Zombie Properties: Banks Don’t Want the Money, Don’t Want the Property: They Just Want Foreclosure Sale and Deed

The borrowers are for the most part willing to straighten this mess out if approached with fair terms that reinstate their credit and reinstate or create loans that are free from the myriad of defects in the falsely claimed securitization chains. The intermediate banks don’t want that because they would be facing liability for trillions of dollars they collected through fraud, deceit and identity theft. So if things keep going the way they are going, the ultimate effect is indeed going to be that the “free house” is going to switch from the intermediate banks who have no just or legal claim to the property to the homeowner whose signature was used in ways he never agreed and would never have agreed. — Neil F Garfield, livinglies.me

With 6.6 foreclosures and an equal amount to come, given 2.5 residents per household, more than 33 million people will be displaced— paying the price for the misbehavior of the bank and having been used as innocent, ignorant pawns in a PONZI scheme that has nearly perfected the technique of PONZI schemes. — Neil F Garfield, livinglies.me

Internet Store Notice: As requested by customer service, this is to explain the use of the COMBO, Consultation and Expert Declaration. The only reason they are separate is that too many people only wanted or could only afford one or the other — all three should be purchased. The Combo is a road map for the attorney to set up his file and start drafting the appropriate pleadings. It reveals defects in the title chain and inferentially in the money chain and provides the facts relative to making specific allegations concerning securitization issues. The consultation looks at your specific case and gives the benefit of litigation support consultation and advice that I can give to lawyers but I cannot give to pro se litigants. The expert declaration is my explanation to the Court of the findings of the forensic analysis. It is rare that I am actually called as a witness apparently because the cases are settled before a hearing at which evidence is taken.
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. Get advice from attorneys licensed in the jurisdiction in which your property is located. We do provide litigation support — but only for licensed attorneys.
See LivingLies Store: Reports and Analysis


Zombie Properties got their name from being in a state of limbo. Broadly characterized, they include first homes abandoned my misinformed homeowners who believed their home was subject to a legitimate foreclosure. Second they include properties subject to foreclosures but where the bank has put off getting the final judgment or put off the sale. And third they include properties in which the foreclosure sale has occurred but the property was abandoned by the Banks.

Not surprisingly many schemes have evolved in which the renting of these properties has been accomplished by strangers to the transaction. Knowing that the property is temporarily or permanently abandoned, people are offering “deals” to renters, collecting rents on property they don’t own. In other cases the neighborhoods have become so blighted that nobody would move in there if you gave the house to them. So Detroit, Cleveland and other cities are bull dozing tens of  thousands of homes creating farm land and park land where businesses and residential housing had been.

It seems obvious now that the Banks want that foreclosure sale and that is the end of the story. They don’t want the money (we are trying to give them the money in several cases (1000 cents on the dollar) and they are resisting, they don’t want the house (we are actually deeding the house to them without prejudice and without an agreement to avoid a deficiency judgment), They don’t want reinstatement, they don’t want redemption, and they don’t want any modification or mediation except just enough to give the public relations impression that they are trying to work things out. In most modifications, even where the modification is approved and the homeowner complied with all terms including the payments, the Bank goes ahead and forecloses anyway.

In a real mortgage situation, Banks will do almost anything to avoid foreclosure. If you review the literature on foreclosures prior to 2007 it is all based upon workouts in commercial and residential real estate. In fact “workouts” are an area of concentration for most law firms that engage in mortgage litigation whether they are on the lender side or the borrower’s side. Now now. The Bank wants the foreclosure sale and the borrower, investor who put up the funds and insurers who “covered” a “loss” and the counterparts who were covering announced losses, let them be damned.

Why do we have a pandemic of zombies and foreclosures when so many homeowners are actually eager to sign new document that would clear up the title problems caused by MERS, improper disclosure at closing as to who the lender was, claims of fraud, predatory lending deceptive lending etc.?

In the law we say look to the result to determine the intention. There is no doubt that the policies and procedures pursued by the banks, on loans they never owned based upon mortgage bonds that were issued by unfunded trusts, MINIMIZES the eventual monetary recovery and justifies the payment of insurance, payment of hedge contracts (CDS), and the reports to investors that there investment was lost because of foreclosures and expenses of foreclosure, leaving the Banks with the money and frequently the house too because they brought the foreclosure as a servicer without stating they were acting for a principal that had advanced the actual money for the loan.

Since the Banks are evading payment in full, evading receipt of the deed to the home, and evading workouts and modifications, the intent is clear no matter how logical the other alternatives appear to the advantage of all concerned. The intent is to get a foreclosure sale and deed on foreclosure which in most states starts a short statute of limitations ticking in which the deed on foreclosure cannot be challenged.

Of course there are possible remedies involving fraud on the court or the borrower that MIGHT change that but the foreclosure sale basically closes the book on the matter. What does this do for the banks? It ends the possibility of having to account for and pay back money received from investors, insurers, CDS counterparties, guarantors (Fannie and Freddie) and the Federal Reserve who has been buying the worthless mortgage bonds (that supposedly represent a claim of ownership over the loans) at the rate of $85 Billion per month apparently for years.

By getting a deed from a foreclosure sale, they put another layer of deniability between them, the Banks, and the parties from whom they took money on the announced failure of the loans, the bonds or the asset pools. The essential defect of the loans, that the payee and named mortgagee never loaned a dime to the borrower (unknown to the borrower) destroys the claim that the note and mortgage lien were ever perfected. This defect results in a finding of no valid mortgage, nullification of the instrument, and thus no security for the lending party — something that obviously smart Wall Street lawyers knew about but thought they could finesse — and they were right.

By having the information at hand in a title and securitization analysis, getting it explained in an Expert declaration from a credible source, and consulting with those who actually understand what happened here, the lawyer can feel confident that he is pleading and can prove that the entire transaction was a sham. Ask any professor of law who knows bills, notes, negotiable instruments, etc. If there was o underlying transaction in which value was exchanged both ways, no enforceable rights arise. There simply isn’t a transaction at all, and all the paperwork in the world isn’t going to fix that without getting a signature from the borrower — which most borrowers are willing to do if they get a fair modification based upon real values, instead of the artificially inflated values that were used for the loans.

The fact remains that virtually all loans were paid off in their entirety whether they ever went into “default” (which could not exist because the loan no longer existed), or whether they are performing loans in which hapless homeowners are paying monthly payments to a bank who does not own the loan, on a loan that either no longer exists or which has been paid down by actual payment from parties who waived subrogation, waived contribution and waived any right of action against the homeowner. If the account receivable is paid off, the banks’ claim for recovery one more time (after being paid several times over 100 cents on the dollar) in the form of a foreclosure is nothing more than looking for an official governmental action that cuts off the players who advanced the money on the same loan assets repeatedly.

Looking again to the result to determine the intent, it cannot be argued that the Banks pretended to issue mortgage bonds issued from a REMIC trust that was never funded and then did whatever they wanted to do with the trillions of dollars deposited with those investment bank for purchase of the bonds. The investors weren’t buying bonds. They were buying problems. They were, contrary to agreement with the investment bank, directly lending money to homeowners without a note or mortgage.

The actual closing procedure was a sham. The closing agent applied the money received from investors through one of the investment banks or an affiliate of the investment bank as though it was a loan from the named payee on the note and the named mortgagee on the mortgage or the named beneficiary on the deed of trust.

Thus the title, to which the investors were expecting and entitled was diverted from the investors to puppet companies who were already under contract to do what they were told — as in the Assignment and Assumption Agreement executed between the loan “originator” and the “aggregator” neither of whom advanced a dime, nor did they need to do so — the money from the investors being at hand in a commingled account at the investment bank who never followed through giving money or loans to the Trustee of the New York “Trust” thus creating a legal entity that had neither money nor assets.

The illusion is ONLY completed with an apparently legal “foreclosure sale” which creates a presumption of validity on the 6.6 million foreclosures completed thus far, and the additional latest estimate of 7 million more foreclosures). By fabricating foreclosure documents after the “trades” had been completed (i.e., the banks had received payment for the bonds and loans several times over that they never reported to the investors – but which still must be accounted for as payment to the investor because the investment banks were at all times acting as the agents of the investors).

Confused? Here is the easy way of looking at it. The Banks stole the identity of the investors and the REMIC trust by issuing the bonds into street name” but showing on end of month statements to the investors that they owned the bonds and loans. After selling the loans several times or receiving mitigating payments that were intended to reduce the loss, the loans were worthless to the Banks and now represented a liability to give all that money back because the underlying loans were fraudulent and defective and the trading profits declared by the banks was really the proceeds of theft. All the participants squeeze the last ounce of fees and profit from this PONZI scheme which was completely reliant on the continued purchase of the bogus mortgage bonds. When it was all over, they pitched the loan over the fence and said the Trust owned it but there had never been a transaction between the trust and anyone else in which the trust paid for and was delivered the loan according to the terms of the Prospectus and the Polling and Servicing Agreement.

Want it shown differently? The Banks stole the identity of the borrowers and traded on it knowing they would do anything possible to make the loan go into default and thus collect, in addition to the original money advanced by investors, insurance and other funds that paid off the loan several times over. Some enterprising Class Action lawyer who really knows what they are doing can lay claim to the vast pool of money that emerged from this scheme with the real parties in interest — the investor lenders and the homeowner borrowers taking the loss. The payment extinguishes the loan and the over payment collected by the banks is due back to the homeowner unless the investors intervene and assert claims to the pool of money that ultimately was held by firms that were at best only intermediaries and at worst (and usually) complete strangers tot he transactions with investors and complete strangers to transactions with the borrowers.

The borrowers are for the most part willing to straighten this mess out if approached with fair terms that reinstate their credit and reinstate or create loans that are free from the myriad of defects in the falsely claimed securitization chains. The intermediate banks don’t want that because they would be facing liability for trillions of dollars they collected through fraud, deceit and identity theft. So if things keep going the way they are going, the ultimate effect is indeed going to be that the “free house” is going to switch from the intermediate banks who have no just or legal claim to the property to the homeowner whose signature was used in ways he never agreed and would never have agreed.

When owners walk, ‘zombie’ homes become nuisance

Zombie properties run rampant across Florida

Jacksonville-Based EverBank to Pay $43.3 Million for Foreclosure Crimes

Southwest Florida riddled with underwater homeowners

The Cautious Approach to Buying Foreclosures



36 Responses

  1. Lizard, The banks want to foreclose because they make way more money from differing forms of insurance which is frequently not the actual worth of the house, but way more.

  2. Can anybody help me understand why a bank would not want to take a all cash offer with no contingencies in a short sale and instead want to foreclose on the property? I know a friends who did such a thing and the bank went out and got a BPO that said the value of the home was $400,000 over the real fair market value so that the bank could justify the foreclosure. Why do that? Please help me understand the play.

  3. […] also links to LivingLies webblog: “Zombie Properties: Banks Don’t Want the Money, Don’t Want the Property: They Just Want Foreclosu…” by Neil F. Garfield, M.B.A., J.D., who reiterates some of what I have been writing and says […]



  5. […] Zombie Properties: the ones that Banks do not want […]

  6. Deb Wynn- Yeah, apathy is a huge problem, but what’s worse is that nobody cares

  7. Where s the outrage – Matt weidner said it first. Years ago

  8. Stupendous,

    For years, I have been saying over and over that there will come a point where everybody has been affected, directly or indirectly, and that point might be what it takes for people to unite and finally demand change. We’re getting there. The fact that it’s taking so long is astounding to someone who comes form a hot-tempered place where people would never, ever, have allowed things to get to that point. Then again, in fairness to this country, comfort has been rendered THE priority and complacency and apathy are just the unfortunate result of it. Nowhere else in the world is there an agency called “Food and drug administration”. And nowhere else is it run by a Monsanto guy. 7 billions know that food is food and drugs are drugs and, unless you seriously tamper with food, water and air (essential to human survival), there’s no way you’ll be able to push your drugs. This country managed to do it. And it’s coming to roost.

    Listen to Mark Dice and John B. Wells really lay it on. Enlightening! And terribly sad…

  9. Bank Of America, Alcoa, Hewlett-Packard To Be Dropped From Dow Jones Industrial Average

    Reuters | By Rodrigo Campos Posted: 09/10/2013 8:45 am EDT | Updated: 09/10/2013 9:49 am EDT


    Not that it really matters all that much but the idea that B of A is no longer worth enough for Dow Jones is… well…


    “everybody was laying into you”. Thanks. I don’t get frazzled by a bunch of women who can’t function unless they’re in a pack and attacking my personality doesn’t do anything to advance homeowners’ cause. And I understand why they react the way they do: it just happens that many thinking heads in this country start realizing that things are not going back to what they were and they speak up. All i do is point it out but… in those insular women’s mentality, no one who isn’t “American born” has the right to criticize this country and point to the obvious. Well… this worldwide economic debacle started somewhere and it just happened to have been here. Incidentally, there is an entire, long-running show in this country called “American greed”. Not “Belgian greed”. Not “Chinese greed”. Not even “Syrian greed”. It’s called “American greed”. Nothing happens in a vacuum and it is high time people in this country started to fess up to the responsibility they have in it. And don’t make any mistake: I am as vocal about my former country’s brand of stupidity but for different reasons. And so are 79% of my former countrymen.

  10. Yeah well stupendous
    People must stop being so single minded. We need a gandhi style general strike until this bloody congress and government starts serving the people and not special interests and special people who get cufflinks as well !

  11. 6.6 ml X 2 X 2.8/household = 36,960,000 people directly and immediately impacted. This does not account for pets, which are also present in many households.

    Nor does it account for the numerous others effected indirectly, e.g., extended family members, friends, employers or employees, etc.

    Nor does it account for the impact on the economy overall.

    Nor does it account for …

    Oh hell, it goes on and on and on.

  12. im glad Barofsky didn’t throw the towel in, one of the last few good men.

  13. E Tolle,
    Thanks for your thoughts. And Christine, thanks for posting that Morgenson article about payday loans on the other thread where everybody was laying into you. I hope you plan on staying around–we need everybody’s input (except for Stripes, bless her pea-pickin’ heart).

  14. Great news. Prepare for a slew of interesting law suits from now on… 🙂

    Barofsky, Watchdog to Government Bank Bailout Program, Joins Law Firm

    2013-09-09 — nytimes.com

    “Mr. Barofsky left his post in 2011 to teach at New York University’s law school. He also wrote “Bailout,” a scathing account of his time in Washington that highlighted the problem of regulators who he said were for the most part captured by the institutions they were supposed to police.

    In an interview, Mr. Barofsky said that joining Jenner & Block was a natural next step because the firm specialized in helping government agencies and major corporations with in-depth investigations of problematic practices. Such investigations, he said, are similar to the work he did at TARP. In addition, unlike many other large law firms, Jenner & Block represents clients bringing suits against large financial institutions.

    “I can bring my experience investigating large financial institutions and complex financial transactions to a place that doesn’t just do defense work in this area,” Mr. Barofsky said. “This is an opportunity in private practice to help improve governance and have a truth-seeking role.”

  15. Beginning of the end or end of the beginning…? That and Jamie Boy’s public spanking make for a good night…


    MORGAN STANLEY: Many Of Our Clients Are Preparing For An Imminent Loss Of Central Bank Control
    Matthew Boesler, provided by
    Published 7:14 am, Sunday, September 8, 2013

    The Federal Reserve is contemplating unwinding its quantitative easing program, which at $85 billion in bond buying per month has constituted the single largest provision of marginal liquidity to global financial markets since this latest iteration of the stimulus program was launched in September 2012.

    Such a move appears imminent – the consensus in the marketplace is that the first step in tapering back quantitative easing will be announced at the conclusion of the Fed’s September 18-19 FOMC policy meeting.

  16. @elexquisitor,

    One big issue about the modifications. When they were offered up by Countrywide per those old stipulated agreements from 2008 with AG Jerry Brown, CW (and BofA) were supposedly offering a them as a ‘fix’ for the bad deeds of Countrywide. THEY made the offer. That means that, just like the loan papers that were OFFERED TO YOU and SIGNED ONLY BY YOU, the deal was completed with YOUR signature and your payment of the agreed amount. That was the deal with the original loan and it should also be true of the modification offered up by CW to satisfy the stipulated court agreement.

    BofA later proceeded to then BREACH about 99% of those ‘AG Mods’ when the borrowers were at a ‘tipping point’ where they could not possibly pay the suddenly-due amount claimed to be in arrears since that PERMANENT mod the borrowers signed suddenly did not exist.

    That is BREACH OF CONTRACT. If they had done in on the original loan, you would have had the courts throwing the banksters out of court. But with it being the mod, the banksters tried to fight like hell. It was not worth fighting to keep those mods since most of them were on loans that had other major issues in the basic loan.

  17. BTW, when you modify, you may be affirming an illegitimate obligation, so make the condition that the original note is sequestered before the modification takes effect.

  18. @DebbieC – both parties have to agree, as shown by their signatures, to modify an existing contract. Can an agent for the principal sign? IANAL – I am not a lawyer.

    When you press your case, those are great grounds for demanding early discovery and protective custody over electronic business records of banksters involved. You may consider asking to sequester the note with the county sheriff or U.S. Marshall, depending on which jurisdiction you file. Make up an order for banksters to surrender the document within 72 hours and make some popcorn.

  19. Does anyone know whether a Loan Modification has to be signed by the owner of loan (hah hah) or is it legal if it is signed only by the Servicer and the homeowner? Also, BofA sold Wilshire Credit and all its assets to IBM in 2009 but BofA kept Wilshire’s REO unit for itself. If Wilshire bought my loan from the owner, or got collection rights, would my account be in the REO unit even though there was no foreclosure? (a default which was reinstated by me).

  20. @eggistence, I agree, they want to keep the property off of everyone’s radar. It wasn’t due to backlog that they started to slow REO inventory years ago before foreclosures became a bottleneck….they didn’t/don’t want to spoil their market. I remember my accountant, way back in 2009 shaking his head about the fact that he had multiple clients who had gone years without making a payment. He was like…WTF? It’s no accident. Never was.

    @serge, you said, “So my next step is to look them in the eye and tell them they will never get a foreclosure sale from me….” OK then, good luck with that. Only one problem…meet Mr. Sheriff. Don’t mind the armored vehicle parked just behind him filled with over-eager ex-Iraqi war vets chomping to test out their new battering rams, shock shells, and fully automatic heavy-ballistic rifles with skittish fingers on the shiny new triggers. And pay no attention to the mini-drones and other techno-devices such as license plate sniffers that have already pegged you in a drug neighborhood, guilty or not. That NSA info sure helped their case against you.

    You’ll do just fine. Go for it. I wish you well. But consider this….they have the full weight of “our” United States government behind them. They do exactly as they wish, or as the Masters of the Universe behind the scenes wish. In their minds, there are no boundaries. Nothing is off limits. It’s legal like in the wild west days. Hang ‘em….we caught him in the vicinity of the stolen horse! Get the rope!

    NOTHING IS AS IT SHOULD BE. NOTHING. Whether you’re in court, or facing a law enforcement official. Remember, they’re supposed to work FOR us, not act like we’re Taliban. They shouldn’t be willing to taser us when we flinch, or dismiss our case with prejudice, when all we asked for was discovery.

    @ Christine….“….rein in Dimon….” Oh man I haven’t laughed that hard in a long while! Rein in Dimon? America’s favorite bankster? No way. As I’ve alluded to before, people think he was given those cufflinks by the white house….it was actually Dimon that gave the white house to O. No doubt about it.

    @Louise, yes, the IRS is in on the scheme. Yves Smith has written about their collusion, and the absolute refusal to go down the IRS/REMIC rabbit hole. One has to get this, fully, before attempting to move another chess piece….it literally is THEM AGAINST US. The government and the corporatocracy that own them are lockstep against us. We will sacrifice money and lives to stay their absolute power absolutely.

    US v. U.S.

    Besides, it’s all on the internet, it has to be true.

  21. So with all the loans that Countrywide foisted on borrowers and investors using the made-up corporate name of “America’s Wholesale Lender Corporation”, the only transfers to the trusts would be bogus in one way or another. Can you REALLY imagine any chain where CW could have put these loans into the trusts properly when there was no relationship between it and this fraudulent AWL CORPORATION?

    THEN there are all the fraudulent papers from many servicers or false ‘owners’ or ‘holders’ where they attempt to deceive the borrowers and do false transfers or assignments of those loans. Unfortunately some of the borrowers are not savvy and some of the savvy ones can not find good attorneys, and even then the Judges sometimes just do not want to look at what really happened.

    But now that some of the investors are poking at those empty trusts as we have seen with recently-filed cases, there may be more trusts that get ‘outed’ for being EMPTY.

    BoNY-Mellon is going to have problems if the investors in CWALT, CWABBS, etc, trusts are prod them like the JPMorgan one just got hit in that law suit.

  22. Deborah Wynn, I will look for it on the internet and read it.

    Trespass Unwanted

  23. The question that has always been at the back of my mind is: the REMICs did not happen, did they?. So, we are to assume the the IRS is on this Ponzi scheme, too? Can you imagine the amount of money owed to the IRS at 100% for the failed REMICs? As other people have said before me, the US is not broke. The money is just in the wrong hands.

  24. JPMorgan Board Takes Some Power From Jamie Dimon

    Reuters | By David Henry Posted: 09/09/2013 4:52 pm EDT

    (Reuters) – JPMorgan Chase & Co’s board, under fire for the bank’s trading losses and myriad government probes, said on Monday that it was adding two directors and handing more power to its lead independent director, steps that give it extra supervision over Chairman and Chief Executive Jamie Dimon.

    Critics said the moves did not go far enough to rein in Dimon, who piloted the bank through the financial crisis but is struggling to improve his relationship with regulators in the aftermath of the meltdown. Dimon has played a key role in selecting board members in the past.


  25. So my next step is to look them in the eye and tell them they will never get a foreclosure sale from me – I’m going to a Federal bankruptcy judge for Round #2

  26. Trespass read about the ancient greeks spartan warriors – inspiring
    They went and got it back – eventually , but thst was a long time ago and over the course of history
    – nothing comes of violence in the end.

  27. By the mere definition of foreclosure, only the creditor can foreclose. I don’t think enough was given to Fannie Mae to make them the creditor.

    When my home was stolen, they gave Fannie Mae and Special Warranty Deed but the original Warranty Deed still carries my name. I’m the first owner of the home.

    The law firm had done the theft that they called foreclosure on the court house steps. The courthouse steps cannot be used for theft, but if they call it foreclosure it can be used, it seems.

    The law firm filed a case in court acting as if they were Fannie Mae, represented Fannie Mae, or was hired by Fannie Mae and demanded that I leave a property that they purchased via a foreclosure sale.

    (The same law firm that placed the credit bid and so called sold it, acted like they bought it from a third party as a rep for Fannie Mae)

    Anyway, I’m guessing because I don’t know, that the Pope’s Motu Proprio will keep the Ones who think they run everything and can steal anything from doing a lot of things they had rushed through before it became effective September 1, 2013. For one, it has floated on the internet that judges don’t have the immunity they have hidden behind (my words the -hidden behind) during this ponzi/theft/crisis scheme.

    To see a judge act with impunity and immunity when it comes to something you paid for…………it doesn’t leave a good feeling that mankind doesn’t recognize conscience when another man tells them they have immunity in the ‘land of the living’ for what they do to another’s life.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Life, People, State, Free, Independent, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  28. Java
    With my case i invested my cash too
    And now theres someone living in my home that ” free house” the ” debt collector” grabbed wAs sold. They resold my house. Under the REAL law its still my house and what was recorded is evidence of a collusive effort and intent of theft – And i did not abandon my home i was forced out.
    Im working on something- ill share when im finished.

  29. Java
    With my case i invested my cash too
    And now theres someone living in my home that ” free house” the ” debt collector” grabbed wAs sold. They resold my house. Under the REAL law its still my house.And i did not absndone my home i was firced out. Think about that all.

  30. I totally agree with Neil’s breakdown, but my question is this: why don’t they go ahead with the foreclosures if in fact that is what they want? I myself have a zombie title and have had it for a year and a half. I lost my lawsuit–they have a judgment saying Fannie can foreclose. In fact, I wish they would foreclose because it would solve a lot of problems for me. I would fight them on any deficiency suit, though, because they would undoubtedly sue me in the name of a party with no standing.

    The question again: WHY WON’T THEY JUST FORECLOSE?

    My theory is that, like others have said, they want to keep houses off the market so that home prices will not fall. Also, as long as the house is in my name and not theirs, they don’t have to do any upkeep. And lastly, I am not so sure that they aren’t a little wary of me since I have sued them before and came within a flea-hair’s-width of beating them.

    My wife thinks they won’t foreclose because they know they legally can’t and they know WE know they legally can’t. I disagree–legality has never stopped these banks from doing what they hell they want.

    But if anyone else has any answers, I’d love to hear them.

  31. Wow, powerful stuff. I’ve been watching this picture clarify, or at least being reduced to simple terms; the story of how the crimes against homeowners is linked to the crimes against investors is linked to the crimes against taxpayers. In articles about various civil cases against the banks for defrauding investors for mortgage-backed-security schemes, little mention is made of how this affects the homeowners. The crime is misrepresenting the relationship between homeowner and investor, but it is treated as if it were only a crime against the investor. The seemingly inept, actually fraudulent behavior of the banks in their foreclosure frenzy is treated as separate from the fraudulent behavior in the economic collapse is treated as separate from the corrupt behavior in the bailouts. But it’s all coming together now. Nice work.

  32. I should get the “free house” (that I paid $200k hard cash for and has been paid in full by someone else.)
    I give me back the 200k, if the servicer loves the house so much.

    Seems clear and simple. however cannot get any of my so called intelligent circle of acquaintances to understand/agree.

  33. By the way. Reminder re SOL regarding fraud (s). There may still be recourse for the ” borrower”
    Check with an attorney,

  34. The banks could not have done what they did without a ton of willing participants in the scheme from the appraiser ( as Neil once called the ” only outsider” and to a degree, i agree) to the insurers. We need to hold all accountable. There are plenty of rooms in jail for those people the knew had csuse to know and did know, the robo signers are the obvious low hanging fruit.

  35. They got all that -So wheres the 1099c

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: