The Goal is Foreclosures and the Public, the Government and the Courts Be Damned

13 Questions Before You Can Foreclose

foreclosure_standards_42013 — this one works for sure

If you are seeking legal representation or other services call our South Florida customer service number at 954-495-9867 and for the West coast the number remains 520-405-1688. In Northern Florida and the Panhandle call 850-765-1236. Customer service for the livinglies store with workbooks, services and analysis remains the same at 520-405-1688. The people who answer the phone are NOT attorneys and NOT permitted to provide any legal advice, but they can guide you toward some of our products and services.


The selection of an attorney is an important decision  and should only be made after you have interviewed licensed attorneys familiar with investment banking, securities, property law, consumer law, mortgages, foreclosures, and collection procedures. This site is dedicated to providing those services directly or indirectly through attorneys seeking guidance or assistance in representing consumers and homeowners. We are available TO PROVIDE ACTIVE LITIGATION SUPPORT to any lawyer seeking assistance anywhere in the country, U.S. possessions and territories. Neil Garfield is a licensed member of the Florida Bar and is qualified to appear as an expert witness or litigator in in several states including the district of Columbia. The information on this blog is general information and should NEVER be considered to be advice on one specific case. Consultation with a licensed attorney is required in this highly complex field.

Danielle Kelley, Esq. is a partner in the firm of Garfield, Gwaltney, Kelley and White (GGKW) in Tallahassee, Florida 850-765-1236

EDITOR’S NOTE: SOMETIMES IT PAYS TO SHOW YOUR EXASPERATION. Danielle was at a hearing recently where all she wanted was to enforce a permanent modification for which her client had already been approved by Bank of America and BOA was trying to get out of it and pursue foreclosure even though the deal was done and there was no good or valid business reason why they would oppose a modification they already approved — except that they want to lure people into defaults and foreclosure to avoid liability for buy-backs, insurance, and credit default swap proceeds they received.

They need the foreclosure because that is the stamp of approval that the loans were valid and the securitization wasn’t a sham. Without the foreclosure, they stand to lose not only a lot of money in paybacks, but their very existence. Right now they are carrying assets that are fictitious and they are not reporting liabilities that are very real. At the end of the day, the public will see and even government officials whose “Services” have been purchased by the banks will not be able to deny that the nation’s top banks are broke and are neither too big to fail nor too big to jail. When that happens, our economy will start to recover ans the flow of credit and funds resumes and the banks’ stranglehold on government and on our society will end, at least until the next time.


 At the hearing against BOA on an old case of mine and Bill’s [William GWALTNEY, partner in GGKW] today I moved to enforce settlement. They actually agreed to a trial payment with my client in writing at mediation 2 years ago. The Judge granted the motion and wants a hearing in 60 days on the arrears (which he agreed my client isn’t liable for), sanctions and fees. She made her payment post-mediation and they sent the checks back. I gave him the Massachusetts affidavits from the BOA employees.  The Judge looked shocked. Opposing Counsel argued the Massachusetts case had nothing to do with our case.
Judge said “Mrs. Kelley how about I enter an order telling Plaintiff they have so many days to resolve this?”  I said “with all due respect your Honor BOA hasn’t listened to the OCC and followed the consent order, they haven’t listened to DOJ on the consent judgement and they are violating the AG settlement. I can assure you 100% they won’t listen to this Court either. Once we leave this room we are at the mercy of BOA actually working with us and their own attorney nor this court can get them to.  Their own attorney couldn’t reach them yesterday or today.  My client was to send in one utility bill two years ago. She sent it the day after mediation and they’ve sat and racked up two years of arrears and fees. This court has the power to sanction that behavior under rule 1.730 and should because this was orchestrated. The Massachusetts case is a federal class action which includes Florida homeowners like my client. It says Florida on the Motion for class certification so it does matter in this case. This was a scheme and a fraud.  It was planned and deliberate”.
Opposing counsel wanted to start the modification process over because the mediation agreement said “Upon completion of the trial payments Defendant will be eligible for a permanent modification”. Opposing counsel said “just because they meet the trial payments doesn’t mean they get a permanent mod.”  I said “under the consent judgment they better” and told the judge we were not going through the modification again, my client had already been approved. He agreed and said that the trial would become permanent and ordered BOA to provide an address for payment. He told opposing counsel that the argument that a trial period wouldn’t become permanent wasn’t going to work for him.
I love the 14th circuit. There is a great need from here to Pensacola and in the smaller counties like I was in today you can actually get somewhere.
Now the banks won’t even say impasse at mediation. It’s always “no agreement”.   But they’ll tell you to send in documents the next week only to say they didn’t get them. Now after those affidavits I see why.

Danielle Kelley, Esq.

Garfield, Gwaltney, Kelley & White
4832 Kerry Forest Parkway, Suite B
Tallahassee, Florida 32309
(850) 765-1236


72 Responses

  1. Dear Pam Bondi,
    There are two lawyers out of Coral Gables Florida named Andrew Braaksma supervised by Paul McKenna who we believe may have broken State and Federal Laws. We also believe that they may have severely violated many rules of the Florida Bar. We also believe that they are destroying the integrity of our courts and our legal system. They along with their clients (US Bank and SN servicing) have uttered forgery and submitted Forged deeds in court and that is a crime because they know and have now seen the evidence. Very credible well known highly respected Notaries have come forward with sworn affidavits proving that the documents they used are forged. If these document are in fact forged and have crossed state lines which we believe they have, then why aren’t these people being prosecuted for federal anti forgery crimes? I have spoken to many victims of US Bank that are saying the same thing that their deed are forged, How can this keep going on In America? We have to file a criminal conspiracy lawsuit against these attorneys when it is clear that the state should step in a stop them from what they are doing. We believe that RICO charges may apply, please defend the good people of Florida against this type of fraud on our courts. Most people will lose their homes when they shouldn’t, most people lost their homes because the banks have a mountain of money and they beat down anyone who fights them. They just keep hiring other attorneys who can claim that they didn’t know the documents were forged, but you know most are, the OCC knew they are and any reasonable person now knows that crimes are being committed by the banks and no one is going to jail. The Board of Directors of US Bank, SN Servicing and their attorneys like Andrew Braaksma and Paul McKenna need to be prosecuted if they have broken the law. Please investigate these men and put a stop to this. Ray Shelton

  2. read this site
    CorruptWA is a member of the Corrupt US organization. Our goal is to expose government bad-actors who utilize their power for their own benefit or for the benefit of their friends and or colleagues.
    Said another way, each and every citizen has a right to justice and to a forum in which to have his/her grievances addressed in a fair and impartial manner.
    When ‘government bad-actors’ breach their statutory duty and or their common law duty with respect to the rights of citizens then they must be held accountable. If our “judicial system” fails to provide the forum to have such complaints adjudicated, then we, as citizens, must provide that forum and impose our will upon government — this is nothing new, this is as it should be — this is what “WE THE PEOPLE” means!!!!
    Please do not be APATHETIC, please do not be an ostrich and bury your head, please do not be one of the monkeys — hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil — and turn a blind eye …….
    ….All that is necessary for tyranny to prevail is for good men to do nothing!
    – See more at:

  3. Everyone vote NO TO INCREASE THE AGE OF MANDATORY RETIREMENT FOR THE JUDGES. lets vote in honest judges Save our nation

    Legislature Advances Proposal to Extend Retirement Age for State Judges

  4. Mafia hitman’s account of massive amounts of real estate plundered through foreclosures:

  5. We told you so…

    Web 1 new result for corrupt new york state judges

    Judicial Corruption Testimony @ NY Senate Judiciary Hearing John …
    Judicial Corruption Testimony @ NY Senate Judiciary Hearing John Sampson – YouTube · Superior Court Judge, Jennifer Forbes … citizens beware – she’s a ……/judicial-corruption-testimony-ny-senat...


  6. Don’t worry…the calvary’s coming….we’ve recovered the attorney’s bullets…..!

  7. The Nazis took away all the attorney’s bullets jellybeans. They can only shoot blanks. That’s how fascism works. If they can’t take away your guns…they take away your bullets.



  9. They are all a bunch of Nazis Marilyn.

  10. Mr. Garfield knew about this Trustee 42 USC 1983 and title 11 connection(s) stuff long ago.

    Unconstitutionality of a Power of Sale

    Posted on August 25, 2010 by Neil Garfield

    Thank you Sir

  11. John Gault….

    I understand your comment
    “imo,… wouldn’t matter if…”…..

    Indeed, it would not matter but for the initial and constant mantra coming from the pretender lenders that Homeowner/Debtor lacks standing to fight for their home.

    As the Trustee in Bankruptcy is a public official and Title 11 provides rights, thus a private cause of action to vindicate constitutional rights exists.

    Accordingly, when one is subject to the protections and jurisdiction of the bankruptcy system under Title 11, applying 42 USC 1983 to hold the United States Trustee, (and its agents) acting under the USDOJ, accountable …is certainly equally as essential to ultimate resolution as expecting our current or past AG(s) and administration(s) to have been accountable in many other challenges to our citizenry.

    This current event of confiscating wealth appears to be an off-shoot underlying Peonage of all people when viewed in a larger context.

  12. so I am reading your comment, Solly, that there is no accounting to go with the statement that BofA is a successor by merger to CWHL? We have one of those right now.

  13. @ Stripes

    one reason the Regulators do nothing is that they are setting themselves up for big money to be listed on the banks letterhead as advisors, or employees of the Bank when they leave their jobs as regulators.

  14. There are laws that protect our freedoms however, these foreigners, these Imposters to our Constitutional Republic…..THESE COMMUNIST INVESTORS….. are ignoring our Constitution because they are all ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS to our Country. They use and abuse our Constitution from behind their Corporate logo and call themselves the Government. THESE IMPOSTERS ARE NOT OUR GOVERNMENT AND THAT IS WHY NOTHING THEY DO IS LEGAL…..MORAL …OR ETHICAL.

  15. @ Louise
    I know that Louise that there is no LAW and that is why I keep posting that question. i was in Federal Court on that issue.

  16. steve – imo wouldn’t matter if there were. For whatever reason,
    someone wanted to 86 the foreclose sale and tried to put the pieces back as if it never happened, kind of like trying to un-ring a bell. .As the depo NG linked the other day demonstrated, this is what happens when the banksters have got people involved, making decisions about our homes (our homes!) who are uneducated and clueless, something which was MEVER contemplated by the legislators who enacted non-j statutes. Either in this particular case or others, I have seen the dot
    trustee referred to as the agent of the beneficiary, which honestly makes me see red. The dot trustee,as I hollered about way back, isn’t supposed to be anyone’s agent. He is supposed to be an impartial third party who in order to perform those impartial duties needs e v i d e n c e that foreclosure is appropriate.
    That’s why original dot trustees were title companies with land-law staff attorneys on board. But now, since MERS and securitization,(throw in cds’s etc.), accurately assessing interests has become a more difficult task. It gets handed over by design to people who appear to be clueless, even if they aren’t owned by the banksters (to me a patent conflict of interest if not breach of fiduciary to the other party to the contract, the borrower). Some alleged creditors own the trustee companies, and this is just dead wrong. MERS was not, imo, formed just to save some money on recording fees and also wasn’t created just to accomodate speedy transfers. It looks to me like it was created to cover a magnitude of sins.

    Everything has been done to make us and courts forget that non-j foreclosure was a privilege to the lenders and what the dot trustee’s role actually is. Even in court, without a very firm grasp of the rules of evidence and procedure, the complicated machinations of the lending industry (with major title companies, our former buds, on-board) make it very difficult for anyone to move forward in defense of our homes.
    This is just all wrong, and needs to be remedied, and in such a fashion which includes acknowledgement that others’ concerted actions have made it nigh on impossible $$ for some of us to fulfill our obligations.
    By bringing this country to its economic and oppressed knees, they have made our performance impossible. (Impossibility of performance is a defense to a contract). If courts who holler “you’re not getting a free house!” would just acknowledge that impossiblility, the one caused by that industry, they might be more inclined to get off that stance. Behind many homeowners struggling to keep their homes are lost jobs, lost businesses, lost savings, lost marriages, lost everything.

  17. If you ever saw the movie MULTIPLICITY….that is where the Steve eating a dolphin comment comes from.


    We are all led to understand that the principal theory of consumer bankruptcy in America is that it provides a “fresh start” to debtors, …as the United States Congress created title 11 (the Bankruptcy laws) to set forth certain rights to which citizens are legally entitled. When the administrator of the bankruptcy case fails to act or acts in bad faith, (for example supporting pretender lenders) resulting in an “invasion” of the Debtor’s rights under title 11, such failure is an injury in and of itself…however, now we have come to learn those banks are basically “too big for trial” as phrased by Senator Warren !!!
    Therefore it appears, that avenue of helping consumers and holding the banks accountable is not available.
    Alternatively, might a remedy be found under 42 USC 1983 for homeowners who find themselves under the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy courts?
    In that, the Office of the United States Trustee, a component of the United States Department of Justice being charged with oversight of the bankruptcy system, might well stand to answer for the lack of enforcement by the USDOJ. For example, in cases where a claim is filed and bankruptcy trustee “neglects” to oversee possible pretender lender type conduct by those “too big for trial” entities, the bankruptcy trustee might be more diligent when administering the claim process, thereby helping that individual homeowner and at the same time a remedy under 42 USC 1983.

  20. johngault- great question! “who is shown as the seller on a fc sale, short sale, deed-in-lieu” I for one never thought about this. But now that I have, this is even more fraud- So the fc mill/servicer/bank/nonexistent trust takes a home, the clueless homeowner’s name appears on all final documenttation as the ‘seller’? Sort of like when you buy a new car which has never been titled before? You bought it from someone but their name never appears? WTF (where’s the fed)

  21. Mr. Gault,

    Re: Trustee’s recorded docs

    Are there other documents executed by the Beneficiary which confirm the statement…..”THAT THE TRUSTEE has been informed by the Beneficiary that the beneficiary desires to rescind the Trustee’s Deed”
    ….seems like there is a gap.

  22. @ ALL
    you all know of course that securitization has been patented and the movement toward big investors owning most of the homes in the USA is just another step in the patent.

    there is some information on Deadly Clear about the patents as well as on the internet

  23. I think it is quite a bit more than the regulators want a piece of the action Miss Deborah. They are told what to do or else.

  24. Good one Marilyn. They never answer the real questions.

    Like where is the law written that says you should pay an Imposter your money or property?

    Or if you don’t pay an Imposter money you are a deadbeat?

    It is like being forced to pay a spouse you never had alimony for your entire life or they get to take everything you own.

    It is terrorism…robbery and extortion.

  25. @Marilyn: There is no law that the banks can commit crimes or create Ponzi schemes. It is a full violation of the law and the constitution. Don’t you get it? They don’t care about the law, because the government nor the regulators do their jobs, because they get a piece of the action to look the other way.

  26. @Sripes

    BobG, Jan van Eck srill haven’t answered my simple question of

    By what LAW are the banks allowed to start their Ponzi scheme

  27. It is all a big game of pretend. Ah yes, they are the GREAT PRETENDERS…

    Don’t believe them.

  28. MS
    Deborah Wynn needs help because she is fighting for her life and I do not intend to loose..

    (trader …ha ha ha you are funny as heck tho)

  29. @KC
    the courts aren’t paying attention to the rule of NEMO DAT
    you have to own something to give it away or sell it.

  30. @all

    The LYING that went on at Bank of America I have noticed, is the common denominator that goes on in all Fraudclosures.

    Astoria Federals original attorneys lied about not receiving four of my mortgage checks although the checks show markings of receipt and being posted at the bank.

    The Judge DAVID B SAXE of the NY lst Dept Appellate Division
    LIED AND CHANGED the dates in his decision trying to prove that
    two VOID ab initio judgments signed in NYSC were valid although Marilyn LANE .v. Astoria Federal S & L, successor in interest
    to Fidelity NY FSB when it was an INVALID judgment
    VOID ab ignitio since the case was under Federal jurisdiction when the state court signed the void ab initio foreclosure judgments.

    No matter how much time passes that which is invalid can never become valid and give any rights. BRUTUM FULMAN

  31. masterservicer, please help us by explaining trigger events, what happens on the 50th month and how we can defend ourselves against this attack.

  32. Does MasterServicer have an affidavit or transcript that he would like to post or can that be sent individually in the matter he is testifying in? Thanks in advance.

  33. FAS 140 and ASC 320 – et al defines the acquirer as the entity that obtains control of one or more businesses in the business combination and establishes the acquisition date as the date that the acquirer
    achieves control.

    Here is a current case I’m testifying in …

    CWHL inc originator
    Bof A Successors by merger
    Recon trust – transferee
    SPC -Servicing
    Quality- Substituted trustee
    Wells Fargo et al (there is no Wells Fargo et al )
    ABC Law Firm – handling the possession

    Party A originates using a third party funding source wire guaranteed by Bank of America . Upon determining a default the loan is transferred to Recon Trust .

    So where does SPC a wholly owned Wells Fargo Bank company fall into this as we known Quality is the Wells Fargo go to ….This is where the case is won and I hope to have good news by Friday as this one was a tough one to get through to the courts …

  34. Your all moving to fast and need to consider nonrecognition and extinguishment , Statement replaces FASB Statement No. 141,Business Combinations.Statement FAS 140 is amended and codified but still held to retain the fundamental requirements in that the acquisition method of accounting (which Statement 141
    called the purchase method) is used for all business combinations and for an acquirer to be identified for each business combination.

    Statement 141 did not define the acquirer, although it included guidance on identifying the acquirer, as does this Statement. This Statement’s scope is broader than that of Statement 141, which applied only to business combinations in which control was obtained by transferring consideration.

    Your needing to apply the exact same accounting method —to acquisitions ….and all transactions and other TRIGGER events in which one entity BofA NA obtains control over one or more other businesses, CWHL Inc Subsidiaries to understand the exposure the successor has in foreclosing

    business combinations provided in financial reports.

  35. Deborah Wynn, on June 17, 2013 at 9:05 pm said:
    Neil – JG and tax 1099a,/ c are real issues that need to be explored – help I know cpa,s talk about the wall street way…and the banks never do it right- no kidding, why not, if we get it wrong we are slapped real smart with a frivolous claim


  36. re my comment that the rescission of the trustee’s deed made a huge cloud on the title. It’s worse. Because there is no such thing as a rescission of a recorded deed, the proper course would be to have the grantor grant it back. All subsequent deeds are just plain defective.
    They must know the subject deed of trust had to be re-established because the trustee’s deed to novastar 86’d it. Re-established either voluntarily by the borrower or a court telling him to – right after the grantee deeded back. Really a complicated mess and just an example of the stuff those guys pull and get away with.
    more lay opinions

  37. The only reason any of us here have an interest in “merger” is because by that doctine, when the lender is the successful bidder at sale, he is the party who is supposed to get full title (like any successful arm’s-length bid would). by way of the trustee’s deed. That’s why I’ve asked those questions here about who did the trustee deed to? who signed for the short sale for the lender? And why I’ve looked for any legit reason another person could use a trust’s credit bid and or why the assignments of those bids? And I still say it’s at least because the trusts can’t own real estate even if the trusts owned the loans.

  38. The rule of law needs to start being upheld in this country or the Nihilist Communists, these architects of evil are going to use their “hope and change” philosophy to cause Anarchy and destroy our Constitutional Republic.

    Everyone has to do their part to fight for the rule of law being upheld in America as the founders and framers of our Constitution meant our nation to be.

    America is. A land of laws governed by the people for the people. Not a land of “hope and change” so severely altered from the original Constitution that it is no longer recognizable.

    There is no form of Government better in the history of the world than what the founder’s gave us. A self governing one.

  39. Neil – JG and tax 1099a,/ c are real issues that need to be explored – help
    I know cpa,s talk about the wall street way…and the banks never do it right- no kidding, why not, if we get it wrong we are slapped real smart with a frivolous claim

  40. These imposters did a lot more than lie. They intended to Deceive.



  41. Any Act of Fraud in a Contract Voids the Contract. They must rescind and return all payments and your Security for being Criminally Negligent in the taking of the Instrument. Intent to Deceive is Criminal.

  42. here is a link
    so why is hsbc the one in court- got the house, got title quieted in one swoop,to hsbc, curtesy of judge, one west sold it to hsbc ,bank NA (highest bidder- for legal money, pretending to be a trustee for Dbalt trust (that my loan is not Qualified to be in but they tell the court it is) hsbc then has one west sell to a new clueless buyer, all the offers were handled by one west and one west issued the 1099a, no 1099c, so far, but home is reconveyed long ago, this bothers me because im not able to do taxes im not accepting the 1099a im disputing it and where is the 1099c, and being still in court there are material facts to be adjudicated. I don’t get it, (ill look into that too the bits I don’t get) … are they that sure of themselves, want the tax exempt a REmic, how do we know theres no Remic, was there ever, when did it cease to be, (some FOIA questions). the only way is to get into those balance sheets to know who benefitted and received money under the instrument our good names supported, for want of a better word, our names supported their theft. it was theft- like stealing candy from a baby and this government sits back and is pityful.
    how were they harmed, the debt collector who initiated the foreclosure, no mention to the court until issue with my lis pendens, then it gets messy. Johnsen seck stepped up to the plate though in her multiple employment positions, retroactive assignments n all, after receivership- and like you said JG- they lied then and they are liars now, and always will be.

  43. Acceptance & Consideration then Delivery & Acceptance to the trust is what the law requires the Issuer must do in order to convert a Negotiable Instrument into an Investment Security. They have to own the “instrument” …. otherwise they were committing Securities Fraud and numerous Felonies.

    If they were holding our Security and wanted to Racketeer with our Securities the law requires them to purchase the cow not just milk it.

  44. do you know the case number for the article,

  45. deborah wynn – could you expound on the diff between a 1099a and a 1099c for the rest of us? thanks

  46. louise – I couldn’t say these things void a transaction. They might. Courts would probably try to go to “default”, sort of, and find the lender named in the doc is the lender and beneficiary. But there would certainly be a slew of affirmative defenses even then. Or worse.
    One of the many reasons this torks me so much is because they all knew when they got our autographs that mers was a utility and the mers m.o. could allow anyone to claim right of enforcement, which has happened. These claimants are serial hijackers. Heck, MERS has even claimed to be the note holder. I still maintain that deed of trust is unconscionable because of what was contemplated and known, none of which was contemplated or known by US (even if the lender and MERS had signed it).

  47. KC, you said: “The servicer (Master Servicer/Trustee) always maintained 20% interest as owner” . Do you mean the master servicer retained 20% of the certificates?

  48. re #4 in case anyone’s interested: if all things were kosher otherwise, when novastar was the successful bidder at the f/c sale (generally by fulll bid of the amt of the dot), the deed of trust is toast as a matter of law. Novastar ended up with the trustee’s deed, so novastar had ‘full’ title (the borrower no longer had any). Since novastar got legal title
    by way of the trustee’s deed, novastar’s interest in the dot, and thus the dot, was extinguished / 86’d because it was less of an interest than what novastar ended up with in the deed – full title. It was ‘merged’ into the full title and only the full title is alive.

    If the dot is toast, then so is any dot trustee. QLS had no basis to do anything at all because the contract which gave QLS as trustee its authority was toast.
    lay opinions, as always

  49. The reason one cares if a lender is registered to do business in a state is because of ‘certain circumstances.. If novastar had no face to face contact with the borrower, it’s my understanding no registration with, here, AZ would be required. If the person or persons the borrower deals with are out of state (phone, email, fax), I don’t believe registration is required because unbelievaby, that company is not seen as doing business in AZ! That’s the way I’ve gotten it. There could be other things bearing on the matter, but they’re complicated, as usual.

  50. 1) The only QLS I could find in AZ is “Quality Loan Service, Corporation” . I found no “Quality Loan Service Corporation – AZ”)

    2) There’s no such thing as a rescission of a recorded deed, in this case a trustee’s deed. The proper course is for that deed’s grantee to deed it back to the grantor. This is the biggie.

    3) It says MERS was the beneficiary as the nominee for Novastar. It then says Novastar is the beneficiary of record. Can’t have it both ways. Because MERS was designated a Nominee and not an agent of Novastar, MERS had to relinquish its nominal status (not just sure
    how) before Novastar could do anything, maybe even make the bid at the sale. If MERS had been designated an agent in the dot and that appointment otherwise (not) passed muster,MERS could do something but “as agent for”, not in its own right.

    4) I couldn’t find Novastar registered with the AZ SofS.

    5) The deed of trust was likely extinguished by operation of law
    by way of Novastar’s successful credit bid* at the f/c sale because
    the lesser interest, the interest in the deed of trust, under the
    doctrine of merger merges with the greater interest, the interest to
    Novastar in the trustee’s deed (full title). The deed of trust
    has to be re-established and by the record, it wasn’t.

    *if novastar could make a credit bid since it named a nominee, not an agent in the dot and that nominee had not been removed.

    6) For the record, the person who signed the “rescission” of the
    trustee’s deed is not shown as a corporate officer, one whose authority is entitled to any presumption as to binding the corporation.

    7) The document was probably notarized in CA, as poppy said. The notary should note a document is signed by ‘Conie L., such and such
    for so and so’ because although the notary is attestng to conie’s signature, conie is signing on behalf of a corporation, not herself.

    I didn’t look to see if Mr. Hopda were licensed to act as a notary in Arizona. It doesn’t matter where the doc is signed and notarized – as long as its in the same place concurrently and the notary is authorized to notarize docs in that state. The real problem is that it appears there is no “Quality Loan Services Corporation – AZ” (least that I could find), the entity for whom Conie alleges to sign the document.

    My lay person conclusion is the “rescission” is fatally defective and accomplished nothing other than to make a huge cloud on the title.
    These are lay opinions, as always.

  51. In order to grant title, you must first have it. Under the terms of the agreement… you only get it when? And at that time … then and only then can you convey to anyone. Just thinking out loud.

  52. They destroyed the contracts and racketeered with our Securities without our knowledge or consent and that is criminal.

  53. They can’t retain any monetary interest or receive any monetary gain when there is fraud in the FACTUM and fraud in the essence. In fact, they owe us every dime we paid them for committing fraud with our unauthorized signatures. Lying felons and dirty scumbags.

  54. BofA’s Countrywide To Pay $100M To Settle Home Loan Suit

    By Kurt Orzeck

    Law360, Los Angeles (June 14, 2013, 4:45 PM ET) — Countrywide Home Loans Inc. will pay $100 million to settle a class action alleging that the Bank of America Corp.-owned lender deceptively lured consumers into buying loans with higher interest rates than originally promised, according to a Thursday filing in California federal court.

    Plaintiff Jay J. Ralston alleged that Countrywide and its correspondent lenders, including Mortgage Investors Group Inc., engaged in a “campaign of deceptive conduct and concealment” in which some consumers lost their homes through foreclosure, according to court documents.

  55. Deb, last one for 2012 was a 1098 with only a mortgage ins premium. The one they sent a check to pay our mortgage ins and knocked us off auto pay for umbrella policy. How nice of them.. I will have to remind to send them a Thank You Card. Or not …..

  56. also, think about the difference between 1099a and 1099c-
    my home was reconveyed and I did not in fact abandon my home- and the 1099a was issued befor I left under duress, this is a non deficiency state so the issue is not that, my issue is where is the 1099c. im working on it. amongst other things.

  57. The servicer (Master Servicer/Trustee) always maintained 20% interest as owner. Any whooo … you can only collect what is owed to you. They are claiming the wrong amount due them! And when its paid .. you get a voluntary dismissal without prejudice and adjudication. 12 months to appeal or refile. Res Judicata …. Justice put to Rest.

  58. JG- all that deserves at, least an evidentiary hearing IMO. the FDIC and One West direct you to the website, I cant even log on, they don’t recognize my info- wonder why, I have been sent stupid don’t know letters, it will take a judicial review of the answers I seek under fOIA. they will not tell me, wonder why.

  59. to carie et al re my comment about 1099s at 12:10 pm.

    Even if the servicer, say, bought the real estate from the trust after a successful credit bid by the “trust” it still wouldn’t be the servicer who is entitled to issue a 1099 and take any loss. I stand by what else I’ve said fwiw, but I’m just adding that if A buys a property from B who got it, however (f/c sale), from C (you and I) there’s no accounting type loss to A. ‘A’ just owns some real estate and puts it on its books at its sales price from B. The only way A has a book-entry loss is if A has taken the loss and as relevant here, if A is the party who is entitled to such a book-entry loss and to issue a 1099, A shouldn’t oughta be making a credit bid in B’s name. If A is entitled to take a loss, it’s because the real estate interest (loan) at issue was being carried on its own books, which just for the record would give A an insurable interest (think AIG, for instance).
    Even IF A has to cover a loss it created to B (the ‘short’ on the re-sale of the property, say) , that doesn’t form the basis for a 1099 to third parties – us. Don’t know how else to say that one. I’m more and more convinced the trusts can’t own real estate. May a trust’s credit bid be used and then legitimately purchased by someone else in full or partial satisfication of that someone else’s debt obligation to the trust? Maybe, I don’t know. The only time I think that might – might in caps – be possible is if the trust truly has only a security interest in the loans (payment but non-delivery essentially) and ‘A’ is in fact primarily liable to the trust. This is something which is probably regulated by the UCC or at least needs to be looked to:

    Can a primary obligor, “A” , use a credit bid of its obligee,
    “B” to acquire the asset / property (your home) which is the subject of the obligee’s security interest and then use the proceeds of its resale to retire all of a portion of A’s obligation? That may not be the entirety of the question, but I think it’s in the hood. If B only has security interests, and A actually owns the assets / loans, seems to me A would be the party to issue a 1099 IF A had otherwise followed state statutes in regard to the foreclosure (judicial f/c, one-action rule, deficiency judgments allowed, etc.).

    But, under what authority is A using B’s credit bid?
    A court would first have to look to any governing documents, those between A and B, because the UCC is default law. As to the UCC or otherwise, because this also involves trust law / securitization,,and real estate, it might be a case of first impression. What a cluster-you-know.
    If the trusts merely have security interests and this is what they’re doing, what I’ve tried to describe, I’d say that gang has already – unilaterally- decided they may do it. Otherwise we’re back to why is a someone else issuing a 1099?

  60. So, Novastar is the beneficiary and the Grantee? Quality Loan Service Corporation is the Trustee, for whom? And who does Tony Rodriguez represent? Scribble…signature, Hmm, San Diego notary? I’m confused…

  61. After reading this I am grateful that I was able to an attorney on my case/  

    I thought Justin did a superb job today.  Was the Non-Judicial stuff good for you?



    What’s wrong with THIS picture? If you know, move to the head of the class!

  63. Thanks for the link. steve, but I was sort of hoping you would discuss the issue more…………I’m on agency and the trusts’ ability to own real estate right now.

  64. Want to see if you’ve learned anything here or elsewhere? Take a look at this 1 page document and see if you know what’s wrong with the picture.

  65. Mr. Gault..

    “to see (know) more”…….

    an overview …just scratches the surface

  66. @johngault: I like your reasoning. If we take your reasoning, then when we sat down at the closing table and did not get a signature of the lender on our documents and did not even get our OWN DOCUMENTS with our signature, then how is the lender part of the transaction. The alleged lender that was in my mortgage and note did not lend any money to the transaction. Or, to put it more bluntly, forgetaboutit, no valid transaction took place.

  67. steve – so glad you brought that up. Love to see more. A bk trustee does have an independent duty to ascertain that a claimant has a valid claim. Some trustees have in fact challenged claims of their own volition.They all should where warranted. The debtor can also make a deal with the trustee for the trustee to join a debtor in an opposition or AP, agreeing to pay the estate X if the opp or suit is successful.

  68. Any appointment of a nominee or an agent requires the consent of both parties. Where is the evidence that MERS accepts the status in the deed of trust? For that matter, where is the principal’s? Is the principal’s consent given by providing the document? I’d argue the statute of frauds = not.

    I’m doing some research and came across a document called notice of appt of a co- trustee (not relevant to a deed of trust). If I’m the trustee of a trust (not sec’n) and if I get sued for anything, I want John Smith at the law firm of Kill-em-Quick to be named with me so he can defend us (read me), what do you think John Smith will think of this if he didn’t evidence his agreement by his (notarized) signature? He isn’t a co-trustee and isn’t bound to anything.


    We are all led to understand that the principal theory of consumer bankruptcy in America is that it provides a “fresh start” to debtors, …as the United States Congress created title 11 (the Bankruptcy laws) to set forth certain rights to which citizens are legally entitled. When the administrator of the bankruptcy case fails to act or acts in bad faith, (for example supporting pretender lenders) resulting in an “invasion” of the Debtor’s rights under title 11, such failure is an injury in and of itself…however, now we have come to learn those banks are basically “too big for trial” as phrased by Senator Warren !!!

    Therefore it appears, that avenue of helping consumers and holding the banks accountable is not available.

    Alternatively, might a remedy be found under 42 USC 1983 for homeowners who find themselves under the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy courts?

    In that, the Office of the United States Trustee, a component of the United States Department of Justice being charged with oversight of the bankruptcy system, might well stand to answer for the lack of enforcement by the USDOJ. For example, in cases where a claim is filed and bankruptcy trustee “neglects” to oversee possible pretender lender type conduct by those “too big for trial” entities, the bankruptcy trustee might be more diligent when administering the claim process, thereby helping that individual homeowner and at the same time a remedy under 42 USC 1983.

  70. Well, now, I have a Settlement Agreement with the former servicer and now I have a new servicer (who purchased the debt for pennies on the dollar even though we are supposed to be too stupid to know that). The new servicer will not recognize my settlement agreement even though the Trust allegedly owns the note. According to the BS, now the servicer works for the trust who owns the note. Trusts do not service loans. Also, the statement says I owe money to the previous servicer (who signed the set agmt) which is a violation of the set agmt. Back in the saddle again.

  71. Definition of ‘Contra Account’
    An account on a corporation or entity’s financial statements that offsets the balance of a related and corresponding account. A contra account is found on financial statements as an offsetting account to represent the financial flip-side of a figure/asset/liability for book-keeping purposes. Contra accounts typically represent the offsetting nature of debits and credits on a company’s financials.
    Investopedia Says
    Investopedia explains ‘Contra Account’
    A prime example of a contra account would be accumulated amortization. This sort of contra asset account would credit the amortization account in order to offset the debit position to give a more accurate indication of the actual balance of the asset and its useful life on the company’s financial statements. This can be used to give a more clear picture on valuation changes.

  72. Is this a re-run?

    To anyone who has already lost his home, who is shown as the seller on the re-sale?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: