How, When, Where and Why to Hire an Attorney


Editor’s Comment: Every case is different so this is not a comment on any specific case nor should you act on anything you read here without in-depth consultation with a trusted adviser.

As I have stated many times in my appearances at seminars, radio and television the first rule is don’t exchange a predatory lender for a predatory attorney. The same holds true for any organization offering services to consumers or homeowners in financial distress. The more popular ones may have achieved that status by good marketing and advertising rather than by efficient use of their skills which produces a satisfactory result to the client.

On the other hand, homeowners and consumers must understand that the practice of law is a business. None of these businesses played any major part in creating your distress. None of them owe you anything; nonetheless most homeowners and consumers contact my organizations do so under the mistaken belief that we are a foundation with infinite resources or that because they were screwed by the banks there is some special obligation on the part of the attorney, counselor, or other service provider. No such obligation exists.

The amount of money that such service providers charge is determined by the marketplace, ethical rules and disciplinary rules, and in certain cases by a web of regulatory or statutory restrictions or prohibitions. As soon as any service provider accepts you as a customer they are creating a liability for themselves and if they are offering a payment plan they are creating a risk that they will not be paid a reasonable fee for the services that they provide.

The second rule is that anyone who guarantees you a result is either lying or stupid. Stay away from them. Anyone who will tell you that they can do anything a lawyer can do for much less money is essentially offering their services under the banner of “unauthorized practice of law” which in some states is an actual felony. But that doesn’t mean that you can’t use alternative service vendors to assist you in getting information, analyzing information and presenting the information in a format that would be useful to an attorney or judge.

When speaking to a prospective client I often hear that other lawyers are charging much less than what I charge. My answer is always the same, to wit: if you’re shopping for price than you are in the wrong place; if you want Neil Garfield to represent you then you are in the right place but you have to choose whether you are willing to pay a higher price for a 66-year-old veteran of Wall Street, real estate investments and trading, and 34 years as a trial lawyer.

In places like South Florida where competition has become intense, several law offices have created the illusion that they are an anti-foreclosure mill by offering low down payments and low monthly payments. Such law firms are concentrating on developing volume rather than developing their skills and prowess in the courtroom. I have had to clean up the mess of many prior attorneys in order to present the case to a new lawyer. And of course the prospective client has mistaken the actions or inaction of prior counsel as a reason to distrust any member of the bar; such prospective clients jump from the frying pan into the fire when they enter into various agreements involving the execution of documents transferring title and contingency fee agreements which lack specificity on how they will be applied.

Back in 2007 and 2008 couldn’t find a lawyer that understood what I’m talking about or who would be willing to defend a foreclosure action for any amount of money because they thought they would lose every one of those cases. Now a number of cases are being lost not because there are no lawyers, but rather because the lawyers have taken on a large caseload without enlarging their staff to handle it. Therefore they end up unprepared in court conceding points that should be in issue.

As I have been saying for the last two or three years we are far beyond the point where a homeowner representing themselves is likely to get any satisfactory result. You will hear anecdotal stories where sometimes the homeowner was able to get a good result; but for the most part these cases are won on a knowledge of civil procedure and a use of strategy and tactics based upon prior experience in motion practice and trial practice. In this case you also want people who are already knowledgeable about negotiable instruments, the UCC,  contract law, property law, and the actual workings of Wall Street. The lawyer should be competent to be able to follow both the money trail and the paper trail and to compare the two as part of his preparation for his appearance in court.

The time to consult with an attorney is at the first moment that you think you might have a problem. Going to a neighbor or friend and following advice based upon a small number of anecdotal tales will probably result in you producing documents or making statements that will be later used against you. Like when the bank tells you what to say in a hardship letter making it clear that you couldn’t possibly pay any mortgage when in fact you could make mortgage payments based upon reasonable terms. Also, when a representative of the bank tells you that you should stop making payments they are telling you to breach the contract you signed. I make it a practice never to advise clients to do anything that puts them in a worse position than they are already in.

There is a built-in conflict between lawyer and client that is not ever likely to be resolved. The client wants a particular result and the lawyer wants to get paid for the work he has done regardless of the result. They are both right. The reality is that the lawyer should get paid for the work that he does and hopefully client has chosen a lawyer carefully bus and enhancing the likelihood that they will get a satisfactory result.  There is also the age old conflict over contingency fees and how they should be applied. At the moment my opinion is that the use of a contingency fee when the only result is a reduction in the amount of the principal demanded is probably going to be hard to enforce and may violate ethical rules and disciplinary rules governing how attorneys charge for their services. On the other hand where there is a recovery of an actual cash payment, a contingency fee is perfectly valid.

The argument over how attorneys get paid a lot of money on a contingency fee can be avoided simply by paying the attorney for the work he does. In the absence of being paid a reasonable fee in full the attorney is entitled to enhance the likelihood of him being paid with a contingency fee. Contingency fees vary from 10% or the way up to 50% depending upon the state, local rules and the situation at hand and usually do not cover the cost of attorney’s fees for an appeal or an administrative action that is ancillary to the civil proceedings in state or federal court.

The time to change attorneys is when you have lost faith in the capacity or willingness of the attorney or law firm to advocate on your behalf with all available resources. You should be aware that the successor attorney will be completely disinterested in what you have already paid the prior attorney. As far as the new attorney is concerned, it is a new case and requires a retainer and monthly payments, if that is what the attorney offers.

When you interview an a prospective attorney you should take the lead and inquire about his or her experience and what the reasonable expectations should be on the outcome of the case. AND if you know about a deadline, then keep after the lawyer and make sure they don’t blow the deadline.

I’ll be taking questions tonight on the members teleconference. REMEMBER TO USE THE NEW NUMBER: 1-626-677-3000

Short sales may show up on credit reports as foreclosures


EVERYONE EXCEPT THE BANKS: Feds Target Bid-Rigging Scams at Foreclosure Auctions
New York attorney general sues HSBC over foreclosures,0,709209.story
Elizabeth Warren Calls for Grassroots Movement on Student Loan Debt

83 Responses

  1. The most powerul man in the world who works for the most maniacal and diabolical masterminds in the world. They certainly write up the orders and send out their assassins to legislate, and pass their communist laws and enforce them.

  2. “The lie is sacred.” – Luciferian Freemason, Communist revolutionary, Vladimir Lenin

  3. And look….she’s getting all fancy now with her fancy parentheses and X’s and making shit up. That can only mean she doesn’t know what in the hell she’s talking about because she is just a liar and she doesn’t have a valid argument because she doesn’t know a damned thing about this country which can only mean she must be a secret squirrel. Yet another Imposter.

  4. E TROLLE…..Troll away the facts don’t lie. Why is it when you mention Russia, the trolls attack? Pretty obvious and don’t even talk to me about being unoriginal. You trolls have been using the same attack the messenger crap forever. All innuendo with no facts. You are all dead giveaways.

  5. [x] Stripes is a moron

    [x] Stripes is an idiot

    [x] Stripes has never had an original thought

    [x] Stripes actually believes that people care about her incessant drivel

  6. It appears the real first place issue regarding fraudclosure that is always being ignored….Russian Communist Espionage. Who could have known being thrown into fraudclosure would have led to all of this discovery?
    Kennedy’s Comrade: Hunting a KGB Mole In the Democratic Party…..

  7. usedkarguy et al:

    this is the link to what was to be decided. Now going to find the SC ruling.

  8. Then there is the queen of all conspiracy theories….Jackie Kennedy Is Killer Queen…
    I always wondered why in the movie J.F.K by Oliver Stone Jackie came off the plane in a different outfit than the pink suit she later wore. I knew there was some symbolism and meaning behind that. I also thought it was strange that she married Onassis and she never talked about the assassination. I always thought she was hiding something. My grandma never liked her and always thought Jackie was a big put on. Grandma always got the clues.

  9. from dee’s post:

    “…if it can be shown that the original lenders and their successors conferred sufficient authority on MERS to act on their behalves in the necessary respects, MERS may have authority, as the true beneficiary’s agent, to hold and transfer interests in the trust deed.”

    MERS responded to this line saying, “We are confident that we can establish this authority.”

    Really? You can’t establish “sufficient authority” if the real creditor is never identified.

  10. dee, excellent reportage. that’s what this site is for. where’s the “Oregon Law” tab?

  11. Interesting read….THE ONASSIS BLODDLINE……

  12. How Bill Clinton Laid the Groundwork for the New Police State…..

  13. More info on the shadow government power structure….it infringes on every aspect of our lives….


  15. @ UKG ,

    I used to sell cars myself ,, this isn’t just a typo… and the location they indicated to find “rules” governing the offer doesn’t exist … AND I contacted a sales manager and they confirmed governing rules weren’t created. I may not get what I want but I can sure make them squirm and make me an offer… it’s just beginning… I chose the name “neidermeyer” because Dean Wormer called him “a sneaky little shit” and he associated with scum like Greg Marmalard … I made real sure to cover all the bases and gather all documentation before proceeding. They can’t hide behind a blanket “we can lie in our advertising and back out of anything whenever we want just by calling it a mistake” BS … Who do they think they are? Obama?

    Betcha they pull the current ad campaign by tomorrow morning at the latest…

  16. Amazing—two years after L. Randall Wray wrote this and nothing has changed:

    “…Whenever those who are critical of MERS and the banksters post blogs about the multiple frauds, we are attacked by commentators — presumably industry hacks — who try to obfuscate the issues. But recent court cases as well as testimonies before elected representatives confirm our two main claims. First, many or most foreclosures that are taking place are illegal because those doing the foreclosing do not have legal standing. And, second, the practices that created the foreclosure problems also mean that the mortgage-backed securities are actually unsecured debt. That means banks must take them back, so they are toast. It all comes back to MERS’s business model: it destroyed the chain of title.

    Much of the rest of the fraud and scandal we are witnessing follows on from that because the banks want to foreclose the properties before the securities holders put back the fraudulent securities. The problem is that the destruction of the clear chain of title makes it impossible to foreclose, so the banks used robo-signers to forge documents in the hope they could paper over their home thefts. But homeowners, courts, legislators, securities investors, and title insurers have caught on to the scam. In addition to the forgeries, MERS and bank officials and lawyers are committing perjury in court in the hope that they can confuse the issues sufficiently that they can complete the home thefts.

    However, improper foreclosures produce houses that cannot be sold legally — so the can is just kicked down the road to the next crisis, which will reveal that those who have purchased foreclosed homes have no legal title to them. And so their debts will also be unsecured. MERS has created a disaster that will not be resolved for at least a decade, perhaps a generation. Given the scale of foreclosures (projected at 13 million by 2012), future home purchasers face a pretty good chance that if they are buying pre-owned housing, their title to the property is dubious…”



  18. Definition…..Government sponsored enterprise….designed by the commies in Congress to enhance the “flow of credit” AKA OUR MONEY to our communist enemies AKA the capitalists …

  19. How is it that the U.S. TAXPAYER’S paid for everything upfront, bailed out the crooks who robbed us and the communist crooks claim to own everything? OH HELL NO THEY DON’T!

  20. The U.S. GOVERNMENT did not hijack the real estate market and do not control it. Communist imposters do… they have hijacked everything.


  22. Obama wants the power to inspect your home for safety….

  23. Note the communist connection in the Cuomo article below to communist Irwin Schneiderman is the father of NY AG Eric Schneiderman.

  24. Andrew Cuomo the Disaster of “HUD” and more about the Cuomos commies/anti-americans…..

  25. Was Fidel Castro a CIA/KGB Russian Supermole?

  26. Soviet Moles in the CIA part 1: The Destruction of Western Intelligence….

  27. FAIL. 🙁 …… Sec of HUD

  28. The truth is….the GSE’s are a ruse. They were always owned by the BANK OF INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENTS….THE RUSSIANS….Aka the ROTHSCHILD/BREZEZINSKI CARTEL…..

  29. From American ….Could Fannie & Freddie add $5 trillion to the National Debt?

    Oh no it is much worse than that. CNBC reported these maniacs, the communist investors who control the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK have actually stolen $60.4 trillion of our wealth from our Nationalized/”communized” Treasury since 2008.

    The politicians are all covering it up, they are all liars and they are all full of shit and are all getting richer from this scam and our manufactured demise.

    The truth is the commie crooks will charge us just a mere $5 trillion for their robbery of $60.4 trillion dollars of our wealth….

  30. The commies at the FED hijacked the U.S. TREASURY and have been robbing the U.S. Taxpayer’s via the communist controlled GSE’s to repurchase their own debt fraud since 2008…

  31. The crooks 404ed me…you can google it.

  32. The GSE’s put the notes in false default (collected insurance) at the start of the subprime (fake) “mortgage-backed” securities…MERS ( a system of non-funding where transfer of ‘collection rights only’ is the MO) was created to cover up the Ponzi scheme to get securities investors and homebuyers/borrowers to sign on the dotted line… (not a real mortgage).
    Yes, I would say that’s a problem.

  33. Allow me to repost that link …What Was the Fannie and Freddie Bailout?

  34. What Was The Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Bailout?

  35. Read all about how they robbed us via the GSE’s and still are here….

  36. Russian bank stocks surged after the 2008 takeover of Fannie & Freddie.

  37. I was told early on by the FBI that the GSE’s are the real problem.

    Remember, the GSE’s were “nationalized” and they are one of the main siphons being used by the communists at the FED to steal our wealth.

  38. Judge orders Freddie Mac to open its books for a Federal Banking investigation.

  39. Please see the you tube video below entitled… FRANK STURGIS – THE KGB KILLED KENNEDY….


  41. Major Oregon Supreme Court ruling undermines MERS, but leaves registry room to challenge

    By Kerri Ann Panchuk
    • June 6, 2013 • 11:56am

    The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed a lower court’s decision challenging the authority of the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems during the foreclosure process when the registry’s construction butts up against certain aspects of Oregon law.

    This is the outcome of the Niday v. GMAC decision — a precedential case the mortgage industry has been waiting months for.

    The court issued two decisions Thursday that impact MERS – Niday v. GMAC as well as Brandrup v. Reconstruct Co.

    MERS believes the court left the registry room to show its authority to act on behalf of lenders in the state. After analyzing a portion of one case, MERS said the court “held that Oregon’s nonjudicial foreclosure statute ‘does not require recordation of assignments of the trust deed by operation of law that result from the transfer of the secured obligation.”

    Based on that line, MERS believes “these rulings will allow lenders to move forward with nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings in the state.”

    But before getting to that part of the case, the justices do undermine some of MERS key arguments.

    In its final ruling, the Oregon Supreme Court agreed with a lower appellate court, holding that MERS is not a rightful ‘beneficiary of the trust deed’ when analyzing its construction against the Oregon Deed Trust Act.

    The Supreme Court also said MERS could have maintained some authority to assign foreclosure rights if it had provided evidence of an agency relationship with some of the financial firms it acted on behalf of.

    However, the court also shot down this argument saying “as far as we can tell, there is nothing in the summary judgment record in this case that identifies the successors to the original lender’s interests or shows MERS is authorized as the agent of the successors to the original lender’s interests.”

    Without this agency relationship or status as the trust deed beneficiary, MERS’ ability to assign foreclosing power is virtually shot down, making this a landmark decision in a state where this pending appeal alone made financial firms weary of nonjudicial foreclosures.

    The original appellate court decision – which overturned a ruling favorable to MERS — limited the meaning of the term beneficiary of the mortgage contract as the agent or person that is owed repayment on a loan.

    The appellate court then evaluated MERS against that definition and decided the registry had no authority to assign foreclosure authority — a theory that disempowered many assumptions made when it comes to MERS’ role in the foreclosure process.

    That case alone prompted analysts to project a slowdown in nonjudicial foreclosures in Oregon — and a preference for judicial foreclosures to guarantee some certainty. The case eventually went up to the state supreme court on appeal and resulted in Thursday’s decision.

    The failure of MERS to get the entire decision overturned is significant.

    But sources say the court essentially left MERS room to prove on remand to a lower court that ‘evidence’ does exist showing the registry acting as an agent for various banks, thereby maintaining its authority to assign various interests in the trust deed.

    It’s one of the four questions answered by the court in a summary of the case.

    The justices write “insofar as MERS does not have the right to receive repayment of the notes that the trust deeds in these cases secures, it cannot hold legal title to those trust deeds under the OTDA, or transfer legal title to another entity; but (b) if it can be shown that the original lenders and their successors conferred sufficient authority on MERS to act on their behalves in the necessary respects, MERS may have authority, as the true beneficiary’s agent, to hold and transfer interests in the trust deed.”

    MERS responded to this line saying, “We are confident that we can establish this authority.”

    Read the full Niday decision here.




    Moreover, those starry-eyed States inclined to perceive international relations in moral terms frequently underestimate the NEFARIOUS MACHINATIONS of their competitors on the world political stage. – Richard Wolin – New Republic, June 4, 2001

  44. I give Ms. Warren credit for shining the spotlight on the crooks however, I do not believe in any communist policies like re-socialism of fraud. These crooks owe us GAZILLIONS.

    The latest ploy regarding the “National” Mortgage Settlement is no doubt why the stock market has been tanking all week and gas prices are through the roof. They are all getting caught and running out of places to steal from.

  45. Anyone hear the commercial on the am radio that says your house could be already paid for free & clear by the National Mortgage Settlement? The commercial says call this number, servicers will still try to collect payments from you even if your house is already paid for so call the number now.

    I knew they were up to something nefarious.

    They are trying to get out of paying for all their fraud.

    Screw them. I am not backing down. I demand no less than clear titles and monetary damages ….3x the face value of the notes for the hell these greedy bastards put me through alone.

  46. Yes thank you for Elizabeth Warren
    And Elijah Cummings

  47. JenninGA!, … Your attorney sounds very wise, follow his/her advise. It took us almost three years to get CWHLs (never the lender or mortgagee) LP of our title. Brick Walls just sit .. that’s it. The only way to get it to move is with a front-end loader.

  48. Senator Warren makes them SQUIRM…LOVE her—the guy she’s addressing makes me want to throw up:

    Senator E. Warren office is accepting “letters” from IFR victims. Just
    send a statement of what happened with your “loan/foreclosure”, no more than 2 pages. Include your contact info. Send a copy of your check or include the amount you received.
    On the envelope – The first line in your return address section should be:
    then your return address follow under
    that line. Mail your letters to:
    Elizabeth Warren
    Senator for Massachusetts
    2400 JFK Federal Building
    15 New Sudbury Street
    Boston, MA. 02203

  49. LXQ-it does get to be fun laying out land mines and having bank counsel jump and down on them. got a couple of those that have worked so far…..

  50. oh, and neidermeyer, there’s a sign somewhere in the dealership that says “We reserve the right to correct advertising errors”, right next to the retraction letter.

  51. Off topic a bit – have a question.
    Here is brief background –
    2 loans in same trust.
    I can go online and see the monthly details of the trust posted by the Master servicer.
    2nd loan charged off 4/10. The monthly report shows this loan PAID IN FULL on the 4/10 monthly report (the month it was charged off) –

    but that report also shows it to be liquidated. From this point on, the loan is only listed in the history of the trust and is listed as inactive.

    The 1st loan – got a loan mod and is listed as active.
    Filed CH 7 and since i am in GA was able to have the judge grant our motion to strip 2nd lien.

    THe BK was discharged 1/13!
    The mortgage servicer has NOT filed a release of the deed for this loan.
    When I check the MERS site the 1st loan is active and the 2nd loan is listed as inactive.
    Read yesterday that MERS files a release of the loan when it no longer is the nominee for that loan – MERS has not filed anything.

    I worry because it feels wrong that the lien strip is granted and the discharge was in Jan and yet nothing has been filed.

    My lawyer said I can file the motion granted document.

    This situation seems to support what I think KC was trying to address in one of the earlier posts here? I wonder if the Master Servicer, or the Trustee even know that this loan has been stirpped? For our other -modified active loan – will they be able to release that deed once paid in full?

    Does anyone know how what status MERS uses for a loan that was striped in a BK?

  52. Ukg
    I agree and appreciate what you wrote
    All of us at leAst 4 years now trying to get some kind of justice who have lived through it get it. Walking the walk is a lot harder then talking the talk. Ive lived n learned a few things ive talked to many that let their homes go- with and without s fight, would i have made different choices and spent my hard earned dollars in a different way- in hindsight – probably, but i still believe there is a reason for everything.

  53. The NV SC recently answered 2 certified questions and in so doing, made something a lot easier for us mere mortals:

    “…..In other words, when an action is in rem, the resulting
    judgment applies against the whole world. Restatement (Second) of
    Judgments §§ 6, 30 (1982). By comparison, an in personam judgment acts upon the persons who are parties to the suit. Shaffer, 433 U.S. at 199; see also State v. Cent. Pac. R.R. Co., 10 Nev. 47, 80 (1875) (explaining that actions in personarn seek personal judgments and are directed against specific persons), overruled on other grounds by State ex rel. State Bd. of Equalization v. Barta, 124 Nev. 612, 626, 188 P.3d 1092, 1101-02 (2008); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 5 (1982). Quasi in rem proceedings are “a halfway house between in rem and in personam jurisdiction, because the “action is not really against the property” but rather is used
    “to determine rights in certain property.” 4A Charles Alan Wright &
    Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1070 (3d ed. 2002).

  54. What time is the call?

  55. We all need council. Pro se is hell ok i get that believe me. All cases ate different and have their particular bends in the road.
    Contingency is my hope, once i resurrect my case.

  56. Ha ha, KC—that “confusion” is what they counted on!!! Their plan worked…

  57. Good Advise UKG. … All True! Piercing the corporate veil is not easy, …. I agree! But having been the Plaintiff trying to break a corporate veil for many years prior and losing a permanent injunction against a corp. You gain a lot of experience. Although this situation was different … the structure was the same. It was the accounting that had me baffled and the parties that played a role in it This time I had to step back and look at the structure role at each level.. because I kept getting the parties confused … as in to many parties calling themselves something they are not.

  58. The obligation council owes the client as a professional duty, but also as a matter of public policy/responsibility are per the standards of the profession, this gives rise to clients right to rely on his/ her loyalty and obligation to apply those atandards of care- these are bare minimum of a duty of care. We all know that the subject matter is difficult and to err is human, but negligence with a damaging result, is that not one of the fundamental issues the profession itself thrives upon?

  59. @Hman

    Who were your pretender lender parties? Just curious…I don’t recall if you told me before.

  60. Attorneys are subject to the same learning curve as anybody else. As convoluted as the securitization conundrum wrapped in the enigma of law is, it’s no wonder attorneys with real understanding are scarce. The ones that have been practicing law in this realm are up against enormous odds, the least of which is “the law” itself. Bank-Plaintiff attorneys produce forged documents, mis-state case law precedents, and use fraud to their advantage by concealing the RPII throughout the proceedings. Some firms will go so far as to try to substitute a plaintiff with an ex-parte letter to a judge, avoiding due process (and the ability of the debtor to re-plead) altogether.
    The good, ethical attorneys practicing in this body of law assume that the OTHER SIDE is also employing ethical attorneys. That flawed assumption, in and of itself, puts these foreclosure-defense lawyers at a disadvantage. The sheer number of foreclosures over the past five years created a cottage industry of pretender-defenders and modification mavens. WE KNOW the opportunity presented itself and some chose to pursue those frauds. Others in the legal community took the to other side: what we perceive as “the dark side”, foreclosure-mill law firms.
    Both sides come to court to do battle on what everybody assumes is a level playing field refereed by “blind justice”. What we have instead is a judiciary believing that national security depends on maintaining the illusion of 67 million mortgages (pick a number) being SECURED by valid mortgages, to REAL mortgagees, some of which are investors or bondholders. The continuing attempts to discredit the borrower-homeowners and the attorneys who see through the fraud and know the homeowner claims are justified will continue. These attorneys are taking it on the chin because the judges refuse to let the light shine in. Piercing the corporate veil is not easy. When the trier of fact is inherently biased because of his allegiance to the “system” or his own retirement account, it is nearly impossible.

    As to “what should attorneys be paid” to defend a foreclosure? A conservative number arrived at within our consortium is $20,000. With fees, research costs, depositions, appeals, etc., $30,000 is not a stretch. My friends, these are not $3500 or even $5000 cases: they take YEARS. If you could find an attorney to take your retainer and make a monthly payment over $1000 a month, what would that buy? The $200,000 education is supposed to yield at least a $250/hour billable rate, wouldn’t you think? So your thousand dollars buys FOUR HOURS of the attorneys time per month. That’s not much time when you consider an answer to a motion to dismiss can take 10 hours or more.
    Some attorneys with a keen business sense have come up with a way for the homeowner to pay the attorney WITH THE HOUSE: i.e, he defends your home, wins a quiet title action, and he carries a mortgage for half your homes actual cash value (which you deeded to him at the start of the action). You owe the law firm or trust for half of the value of your house, and you have 50% equity instead of being upside down. Is that a victory? I would say “yes, it is.” But that battle takes gumption, dedication, and an attorney who knows the playing field.
    Some people just want “out”, I understand. But it’s not that easy. You own that friggin’ house whether you want to or not. Fight for it. Or stay as long as you can and save the dough. It’s okay to “let it go” if you can’t handle the stress of all this. Just make sure the title transfers before you move.

  61. Re. Ian at 11:54 am—

    It is COMPLETELY irrefutable!!!!

    Oh, but you’re not allowed to have the discovery to show that…due to the “cover-up laws”…

  62. This pro se’s reality was hiring an inexpensive attorney who took him to BK court and dropped him off. Then I fired him. And took the time for BK to wind down to learn enough civil law and rules to re-craft my complaint. Meanwhile I watched a number of attorneys lose their homes here in CA. So I didn’t do what they did, and did what they didn’t do. And even though the judge made sure I had no money to pay an attorney, I persevered to discovery, where the judge had to apply a particularly nasty coup de grace to my efforts, and dump my case on the rocks of summary judgment.

    All along I kept following Neils advice by noting the confirmation of what I had done with what Neil said we should start doing, and for that I am grateful for his advice after the fact. And all along I followed the basics – object to everything, admit to nothing, find my weapons in the mistakes of my adversaries, always have case law and statute for any argument I promoted.

    And now I wait with patience for the battlefield to clear, the winning adversaries to celebrate and let down their guard, in anticipation of the moment adversaries trip the wire to detonate the legal nuke I left behind in the rubble.

    But I would not expect most other pro se to have the uncanny instincts I find in myself, and be able to find serendipity in inadvertent acts – these are the qualities you should find in a seasoned attorney such as Neil, and they are worth their weight in gold. It’s a shame our representatives responsible for all these ‘national agreements’ couldn’t find a way to provide legal defense funds for attorneys for homeowners instead of menial compensation for our anguish.

  63. Paid a lot of money to a good attorney to tell us we didn’t need an attorney. Money Well Spent!

  64. hman … you had to wait til the title WAS transferred out of MERS before you QT. I’m slow and I’ve tripped up along the way .. but Heaven Help Us its Time to Play QT. SPLAT!

  65. ALL ,

    Way off topic here but I’m looking for input … I’m looking to play with a car dealer that’s made a disastrous error in their advertising… basically they forgot to define exactly what qualifies for a discount both in their on-air ad and on the website you are directed to for “details” … I can within their rules qualify for a discount greater than 3x the highest priced new vehicle on their lot. Won’t go farther here as it will identify the dealer and they will fix their advertising..

    Should I go it alone , record the visit to the dealer and THEN find a lawyer? OR should I put my purchase order in writing at full retail along with my proof of qualifying discount item(s) and have a ASAP courier deliver it? That way it all gets laid out as a whole and leaves then no time to fix their error… I have no extra cash other than enough for a small retainer and I’ve been burned before by lawyers selling me out for $$$ from the party I’ve got a valid claim against…

    If anyone has a great lawyer in Orlando Florida who does contract law and likes to play games against fools let me know ASAP…

  66. Hello,

    I had an attorney and don’t regret it for a 2nd. My case was dismissed and I lost but my attorney faught hard. There are no quarantees you will win but there is a much better chance you will win with an attorney.

    I figured if I stopped paying my mortgage I could use the money to pay the attorney. You have a couple months to save before you even get put into default. For me I slept easier at night with the attorney doing the heavy lifting.

    I think a lot of people forget that the attorney has multiple cases. It was really hard for me to find an attorney to even take my case. That being said most of the FC attorneys probably have a ton of clients so I think you have to have a realistic expectation. I know some of us have been burned by attorneys but that is not to say every attorney is a blood sucking leach. Just like everyone that works at a bank is horrible. Honestly, most of these people are probably drinking the cool aide and oblivious to what their companies have done and continue to do to us.

    My attorney did win a QT case for me. After this my loan was transfered. The judge felt as though even though I won a QT against the broker the assignment could have been done by one of the “assesors or assigns” as designated by the DOT. The AOM didn’t necessarily come from the broker. So I quess the assignor can remain unnamed? MERS can still assign the DOT? The judge seemed to think well you signed the DOT given MERS this “authority”. I know it’s BS but I’m just trying to make the point that even though you seem to have a “slam dunk” case doesn’t mean you will win or your attorney didn’t fight hard.

    I haven’t paid in over 2 years after I won my QT nobody else can prove. My FC sale has been postponed about 8 times. I keep sending in letters stating they don’t have a valid lien, this is fraud etc…I think the QT helps my position but who knows. These crooks will do anything.

  67. the mortgages were SUPPOSED to be in MBS trusts. everything else flows from there. But if the trust is empty (and it usually is), then I would imagine that the prospectus is void, the PSA is void, the MLPA is void, the SEC reports are void, and finally the borrowers’ documentation is void. Anyone out there care to refute this?

  68. Wasn’t a “mortgage”—you still don’t get it.

  69. Carie, I suspect like you … because they knew they could no longer afford the homes so they didn’t fight. I respect that! You just don’t understand the harm done to those who could afford their mortgage and paid it, and because of nondisclosure the can was kicked back down the road and dumped on the homeowners back(at their expense) at the end of the road.

  70. You go Neil….bravo….I don’t have money but if I did I would hire you…but I don’t, so guess I won’t. ..just like the rest of us that earn a living, you should as well. Just like all other products or services you get what you pay for. Thank you though because even though I can’t afford your services you have offered me a huge education. Jaime

  71. But, KC—what about all the people (millions) who had no idea that they were thrust into a Ponzi by signing what they thought were mortgage papers—and had no idea about “filing a proof of claim” (esp. in non-judicial) when they were threatened with foreclosure? And are now out of work and living in abject poverty because of this Ponzi that is still ongoing—with no jobs in sight?
    This whole situation will get much worse and will never be resolved until the whole truth comes out.

  72. Funny Thing how those Title Companies and Title Trust Companies are owners in…. well …. lets say both. Perhaps they insure the insurer if a claim is made while you retain ownership of the property. Lighting Strikes when the Loan is paid in full or the property is sold and another Title Insurer of your choice says .. No warranty to title or limited warranty with sec b exclusions. Refinancers beware .. the lender is protected .. not you. Heck you don’t even know yet …

  73. That is the most important question to ask, Neil—“Uncured default to WHOM?”
    And them tell them to prove it.

    At this point I gather that the judges don’t care to see proof—they just want to keep things “moving”.

  74. That is why you ask for proof of claim. Both state and federal courts require it to invoke jurisdiction. Homeowners do not know their rights or the very technical law and by their own lack of response or improper response they court holds true the claim being made by the Plaintiff. It can bite you in the butt .. But on the other hand (way back when) if you didn’t answer or object (reinstated) …. it bites them in the Butt.. Wipes Please.

  75. Been awhile since I talked to him. Damages + something like 88g’s. Attny for the city of Sunrise Beach MO. Profoundly knowledgeable in this area, flies a Mooney. Greg Williams Law Firm. Owned a title company back in the day as well. Take notes when you talk to this one.

  76. “Are these intermediary parties violating the FDCPA because they are neither the creditor nor the agent of the creditor and yet demanding payment for themselves?”


    But it doesn’t matter because the servicers/foreclosure mills are ALLOWED to foreclose “on behalf of” a NON-CREDITOR (although we are told they are the creditor) TRUSTEE’S OF EMPTY MBS TRUSTS.


  77. from Neil’s other post:

    )If the servicer’s scope of employment, authority or apparent authority was limited to tracking the payments of the borrower only, and did not include accounting for the creditor, then how does the servicer know what is contained in the creditor’s accounting records? — Since the creditor in any loan subject to claims of securitization received a bond whose indenture provided repayment terms different than those terms signed by the borrower to another party entirely, how can any finding of money damages be determined by any court without a full accounting for all transactions relating to the loan?

    (12) What is the identity of the party who was injured by the refusal of the borrower to make any further payments? To what extent were they injured? Are they qualified to submit a “credit bid” or must they pay cash for the property at auction? If they are not qualified to submit a credit bid then (see below) then under what legal theory should they be permitted to foreclose or for that matter seek any collection? Are these intermediary parties violating the FDCPA because they are neither the creditor nor the agent of the creditor and yet demanding payment for themselves?

    Neil, the CREDITOR named at foreclosure is the TRUSTEE OF THE MBS TRUST.

    Deutsche Trustee of closed and empty MBS trusts is named as beneficiary/creditor on millions of foreclosures.

    People are being foreclosed on with this line from the servicer:
    “We are foreclosing on behalf of the trust due to your uncured default.”


    Why don’t the courts care about identification of the “injured party”?

    WHO IS THE “INJURED PARTY?” You will never get an answer…has ANYONE had an answer to that (most important) question?

  78. What exactly did they “win”, Scott?

  79. Every other person I have talked to with a foreclosure issue that retained counsel – got hosed. Cheaper is very definitely not better and you really do need to be flexible with your expectations, however .. a quick review online of the firms recent activities etc. = Have they done one, lately?

    The best one’s I have seen either know more about this issue than I do (is that possible?). Or just did one, and won.

    Make it a Great Day.

  80. “…The lawyer should be competent to be able to follow both the money trail and the paper trail and to compare the two as part of his preparation for his appearance in court…”

    But, Neil—there is no money trail to follow. The money trail has been covered up, or is being kept from seeing the light of day…and from what I see here, the judges don’t care about discovery OR the money trail. The judges actually say in court—words to this effect;

    Come on Neil…the bottom line is, we were unwitting investors in a giant Ponzi scheme—NOT “FUNDED MORTGAGES” (except for a little cash out here and there)—where there is no “real creditor” and no real “money trail”…except the money taken from securities investors—AND the money taken from the people who THOUGHT they were getting a bonafide MORTGAGE…but where did the money trail go after tha? You will never get an answer, and the ledgers and balance sheets remain hidden…and YOU can’t GET THEM. NOBODY CAN.

    How many ways can you say PONZI?

    All the fraudulent documentation and chaos that is going on after the fact is because the simple truth of the fact that it was just a giant Ponzi, plain and simple, isn’t being addressed.

    And YOU, Neil—aren’t helping by REPEATING the word “mortgage”—as if they really are mortgages.

    I know, I know—you’re just here to keep making money…but you are losing credibility by not being completely honest.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: