Why the Banks Are Paying You to Sign the Deed in a Shortsale


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


“The bottom line is that the value of a homeowner’s signature is going up and might be the best investment in existence. The walls are closing in on trillions of dollars in real estate that could be the subject of summary proceedings repatriating the property to their rightful owners using the most basic principles of property law.” — Neil F Garfield, livinglies.me

It isn’t just hype. Law firms like the one shown below are realizing that there really is money in servicing homeowners who are underwater. But lawyers should also beware of this offer. Think about it. What economic reason would there be to pay a distressed homeowner to enter into a short-sale? If they really thought they had the right to foreclose and/or collect on the promissory note they are using, the last thing they would do is pay a person who is  already delinquent in their payments.

The banks have realized that in a short sale they don’t sign the deed — that job goes to the homeowner who is usually giving a warranty that title is all fine and dandy. The pretender lender is not doing the lying; they are getting the homeowner to do their lying. All that is fine if there was only one owner of the property or one prior mortgagee who is joining in the transaction and registering the appropriate releases, satisfactions and warranties.

If a third party or prior owner makes a claim against title, the pretender lender has succeeded in placing another layer between them and claimants who want title vested or re-vested as a result of wrongful, illegal foreclosures — or wrongful or illegal satisfactions (release and reconveyance). They now have a stronger argument about why the “chain of title” while imperfect, should not be disturbed because of the transactions that were in the public records and notice to the world.

If you are buying one of these short-sales or other REO property, take a good long look at the title policy they are offering and make sure you get advice of competent legal counsel — because most of the new “replacement” policies have language that excludes risks associated with the chain of title being mangled by securitization or claims arising out of securitization. So if you buy, you are getting naked paperwork that may or may not be ratified later — or could be the target of a wave a repatriating property to their rightful owners because the foreclosures are and were wrongful. With no title insurance proceeds you could be out of a lot of money and still have a liability if you financed the purchase.

I’ve heard some talk of the statute of limitations being applied against claims of repatriating property. I don’t know of any statute of limitations on defects in the title chain but there might be some on theft, fraud and adverse possession that could provide some cover for the older mortgages. That alone could be an interesting question. Imagine representing the bank and arguing “yes your honor, we admit that we stole this property and illegally evicted the owner. However, under the statute of limitations I have shown you, the homeowner has no cause of action because it is barred by the expiration of time.”

THAT is where civil rights violations should be alleged in Federal courts. If the states failed to safeguard the rights of homeowners in their procedures for foreclosures then the civil rights of the homeowners may well be the last and only claim the homeowner can make even after it is admitted that the foreclosures are wrongful and illegal.

The lesson here is stop waiting to see what happens. Get on your horse and have your bags packed with as much proof as you can and start your actions now. At this point, you need to show that the general policies resulted in wrongful, illegal foreclosures with “strangers” taking title to property on which they loaned no money and never financed or purchased the property; and then show that those policies that have been the subject so many studies, orders, decrees, fines, penalties, settlements etc. are the same same policies that were used in your case.

Remember, the burden of proof shifts when you cross the line of establishing a prima facie case. At that point the pretender is dead in the water unless they still have more rabbits in that hat.


by Harold Shepley & Associates, LLC, see http://www.jdsra.com

Banks, anxious to move troubled mortgages off their books, have started offering cash incentives to homeowners to sell their properties for less than what they owe – typically called a “short sale.”

In the past, banks have balked or dragged their feet at short sales. However, lately, they have decided that short sales are more advantageous than foreclosures, which can take a year or more to process. Additionally, banks take about 15% less of a loss on a short sale than they do on a foreclosure.

Some banks are now offering cash incentives to homeowners to have them sell their homes at a loss—sometimes up to $35,000. Experts believe that banks just want to get rid of bad loans. They can often afford to forgive the debt and offer incentives yet still make a profit, because they usually purchase the loan from another bank at a discount.

For a bank, approving a short sale can cut a year or more off the process of unloading a home and its accompanying loan. A short sale takes about 123 days on average. On the other hand, it takes nearly a year to foreclose on a home and then another 175 days to re-sell the property.

Allowing your home to go into foreclosure is may not be your only option. Every situation is different. For a in depth look at your situation you should contact a full service debt relief law firm like Harold Shepley & Associates that can answer any questions you may have about debt relief, mortgage modification, and short sales.

64 Responses

  1. @ian – who care about a “finders fee” paid to the lender? was it on the settlement statement? if so, then he could have either complained then or not done the deal. if not, it may or may not matter in the long run. a finders fee to the builder has very little to do with OneWest/Deustche

  2. tnharry- brian davies has been in litigation for about 3 years, I have followed all his posts and have emailed a few times. Some of the items he was addressing and the way he was addressing them seemed ‘exotic’ at the time. He started with his documents, the judges have come and gone, he has switched law firms, he pointed out that the fee which his builder received for the ‘loan’ commission was more than what they (the builder) netted for building his home. ($25000). Why would anyone pay a finders fee of $25000 for a $550,000 loan?

  3. @Anon – “Do you have objection to this???” i’m not sure what you’re asking here. i have no objection to Davies making legal arguments. it sounds like he’s really on to something. i don’t have objection to anyone making valid arguments. my objections go to the more exotic claims and theories that are unproven and lead people into complacency and failure to adequately or properly defend

  4. tnharry

    Need to use the law. It is there. Sounds like Davies is using it.

    Do you have objection to this???

    CA law can easily be trumped by federal law. Conflict? Federal law preempts and applies.

    Hey, CA Senator wrote the new Amendment to Federal law. Just waiting for courts to review. So far, no review.

    Coming., as it eventually must.

    And, if CA neglects to properly address, will be in conflict with other Federal District Courts — that will eventually get the issues put forth before them.

    Need to focus on Federal Law.

  5. Also Brian are they trying to “foreclose” on you or trying to use the “power of sale” clause? The reason I ask is that in California law there is a very big difference. A lot of people do not understand this and use the wrong defenses.

  6. Brice Vander Linden and Wernick, PC is a very well known debt buying firm. Looks like someone sold the bad paper to them, and now they are coming in trying to see if they can get anything out of it. Why don’t you just file the FDIC paper denying DBNTC claim and deeming them a general creditor? That should stop them in there tracks. With that alone it lacks the court of subject matter jurisdiction. There is no cause in action for the court to proceed on. For there is no privy between you and Onewest or DBNTC thus no QFC only Non QFC.

    The QFC is the issue to use as this is how DBNTC lost there case in federal court against the FDIC.

  7. Check this out http://foreclosurenation.org/?p=700 A homeowner still in court, and working toward appeal court has the trustee, Northwest Services selling her home! It is clear evidence that the bastards will do anything to sell and unload a home, even by bringing an innocent party to buy it without disclosing the home is in litigation. Nothing amazes me anymore with these crooks.

  8. Do you want to know WHY we don’t get any help? Because… all the help is going to people and places that have absolutely nothing to do with us, peons stupid enough to have fallen for the “America is a country of laws”.

    If people don’t revolt after reading this, and the many, many other documented instances of systematic highway robbery committed on our tax dollars, then, so be it: they will have deserved their misery.


  9. @davies – never mind, i looked it up myself. they haven’t

  10. @davies – have you objected to their claim? have they filed one?

  11. If you hate Onewest, then you will love this one. The third attempted Motion for Relief from Stay by Onewest and Deutsche Bank. This one is the worst and filed by a mill out of Texas named Brice Vander Linden and Wernick, PC, They are incompetent. Read and enjoy. Ironically Davies did not endorse page 3 of his Deed of Trust. This is the MERS page. LOL.


  12. @Kathy Charlette

    Thanks, but—every time you say “mortgage”—as in “you couldn’t pay your mortgage”, you are actually perpetuating the fraud…–.it’s not a “mortgage”…it’s false default debt—fraudulently masquerading as a “mortgage”…I simply refused to give those criminals any more of my money.

  13. @Nabdulla,

    “Venerable Sen Sei, may i ask you a question?
    – Yes, grasshopper, you may.
    – Why, Sen Sei, do you call me “grasshopper”?
    – Because you ugly like bug.”

    Got it. But, as usual and with everything else, there are two sides to any the story. |iit all depends how you look at it.

    As an example, i haven’t really screamed that much about that settlement because, as soon as i read the complaint on which it is based, i immediately saw how to use it to my advantage: whatever fraud has been perpetrated and is ongoing can not be ignored. Therefore calling on that complaint to support his claim gives the homeowner a better stand against banks before a judge.

    Then again, I tend to be so optimistic that i lose track of people’s rottenness. Are bad judges going to act as i said they will (i.e., say that the fraud is water under the bridge and the settlement made it feel all better and cleaned up everything once and for all)? I’m sure some of them will. Deep down, though, i expect judges to have a very, very queasy feeling about the whole settlement bit. It touches at the very core of what they represent and the very fabric of a thriving society and they know it. They may thik it’s not their problem to fix it but, deep down, they know it will be.

    Funny how, when we review human’s history according to the Bible, judges existed long before kings, senators, princes, emperors and what not. Judges were the first people with any kind of decisive authority and whatever they said stood (and, by the way, some of the better ones were women… Like Deborah. 🙂 )

    Have we come full circle?

  14. Better than a sunday newspaper = FDIC Complaint against
    AVM CoreLogic Appraiser Service for WAMU/CHASE =


    How was your appraisal from INDIA ?

  15. @ enraged & tnharry

    Every chess player knows that you have to analyze the WHOLE board BEFORE your every move and every move your opponent makes has a PURPOSE in support of a PLAN.

    Sidebar: Know that I have the utmost respect for both of you dudes even though Nancy Drew (and others) would probably burn enraged in oil and carie would probably hang tnharry by his thumbs (“completely irrational is me for having the same conversation over and over with you with no change.”) 🙂

    @ enraged

    “At the risk of sounding completely obtuse and thick….”
    You need to cut it out. Every one on this blogs knows that you’re neither “obtuse (or) thick”. Spare me the false show of modesty.

    The Note and Mortgage are contracts between “private actors”. NOT the state Attorney General. tnharry stated that: “The constitutional right of due process protects people only from violations of their civil rights by state actors, not private actors….. a court or other governmental entity being involved would trigger due process arguments.” – I totally agree with him 100%. PURPOSE (what is the threat of my opponent’s move kt-QB4? Is it part of a capture PLAN or a mate PLAN? If a mate plan, and I don’t see it to counter – game over). PURPOSE – Not being a party to the private contracts – WHY is there an Attorney General/Bank “settlement”. Robosigning “issue”? In a foreclosure action – at least in The State of New York – that would be an affirmative defense and a fraud on the Court. And if that defense is declared “without merit” BECAUSE OF the “settlement” – my state Attorney General has become “a party and partner” to the due process violation. (Note – I’m only using robosigning here as an example. My point is that if ANY DEFENSE raised in a state court foreclosure action can be nullified by the “settlement” – I will scream due process violation(s) to the top of my lungs (“a court or other governmental entity being INVOLVED would trigger due process arguments.”).

    “BUT… in what way and circumstances does that settlement specifically and precisely “restricts my ability to raise certain defense(s) in state court”?”
    Answer: I DON’T KNOW – yet. But I DO KNOW that there was/is a PURPOSE for the “settlement” and the federal court sanction – and I DO KNOW that the purposes WILL be revealed. Someday, sometime, somewhere, someone is going to come on here or one of the other foreclosure blogs, and tell us that a foreclosure mill attorney put the “settlement” into the his/her game and the court went for it. My questions to tnharry were in anticipation and to further prepare my counter (U.S. Court of Appeals??).

    “I have the hardest time imagining one incident in which the existence of that settlement would restrict my ability to defend myself.”
    That’s because the “one incident” HAS NOT HAPPENED – yet – that I know of. But it will Grasshopper….it will. THINK – pending foreclosures have resumed big time and 2012 anticipates record filings – this AFTER the “settlement”

    I’ll probably miss the thrill of the kill here in Kings County, NY. Because any attorney who has the cajones to go in front of Judge Solomon, Judge Schack, and a couple of other Judges in the Supreme Court with this crap and fraudulent documents will walk out of their courts with his/her head on a silver platter. It’s a shame to say it, but to prevail in this game (without violence from the citizens – etollie and his guillotine) our adversaries (NOT Wall Street or Banks in this country – in Europe) MUST clear our courts of those judges with honor, integrity, and just plain decency.

    2/1 Jack Daniels/Sprite….pass the blunt.

    @ tnharry
    “i haven’t delved too deep into the AG settlement myself, but i didn’t think it restricted your rights at all – they were settling on different issues entirely. i don’t believe they have limited your ability to sue individually on your claims at all.”
    Again, bear with me dude – your statements are not responsive to my inquiries.

    Scotty….beam me up.

  16. Ok, Kids… Play (Debate) Nice! Carie, you explained your situation with your employment loss, the lack of your ability to make your mortgage payments and you stated that your choices were in the best intrest of your family. You were Honest! You do not need to defend your choices. You did the right thing. I can see why you are angry about the way things were conducted, …. we all are angry (buyers, sellers, investers,taxpayers). But if we let this anger consume us … it’s the same thing as still being controlled by them. No Matter how much they try to beat you down… Look deep into your Heart, Find your Faith again. Let loose of your anger and take the power back from them. We need to be working with the attorneys and judges, and not grouping them all together with a label. The banks grouped and labled homeowners “Deadbeats” without the facts. Some were deadbeats and some were not. Same goes for attorneys and judges … so please be careful not to classify them as a Group”… get the facts per each case. ~~~~ @tnharry..Great Advice for those who want to keep their homes! A+ Neil needs to give you a Highlighter for your comments so that you do not have to keep repeating yourself… Best of Wishes to All!

  17. […] Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: 60 minutes, 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, short-sale, strategic default, Wells Fargo Livinglies’s Weblog […]

  18. If you read The National Banking Act of 1863, you will see that the language states the banks are “agents of the government”. Thing is, you can’t sue city hall. You get a raw deal in the courts in this country and you guys know all the reasons for that. Those of us that have lost in court are the first to fall on the enemy sword, but the legions of displaced homeowners will take advantage of legal aid, self help sites and whatever else they can find in their quivers to load the bow with, and continue driving arrows into the bullseye until the banks are dead.
    The bank’s model is fatally defective. You’d think that real smart fellas like these bankers, with their fancy, sophisticated financial instruments would be able to foresee their own demise, wouldn’t ya? Blinded by greed, and the satisfaction they get from punishing innocent “borrowers”, they just keep pushing until we lure them to the edge and throw them over.

  19. Saturday, April 14, 2012
    Michael Hudson: Debt: The Politics and Economics of Restructuring

    By Lambert Strether of Corrente.

    I imagine there will be more material to come on this year’s iNet “Paradigm Lost” conference in Berlin, but for now, here’s a teaser in the form of a video of Michael Hudson’s talk.

    And how good it is to see somebody from UMKC doing some of that “new economic thinking” this year.

    I made a transcript of part of Hudson’s presentation:

    HUDSON [6:58] What you’re seeing today and for the last thirty years has turned around and inverted the last eight centuries of legal [and] economic development in the West. [Like I said: A “revolutionary oligarchy.” –lambert] Ever since the Schoolmen of the thirteenth century developed the theory of just price and value theory, to ask what is a fair price for bankers to charge, and the answer was what is the cost of doing business.

    [Watch for an unsmiling reaction shot 7:53-8:03 –lambert]

    [7:22] Ever since that, the laws have been more and more rewritten to favor the debtors. You don’t have debtor’s prisons any more, you have personal bankruptcy laws that free individuals from debt, that free corporations from debt, but the idea of clean slates has only recently been developed on an economy wide scale. You had it for instance in the Brady Plan for Latin American third-world debt in the 1980s after Mexico said it couldn’t pay, but right now there is enormous resistance to applying that kind of a write-down to today’s situation. The problem is that not having a debt breakdown means debt deflation, and the debt deflation means a shrinking economy, and if the economic structure is not changed, there’s no way of getting out of the economic problem that you have.

    [8:30] And the problem is that there’s not only the real problem of the debt overhang that was mentioned, there’s a problem of economic theory, and the illusion that all debts can be paid. The illusion that banks lend only to customers only for projects that are going to enable the customers to actually repay the loan; the bankers make a calcuation of what the customer can repay. But that’s not what happens at all.

    [Watch for a wonderful smile at 9:30-9:36 –lambert]

    [9:00] Back in the 1960s, I was Chase Manhattan Bank’s balance of payments analyst, and my job was to focus on the Latin American countries: Argentina, Brazil, and Chile, and my job was to calculate how much of a balance of payments surplus they could generate, and the idea of the bank marketing department was the entire economic surplus could be used to pay debt service to the seven major Americam banks.

    [9:40] And pretty quickly we found out that there wasn’t any surplus to pay the banks, and there was an international department that got very upset because he said “Look, I get promoted for making loans, and the real estate guys are making all the loans, you’re telling us they can’t afford to repay!” And he took it up to David Rockefeller, we went across the street to the Federal Reserve bank, and the Federal Reserve bank said “It’s in America’s interest to make these loans to Latin America. Mr. Hudson, according to your calculations, Britain can’t afford to replay any more.” “That’s right. I don’t see any way in which it can get the money to repay the debt.” And the Federal Reserve man said “Ah! But did you take into account the fact that the US Treasury is always going to lend Britain the money to pay? We will never let it go down.” I said, “Well, that’s a deus ex machina from outside the system. Yes, you can lend them the money to repay.”

    [10:30] And since David Rockefeller was a very good American citizen he believed in doing what the government wanted him to do, and took the lead on lending to our client in Latin America.

    [10:42] The problem here is the economic models that we use. They don’t built debt into the economic models. They really don’t built the surplus into economic models in the sense that classical economists did.

    Oh, and this is interesting:

    [11:30] I want to get into the possible remedies for all of this. The basic approach to remedies I think was put forth about three hundred years ago in the state of New York when it was still a colony of England. And that’s something that’s still on the books of New York law, the fraudulent conveyance principle.

    [11:52] British sharpies would come over and make loans to– they wanted to get into their own hands the rich farmlands of upstate New York. They would make loans to farmers that would be more than they could repay, and at that time you could ask for repayment of the debt whenever you wanted. So the British creditors would ask for payment before the crop was in.

    [12:14] So the colony passed the fraudulent conveyance law. And that law said that if a lender makes a loan to a debtor that cannot be repaid in the reasonable course of business, the loan is declared null and and canceled.

    I find the focus on history and real operations — as opposed to diagrams — very refreshing. Don’t you?

    Hudson’s paper is very rich. Listen to the whole thing!

  20. There is a reason our government is actively speeding the deactivation of many nuclear plants worldwide. Read the article and watch the video. That will give you some perspective on what may very well be in store in the short term… I think we need to be aware of it. My intent is not to scare people but to give us real perspective, beyond foreclosures and securitization.

    Saturday, April 14, 2012
    Fukushima Dai-Ichi No. 4: An earthquake before spent fuel rods are moved to safe storage would be “the end”

    By Lambert Strether of Corrente.


  21. Just thought all in Calif. or everywhere would like to watch this.

  22. I was wondering why we didn’t have any new numbers. I guess it tkaes time to compile the data…

    Anyway, here is an update but we’ll have the true numbers tomorrow. We’ll see it it keeps growing, still…

    “New Bank Resignation List to Be Released Sunday

    I’m working my way through the updates. Currently through 3/25/12 there are 546 known banker resignations. There are another 3 weeks of data yet to be added and those include many famous people. I am estimating the figure will get to at least 700, perhaps more.

    Posted by American Kabuki at 11:23 AM
    Labels: Banker Resignations.”

  23. Okay, well…I didn’t feel like spending a ton of money (which I didn’t have anyway) on “probably” and “maybe”. Have you seen Brian Davies’ docs?

  24. completely irrational is me for having the same conversation over and over with you with no change. filing bk would have stopped the sale guaranteed. objecting to their claim would have also probably worked. then using that claim disallowance under rule 506(d) to void their lien would have been 100%. overall, you would have had greater than 50% chance to have the house free & clear. i told you this, enraged told you most of this. boots and others told you this. stop playing victim

  25. So…”completely irrational” is the person that realizes that since the judges (especially in California) are totally corrupt—she doesn’t have a chance?

  26. Hmm…well…just check out what happened to all the people who tried to fight Deutsche and One West in California…I didn’t have $25,000 to fight and lose anyway…duh.

  27. @carie – i’m not going down that road with you. if the lien of record was BS, then surely the owner of the encumbered property wouldn’t sit idly by while the BS lienholder foreclosed….that would be completely irrational

  28. What if the “lien of record” is BS?

  29. @iris – florida may or may not have a statute regarding return of note and penalty for failure to do so. look it up

  30. @nabdulla & @enraged – i haven’t delved too deep into the AG settlement myself, but i didn’t think it restricted your rights at all – they were settling on different issues entirely. i don’t believe they have limited your ability to sue individually on your claims at all.

    @carie – you can convey the property all you want, but it’ll be subject to any liens of record. so, you can “sell” the property or otherwise transfer it SUBJECT TO the liens of record

  31. @Iris

    They will most likely ignore your request anyway because they destroyed the Note.


    “Let it go” is the new motto for the times we live in…ESPECIALLY if it’s blatant systemic fraud involving trillions of dollars and the government…

  32. @tnharry

    you said: “…the bank doesn’t have an ownership interest in the property to convey unless and until it forecloses. absent a foreclosure, the homeowner is the sole entity capable of transferring title and ownership of the property.”

    So—how do we (legally) transfer title and ownership BEFORE they illegally foreclose—to protect our ownership rights from their illegal foreclosure?

  33. NOW they want to approve more short sales than a few years ago because they know they will collect on the Private Mortgage Insurance that most borrowers who put down less than 20% carry on their loans ( wether they know it or not ).
    They will collect on that insurance until their “loss” is recovered. If they sell the property at what is now market price, they will continue to collect.
    According to representatives at MGIC, the lender can collect as long as they keep the policy open. A policy you pay for, have no recourse to dispute and can’t even get your hands on a copy of because it’s “theirs”, not yours.
    Why approve a short sale when they’re triple dipping?
    I think it’s called Mortgage Insurance Fraud and yet….that same representative, when I pointed that out, told me ” to just let it go “.
    If your short sale offers are not being expedited, or rejected, look to see if you have PMI. That will be your answer.



  35. Nabdulla,

    At the risk of sounding completely obtuse and thick, I need some understanding of what you’re taking about (and you’re not the only one but so far, I have no specifics to hang my hat on).

    “Would an act by my state Attorney General, either independent or in concert with other state Attorneys General, that restricts my ability to raise certain defense(s) in a state court action brought by “private actors” to deprive me of my real property constitute a violation of my “rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed and secured by the United States Constitution at Amendment XIV”?”

    I expect that you are refering to the infamous “settlement” that I don’t care for anymore than most. BUT… in what way and circumstances does that settlement specifically and precisely “restricts my ability to raise certain defense(s) in state court”? That theory has been tossed around quite a bit but, again, I have the hardest time imagining one incident in which the existence of that settlement would restrict my ability to defend myself.

    I have said that, because of the settlement alleged to “make it all feel better and corret everything”, some judges who are, after all, as human as you and I (and sometimes even lazy… can’t sit on that bench with pension plan, benefits, a decent salary, for years without becoming a little complacent…) may very well decide that revisiting case after case certain issues “already put to rest by the settlement” is a waste of their time and of tax papers’ money but that, in essence, does not constitute a restriction of your rights. That doesn’t mean that your rights have been prejudiced by the AG’s actions. it only means that the judge was a bit of a bastard and should be voted out, maybe… .

    So, what do you mean exactly? Thanks in advance.

  36. The elephant in the room is that writing down principle still leaves the borrower on the hook for a non-existent lien. When you consider that the bank has literally nothing invested in the property, anything they get for it is a windfall. The Title issues will still plague the homeowners who manage to pay. Fannie and Freddie are holding nothing. They have been chest deep in this fraud from the beginning.

  37. whats funny (not) is Russell Shaw (as advertized on tv) can get you $3000 for your signature to short sell attouney generals reckon about $2000

  38. Icelandic ‘jubilee’ hopefully coming soon:

  39. @ tnharry

    “tnharry, on April 11, 2012 at 12:57 pm said:
    @mkd – The constitutional right of due process protects people only
    from violations of their civil rights by state actors, not private actors….. a court or other governmental entity being involved would trigger due process arguments.”

    Bear with me on these questions dude – don’t know whether or not you’re a “constitutional attorney” like our current so-called “President”

    Would an act by my state Attorney General, either independent or in concert with other state Attorneys General, that restricts my ability to raise certain defense(s) in a state court action brought by “private actors” to deprive me of my real property constitute a violation of my “rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed and secured by the United States Constitution at Amendment XIV”?

    If so, would this violation still exist even if santionced by a Federal District Court Judge??

    Does my ballot voteing for my state Attorney General give him/her “agency capacity” to act on my behalf in negotiations with “private actors”???

    If I feel that this act by my state Attorney General sanctioned by a Federal District Court Judge IS violative of my federal statutory and constitutional rights – can I appeal the District Court act to the U.S. Court of Appeals and otherwise persue the matter to an ultimate conclusion????

    Don’t know if I asked those correctly.

  40. !! Sign the White House Petition !!

    7321 more needed by 4/22 17,679 signed (4/13 @ 9 pm) 25,000 signatures required

    Ed DeMarco, head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency — which oversees Fannie and Freddie — has stood in the way of (principal) reductions and he’s claimed the support of Fannie and Freddie. But that’s no longer the case. Even Fannie and Freddie now support principal reductions. It’s time for Ed DeMarco to step aside by signing this Whte House petition:



    “Senator Demands Answers from Freddie Mac’s Regulator” ( Acting Director Edward DeMarco)

    ProPublica and NPR reported on Monday [1] that Freddie Mac, the taxpayer-owned mortgage-insurance company, placed multibillion-dollar bets that pay off if homeowners stay trapped in expensive mortgages with interest rates well above current rates.

    Questions the senator put to the regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, include why Freddie made the deals in the first place, when the FHFA learned of the trades, what role, if any, the FHFA played in them, and what the FHFA plans to do about the billions of dollars worth of deals Freddie still has on its books.

    Mr. DeMarco obviously believes himself to be King. ( Someone tell him we decided not to do that here, but maybe we can find him find an opening.)

    Mr. DeMarco wholeheartedly supports debt-slavery for 75% of his feifdom (keep them working 4 jobs in order to pay for the thievery of others.)

    There. I listened. NOW off with his head!

  41. @enraged – yes i have read one cover to cover recently. in fact, i just read one specifically related to a foreclosure property. nothing in there along those lines. some may be excluding things, but by no means are all of them. and the one I read is one of the big 3

    as to the title of the article – i again find it misleading. it follows the template of assuming something that is factually incorrect and then using it as the basis of an argument. the title suggests that banks have the homeowner sign the deed in short sales because they’re trying to shift some liability to the homeowner and away from themselves. i don’t honestly know if neil lacks a real estate background or if he’s being purposefully misleading in order to fan the flames of a nonstory.

    the reality is that the homeowner must sign the deed in a short sale because the homeowner IS THE OWNER. the bank doesn’t have an ownership interest in the property to convey unless and until it forecloses. absent a foreclosure, the homeowner is the sole entity capable of transferring title and ownership of the property.

  42. There will be another 10 million foreclosures before the end of 2012 if they do not Fire DeMarco and get someone who undertands the real world. !

    You have 30 days or will will begin to walk away ! Bite me you bastards !

    Apr 13, 2012 posted by: Kelli Steele – WGMD News
    Biden, Coalition of State AG’s Call on Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac to Do More to Help Homeowners Hurt by Housing Crisis

    Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden joined Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley and Attorneys General in nine other states Wednesday to call on the U.S. government to take an important step that will provide meaningful relief to homeowners who have seen their property values plummet because of the housing crisis.

    In a letter sent Wednesday to Acting Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency Edward DeMarco, the Attorneys General sought a substantial increase in the agency’s use of principal reductions to help homeowners.

    The Federal Housing Finance Agency oversees the government-sponsored entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which collectively own approximately 60 percent ofU.S.mortgages.

    Biden says more than five-million people have lost their homes due to foreclosure in the past five years.

  43. DeMarco was under the wings of Billy Goat Clinton . NO wonder this is a big mess ! Fire the S.O.B. !

    The blame game
    Comments 0Share0
    From The Washington Post

    April 13, 2012
    Edward J. DeMarco is an obscure federal bureaucrat, but not as obscure as he probably would like. As acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while they are in federal conservatorship, DeMarco has become a scapegoat for populist critics of U.S. housing policy. Whole websites are devoted to demanding his ouster.

    Specifically, he stands accused of preventing Fannie and Freddie from reducing the debts of underwater homeowners, thus compounding the misery of these unlucky borrowers and depressing the housing market. He is under tremendous pressure, from the Obama administration and its allies on Capitol Hill, to change course.

    Before the demonization gets totally out of hand, a few facts: DeMarco is an economist and career civil servant who served 10 years, most of it under President Bill Clinton, as the Treasury Department’s top Fannie and Freddie analyst. UnderPresident George W. Bush, he became the second-ranking official at the predecessor agency to the one he now heads; he was named acting director of FHFA by President Obama in 2009. In short, he is a professional who has served presidents of both parties.

    Freddie Mac
    See more topics » XBill Clinton
    Housing and Urban Planning
    Interior Policy
    U.S. Department of the Treasury
    White House
    Fannie Mae
    George Bush Now DeMarco is operating under a statutory mandate that requires him both to maximize assistance to troubled homeowners and to minimize taxpayer costs. If members of Congress, or the White House, don’t like the way he’s interpreting those orders, they have an option: Replace the moribund Fannie-Freddie colossus with a more sustainable mortgage finance institution, and give it a fresh set of policy instructions.

    There is a genuine policy debate to be had. Some 11 million homeowners currently owe more on their mortgages than the property is worth. Advocates say Fannie and Freddie could facilitate more writedowns at practically no cost to taxpayers, because the entities are already on the hook for the risk of default anyway — and because a growing economy reduces that risk.

    DeMarco’s response is that the lunch isn’t quite that free. As he noted Tuesday in a speech at the Brookings Institution, 75 percent of Fan-Fred’s deeply underwater borrowers are current on their loans. A broad principal reduction offer could induce many of them to default on purpose. That, in turn, could offset the benefits, both to the economy and Fan-Fred. FHFA is considering additional aid, including selective writedowns, but he said it’s unrealistic to expect dramatic results.

    As for homeowner suffering, DeMarco appropriately called attention to “people working multiple jobs, or cutting back on the family budget in many ways, to continue making their mortgage payments through these tough times.” DeMarco clearly sees himself as speaking for this silent majority, and he deserves to be heard.

  44. I seriously doubt lives in aneighborhood that has been deflate 65%.
    He can bite the a$$ of every home owner in the USA !
    Fire DeMarco ! Now !

    Real estate
    AG Martha Coakely urges mortgage giants to implement loan forgiveness for homeowners
    E-mail this article To: Invalid email address Add a personal message: Your e-mail: Invalid email address
    Sending your articleYour article has been sent. E-mail| Print | Comments (1) 04/12/2012 3:45 PM
    2 0 ShareThis6E-mail E-mail this article To: Invalid E-mail address Add a personal message:(80 character limit) Your E-mail: Invalid E-mail address
    Sending your articleYour article has been sent.
    By Chris Reidy, Globe Staff

    Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley is looking to step up pressure on mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to reduce loan principal for homeowners struggling to pay their mortgages and avoid foreclosure.

    In a letter sent Wednesday to Edward DeMarco, acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, a coalition of state attorneys general that includes Coakley advocated for swift implementation of principal forgiveness in federal loan modification programs. The Federal Housing Finance Agency oversees Fannie and Freddie. Coakely sent a similar letter to DeMarco in February.

    In January, DeMarco told Congress that reducing debt for homeowners with mortgage problems would be a burden to taxpayers.

    But Coakley suggests that principal forgiveness may be beneficial to investors as well as homeowners.

    In a statement, Coakley said Thursday: “The financial stability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will not be harmed if they engage in principal forgiveness, and according to new data could save close to $1.7 billion.”

    Other attorneys general who signed the Wednesday letter are from such states as California, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Vermont.

    Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, created by Congress to help provide financing to the mortgage markets, were seized by the federal government in 2008 during the financial crisis. Together, they own or guarantee about half of the home loans in the United States. Since 2008, taxpayers have spent $182 billion to keep the two lenders afloat.

  45. The same week CM lost a MSJ hearing(and I was defending myself Pro Se!) in their foreclosure suit against me, they began offering me $16,000+ to do a short sale.

    I have an amusing recording(on my answering machine) of a CM rep. talking to me about a short sale. The clueless woman said I was up for foreclosure this June. I laughed because their attorney hadn’t done squat in over 3 months.

  46. Here I am in the 9th Circuit Appeal and Robo-signer try to go after me in the third Motion for Relief From Stay.

    This one is funny. They are so incompetent and now allow me to add new evidence to my appeal. Read and enjoy. Brian Burnett, Suchan Murray , and all the gang of Robo-singer at One (Scum) West.


  47. I’m like a kid with a new box of crayons when my babysitter is distracted.

  48. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/20/lynn-szymoniak-foreclosure-activist-18-million-homeowner-harm_n_1366654.html

    Lynn Szymoniak, Foreclosure Activist, Says $18 Million Doesn’t Make Up For Homeowners’ Harms

    “…The $18 million is going to Szymoniak because she gathered evidence central to the federal government’s recovery of $95 million in allegedly ill-gotten gains that big banks wrangled from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The money comes from the partial settlement of two cases — one in North Carolina, the other in South Carolina.

    The check has not yet arrived, but Szymoniak is already planning which charities to shower with her newfound wealth. She’s picked housing-related efforts, from We Soldier On, which helps homeless veterans become homeowners, to the Hole in the Roof Foundation, which provides funding to churches that shelter the homeless, to Operation Hope, a nonprofit devoted to financial literacy and economic empowerment.

    “That part is very exciting,” Szymoniak said. “I’m very psyched about all that and have been visiting some of the agencies I want to help. I can’t wait for that to begin.”

    “…Beyond the specifics of Symoniak’s case, the banking industry has repeatedly insisted that the foreclosure irregularities Szymoniak and other activists uncovered were mere “technicalities.” A recent investigation by the HUD Inspector General, however, found that banks repeatedly rammed through foreclosures without knowing key details, including the amount the borrower actually owed. These were not the deeds of just a few rogue employees. The inspector general found that shoddy practices were institutionalized by bank managers and enforced through the employee evaluation process.

    Astoundingly, banks are still relying on many of those same documents to move foreclosures through the pipeline.

    “It’s also very frustrating that the same documents that have been deemed unacceptable in HUD cases are still being used in foreclosures, including my foreclosure,” Szymoniak told HuffPost.

    That may change as a result of the recent $25 billion settlement, although Abigail Caplovitz Field, a lawyer and HuffPost blogger, has argued that widespread abuse is still possible under the terms of the deal, should banks wish to engage in it.

    Szymoniak is conflicted about actually ending her own mortgage problems. The easiest way out of her current foreclosure difficulties is to abandon the case against the banks that have been making her miserable for four years and simply pay off the loan. She keeps the house, but the banks she believes have been trying to rip her off will get paid in full, plus fees and penalties.

    “I have a lot of qualms about it, but I’m a realist. If something changed in Palm Beach County courts, I’d be more than happy to change my position on that,” Szymoniak said. “But probably the situation is such in Palm Beach County that I should settle this, and I would tell most homeowners to do the same thing. Most homeowners are experiencing the same thing — they can have a handful of documents that are fraudulent, and it doesn’t mean anything in foreclosure courts…”

  49. Wake up Folks…. They call it a house of cards because they are bluffing you and they are betting that you will fall for it (Poker)……… They are Winning! Call their Bluff …. request a pleminary title policy report on your property today. Time to take the Ace card out of their back pocket and put it on the table where it belongs …. call their Bluff! Order your pleminary title policy report today from any title company of your choice! Enjoy the Reading … how to expose a bluffer in a house of cards. Time to blow in their walls!

  50. “The pretender lender is not doing the lying; they are getting the homeowner to do their lying. All that is fine if there was only one owner of the property or one prior mortgagee who is joining in the transaction and registering the appropriate releases, satisfactions and warranties.”

    Just thinking if a person got a nice fat short sale incentive….as tempting as it may be to just take it and run and be done with the nightmare……maybe they should first put that offer in front of a judge…. to see if they are being asked to commit a fraud and whether they would still own “someone” even after signing the bogus release of the fraudster?

  51. i want mynpv…… Same Games, “Pay to Play” & “Bait & Switch”. Same Players …… “new Stratigy” by the cheaters.

  52. The New “Bait and Switch” upgraded version. Same Players … New Bait and New Switch. New Bait is . “Low Instest Rate” to get you to refinance or offer you a Loan Mod to keep your home or a shortsale. …..The Switch is the Change in the Title Ins Policy Exclusions of Coverage. Have you requested a “Title Ins Pleminary Policy yet? You should before a final one is signed by you stating you have read and fully understand the Title Ins being offered to you in your Refi / loan mod / shortsale. They seem to have all there corners covered Except one… where the Owner/Buyer/Borrower or Seller are Smart enough to take the time and read all the FINE PRINT before they sign. ~~Best Wishes to You All~~

  53. A Court Stands Up, And Boldly States…”Banks Should Not Just Break Into Homes!”
    April 11th, 2012 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.
    I am terribly concerned for the safety of the hired hands the banks are sending into harm’s way. In depositions and in contacts, some of these folks have expressed real fear for their own safety because they’re being sent to break into people’s homes without any proper legal authority.

    We all need to be concerned about what’s happening across this country. Our courts and law enforcement should not stand idly by while the banks flex their muscles and continue with their mad march, kicking down doors, breaking into homes, under the guise of “securitization” and “inspection”…whatever you choose to call it, the bottom line is breaking into the homes of Americans, without proper court authority is a violation of one of this nation’s key rights….

    The Right To Be Secure in One’s Home.

    I’m certain I read that somewhere….oh yes, that antiquated old relic, that throwback to a bygone era…THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

    And for all you Constitutional scholars out there who will remind me that this protection refers to state action, I make the argument the banks have effectively become arms of the federal government….and especially when they come kicking down the door under the color of a foreclosure proceeding. It happens all the time….if police are called, the bank burglar asserts, “they’re in foreclosure”. If there’s a security gate, they tell the guard, “they’re in foreclosure!”

    And for far too long, they’ve gotten away with this. But it’s time for all this to stop. It’s time for courts to reign in the banks, to uphold the law, to protect the most fundamental American property rights. Well finally one court has said something:

    The Court:

    I think that’s a pretty serious
    threat and to say that you are going to have
    somebody’s house winterized when it’s 80
    degrees outside,

    Unfortunately this is the third one I’ve
    heard this week on those kind of notices. And I
    don’t know which lenders or which servicers or who
    actually is doing it. I haven’t had the hearings
    on the other two, but from a general statement that
    this is the kind of action and context that is
    going on, I think it’s deplorable actually. And
    hopefully this is an isolated incident.

    order and temporary imjuction

    282240 Proceedings.Court 030112

  54. Wait til everyone learns that the only reason Fannie & Freddie were kept open was to socialize the losses on the agency pools. Five billion is settlements versus 1 trillion in actual losses. It begs of the term “Pay To Play”. Yes, we would all go down together….

  55. Great Article Neil! Now you are getting down to the “Nitty Gritty”. But your article failed to mention …” They are doing the same thing with the title ins policies in the refinances” ! Trust Me! I have a birds eye view with duct tape on! Before you sign that refinance (or loan mod) with Bank N.A. to/ from Bank N.A….. READ THE PLEMINARY TITLE & INS REPORT! Exclusions to policy ( most generaly missing, or the buyer/owner/borrower does not take the time to read the Mounds of Fluff,..( I mean papers) …. and who warrants those exclusions from the previous lenders mistakes on your title for the new lender. YOU DO! NOT TITLE INS! Must go … here come my babysitter with the duct tape ~`Waves ~

  56. JD’s reputation as lilly white and the darling bank of wallstreet and the Obama admin may be coming to an end….(maybe)



    “They were in the same businesses as everyone else,” Mark Williams, a former Federal Reserve bank examiner who teaches finance at Boston University, said of JPMorgan. “If everyone around them is basically settling, it’s hard for me to think that there’s not something there that will make them settle.”

    “We are going to fight repurchase claims that pretend the steep decline in home prices and unprecedented market conditions had no impact on loan performance,” Dimon, chief executive officer of the New York-based lender, wrote in the April 4 letter.”

    Excuse me for saying so investors – but wasn’t that more like the steep decline was engineered by the structuring of “loans” designed to fail by JD and friends in order to profit with trillions at your expense?

  57. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/12/us-bankofamerica-usbancorp-trustee-idUSBRE83B1LH20120412

    “Saying it invested in six of those trusts, the fund accused both banks of failing to take possession of loan files or ensuring they were complete….”

    From a different lawsuit by John Hancock against Chase (note “the vast majority of the transactions among the sponsor/seller, depositor and the Issuing Trusts were not arm’s-length transactions”):

    “The Certificates Plaintiffs purchased from the WaMu Trusts were structured and sold by WaMu and Long Beach. The depositors that created the Issuing Trusts were WaMu entities: Defendants WAAC, WMMSC and LBSC. The sponsor and/or seller for the Issuing Trusts were also WaMu entities, specifically, Defendant WMMSC or non-defendants LBMC and WaMu Bank. In addition, another WaMu entity, Defendant WaMu Capital, was an underwriter for nearly all of the Issuing Trusts. As such, the vast majority of the transactions among the sponsor/seller, depositor and the Issuing Trusts were not arm’s-length transactions,as WaMu controlled all the entities. Similarly, this vertical integration allowed WaMu to both control and manipulate the loan-level documentation and to ensure that loans would be approved by its in-house loan underwriters so that they could be securitized and off-loaded on to investors as soon as possible.”

    Also in the case is a section:


  58. […] Link: Why the Banks Are Paying You to Sign the Deed in a Shortsale […]

  59. I think my signature on loan mod packets has been used to benefit bank of america…..They pressured me to RE-sign….notice I said RE-sign my 2010- 2011 Tax returns…I refused….I had already signed the T-form for them to view my taxes electronically….WHY did they want me to RE-Sign tax papers the IRS had already paid me my return on???? I smelled a rat and refused and by not doing this it is their reason for denial of a modification!!!!! Glad they denied me…They can’t modify what they DO NOT OWN! However, I believe my signature on financial information the bank requested has been used to help them gain possession of my loan via fraudulent paperwork….

    I will not sign anything else for Bank of America….Let them foreclose and if I can’t stop it I will go back and fight the foreclosure!!!!!!


  61. @tnharry,

    “If you are buying one of these short-sales or other REO property, take a good long look at the title policy they are offering and make sure you get advice of competent legal counsel — because most of the new “replacement” policies have language that excludes risks associated with the chain of title being mangled by securitization or claims arising out of securitization.”

    That sounds about right: that’s what insurance companies do. They systematically exclude the highest risk they’re exposed to. Have a heart attack and try to purchase health insurance: you will be insured for anything EXCEPT whatever has to do with cardio-vascular problems. Live in a tornado prone area and try to buy homeowner insurance: your policy will cover anything EXCEPT tornado-related damages. Likewise for flood, hurricane or whatever. If the risk is too high, it is excluded.

    So, you were saying recently that title insurers keep writing title insurance and that some people had jumped too quickly to the idea that title insurers no longer do. Guess what? If your title insurer excludes anything related to clouded title or breach of the chain of title, isn’t that, in fact, tantamount to NOT writing title insurance any longer?

    Have you recently read one of those title insurance policies cover to cover?

  62. …don’t ever believe that it wouldn’t happen to you…because trust me…it can, and most likely did.

  63. Most likely because they have forged your names on the original documents…be vigilant and check out those previous documents before you ever sign another one for them.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: