforts to keep us a Nation of Law.

  2. MUST READ for California:

    Quiet Title Ruling Filed 2/14/13 Maconick v. Chase Home Finance


  3. […] Filed under: AMGAR, bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, evidence, expert witness, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Pleading, securities fraud, Servicer Tagged: 60 minutes, affidavits • attesting • Daniel Edstrom • DTC-Systems • fabricating • false information • false sworn documents • foreclose • illicit business practices • improper statements • imp, AHMSI, appraisal fraud, attorney general, auction fraud, Chris Koster, credit bids, DocX Indictment, foreclosure fraud, FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT, foreclosures, forgery, housing market, housing prices, investors, linda green, LPS, Missouri, mortgage fruad, mortgages, Robo-Signing, settlement, strategic default, Wells Fargo Livinglies’s Weblog […]

  4. OOps!! I meant to say I AM NOT ONE of the deadbeat buyers!!!!!!!!! LOL…and I do continue to pay my taxes and insurance and maintain my home…

  5. There were some truths stated above by Chris, Jim…I do believe there are people on here giving false info to deceive the people…people from the banks themselves or attorneys defending the banksters.

    I take no offense by the ignorant that judges some buyers to be deadbeat. I am one so that statement does not touch my spirit. I do fall under the same issues as many of you except that MERS to date has not claimed any part of my loan and this is the third time I am being sued for the same loan by the same people albeit there must be different owners of the so called trusts as so far 2 different trusts are mentioned…nevertheless, I got the first one dismissed without prejudice pro se in the early 2000’s then in 2008 another attempt and I was not even behind but wanted some info on insurance and opened a can of worms to which another foreclosure lis pendis was filed this time with fraudulent robo signed docs…I recognized the fraud right away and tried to bring this case to a closure by filing pro se for an emergency hearing to have the case dismissed due to these fraudulent docs and also to prove that I was not behind…dont know what they did with my payments but I do have records…I keep very good records that these people dont even know I still have records of the very first attempt…then the judge refused to hear my case, denied the motion after he got together with Stern , and after the judge office did say I could file the motion and they would give me a date but they tricked me and had me fax to Stern what I was going to file the next day…am not so naive this time…then the attorney rushed to chat with the judge and when I went there my docket was sent to the judge office I found out…I kept vigilant watch over that docket as sometimes docs disappear…found out about the judge and Stern attorney and their strategy then the denial to have the hearing…I had a robo signed docs by JS but the term was not used at the time but I want to believe that I was one of the first to spot the fraud knowing the situation with my docs and having historical docs that were over 12 years…I did not participate in the sub prime…had my home paid off couple times and free and clear for awhile before…no plans to sell or to loose it…then now another attorney has filed on behalf of the plaintiff with those same robo signed docs…including the resurrection of a lost note with sudden endorsement…wow…and also, I have no problem not paying any more more payments…since 2008…I used to pay advanced principal so that cut off some interest and years so I considered those payments and have no guilt living ‘rent free’ LOL…and when I added all that I have paid to date, it is a lot more than the loan so I consider it paid off…add up your payments and see what you really owe….so I am also filing for QT…will let you know what happens….so please be kindhearted one to another…there are hurting homeowners out there without their lawful homes…God is watching…calling me names will only bounce back so dont waste your time for those that judge so easily…

  6. And, tnharry—what about all the CRAP that was filed BEFORE—WHY DON’T YOU EVER CALL THAT STUFF “CRAP”???

    I think you ARE the enemy…unbelievable.

  7. Dude, the LAWYER said NO—not me! Those are his words—Geez!!

  8. And you think filing crap in the chain of title that could impact one’s ability to sell or transfer doesn’t meet those elements? I’ve recovered on slander of title claims in similar instances.

  9. @tn and Jim

    I asked a lawyer re. the Grant Deed/slander of title question—here’s what he said:

    No it wouldn’t be considered slander of title. To recover damages for slander of title to real property, the plaintiff must prove six elements:

    (1) there was a direct or indirect disparagement of the owner’s title,

    (2) the disparaging statement was published,

    (3) the matter published was untrue,

    (4) when the statement was published it was not privileged and without justification,

    (5) the statement was made with malice, and

    (6) the published matter was the proximate cause of pecuniary loss or damage to the owner of the interest.

    Slander of title occurs when a person, without privilege to do so, publishes a false statement that disparages title to real or personal property and causes pecuniary loss. (Truck Ins. Exchange v. Bennett (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 75, 84; Howard v. Schaniel (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 256, 263.) The gravamen of the cause of action is protection of the transferability of property. (Truck Ins. Exchange, supra, at p. 84.) Actionable conduct is based on whether the person creating a cloud on title could reasonably foresee that the false publication might determine the conduct of a third person lender, buyer or lessee, and is not based on whether a legal cloud has been created on the owner’s title. (Id.)

    In order to establish liability for slander of title, the owner of the property interest must suffer an economic loss as the direct result of the slanderous publication. The compensatory damage that is recoverable in an action for slander of title is the pecuniary loss relating to the person whose title was slandered resulting from the impairment of vendibility thus caused, together with any other detriment proximately caused, by the same wrong. These damages generally are limited to (1) the expenses of legal proceedings, including attorney’s fees, necessary to remove the doubt of the title cast by the disparagement, and (2) the financial loss resulting from the impairment of the marketability of the property. (Alpine Mut. Water Co. v. Superior Court for Ventura County (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 45, 53; Hill v. Allan (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 470, 489.)

  10. Well, it’s all bs. They’ve just figured out a way around the total bs…for now…

  11. unless you can show he was complicit in the “fraud”, then yes, he still wins in my opinion. there’s no reason for him to think anything is other than proper. and that’s why people file suit in a court of record and record a lien lis pendens that references the suit – it constitutes notice to the world.

    the suggestion that “everyone just knows this stuff is damaged goods” is just simply not true. i would bet that enraged’s estimate of 5% is high. i would imagine less than 1% know there are problems.

    and even if people have a very passing knowledge of the “foreclosure debacle”, issuance of a title policy with no exceptions makes everything a-ok for buyers and transferors. this, despite what Neil has said numerous times without documentary proof. foreclosures and reo sales take place every day of the week with full title policies insuring good title.

  12. @tn

    You said:

    “…the buyer at foreclosure sale is entitled to clear, marketable title, particularly when that buyer is a 3rd party bona fide purchaser.”

    What about all those fraudulent docs that were recorded by the foreclosure mill and servicer—how is that “clear and marketable”?

    Even if I hadn’t re-recorded my Grant Deed, the title is screwed up—even the detective I talked to with the “Real Estate Fraud Task Force” agreed about that…

  13. @mkd,

    Here’s a scary thought: roughly 5% of homeowners understand what is happening because that’s about how many have been affected, directly or indirectly, and chose to fight versus fold. Since 2006, houses have been taken, sold, flipped (resold), sometimes a few times.

    In about 15 or 20 years, probably half the houses in the USA will have been repo’ed, sold, bought, etc. The rest will not have a clear title, even if they still are in homowoners’ hands. This “clear title” thing will no longer be relevant. People will actually buy and sell without any consideration of whether they have any exposure to any bank’s claim for prior misdeeds. And they won’t care. They won’t care any more than they do about loading up on sugar, drooling fat over their thighs and taking 7 medicines every single day.

    They simply won’t care. As long as TV is on, they will not care one iota. Not anymore than the Romans cared about anything except booze and sex at the end of its empire.

    Absolute decadence. We’re done. We’re finished.

  14. @tnharry the public doesn’t know what???? Are you saying that everyone who buys a foreclosed home has no idea that there may be a problem? My point was there are people who do know and don’t care. I wasn’t giving anyone notice of anything legal and nothing I said was meant to be used in court. This guy was bragging about the great deal he got and so what if the title is clouded. I was thinking what others were saying outloud. “wait until this idiot wants to sell it” The other people who heard what was said seemed to get it and I have no idea if they were affected by foreclosure in anyway.

  15. I thought there should be magic in the FDCPA letter as so many issues that should be considered. However the FDCPA letter had been disregarded by the judge and down played by the defendants. I thought it was no magic bullet until the last few days when several judgments came to surface for the homeowner due to the FDCPA and CPA violations. So now I am hopeful the Appeals court will once again see the FDCPA non compliance and the CPA and Deed of Trust non compliance along with the fraud upon the court and reverse my case and grant us QT& Clear title..

  16. Please stop suggesting that sending an FDCPA letter should stop.a foreclosure. For one thing, most jurisdictions hold that FDCPA doesn’t even apply to nonjudicial foreclosures. Second, they don’t stop foreclosures. Foreclosures mills don’t lose houses, bad information on livinglies loses houses ….

  17. I and my son and many I recommended to send the FDCPA letter here in Washington state were never answered at all. Not even in part. I and my son filed the FDCPA letter in county records and in our cases in the court as a claim of non compliance of the FDCPA letter. Our cases were dismissed out of court and are in the Appeals with the FDCPA letter as part of the issue. The foreclosures in Washington State did not take the FDCPA letters seriously. Neither did the federal judge. We will see what the Appeals court does. We both filed non compliance with being registered to be doing business in the state of Washington, long before Rob McKenna filed the same complaint about my sons foreclosing company, RECONTRUST. I filed the same about Duetsche bank and have proof of their non compliance. I filed everything but the kitchen sink on my case and so did my son. We worked on our cases together. Researching and discussing the issues. I should think it will not be long before we hear something. We filed about a month from each other. RECONTRUST withdrew on county records from my sons case and asked his approval to change the party the lawyers represented on the face of the Appeal nowto the bankrupt Countrywided. Which I thought a bankrupt company could not sue either at this point. Regardless my son refused. He has filed fraud upon the court due to lack of standing and they want to change now at the very end of the Appeal. HUH AH! ON pins and needles waiting.

  18. @mkd – standing in line at the grocery store doesn’t put one on notice of anything. That’s either a deliberate misstatement or complete ignorance of the legal concept of notice. And aside from the people living it or the people otherwise involved in it, the public DOESN’T know.

  19. A very relevant caution to throw out there, I found a couple of instances where this was true, I believe I got the sense in a writing or two that a servicer seemed to have got in. Yes, be very careful, not to all out trusting. In cyberspace it happens more than we know. Thank you for the reminder.

  20. It might of felt like hell to the servicer, caught with their pants down,it seems. They don’t mind doing it to any of us, but do mind when they get caught off guard by a judge with his/her head on straight and proceed by asking or confronting the right questions.

  21. should have said isn’t true

  22. To say 3rd party buyers of foreclosed homes had no knowledge of any issues with the property is true. Just stand in line at the grocery store and listen to people talk about the foreclosed home they bought for the real good deal and so what if there are title issues because they were told by the realtor that the deadbeat homeowner will never get the house back. They know they just don’t care.

  23. In Re: ANONYMOUS, on April 2, 2012 at 2:58 pm:

    “MN Court Case
    Posted on April 4, 2012, 8:48AM

    A Minnesota attorney has been sanctioned by a U.S. District Court for filing what the court called “frivolous show-me-the-note actions” challenging foreclosure proceedings. Judge Patrick J. Schiltz in the District of Minnesota dismissed several lawsuits brought by William B. Butler of the Butler Liberty Law, LLC and ordered him to personally pay the sum of $50,000 to the court as well as an undetermined sum for legal expenses incurred by the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) and its co-defendants in some of the suits. The Judge also sent a copy of his order to the Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board for their review.

    According to a press release from MERS, Butler had filed nearly 30 lawsuits in which the plaintiff argued that the entity that held their defaulted mortgage was not the same entity that held the note and thus the mortgage on the home and the foreclosure of that mortgage was invalid. In his decision in Welk, et al. v GMAC, Schiltz said that Butler had “made a cottage industry” out of these actions despite the fact that “this argument has been rejected by the Minnesota Supreme Court, by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and by every federal judge sitting in Minnesota who has addressed the argument.”

    The Judge ruled that the sanction of $50,000 was justified due to “the extraordinarily egregious and brazen nature of Butler’s conduct” through his pleadings and harm done to his clients by “exploiting them financially” by earning fees “if multiplied by the number of cases he has brought, indicated he has earned tens (or even hundreds) of thousands of dollars marketing show-me-the-note cases over the Internet.”


  24. @ Enraged

    Okay…well, I spoke my piece. I will say I am not prone to paranoia, ever. Shame on you…

    I’m done here too.

  25. Now, now, tn—wasn’t directed at you…just having a little fun.

    And I am moving on—but this story is just too damn big to ignore…

  26. @carie…I don’t think you read my post. I did say file the complaint in a federal court…emails don’t cut it. They get you nothing!

  27. @carie – if the “enemy who pretends to help” was directed at me, then i don’t know what to say. i gave you a lot of advice that you chose to ignore in favor of the “unsecured debt collector” plan and what can only be described as complete lack of action in court.

    since you neither filed bankruptcy nor filed suit against the bank to stop or prevent the sale despite many of us suggesting those courses of action, you current string of posts on the subject smells of sour grapes.

    flame me in the comments if you want, but you picked your plan of attack or lack thereof and i thought you had accepted the consequences based on your posts about moving on with life, renting a better house, and painting again.

  28. @Enraged,

    It ‘aint over till the fat lady…you know…

    Anyway, I “played my cards” the way I did for a reason…and it was a financial one…I won’t go into the details, but I had a short window to make decisions…I may have made different decisions if the house wasn’t such a wreck, and in need of a TON of work—and way too small for my family…our rental house is much nicer, and the “investor” basically got a DUMP that he will have to spend a lot of money on to fix up for selling.
    With me, it’s the principle. I put myself in the position of the average lay person with no money who is attempting to figure out and fight the greatest fraud of all time…to see what they would be up against, and what their options would be.
    I’m learning—and I’m not done fighting back.

  29. @chris,

    Paranoia is the enemy of action. Even if we are found out, what is the worst that can happen to us?

    Have you read Matt Weidner’ posts? Some of them are pretty “up there”. Don’t you think he’d long be gone if the object of your paranoia had any validity? What about Martin Andelman? And there are many others who are very vocal about the greatest mandmade financial scandal ever visited upon humanity.

    By expressing your paranoia all the time, you may very well unwillingly dissuade someone from taking on the fight. Counterproductive for all of us.

  30. These “investor/vultures” KNOW what is going on—they KNOW these foreclosures are illegal—they KNOW the recorder’s offices are crime scenes…and if they are not part of a solution, then they are part of the problem, and they are the ENEMY.

  31. @Carie,

    Your problem is that you NEVER got your case into court, be it federal (as I suggested) or state. You didn’t want to file for BK which would have been the easiest way for you to turn your case into a judicial one in CA where it is so damn difficult to find representation. Instead, you unfortunately played the securitization-loan-was-never-funded. That was a gamble and you lost.

    Of all the people who could maybe try to contest the foreclosure after the fact, you seem the most unlikely to succeed because of how you played your cards. i know you’re going to chew me out but it is the darn earnest truth. BK WAS your only avenue and you turned it down. Let your experience serve others tempted to argue what you argued.

  32. @Jim,

    Think about that: foreclosures have been going on since 2006 or 2007. Many seized houses were sold a long time ago. How would you propose to “reverse” the foreclosures without causing additional casualties? And even assuming it were feasible and someone were able to pull it off (which I don’t believe it is legally without causing great harm to the purchaser) where would you put the cut off date? How far would you see it going back? Would you go back to 2006? Would you go back even earlier, at the beginning of MERS and the banks’ hanky panky? We know that the paperwork was defective as early as 2000…

    Can you imagine what might unravel? No court, no Congress, no government, no one with some authority will ever go for it. Now that would be the surest way to start riots everywhere!!! I know there is a case in MA (Bevilacqua, i believe) where the court ruled that, even though the guy had bought the house and done quite a bit of work in it, it still belonged to the former, foreclosed homeowner (was it Alvares…?) Alvares moved on with his life long ago and doesn’t want the house back. Bevilacqua can’t move into it and rent it even though he invested something like $400,000 into it.. He doesn’t have the title. What a mess!

    And it goes back to trying to fix piece-meal a problem of such magnitude that only a serious legislative intervention and a moratorium will fix it. Many people didn’t/couldn’t fight the foreclosure when it took place (fear, lack of understanding of their rights or inability to find an attorney willing to argue the securitization angle, as in Carie’s case). As much as i hate to say it, what is done is done. A lot of people might have benefited from filing BK at the time and chose not too. They just walked away. That was a choice in many cases. For them, it is time to move on. I’m not denying that a lot of suffering wasn’t caused. Failing to move on simply compounds it and prevents people from rebuilding their lives.

  33. @ Javagold

    The consideration to clean everything down to the drywall is on my mind…have a huge yard sale, as my home has been completely renovated…that’s my stuff, not theirs. They can get it back the way I bought it, very dated and falling apart.

  34. @chris,

    Yes, I know the “enemy” reads these posts…sometimes they even respond—pretending to “help”…
    I even feel like we can’t trust our beloved Neil—he seems to be in the modification game now…sigh…

  35. before the fraudclose sale , bulldoze the house and walk away

  36. Yeah, right—file suit in non-judicial California? That’s a good one…

  37. @ tnharry and jim

    Has it ever occurred to anyone here some of the writers and/or owners of this sight may be in the “investing” business? Remember, these sites have your IP address, real name, etc…not hard to search from there, just saying…Do your homework folks and be careful who you trust and believe…they may just have another interest, which is not yours!

    ’nuff said…

  38. @carie – read enclave’s post again. he(or she?) espouses FILING SUIT under FDCPA. i think your mileage may vary under local jurisdictions on that issue, but at least it’s something. letters don’t mean anything, complaints and subpoenas do…

  39. carie – i don’t want to rub salt in a wound, but sending letters to the attys and the servicer does not equal filing suit, period. filing suit and filing a lien lis pendens would equal notice to the world. and sending letters to the buyer AFTER the sale doesn’t put him on notice PRIOR to the sale. he’s a bona fide purchaser.

    you chose your path and I’m not criticizing it or you, but it sounds very much like the buyer bought it without notice. you wrote letters, but you didn’t file suit. and that’s very likely fatal to the argument. if you tried to do something now, it’s not hard to imagine a conversation between the judge and you along the lines of “you knew this was happening and disagreed with it but didn’t do anything to protect your rights or your property so why should this court disgorge the property from mister bona fide purchaser?”. again, I’m not disparaging you personally, i’m just discussing it neutrally.

  40. @enclave

    I DID cite FDCPA over and over before the foreclosure mill sold my house—the foreclosure mill sent back a stupid letter FULL of TOTAL LIES—like this:

    “Under FDCPA please be advised the original lender/creditor was MERS, as nominee for IndyMac Bank,FSB (DEFUNCT)…your current lender/creditor is DBNTC (A TRUSTEE OF AN MBS!!)…”


    Then, at the end of the letter:

    “The matter of the Fair Debt is now considered closed…at this time the foreclosure action will proceed.”


  41. And I DID “dispute it—over and over with the foreclosure mill and the servicer—I have a ton of stuff in writing where I am asking for proof of ownership, real creditor, standing, etc…they just say whatever they want and sell your house…

  42. @ALL…if pro se had it all to do over again, he would have filed an FDCPA complaint in a federal court first. Then gone for QT. Live and learn. This is not advice but if you can show false and misleading information that confused harassed or threatened the borrower preforclosure then logically you have your foot in the door for a QT. If you have a strong FDCPA violation complaint the banks dominoes start to fall.

  43. I told the 3rd party in an email after the sale that it was an illegal sale based on fraudulent, fabricated and forged documents filed at the county recorder’s office…and the sale was “as is”—with no covenant or warranty, expressed or implied,…all right,title,and interest in and to that certain property…

  44. @ALL…the pro se I do research for has made it through the first hearing and survived a motion to dismiss. Even though the opposing att. Was holding a counterfeit note in one hand and a landmark Virginia case in the other. The judge did NOT even look at the note…he turned to the opp. Att. and said, “I want a complete “Chain of Title” in 21 days.” THAT, my friends, was a GOOD DAY IN HELL!

  45. @jim – yes, i included good faith in my list of assumptions playing devil’s advocate. and if the 3rd party says they lacked notice of any problems, then you have to rebut that by showing they either had notice or a reasonable person would have. nothing filed in any courts shatters that claim.

    and yes, in all likelihood, the bona fide purchaser would be protected from a void transferor claim. then you maybe get damages from the mortgagee instead of the property.

  46. Even assuming you’re right. She has a right to defend based on no interest in the property by transfer or. Void?

  47. You assume good faith. I assume it’s an inside deal

  48. Can this concept be taken further with asking the old pretender lender to produce the note before a refinance is complete?

  49. @Jim – play devil’s advocate with it and put yourself in the buyer’s shoes. you paid actual money for the property in good faith without knowledge of any issues. there was no pending litigation or bankruptcy filed that might put you on any kind of notice. and if there was a good faith dispute with merit, why didn’t the mortgagor dispute the foreclosure before or during the sale process. just my (admittedly oftentimes unpopular) opinion, but those are all pretty good arguments for that 3rd party purchaser to keep the property. and these are assumptions just for the purpose of argument, not necessarily specific or even factually accurate to carie’s situation

  50. But she could defend saying the property was not owned by the transfer or? Get discovery mix it up ?

  51. @Jim – not opening it that wide really. of course it would depend on the circumstances. but in carie’s example, she’s talking about filing new deed following the sale not back to the mortgagee, but to a third party. all other arguments aside, the buyer at foreclosure sale is entitled to clear, marketable title, particularly when that buyer is a 3rd party bona fide purchaser. and before i incur the wrath of the “not a mortgage, not a debt” crowd, show me a case where the sale has been undone judicially where the property sold to a 3rd party. sure, it can happen and sometimes does happen when it reverts back to the bank, but true 3rd party purchasers are almost always protected.

  52. Tnharry

    Who would bring slander of title. They’d be opening the door pretty wide I think

  53. Tnharry

    Must agree. These post are useless, uninformative, and as you say, contradictory as nothing is ever explained with any precision. All glittering generalities. Bu then most of the responses are off topic anyway. Chaos rules

  54. @carie – that doesn’t work and you’re opening yourself up to a slander of title suit from the buyer. all of your rights in the property were eclipsed by the foreclosure. you can attack the foreclosure in court, but you’re wasting money filing stuff at the register’s office.

    everyone recommending lien lis pendens or other recorded documents at the registers office to create clouds on the title to delay or otherwise prevent foreclosure would be wise to look up slander of title.

  55. anyone getting carsick from the constant twists and turns? “quiet title is the ticket to success”, “quiet title is no magic bullet”, “quiet title doesn’t fix the debt”. too much disjointed and conflicting information. once again, the lack of clear leadership and direction of the site becomes clear.

  56. Carie

    No expert and I don’t precisely understand issue you allude to but it seems to me that once a foreclosure sale takes place your rights are cut off except the right to attack the foreclosure itself. Perhaps others more expert can clarify …

  57. Does anyone know about doing a Quiet Title AFTER the (illegal) auction sale—if a re-recorded Grant Deed (done as a name correction) is recorded AFTER the newly recorded Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale?

  58. Here we go again. Lots of negativity with no solutions. This website is very tired and had nothing left to offer

  59. The entire point of his dialogue I think, means even if you can successfully “quiet the title” it does not mean the mortgage obligation is not payable. It is a title issue, not a note issue. Everything else is a moot point?

    I, personally have not known anyone who has won a quiet title case and eliminated the note. If there is anyone out there who has, please come forth and let us know.

  60. Here is an email that someone sent me. Could you comment on this. Thanks


    MDHOPE.ORG (an officially State of MD recommended Non-Profit organization advising people on the National Mortgage Debt forgiveness bank settlement in Feb 2012)

    Debt Elimination

    Debt Elimination Scheme

    A debt elimination scheme involves a person or a company that promises a homeowner can get rid of their mortgage by sending certain letters to their lender asking that it prove the validity of the debt.

    Premise Behind Debt Elimination Scheme

    The premise behind the scheme is that the scammers falsely advise homeowners the Federal Reserve is a sham organization that defrauds homeowners by leading them to believe that a Lender’s Note is not proof of debt owed. This information is absolutely false and a complete scam. The problem the scammers have is that lender’s debts are real because they gave homeowners money to purchase and/or refinance, and the execution of the Deed of Trust and Note is evidence that a debt is owed. The scammers charge thousands of dollars in upfront fees to homeowners in exchange for a set of letters that they are encouraged to send to the lender to dispute the debt. The homeowner is encouraged to not make any more payments on the loan because the mere sending of the “letters” is supposed to be enough to invalidate the debt. Because this is a scam to get homeowners to pay money to the Debt Elimination company, the homeowners always ends up in a foreclosure. Sounds confusing huh? The scam gets worse because the Debt Elimination company will show up at the foreclosure and buy the homeowner’s home after they told them not to pay!!! This scam has been one of the longest running to date.

  61. For the sake of understanding, could you explain these points, please.

    …the situation is taken case by case, and mere pleading and quoting some less than thrilling authority is going to narrow the focus of the order quieting title at the very least or get your case dismissed

    …In a quiet title action, the Court will hardly, if ever, mention the status of the obligation or note.??? Interesting so what do that do from that point

    …But without properly alleging your case and proving it with witnesses, you are just another “deadbeat” trying to get out of a “legitimate” debt.

    ….and that had better not be based upon the fact that the loan was paid off by bailout, insurance etc.

    ….although it could be coupled with it.

  62. I have been fighting these crooks for awhile. and they have fallen into a trap. I had a unlawful detainer against me and I won. Then it was reversed a month latter with no motion or appeal from the losing side.(ex-parte) communications. We put in a motion to dismiss that was ignored. and also a motion for recuse to the judge. based on his anability to show us his financials. (conflict of interest).

  63. I believe the right way to approach is by making the banks do a quiet title. where as then they have to produce (the note). You will never be able to get it from them in the first place .I have cloudied up the title so as to force them into a quiet title. OR THE HOUSE SITS VACANT. Because they cant sell it when title is cloudied.

  64. More resignations, even at Goldman Sachs.


Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: