Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm
|
NEW! 
Editor’s Comment: The very same people who so ardently want us to remain strong and fight wars of dubious foundation are the ones who vote against those who serve our country. Here is a story of a guy who was being shot at and foreclosed at the same time — a blatant violation of Federal Law and good sense. When I practiced in Florida, it was standard procedure if we filed suit to state that the defendant is not a member of the armed forces of the United States. Why? Because we don’t sue people that are protecting our country with their life and limb.
It IS that simple, and if the banks are still doing this after having been caught several times, fined a number of times and sanctioned and number of times, then it is time to take the Bank’s charter away. Nothing could undermine the defense and sovereignty of our country more than to have soldiers on the battlefield worrying about their families being thrown out onto the street.
One woman’s story:
My husband was on active duty predeployment training orders from 29 May 2011 to 28 August 2011 and again 15 October 2011 to 22 November 2011. He was pulled off the actual deployment roster for the deployment date of 6 December 2011 due to the suspension of his security clearance because of the servicer reporting derogatory to his credit bureau (after stating they would make the correction). We spoke with the JAG and they stated those periods of service are protected as well as nine months after per the SCRA 50 USC section 533.
We have been advised that a foreclosure proceeding initiated within that 9 month period is not valid per the SCRA. I have informed the servicer via phone and they stated their legal department is saying they are permitted to foreclose. They sent a letter stating the same. I am currently working on an Emergency Ex Parte Application for TRO and Preliminary Injunction to file in federal court within the next week. It is a complicated process.
The servicer has never reported this VA loan in default and the VA has no information. That is in Violation of VA guidelines and title 38. They have additionally violated Ca Civil Code 2323.5. They NEVER sent a single written document prior to filing NOD 2/3/2012. They never made a phone call. They ignored all our previous calls and letter. All contact with the servicer has been initiated by us, never by them. This was a brokered deal. We dealt with Golden Empire Mortgage. They offered the CalHFA down payment assistance program in conjunction with their “loan” (and I use that term loosely). What we did not know was that on the backside of the deal they were fishing for an investor.
Over the past two years CalHFA has stated on numerous occasions they do not own the 1st trust deed. Guild (the servicer) says they do. I have a letter dated two weeks after closing of the loan saying the “servicing” was sold to CalHFA. Then a week later another letter stating the “servicing” was sold to Guild. Two conflicting letters saying two different things. The DOT and Note are filed with the county listing Golden Empire Mortgage as the Lender, North American Title as the Trustee and good old MERS as the Nominee beneficiary.
There is no endorsement or alonge anywhere in the filing of the county records. We signed documents 5/8/2008 and filings were made 5/13/2008. After two years of circles with Guild and CalHFA two RESPA requests were denied and I was constantly being told “the investor, the VA and our legal department” are reviewing the file to see how to apply the deferrment as allowed by California law and to compute taxes and impound we would need to pay during that period. Months of communications back in forth in 2009 and they never did a thing. Many calls to CalHFA with the same result. We don;t own it, call Guild, we only have interest in the silent 2nd.
All of a sudden in December 2011 an Assignment of DOT was filed by Guild from Golden Empire to CalHFA signed by Phona Kaninau, Asst Secretary MERS, filed 12/13/2011. om 2/3/2012 Guild filed a Cancellation of NOD from the filing they made in 2009 signed by Rhona Kaninau, Sr. VP of Guild. on the same date Guild filed a substitution of trustee naming Guild Admin Corp as the new trustee and Golden Empire as the old trustee, but on out DOT filed 5/13/2008 it lists North American Title as the Trustee. First off how can Rhona work for two different companies.
Essentially there is no fair dealing in any of this. Guild is acting on behalf of MERS, the servicing side of their company, and now as the trustee. How is that allowed? Doesn;t a trustee exist to ensure all parties interests are looked out for? It makes no sense to me how that can be happening. On the assignment I believe there is a HUGE flaw… it states ….assigns, and transfers to: CalHFA all beneficial interest…..executed by Joshua as Trustor, to Golden Empire as Trustee, and Recordeed….. how can you have two “to’s” .. shouldn’t after Trustor it say FROM???? Is that a fatal flaw???
And then looking at the Substitution it states “Whereas the undersigned present Beneficiary under said Deed of Trust” (which on the DOT at that time would show MERS but on the flawed assignment says Golden Empire was the trustee), it then goes on the say “Therefore the undersigned hereby substitutes GUILD ADMIN CORP” and it is signed “Guild Mortgage Company, as agent for CalHFA”, signed by Rhona Kaninau (same person who signed the assignment as a MERS Asst Secretary). I mean is this seriously legal??? Would a federal judge look at this and see how convoluted it all is?
I appreciate the offer of the securitization discount but in out current economic situation and having to pay $350 to file a federal case we just can’t afford it right now. I hope you will keep that offer open. Will this report cover tracking down a mortgage allegedly backed by CalHFA bonds? This is their claim.
Thank you so much for your assistance. This is overwhelming. Do you have any attorneys here in Southern California you world with I might be able to talk to about what they would charge us for a case like this?
Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: cash bids, chain of title, credit bids, derivatives, false attestations, foreclosures, forgery, fraudulent declarations, GEORGIA, home recovery, homes underwater, inflated appraisal, investor-lenders, lenders, MERS, mortgage bond, mortgages, negative equity, pretender lenders, principal correction, realtors, REMIC, robosigning, short-sale, taxpayer, Wall Street, zillow |
Hello, I know this post is from 2012 but I need to be able to find this family ASAP in regards to their transaction and their loan benefit.
I am a veteran, and although I won’t go in details , in need them to contact me as soon as possible not only to let them know they been the victim off identity theft, but also the fact that they never used their entitlement and it was just a big scam that unfortunately is being done by a VA enterprise in Austin, TX.
My communications and computer have been wiretapped “yes the VA has kept me from reporting it to the VA inspector general” but by now they are aware of what is coming.
I can’t go on detail and won’t speak to anyone but this family, my because I don’t want to but I can’t trust anyone at this moment.
On the other hand, for all of you that tried to help this family I am very thankful for the time you put, trust me, no one would understand what the actual probablam is nor be able to help you because this was a Ponzi scheme which unfortunately this family were put in other homes and loans and they don’t even know it, yes I done my research.
Who am I? Let’s say I turned the tables around on these thieves aka Guild Mortgage, oh , and my VA loan guaranty mmmm is been fully restored while te VA warned them to not foreclose for te denial or guaranty, funny part is that I was not in foreclosure nor in default, but I questioned them due to some issues with the property, my QWR was too burdensome to answer it fully, but they sent me a few things including copies of company checks related to my transaction, well they forgot to look at my application that I studied graphic design and basically the checks they sent were a baaaaad photoshop job , in addition I checked the routing and account and of course were accounts and routing to no bank…
Either way, they have until the end of the month to provide the property requirements the VA now requested in addition to my QWR.
Seems like the only ones in default is them now, that’s not all, the VA inspector general has a package on their way thru snail mail under a different name so these people don’t intercept it , believe me the Loan part of the VA has not been on any scandal and is coming.
Again I will be careful to who I am talon to due to the severity of the issue, but the information is been given to three other parties in case these crooks try to silent me, but I will not allow another single penny of Veterans benefits to be used by these gretty suckers, nor I will allow Them to injure us more than we already were while protectin our country.
Yes this suckers tried to foreclose 2 years ago while I was recuperating from a service connected surgery.
Please help me find them, I am close to LA and I know they were in Orange County.
Tanks
Sorry meant Quiet Title
Superior Court Of Washington in and for the county of Pierce; Case no. 12-2-09250-3; Complaint to Qauiety Title and for Declaratory Relief: This is the couple that were on national news for a represenative from BOA that visited them with a foreclosure notice twice wearinga a gun.
Shelley: what’s the title of the case? Most current stuff, including briefs can be searched on http://www.courts.wa.gov/search/index.cfm?fa=search.search_advanced
I’ll look using “Recontrust” but this is for others that might want to see the case.
im4512_20120606_102758.pdf (327.7 KB) Download
Dont know if you can download this. However it is a complaint in a non judicial state Washington state, that state blatantly that RECONTRUST, who the AG Rob McKenna has filed a case against for not being registered to be doing business in Washington, states on line one, RECONTRUST is registered to be doing business in WA state. Then it goes on to say all parties agree to recind the RECONTRUST forclosure and sale and to do a modification. [ANOTHERWARDS they are happy to undo the unlawful foreclosure and unlawful sale, and cause the homeowners to sign a new contract ( mod) with the bank that does not own their loan and who unlawfully foreclosed and sold the mortgage to themselves. They believe they have pulled the wool over the homeowners heads. [They dont own your mortgage so how can they approve a mod.!!!) However they will own a debt you agreed on to them if you sign the papers. Here is the kicker! While they are so happy to recind the (unlawful forecloser) not disclosing it was unlawful, they have filed a complaint to the court while in a non judicial state asking the court for quiet title cause the homeowners are willing to sign the mod. Now if they had clear title, WHY WOULD THEY NEED TO ASK THE COURT FOR QUIET TITLE? They dont have title, they dont have clear title, they dont own the house. But if the homeowners agree to sign the mod and the courts are being told the homeoweners agree with them not having disclosure they are being hood winked, the court may give the bank quiet title, when the homeowners were debt free!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Does it make since the bank would be asking for quiet title? And tell the court lies and lies and lies. The attorneys and BOA and RECONTRUST have to know they are lieing and RECONTRUST unlawfully foreclosed. Why would they recind the foreclosure AND RECIND THE SALE? If the foreclosure was legal and the sale was legal and why ask for quiet title if they owned the title? I want to scream from the top of my lungs. I am pretty sure the homeowners and their new attorney know what is going on now. I sent them proof of everything including the Washington State V RECONTRUST case. And a video of AG Rob McKenna stating RECONTRUST had unlawfully foreclosed on homes for at least the the last ten years. If I could turn their bodies into a pillar of salt I would do it. The gangsters I mean! I pray the wrath of God comes down on their heads.
So we got a FedEx letter from an attorney in San Francisco (Guild is in San Diego) today in response to my 3rd RESPA QWR I sent 5/26 and an email I sent the VP of Guild on 6/5/2012. In a nutshell it tries to clarify that CalHFA is indeed the investor and that my QWR is not valid. Typical. States a bunch of case law. Of course they ignore the part of my RESPA QWR that outline specific servicing issues ie; not deferring the payments (principal and interest) as per the SCRA and CA Military and Veterans code and additional fees that are not valid while on active duty per the SCRA and CA MVC… but they KNOW they messed up there. It makes NO MENTION of the California code that allows for deferment and stops all fees and interest etc. It simply says “The SCRA does not exempt you from making payments”… well DUH you idiots. We asked for a deferment that is in line with the law in OUR STATE. They recognize a copy of my husbands most recent orders and state “Guild will rescind the current Notice of Default and instruct the trustee to VACATE the June 14 sale date.” (which I pointed out to the VP in my email was Flag day and the Army Birthday and it was insulting as my husband is in the army). They then go on to state a default could be refiled at the end of the 9 month SCRA protected period August 23, 2012 (which seems to me they are ADMITTING they broke the law by initiating a non-judicial foreclosure right??). They conclude with a bunch of BS about how they realize borrowers have financial troubles blah blah blah… they recommend submitting a modification package (which we have done SIX TIMES) and state in bold “submission of this form does not guarantee that you will, in fact, be approved for a loan modification. Alternatively…..be considered for a short sale….provide proposal….submission of a short sale proposal does not guarantee it will be approved.” It’s as if they are trying to prevent themselves from being embarrassed or sued in the moment but also predicting we are going to take your house at a later date. Total douchebags. Anyone know of an attorney in Southern California that would LOVE to hang these guys? It cracks me up because Kamala Harris our AG has been so vocal about how shady the bankers and MBS people are and that homeowners should be protected and there should be more transparancy, when CalHFA, a California state agency, has about 4 BILLION in these types of loans. Um, DUH!!! So ridiculous. I also wonder of they troll these kinds of websites?? Maybe I shouldn’t disclose my name and so many details… ????
[…] Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: active duty, armed forces, CalHFA down payment assistance, county records, credit bureau, deployment, Florida, Golden Empire Mortgage, Guild, Guild Admin Corp, Investor, JAG, MERS, North American Title, RESPA, Rhona Kaninau, SCRA 50 USC section 533, security clearance, servicer, soldier, VA loan Livinglies’s Weblog […]
Enraged and Lorraine:
Superior Court (state) is a court of unlimited jurisdiction; federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction. Your Orange County Superior Court can address all the issues, and getting the foreclosure stopped there will be much easier because anything dealing with property is their jurisdiction first – even though, as mentioned previously, the bank will remove it to federal court, which you can then fight, although with the veteran status and diversity they may succeed. Nevertheless, it may get you a stay of the foreclosure and buy you time.
Would love to hear from a property attorney on this issue
@Needcaselaw,
Lorraine’s husband is in the military. Federal court is where that case belongs since the statutes ruling loans made to the vets is federal. My take on it anyway…
Lorraine:
I sent this item including comments to an attorney friend of mine and this was his response: “recommend that she contact via the internet and telephone, an organization called NACBA (National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys), even though she is not filing bankruptcy. Members of the organization include those who love to pursue banks. The National Consumer Law Center, http://www.consumerlaw.org is also a resource. This being Memorial day weekend, those efforts would probably not work….so maybe it is just a thought!
2nd, why is she filing in Federal court. I ask in ignorance. I recognize that it may ultimately belong there if we are dealing with a federal question, but foreclosure procedures fall under state law. Federal court is viewed by me as a much more difficult maze of rules to follow than as is the case in state court……..much more intimidating for a pro per.”
His is VERY right on this second item, which it seems we all had missed. You hear of these things always being handled in federal court. That’s because the banks love that venue – it’s much more complicated and the standards of pleading are tougher. They will immediately attempt to remove it to federal court where they have the advantage. The proper venue to stop a foreclosure is your Orange County Superior court.
Good luck.
@Lorraine
from the mccandless site:
http://deadlyclear.wordpress.com/2012/05/20/foreclosure-mediation-is-a-booby-trap/#more-2127
“…IN ORDER TO HOLD THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE, YOU HAVE TO KNOW THE ORIGINAL SECURITIZATION SCHEME AND INSIST ON PROOF OF WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THE INITIAL SECURITIZATION PLAN WAS PUT IN PLACE. REMEMBER THAT THIS IS NOT A FIXED EVENT. THIS IS SINGLE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE BORROWER AND AN ONGOING PROCESSION OF SUCCESSORS EACH OF WHOM HAS QUESTIONABLE RIGHTS TO THE NOTE, MORTGAGE OR EVEN THE OBLIGATION SINCE THEY WERE ONLY ASSIGNED A RECEIVABLE FROM A PARTY WHO WAS NEITHER THE BORROWER NOR THE ORIGINATING LENDER…”
Southern California (909)890-9192 in Northern California(925)957-9797
watch this and you will see why this is happening.
look at number one also the letter of objection to the debt collector. You can send these ASAP before you find an attorney. certified mail signature required. If they ignor them it is a violation of the conpliance laws. Look up Calif CPA law and FDCPA laws.
http://livinglies.wordpress.com/foreclosure-defense-forms/letters-and-notices/
Number 6
Lorraine, get a title report. However just going to the county recorders office by internet, and coping the assignments, you can see the broken chain of title. That is proof the chain of title is not connected. You or your attorney can ask the judge to see the disconnection of the title. a title report would be of great help. It is not easy to find an attorney that gets it or is of the know of all this or simply will help us. Dont give up. Have you sent the letter of objection and debt dispute?
@Lorraine,
Contact Timothy Mccandless. He has a website and he defends foreclosures. Given all the precendents of military personel suing bank servicers, your case will be attractive.
Check his website at timothymccandless@wordpress.com
needscaselaw, it looks like Northwest Trustees is now being used for massive foreclosing, due to RECONTRUST AND MERS are under fire now. Th debt collectors wont be able to cover up the MERS clouded titles. NW Trustees is going to make the non compliance to being registered go away only. There are a lot more non compliances they can not make go away. Already foreclosed homes by the entitites like Deutsche bank, MERS and RECONTRUST will be undone due to the non compliance. All the future unlawful foreclosures will be undone due to the clouded titles and MERS fraud. Northwest Trustees will be doing themselves in if they file fraud affidavits and there are no valid notes. All then fraud MERS affidavits on my sons and many others have been recently removed from county records to conceal the crime. My son has his copies in the court already. So it will not matter. The banks are attempting to conceal the fraud. A party in California I know has the same G. Hernandez robo signer as my sons and has had RECONTRUST recind the unlawful foreclosure and recind the threat of sale and has come back at them with another company attempting to foreclose a second time now on them.
Lorraine: I sympathize completely. I’ve spent close to 3000 hours researching this stuff – together with the pretenders I’m battling – only to find that virtually everything that was done was fraudulent. I’m going to prove it, but it’s already been extremely costly in time, health and out-of-pocket. I do know that pleading “these guys are a bunch of crooks” will not help (even though they are). Your having copies of communications is very valuable. I do admit to not really understanding what you are saying as regards the trustee of the deed of trust. Nearly always on the way to foreclosure the original trustee is replaced by a cutthroat trustee. That, by the way, is the tie-in to Northwest Trustee Services. Read the story right here on Livinglies: http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/ethics-violation-against-northwest-trustee-in-oregon/
If the trustee that is foreclosing is different from the one originally appointed there must be an Appointment of Successor Trustee. I’ve never tried to search Orange County Records. Is there a web site where these documents can be viewed? I don’t know California law, but I would find it extremely doubtful that anyone but the trustee of record could foreclose. That would bring chaos to chain of title, especially in a “title state” like california where the trustee is HOLDING title to the property. Insofar as I know California has not yet sanctioned “wild deeds” (those signed by someone with no record of interest in the property).
It would be extremely helpful to you if you could have a lawyer prepare your filing; even if that’s all they did.
You are in a big cruiser with the rest of us. IF you will give me the names of the signers we call them robo signers on the assignments for MERS and the forecloser debt collector, I may be able to send you proof of fruad. I am going home soon. You may call Phil Ting county assessor at the Kings County,San Francisco recorders office and see if he has an attorney he can recommend. He is wanting to help Calif. homeowners.
http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2010/07/california-court-rules-mers-can%e2%80%99t-foreclose-citibank-can%e2%80%99t-collect/
What are the names of the signers on the MARS assignments. I have a lot of robo signed docs that prove fraud. G. Hernandez, Broviak, Dominique Johnson, Linda Green, Liticia Quintana and Deborah Beard, Kathy Smith, Brian Bly and more.
@needcaselaw
I have TONS of pages of emails and letters sent back and forth from me to the servicer and CalHFA. Several saying they are deferring the payments for 6 months per CA law, one specifically saying they are “up and runing on our VA modification” and then another just a few months later claiming they didn’t ever receive our modification docs. Well then how the hell were you “up and running” on a modification. It’s all BS and game playing. Both parties (Guild and CalHFA) sent written denials of my REASPA QWR’s stating they were not specific enough (they were 16 pages long and DETAILED) – in the QWR I sent to Guild all 3 times was copies of the modification packet they continuously claim they never received. Well hell you responded to the QWR but you LOST the modification docs? Are my bank statements just lost in an office somewhere? . I sent another QWR more to the point today (4 pages) SPECIFICALLY listing errors in the Federal Truth in Lending Disclosure (showing $393k as the amount financed and asking how in the world we got to $413 as that’s not what was agreed to in the sales contract). I can also guarantee the amount they list in the NOD is inaccurate as the SCRA is very specific about a creditors inability to charge late fees or interest in excess of a specific amount. It can’t possibly be right. I’m sure they already know this. All the filings in the recorders office list different parties than the DOT and Note. It’s so convoluted and BS. I may not be an attorney but I like to think I am a pretty intelligent woman and if I can look at all the documents and understand even just a little bit about the securitization process and say wait a second this isn’t right, I don’t understand why the state courts and federal courts can’t. Then I realize that all their retirements are wrapped up in MBS investments and it’s a big fat conflict of interest where you realize NO ONE is going to be treated equitably or fair… I had always thought property law was written to be simple and specific to protect all parties ESPECIALLY the property owner from abuses and loss of property due to this type of quiet title/clouded title issue. I will check the website you posted and google some more. That has been how I have done most of this. It’s so overwhelming. I am hoping my ex parte will be good enough to get the TRO and preliminary injunction and then I can try to find an attorney who gets it to help us if at all possible. At this point we just want to short sell (even if these bastards don’t own it) as it is a HUGE stress and hit to our credit and his military career. It’s just pathetic it has come to this. These people are allowed to string people along and LIE and steal and it’s us little guys that are paying the price.
http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2012/02/19/video-sf-assessor-recorder-phil-ting-uncovers-widespread-fraud-mortgage-industry-irregularity/
A California county deed of register report that is telling for all counties in the state and else where. MERS especially causes this.
ExA1-supl.pdf (1.3 MB) Download | Remove
http://deadlyclear.wordpress.com/ A report all the PSA are invalid.
sending some important info for your attorney.
http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2012/03/mortgage-notes-are-not-negotiable-max-gardners-bootcamp/
http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Obstacles-to-Negotiability-of-Residential-Mortgage-Notes.pdf
THE NOTE CAN NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE DEED OF TRUST IT IS VOID AND NULLIFIED.
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/83/271/case.html
Lorraine:
Your posting triggered ideas and news that may not be directly related to your case but are to others; that’s basically how a blog works. I noted that “Beverly Alverez” attempted to post her phone number for you to contact. Have you followed up? There are not enough digits printed, but perhaps a request to her here will bring the rest!
All of us have learned that we must be proactive. There are very few superheroes out there who will ride to our assistance, especially for free. Most of us are in the same boat as you. You have internet access; try Googling “Beverly Alverez” and see if you find an attorney – maybe with the same digits in the phone number! Also try Googling “California foreclosure complaint” and see what comes up. wwww.scribd.com has a free search function where you will find how others in similar situations worded their complaints, and some of the decisions that may fill you in more on the laws involved. California offers a free search of all Supreme Court and Appeals opinions at http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions.htm Go there and click “search opinions…”
When I first jumped on here I pointed to the necessity to make a written inquiry as to who the owner of your note is. Did you ever write such a request? Do you have proof? All that stuff will be important if you’re going to fight; especially records you have of your communications with the servicer and what was said.
I’ll take a look in my library to see what I have on California cases similar to yours – although I’ll only be doing what you can do yourself.
Good hunting.
PS: I have not seen anything on the AG’s action against Recontrust since the Complaint (I do have that). Nothing is posted on the usual web site. If you know of something let me know. If you’ve not yet read it, you will enjoy the Leipheimer v. Recontrust brief from Leipheimer’s attorney (fall 2011). Search “Leipheimer” at
http://www.courts.wa.gov/search/index.cfm?fa=search.search_advanced
Thanks!
Shelley:
Went to dinner and a slew of new postings – haven’t read them all. The info on Northwest Trustee Services, Inc. (note you were adding an “s” to Trustee) is listed on the WA SOS web site – which was the source of the info I cut and pasted below. They show an address and two corporation officers at that address in Bellevue. CT Corporation is a standard address for process service (probably 90% of all businesses use them). You’re right in that CT does not qualify as a business address, however Northwest appears to have offices in Bellevue. They are doing a huge foreclosure business in WA (over 450 Notices of Trustee’s Sales in King County alone since April 1, 2012), so it would be good to check them closely. Search Washington businesses at http://www.sos.wa.gov/corps/corps_search.aspx. It’s easiest to use just the first couple of words as that will show some of the various forms they have/are taking.
Sorry it is related. look up MERS in all FORMS.Business Search – Results
________________________________________
Data is updated weekly and is current as of Friday, May 25, 2012. It is not a complete or certified record of the entity.
Select an entity name below to view additional information. Results are listed alphabetically in ascending order by entity name.
For information on checking or reserving a name, refer to Name Availability.
For information on ordering certificates, copies of documents and/or status reports or to request a more extensive search, refer to Information Requests.
For help with searching an entity name, refer to Search Tips.
For descriptions of the various fields and status types, refer to Field Descriptions and Status Definitions.
Results of search for ” MORTGAGE ELECTRONICS REGISTRATION SYSTEMS ” returned no entity records.
Record not found.
Modify SearchNew Search
Privacy Statement | Free Document Readers
Copyright © 2012 California Secretary of State
Look at Washington State V RECONTRUST and compare the statutes and claims to California statutes California Deed of Trust AND Calif CPA laws. Look up Nebraska v MERS. The only reason MERS got off is they claimed they did not claim to be the beneficiary, which they CLAIM in most all cases, but changed it to reverse the Nebraska case. Of non compliance to state laws. The claims in the RECONTRUST case and the Amicus Curieas for the Bains cases will give your attorney all the landmark case law for fighting MERS. Including the Carpenter V Longan 1872 US Supreme court case law. Non compliance to state law voids the contract. Allows quiet title. Pull up the OCC letter January 14, 2005; national bank law does not preempt state law. a lot of our laws are similar, just have to find the law that covers the description in your state. Case law is helpful from all states.
Most attorneys have not used the non compliance of being registered to be doing business in the state. That kills the representation and the unlawful foreclosuer right there. Look up Video of the Phil Ting Kings County San Francisco, Calif report, 85% of the assignments are invalid. California Compliance crisis report. I will pull up the http for you in a few.
It matters not, until the sheeple wake up and realize the United States Federal Government is an organized crime enterprise; that has teamed up with foreign entities to destroy any wealth remaining in the United States.
The U.S. Government is mafia, racketeers, who pray to one power; and that is the “bankster” racketeers.. They steal American tax payer dollars and pay the banksters…. then the banksters give them equal dollars for their campaigns…
Obama, Romney …. does anyone in their wildest dreams; those two crime bosses are the best candidate we have? lol… Look at what the government owned news media has done to Ron Paul who wants to end the Federal Reserve Bank, and their minions such as Wells Fargo and Bank of America; who on a daily basis steal and leave homeless thousands of innocent Americans. Ron Paul is still in this race, although, you are being told otherwise …
One candidate wants to boot them out the door on their asses and the news media labels him an issolationist because of if…
Wake up !!!!! Wake up !!!!!!
I thought our story was posted to help us get some assistance? I am completely confused why anyone is posting stuff that has NOTHING to do with our specific case and issue (as if I am not in a panic as it is I have to dredge through stuff that isn’t even relevant)? Maybe I am supposed to see something that is similar, but I don’t (maybe because I’m not an attorney). Is there anyone out there with any information that can help THIS SPECIFIC CASE?? I’m not in WA or FL, I have no idea who Northwest is. I am in Orange County CA, Central District for the Federal court, which is where we will be filing Ex Parte on Tuesday. We are not filing in Superior court, but in Federal court. I don’t see how cases can help me (then maybe I just don’t understand the law that well). Anyone in Southern California?? Paralegal?? Anyone know of any attorney who might want to help a military family (pro bono)?? I need case law help that pertains to CA Military and Veterans code violations and SCRA violations and anything else that can help us!! Thanks again. I appreciate any help you can offer us. I am afraid of saying the wrong thing in a pleading. I have notes from other articles I have read stating “deny that the pretender lender has any right to enforce the note, either as principals or as agents, as they are not the creditor.” How do you nullify or void bad assignments and NOD & NOS for errors? The DOT lists specific Trustor, Trustee and Beneficiary, as does the Note. I have two letters a week apart stating “servicing right’s are being transferred to two different parties (So who is it REALLY???). The assignment of the DOT was filed 4 years later (why??). There is no FROM on the assignment just two “to”‘s if that makes sense, signed by a rep of the pretender lender/servicer as an Asst Secretary of MERS. The assignment lists the WRONG TRUSTEE as stated in the DOT (the assignment shows the lender as the trustee which is not correct). The Sub of Trustee has the same defects – it lists the original lender as the trustee and not the trustee that is actually listed in the DOT. This is also signed by the same rep for the pretender lender/servicer who now calls herself VP of the servicer as an agent for CALHFA (WTH???). Of course all of this is MERS as well. How do you have all of those documents nullified or voided? They are all defective. What federal or CA code do I quote?? HELP!!!
Interesting that SunTrust registers as a VA corporation in Washington State but not as a Washington Corp. Unless this is a typo.
SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC.
UBI Number
601621784
Category
REG
Profit/Nonprofit
Profit
Active/Inactive
Active
State of Incorporation
VA
WA Filing Date
02/06/1995
Expiration Date
02/28/2013
Inactive Date
Duration
Perpetual
Registered Agent Information
Agent Name
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
Address
300 DESCHUTES WAY SW STE 304
City
TUMWATER
State
WA
ZIP
98501
Special Address Information
Address
City
State
Zip
View Additional Information »
Purchase Documents for this Corporation »
» Close «
Viewing 1 – 7 of 7 results for “SunTrust ”
SUNTRUST BANK
SUNTRUST EQUIPMENT FINANCE & LEASING CORP.
SUNTRUST INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.
SUNTRUST INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC.
SUNTRUST LEASING CORPORATION
SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC.
SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY, INC.
« Search Again
NEW! – SEARCH APPS ON MOBILE DEVICES
Search Results
There were no matches for “Mortgage Electronics Registration System”.
« Search Again
NEW! – SEARCH APPS ON MOBILE DEVICES
You will see non for MERS and non for RECONTRUST, EXCEPTJustin Bairds business that called us and pointed out RECONTRUST was not registered only he was and his business is inactive due to the bank fraud. I could not find MERS in any way I put it. There fore MERS and RECONTRUST foreclosed in their names unlawfully on thousands of homes in Washington State.
I did at the time find a MERS that stated it was registered for only one month then inactive. However have not been able to find that for the past year now.
ALL CORPORATIONS DATA DOWNLOAD
RECONTRUST LLC
UBI Number 602076404
Category LLC
Active/Inactive Inactive
State of Incorporation WA
WA Filing Date 11/03/2000
Expiration Date 11/30/2002
Inactive Date 02/24/2003
Duration 30 years
Registered Agent Information
Agent Name W JUSTIN BAIRD
Address 1516 E PIKE ST # 104
City SEATTLE
State WA
ZIP 98122
Special Address Information
Address
City
State
Zip
View Additional Information »
Purchase Documents for this Corporation »
Just noticed I left off the service this time. I found it on the site I looked at. You are on the same site.
, Shelley am going to this site. http://www.sos.wa.gov/corps/search_results.aspx?search_type=simple&criteria=all&name_type=contains&name=Northwest+Trustees+Inc&ubi=
This is off the Washington Secretarie of State Corporations search and it says no results. Where are you getting your info from?
Search Results
There were no matches for “Northwest Trustees Inc”.
« Search Again
NEW! – SEARCH APPS ON MOBILE DEVICES
ALL CORPORATIONS DATA DOWNLOAD
Download the whole Corporations search database in XML format. Average file size is 70 Mb compressed, 750 Mb uncompressed.
Perhaps I left off the INC part. I tried MERS in all ways and RECONTRUST AND OTHERS AND DID NOT FIND THEM. I just now tried Northwest Trustees to see, cause the were not anyone I needed to look up at the time. I missed putting in the INC.
Needcaselaw, look at Washington State V RECONTRUST filed by AG Rob McKenna. They like RECONTRUST, can not use CT Corporation, like RECONTRUST can not use CT Corporation a third party for contact, that additionally only exhist in Olympia, Washington. The are suppose to be registered to be doing business in the state of Washington, I believe as a Washington Corporation, and in compliance with all Washington Deed of Trust Law, which is not being allowed to use CT Corporation as their agent. The WA state V RECONTRUST clerifies it and what the rules are. Check to see if RECONTRUST was filed with the secretary of state. They are not as a corporation. The way I first found this out was by a man who my served with a summons and complaint as being registered and agent for RECONTRUST, HE called my son and told him look at my statis, it says non active and RECONTRUST filed is my business RECONTRUST AND the big banks put him out of his investors business and caused him to loose his home. He said the RECONTRUST using his same name to foreclose is not a registered Washington Corporation and is unlawfully doing foreclosers in the state of Washington, using my[his] same name. He wished us to kick their ass. Pretty sure they have to be registered as a Washington corporation. Let me know if you find different info. See the OCC letter January 14, 2005; national banks are not preempt from state law.
mkd and Shelley:
Northwest Trustee Services, Inc. does appear to be a legit business, at least so far as being registered with the Secretary of State:
NORTHWEST TRUSTEE SERVICES, INC.
UBI Number
602376725
Category
REG
Profit/Nonprofit
Profit
Active/Inactive
Active
State of Incorporation
WA
WA Filing Date
03/16/2004
Expiration Date
03/31/2013
Inactive Date
Duration
Perpetual
Registered Agent Information
Agent Name
C T CORPORATION SYSTEM
Address
1801 WEST BAY DR NW STE 206
City
OLYMPIA
State
WA
ZIP
98502
Of course appearances aren’t everything. I’ll do a little more checking. They are not registered as a title insurer with the OIC, but as a resident corporation they would not have to be under RCW 61.24.010(1)(a), and they have officers in Washington.
http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/attorneys-admit-no-authority-to-represent-us-bank-in-foreclosure/
Yes when you ask for affirmation of proof to represent, you put the lawyers for the fraudsters in the hot seat. The lawyers taking on cases they know are fraud cases then have to affirm they are legally representing the proper person that has legal right to the debt. You and I know they are not. This puts the lawyer in the hot seat. I believe it was Florida, however I have not read the article for a while. One state has made it a law that the lawyers have to affirm they have the authority to represent. The answer to the judge was very interesting. The lawyers responded by saying we would have to lie to do that it would be very unfair to us. This caused my sons fraud lawyers for the debt collector lawyers to send a letter asking for approval to represent Countrywide instead of RECONTRUST BOA AND MERS. He objected of course. Fighting these frauds for two years in the courts and at the end of Appeal due to fraud Upon the court and misrepresentation, by fraud affidavits, AND MOTION TO DENYJUDICIAL RECOGNITION. And they want to change the party they represent? Dont think so. My case recieved no answer to the notice of this motion.
Shelley A. Erickson, on May 22, 2012 at 12:07 pm you said:
“The motion for proof of authority to represent, has definately been a plus.” … Could you elaborate???
Yes in politics the squeeky wheel gets oiled or at least attention. It trully works. When a massive ammount of people complain, the politicians realize we are awake and not sleeping on this matter, therefore they can not get away with the crime as easily. They worry about their reelections and exposure. No squeeky wheel they continue on without fear of being held accountable. I have been a big sqeeky wheel at the legistlative branches and the senate. A friend of mine is the sec for a senator and she tells me I am making a difference, to continue being a sqeeky wheel. She tells me I have everyone upset, or concerned taking more interest in the mortgage issues. They are like busy bees over my emails. When I email them I let them see I emailed people I am working with and facebook. I am sure some of them are not happy with me either. If more people took the time to do this we would be a lot farther than we are. And we have made great baby steps forward. If they recieved thousands or even in the hundreds of calls or emails, they would be concerned about their elections. Our politicians are used to getting away with every move undectected. Is why so much harm has happened. Law and regulation undone and unregulated to protect us. Our politicians are use to no one carin. No one to police them, No one to stop their actions. A small handful of people rule the world over just this. No action at all by the public.
I forgot to mention Northwest Trustee services is not listed either as being registered as a Washington state corporation.
mkd
YUP!
Search Results
There were no matches for “Northwest Trustees”.
« Search Again
NEW! – SEARCH APPS ON MOBILE DEVICES
ALL CORPORATIONS DATA DOWNLOAD
Download the whole Corporations search database in XML format. Average file size is 70 Mb compressed, 750 Mb uncompressed.
Neither the State of Washington nor any agency, officer, or employee of the State of Washington warrants the accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of any information in the Public Access System and shall not be liable for any losses caused by such reliance on the accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of such information. While every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of this information, portions may be incorrect or not current. Any person or entity who relies on information obtained from the System does so at his or her own risk.
Translate our site into:
Sorry I got it from ya. Forgot after listening to the pod cast. This does not surprize me. Their fantasy could not continue for ever. It was their evil illusion.
Got that right listen to this pod cast. http://www.tfmetalsreport.com/podcast/3834/tfmr-podcast-21-jim-willie-returns
Within a few short months, there won’t be a JPM asnd Deutsche Bank left. There won’t be any Goldman Sachs, Barcklay’s, Citi, Stanley Morgan. Listen to this podcast from Jim Willie (never heard of him before but it doesn’t mean anything) and ask yourseves:
1) Why did Dimon fess up the the 2 billion loss?Who forced him? He could as easily have swept it under the rug.
2) Why did the SEC just give approval to 3 Chinese banks to set up shop here?
3) Why isn’t there any gold left in any of the banks? Where did it go?
4) What is truly going on?
It’s all there, with facts and numbers. And it’s very clear.
http://www.tfmetalsreport.com/podcast/3834/tfmr-podcast-21-jim-willie-returns
@Lorraine
I am so sorry for you and your husband…we are truly in hell. The servicers have ONE JOB—that is TO LIE. Yes, it’s true. They are in the business of: FORECLOSE NO MATTER WHAT. I know it sounds unbelievable, but it’s true. They will lie about anything—mostly “we didn’t get your paperwork”. There are no real loans…just a bunch of DEBT COLLECTORS of unsecured false default debt making up paperwork and lying over and over just so they can foreclose and get more money. And our wonderful government is letting them do it.
We are in the lawless Wild West when it comes to these matters. It’s every man/woman for him/herself…and it SUCKS that the CRIMINALS are running things—but there you have it.
Don’t give up—do whatever you can to fight these assassins…God bless.
TAYLOR v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY
KENNETH S. TAYLOR; ALYCIA TAYLOR DRIGGINS, Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee for Certificate Holders of Soundview Home Loan Trust 2006-Opt2, Asset Backed Certificates Series 2006-Opt2; AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC.; ROBIN M. WILSON, both Official and Individual Capacity; THOMPSON HINE LLP; CYNTHIA STEVENS; SCOTT WALTER; SAND CANYON CORPORATION; JEANELLE GRAY; CHICAGO TITLE, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-3277.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
May 23, 2012.
Before: DAUGHTREY, MOORE, and COLE, Circuit Judges.
——————————————————————————–
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
PER CURIAM.
Kenneth S. Taylor and Alycia Taylor Driggins, Ohio residents proceeding pro se, challenge the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of their complaint alleging various federal and state claims related to the foreclosure on their property. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(1), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. We unanimously agree that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a). For the reasons articulated below, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over the final judgment in this case and therefore cannot review the sua sponte dismissal of the Taylors’ complaint. However, we vacate the district court’s order that denied the Taylors’ motion for relief from the final judgment and remand this case for further proceedings.
On December 6, 2010, the Taylors filed a complaint against 23 defendants and effectuated service on four: Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc., Thompson Hine LLP, and Robin M. Wilson — an attorney at Thompson Hine. Construed liberally, the complaint alleged violations of various federal statutes and Ohio laws for conduct that occurred during the execution of a mortgage and subsequent foreclosure proceeding on their property.
On December 27, Thompson Hine and Robin Wilson (collectively Thompson Hine) moved to dismiss the complaint on the following grounds: (1) they were not liable for actions taken in good faith during representation of a client1; (2) the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because both diversity and a federal question were lacking; (3) the Rooker-Feldman doctrine2 barred the instant lawsuit; (4) the Taylors’ claims in the instant lawsuit were barred by issue preclusion; and (5) the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. To its motion, Thompson Hine attached several documents regarding the foreclosure case.
On December 29, the district court issued an order sua sponte dismissing the Taylors’ case. The court concluded that the instant action was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because “[t]he Summit County Common Pleas Court Docket show[s] that foreclosure on [the Taylors’] property occurred on February 1, 2010.” The court also determined that res judicata barred the Taylors’ federal case because it raised claims that could have been raised in the state foreclosure case.
On January 4, 2011, the Taylors filed an “opposition” to Thompson Hine’s motion to dismiss, an “opposition” to the district court’s December 29 order, and a motion for both “an order to show cause” and a temporary restraining order. The district court denied the motion in a marginal entry order on January 7. On January 10, the Taylors filed a motion for relief from judgment, which the district court denied on January 11. On January 14, the Taylors filed a motion in “opposition” to the district court’s December 29 order, requesting a default judgment and relief from the judgment. In a marginal entry order on January 19, the court denied this motion. On February 11, the Taylors filed another “opposition” to the district court’s December 29 order, requested a default judgment, and sought relief from the judgment. The court denied this motion in a marginal entry order on February 14. On February 22, the Taylors filed a motion to impose sanctions on Thompson Hine for contempt. On March 1, the district court denied this motion and directed its clerk “to no longer accept filings from [the Taylors] in this matter.” On March 9, the Taylors filed a notice of appeal.
——————————————————————————–
<>
——————————————————————————–
Footnotes
——————————————————————————–
1. Documents submitted with the motion indicate that Thompson Hine represented Deutsche Bank in the foreclosure proceedings.
Back to Reference
2. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is derived from Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). The doctrine “prevents the lower federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over cases brought by `state-court losers’ challenging `state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced.'” Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 460 (2006) (quoting Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005)).
Back to Reference
Click here for unpaginated view
——————————————————————————–
We are the homeowners with this issue. Thank you Neil and Chelsea for posting this for us. Thank you to anyone who can post case examples and case law that may help us try to at least start this process our own.
We indeed did notify the servicer and kept them apprised via email and via USPS of his military status at ALL times!! They have copies of all orders. I have a recorded phone conversation from a couple months ago after we received the NOD in which the two VP’s state they do indeed have his orders but there legal department is advising them they are allowed to proceed. Also, the 9 month extension that originally expired in 2010 was extended to 12/31/2012 so we are still within that time frame. We have over 200 pages of communications with the servicer via emails and in writing (not counting the hundreds of phone calls)… I have a very specific email from the VP Maureen G that states “we are up and running on your VA modification. Yes, I will correct your credit as we discussed” from 2010, yet time and again after that email they revert back to saying “we didn’t get your modification paperwork”… WTH??? Isn’t this now a breach of contract… plus all the emails about the deferment they never did which created this whole mess to begin with. I have copies of every modification packet we sent in. Two sets were sent in the same envelope as the RESPA QWR’s we sent which they responded to denying.
My biggest question and need to find CA and Federal case law… there is NO ENDORSEMENT ANYWHERE ON THE NOTE… isn’t that required?? How can you have perfect title with no endorsements??
I have a couple questions regarding what constitutes fatal errors in filings as well… all of the documents list the incorrect parties as listed in the original DOT, 2nd DOT and Note etc. Is there and federal case law to quote pointing out these errors invalidate the filings? They list the “Lender” as the “Trustee” and mix up a few other things… plus they are all signed by Rhona listing herrself as a MERS employee in one, and an agent for CalHFA and employee of Guild in another.
AND isn’t there federal cases that have voided DOT’s that list MERS as a beneficiary? I really need help.
We have the JAG trying to route our case to the DOJ but it is a long process. They are “working on it” but we need injunctive relief NOW. I plan on filing an Emergency Ex Parte Application for TRO and Injunctive Relief on Tuesday. I am doing the best I can. It is very frustrating and scary all at the same time.
We have also reached out to the VA who actually just gave the servicer the OK to proceed with the foreclosure even though we are in that 9 month protection window per the SCRA. This angers us even more because YES my husband HAS BEEN SHOT at… he served in Kosovo in 2005, Iraq in 2006, was sent off to learn Arabic and stood ready to deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan last year and would be there if not for the servicer messing up his credit which in turn caused suspension of his secuirty clearance. He is in intelligence and they don’t take a foreclosure on your credit lightly. His capacity to earn has been destroyed. it’s awful (how do you sue for that???)… here is her recent emails to us and my husbands response (mind you I have emails to her from over a year ago – this woman has NEVER done her job in assisting the veteran at all) I almost think everyone is incahoots together. I mean the servicer stands to gain the house back and resell it for around $350,000 + file a claim on our VA backing and collect another $300,000+ – of course it is lucrative to foreclose. Anyhow, here is the very disturbing chain of recent emails:
From: Lorraine
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 5:32 PM
To: Peake, Nadine,
Cc: Joshua
Subject: Re: Va Loan
Hi Nadine –
Have you contacted Guild Mortgage (the servicer) as of yet? We received a Notice of Trustees sale for June 14, 2012 at 3pm. Have you found out anything? Have they reported ANYTHING to the VALERI System at all? Have they complied with this section of Title 38?? I found the regulations and it appears they are not complying with Title 38 reporting requirements.
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=3337e1b1297f8f6ec174c0bf46e9bb6c&rgn=div8&view=text&node=38:2.0.1.1.10.2.347.18&idno=38
Please let me know.
Thank you.
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 15:18:46 -0400
From: nadine.
Lorraine,
Guild Mortgage Company is moving forward with the foreclosure and has every right to do so as long as they are not in receipt of the requested information as previously requested from you and as listed below.
1. The veterans financial information which includes, two most recent pay stubs, two most recent bank statements, 2011 filed in 2012 federal tax return and 2010 filed in 2011 federal tax returns, list of all expenses.
2.. If the veteran is active duty, please provide the mortgage company with a copy of his active duty orders which should show a start and end date.
3. Hardship letter advising why case is in default.
Please keep in mind that while you may have submitted these documents to the servicer for a previous review, the documents are only good for six months, VA does not review for repay plans, loan modifications, hamp modifications, special forbearances, compromise sale and or deeds in lieu of foreclosure. All reviews are started with the veteran and the servicer and the servicer reviews the case for work out options from beginning to end. Also keep in mind that all VA programs are income based which means that your income has to be greater than your expenses based on VA guidelines and must be able to support the mortgage.
Once you have submitted all of the required financial and hardship information to Guild Mortgage, you should contact the mortgage company on a weekly basis for an update on your workout review.
According to Guild mortgage, they spoke with you on 4/26/11 and at that time the foreclosure that was postponed due to SCRA and you were advised of all workout options and what they needed from you for their review but, you failed to send them this information. Per guild mortgage this same workout information was requested from you again on 5/2/11. On 5/3/11 Guild mortgage postponed the May foreclosure sale for six (6) months or until 11/10/11. On 5/10/11 guild mortgage received a email from you and they responded to your email and again requested that you send them workout/financial information for review but did not receive the requested financial information from you. On 2/8/12 there was contact between you and Guild mortgage and at that time while you had requested information about who is the investor on your loan, after receiving a verbal contact with the name of the investor, you refused a copy of the deed in trust proving that California Housing Finance Agency is the investor on the loan. Guild Mortgage states that they still sent you a copy of the Deed in Trust as well as a request for work out documents. Per Guild Mortgage they have documentation that the veteran was active duty and that the foreclosure on this home was on hold for 365 days after the date that the veteran became inactive ( no longer active duty). Per Guild Mortgage since the foreclosure of this mortgage has been placed on foreclosure hold for more than the required number of months, they are not willing to postpone the June 14, 2012 foreclosure specially since the veteran has failed to comply with their request for financial information and or updated financial information.
Guild Mortgage is suggestion that you call them at 800-365-4884 and when prompted, put in extension 19102 for priority attention.
Thanks,
CC:case notes.
MY HUSBANDS REPLY
5/24
Nadine,
I want to make sure that I understand the Department of Veterans Affairs position in this matter correctly based upon what you have sent in this email.
1. You are stating that despite having sent in the modification packets, to include pay stubs, bank statements, tax returns, etc., we are being required to do this again. (I have around 200 pages worth of documents, including email correspondence and phone records showing that we have done this REPEATEDLY)
2. You are stating that despite Guild Mortgage company refusing to follow the guidelines that are set forth by the Department of Veterans Affairs rules for servicing a loan, and forclosure process, including inputing information into the VALERI system, Guild Mortgage company has every right to conduct a forclosure.
3. You have stated to us previously both via phone as well as email that as long as the mortgage is not reported as delinquint, much less in forclosure, in the VALERI system, which lets the VA know when a mortgage is at risk, and which has cause, per your previous emails, an inability for the VA to offer any assistance, there is nothing that the VA can do to assist in the matter. This is as a result of Guild Mortgage not doing their job, not ours. However, we are the ones that are expected to provide documentation, and do the work on this issue, is that correct?
4. You are stating that even though the service member falls within the protected status of not only the SCRA, but FDIC rules and Freddie Mac rules, and even though the mortgage company has responded to the fact that they have received copies of my set of active duty orders, with start and end dates (The set they received are the ones that ended 28 Aug 11, although there was other periods of service that are counted in the SCRA rules, ending 22 November 2011 for pre deployment), that the servicer has the right complete a forclosure process, even though the law, and several case law examples, state that the process cannot be initiated within a 9 month window from the final date of duty.
5. The negligence of Guild Mortgage, and I’m beginning to believe the Department of Veterans Affairs has led my family to a situation where I have been hampered in options, first by not processing a modification request in a timely manner, as well as having several unresolved issues from the loan origination paperwork, such as the first trust deed, the second trust deed, the proper recording of documents, etc, not to mention reporting information to credit agencies that should not have been, according to the SCRA, and starting with a defferment that would have eased this process, when it should have been done. Had this been handled by all parties involved properly from the beginning, we would not be in this situation.
6. Also to clarify, even though the VA servicing manual states that the VA does conduct financial reviews, and has the ability to intervene and negotiate (which we have been asking for THREE YEARS), you are saying that this is not the case?
7. Also, just to clarify – the length of time on documentation has now changed from 90 days to 6 months?
Please let me know if there are any corrections to the position of the Department of Veterans Affairs as listed above.
Thank you,
SGT Joshua
@Carie,
The idea is to be a squeaky wheel. Only way to get the oil. I tell everyone to squeak loud and clear. What is the worst that can happen? Nothing at all. But at least, you have the proof that you didn’t wait and really knocked everywhere.
I squeaked like hell. Other than getting my case “escalated” to OCC (after I had contacted Obama), no one did anything but… I have letter upon letter sent to everyone. That will come handy in court.
@enraged
I was talking about Obama and the Pentagon…you said to “contact” them…seemed funny to me…because their job is to cover this stuff up.
@Shelley A Erickson Your comment on May 25 at 12:39 pm you stated all foreclosers you check in 2009 were not in complicance. Would that also include Northwest Trustee Services?
this should give anyone a positive insight on being positive and having the love for each other to help each other fight this evil by being positive and not allowing negative thoughts to over rule us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=XfTjlfLGBv0 This is an eye opener.
I AGREE. NEGATIVE CAUSES RUIN, POSITIVE CONCIOUSNESS & REACTIONS CAUSE PROGRESS AND POSITIVE RESULTS. I am and always have been a risk taker. Most people are. You risk getting in your car everyday. You risk going out the door of your house. Sometimes you risk just being in your house. Negative would say, what good is it all? or positive would say, if I dont take this risk today I will never experience the greater good. I will not know how to really live life. My son goes farther than I will go. He jumps off bridges and cliffs and out of airplanes, and helicopters and off hang gliders. If he didnt he would be very unhappy and would never experience life. All that is worth while is hard work and a risk. Helping others and putting our heads together to fight this crimes has caused a huge positive leap toward freeing ourselves from the crimes of the banks. For the first time since the days of Ceasar, people are aware of this crime that is centuries old, due to the internet and our drive to find the truth and help each other. For the first time that I am aware of we are capable of stopping these criminal banks, because of our knowledge and awareness, made possible by these blogs and the internet. Every attorney that has been battleing for the good, has seen an incredible change in this theatre of judges , case law, homeowners saving their homes, lawyers saving homeowners homes, the wake up call that the banks lies were controlling this theatre, due to deception, fruad and brainwashing everyone they touched with their position of honesty, HAH, and their position the homeowner was the dead beat. More and more people are waking up to the reality it is the dead beat parasite banks, not the people. This was not the case two years ago. More and more positive case law is coming forward. There is absolutely no reason to give up or think this is hopeless. Look at the banksters and heads of countries that are jumping ship? Think they would be resigning and jumping ship if they did not beleive the gig is over. They are done? Every day is a new day of hope. New great case law, with some sets back by our corrupt enablers, but every day is also a step farther to the end of this nightmare. Otherwise the crooks win, AND THAT IS NOT AN OPTION.
@Carie,
Can you imagine if the first homeowner who actually fought had said: “But—they won’t DO ANYTHING…they are still trying to COVER IT UP…WHY would they help expose it?”
We’d still be where we were 5, 4, 3 or even 2 years ago. No one would have heard anything. 60 minutes would not have exposed the robot-signing and Lynn Szymoniak would have worked her butt off, not gone public, not been awarded a whistleblower reward and the hundreds of homeowners she helped would be sleeping under bridges.
It’s called “progress” for reason: pro (toward) gress (the way).
Progress: the way toward, the way ahead. The opposite is re (back) gress (way)… And since nothing stays at the same place, it ensues that if you don’t progress, you regress. Is it risky to put your neck out? You bet! Ask Weindner, Nye Lavalle, Max Gardner and Stopa. I don’t hear those guys going: “But—they won’t DO ANYTHING…they are still trying to COVER IT UP…WHY would they help expose it?”
It is the people who try to dissuade everyone else from taking action who are the most dangerous.
There was an extension of 9 months from 90 days that I believe expired in December 2010 which might make this foreclosure legal.
Guide Note: The 90 day period mentioned above in sections (b) and (c) have been temporarily extended to 9 months by section 2203 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. This temporary extension expires on December 31, 2010, when the original 90 day period will re-take effect.
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/scra/bl303.htm
We have certainly witnessed the biggest evil in our history. HERE IS A BLESSING OF GOOD WILL proving not all is evil. There are good hearts and souls out there. I love his music and have not spent money on any cd’s for a while. I will purposely go to the store and purchase one or more of Mcgraw’s cd’s. This is awesome.
http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2012/05/24/country-singer-tim-mcgraw-will-be-giving-away-25-homes-mortgage-free-to-military-members-this-summer/
Another slap in the face if BOA & MERS! Whom I hope are both killed dead in the State of Washington, we hope by September in reference to the Bains case soon, but not soon enough.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-05-23/bank-of-america-mers-lose-bid-to-dismiss-texas-fee-suit
enraged, on May 25, 2012 at 12:11 pm said:
If i were this couple, I’d be contacting CBS 60 minutes in no time! And Obama! And Pentagon. I’d be after everything that moves. Even what doesn’t move!
But—they won’t DO ANYTHING…they are still trying to COVER IT UP…WHY would they help expose it?
That couple’s situation has been repeated over and over and over in CA—including my docs…just different player names…
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304065704577424523414370912.html?grcc=fd7aebb24b29f66272798e67a64caf99Z8ZwdgtZ0Z374Z200Z76Z2&mod=WSJ_hp_personalized
from Neil’s posting:
“…I mean is this seriously legal??? Would a federal judge look at this and see how convoluted it all is?”
NO and NO.
Shelley – Always appreciate your insights and info. Whereas you’re also battling on the Washington state front, send me your email address and I’ll copy you on my Complaint which hopefully will be filed today (three years in the making). It charges virtually all you mention. Email me at the following otherwise-unused email address (the reunion is over): Benson50Reunion@aol.com.
No it did not. Not that I witnessed in the case. I did not understand why the attorney did not bring up the lack of standing to represent and be represented. I have been puzzeled by this. In most cases I have seen there is non compliance for multiple reasons. Read the Washington State V RECONTRUST, filed by Rob McKenna. One huge argument there. Non of the foreclosers were registered to be doing business in any state. See OCC letter January 14, 2005, national bank law does not preempt state law. Not be registered to be doing business in the states is a huge non compliance violation. MERS, RECONTRUST, and every FORECLOSER I CHECKED IN 2009 were not in compliance with being registered and everytime I checked after the foreclosers were still not in compliance. None of them.MERS violates case law Carpenter V Longan 1872 U.S. Supreme Court case law. The Bevilaqua V Rodrequez case law gby the Mass U.S. Supreme Court case looks to be ignored. The Ibanez V U.S Bank seems to be ignored when it was held up by the Mass U.S. Supreme court. How much case laws and law does it take to support the homeowsners? Landmark Decissions seem to be ignored. The local courts are either all making up their own law, and the land is lawless, or the attorneys are not arguing the cases in full. Like not arguing the foreclosers have the burden of proof to prove they represent the mortgage, due to the foreclosers are the agressors or accussors, or something like that. Brain dead today. Lots of case law in the Bains V MERS amicus curieas, by Shawn Newman and the same by Rob McKenna. That should be used and read thouroughly. A great attorney and our AG with multiple well paid attorneys doing the case. Melissa Huelsman is known for her expertise. She filed the Bains V MERS case. Read her claims and case law. Use all this to help you find similar statutes that apply in your state. All case law in every state can be used to argue. Florida has good case law against MERS. Doesnt seem to be used to help the homeowners I have contact with.
For once, Matt Weidner is a happy man.
http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/
BOOM! FLORIDA’S SECOND DCA UPHOLDS TRIAL COURT REQUIREMENT THAT SERVICERS NOT VERIFY!
May 25th, 2012 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.
The Florida Supreme Court, in it’s rules governing residential mortgage foreclosures demanded that PLAINITFFS VERIFY FORECLOSURE COMPLAINTS! The Supreme Court did not include slippery language that would allow agents, acting on behalf of undisclosed principals to come before the court and act on their behalf…specifically in the context of verifying complaints.
I read the Supreme Court’s language, it is clear and so we moved to dismiss their complaint. The trial judge agreed and dismissed, the bank appealed and the Second DCA just issued a Per Curiam Dismissal of the bank’s absurd Appeal….and so,
TRIAL COURT JUDGE PAMELA CAMPBELL’S ORDER DISMISSING THE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT BECAUSE IT WAS IMPROPERLY VERIFIED BY A SERVICER STANDS AS THE LAW IN THE 2ND DCA!
This is a HUGE step in holding the UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPALS in foreclosure actions accountable. All courts must start to carefully examine all principal/agency relationships in foreclosure cases and not allow undisclosed agents with no clearly defined authority to come into courts purporting to act!
It’s absurd that trial courts have allowed plaintiff’s to come in court waving around original notes with no other proof of relationship, no servicing contracts, nothing that even comes close to showing they have any authority to throw our neighbors into the streets and seize American homes.
THAT STOPS NOW!
(WELL, TRUTHFULLY MANY GOOD TRIAL COURT JUDGES PUT A STOP TO IT LONG AGO, AND NOW THE APPELLATE COURTS ARE AFFIRMING THEIR WISDOM)
Order Granting MTD
If i were this couple, I’d be contacting CBS 60 minutes in no time! And Obama! And Pentagon. I’d be after everything that moves. Even what doesn’t move!
Shelley: You hit the nail on the head, and I think a lot of people are scratching theirs over that CA decision. For now it seems that anyone may foreclose (including you), and good luck trying to defend against it. It might be worthwhile to go back and read through the arguments in the case to see if the authority of being the holder of the note was properly challenged beyond simply “must be the holder in order to file for foreclosure.” The courts can only rule on what is pleaded. Did Neil’s favorite topic – that the “lender” never did have a right to the note or deed of trust because they did not actually loan anything – ever get brought up?
I posted it, however due to two http’s on it, the post is waiting moderation, before it is posted here. There has to be some law in CA that does not allow anyone to claim the have the authority without holding the note. Now I know the case claimed they did not have to hold the note at the time they filed the case. Does that mean they dont have to come up with the burden of proof before the case is decided? That would be outrageous. Leaves the whole issue up to fraud AND STOLEN PROPERTY, UNLAWFULLY SEIZED PROPERTY BY FALSE AFFIDAVITS, and embezzlement, with no recourse. Something is missing here.
Shelley – Thanks. It’s “Albice v. Premier Mortgage Services, et. al. No. 85260-0, and yes, the opinion is in from the WA Supreme Court, and as you caution largely based on state law – and Washington and California differ considerably since the former is a “lien state” and the latter a “title state” as regards deeds of trust (much discussion here on that with the recent CA ruling that the forecloser did not necessarily have to hold the note).
My attorney sent me a copy of the Albice decision so I don’t have the Internet address where it can be downloaded. We’ll look for your subsequent posting here.
Neil—as in:
“The Court imposed rescission of the trustee sale based on Legal technicality or violation to state specific
foreclosure laws, contractual misrepresentation or fraud…”
May. 24, 2012 – 85260-0 – Albice v. Premier Mortg. Servs. of Wash., Inc.
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=852600MAJ
May. 24, 2012 – 85260-0 – Albice v. Premier Mortg. Servs. of Wash., Inc. (Concurrence)
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=852600Co1
Note this may be an indicator of how the court will rule in Bain. Here’s the Court’s conclusion in Albice:
SAME JUDGES AS THE BAINS CASE.
Here is a case similar to the Ibanez case thart was won by non compliance to WA state Deed of Trust law, ajudicated by the Washinton State Supreme court in Olympia. The homeowners won quiet title and their home back. THis is the oral arguement, I willl post the decision in a moment.
http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2011090028B
Hey Neil—why don’t you help people who have been illegally foreclosed on to get their homes back by helping prove the “contractual fraud” and get the trustee’s deed upon sale rescinded? THAT I would pay for…somehow!
just fyi—from a comment section I found re. trustees sale rescission:
Submitted by Danny B – 03/14/2011 – 3:05pm
” … If you scan back a bit, I know Sean has addressed this issue in past forum post responses. While steps sale rescissions are the exception (not the rule), they do happen. This most commonly occurs when the trustee and/or lender don’t have their act together (I’m shocked, shocked). Most typical scenario is when a loan mod was in progress and the bank gave the distressed homeowner something in writing to that effect while at the same time, their foreclosure division (by whatever euphemism it’s called) was giving the trustee a green light to sell their interest in the DOT (opening bid posted and sold at steps). The other common scenario is a bankruptcy filing that was recorded and proper/timely notification was made to the foreclosing lender … yet the trustee did not get timely notice of the owner’s BK from the lender and the trustee gave the auction company a green light to sell. In such cases you may see an apoplectic homeowner at the steps waiving their BK papers and attempting to get the auctioneer to halt the auction … the auctioneers will listen and give the homeowner the fax line # where to send the properly executed BK docs … BUT the auctioneer takes their instructions from the trustee NOT the distressed homeowner … hence, if given a “green light,” (authorization) they will auction the property right then and there. These sales may later be rescinded if the homeowner proved to be in the right. As a 3rd party investor who picked up a property under the aforementioned scenario, you may simply have to accept the fact that the sale will be rescinded and you’ll get your money back without so much as a “sorry our bad.”
Please also keep in mind that not all individuals who appear at the steps (homeowners or their proxies) “waiving papers” and insisting that this sale will “not stand” are in the right. I’ve seen one or two clever attempts to thwart a sale at the steps that were not done with legitimacy. I’m not making light of homeowners’ plight… it’s often a very tragic circumstance (many got blindsided and not everyone used their home as an ATM)… but listen/look carefully when someone is waiving papers at the steps.
There are also scenarios wherein the steps sale is being rescinded due to a lawsuit filed by the distressed homeowner. The decision to rescind a “properly conducted” steps sale may be the call of the lender’s legal dept who would rather deal with you (3rd party steps buyer) versus the homeowner’s attorneys who may have a cogent legal strategy. Now it’s up to you, and your lawyers, to determine how much its worth to put up a fight? If there’s substantial equity at stake, then maybe it’s worth the effort in making the lender show cause why your steps acquisition was not bonafide. You may be able to get a settlement from the lender … particularly if it was their screwup.
You also asked about putting $ cash into the property wherein a sale is later rescinded … This can happen, but it is not that common, as you generally know within a matter of days that the sale will be (or attempt to be) rescinded. So don’t rush in with $4keys or contractors until you’ve got more clarity on the former homeowner’s disposition. If you have put $$ in and the sale is later rescinded, then you may have cause to get that $$ back from the lender…”
urisdiction United States
Title Watters v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.
Decision Number Docket No. 05-1342 GLIN ID 192365
Court U.S. Supreme Court Decision Issue Date 17/04/2007
Judges
Plaintiffs / Petitioners Linda A. Watters, Comm’r, Mich. Off. Ins. & Fin. Serv.
Defendants / Respondents Wachovia Bank, N.A., et al.
Publication United States Reports
Publication Issue Number Volume No 550 (forthcoming)
Publication Date 17/04/2007
Publication Specifics
Related Legal Resources No related legal resources available
Summary
(English)
In Watters v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., the Supreme Court ruled that federal law preempts state regulation of the operating subsidiaries of national banks to the same extent that it preempts state regulation of national banks themselves.
Under the National Bank Act (NBA), national banks chartered by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) are subject solely to the “visitorial” regulation (such as auditing) of the OCC, and state visitorial regulation is preempted. Since 1966, OCC has recognized the authority of national banks to conduct business through operating subsidiaries. Legislation enacted in 1999 defined “operating subsidiaries” as those that only engage in the types of business that national banks may conduct directly, as distinct from “financial subsidiaries” that may engage in other types of business.
Wachovia Bank is a national bank chartered by the OCC. In 2003 it restructured its subsidiary, Wachovia Mortgage, to make it a wholly owned operating subsidiary of Wachovia Bank. Before 2003 Wachovia Mortgage registered annually with the Michigan Office of Insurance and Financial Services (OIFS), but after the restructuring it withdrew it registration on the ground that as an operating subsidiary of a national bank only the OCC had authority over it. Michigan advised that Wachovia Mortgage would no longer be authorized to conduct business in Michigan. Wachovia Mortgage and Wachovia Bank filed suit in federal court against petitioner Linda A. Watters, in her capacity as Commissioner of OIFS, for declaratory and injunctive relief, on the ground that OIFS’s authority was preempted. The U.S. District Court ruled in favor of the banks, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
The Court ruled that under the NBA, OIFS’s visitorial regulation of Wachovia Mortgage was preempted by OCC’s authority to regulate the subsidiary. Citing the long-standing federal preemption of state visitorial regulation of national banks’ activities covered by the NBA, including mortgage lending, the Court held that a national bank may engage in real estate lending through an operating subsidiary, subject to the same terms and conditions that govern the national bank itself, without being subject to state regulation. The Court observed that its case law concerning NBA preemption has focused on national banks’ powers, not on their corporate structure, and noted that since the OCC’s 1966 grant of authority to national banks to conduct business through operating subsidiaries, Congress and the OCC have treated such subsidiaries as subject to the same terms and conditions as national banks themselves. The Court thus affirmed the judgment of the Sixth Circuit.
Full Texts English Full Text 1 (405.52kb) (PDF He
one thing i did not see in the story was a statement that they had notified the servicer in writing of the application of the SCRA and copied them on the deployment orders. SCRA is very specific – there are protections built in, but the service member has to take affirmative steps to avail himself of those provisions. they are not automatic. if the servicemember did comply with the notice provisions of the SCRA and the servicer continued to move in the direction of foreclosure, then woe be unto them and I hope these folks find representation. this one won’t even require a particularly high level of sophistication or competence on the attorney’s part – it really is a no-brainer
Obviously this servicer (like most) is attempting to vault over a number of laws. In addition to the military aspect, check your Note for the wording “anyone who takes this note by transfer and is entitled to receive payments under this note is called the “Note Holder.” (it should be on Pg. 1, ¶1 ). “Transfer” is a defined legal term under the UCC and what is required for a Note to be transferred may be found (in Washington under RCW 62A.3-201, 203 (you will have similar numbers and I believe identical wording under the California UCC).
Then jot down –
15 U.S.C. § 1641
(f) Treatment of servicer
(1) In general
A servicer of a consumer obligation arising from a consumer credit transaction shall not be treated as an assignee of such obligation for purposes of this section unless the servicer is or was the owner of the obligation.
(2) Servicer not treated as owner on basis of assignment for administrative convenience
A servicer of a consumer obligation arising from a consumer credit transaction shall not be treated as the owner of the obligation for purposes of this section on the basis of an assignment of the obligation from the creditor or another assignee to the servicer solely for the administrative convenience of the servicer in servicing the obligation. Upon written request by the obligor, the servicer shall provide the obligor, to the best knowledge of the servicer, with the name, address, and telephone number of the owner of the obligation or the master servicer of the obligation.
(3) “Servicer” defined
For purposes of this subsection, the term “servicer” has the same meaning as in section 2605(i)(2) of title 12.
The writer should be a good candidate for some help, and perhaps a poster child for the courts on these points.
I’m not an attorney. Perhaps one can assist in fleshing out the above in this case.
Perhaps we can help…Call me at 818 (510) 0663..