Banks Terrified of Eminent Domain in Richmond California

The City of Richmond California has taken a step that will force the Banks to prove their loss — something that most of them can’t do. Richmond has taken final action to seize underwater mortgages whether or not they are declared to be in default. This action will result, one way or the other, in the homeowners getting mortgages that have balances equal to the fair  market value proven by the banks, whether or not they are foreclosing on the property. I first proposed this solution 6 years ago, and until now, many cities had considered it but only Richmond, CA has actually done it.

When litigation commences, the Banks will challenge the right of eminent domain, on which they will most likely lose, and then the Banks will be required to prove their loss, something they cannot do because there is no loss. The resulting disclosure of no losses to those who are foreclosing and no loss to those who are collecting will be devastating to the full court press of foreclosures and to the truthfulness of reports of ownership to government agencies initiated by Wall Street entities.

This changes everything since it doesn’t carry the taint of “deadbeat” trying to get out of “legitimate debt”. Instead it offers the market value to the holders of the mortgage. The Banks don’t own the mortgages, used the money of investors (who were the real owners of the loans, if not the note and mortgage), received multiple payments from insurance companies and other third parties and have sold, for 100 cents on the dollar, the loans to the Federal Reserve on the premise that the mortgage Bonds represents ownership of the loans — a premise that can only be true if the loans were properly transferred into the REMIC trusts.

The eminent domain action starts with the premise of a valid note and mortgage. Litigation will expose the defects in both the ownership and the claimed balance due. The fair market value will mostly be considered to be the fair market value of the property. The trading markets might also be used as a reference.

Eminent Domain in litigation will expose the fatal defects in the loans, notes, mortgages and foreclosures. It will show that even the “performing” loans have disputable ownership issues and disputable loan balances after the  Banks received, on behalf of the investors, insurance payment, guarantee payments and proceeds of sale from the Federal Reserve.

26 Responses

  1. US Bank and SN Servicing has submitted Forged documents in our federal bankruptcy case too and we will never stop perusing them in court for damages. We are also asking our Federal judge to prosecute their current attorney out of Jacksonville Florida who continued to defend this case knowing that forged document are before a federal court. All the offending parties at SN Servicing and their attorneys are committing a serious crime against our country. We have filed a formal complaint with the FBI and the US attorney general and many great Judges all across this nation are finally stopping them from this kind of fraud on American families. US Bank and SN servicing and their attorneys are also violating a serious consent order that was to protect the people from these crimes but they could care less. Please feel free to have your clients join a class action suit so that we can end their behavior with a multi billion dollar punitive damage suit. Join us, call Ray Shelton in Florida at 352 274 8467

  2. It’s moving in the right direction. And Karen Hudes explains how so inter-connected the banks are and how their math has worked so far. It’s out: spread it. The more people know and the stronger they are.

  3. It takes time for judges to wise up but eventually, they do. And when that happens, they have weapons they can use, such as delaying their decisions or nit-picking foreclosures. Once again, it is one judge, one country and one state at a time but, slowly, the information seeps through and reaches them.

    August 13, 2013 · by Ground Rules · in Foreclosure, Litigation

    William Rudow of Rudow Law Group, LLC contributed the following summary and commentary of a foreclosure issue emerging in the Maryland courts and soon to be examined by the Court of Appeals in 101 Geneva LLC v. Ethel E. Wynn, et al.:

    Recent Maryland legislation changed Maryland’s residential foreclosure policy from expedition to restriction and delay. Recent court decisions demonstrate that many Maryland courts warmly embrace this concept of restriction and delay and may go out of their way to look for ways to hamper the foreclosure process.

    In advertisements for the sale, Maryland trustees were including additional conditions not found in the mortgage documents or expressly authorized by the Maryland Rules. An example of this required a successful foreclosure bidder to pay the legal fees of attorneys who reviewed the documents on behalf of the trustees for the settlement. This additional charge would not be included as a cost in the foreclosure proceeding and would not normally be subject to court review or audit. Maddox v. Cohn, No. 55, September Term, 2011 (Md. Ct. Ap. Jan. 24, 2012) should put an end to this practice reflecting the judicial adoption of restriction and delay regarding the foreclosure practice.

    In Maddox v Cohn, the debtor challenged the validity of this legal fee shifting practice and won. The imposition of the fee was held improper because there is no explicit provision in any statute, Maryland Rule, local rule, or in the debt instrument itself authorizing this charge. Additionally, according to five of the seven Maryland Court of Appeals Judges, the funds used by the successful bidder to pay these added legal fees effectively reduce the bid at the sale (lower the sale price); this was an inappropriate use of a trustee’s fiduciary duties. The Court of Appeals noted that recent legislation clearly showed a shift in the foreclosure laws in favor of slowing down foreclosures in Maryland holding that it is no longer the policy of the State to expedite the foreclosure process with respect to residential mortgages or deeds of trust but to restrict or delay the process.

    In a recent foreclosure sale that my firm held, the Circuit Court judge ruled sua sponte citing Maddox v Cohen, that [i]n the instant case, server failed to note the time of day that he went to the subject property to attempt service. Further, the server went to the subject property on two consecutive, weekend days, which were immediately prior to the winter holidays. Therefore, the service was ruled deficient despite posting and attempted mailing. The sale could not be ratified. This lack of proper service would force the entire foreclosure process to be performed over again. The restriction and delay certainly adversely affects the lender client. The sua sponte action is a bit scary because the court creates an appearance of bias and of impropriety by creating positions contrary to the lender and ruling on them. The courts lose their appearance of impropriety at best.

    In 101 Geneva LLC v. Ethel E. Wynn, et al., oral argument is scheduled for Wednesday, September 11, 2013. The Court of Appeals will revisit foreclosure rulings by Circuit Court judges who seem to be taking the restriction and delay policy into their own hands. The issues include: (1) Does the trial court, in a foreclosure sale involving a third-party purchase, have the authority to sua sponte undertake what are tantamount to “Exceptions to the Sale” when none are taken in a timely fashion by the Borrower nor any interested party, and thereafter, despite uncontested opposition, vacate the sale based on Maddox v. Cohn? (2) Is the trial court’s issuance of a Notice of Non-Compliance pursuant to Rule 14-207.1 proper once a foreclosure sale has occurred and is Rule 14-207.1 applicable to the trial court, acting sua sponte, for post-foreclosure sale reviews performed beyond the timeframe of the Rules (i.e. Md. Rule 14-305(e)) which calls for the ratification of the sale? (3) Is the right of the trial court to act sua sponte in objecting to the “fairness or properness” of the sale barred by failing to undertake an equitable review within 60 days of the filing of the Report of Sale or the time when Exceptions were due and were not filed, or if they were filed, were denied? (4) Did the trial court err in setting forth a “policy” relative to the decision in Maddox v. Cohn, which it has improperly retroactively applied uniformly to all foreclosure sales in Montgomery County in violation of Md. Rule 1-102? (5) Does the imposition of this “policy” by the trial court in vacating the sale, in lieu of denying ratification for cause pursuant to Md. Rule 14-305(e), constitute a violation of the due process clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions, by effectively denying the (Substitute) Trustees the right of appeal?

  4. N.A./Self Proclaimed Servicer contracts out to Safeguard

    Safeguard contracts out to Local Property Management Co

    Property Management Co contracts out to Private Venders

    Venders/property inspector knowingly or unknowingly Trespasses

    Venders go to Jail for Trespass …

    Being a Vendor/Notary is Risky Business … Just Say NO!

    Money can not buy you Happiness ..

    Be True to Yourself!

    God Bless!

  5. As my Grandma would say ….

    I’ll give it to them alright … Right in the O’le Smoocher!

    They can keep the Money … I’ll take the Justice!

    Good Night and Sweet Dreams from Illinois 🙂

  6. Dumbasses!! Safegaurd via a sub contractor contacts me to do property inspections and verify occupancy. ON MY OWN PROPERTY?

    hahaha …

    Don’t Mess With Grandma’s Cookies Jars!

  7. Christine… In Illinois…. they enter onto properties NOT IN FC and properties with NO MORTGAGES. You all know me after all theses years ….. you reap what you sew ….. It has always worked for me!

    Many Blessings To All!

    Except Safeguard, … I have their Jail CELL Ready! Safeguard uses a sub contractor ~ vender Bryant Property Services in Illinois and Wisconsin …. 🙂

  8. It’s going to get very, very nasty before it gets better… Thugs are running this country: private companies with little to no oversight assure “security” in pretty much every area of commerce and government. Even our military have made pacts with the devil. Halliburton comes to mind. Until people realize it and take back the country, it will get worse.

    “Faced with more than 10 million foreclosures that have piled up since the start of the mortgage crisis, the nation’s largest banks are turning behind the scenes to property management firms, with the Ohio-based Safeguard the largest, to help them navigate the wreckage, determine the occupancy of the troubled properties and preserve them until the homes can be resold.

    But the firms are coming under fire for using questionable and possibly illegal tactics. The scrutiny threatens to ensnare JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America,Citibank and other lenders that depend on the firms. Legal aid offices in California, Nevada, Florida, Michigan and New York say calls about Safeguard’s aggressive tactics rank among the top complaints.

    On Monday, Illinois became the first state to take on the property management firms legally, contending in a lawsuit that Safeguard wrongfully dispossessed hundreds of homeowners in the state. In suing Safeguard, Lisa Madigan, the attorney general, contends that the company broke into homes despite stark evidence that homeowners still lived in them, bullied tenants into leaving even though they had no legal obligation to do so and, in some instances, damaged the very homes they were sent to protect, according to the suit.”

  9. Hmm. No harm meant by this comment, but it is meant to be kind of sarcastic.

    File for damages for trusts and bonds to property they took by imminent domain?

    A good thing from something evil?

    No real loss, but can claim a gain?

    No real loss, but can claim a loss and sue? Sounds like what we have now.

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

  10. OneWest Bank pays 7 figures in mortgage fraud case
    September 11, 2013
    Steve Mnuchin

    Steve Mnuchin


    A San Luis Obispo County couple has received a million-dollar-plus settlement and title to two houses in a case that is likely to result in more lawsuits by people who lost property to mortgage lenders after the bursting of the housing bubble.

    Greg and Irene Rigali of Shell Beach sued OneWest Bank, IndyMac Mortgage Services, U.S. Bank and GSR Loan Mortgage Trust after their home and a rental property in Grover Beach were foreclosed. At the time, the Rigalis were negotiating with OneWest Bank to modify their mortgages, sources familiar with the case said.

    The case turned on a mortgage practice known as “dual tracking.” Under the practice, lenders work with borrowers who are in default but, at the same time, pursue foreclosure.

    At the short end of the seven-figure settlement agreement were two nationally known individuals, billionaire Steve Mnuchin, principal owner of OneWest Bank; and Rik Tozzi, a prominent Alabama attorney specializing in banking litigation and “complex cases in difficult or dangerous jurisdictions,” according to his website.

    Both Mnuchin and Tozzi came to San Luis Obispo in May for a hearing on a motion to declare OneWest Bank the winner in the Rigalis’ suit. But instead granting OneWest’s motion for summary judgment, San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge Charles S. Crandall said that the case should go to trial. The Rigalis had presented enough of a case to be able to have a jury decide their claims of fraud, wrongful foreclosure, unfair business practices, quiet title, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

    After Judge Crandall ruled for the Rigalis and before the next formal court proceedings, OneWest settled. The terms of the settlement are confidential and neither the Rigalis nor their attorneys would comment for this article.

    The Rigali’s case had its beginnings about five years ago. Greg Rigali, a former L.A. County sheriff’s deputy, and his wife retired to a small but comfortable and beautifully situated residence in Shell Beach after their adult children left home. A while after that, the Rigalis acquired a rental property in Grover Beach.

    It was about that time, while the Rigalis began making college plans for their adopted daughter, that they got solicitations from the holder of their Shell Beach mortgage, IndyMac Federal Bank, inviting them to modify the mortgages on both the home and the rental residence.

    That invitation included allowing the Rigalis to suspend or reduce payments on their properties during the run-up to the loan modification.

    While the Rigalis were negotiating on the mortgage modifications, IndyMac Federal Bank failed in what would be the fourth-largest bank failure in U.S. history. What was left of IndyMac was acquired in March 2009 by a Mnuchin-led group of private investors for $1.55 billion.

    The newly christened OneWest Bank picked up with the Rigalis where IndyMac Federal Bank had left off and negotiations on the modification proceeded.

    “Because you are a valued customer, we want to help you stay in your home. Reduce your monthly payment of principal and interest and bring your loan current,” read the new solicitation from OneWest Bank. “We propose to permanently modify your mortgage, bring past-due payments current, and provide you with an affordable monthly payment.”

    The Rigalis’ court filings “alleged they were led to believe, by representatives of several banks over a period of years, that their $560,000 loan would be modified. They believed they had entered into several forbearance agreements with several but related banks.”

    And so, the Rigalis worked with bank officials for the modification, following every requirement called for by OneWest loan officers, their court filings said. But as that took place, other OneWest officials were moving toward a quiet foreclosure of the valuable beach properties.

    The Rigalis were making payments in accordance with a June 2009 agreement with the bank. That included a one-time payment of $3,444.06. OneWest Bank cashed the check even as it pursued foreclosure.

    A month later OneWest Bank assigned the Rigali’s trust deed to U.S. Bank.

    In September 2009, to the Rigali’s complete surprise, a trustee’s sale of their beach house was conducted, with U.S. Bank the only bidder.

    A notice of foreclosure was posted on the couple’s home’s door while Irene Rigali was en route home from what she thought had been a successful meeting with bank officials.

    Shortly thereafter OneWest Bank refunded the Rigali’s $3,444.06 check, and the Rigalis filed their lawsuit.

    The Rigalis were represented by two local attorneys, Maria L. Hutkin and Jude J. Basile. Jane Heath of San Luis Obispo teamed with Southern California lawyers Marissa Prayongratana and Thomas Agawa to present OneWest’s case.

    OneWest filed a motion for summary judgment, a legal maneuver in which a judge can end a case by ruling that there are no real contested issues in the lawsuit.

    Mnuchin and Tozzi then attended the May hearing to learn firsthand Crandall’s decision. Crandall, however, denied their motions, setting the stage for trial.

    Crandall wrote in his denial of the motion that “the facts before the court are sufficient to defeat summary judgment” of most of OneWest Bank’s assertions, and he concluded that the Rigalis produced enough proven evidence to show that they could prevail in a jury trial.

    OneWest quickly offered a settlement, sources said.

    But the Rigalis did not want to settle. They wanted to take their case to trial; they wanted a public airing of their complaints, and their attorneys so informed the court.

    The Rigalis felt assured the facts of their case would prevail, sources familiar with the suit said.

    Recent legislative measures “provide an important lens” for the court to look through, wrote Crandall in denying OneWest’s motion.

    The judge was referring to the banking practice of dual tracking, in which a borrower in default seeks a modification while the institution continues at the same time to pursue foreclosure. By the time the borrower learns what is happening, it is usually too late to prevent the foreclosure.

    As a California appellate court decision several years ago noted, “For homeowners struggling to avoid foreclosure, this dual tracking might go by another name: the double-cross.”

  11. From MS fraud:

    “-sailing MERS/OneWest run aground in Washington State


    Here, OneWest and MERS both conceded at oral argument in this appeal that MERS never had possession of the promissory note that Bavand executed in favor of IndyMac Bank in 2007. A legal consequence of this failure to establish possession of the promissory note is that MERS was never a “holder” of this instrument. Consequently, as the Bain court expressly held, MERS is not a proper beneficiary of this deed of trust securing Bavand’s promissory note to IndyMac Bank because it is not a “holder” of the secured note. Accordingly, MERS also lacked any authority to appoint RTS as the successor trustee. (More and more Courts are catching on.)”

  12. I do not like eminent domain either, however I believe this evil can actually help the homeowners this time. The city will discover the truth and perhaps be able to file for damages from trust and bonds they have purchased as well. I have believed all along the truth will come out when the cities file eminent domain exposing the banks that should fear this action due to the exposure of their crimes. Could be a blessing for those who can not battle back.

  13. I would guess this will prove the homes are not underwater but no money owed at all. Therefore no eminent domain allowed and the homeowner has the upper hand to stop this theft of their property not under water but owing nothing.

  14. No loan.

    No Title Insurance.

    Corrupted title.

    City is a corporate entity on file with the secretary of the state.
    Corporate entity has a owner of the corporation City of Richmond, California

    Owner has ownership of everything the corporation claims ownership over.

    Too many ways to dispossess the real people with their consent because of their lack of knowledge of the transaction behind the claim of right.

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

  15. I’m not entirely comfortable with the government exercising its eminent domain powers like this. Kinda sets a precedent that they can do take houses under eminent domain for any other reason. What they really should do is sue the big banks for fraud and for unpaid recording fees, etc. I wonder why there’s no will for them to do that?

    On the other hand, I understand that this use of eminent domain is a great end-run around the corrupt courts (hopefully). If it has the desired effect of proving the big banks to be full of shit, then yay! If it sets a precedent that homes can be taken by the government on other pretexts, then boo hiss…

  16. Question is where did it begin and all the players will start ankle biting. good.

  17. Gosh if they did tis in AZ for all the wrongful foreclosure there would be just cause I n my lay opinion (not a lawyer) for class action since where theres fraud I think the SOL is not tolled… and nothing can follow fraud
    as Neil has said in past- the homes are still ours despite someone else apparently the new owner- all that that went on AFTER the fraud is void or voidable.

  18. to louise

  19. USCA 9TH CIRCUIT thank you

  20. right Louise
    DUE PROCESS is hard to come by my case 12-16192

  21. Lets hope the Eminent Domain litigation will actually happen. Real discovery is hard to come by.


  23. so it kinda makes a mockery of the atty g,s settlement.

  24. I want my city to do this. What is the downside for the city? Other than rocking the boat with the banks?

  25. Light at the end of the tunnel? Do not get your hopes up to high since the state of Massachusetts let all the Robo signers off

    Sent from my iPhone

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: