Buying U.S. Foreclosures: A Risky Business

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm


LivingLies Membership – If you are not already a member, this is the time to do it, when things are changing.

For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

14 Things Every Canadian Buyer Should Know Before                              Taking the Plunge

Editor’s Comment:  

Canadians and other foreign investors are joining with U.S. investors in buying distressed residential real estate in the U.S. Practically by definition they have no idea about the risks they are taking. They are taking the “knowledge” from 15 years ago and applying it to a market that does not even remotely resemble the old market.

Canada weathered the storm caused by Wall Street antics by simply not playing. Canadian banks saw inherent risks and moral hazards that they wanted no part in playing. While the rest of the world laughed at Canada’s stuffiness, the banks, and its depositors are just fine thank you, although their economy is taking a hit due to a decline in demand for exports. So Canadians with Canadian money that is not debased are coming to America in droves to take advantage of the “oversold” prices of housing. They are buying these properties in droves and unwittingly making themselves part of a corrupt marketplace in which they could lose their money, their title, their property and their right to possession of that property because they bought it from someone who didn’t own it or because they assumed that the old mortgage had been paid off and properly satisfied. This article explains why investors show exercise great care to preserve the value and existence their investments.

1. With the Massachusetts Supreme Court having decided that foreclosure is only valid if the would-be forecloser owns both the note and the mortgage — a black letter law concept that has been in existence since before the American Revolution — the questions are evolving from issues relating to wrongful foreclosures to “what do we do about it, now that we know the foreclosures did not meet the basic elements of a foreclosure action under any analysis?”

2. Some decisions, like Hogan in Arizona appear to create a debatable issue. But read closely, the decision stands for the proposition that it is not necessary to possess the note in order to give the instruction to the Trustee on Deed of Trust to issue a Notice of Default and/or a Notice of sale. It does not state that anyone without proper credentials can present themselves as the creditor. So the auction, if it occurs, is strictly limited to cash bids, since the creditor has neither stepped forward nor made a claim as to the amounts due.

3. In a prescient note, the Hogan court simply states that the borrower neither denied the debt nor the security instrument or the note. If they do so, then the game is on, and the banks and servicers are “out of the money.” They are not creditors, they have only the most tenuous argument to present themselves as sub-servicers, and they have no authority to speak for the Master servicer or the investors from whom money was taken under false pretenses.

4. It is now apparent that this has not escaped attorneys or judges. If there is a denial of the obligation, note, mortgage (Deed of Trust), plus a denial of the default and the amount claimed as due from a party whom the borrower denies is the creditor, the case must move forward into discovery. A motion for summary judgment by the banks and sub-servicers will be routinely denied if it is met with an affidavit from the homeowner or borrower that contains these denials.  Now that borrowers and even homeowners who have already lost their property in foreclosure and eviction are overturning foreclosures, regaining title and possession of the property, the “new” buyer is left with only a claim for money from their title carrier and a potential claim against the bank or servicer that “sold” them the property.

5. The title companies have already decided this point. They will and they’re routinely writing exceptions into the title policy that actually puts the liability for indemnification on the buyer rather than the title company, if the claim arises out of illegal origination or illegal foreclosures.

6. The Bank will fight the Buyer on the warranty deed recitals until the investor gives up. But the main point, is that investment is US distressed property is buying a lawsuit UNLESS you file a quiet title action and it sticks. Remember, you are giving notice to John Does 1-10,000 through publication who probably don’t read your local paper that publishes legal notices.

7. These investor lenders have a legitimate beef. They gave up money and signed papers that assured them they were getting good loans within 90 days of the transaction in which the investor advanced the money to the investment banker. What they are getting is bad loans pitched over the fence years after the transaction.  In the foreclosures, especially the non-judicial foreclosures, there is no need or opportunity to give notice to the investors that this loan is NOW claimed to be part of the pool they think they own.

8. The investors now have a good reason to enter the picture and assert that they don’t want this bad loan, they didn’t buy it and it wasn’t transferred into the “pool” within 90 days of the investor’s closing with the investment banker. Thus they can argue without any real defense from the banks that the assignments are mere offers that the pools neither accepted nor could accept under the terms of the prospectus and pooling and servicing agreement. But whether they make the claim or simply COULD make the claim, that is the essence of clouded title. And that is how you end up in a lawsuit you never imagined.

9. Add to that the assignment was fabricated, forged and fraudulently presented without any financial transaction backing it up, and the investor wins hands down.

10. Realtors are no help on this since all they want is property moving thus producing commissions. They like to point out that the deed in a short-sale is much better because it is the homeowner who actually signs the deed. And that is true. what they ignore is that the payoff of the old mortgage was taken by a stranger to the transaction who accepted the money and then issued an authorized release and satisfaction of the old mortgage lien when the buyer closes.

11. The banks and sub-services are starting up their own title companies or entering into confidential agreements with the title companies that incidentally were part owners of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc (MERS) or the JPM entity they ran for a while when they saw the hand writing on the wall for MERS. But they are only creating the appearance of insurance protection with no intention of honoring the claim or fixing the title problem they reported to the buyer wasn’t there. Now the ttile companies say their title report is only a worksheet and you have no right to rely on it. There are about ten thousands cases in precedent that disagree with this ridiculous assertion.

12. The bottom line is that a buyer who does not negotiate the right provisions in the title policy (it CAN be done) is going to go through (1) euphoria about how brilliant he is to have picked up such a bargain (2) no title and/or (3) two or more mortgages that still encumber the property despite the supposed payoff and recording of release and satisfaction.

13. The final coup de grace is that the buyers who fail to heed these warnings wil find themselves bankrupt when it comes down to selling or refinancing the property or when they find themselves defending  a lawsuit from a former homeowner demanding that the foreclosure be overturned and possession restored. There are thousands of these cases and within the next 2 years there will be tens of thousands of these cases. Your title company is not likely to defend you unless you negotiate that and other terms into the your title policy.

14. BOTTOM LINE: Don’t close without an experienced real property attorney and if he or she is dismissive of these claims then they are just as ignorant as you are.  Move on to an attorney who does understand negotiation of the terms of deed and title policy and leave the paper pushers in the dust. If you want more help, write to me at

It was the absence of information that caused virtually everyone to misread the risks that were inherent in the mortgage meltdown period during which prices were artificially inflated.  The same absence of information is leading Canadians to misinterpret the market and assume risks that are not apparent to them.  It is only through competent professionals that they should complete any real estate transaction in the United States.  In this case competence includes special knowledge of the securitization of mortgages, the current status of corruption in our title system, and the ultimate risk of losing the entirety of their investment, the title they thought they had, and the right to possession of property which they thought had been properly purchased and protected with a title insurance policy.  Canadians would be unwise to accept the assertions of title companies who produce title reports and commitments for title insurance that merely perpetuate the corruption of title in America.  These same entities actually have ownership interests in the private system of recording established by the banks.  Virtually everyone in the marketplace has a conflict of interest that may ultimately dash the hopes on investors and potentially remove their nest egg meant for retirement.





69 Responses

  1. […] Read more… Posted in Banks, MERS, News Around The Country, States « OCC Says Bank Losses Mounting on Defective Foreclosures and Loans Registers of Deeds in Five NC Counties Take Issue with Fannie and Freddie’s Tax Exempt Status » You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. […]

  2. And:
    “In the event the party relied upon in a fiduciary situation
    fails to fulfill his obligations, and if it also fails to tell
    the other party of this failure, there is said to be fraudulent
    concealment and constructive fraud, so the statute of limitations
    may be tolled. Amen v. Merced County Title Company, 375 P.2d 33,
    36 (Cal. 1962); Annot., 173 A.L.R. 576 (1948). Since this
    contention is not contradicted by Title Insurance it will be
    assumed proper for the sake of this discussion. In light of our
    conclusion in point one, supra, that Title Insurance was
    obligated to record the trust deed, we hold that its failure to
    record and failure to advise the Allens of that fact resulted in
    the tolling of the statute of limitations until the Allens
    discovered or should have discovered their damage. For the sake
    of this opinion, we assume that the Allens had a cause of action
    against Title Insurance for failure to record and failure to
    advise them of the effect of this failure from the date of the
    impairment of their trust deed security on August 10, 1956.”

    There is further discussion in this case of when and why the law holds
    the Allens to inquiry duty, that is to say, if a reason is found for a party to make an effort to learn of something and that party doesn’t, the stature of limitations is running, not delayed mol.

  3. What I had around, not exactly on the mark, but still close:

    ALLEN v. WEBB, 87 Nev. 261 (1971)
    485 P.2d 677

    1. The escrow instructions recited the requirement that Title
    Insurance Company record the trust deed, Title Insurance orally
    promised to record it and the eminence, experience and knowledge
    of Title Insurance in its field is that of handling the minituae
    of real estate closings. From their superior knowledge flowed a
    duty to their clients, the Allens, to do such things as recording
    documents or advise them when they did not. Theirs is the
    knowledge of a lawyer. In fact, they acted the part in preparing
    the documents. See Pioneer Title v. State Bar, 74 Nev. 186,
    326 P.2d 408 (1958); cf. Humphrey v. Knobel, 78 Nev. 137,
    369 P.2d 872 (1962), and Francis v. Eisenmayer, 340 P.2d 54, 58 (Cal.App.
    Not only did the escrow instructions state that Title Insurance
    was to record all papers, the normal exigencies of the situation
    called for them to do so. The act of recording is in their line
    of business — a normal part of their duties, not an exception.
    Part of the expectancies of ordinary laymen such as the Allens is
    that the escrow agent will record the necessary documents. The
    instructions and conversations of Title Insurance gave no warning
    that they would do otherwise. Bates v. Cottonwood Cove Corp.,
    84 Nev. 388, 441 P.2d 622 (1968). See Paso Builders, Inc. v. Hebard,
    83 Nev. 165, 426 P.2d 731 (1967).

  4. Who’s to say it’s impossible to start an internet list of allegedly defaulted loans? Of COURSE it will take coordination and concerted effort, but I’d say we and the investors have a very large mutual interest. For a fact, one grp is sueing now for lack of notice of defaults to the investors. Maybe a place to start. Carie, I nominate you!

  5. Okay. If one has a right to get her hands on the title policy one paid for in a refi, then try to get it. Also, try to get a copy of the title commitment or preliminary or w/e they called it. Carie, I get lost with your deal and it’s because I can’t remember everything. You got a refi. Public record shows they did or didn’t do a reconveyance of the original loan? Did YOU receive the recon if recorded? Go look at your HUD 1 settlement statement from the refi. I just cannot remember if it’s allowable to charge a borrower for the recording fee of the reconveyance. If so, it’ll be on your settlement stmt, as well as will be the payoff amts, including interest to the day of the old lenders receipt of the funds. If that stuff is on there, then of course it was rep’d to you that the orig loan was being paid off.
    Would you mind telling me, in a nutshell, what made you and others think in the first place that your loans were put in false default? I think I missed that part altogether. If what you say happened happened, well, then it happened. The deal is to figure out what to do about it, how to prove it. That has to start with how they did it and because I don’t know what else, I am just thinking about the title policy and if there were a recon of the orig loan. The only other thing I can possibly think of is to first id the alleged trust of the first loan and find someone, whatever it takes, on the receiving end of the false default and see if that party can id that loan as (allegedly) defaulted. Surely there is an accounting of some kind given to the guy who got the investors together and got them to get into this mess. Funds mgr?
    Someone! Thinking more about your comment at 12:30, but there’s not enough info there. A guy somehow got a copy of a payoff check to FNMA and that FNMA said they never got?! May I ask if you ever read that thing on the sec’n of subprime loans I linked?

    Nora said:

    “Chase bought WaMu in receivership in 2008 (although WaMu protested and the deal wasn’t finalized until late 2011) and gave the FDIC zero dollars for 460 Billion dollars in collection rights on securitized….” . Well, I can’t remember much about that, either. (Just the way it is these days.) Are you saying the FDIC just forked over those ‘collection rights ‘ for free? Was there more to it, like Chase took over Wamu’s debt, or was that an argument and Chase said no, it didn’t, just got the assets? Geez, I would have given the FDIC my car or something! What was the reason given for the FDIC doing that?

    As to the dbl payment question: it depends on who owns those damn notes. If the depositor still factually owns them and got money from the investors and then the depositor gets payments from the homeowners, that would be dble payment (but the depositor isn’t – the investors get the payments). Normally, if I pay Sam for a note, my payment to him does not retire the debt. It’s just now owed to me. It gets so stinking complicated when one doesn’t know some things. What did the investors pay for? Did the investors buy the right to payments (made) as derivatives, or did they buy the notes themselves? I keep trying to fashion the mechanics, the facts, and what is what when the dust settles, I guess is a way to say it of sec’n of these notes (and I am still looking for help on whether or not they required 6 to 12 mos. seasoning first). I started a deal likening sec’n to the way a dot works, (with a third party involved, the trustee), but thought it was, well, hokey. Maybe I’ll just throw it out here anyway if I can find it and if I dare. If the depositor no longer owns the notes and the proper party is getting our payments, there’s no dbl payment. Which reminds me – we need to look at the guarantee issues again, starting with FNMA’s. Now THAT might just be dbl payment.

  6. @johngault,you have a right to demand the lender policy because your original owner policy is tied to that policy. Your owner policy is good for the life of the loan, and any lender policy attached through refi merely insures title from the last refi or purchase. (See, mutual indem). When the insure your refi, they only insure against to the extent of the last policy,i.e. new liens,taxes,emergency repairs, and the neighbors fence being over the property line and claiing your land through possession.

    Title insurance is the biggest scam since the social security and fannie and freddie taking possession of debt past the corporate entity side of that quasi-bullshit political slush fund.

    And, if someone doesn’t indict Jon Corzine soon, we may as all just start robbing banks. It appears there are no penalties if you are caught. I am just going into a branch and telling them to transfer 6 billion dollars to my Chase account, or else, than i will blame it on the teller and the branch manager, return 1 billion,spend one billion buying lawyers and politicians and whack the remaining 4 billion up with the mafia wives and my fellow ranters here on the living lies.

  7. Dear Nora, first JPMorgan did not purchase all the loan that WaMu was suppose to own as Wells Fargo Bank was servicing about $130 billion of WaMu’s FHA & VA loans which nobody know about, as it was a result of the Jul 31, 2006 mortgage servicing deal.

    Now it seem as if you loan was a part of this assumption FDIC did to cover their butt because IndyMac cost the FDIC insurance fund about $13 billion so they screw up the JPMorgan deal because it would cost the FDIC the rest of the Insurance fund and would have made Sheila Blair crawled to Timothy Geithner and access the reserve funds that is set up at the Treasury and been under his thumb until she would have been able to rebuild that fund.

    You need to write the OCC and have them make JPMorgan produce the Note and see who it is endorse to and if it has a Blank endorse from WaMu then you have got a situation someone needs to provide proof of purchase, because if like a government insured loan that Ginnie Mae the loans don’t have a debt and are free & clear and belong to the home owners!

  8. But I never refinanced. I’m talking about the originator (WaMu) passing the Note to WashingtonMutual Securitites Corp, who supposedly transfered the Note through the usual entities in order to securitize it. Chase bought WaMu in receivership in 2008 (although WaMu protested and the deal wasn’t finalized until late 2011) and gave the FDIC zero dollars for 460 Billion dollars in collection rights on securitized loans, and 191 Billion in loans. I am aware that the loans were invalid, for multiple reasons, not the least of which is the fraud involved. But if investors were paying WaMu for tranches at the same time they were collecting my payments, isn’t that getting paid twice on the same securitized debt?

  9. The stuff I have posted is from an insider who has complete knowledge of the whole rigged system.

  10. “The refinance Note was invalid because the prior note is never paid off, and the mortgage is never validly cancelled/discharged.”

    He is referring to manufactured false default…he has the cancelled check of HIS payoff—but Fannie said it was never paid off by him—but he has the proof…Fannie was stunned…didn’t know what to say…but it has happened millions of times.

  11. The reason the original dot would not be reconveyed at the time of a refinance with false default on the original loan is obvious. Kinda hard to do a reconveyance as if it were paid off when it has been falsely defaulted. And speaking of which, if a note has been retired by any form of insurance or whatever the heck, the dot should be reconveyed IN the TIME CERTAIN prescribed by law. Not just because it’s the right thing to do, but because there is no longer anything (no debt) to collateralize. A note is retired to the extent of third party payments.

  12. “Because the prior loan is not paid off and the prior Mortgage is not validly discharged, no new note can be validly executed at the time
    of refinance.” That’s just not true. What might be true if the original note and dot are not retired is that a second is being made in the guise of a new first (and I can only think but don’t know that’s not okay). And that is (maybe only) true if there has been no behind the scenes “participation”, which is mol a form of assumption of the liability for payment of the old note by the new ‘lender’ – sort of a wrap. I am no guru on participation (and only think that’s what they were called at this point – memory goes) One way or another, the original dot should be reconveyed (as distinguished from released because it is in fact a reconveyance unlike the release of a lien imo).
    Can lender B assume the payments on the original note made by Lender A and remit those payments out of the new payment on the new note? Can lender B do this without your knowledge and consent?
    I dont’ know, nor can I speak to the original loan being put in false
    default or the mechanics or that (but in no way doubt it was done). But what is stated is nonetheless not true, pretty sure. It’s probably hinky at best and if false default of the original loan is involved, well, obviously it’s dead wrong and a major rip to the investor, maybe an insuring entity, and the homeowner.
    The title commitment on the new loan would call for the reconveyance of the original loan as a matter of rote. If so, and this weren’t done, there is really no title insurance, so I think the borrower was forced to pay for nothing: oops on all involved. The title insurance at issue is for the benefit of the lender basically, but still, a borrower, who has the privilege of paying for that insurance, has a justifiable reason to believe that the new loan won’t be made without the old one being retired. When title company is the party sending the payoff to the old lender (from the proceeds of the new loan), it is often the title company getting the reconveyance from the original lender to record it and it should then be mailed to the homeowner, who has a right as a matter of law to receive the doc and in a time certain (it’s the law). No matter who is in charge of the reconveyance, this is true, and the law will find the fault primarily at the feet of the party paid off (or who was supposed to be paid off) if the release is not forthcoming in the time prescribed by law.
    Not getting that reconveyance is a place to start, I would think. I’m not sure, but I think, it stands to reason, that if a title co. knew the payoff was not going to be made, but fashioned a title commmitment as if it were and allowed a homeowner to pay for title insurance based on a payoff, they’re in deep doo. When the title policy is finally issued, I wonder what it actually shows. We don’t’generally get copies of those policies on refinances. Do we have a right? We’re not the insured, but we paid for them, so don’t know. We might.

  13. Carrie in your answer to Nora there is one difference when Ginnie Mae is involved because they can’t originate, buy or sell a home mortgage loan. What happen in this case because they are trying to out smart people is that there is no debt associated with Notes once they are signed endorsed over to Ginnie Mae because it is a bankruptcy remote procedure which you can see worked in the “failed bank” as those loan held by Ginnie Mae were not included in the FDIC sale of assets and they remain in the control of Ginnie Mae.

    What happen is as you say there is not sale of the Note when the loans are placed with Ginnie Mae but the lender signs a HUD 11711A agreement that says right, title, and any and all financial interest in the loan is relinquish to Ginnie Mae. It that point in time that the debt is wipe away because its impossible legally to put back together the loan debt & Note one because of the UCC 3 rules a Blank cannot transfer anything as Ginnie Mae cannot be a part of signing the Note as they are not a Lender. Remember Ginnie Mae does not purchase the debt as they are not even involved in the deal but as the insurer for the pass-through payment to the “Investors” who are purchasing the MBS not home mortgages.

    The Lender who is now called the “Issuer” who place the loan into the pools does a transaction after the fact of closing the loan with home loan borrowers where there is not language of allowing a non-lender who cannot complete the contract and is not a lender that does not purchase the loan and is not owed a dime and is not in title as the “holder in due course”!

    What you have is a financial arrangement between the lender/Issuer and “Investors” for securities that provides additional fund to produce more loans. However the secret for the lender/issuer is to stay alive in order for outsider to not know that the Note ever went anywhere.

    Just think of it like this before the under 4% rates, that most loan were refinanced and a new Note was issued or if the loan was paid off the borrower who not know why they was this signature by the bank and a blank stop was there as they would only care the the document was stamp in red PAID!

    Long story short is that certain loan FHA & VA placed in Ginnie Mae pools are going to have no debt attached to the properties, and no debt at all because the ex-lenders does not have a Note to claim any debt because they gave it to a non-Lender (Ginnie Mae) without purchasing, so they are not out any monies at all, and the ex-lender is dead as they no longer exist. They needed to stay alive to complete the con of who’s got the Note!

  14. FYI—re. my last post—GSE’s are Fannie/Freddie.

  15. Nora—I hope this helps:

    “…What many are not understanding is that the Note is invalid. There can be no valid Note on collection rights. Because the prior loan is not paid off and the prior Mortgage is not validly discharged, no new note can be validly executed at the time of the last refinance. What we have is described in the second half of Footnote 35 of the November 2010 TARP Inspector General Report —-“Without the note, a mortgage is unenforceable, while without the mortgage, a note is simply an unsecured debt obligation, no different from credit card debt.”

    If anyone has ever encountered credit card collection for default, they will understand what happens. With credit card default, the collection rights are sold to distressed debt buyers — at a discount. This is accomplished by either direct sale of the collection rights, or by a credit default swap derivative. The bank, who sells collection rights (cannot sell the account itself since the account is charged-off), considers the debt paid — just not paid by you. This is the same thing with the subprime refinances, and many subprime purchases. Subprime is simply charged off GSE debt, with collection rights passed to a third party — most often the bank who was borrowers prior mortgagee. Only servicing rights are sold/transferred in subprime refinance because the loan is already in default. Borrowers just never knew, and will likely never know, what was reported about them to the GSEs.

    What happened with the subprime trusts is that they did not have to be funded at all. No notes were actually conveyed because there was no valid Note. The refinance Note was invalid because the prior note is never paid off, and the mortgage is never validly cancelled/discharged. The banks, by the subprime refinance securitization were selling securities for pass-through of collection rights payments (cash) ONLY. Security investors thought that these were backed by valid mortgage but, they were not. The trusts themselves do not transfer collection rights to security investors. The collection rights belong to the bank who purchased them from the GSEs. Again, each subprime refinance transferred the right to service those collection rights — that is all. However, banks also dispose of collection rights, and collection rights could be sold again and again. The important thing to remember is that the trusts have nothing to do with the sale of collection rights. The trusts were set up to pass-through cash payments to those collection rights only —- nothing more.

    People have to stop thinking in terms of “getting paid” twice, or that the Note “has already been paid.” This thinking has led down a very wrong path. As with credit card debt, if you do not pay the debt — you still owe it — even though a distressed debt buyer has already “paid” the bank for the right to collect. The same with the subprime refinance — still owe it — even though someone else has paid for collection rights. However, in both cases, you have a right to know WHO you currently owe. A right to know your “CURRENT” creditor. A right to know how much the current creditor PAID for the debt. A right to know the complete chain of mortgage title from the purchase of your home to current date. A right to know if your loan was ever sold to a GSE, and when that GSE disposed of your loan along with collection rights, and what was reported to that GSE about you. A right to know your real and current creditor in bankruptcy. A right to know that your “debt” is unsecured.

    Stating that the NOTE was already paid is simply incorrect and wrong. And, it is this thinking that has prevented exposure of the truth. When you start saying “I owe nothing” — you have lost from the onset. You owe, but under fraud, and violation of the law. You owe — unsecured debt procured by fraud…”

  16. Great post by Nora C, and to add to that is the illegal dilemma Ginnie Mae has and that is that they by law cannot originate, buy or sell a home mortgage loan at all, but are having MERS submit fraudulent documents to local land recording offices as if the offices where not a part of the court.

    Ginnie Mae is being portrayed as the lien holder but they not only did not purchase anything but could not purchase the Notes, thereby making it impossible to create a lien against properties.

    What you have is a problem so large that will cause the US tax payer a few trillion dollar because we guaranteed the payments of the Mortgage Backed Securities that are worthless because there is absolutely no underlying collateral. If all the borrowers decided to not pay their payment there no legal way to foreclosed because the loan are not owned any more by the banks because under UCC 3 they signed the Notes in Blank but could not transfer the debt with the blank Notes and without the Notes the bank don’t have a loan outstanding so making it impossible for a loan to be due!

  17. Tell me if I’m wrong, but isn’t collecting money from investors for slices of the pool of Notes at the same time they are collecting mortgage payments from the borrowers, getting paid twice on the same debt? And then there’s the fact that they paid nothing for the Note in all cases. So they’re getting paid twice for something they can’t prove a loss on because the Note itself was the asset used to fund the “loan”, They have millions riding on their ability to take the property in foreclosure; pool ins., CDS, hedge bets, PMI, TARP, FDIC Shared Loss Agreements, etc., and then when the borrower defaults they foreclose and get the house, too. If you read the Federal Reserve’s publications, and the affidavit of Walker F. Todd who worked for the cleveland Fed Reserve Bank, you see that the Note is money to the bank, once the borrower signs.
    When the revolution takes down the banking system, and we throw congress out on their worthless asses, we need to take custody of all the documents for expert analysis. I want to know how it was all done, because the banks are going to great lengths to HIDE how they did it. Perhaps Maher Soliman or an ex-Wall Street bank accountant will write a book. He shouldn’t be allowed the proceeds, tho.

  18. Good to hear that attorneys are going to fight this thing, because MERS has made a mess of thing with these leaders who don’t have a valid Note and the use MERS to try and bridge the gap in the chain of ownership and have taken advantage of theirs and banks relationship with the local land recorders. MERS is allowed to submit documentation without proving proof to the court that they or whatever bank they are pretending to be working for that they actual own the Note by having to show the Notes.

    If on the Note had to be present when each initial recording and all assignments we would not have the problem we are dealing with today.

    What crazy is people are talking about the Trust as if it has gained power that the alleged own of the Blank Note does not have by law. Example is that Ginnie Mae cannot hold a debt because its not a lender and does not pay for the loan so how on earth would a homeowner ever be indebted to Ginnie Mae or any Trust the Note was placed in involving a Ginnie Mae transaction! It called you can’t, and the Federal Governments got a few trillion dollar problem!

  19. I will hammer that point with the judge that there never was any “true sale” of the note in our case. That was the reason for three assignments of mortgage and the “endorsed in blank” note that surfaced in bankruptcy court but NOT in the foreclosure case. The bank attorneys are not afraid of tendering fraudulent, forged documents, yet. That is changing , I guarantee it.

  20. Understand that in the case of Ginnie Mae pooled loans the Notes are signed in Blank but Ginnie Mae does not purchase for any of the loans because it cannot by law, as they are not a lender and are not regulated to lend.

    So that the loan are place with a trust means nothing because Ginnie Mae does not own the debt! Under UCC 3 yes there is the provision to assign the Notes in Blank however when it come to foreclosing what the balance due to Ginnie Mae when they pay zero? The answer is nothing because not only can the not collect a monthly payment from the borrower they can have a surrogate in some Servicer collect the money for them.

    What has occurred is some non holder of debt (Ginnie Mae) is pulling strings having a service claim they are the lender when in fact they are no t and don’t have the legal standing to claim a debt, as the lenders/issuers who are selling the mortgage backed securities gave away their legal claim to the debt thinking no one would find out that they relinquish to Ginnie Mae ownership without a way to retrieve the debt because you cannot re-marry the Blank Note with Ginnie Mae cannot sign and they did not purchase the debt.

    So if Ginnie Mae the owner of the Note cannot foreclose a trust that Ginnie Mae has the Blank Notes in cannot foreclose either and if Ginnie Mae cannot collect payment either can a servicer collect. A loan shark cannot hire a mortgage servicers to collect.

  21. “Borrower advocates have been critical of Georgia’s so-called “non-judicial” foreclosure system, where lenders must only assert they have a right to foreclose, not prove to a judge basic facts such as ownership of a loan or that it is indeed in default.”

    “Lenders” are not foreclosing…this is the problem…they are NOT lenders—they are DEBT COLLECTORS—ONLY.

  22. From usedkarguy’s post:

    “The issue involves the many lenders who sell their loans to other parties such as investment trusts, but serve as stand-ins handling the paperwork in the foreclosure process and act as if they still own the loans.”

    Did they really “sell the loan”? To the trust? I don’t think so…

  23. “Nonjudicial foreclosure is the most common type of foreclosure in California. It is used when there is a power-of-sale clause in the deed of trust that secures the mortgage loan by giving the trustee the authority to sell the home to pay off the loan balance at the request of the lender if the borrower defaults (fails to make payments).”

    What is a “Power Of Sale” clause?

    “It is the clause in a deed of trust or mortgage in which the borrower pre-authorizes the sale of the property to pay off the balance on a loan if the borrower defaults (fails to make the loan payment when due).

    The power given to sell the property is generally given to the trustee who acts on behalf of the beneficiary (lender) by recording and sending Notice of Default and Notice of Sale.”

    But—“beneficiary” on original Note says MERS…when servicer is asked who is owner/beneficiary of payoff of supposed loan debt, the answer is: “Your loan has been securitized…all applicable amounts will be remitted to Trustee of MBS—“Deutsche”…

    Doesn’t the fact that the original paperwork says nothing at all about “securitization”—which is not a transfer or a sale—mean anything? As far as (now enforceable) legal ramifications?

  24. Did anybody see this one? Big victory in Georgia!

    Ruling could have impact on foreclosure suits

    By J. Scott Trubey

    The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

    An appeals court ruling this week in favor of a Cobb County couple could leave mortgage companies liable for damages for not following state law in an unknown number of Georgia foreclosures.
    The Georgia Court of Appeals held Thursday that the name of the actual owner of a mortgage must be present in foreclosure filings and notices sent to delinquent borrowers.
    Don Ryan, AP The Georgia Court of Appeals held Thursday that the name of the actual owner of a mortgage must be present in foreclosure filings and notices sent to delinquent borrowers.

    Family’s foreclosure nightmare
    Firm: Georgia foreclosure rate tops in U.S. for May
    Foreclosure notices drop
    Find foreclosure properties

    More business news

    Car buyer mistaken as terrorist
    Mixing of credit files creates hardships for consumers
    Issues from faulty credit reports
    Veteran shopping center manager tries to polish Atlantic Station image
    NY Fed told of interest rate manipulation in ’07
    Biz Beat blog
    Top workplaces: Is your company on this list?
    Check your stocks

    The 4-3 ruling probably won’t undo the result of past foreclosures, lawyers say, but could open another avenue for borrowers to sue mortgage firms.

    “This could breathe new life into the challenges of foreclosures that took place in late 2008 and throughout 2009,” said Frank Alexander, a real estate law professor at Emory University.

    The number of cases where the ruling might be applicable was not immediately clear, but could be in the tens of thousands.

    The issue involves the many lenders who sell their loans to other parties such as investment trusts, but serve as stand-ins handling the paperwork in the foreclosure process and act as if they still own the loans.

    The Georgia Court of Appeals held Thursday that the name of the actual owner of a mortgage must be present in foreclosure filings and notices sent to delinquent borrowers.

    State law was modified in 2008 to require that foreclosure notices and legal advertisements include the name and contact information of the mortgage owner and of organizations that could negotiate a modification, short sale or other relief on lender’s behalf.

    “A debtor has a right to know which entity has the authority to foreclose, and there should be no confusion about the identity of that entity. The practical ramifications are troubling if it were otherwise,” the court majority agreed in its opinion.

    The court said that if a debtor knows a mortgage servicer no longer holds the loan, for instance, he could be “misled or confused, or simply disregard, a notice of foreclosure” that doesn’t correctly identify the loan’s proper owner.

    David Ates, an attorney for plaintiffs Izell and Raven Reese, said mortgage servicers, stand-ins for investors who buy mortgages the original lenders have sold, often have an incentive to foreclose because of potential fee revenue.

    Though banks have improved some of their practices since 2011, Ates estimated that “90 to 95 percent” of residential foreclosures in Georgia from mid-2008 to 2011 could be susceptible to a challenge based on lack of disclosure.

    “We’ve been arguing for quite a while these notices are bad,” Ates said.

    Georgia’s amended foreclosure law went into effect July 1, 2008, and other real estate observers said that mortgage servicers and law firms conducting foreclosures have done a better job complying with the law since early 2010. But for about 18 months that was not the case.

    Alexander said the ruling is significant as an affirmation of the 2008 amendment to Georgia’s foreclosure statutes.

    In addition to helping borrowers under threat of foreclosure know where to turn for help, the principle of the 2008 amendment was to help ensure that the true holder of the mortgage was foreclosing.

    “Even a dog in Georgia has a right to know who’s kicking them,” Alexander said. “Before you lose your home you have a right to know who’s taking it from you.”

    A lawyer for Provident Funding Associates LLP, the defendant in the Reese case, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

    The Reeses were in default on their mortgage and sued in 2009 after foreclosure, claiming it was invalid because of improper notice. The couple were evicted after their legal challenges were initially dismissed, and they later appealed.

    Hugh Wood, an attorney who handles foreclosure cases for lenders and defense cases for borrowers, said pending borrower cases could be amended and new ones could crop up if the Reese case survives a likely appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court.

    Georgia ranked fourth in the nation in foreclosure filings in June, after topping the nation in that category in May, according to RealtyTrac.

    The ruling does not address other allegedly faulty or fraudulent foreclosure documentation at the center of controversy over robo-signing, mortgage company agents approving foreclosure documents with no or little review, that roiled the nation in 2010 and led to a nationwide settlement this year with the major banks.

    Georgia law in foreclosure cases affords few protections to borrowers, but the 2008 amendment was one nod to borrower’s rights.

    Borrower advocates have been critical of Georgia’s so-called “non-judicial” foreclosure system, where lenders must only assert they have a right to foreclose, not prove to a judge basic facts such as ownership of a loan or that it is indeed in default.

    Bankers say Georgia’s foreclosure system is efficient, that the vast majority of borrowers are in default and that a judicial system would be costly by clogging up the repossession process.

    Alexander Brown, a borrower’s attorney in Atlanta, said the lender-identification issue is just another example of shoddy paperwork that overwhelmed mortgage companies and law firms used in flushing foreclosures through the system.

    But he said the potential effect of the Court of Appeals ruling is covered in some ways by the $25 billion foreclosure settlement reached with the major banks earlier this year. Applying for a review of a foreclosure under the settlement might be an easier way to claim damages than suing in court, he said.

  25. and let me add to my post below.

    to move to a different apt in their complex under their 30 day guarantee
    its $500 more per month. But they allowed my little doggie here
    for a $600 non returnable security fee plus $50. a month added to your rentfor my 8 pounddog.

    And on top of your rent you get an ISTA Bill for water, cess pool adminstration etc. Stay away from AVALON.I figured how much longer am I goingto live. I wanted to live nicely.

  26. after they steal your property you have to find a rental. Which to me has become a nightmare too.

    OnFeb 9 2012 I moved into an AVALON COMMUNITY.
    Don’t/ They have these Avalon communities all over the country. They look nice BUT are run be a Wall Street Company. That should have been warning to me.

    They have a 25 page lease which states you have a 30 day guarantee to be satisfied with your apt. or Avalon will void your lease or you can move to another apt.

    On nights 1 and 2 I complained about car lights coming into my windows late into the night and traffic on the staircase.
    I didn’t know that meant drugs.

    On the 3rd night a drug party was going on upstairs till 3 AM
    On the morning ofthe fourth( a sunday morning ) the street was filledwith emergency vechicles. One died o fa drug overdose.

    On monday morning I said to managment
    they will be evicted?” No that would be hearsay . We weren’t here on Sunday.


  27. @E.Tolle

    Problem is there are “Too Many Of Us” that are “Too Ignorant To Care”…we’ll have to get a few more million people having heart attacks and strokes and homelessness and deaths related to all this crap before the sheeple awake…

  28. What not understood is that Wells Fargo Bank was servicing as many as 1.3 million FHA & VA loans for Washington Mutual Bank that was not included in the JPMorgan Chase sale because the Blank Notes were already in the physical possession of Ginnie Mae.

    Now what you have currently is 1.3 million mortgages that actually cannot have been service by Wells Fargo Bank because neither Washington Mutual Bank after it relinquish the Blank Notes to another nor Ginnie Mae would be the holders of the debt because there was not a sale, which does not create a lien situation.

    Washington Mutual Bank was seized on Sept 25, 2008 without ownership of the Blank Notes so how could MERS claim any involvement as the sole nominee for its members Lenders, yet Ginnie Mae who is alleged to be in possess of the Blank Notes backed up by HUD 11711A agreements were right, title and any and all interest in the loans are relinquish to Ginnie Mae.

    However Ginnie Mae who is not a lender and does not and cannot purchase the loan is owed nothing at all and holds onto a non recorded Blank Note that does not have Ginnie Mae’s name on the loan at all and no proof of a sale, cannot approach a court (local land recording office) claiming they are owed a debt. The debt is zero because the craziness of the Ginnie Mae pool requirements that as the holder of the alleged underlying collateral for the mortgage backed securities (MBS) cannot sell a home mortgage loan and not being in title as the “holder in due course” and a Note that is Blank, makes Ginnie Mae out of luck in foreclosing on something they did not buy and are not in title as the owner of the debt!

    As Massachusetts uses common sense that if you don’t own the debt, or are not in title as the holder of that debt what is it that we are hear for. The Note and debt are separated when a lender signs and endorses it and hands it over to Ginnie Mae under UCC 3 as Ginnie Mae cannot purchase the debt, and the title is in place because there is a debt that the holder of that debt has requested through the court to attach the security instrument (mortgage, deed of trust, security deed) to the property, however one the lender for whatever reason gives away the Note it not longer has a debt obligation with the borrowers in the Note, so there cannot be a lien against the properties.

    Washington Mutual Bank as with the $306 billion lost when the FDIC sold the other assets that included other loan (not government insured loans) that was valued at $308 billion, the stupid bank because it did not stay alive could not pull off the old trick of slipping back the Blank Notes that in many cases if not all the Blank Notes where never transfer and stayed with the lenders creating a loophole, where one could say the Blank Notes never left the actual lender. However in the case of Washington Mutual, IndyMac and Countrywide you got a problem were the Blank Notes had to be transferred because these banks are defunct or sold to BOA in the case of Countrywide, but that reveals a fact that the government loans could not be involved in the BOA purchase of Crook Mozilo outfit, because they were in the Ginnie Mae MBS.

  29. Keep in mind that “Too Big To Fail” equates to “Too Big To Prosecute” resulting in “Too Big To Litigate Against”, which is where you and I find ourselves today. Little old me and you up against a team of $800 an hour Florsheims who couldn’t possibly care less how much they spend defeating us, as they get all the money from us. That alone is grounds for a new emancipation proclamation written by “Too Many Of Us” that will cause them to suffer a population decline. Too bad for their side.

  30. MILAN–Italy’s new economy minister says a planned sale of public assets could raise enough money to help bring down the country’s huge public debt by 20% in five years, according to newspaper Corriere della Sera Sunday.

    This is how it’s done: 1) Farm out money creation. 2) Escalate a manufactured debt crisis. 3) Install 1% into positions of power globally. 4) Have the PM’s sell national assets at pennies on the dollar to lower the debt that was artificially created by them in the first place.

    This is how the IMF and the World Bank’s owners coerce nations into debt peonage, with visions of water and seed/food for the poor, only to become slaves to the mighty global corporate empire that keeps on taking. They setup a payment plan based upon false projections of national growth i.e. repayment can’t possibly be achieved. Then they offer debt modifications at usurious rates, or demand oil or other resources be privatized into their hands. Bananas anyone? Coffee? Gold? United Nation votes?

    This is how our homes are/were stolen. They created a false horizon ensnaring millions with the lure of homeownership in the land of plenty. Exactly like the World Bank scenario above, through a false escalation and ensuing crash, all manufactured with the precision of a Swiss watch, they now can take not just the once-homeowner’s living quarters but everything that was in their bank account in the process. A very clean heist to say the least.

    Rinse and repeat at the city, county, and state level. The bridges are for sale, the roadways have already been sold and tolled with more to come, the water supplies, even the sewerage that drains it all away….sold, or refinanced, to the only bidders – Global Capital a.k.a. the 1% who own it all behind the scenes.

    Go ahead and vote for Romney. Or Obama. Wish upon a star while you’re at it. Throw a penny in the well that they now own. Until you finally decide that enough is enough. Bastille Day came and went with barely a mention. That event has extreme relevance to our present situation.

    July 14! What a glorious anniversary! A giant of flesh and blood throws himself on the colossus of granite; the people attack the very stones that support the entire edifice of feudalism. With the destruction of the Bastille, Paris gives the entire world the inspiration…; it breaks the chains, it elevates France, which had been enslaved for centuries, wins independence, clears the way for freedom….You the young people of today, are entrusted with the task of battle!
    (The Bastille: A History of a Symbol of Despotism and Freedom
    By Hans-Jürgen Lüsebrink, Rolf Reichardt)

    It doesn’t have to be this way. It’s up to you and me to awaken.

  31. Suing in courts which themselves are elements of the crime regime supporting continuation of damage & theft? …

  32. Yeah–“carpet bombed”is right—so who do we sue for wrongful death and/or PTSD?

  33. @ joann: OF course & ‘Let’s get real, the US is bankrupt’
    Most trustees have been created by robo-signing of Title-Mafia network operatives, headed by Fidelity’s national network under LPS + many other names. In four years over 12 million homes and over a million commercials, which amounts to over 20% of US private structures has been stolen with bogus foreclosures. This is very similar to carpet-bombing this country as the carpet-bombings of Germany, Cambodia, Vietnam, & the nuking of Japan combined, with the difference that these structures were not physically destroyed, while their occupants were, and the structures were stolen from them with simple robo-signing, recorded with the backing of the same criminal regime which has protected the robo-signers intensely because they designed & implemented these criminal schemes together, not alone!! Its like 20% of US cities have been neutron-bombed!!!

  34. @guest:

    “@ Neil: professional foreclosure buyers are real gangsters (just like lenders which foreclose them). & I know for a fact that title companies (a Mafia) gladly sell them title guarantees, or policies, with multiple waivers, to get themselves off the hook in case of future claims. So, title companies literally guarantee theft of stolen properties.”

    And the “trustee” sales operators are in collusion.

    And everyone who looks the other way is in collusion.

  35. It would take me a really long time to figure this out, but it might be a clue or better about the seasoning requirement (which seems to have been displaced with grandfathered -really loud grrrrrr- approval of bad acts and if true, Main Street might well become Mean Street(s) including being joined by some investors).
    Anyone get these?

    It’s certainly my take that Wells Fargo’s stuff is a bunch of self-serving, untrue, manipulative bull.

  36. @lasvegas, thanks. I’ve seen that, but it doesn’t say much really. My impression is that Genpact was hired to obtain “missing” correspondence and docs (ones MERS never ever had) between MERS and its members, i.e., an attempt at CYA for ‘deficiencies’ which are so severe, the initial extimate was that it would take 7 years to finesse, which imo is not a whole lot if anything. We need more info. MERS computer program needs to be commadeered yesterday and i feel strongly that the gov knows it but won’t do it. Not until some of these politically and economically- based marriages are busted up as they should be. Probably also scared witless – nice form of what I’m actually thinking! – at the pandemonium which might follow the disclosure of the TRUTH. It makes me sick, the whole stinking deal since I have no doubt it is in fact a CYA. Who do you have to be to pull something like this off? Get 7 years to CYA instead of going to jail.
    Wonder if Arnold is still enjoying his mojitas on some fabulous beach.
    I think my speculation is on target and warranted, but we need facts.



    on July 30th, at some time in the morning, IN VENTURA, CA, a debt collector, QUALITY will AUCTION, the the highest BIDDER, the LIEN that some unknown entity allegedly has on a property that was put in my name ten years ago, located at 961 Kingsley Circle, Thousand Oaks, CA


    Could be a great deal, Canuks!~

    The issue seems to be is that I just discovered one of the owners of the FOUR who were selling it to me ten years ago, DID NOT KNOW ABOUT IT, and I HAVE what was CLAIMED to be the original grant deeds to me, and they are PHOTOSHOP FORGERIES.

    SO come one, come all to this New type of TRUSTEE SALE!

    Popcorn at half price.

  38. @johngault

    Neil had an article:…/mers-shell-game-continues-genpact/

  39. Attention, Nancy Drew: you are indeed a good liitle sleuth (wish I could understand half of what you’re saying – guess it’s not my thing).
    Would you consider making it your business to find out what’s up with MERS or MERSCorp’s contract with Genpact? Don’t we want to know what they’re doing over there in the Bahamas and or India with OUR records? (Let’s not forget MERS own disclaimer regarding the info in its computer program (the computer program which is named as the beneficiary on millions of deeds of trust). They can’t even stand behind what’s there (or not there) because all entries were made on a voluntary-only basis by its members (so how in the world are they executing assignments (read allowing members to use their name to do so) ???!!!
    Also, this one might really be up your alley: I had heard that these loans had to be seasoned for six months before any of them could be securitized and that WS fashioned its own illegal remedy to break that rule: the guarantee. Sure like to know the truth of this. Had a hint last year but lost it along the road…..

  40. Contrary to Elaine’s assumption I am just as “damaged” as any other homeowner here. But I am a realist despite my personal rage at the banksters Read horvath all ye who think there’s any justice to be had

    To Jan Van Eck

    What about suing both the new lender and the fraudsters who ousted the homeowner. My concern is that you might lose quickly on a demurrer re the new bank was relying on the fact that forrclosure process was followed etc Presumptions of validity and all that. Do you know anyone who had used the strategy you described?

  41. I hope people will take the time to read Carlsen’s appeal brief because it contains a lot of excepts from the trial transcript – the salient ones.

  42. What’s happening with the Mortgage Task Force?! Nothing really – it doesn’t exist!
    It’s been almost three months since we sent this letter to the Office of NY Attorney General ( We never got any response, not even their usual form “thank you” letter! These people are in charge of running the Mortgage Task Force, but so far they were only able to change the name of this “force” to the Residential Mortgage Backed Securities Working Group This name sounds more like a fancy investment vehicle, as it used to be presented!

  43. It sure is easy to get distracted when hunting for something! I came accross this case searching for a Notice. Only had the decision, so went and got the appeal brief and aurora’s response and the reply. Aurora tried to f/c on Carlsens in WI. Went to trial. Carlsen’s attorney objected numerous times to testimony of als’ witness to no avail with the trial court who then relied – apparently – on als’ attorney’s closing arguments, instead of the admissable evidence (there wasn’t any)! Carlsens appealed and won. One of the real values of this case is the objections at trial (for those fortunate enough or w/e to get to trial. It’s the objections made at trial which are fundamentally the reason this case in als’ favor was overturned in the homeowners’ favor on appeal. I can’t get the transcript of the trial, tho I think it was submitted to the appeals’ court. We want that transcript! Anyone in Wisconsin here who will go to the appeals’ court and get it and post at scribd? Anyone else willing and able to get it?
    I am saying: We need that transcript. Anyone else know how to get that transcript if in fact it’s been filed with the appeal court, which I’m pretty certain it was based on the docket (I can’t get all docs there, just some). It’s a road-map, as perhaps are the pleadings, below. At trial isn’t the only place to object to hearsay foisted as evidence in the initial stages.

    Here is the lesson I’m getting from this case: the banksters canNot
    when challenged by competence establish interest. This appeal was won because the attorney, Reed Peterson in WI, knows the federal rules of evidence and how to object to bs. (Of course it helps that he knows how to appeal the trial court’s errant decision.) Kudos to the Carlsens and attorney Peterson.

  44. Anyone with American Home Mortgage seen this.

  45. @Nora, no I’m not. A lis pendens is a different animal and should actually only be filed pursuant to a lawsuit (as far as I know). I’m talking about a document actually called a “Notice”. I’ll link one in a little while fyi. Can such a Notice be filed post-foreclosure? I don’t really know, since the homeowner has been ‘relieved’ of his or her title at that point, that is, the connection to the real estate. But one may file a notice while still in title and in my lay opinion, anyone who thinks they’re being had on a foreclosure should. We have to fight wherever we can.

  46. To Mr. Neidermeyer:

    Techniques for Finding the insurance carrier’s identity will vary dependent on your Standing in the equation. If you are “on title” and it is “Force-placed insurance,” then you find out from the “servicer” for the pretender lender that is oppressing you. Sue that carrier. If you are “foreclosed” on then a slip-and-fall on the doorstep will bring in the carrier. When the adjuster shows up, you have the identity. If there is an apple tree but near the road, simply ringing the doorbell and saying an apple hit you on the head and who is the insurer may well get you the name. You have to get creative.

    Often enough, the dweller will have both homeowner insurance and auto insurance with the same carrier, a practice known as bundling (for lower rates). The DMV will have the auto insurance carrier on file, take the plate number, costs you $10 to find out. Call the carrier up and ask them point-blank; tell them you have a leg injury claim, the sidewalk is uneven, whatever. Are you fibbing? Of course, So what? You are dealing with abusers, so anything goes.

  47. @ Marillyn: Yes according to recent documentations posted in this website Fidelity Title which owns LPS which owns DocX have performed most of the robo-signings in the US (millions of them) and of course bribery talks and buys corrupt judges, legislators and law-enforcers, who avoid going against their own buddies no matter how corrupt they are…otherwise we wouldn’t be in this mess today…

  48. I have the simplest case.

    Marillyn Lane v.Astoria Federal S& L Association
    was under Federal Jurisdiction May 8 1997 thru
    July 29 1997.

    The Federal Court has original jurisdiction of who
    can Create money pursuant to Art. 1 Para 10 Cl 1
    of the United States Constitution.

    On June 30 1997 the NY State Court Judge Carol Arbor
    without jurisdiction signed two judgments of foreclosure
    void ab initio.

    Pursuant to US Supreme Court case Elliot v.Piersol :
    Under Federal law which is applicable to all States
    the US Supreme Court stated that if a court is
    ” without authority its judgments and orders are
    regarded as nullities. They are not voidable but
    simply void and form no bar to recovery sought ,
    even prior to reversal in opposition to them….

    BUT the Racketeering attorney Thomas P MALONE
    OF FIDELITY NATIONAL Title and attorney David K FIVESON of a scam company called Coronet Title PAID OFF Judge AliceSchlesinger of NYSC for their forged deeds to appear as good.

  49. It can be done. Back in 2003 people laughed when I told them I was suing my title company. I practically begged them to give the reissue rate at closing, and was assured after not getting it they would refund the difference.

    A $350.00 premium theft quickly morphed into a successful $40 million class action settlement. So,at times when the little guy stands up – he stands out!

    Everyone misses the point of insurance. None of it is ever to protect the purchser,it is always to protect someone else from the purchaser.

    Think about it, and than apply that same context to lending. You the homeowner paid a higher interest rate on your loan so the lender could take the additional interest rate premium and than sell the credit risk, hence participation agreements. The money is sucked off the obligation prior to loan proceeds (cash flow) being advanced to investors.

    When I die, I want to come back as a credit default swap!

  50. Jan van Eck ,

    I like your “assert claims of ownership” approach to messing with buyers insurance policy ,, the bigger the mess created the better … HOW DO YOU FIND THE CARRIER?


    New York Fed’s Libor Documents Reveal Cozy Relationship Between Regulators, Banks

    “We know that we’re not posting um, an honest LIBOR,” a Barclays employee tells a New York Fed analyst in an April 11, 2008, call, “and yet we are doing it, because, um, if we didn’t do it, It draws, um, unwanted attention on ourselves.”

    The New York Fed representative expresses sympathy and understanding:

    “You have to accept it,” she says. “I understand. Despite it’s against what you would like to do. I understand completely.”

  52. Very valid point, elaine. The banks tracked the median household wage for three decades and not only noted the downward trend in incomes, but largely caused it. The Federal Reserve manipulates the amount of currency in circulation, the interest rates borrowers are charged, and the amount of interest its member banks pay, and therefore the rate of inflation. If they tighten credit, businesses lay employees off. These boom and bust cycles are created by the central bank, the two most significant lows being the depression of 1929 and the current depression. (No, it’s not a recession.) So fully knowing that they were going to wreak havoc by forcing businesses to close and layoff employees, they were guaranteed that the loans they designed to fail, DID. Now we are about to face inflation the likes of which we have never seen, and the only people who could effectively do something about it (congress) have gotten those great, low interest rate, “Goodwill Loans” from the banksters, to ensure that they won’t step in and shut the banksters golden goose down. QE3 is off the table. Bernanke has already admitted that there isn’t much they can do, and the economy is headed into the toilet. Gee, what a surprise.

  53. @johngault
    Are you talking about filing a lis pendens?

  54. Upon questioning, Old RepublicTitle informed me that the only condition under which they would pay any claim under the terms of my policy was if the PREVIOUS PROPERTY OWNER claimed wrongful foreclosure, and made a claim on the Title. I got the impression that the claim money came from or through some other entity that had to approve the payout, from the way he stated it. While this doesn’t make my Title policy completely worthless, it wasn’t a good investment if they can arbitrarily refuse to pay a claim for clouded Title. It seems like you have to sue everybody involved, or walk away.

    At some point Title Insurance will probably cease to exist, and hopefully so will Wall Street bankers.

  55. Just so you know….

    Mortgage Movies: Souders v. Bank of America — BoA & Michele Sjolander nailed on robo stamping, timely removal and default judgment.

    Lorayne Souders v. BoA et al., 2012-CV-01074 removal filed 6 June 2012, last served Defendant in her fraud case: 4 May 2012…. see 28 U.S.C. §1446(b)… thirty (30) days folks… whoopsie-daisy?

    Bank of America is facing some serious issues as it attempts to remove Plaintiff Lorayne Souders’ Fraud lawsuit in Pennsylvania. Some of these issues include failure to answer her complaint, untimely removal (they filed removal on and robo stamping, which may have been done in post hoc fashion in an attempt to cover their tracks after the note never reached the trust pool…. a REMIC violation of course. A New York Court slammed BoA and the same exact cast of characters for such conduct in Bank of NY v. Alderazi, 929 NYS 2nd. 198 (2011). Will Pennsylvania follow suit with Stare Decisis? Stay tuned. Meanwhile don’t forget these links from earlier this week at bottom as the revolution continues in small screens all across America.

    Because if something isn’t done, otherwise law-abiding citizens might well turn into Al Pacino or Sonny Wartzik for a day….[snip]

  56. […] Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: assignment fabricated, Canada, Canadian, foreclosures, foreign investors, JPM, Massachusetts Supreme Court, Master Servicer, MERS, realtors, sub-servicers, title policy, U.S. Foreclosures a risky business Livinglies’s Weblog […]

  57. Sigh. The best and easiest way I know of to preclude either a bogus sale of your home or stop someone from being able to claim he or she is a bonafide purchaser for value is to NOTICE your beefs in public record while you are still on title. As long as you have noticed and preserved your beefs, the threat of you taking action in the future remains, subject to any statute of limitations **in my lay opinion**.
    There may be other arguments a bankster could make, but it would require action on its part $$$ if that is true.
    Whether I’m right or wrong, you can just about take it to the bank that no title co. will insure over what’s in your notice. I’m pretty sure that stuff would show up on schedule B of the title commitment, otherwise known as the “exceptions” page. Who would buy such a property?

  58. Paid insurance claims: I have dealings with Title-Mafia. Plus, you could probably find out about paid claims from your state’s department of insurance, which backs works for the insurance Mafia.

  59. Unfortunatly Jim and tnharry are right. There are homeowners in loan mods and BKs walking from their homes everyday after they find out about the titles. They dont want to pay for a home that they will never have legal title to without another lawsuit. And why in the world would anyone who lost their home and had their title crashed want to go back and take on the responsibility of the debt again only to find out they can not sell the house later because of the title and property value loss, not to mention the impending lawsuits by any pretender? They are and will keep you in court for years. The banks took the money and ran ….. they were counting on you being uneducated to take advantage of you. They also counted on the fact that you were not an idiot and would not come back for a debt and home under these conditions. 🙁

  60. A further way to attack these pretenders is to determine who the insurance carrier is on your now-sold-off house, and file suit against the carrier for wrongfully placing casualty insurance on your property, thus interfering with your insurable interest. If your title rights have not been fully extinguished, then it becomes a contest as to who has the right to insure against loss, and collect the proceeds in the event of loss. The carrier will (predictably) decide that a $600 premium is not worth the thousands to slug this one out, and will “cancel flat.” Now the mortgagee bank has no insurance protection for their claim – and no prospect of putting any insurance on it, as predictably you will go sue the ensuing carrier. They want out. The dweller, either investor or renter, will be naked. Gets uncomfortable.

  61. What this article (and the posters) fail to appreciate is that a direct challenge to “title” [which may fail due to court hostility] is not the only way, or even the optimal way, to attack a wrongful foreclosure by a stranger to the transaction. A more interesting approach is to file suit against the entity (typically, bank) that issued the new mortgage on the property, on the basis of slander of title.

    If that “bank” wants to go make some loan to the people now living in your house, that is up to them. However, to make it a secured transaction with your house is a bit much. Who are these guys to go put a Recordation of Lien on the land records? So you sue the bank, as an aggrieved party, and demand money damages plus removal of the lien.

    And here is where it gets interesting: the “Bank” is not the owner, or the pretender owner, of the realty. So they have no clear “Standing” to themselves file for Quiet Title, or commence a quiet title suit to determine the controversy of who is the owner. You are not suing to undo the loan transaction; only to strip away some Mortgage Lien that is recorded on your land.

    In parallel, but now with suing the bank directly, assuming the “investor” has parked a renter in there, you launch a separate suit against the new dweller in your house, on the theory of entry and detainer. It is your house; they are living in it; you sue for damages and ejectment. Let them go sue the Investor for their damages.

    How now, Mr. Bankser? Mr. Invester? Gets interesting. And expensive. Takes the fun out of stealing houses.

  62. tnharry and Jim apparently don’t get it. Jim is willing to snatch a property because is might be one of the millions of foreclosures that haven’t been challenged or because there are thousands of courts hostile to ousted homeowners? tnharry is just smug. Both of you need to know that sheeple are starting to wake up and be very pissed off. Either one of you ever consider that cases are settled out of court where part of the settlement is silence? The greedy bastards who caused this whole freaking mess don’t want these cases tried in court – they’ll settle. Millions of people didn’t just wake up one day and decide to default on their home loans because they wanted to vacation in Vegas with the mortgage pament. People lost jobs! People became severely underemployed – long enough to put them so far behind that it was impossible to catch up in spite of their proactive approach because servicers and banks refused to play fair, tacking on fee after fee makeing it even more impossible to ever catch up. It’s when these millions tried by any means possible to get a modification for very legitimate reasons only to be denied and foreclosed on – is what blew the securitization house of cards down. Not everything is as it appears.

  63. @guest – I’m no fan of title companies allegedly insuring wrongfully foreclosured properties, but I don’t believe that since 2006 not a one has paid a claim, even if it had nothing to do with this current mess,
    just ‘regular’ stuff. I’m betting they have. Like to know the source of your info.

  64. @guest

    Right. I’m working on overturning my foreclosure right now—just wondering what I will be up against with the guy who bought from the real estate agent/investor who bought at the foreclosure mill trustee’s sale…I feel a bit sorry for him—but, the truth is the truth.

  65. @ Neil: professional foreclosure buyers are real gangsters (just like lenders which foreclose them). & I know for a fact that title companies (a Mafia) gladly sell them title guarantees, or policies, with multiple waivers, to get themselves off the hook in case of future claims. So, title companies literally guarantee theft of stolen properties. Even the best of title insurance policy covering a regular sale insures absolutely nothing. They are totally worthless. You can’t find a single individual who has been paid on a title insurance claim, not one (2006-2012)

  66. right on the money Jim. it suggests a groudswell of successful cases that is not borne out by reality. there have been a few rare victories, but those are in the realm of .0001% of the cases. and the article cites an Arizona case and a Massachusetts case, and tries to extrapolate them to the whole country. disingenuous at best and downright false at worse.

  67. When point #4 becomes common this is DONE.

  68. Now that borrowers and even homeowners who have already lost their property in foreclosure and eviction are overturning foreclosures, regaining title and possession of the property, the “new” buyer is left with only a claim for money from their title carrier and a potential claim against the bank or servicer that “sold” them the property.

    Dear editor

    Methinks the foregoing is a Livinglie. Or maybe a livinggrossexaggeration. There are millions of foreclosures that will never be challenged and thousands of courts hostile to ousted homeowners. If I had some canadian money or even US reserve notes id be very tempted take the risk. You know, to get a roof of some sort over my head

    Like I said the greatest financial crime in history has been legalized by default, by the refusal of most of those in charge to stop it

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: