Is bankruptcy the Only Way Out of the Foreclosure Steamroller?

If you are looking for legal representation in South Florida, Neil has established an office there again after 30 years of practice in Broward County. Please call 520-405-1688 for more information.

Editor’s Comment and Analysis: In theory, the writer is correct in the article below. Chip Parker located in Jacksonville, sounds like someone I would associate with because he understands both bankruptcy and the finer litigation points of foreclosure defense (I think).

For the most part though I would strongly suggest that all lawyers whoa re very familiar with bankruptcy associate with a bankruptcy attorney AND that all lawyers who do bankruptcy but are not familiar with foreclosure defense, associate with those attorneys who do understand it. Let the litigation for the MLS and POC be done by the foreclosure defense attorney.

AND don’t put the property on the schedule as secured unless you are 100% certain that it really is secured. The presence of a mortgage on record does not mean the loan exists as presented nor that it is secured — if the instrument was materially defective and even misrepresents the true facts of the transaction.

But Chip is right. It is only in  BKR that you have Judges clerks, trustees etc. who deal with prioritization of creditors, proofs of claims all day long and it certainly has produced many good decisions for borrowers.

Bankruptcy is the Ultimate Protection from Florida’s Corrupt Foreclosure System

by Chip Parker, Jacksonville Bankruptcy Attorney

For Floridians, Federal Bankruptcy Court is proving to be a far superior avenue for actually saving homes than our state court judicial system.

The homeowner, with the help of a qualified bankruptcy attorney, can encapsulate and protect as much of his assets as possible while eliminating the uncertainty created by a failed foreclosure system.  Homeowners are often emerging from Bankruptcy Court with the meaningful mortgage modifications that elude them in Florida’s state courts.  Floridians shouldn’t have to seek refuge from our state courts, but be grateful there is an alternative, especially if you live in the Middle District of Florida.

Who runs Florida’s Foreclosure Courts?  Why the banks do, of course.  Just ask judges, prosecutors and the Florida Bar.

Retired senior judges regularly bend the rules for banks and their often inept lawyers prosecuting foreclosures, and they have been turning a blind eye to the bankster fraud in their courtrooms for years.  For years, these retired judges have been paid for results – reducing the number of open foreclosure cases specifically – and they have been too willing to ignore the rule of law to make sure they “hit their numbers.”

Most retired judges create their own special set of rules they apply in foreclosure cases to tilt the playing field in favor of mortgage companies.  They justify this unequal treatment because “homeowners aren’t making mortgage payments,” but they refuse to hear the hundreds and thousands of stories from homeowners describing their failed attempts to work directly with the mortgage industry to make their mortgage payments and avoid foreclosure.

Florida’s Attorney General Pam Bondi inherited from her predecessor an ongoing investigation of corrupt lawyers running foreclosure mills in South Florida.  Stories of lawyers forging signatures and faking affidavits abound nationwide, and Florida is no exception.  However, one of Bondi’s first official acts was the prompt termination of the lead investigators, and eventually she let all the investigations wither and die on the vine.  Bondi never met a bank she didn’t like.

And now, the Palm Beach Post is reporting that the Florida Bar is doing nothing to discipline any of these corrupt bank lawyers despite nearly two hundred complaints filed by citizens, judges and fellow lawyers.  Is there any wonder why lawyers are held in such low regard in our society?

Keep in mind that a national Attorney General investigation into foreclosure fraud by the country’s five largest mortgage servicers that resulted in a $25B settlement for consumers.  This is the activity our foreclosure judges, Attorney General and the Florida Bar can’t seem to find here in the Sunshine State.

It makes the average Floridian facing foreclosure wonder whether there is a chance to save their home in a rigged system.  Well, there is an alternative – bankruptcy

When a homeowner files a bankruptcy, the Bankruptcy Court enters an order, known as the automatic stay, which removes jurisdiction from the Foreclosure Court.  The effect is a “freezing” the foreclosure case.

Once in bankruptcy, the homeowner can buy time, fight the mortgage company on a couple of the substantive foreclosure issues like “standing,” or even compel the mortgage company to engage in good-faith mediation.  Here, in the Middle District of Florida, the mortgage modification mediation program has been widely successful, permanently modifying mortgages, including significant principal reduction for underwater homes.

So, if you are a homeowner at your wit’s end over your home in foreclosure, call a bankruptcy lawyer to discuss the bankruptcy alternative to what is all-too-often an unfair state court foreclosure process.



60 Responses

  1. JG…. Definatly not used enough …. Keeps the Warts Away.

  2. Well, sc, some days it doesn’t take much to keep me going! I do believe that the lack of meeting of the minds (not to mention all the other bull) is sufficient to find the dot invalid if not void and I think void. A meeting of the minds is an essential component of a contract and there wasn’t one. Would a court yet find the notes valid and enforceable and, significantly, unsecured just based on no meeting of the minds in the collateral instrument (not even considering other ‘baloney’)? The loan has two parts – the note and the dot. Would a person have signed the note to get a loan on his house had he known the dot was so whacked with its wicked ramifications? In other words, how important to the note’s validity is the whackedness of the collateral instrument? Whacked enough to take the note down with it? It makes a difference one way or another because the dot has a prescribed remedy for default on the note, while an unsecured note is not limited to that remedy, that is, the homeowner agreed to one remedy for default on the note: foreclosure, not a personal judgment.
    No one yet has – that I know of – made this attack on the dot and I don’t know why not, like some other stuff. It needs to be made yesterday imo.

  3. No, carie, wait. oops. If insurance payments went to the bankster on converted notes, I can’t say the debt is retired in like amt because the bankster had no right to payment. Here’s where I got that idea:

    “Writings. A bill or debt obligation can be converted. However, if it has been paid or otherwise satisfied, then it has neither value nor existence in the eyes of the court.[166] ”

    Someone smarter than me has to figure that one out. It may depend on when the note was converted – before or after an insurance payout. Maybe case law (or even statute) will give an answer.
    To support a claim for conversion, there must be damage caused by the conversion. So if a homeowner has a right to a conversion claim regarding a falsely defaulted loan, he has to make a case for damage. That might be that the new loan was unsecured to the amt of the
    conversion of the original note. I don’t know for a fact that the conversion made it thus. You should, tho, since it’s your deal, and you have to support the unsecured allegation. And because I’m a mere plebe lay person, I don’t profess to know what I’m talking about at all. It (conversion) just seemed like an avenue to explore regarding false default.

  4. I likes JG … he keeps driving … likes a conversion van… yep! yep!

  5. @carie – I have been reading some cases and one ref’d another generically, so I have had to hunt for it. In the first case, the court warned the banksters not to make light of their claims against the homeowner because the banksters could find themselves with criminal allegations as in the second case. In a case I found which may be the right (second) one, the homeowners are accusing the banksters of conversion of their notes and monthly payments. I thought of your false default.
    If the orig loans were put in false default, the notes have been converted by the banksters, and I believe that claim belongs to the investors who were cheated. Not sure. Need case law. But, if the banksters received any insurance proceeds on those falsely defaulted converted notes, the notes were paid off to the tune of the insurance proceeds, and that claim belongs to the homeowner. My source of info about conversion is the limited fundamentals in the second case and then wikipedia. I don’t have my usual searchable research engine just now. It gets expensive. You and anon may want to look at wikipedia’s material because it has a zillion cases no doubt worth exploring for further info. The reason you might want to is to see just what charges are available to the homeowner (fraud?) whose orig loan was converted. As far as I can tell just now, “conversion” is relevant to personal property and not real property, and in that the notes at issue were secured by real property, that could if not should change everything and allow for additional allegations. I am interested in knowing what all charges are available to a homeowner to make when a party not entitled is after or has made off with the h.o.’s real property. No one that I know of has yet used the word “theft”, for instance. I believe it’s ‘good old’ theft, but want to make sure or courts will toss it. But courts can’t toss it if it’s factual and well-plead. Since theft is criminal, what does that change? You care, because to support your false default, you have to make the right allegations.
    I haven’t read your comments day in and day out, which is no reflection of course on their validity – it’s just my own interest is elsewhere. But from what I have read, you understand the mechanics of what was done. Now you need to know what laws were violated to frame charges that will pass muster. You also need to know the legally prescribed remedies for the bad act(s) so you don’t ask for the wrong ones. It’s a stinker because ‘false default’ is a new bad act as far as I know. You said FNMA wasn’t interested. How about the investors who got ripped by the false defaults?
    I believe if the MERS’ system weren’t just plain set up for fraud, it certainly has willfully accomodated it, starting with inducing the homeowner to believe MERS was something other than a computer program. MERS, the computer program, doesn’t do anything and wasn’t designed to do anything. What it does is allow its members and non-members to do anything they want in its name, something clearly not disclosed to the homeowner. I’d certainly call that other things, but at a minimum, there was no meeting of the minds. As I’ve said many times, no one in his right mind would have entered that agreement had he known the truth.

  6. I sencond that! This month is a good month to thank everyone on this site and several other sites for exposing this fruad. Dont give up we have come a long ways due to exposure.

  7. i forgot to mention without this website, i would have never find out the ugly secret of the banks. the fraud and the securitization scheme on which neil exposed of his websites. this websites is my bible and guidance and my son who passed the bar exam last may would be able to help me since i started all the cases as proper per.
    thank you neil for helping me and others for understanding the real score of foreclosure fraud, for understanding the securitized mortgages and until now i have not stop reading the prospectus and the pooling and servicing agreement trying to understand how this ponzi scheme securitized mortgages would be able to understand by a layman’s person like me.
    also thanks to dan edstrom for helping me through discovering the account distribution for a certain securitized mortgages.

  8. i had the case originally filed in northern district of ca. sf division, the case was dismissed with prejudice against defendants aurora, mers, quality loan services and mccarthy & holthus in all cause of action without any hearing at all. i was a victims of rubber stamp decision. i filed this case on 2/10, the house was foreclosed on april 2010 sold to a family on 8/20. i filed motion for reconsideration was denied and then i filed an appeal on 7/11.
    the order i received yesterday is a good news. in my opinion probably im’ not sure LOL, the court of appeal might think i have a good chance or the case has merits and needed a lawyer to argue.

    talking of updates, i am also in the discovery phase against AHMSI and Deutsche Bank. i have been deposed last month and i will read the transcript next week for correction. this case is in SF superior court. the cause of action only one survived FRAUD on loan modification. the other cause of action was dismissed against T.D. Service and i have pending appeal in Ca. Court of Appeal and my newly appointed attorney on this case is my son who is also a plaintiffs on this case. he will argue it on october 30, 2012 at 9:00 in the Court of Appeal. let us what happen. if you are in SF area maybe you could attend the arguments. email me if you are interested so i could meet you there.
    thanks. i advise to everyone fighting for their property, please never allow anyone even the court or any banks attorneys to intimidate you. never quit. be patience. i went through a lot on fighting all of my properties and i just charged it off as my legal experience. LOL.

    we anticipated to have jury trial hopefully by spring next year.

  9. Boots check out the attorney who helps you and make sure what kind of record he has and who he works for. I hired an attorney that I can prove with hard copy and a court transcript of the judge telling his attorney counsel for him against me as plaintiff, that I had proven breach of contract in color. He litterally threw my case under the table and unwound a case already won by default against the city and I am still fighting the city over it. I just handed it to a well known attorney to help me who goes up against the government and has a record of winning. You must have a case or they would not be trying to help you, or in my case the opposite. My attorney wrote up an amended brief without my knowledge at the time that unless he merged it the amendment tossed my case out and then allowed the city attorneys to claim by false affidavit that I had not served them until a few months later timebarring my case when they were timebarred from appearance and answering the case. He changed the state statutes to federal stautes and allowed them to remove the case to federal court and to lift all my case and evidence of served three months earlier and exhibits of policy fraud and tort claimsl Ihave been fighting this case for five years now. I had won it from the start. The ex-attorney told me he could nt ask the usual percentage on a contingency due to I had already won thecase and all he had to do was wrap up the package and get the funds due me. His first doc was to amend my case and lift it out of court, and allow the lies from the city attorneys..all fraud upon the court.The mayor of this town committed purjery breach of oath of office by policy fraud and lying on deposition. I have depositions of city empoyees testifing the mayor lied on oath in deposition. and told them to make sure I did not stay on my property.

  10. WOW!
    Congrats Boots! Keep Us Updated! Go Kick Some Bankster Butt!

  11. userguy,
    i did file two proof of claim with GMAC because i have two pending cases, one in the state of ca. and the other one in federal court. the deadline for filing a proof of claim in on nov. 9, 2012 at the southern BK court in new york. i was given a numbers for my proof of claims. the BK court put up a an official committee of unsecured creditors (“COMMITTEE”) in GMAC/RESCAP chapter 11 cases . unsecured creditor are referred to for certain non -confidential and non privileged information regarding their chapter 11 cases. i have not received any thing yet from the BK court denying my proof of claims.

    on the other side, i have good news for everyone. i received an order from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that it will appoint a pro bono lawyers to argue in the court since my case is complex. i think the 9th circuit has no opinion as to the merits of my appeal but appeal is very complex so i need a good lawyers. the court will appoint pro bono counsel to represent me. pro- bono counsel will consult me whether replacement briefing or supplemental briefing. hope the court will find a good pro bono who has intensive knowledge about foreclosure fraud.

  12. @NG – you are of course correct that homeowner defense attorneys need to work with bk attorneys when bk is involved. It’s so true, it’s awful, in fact. Even a defense attorney working with a bk attorney is handicapped since most bk attorneys are not litigators and don’t know the rules of war. What to put on the debtor’s schedule is probably difficult, but ftr, more than one court has ruled that what a debtor puts on a schedule is not dispositive, i.e., doesn’t amount to an admission. Still, why have the battle. I don’t pretend to know what to list, but from the hip, I would say speculatively just show in the “creditor” space the servicer id’d as the servicer with creditor unknown and maybe show the debt disputed, but even then the bankster can try to argue it’s an admission (but see above re: not an admission) the servicer is the servicer for some creditor when the servicer may not be at all. If the debt is listed as unsecured, it can put a C-13 debtor over the limit of unsecured debt for a 13.
    I can’t rattle it off, but I think the debtor has to list any potential claim (asset side) against the bankster in the amt of $1000. (?) to keep it out of the clutches of the bk trustee (bogus NOD, bogus assgt, bogus
    sub of trustee, what else?). A bk schedule may be amended, but I don’t know if there’s a point when it no longer may be. An acute drawback for pro se’s is the need to comm with the bk trustee – will he join any suit or will the debtor have to get him to abandon any claim of the debtor’s against the bankster or get the bk trustee to abandon the home? A bk attorney who knows s from shortcakes might consider a NG seminar (skype?) or at least a white paper for bk and homeowner defense attorneys.
    She might include a discussion of the situation where banksters attempt to amend their poc with “documentation”, especially after the claims bar date. Imo, the way to amend a poc is to file an amended poc, not the stinking ploys banksters try in bk courts in mtns (by attachments), and some times, what is alleged in dispositive motions is in fact a new claim. Once an obj to a poc has been lodged, amendment takes leave or stip. Filing a false poc is sanctionable, if not just plain actionable. The act of filing a false poc occurs post-bk petition, so the claim should belong to the debtor, not the bk estate. Stuff like that.

  13. I couldn’t write a good paragraph about default swaps, but from what I get from that 2012 CA Class-A suit, the banksters actually did a
    “mortgage default swap”, meaning, as I think it’s stated therein, that when a loan is over 90 days delinquent some foo’ has to fork over a like performing loan. What happens to the delinq loan and the new performing loan? We need to know. If the performing loan replaces the delinq loan in the “trust”, that means the bankster can take out the delinq loan and now owns it, looks to me. So what they might be doing is keeping the loan delinquent (no mod and no f/c) to charge bs fees against it to offset the pure (taxable) profit which is going to be generated from the ultimate sale. They can also keep the delinquent loan on their books as an asset at face value, which would be outed when the property is actually sold. AND, between f/c and re-sale, there are holding costs, like taxes and insurance and maintenance and those pesky hoa dues. Anyone want to hook us up about default swaps in words of one syllable? Maybe they’re entered into with different mechanics from time to time, i.e., cash v replacement performing loan?
    IF it’s the replacement loan v cash (pay off of loan), is this one of the things Obama called ‘maybe immoral but not illegal’?

  14. She can also file an AP with/pursuant to a mtn to intervene under 24 (tricky – have to research) or there’s another one I unfortunately forget, which might be the better intervention rule. There’s probably a way for her to get in the act on record, even if I can’t recite it. An interpleader, or SOMEthing. Lay opinions, of course. The bk trustee probably wants to go with the flow (allow the sale of her loan with all the others) so he isn’t a likely candidate to join her suit even if she makes the offer to the bk estate / trustee. Stinking mess procedurally, in that she’d have to get it right or ask to retain amendment (she should know what that means), but there’s a fight imo if she and maybe others want it, and I for one sure hope she does.
    There’s a new class-A (summer 2012) in CA which alleges banksters sold loans to foreigners who weren’t to be involved with US sec’n etc. It alleges people were told to default for mod so the banksters could get them over 90 days delinquent to collect on swaps and debit for more garbage fees. It also alleges it’s all a big ponzi scheme, but I’m a bit worried about that allegation as it is only sparcely supported. It further alleges the people telling homeowners to default have no right to mod a loan in the first place.
    NG – LOOK! Because of certain allegations and the fact that the complaint names a ton of trusts as defendants (as well as a zillion
    banksters), you may have some interest in at least reading the complaint. Someone did a lot of work to name names. It’s ND CA
    12-03000 (Cabusas).

  15. usedkarguy – the only way a court can get away with what you cite is if the bk trustee is sitting on his brains. Ftr, tho not on point, a bk trustee has an obligation if not a fiduciary to the bk estate, the creditors. If a court is allowing assets to be sold for pennies on the dollar, this is to the detriment of the bk creditors. If a court is allowing assets to be sold (at any price) where there is a failure to demonstrate the debtor owns them to be sold by the bk trustee, it’s a crime. It’s an ingenuous and heinously wrong and criminal way of moving undocumented “assets” from one entity to another. As your attorney no doubt rightfully suspects, that will be the end of the story on her loan. Nationsbank and Buffet’s company (think this is the case) will be deemed the rightful owners of her loan by way of purchase from the bk estate, and in that regard tho I dont applaud your choice of words, you are dead-on accurate. (ftr, I’m not some stinking moralist or big brother on choice of language, trust me – I just want this site to be taken as seriously as possible). If I were that attorney, I would go to the creditors meetings, I would write the creditors, I would do anything to stop this including making an offer, specifically without admission, to the bk trustee for the loan allegedly part of the bk estate in an amt exceeding the (calculable) pittance offer from NB and Buffet. I might even go so far as to include a legit appraisal. I would further make that higher offer (even with its caveat on admission) known. I don’t know if she can introduce her offer to the docket (the record) or not – as an attorney, she knows or can find out, but if one could and I were her, I would do my best to get it on record. Since she knows her loan is alleged to be in that mess, she may have access to other loans (and thus can find the homeowners) alleged to be in it, also. This may be a golden opportunity for some people to get together and not go quietly, tho time is of the essence here. I’m aware of nothing which precludes one from making such an offer to a bk trustee. I’d also cc the U.S. Trustee.
    She shouldn’t have to do any of this. The debtor’s claim of the asset is just that – a claim, and a dime to a donut, it is not a fact in evidence.
    But, if she doesn’t, she is what you said of us. imo.

  16. We are gaining some success a little at a time or I would say were all #### also. Never give up! We have made gains each day and every year!

  17. boots, the GMAC ResCap Bankruptcy is the only way ALLY(your government) can spin off the fraudulent loans. There is a schedule of assets entered in the case, and they are going to sell the assets whether or not they actually have an ownership right. My attorney’s home is in that schedule, and the court dismissed her claims as though she didn’t even exist. They will complete the circle of life by funding their enterprise with the ill-gotten gains of fraudulent foreclosures. Damn the citizens, full-fraud ahead. We’re all fucked.

  18. can anyone help me find a link of information regarding Rescap/ GMACM, LLC regarding the loan mortgages that has been wrote off by rescap $22 billion in mortgages in 2009, 2010 and 2011 much of it subprime mortgages. GMAC used different loan numbers to swayed homeowners and investors for their fraudulent accounting. creating multiple loan account numbers in one debt which is of course, using borrowers characteristic of borrower’s properties and personal profiles. any info will be appreciated to access those wrote off mortgages. check your loan account numbers from the your statements and from your mortgage loan documents. it was altered and the origination loan numbers is also different from the loan account you are paying. to add insult to the homeowners, the loan number for securitized mortgages in which most of our loan has been securitized is also different loan numbers, but have the characteristic of borrowers name, property address, zip code, and the first payment date. i know now the reasons why loan servicer would tell you to default, because they could collect on the fraudulent account borrowers were religiously paid since the 1st payment of the loan mortgages, at the same time, once it was reported to the trustee who handles the securitized trust, for payment to the investors, loan servicer will report to the trust that your loan is delinquent, foreclosure or in bankruptcy with different account loan numbers. then master servicer will do their accounting and figure out how much realized losses they can deduct to asset of the trust. on the other hand, loan servicer will have the govt. bail out paid for those subprime mortgages with their fraudulent loan numbers and have it write off some of the mortgages. thats the reasons why i want to find out which loan numbers actually been written off, the loan numbers of the securitized trust or the loan numbers created by loan servicer. and when the properties are foreclosed who gets the benefits for those money? i do not know the answer.

  19. This link is what I send to newbees just finding out they have been taken and are fighting for their homes now. To explain in part what happened to them and how and it is posted on the web. To prove tp tje, they are not alone and are victims of a large crime scene and are victims of the bank mob.

  20. Whcih link Wall Street and the Financial Crisis? I am able to open that one right off this post. I will try another site for you. Let me know the topic of the report you can not open.

  21. One thing is sure! lack of transparancy and confusion using MERS, has destroyed lives. And land records. Confusion is the devils best freind.

  22. shelley – the report within your link won’t open. Got another link?

  23. @shelley at 5:10 – I don’t know if these notes are neg instruments are not. Wish I did. They are not void, however, if not transferred to a trust by the cut-off date. It just means the investors paid for something they didn’t get and as I understand it , as a matter of trust law are never going to get. Now, if I pay YOU for a note and you don’t fork it over, I can sue for it, but it looks like not so with these trusts. If they missed the cut-off date, that’s that. What should/does the law hold if there were no transfer by the cut-off date? is the depositor the owner of the note but has been paid off by the investors’ funds? Or, would the law find that the depositor owns the note but its subject to the claim of the investors who didn’t get it though they paid for it, so in equity, the depositor should be able to enforce against the maker? That investors’ claim wouldn’t be a claim for the note per se – it would be a claim for their money back. How would a court of equity see the note? As 1) outstanding or 2) paid off by the investor funds? I don’t know. Wish I did. But btw, if I bought a note from you and you didn’t fork it over, neither of us may enforce it. YOU don’t have a right to payments and I don’t have the note. Is this a conflict with art 3 of the UCC? YOU could claim poss of a bearer note and without discovery,
    a court would say to you ‘have at it’ when you really have no rights (because you sold the note). Lay opinions.
    Sooner or later and I hope it’s sooner, it’s going to become clear that these notes weren’t transferred to trusts and courts are going to
    have to squarely confront the issues: WHAT does that mean in regard to the enforcement of the notes? But I personally don’t believe the
    trusts actually own anything but payment rights, anyway, even if the notes ‘made it’ to the trust custodian – think that was all WS double-speak – If one owns a note, how does one also own its derivative? Maybe I could ‘get off it’ if someone can answer that question. The psa’s should be filed under “creative writing” imo. Has anyone EVER
    seen an assgt of a dot to a trust at the time it was allegedly transferred to the trust? MERS hides a multitude of sins and one of them may just be that the trusts don’t own the loans and never could. Or maybe they could have, but that would have taken all the fun out of the deal because loan ownership by the trusts might have (probably would have) precluded the sale of multiple tranches. What a load.

  24. Not a lot of class that is fore sure.

  25. McCain can kiss my American gritz and then some. At the Al Smith dinner, he made what was imo a most unsavory, base, classless, bs, comment about Obama meant to demean and embarrass. He said Obama has come a long way since the time when even inviting a black person to the white house would be an outrage. His intent was clear – to me, anyway. What a jacka$$. What a sorry piece of (*&!*.

  26. This report is used by one of the criminals in their case as evidence, a credible report by experts. This is evidence the American homeowners have been financially economically harmed by the same crooks that are stealing our homes. read the Deutsche Bank V FDIC/Chase/WAMU CASE.


    The banks have done this same intentional crime for decades.

    READ PAGE 260-261. There are more pages of interest, however this is the biggy.

  29. Great Job …. JG & Shelley! Keep Going ……. @JG … Great Work! Not many people I know who deserve a WIN, and you are one! If you dont get the house …. shrink the size of the wallets under his shoes. Good Luck!

  30. Broken chain of title makes the note unsecured from the mortgage?. Not transferred in time makes the note/debt void? A close freind of mine had his attorney tell her & her husband to claim the mortgage secured by the note to the fraud closer on the debt list.He would not approve her to put the mortgage on the unsecured list. Now she is attempting to get him to straighten out this issue.

  31. One thing I have thought is if the notes had been the originals and had not been transferred timely as the Deutsche bank claims and the securities pool money trail and doc trail finds they were not. The real or photo copy the note is void and non negotialbe. Am I correct or not. I had an article a while back that states the notes are not negotible and why they are not, however I donot know where to find that article right now. If a real check is not cashed in a timely manner I think it is six months it is non negotiable and can not be cashed. A note is like a check I understand. If not transferred within the 90days to the PSA the note is void? And as Deutsche bank states faulty. That would make it non negotialble? The article I had used legal statutes to claim it was non negotiable.

  32. I don’t think the rat b’s intended to cause a depression. I just think
    their greed caused them not to give a damn what happened as long as they got their GF 4’s, arm candy, and mojitas. Reminds me of a line from Secretariat. A geeky suit was with a foxy woman and was asked how that happened. He said, “I told her I was a lot taller when I stand on my wallet.”

  33. @shelley – like I said, haven’t even finished the complaint, but from what I have read, itsn’t it odd that the agreement doesn’t address endorsements on the notes?! Just says the custodian will have the notes – does not address endorsements.
    Okay. So, I’ll keep reading, but so far what I get is the notes must’ve been transferred to WF (if they were as a matter of fact) by some other art of the UCC (and by way of the loan schedule incorporated into the MLPSA by reference) or maybe even not at all pursuant to the UCC, and definitely not article 3 with it’s stinking bearer provisions. I wish I knew more about the UCC. It might be that these notes were not treated as negotiable instruments at all …….because they’re not.
    If the notes were to be transferred by possession AND endorsement, the mechanics of this would have had to be addressed in the agreement and so far, I haven’t seen it.

  34. I trully dont believe any of the BK banks assigneded the notes on to anyone. Look up the Duetsche Bank v FDIC.WAMU/Chase case and the Phil ting report and the register of deeds report and the Lawernce Nardi deposition. and the Oppenheim Report. Enraged I agree on ” What a terrible time we live in”. Add the Michelle Sjolander deposition. The banks were so corrupt without regulation they just knew they could do anything they wanted to cause a drepression and steal.

  35. Interesting case, Shelley. Thanks for the link. Haven’t finished reading it – it’s lengthy.
    Here is the Purchase and Servicing agreement (CW retained servicing – big surprise there) as well as the weird custodial agreement. There’s also a loan schedule. The custodial agreement says there is to be an 1) original note, 2) an assgt of the mortgage, and 3) a true and correct copy of the mortgage. Among other things, I’d like to know why only a copy of the ‘mtg’. Where’d the orig go?
    Imo, the answer is not inconsequential.


    This case (v Wamu et al) may hold some hope for those who have already lost their homes and want to fight about it. From the case:

    “Defendant Bank of America moves for judgment on the pleadings for the claim for quiet title on the basis that Palma has not alleged that she tendered the disputed amount. Although in the complaint, Palma does not allege tender, she argues that this requirement may be waived where, in equity, the circumstances merit an exemption. See
    Onofrio v. Rice, 55 Cal. App. 4th 413,
    424 (1997). The current complaint, however, does not allege facts meriting such exemption or state facts indicating that the attempted foreclosure was void.”
    jg: oops
    “See Dimock v. Emerald Properties LLC, 81 Cal. App. 4th 868, 876 (2000). “[W]here a sale is void, rather than simply voidable, tender is not required.” Tamburri v. Suntrust Mortgage, Inc., 2011 WL 6294472, * 4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2011); Dimock, 81 Cal. App. 4th at 878. See also, e.g., Robinson v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 199 Cal. App. 4th 42, 46 n.5 (2011) (holding that “a borrower who believes that the foreclosing entity lacks standing to do so … can seek to enjoin the trustee’s sale OR TO SET ASIDE THE SALE (my emphasis – sic). Accordingly, the motion for judgment on this claim is granted, with leave to amend to state facts meriting exemption to the tender rule.
    In addition, Bank of America moves for judgment on the quiet title claim on the basis that Bank of America rescinded the trustee’s sale on June 29, 2011. (Request for Judicial Notice, Ex. 7.)”

    I’m not an attorney. Ask one.

  37. It may be that none of us, and that would include me, have been paying proper attention to what a foreclosure actually is / means. A foreclosure of a deed of trust is, by design, a quiet title action, with the defaulting borrower being the loser. The borrower is stripped of all title, both equitable and legal. The interest held by the deed of trust trustee for the benefit of the deed of trust beneficiary as well as the borrower’s interest, now lost, are united in the successful bidder: everyone else’s interests are extinguished in favor of the successful bidder.
    The title is now quieted in fee simple absolute in the successful bidder by way of the trustee’s deed.
    Before MERS raised its ugly head, the successful bidders at
    foreclosure sales were by and large arm’s length third parties (foreclosure sale buyers, i.e., strangers). While credit bidding has always been available to the legitimate lender, its use didn’t become rampant until recently. The credit bid is no
    slight matter.
    Under the doctrine of merger, certain significant things happen with
    foreclosure. A full credit bid extinguishes the collateral instrument as a matter of law. The lesser interest, that created in the deed of trust and held by the dot trustee for the beneficiary, merges with the greater interest, the fee, when the lender / beneficiary is the successful bidder at sale. (I’m going to post a case or two on merger
    This means the successful bidder is the recipient, grantee, of the trustee’s deed, is now the holder of fee simple absolute (full title) to the real property. It is only the beneficiary who has a right to make a credit bid, and this right flows from the beneficiary’s rights in the note which the deed of trust secures. One with no interest in the note, the obligation, has no right to make a credit bid. AZ has ruled that a foreclosing party need have no nexus with the note, which fwiw, I’m working on. But even so, one with no nexus with the note has no right to a stinking credit bid, so show us the cash for these bids at foreclosure sale (no note, no credit bid).
    MERS has been most insistant that it is the beneficiary. Before its judicially noticeable Consent Order, foreclosures were done by (rather in the name of) MERS as beneficiary using credit bids. Under the doctrine of merger, the beneficiary foreclosing with a credit bid (or cash) becomes the fee owner of the real property; in other words, by operation of law, MERS, the beneficiary, held
    title to every property foreclosed in its name when a credit bid was used. If that’s not ridiculous enough, it means the deed to every resale of a foreclosed property had to come from MERS or there is a fatal break in the chain of title, if there weren’t already (which I posit there was). Alternatively, MERS would have had to execute and record an assignment of the trustee’s deed to whomever posed as the seller of the foreclosed property. But MERS, for lack of interest in the note, had no right to make a credit bid.

    If “MERS” foreclosed on a home, did MERS have a right to make a credit bid? (Don’t forget MERS under oath averments to the court in MERS v Nebraska, abbreviated). If not, there was no bid, so no foreclosure sale actually took place. Who made the credit bids when MERS foreclosed and under what authority? What kind of mickey mouse, jury rigged assgts of the credit bids occurred and are occurring? Who is making these credit bids now and under what authority?
    I’m not an attorney – ask one. Good luck.

  38. When we had discovered what had happened with the titles, we tried n tried n tried to do the right thing to no avail. When folks are trying to get errors fixed (and I use the term errors lightly) …. and the banksters responds with dirty snowballs … well then, Its time to demand Performance! Its alot like a soggy cheeto … limp and lifeless.

  39. I understand Enraged … Yes… we have Greedy and Evil here as do all countries. But not the Majority! Dont be so hasty in to grouping them all together. If your American … then you seem to be pulling the rug from under your own feet. I agree also … we have more than our share of Wanna’Bee Freeloaders to, but again, the Majority want to do the Right Thing. I have also worked and payed taxes over 30yrs. My husband still works … something about a pension (he will probably never see) and replacing our lost 401ks. He alone pays more in Taxes each month equal to almost 4x the amount of the mortgage payment. No deadbeats here … Just honest hard working Americans, fighting the fight for Justice.

  40. SC,

    Let go of that. I am as much an American as you are. And right now, I have no interest in sabotaging my case by making stupid moves. If you don’t mind, I’ll listen to my attorney before I listen to anyone else…

    As far as “the right thing to do”, show me one person who is complying with it. Lastly and with all due respect, Corelogic is a hybrid and unconstitutional entity, on the same level as MERS. Neither has been approved by the legislation. Something based on fraud does not deserve moral consideration.

    Oh, and by the way… all those bailouts were also made with my tax money. Been paying for 30 years religiously. And 53% of it has systematically been used to wage wars I never endorsed and… Congress didn’t agree to. So, I’ve been, like everyone else, sold some pretty heavy bills of goods. I don’t owe anyone for anything at this juncture. And especially not to unconstitutional entities…

  41. @ Enraged, because its the right thing to do. Any funds paid thru Corelogic on behalf of the banks …. will ultimatly be another tax burdon on the American People. Ooops …. I forgot. Your an American Basher …. not a True American.

  42. Neil…you are too kind calling it an unfair state foreclosure process….it is a fascist & criminally illegal fraudclosure process.. I have a friend here in Illinois …a Vietnam vet who has agent orange and lots of health problems……he filed Bk…the crooked servicer didn’t have the notes in bk….and were fined by the State AG for filing fraudulent affadavits which the judge dismissed his suit & countless other fraudclosure suits due to that fraud… but the swindler attorney let PHH MORTGAGE steal his house……! They are all going to burn in hell….that is the only way of coping with my outrage….

    The scumbag garbage local media at ABC 7 in Chicago did a report tonight on a “miraculous” story about how a microchipped dog was found in another state because of his microchip…..! Well hellaleulia…! & hail the master of deception…..! Stupid pet owner said she wants to see that legislation gets passed that vets must swipe dogs for identity when they visit the vets office….! What a stupid a**hole…she doesn’t deserve to own another pet…. The poor dog probably wanted to escape her evil clutches…

  43. SD,

    Why would I want to do that when I’m in suit and no one is bothering me?

  44. Enraged, here is how you get around the Ins loss payee issue. Cancel your current policy. Set up a new one (no loss payee) and pay the policy a year in advance. Pretender will add forceplaced insurance making themselves loss payee. Your Covered and They are Covered. Not like they are going to get the forceplaced ins funds back anyway. Right? Oh .. the games they play! Same goes with the property taxes… pay them the first day they come due, pay the Entire Bill!. BofA payments always sent back … but still show escrow shortage for them…lol! Judges dont take kindly to you not paying the taxes, after all… your claim is ownership, and it is the responsibility of the owner to pay the taxes. Dont lose your home to a tax sale/forclosure! I do however realize their are specific situations where paying the taxes is fruitless for the homeowner if keeping the home is not an option.

  45. Hman,

    I covered that a while back. I contacted my insurance agent and asked for the entire underwriting file since the house has been insured by the same company since I bought it. The loan was “transferred” a few times and i wanted to know why, since the bank i had sued had never had any standing, it was the loss payee. Come to realize:

    1) Transfers of the loan are simply announced to the insurance by way of a simple letter, without any need for the bank to provide any kind of supporting document.
    2) The insured cannot undo what the bank has done, as far as changing the loss payee.

    This will be part of a future action but I do intend to have the bank removed even if takes a judge’s order. Although by the time I resolve my case, it may very well have become a moot point…

    The good thing, though, is that i don’t pay for the premium which was in escrow. The bank doesn’t either. it is paid by that hybrid, anonymous entity, Corelogic.

    But it’s something to keep in mind.




  48. Enraged

    I wondered about this sometime ago. Contacting the insurance company and requesting to submit a change in the “loss payee”. I think if you were successful the bank would have to prove to the insurance company that they are the “loss payee”. (Which would mean that they are the lender).

    I don’t know if this can be done as the request is usually submitted by the “banks” and not the insured. If you are contesting the bank/servicer has the right to foreclose because they are not the lender etc… than I think it would be logical to submit a change request on the policy? Why would you let the bank stay on the policy if you are disputing their claims?

    Just my 2 cents, and you are correct the banks are horrible with claims and putting borrowers in forced placed insurance policies knowing they can’t pay allowing the banks to have another claim on the property.


    Interesting… Martin Andelman, a well-connected California resident, and an economist, to boot, contradicts this assertion, repeated ad nauseam on this site. Jeez! Whom to believe? Someone with clout and who knows what really is going on or…

    Oh well. Never mind.


    And the housing industry is smack in the middle of all of it…and OF COURSE they don’t want everyone to know it’s all unsecured debt…and if they don’t talk about it, they think it will all go away…


  51. It has to be said and repeated: go on the attack on your own. Government is not there to help you individually and no government action will ever give you the result you can obtain on your own.

    The Topic Both Candidates Ignore

    Posted on October 17th, 2012 by Mark Stopa

    As I watched the debates last night, I commented on both my Facebook page and Twitter account, @MarkStopa, that Obama and Romney both ignored any discussion of foreclosure or housing.

    Apparently, I wasn’t the only one who noticed, as the Washington Post just wrote an article titled The Topic Both Candidates Ignore.

    If you’re having trouble paying your mortgage, or are facing foreclosure, don’t sit back and wait for help. The candidates aren’t even discussing the issue – do you really think either side is going to do anything to help? You have to help yourselves, folks. Defend your case. Assert your rights. Hire competent counsel. Nobody is going to help you – you have to help yourself.

    Mark Stopa

  52. This is the unfortunate reality and it happened to me 2 years ago: a sewage leak down my stairways. The estimate was for over $5,000 and the bank would not release the check so that I could hire a contractor to tear down the wall and replace the plumbing (I wasn’t going to hire anyone without having the money in hand! Dealing with banks has taught me a few things…)

    Eventually, after 3 weeks of back-and-forth, my attorney finally told the banks (that I had quit paying over 3 years ago): “Listen, we’re talking raw sewage in living quarters. It’s unhealthy and even dangerous. So, either you release the money and the repairs can be completed, regardless of any other ongoing issue, or we call the housing inspector, we have the house condemned, my clients moves into a hotel, they contact the TV with pictures and with the story and when we go before the judge and/or the jury, it is all public record and you face damages you haven’t even started calculating. And keep in mind that my client have a dog who’ll need housing as well.”

    Within a week, I had the check, properly endorsed. But you need to beware!


    October 17, 2012

    We are getting more and more inquiries regarding situations where a home has suffered damages from a natural disaster (such as a flood, fire, etc.) and the insurer issues a check for repairs which is made out to the homeowner and the alleged “lien holder” (the foreclosing party), who then refuses to sign off on the check so that the homeowner can make the repairs. The “bank” claims that they can lawfully withhold the insurance proceeds to apply them towards the alleged debt on the mortgage loan, thereby not permitting the homeowner to make the necessary repairs and placing the homeowner in an even more precarious position. We have been presented with this situation in cases in Tennessee, South Carolina, and Florida to date.

    The situation has become so bad that we have had the insurer in one case file an interpleader action where the insurance proceeds are placed into escrow while the rights to the money are litigated. In fact, the insurer told us that they have had to resort to this procedure quite a bit lately due to the lack of cooperation from the “banks” in permitting the homeowner to take the insurance proceeds to pay for the necessary repairs.

    This conduct by the “banks” is abhorrent, and we are aware of no decision (case law) which permits a foreclosing party in a contested foreclosure to keep insurance proceeds specifically paid for repairs and to apply same to the disputed debt. Thus, as we have had to do in so many other situations where there is no precedent, we will have to force this issue before the courts.

    Separately, Mr. Barnes has recently been retained to prosecute an appeal of a denial of reconsideration of a grant of stay relief in a securitization case to the U.S. 10th Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel; an appeal of a summary judgment in Hawaii; and has also been retained to appeal a summary judgment to the Federal 6th Circuit arising out of a case in Tennessee in another securitization case.

    Jeff Barnes, Esq.,

  53. @carie ,

    A strangely appropriate reference to “humpty dumpty” … “humpty dumpty” (an english slang term for FAT) was in actuality a very large MORTAR that was perched up high on a city wall that the loyalists (kings men) were defending during the English civil war…

    I honestly don’t see how we salvage the current system… there is just too much debt… I expect chaos.

  54. Ancient history of foreclosures as told 1400 years ago:

  55. The President is a puppet and a patsy for the “Big Boys” with the money…the whole system is DEAD.

    The present “order” of the world needs to die…and a new one—based on the foundation of Truthfullness—needs to be built.

    What we are witnessing is the dying of the old outmoded system…and like the fall of Humpty Dumpty—there is no chance for repairs…

  56. The best you can hope for in a BK is to strip off the 2nd. This is about 65 cents on the dollar settlement and forced to eat beans for the next 5 yrs. The other option for those who are upside down will be to get forced to the curb. Just rememeber Billy Butt Clinton insitated this mess, Bush promoted the mess , Obama covered up the mess and Romney will stick it up your A$$. The S.O.Bs dod not care about you and your family.They are parasites living off your hard work.
    This fall , Go Green clean up congress ! Vote these bastards out of office. As far a a president. There is no real choice.

  57. the court and the judges just don’t follow the rule of law because lawyers on the other side will emphasize the the homeowner are deadbeat and once you are a pro se the nazis judge will see you as jews because during the world war in europe if you are a jews you deserve to die. the same thing applied in foreclosure fraud these nazi judges will see as you as a deadbeat homeowners and rubber stamp their decision since you are a deadbeat homeowners you deserve to lose your house regardless whoever foreclose your property. that is the mentality of the judges, they blamed homeowners for their retirement losses and wall st. propaganda is working. the NAZI era is still alive and kicking.

  58. Sad commentary about what has become of America. The message is so distressing! “Even if you can pay something, anything, and even if you would rather pay a little toward all your bills, you’re better off defaulting on everything in order to avoid getting thrown out in the streets. Never mind the number of businesses you hurt in the process.”

    What a terrible time we live in…

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: