Wells Fargo Attempting to “offer” Modifications But Refusing to Put it in Writing

Danielle Kelley, Esq. is getting corroboration on trial modifications from lawyers and other professionals assisting homeowners all over the country. She is bearing down hard on situations where the homeowner enters into the trial modification, complies with all the terms, and then is faced with a unilateral decision by the bank to foreclose anyway. Decisions are coming that have forced the banks to reconsider that position and lately there are other tricks being deployed — like refusing to put the modification offer in writing. Thus puts the homeowner in the position of paying money for nothing, which appears to be exactly what the banks want.

Here is what Darrel Blomberg in Arizona wrote to me this morning:

We all remember the Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (673 F.3d 547) case out of the Seventh Circuit.  You know, the one where Wells Fargo had to fess up and honor a homeowner’s modification after the homeowner had agreed in writing to a trial loan modification offer and subsequently made all of the required payments.

Anyway, I’ve been helping an associate with his home loan assistance request with, none other than, Wells Fargo.  After many months of doing the document and financial proctology dance with Wells Fargo, my associate had a success.  Uh, of sorts.

Wells Fargo called him today with the details of his trial loan modification offer.  (Did you catch that?)

We were on the call together with Mr. E. of Wells Fargo.  Mr. E., his single point of contact (at least his third one) ran down the details of the trial loan modification offer.  That’s fine and dandy.  Here’s the killer.  Mr. E. was asked when the trial loan modification offer would be sent to the homeowner in writing.  My associate was informed that nothing would be sent out until my associate had completed his three trial payments.

I could see exactly where this was coming from.  Wigod!  So, this is Wells Fargo’s feeble attempt to make sure they can, without accountability, deny a defenseless homeowner their rightful modification because nothing has been reduced to writing.

Do you think you would ever be able to transact business orally with Wells Fargo at any of their branches?

My answer to him was this:

If you kept careful notes, then the fact of the matter is that you have been orally informed that the underwriting is complete. That is what the law says — if the offer is made it means the underwriting has been completed. Talk to Danielle Kelley about these details, whom I am copying on with this email. I think I would serve a letter demanding that the offer be sent in writing because in order to make the offer they had to complete the underwriting and that there would be no choice but to make the modification permanent after the trial payments were timely made. As to forcing them to put it in writing, I don’t know. They are obviously trying to get the trial payments and then keep their options open for foreclosure despite compliance by the borrower. The Courts are not liking that one bit.


To all readers: Please add to this post by commenting below.

139 Responses

  1. Yes they have me a verbal trial payment too. I paid for five months and damded to see the terms in writing. Two months went by and the attorney they assigned was removed from my case. When I got the writtenodificatio the big crime was revealed. They added $30k to inflate my loan amount with excessive interest and fees they generated by failing to comply with federal HAMP GUIDELINES for seven years. I claim they violated the consumer protection act by megaton in unfair and deceptive practices that produced a financial benefit to the bank. They also violated truth in lending act by failing to disclose the true payment amount and fees they added on to line their pockets. This bank is sick and needs to be criminally investigated for racketeering.

  2. my colleague was wanting CA ADOPT-200 this month and saw a company that has lots of sample forms . If you need CA ADOPT-200 also , here’s a http://goo.gl/9DtKM0

  3. It appears to me, christine is a professional victim…nothing is ever by her own hand!

    I’m glad you hubby finds my information so interesting he actually formulates an opinion! Ha, Ha, Ha

  4. Christine, you of all people falling victim to the race hustle, simply by justifying another with a response. I’ll bet your charcoal-black husband ‘s blood turns as red as mine when it meets oxygen.

  5. Damn! Out of town for a few days and unable to respond to a few things:


    In fact… my charcoal black husband of 7 years from Sierra Leone is the one who pointed that out to me (I’m not that astute…). He said: “New England Blonde”? What kind of a screen name is this? What the F*** is wrong with those black Americans? Africa went through centuries of invasions by the Arabs and islam and the Europeans. Our history was burnt down. We have little to no roots left. Know what we do? We dig back the ground where we came from to retrace our history. Why can’t they do that and move on?”

    I never knew until then and I really don’t give a hoot either way… No borderline anything. Insecurities seep through. Nastiness is only a symptom. What’s the root cause for yours?

    E.ToLLe and UKG:

    I don’t deny that MN might be a really harsh state to win anything in. Butler still did something wrong: he dragged many people down with him who ended up having to pay for legal fees in addition to losing
    their case. I will cut Butler slacks when I know for a fact that those people knew exactly what they were getting themselves into and at what risks.

    Butler has all the rights in the world to want to fight and set himself as an example and a martyr. Ethically and professionally, he had no right to take his clients down that path. Barry Fagan (CA) is fighting hard and has been for years. CA is not particularly friendly to homeowners either. Still, he knows where to draw the line between his battle and his clients’. Fiduciary duty.

    Those are the well-meaning, terribly misguided actions that hurt homeowners. Sure as hell didn’t help MN…

  6. Documents that have been filed as a public record..(ie.. court, county recorders office etc..) are a State Matter. If those records are wrong/fradulent, they must come before a State Court to be corrected.

  7. UKG, I took a peek at the case law you posted. Interesting. I don’t know a dag gone thing about bk law so I don’t have a comment. Federal Law seems to run parallel with State Law …. in that one must have “Proof of Claim”.

    ** Dang Gone It if I didn’t bang my head into a wall trying to enforce an unenforceable contract.

  8. James, that’s Lynn Szymoniak

  9. Can someone give me the name of the female attorney in FL that one the big case against the banks

  10. Don’t hold me to the numbers it was 1997 but it might have been called a 501 motion .
    The Hon Cornelius Blackshear the most ethical, smart and aware judge and protecting our Constitution.. He was an excellent example of what we expect all our judges to be. And his law clerk I think his name was JULIAN working with him as the finest OUR JUDICIAL HAS TO OFFER.

  11. johngalt AND USEDKARGUY


  12. In other words, bankruptcy is the proper venue to fight a fraudulent claim. Judges will usurp their judicial role for a constitutional one if it fits their needs to dispose of a really uncomfortable claim.
    am I right, harry?

  13. John, yeah-me. But there was Fannie Mae handbook that was disseminated somewhere that stated foreclosures were to be taken in the name of the servicer or trustee or anybody other than the GSE.

    Sunshine Band, first, you owe me a phone call. I’ve been waiting.
    You also have to go to Heiser v. Woodruff:
    “In particular, the Supreme Court has held that a proof of claim based on a judgment may be assailed in the bankruptcy court on the ground that the purported judgment is not a judgment because of want of jurisdiction of the court which rendered it over the persons of the parties or the subject matter of the suit, or because it was procured by fraud of a party.

    – in IN RE ALLEN, 2011 and 37 similar citations

    “In another context the Court has held that a bankruptcy court should give collateral estoppel effect to a prior decision.”

    – in Matter of Ross, 1979 and 35 similar citations

    —so that bankruptcy courts possess the power “to prevent the consummation of a course of conduct by a claimant which… would be fraudulent or otherwise inequitable by subordinating his claims to the ethically superior claims asserted by other creditors

    – in In re Medical Equities, Inc., 1987 and 21 similar citations
    “And acting within the framework of the Bankruptcy Act, a court of bankruptcy has power to subordinate the claim of one creditor to the claims of other creditors where subordination is necessary to prevent the consummation of conduct which is inequitable; has power to attach appropriate conditions to the allowance of a claim; and has power to require a claimant to do …”
    – in Central States Corp. v. Luther, 1954 and 17 similar citations

    “Federal principles of collateral estoppel apply to prior judgments that are rendered by a federal court.”

    – in In re Jordana, 1999 and 17 similar citations

  14. I think we are not holding the Justice Dept to its claim of the Jan 2012 foreclosure settlement that was suppose to give victims of wrong doing $125,000 plus equity. The was to be part of that $26 billion settlement but this did not happen.

    These Notes are blank endorsements which separated the Note from the debts, and separates the Note from a title/lien.

  15. usedkarguy, you said:

    “…..but I would suspect the claims go to the non-creditor servicer taking title post foreclosure and forging the warranty deed to the GSE, as per the handbook. ”

    got a link to this language?

  16. I have a similar situation with Green Tree Servicing….except they didnt even make the offer verbally…it was just casually mentioned in a correspondence of theirs that was in answer to a letter from me questioning some other issue. Said i had been granted a modification on Nov 8, 2013 with trail payments to start Dec 1. The letter holding this information was received on Dec 15!!!

  17. Same old stuff going on here, I see…Christine being the you-know-what she’s always been…E.Tolle keepin’ it real.

    Neil says:
    “…like refusing to put the modification offer in writing. Thus puts the homeowner in the position of paying money for nothing, which appears to be exactly what the banks want.”

    SAME THING IS STILL GOING ON—how many years? No change. NOTHING.

    But, guess what—NONE OF IT MATTERS if you don’t have air and water…please watch this:

  18. Everybody is going to court …..

    RE: “But the only way to clean up the hundreds of thousands of effected titles is through litigation, banks will simply not do the right thing.”

    Unclean Hands and Washing Assets

  19. Why Robo-Signings are Illegal
    In short, Robo-Signings are illegal in because good title cannot be based on fraud, robo-signed non judicial foreclosure sales are VOID as a matter of law, the documents are not able to be recorded if they are not notarized, which we know was often not done properly, and finally, because the robo-signed forgeries ARE intended for judicial proceedings, including evictions and bankruptcy relief from stay motions.


  20. So we get these folks modifications and they are signing a new set of documents that is are affirming that the homeowner owes a debt to the modifying party, and a new Securities Instrument will be recorded. At this time if there is a problem the homeowners have got no defense in the future, as they have reaffirmed the debt.

    I get it that people don’t want to be uprooted, but until they are uprooted what the damages? What modifications is it that homeowners are thinking that their contract has granted them? The only reason for the mods were the agreement of HAMP. These in-house mods are not govern by any agreements just as these subprime loans.

    These modified loans are being sold in the cases of HAMP mods to bank that did not join in on the HAMP. This is going to lead to families getting kick out of these homes after the spotlights are off this subject. These are not refinances but mods.

  21. The Doctrines of Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel
    These two doctrines establish the rule that once a case has reached a final judgment, relitigation of the claims and issues generally is barred.

    Res Judicata (Claim Preclusion)

    A.Rule: If judgment is rendered in favor of a plaintiff in a particular suit, the plaintiff is precluded from raising claims (in any future litigation) which were raised in (or could have been raised) in that lawsuit.

    B.Elements: Before a court will apply the doctrine of res judicata to a claim, three elements must be satisfied:

    1.There must have been prior litigation in which identical claims were raised (or could have been raised). In general, claims are sufficiently identical if they are found to share a “common nucleus of operative fact.”

    2.The parties in the second litigation must be identical in some manner to the parties in the original litigation, or be in privity with the parties in the first action.

    Note: A party is considered to be in privity with a party in the original litigation if:

    A.The nonparty succeeded to the interest of a party;

    B.The nonparty, though it did not technically participate in the first suit, controlled one party’s litigation in that suit;

    C.The nonparty shares a property interest with the party;

    D.The party and the nonparty have an agency relationship (agent/principal); or

    E.The party otherwise adequately represented the interest of the nonparty in the previous litigation.

    3.There must have been a final judgment on the merits in the original litigation. Note: Not all final judgments are based on the merits of the case (i.e., cases dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, etc.).

    C.Scope: Res judicata bars relitigation of claims that were previously litigated as well as claims that could have been litigated in the first lawsuit.

    D.Counterclaims:Res judicata is generally not applied to potential counterclaims by defendants, so defendants are not necessarily barred from raising a counterclaim in future litigation. However, remember that all counterclaims must conform to FRCP Rule 13(a), and that some counterclaims are compulsory (must be raised in original litigation or they are waived).

    These two doctrines establish the rule that once a case has reached a final judgment, relitigation of the claims and issues generally is barred.

    Res Judicata (Claim Preclusion)

    A.Rule: If judgment is rendered in favor of a plaintiff in a particular suit, the plaintiff is precluded from raising claims (in any future litigation) which were raised in (or could have been raised) in that lawsuit.

    B.Elements: Before a court will apply the doctrine of res judicata to a claim, three elements must be satisfied:

    1.There must have been prior litigation in which identical claims were raised (or could have been raised). In general, claims are sufficiently identical if they are found to share a “common nucleus of operative fact.”

    2.The parties in the second litigation must be identical in some manner to the parties in the original litigation, or be in privity with the parties in the first action.

    Note: A party is considered to be in privity with a party in the original litigation if:

    A.The nonparty succeeded to the interest of a party;

    B.The nonparty, though it did not technically participate in the first suit, controlled one party’s litigation in that suit;

    C.The nonparty shares a property interest with the party;

    D.The party and the nonparty have an agency relationship (agent/principal); or

    E.The party otherwise adequately represented the interest of the nonparty in the previous litigation.

    3.There must have been a final judgment on the merits in the original litigation. Note: Not all final judgments are based on the merits of the case (i.e., cases dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, etc.).

    C.Scope: Res judicata bars relitigation of claims that were previously litigated as well as claims that could have been litigated in the first lawsuit.

    D.Counterclaims:Res judicata is generally not applied to potential counterclaims by defendants, so defendants are not necessarily barred from raising a counterclaim in future litigation. However, remember that all counterclaims must conform to FRCP Rule 13(a), and that some counterclaims are compulsory (must be raised in original litigation or they are waived).

    Collateral Estoppel (Issue Preclusion)

    A.Rule: If an issue has been decided in a particular case, it is treated as decided—without further proof—in any subsequent litigation that involves the issue. In other words, a person or party who seeks to relitigate any already decided issue is collaterally stopped from doing so.

    B.Elements: Before a court will apply the doctrine of collateral estoppel, three elements must be satisfied:

    1.There must have been a prior litigation in which the identical issue was brought before the court.

    2.The issue must have been actually litigated in the first judicial proceeding, and the party against whom collateral estoppel is being asserted must have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first judicial proceeding.

    3.The issue must necessarily have been decided and rendered as a necessary part of the court’s final judgment.

    C.Scope: Unlike res judicata, collateral estoppel does not bar future litigation over issues not actually raised in the original judicial proceeding, even if the issues could have been raised.

    D.Who may be bound: The old rule that only the actual parties (and those in privity with the actual parties) to the first judicial proceeding may be bound by the court’s findings/decision on the issue has been virtually abolished. Increasingly, courts have been willing to allow strangers (persons not involved in the first litigation) to use collateral estoppel in various situations to prevent another party from relitigating an issue.

  22. “To suggest that a common pleas court can exercise subject matter jurisdiction even though it lacks the constitutional jurisdiction to do so, is just plain silly.”


    Andrew Engle, Esq. | January 19, 2014

    I attended the Ohio Supreme Court oral argument in Kuchta, and found some of the arguments and comments disturbing.

    In particular, I noted Justice O’Donnell’s comments regarding the scope of Schwartzwald. But I can’t help but conclude that his comments miss the mark with respect to the role standing plays in a common pleas court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

    I’ve never understood why some want to equate standing with subject matter jurisdiction. Although they are strongly related, they are not synonymous. Neither are “engine” and “automobile” synonymous. The former is but a requirement for the latter to be operable. However, an engine alone is not enough. To function, an automobile also needs gasoline to power that engine. You cannot drive a car with no engine even if its gas tank is full. And without fuel, even the most powerful of engines will remain cold. So it is with Ohio’s common pleas courts.

    To suggest that a common pleas court can exercise subject matter jurisdiction even though it lacks the constitutional jurisdiction to do so, is just plain silly.

    The Ohio Supreme Court has repeatedly held that subject matter jurisdiction is the constitutional or legislative grant of judicial power to a particular court. In Ohio, a common pleas court’s jurisdiction is granted by Art. IV, sec. 4(B) of Ohio’s Constitution – “[t]he courts of common pleas shall have such original jurisdiction over all justiciable matters . . . as may be provided by law.” This provision identifies two distinct, but absolute, requirements for a common pleas court’s jurisdiction – (1) a justiciable matter and (2) a statutory grant of power. You could say the first is the engine that gives the court the means to function and the second is the fuel the powers that engine.

    The assertion that common pleas courts have subject matter jurisdiction over foreclosure cases is facially correct. The General Assembly has granted that power, and it did so based on the power granted to it through Art. IV, sec. 4(B). But ending the analysis there, completely ignores the more fundamental, constitutional requirement of a justiciable matter.

    This line of reasoning relegates the requirement of justiciability to something other than, and inferior to, subject matter jurisdiction. But there is nothing in either the constitution or in statute to support this notion. Art. IV, sec. 4(B) does not mention subject matter jurisdiction. In fact, the words “subject matter jurisdiction” do not appear in the Constitution at all. Neither do they appear in R.C. 2305.01 (“the court of common pleas has original jurisdiction in all civil cases”). So it is confusing how anyone can reasonably conclude that statutory jurisdiction is subject matter jurisdiction, but constitutional jurisdiction is something else entirely.

    Also, although it should go without saying, if a court’s jurisdiction is not invoked, then it lacks jurisdiction. The bank’s counsel and Justice O’Donnell repeatedly stressed that the underlying holding in Schwartzwald was that a lack of standing means only that the trial court’s jurisdiction was not invoked. But it does not follow that a court can have subject matter jurisdiction over a particular case if the court’s jurisdiction was not invoked. Either the Court has jurisdiction or it doesn’t. To suggest that a common pleas court can exercise subject matter jurisdiction even though it lacks the constitutional jurisdiction to do so, is just plain silly.

    The same analysis applies to appellate jurisdiction. Although Ohio’s courts of appeals have subject matter jurisdiction over all civil appeals, should a party fail to timely file a notice of appeal, its jurisdiction is not invoked, and it lacks both the constitutional and statutory power to decide the case. In other words, a party must invoke the jurisdiction of a court of appeals before the Court can exercise its jurisdiction. Neither can a common pleas court decide a liability and damages resulting from an auto accident if the injured party doesn’t commence a civil action by filing a complaint. Sure the court has subject matter jurisdiction over auto accident cases, but there is no justiciable matter until a plaintiff sues a defendant.

    But all of this misses the issue presented in the case. The issue relates to res judicata and its applicability to determinations of jurisdiction. And the simple fact is that the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment against the Kuchtas did not make any finding regarding the bank’s standing to bring the suit. As Justice O’Donnell stated, the facts of Kuchta are controlled by Schwartzwald. The issue is whether the Court will make some exception – a safe harbor of sorts – using the doctrine of res judicata for the bank to find shelter from attacks against judgments entered by a court without jurisdiction. I think doing so would be a grave error. It was the banks, after all, which decided to file foreclosure cases before they obtained a legally cognizable interest in the underlying note and mortgage.

    The citizens of the State of Ohio decided to limit the power of common pleas courts to those cases which present justiciable matters. Any decision which ignores that democratically enacted limitation exchanges the rule of law for one of convenience. I cannot believe that such a move is wise in any regard.

    Attorney Andrew Engle, Centerville, Ohio.

  24. RE: Your question, John, about post foreclosure claims.

    Bank of America, N.A. v. Rosa
    Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP
    Beth H. Mitchell and Gregory R. Bradford

    January 7 2014

    As reported by Beth H. Mitchell and Gregory R. Bradford

    A recent decision from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) expands the scope of the Housing Court’s jurisdiction in post-foreclosure summary process eviction actions. In Bank of America, N.A. v. Rosa, No. 11330, slip op. (Mass. December 18, 2013), the SJC held that a defendant homeowner may raise certain defenses and counterclaims previously only available in Superior Court that challenge the plaintiff’s title in a post-foreclosure summary process action. The practical result is that the Housing Court now has the power to enjoin or set aside a foreclosure sale for reasons other than a lender’s failure to “strictly comply” with the power of sale in a mortgage, and may award damages to a defendant based on counterclaims raised by the defendant.

    Rosa involved several residential foreclosure cases in which the plaintiff banks acquired title after exercising the power of sale contained in the mortgages. The banks then commenced summary process actions in the Housing Court to remove the homeowners from the properties. The homeowners raised various defenses and counterclaims to the banks’ actions, including allegations of discrimination and claims that the banks had violated M.G.L. c. 93A, the Massachusetts consumer protection statute (“Chapter 93A”). The homeowners also alleged that the banks did not acquire title “strictly” according to the power of sale contained in the mortgages. The SJC had previously held that the latter defense was available in an action in the Housing Court, but the banks argued that the other defenses and counterclaims were beyond the Housing Court’s jurisdiction.

    On appeal, the SJC held that although the jurisdiction of the Housing Court is limited, its jurisdiction encompasses granting equitable relief (such as enjoining or reopening a foreclosure sale) where a defendant has raised an equitable defense to the plaintiff’s title. The SJC also held that the Housing Court may consider defenses and counterclaims based on Chapter 93A and the state’s anti-discrimination statute, M.G.L. c. 151B, provided such defenses and counterclaims challenge the plaintiff’s title or possession. The Housing Court may award damages in conjunction with such counterclaims.

    Although SJC did not expressly limit its holding to mortgages on residential properties, the Housing Court’s jurisdiction generally does not encompass purely commercial cases. Additionally, many of the types of defenses and counterclaims considered in Rosa are already available in Superior Court and the state District Court, where most commercial summary process actions will commence. Therefore, it is likely that the Rosa decision will primarily affect foreclosures of residential properties.

    comment: I have not gotten to the pleadings yet on this, but I would suspect the claims go to the non-creditor servicer taking title post foreclosure and forging the warranty deed to the GSE, as per the handbook. All the trustee, servicers, foreclosers, are pretty much imposters. Tolle hit it on the head by reiterating the 62 million-plus MERS and secondary securitized loans and mortgages are toast.

    One more thing, I have a PSA that states equitable title transfers to the swap counterparty. Anybody else have that in their PSA?

  25. John
    i have bank hackers on my computers and they move the page
    up, down and around the computer as I type
    so correct the line to read

    under federal law which is applicable to all states the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT stated if a Court is ‘without authority”
    its judgments and orders are regarded as nullifies.

  26. Thanks JOHN

    IN September 2008 I sought two motions to MARK VACATED
    TWO VOID ab initio judgments pursuant to us Supreme Court case
    Elliot v. Piersol

    under Federal law which is applicable to all states the USSC stated
    that if a Court is” voidble, but simplywithout authority” it’s judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable but simply void and form no bar to recovery sought, EVEN PRIOR TO REVERSAL IN OPPOSITION TO THEM.. They constitute no justification and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences are considered in law as trespassers.

  27. marilyn – here are a bunch of cases on void judgments:


  28. As for where the money went – I would like to pose this question to the justices in my appeal.

    Kamala Harris, AG of Mexifornia (Latinos recently became largest minority in a state with no majority) ‘clawed back’ $300M from JP Morgan stating “This settlement returns the money to California’s pension funds that JP Morgan wrongfully took from them.” Justices from the Appellate courts were thus the recipients of that largesse. But does not that largess represent third party payments to the loans comprising the trusts, as the pension funds were the recipients of the cash flow from mortgage payments? That being the case, did the borrowers of those loans receive credit for those payments? Since Ms. Harris made no attempt to identify the loans in question, can this Court categorically state that Appellant’s loan was not among them? Your decisions (Calvo v. HSBC) have rendered the land recording act meaningless for deed of trust loans, so the answer is no longer to be found there. Surely the word of an agent of an unconfirmed agent of ‘the beneficiary’ is insufficient to award any party a ‘free house’ for a default that, for all anyone knows, was cured by a portion of that $300M. Now that you justices got ‘yours’ at (possibly) my and other homeowners’ expense, do you need to consider recusing yourselves?

    I think it’s getting near time for my nap, now.

  29. neidermeyer – thanks for that info. could be good for many. Let me know if you happen upon a case on point.

  30. KC I should have said let me apologize.

  31. KC let me apology if I took you wrong. What I am saying is that while I worked at Wells Fargo Bank as a mortgage loan officer (Prime & Gov Loans) there were not any other blacks working in the same area of lending as they were all placed in the subprime divisions.

    In black neighborhood before the boom there were no blacks in branches servicing the black communities because the loan were harder to work and the loan amount were smaller and not worth the Prime loan officers time, as you had to work to many of them.

    However with subprime loans you could make 7 times the amount on the loans, so instead of $500 on a loan you were making $3,500. The Prime loan officer would refer these loans to the two subprime divisions and split the commission for doing nothing and make $1,750.

    Wells Fargo’s top subprime loan officer in Elizabeth Jacobson made $700,000 in a year before the crisis, and she was what exposed the crimes in Baltimore (40 miles from the White House), ironic her testimony was given on Apr 20, 2009 (Hitler’s birthday).

    Because there are no blacks working in the area of originating good loan but me of all the major banks, as I came to Wells Fargo already trained and had given the bank an idea that the head of the mortgage banking division in Omaha NE set up Warren Buffett’s real estate in-house financing I could not get a meeting with him. But they used my idea and made millions, and she got a bonus and promoted.

    Black leadership was the blind leading the blind, as Wells Fargo had a program that attacked the black churches giving referral fees (tax free) for delivering the church members to Wells at $350 a pop for each completed loan.

    I believe that the black leadership been paid off by the banks and that why you don’t here Al Sharpton running around crying even as these cities are winning these claims. However these settlement are not reaching the homeowners and the cities and state are keeping the cash to plug holes in their own budgets like NE and GA did with the National Settlement.

    You only know what you know, and because there was like only me crying about racial discrimination I was perceived as some crazy guy. I first notice the steering Wells Fargo was doing with our military personnel and tried to fix it when I wrote Warren Buffett, but without any luck in Jun 2005. I soon after realized that it was not only the servicemember but all government loans, they were steering people into 80/20 with interest only 2nd mortgages.

    The 2nd mortgages is probably a part of Wells not modifying these loan also.

    Finally Obama hurt blacks because he like the Pastor, blacks don’t want to embarrass the first black President, and he getting a pass because they think in the end he will make thing right. But 99.9% of black have not got a clue as to how they been rip off, and the self hate tells them that those black should not have purchase houses in the first place (who did they think they were).

    If you can imagine that out of 38 million blacks that there was one of even a handful of black prime/government loan officers in the entire country, you start seeing why black just did not know, and it hurt other races including white, but to blame CRA (which it was not) was something the GOP was not going to argue about, because that was a Dem pet and Obama in code keep blame on blacks imo, as it was good to show Independent voters he had the tough love on his own people! BS is what it was!

  32. @ Johngault ,

    you said : re: assert aff defenses in first responsive pleading or they’re waived (as a matter of law). That’s true, but like just about everything, there may be an exception.


    Newly discovered evidence would do it..

  33. Even the government is taking advantage of the situation….$200.00 for a house, Really?

    I’d like to know where the bulk of the settlement money is…cause we certainly didn’t get it!

  34. RE: because KC feel they were all idiots

    RE: KC is the person asking why don’t you simply call the police!

    Now you are putting words into my mouth! I said no such thing!! I suggest you stop using KC in your posts…… if you catch my drift!

    I know dag gone well about the AGs charges and settlements for minority predatory lending. I also am very much aware of those who take advantage of the situations ….

    I recognize racism when I see it to … Good Grief!!

  35. Let me ask this question: Having spent a great many hours in courtrooms, to include bankruptcy court, I’d like to ask why blacks are so underrepresented? My overview of the people in court, was very few were of color.

    My concern is: people get in the streets of Trayvon and not over the plight of mortgage theft. Why is that? What is the ideology of people when they are being taken advantage of and sit silent?

    Where are the folks of color on this? We have a common problem and need to support each other, if what you claim is true, Charles. I clearly don’t get it. This government swindle affects every one of us! Where is the public outrage and boycotts?

  36. CKing I had to google the article as it would not pull up on the link, but this is Wells Fargo who is pure evil and I believe until the government threatens to put the CEO in jail they will not stop.

    Part of the reason I believe they feel free to act in this manner is because the Ginnie Mae pooling process cannot by law modified these loans. Ginnie Mae is complicit with these crimes.

    Wells Fargo signed the HAMP agreement as they took the TARP MONEY, but the Fed Gov needs to have these loans deposed of as they made a deal with the Devil when Washington Mutual Bank failed.

    I would bet these loans in Wa are former WaMu loans as the bank was the largest home loan originator, and as the loan started being serviced by Wells people assumed the loans were purchase when in fact they were not! Why would you not simply modify the loans?

  37. Wells Fargo: Washington Homeowner Breaks it Right on Down:

  38. We want to overlook who was in the Board Room approving these loan products, and who was in the bathroom cleaning up the toilets and emptying the trash. However we got these folks alleging to want to help and question is it about the money, but they forgot to ask themselves what is that they want.

    Several of these banks have $1 trillion in assets and have put out the story they wanted America to hear. In 2008 when the stats came out in the State Level Subprime Loan Characteristics (Jan 8), how was it possible not to see what was had happen in the lending arena, that people were being steered in 2005-2007. The FICO told the story once America can understand that government insured loans did not have a FICO requirement AT ALL!

  39. KC my wife’s ex-boss this month was murdered in a home invasion and she was 45yr old, shit in the back of the head by some boy in the neighborhood. Would you extend you budget not to live in these neighborhoods?

    KC is the person asking why don’t you simply call the police! I just don’t understand those people! Its called a bullet to the freaking head!

  40. KC let me break it down how these white corporation got so many blacks to refinance there homes, because you must understand that mostly black were refinancing and not purchasing homes.

    Black community were living in the 100-75-50yr old houses which were in need of repairs, plus they also had the hand down autos. So it was not hard to pitch for people to refinance to update their houses and vehicles and take the step they were feed what the successful part of this country in the 72.4% white were doing to fix the roofs, electrical, put a working kitchen or bathroom and buy so energy efficient appliances, windows or siding.

    You had families paying more in utilities in a 1,000sq ft house than families in a 6,000sq ft house. Black Pastor only could see the better neighborhoods you lived in, so how do you make your members feel good about their mostly unchanging situation was to think of the afterlife. It not that the guy was prejudice, but giving hope to the people that this was not the end and Heaven would provided the quality of living we hope for!

    Look at in black neighborhoods you got drive-bys and home invasions but Obama talking this live within you means, plus the house is falling down, and monies were being given out, so why would not families not at least try to improve their living condition the best way they did.

    If you look at the stats, black were not given Stated Loan and had to provide proof of income. It was that blacks are at the bottom of the food chain and are the last hired and first fired and that what happen when the economy turned bad. Black in 80% or more cases qualified for Prime or FHA loan were steered into subprime loans and charged more with these adjustable mortgages, and as most people who been foreclosed was because they lost a job as there are 17 million people not currently working than when Obama took office.

    Was their racism? Yes as Baltimore, Memphis, the State of Ill sued banks for racial discrimination and received settlements and now LA and Miami are suing for the same.

    So if pointing out the obvious and even more reason to get the money because your not true to the cause as you just feel that these stupid people that could fog a mirror, but you did not understand the dynamic of what minorities were going through, and that why we are 5yrs into this thing because KC feel they were all idiots but they should not have been represented as getting a loan was not free, but blacks were over charged for bad information!

  41. Amen Poppy! Amen!

  42. That’s if you consider being “successful” having more money than the next cat! Maybe we need to redefine that word “success” and really look at the quality of one’s life, by more than what he or she can buy access too?

  43. Everybody knows all you had to do was Fog a Mirror.
    The Mirror was Color Blind !

  44. Sounds like your pastor was racist. White people?
    Some of my best friends are. never mind! Not going there with you!

    Shame on you playing,….. Being black I believe …. card.

  45. If everyone had to be paid to do the right thing …. this Country would Stink! Oh wait … it already does

    They knew in 2002 (maybe before), but 2002 to my Personal Knowledge.

    I didn’t lose my house, I still have my feet firmly planted and plan to keep it that way.

  46. KS in 2005 I tried to make sure the all PEOPLE received free mortgage rates by not getting steered in a pilot program with our branches in Wal-Mart, however because I did not have monies I could not stop the effects of the crash, which would have been somewhat stop had they taken my patent pending idea.

    Being black I believe more blacks are not successful because it was preached to us this root of all evil stuff, while white enjoyed there lives making money. The Pastor would say those people in those big houses are not happy.

    So you you ask me about was it about money, I was what does it matter what reason I would want to retrieve this money for the taxpayer plus expose the corruption done on the homeowners. You attacked me saying I was not the first as if I been lying about when I brought these claims forward.

    It was Sept !, 2005 when I brought up the abuses in a meeting with Fannie as to what people were going through, as this started a pilot program for foreclosures to our bank that was seriously flawed.

    We got to work together to beat this thing, and if your reason is to only get your home back, I support that, but if your first and you reported this widespread abuse them you deserve to be compensated from the program you applied for, and I got no problem with that, and would have only hope a beat you to the punch.

    Even if someone beat me to the point it still proves me right, and give my individual case the stoplight to recover the amount of the house plus treble damage.

  47. Personal Knowledge, except I reported many things for other reasons, including but not limited to… saving the taxpayers more losses, saving homes for families wrongfully harmed by the lender/servicers, and protecting future buyers.
    I didn’t ask to be rewarded. “2009”

    I just ask you a simple yes or no question, why did you go and get your tutu all in a knot? I sympathize with you, but your frustration is misdirected.

  48. KC told me I was not the first to talk about lack of “Standing” with the Ginnie Mae MBS, however no one is still talking about this issue but me and its 2014, and I filed a claim in 2011.

    So to make this statement. who do you know or what have you read before Aug 2011 that brought this charge up?

    What I know is that all Ginnie Mae loan are placed into the system the exact same way, so you don’t have to hunt down the victims as they all were foreclosed under the same procedure. You got 800,000 Ginnie Mae pooled loan from 2009-2010 that by law could not be modified as the holder of the Note with out purchasing, means the interest rates could not be changed or the terms changed.

    The other holds true that Ginnie could not foreclose also. There is a clear date that recorded when the loan are placed into the MBS and given a certification its been underwritten to be accepted. Its a requirement that the Note are endorsed in blank and relinquished to Ginnie physically, which is done by Ginnie making the servicer the custodian of record.

    The Notes are never again able to be returned to the original lender that place the loan in the MBS, because there is no process under the law for a blank Note to be negotiable as there is a blank endorse that does not record ownership of Note ever again, but as its in the Ginnie MBS we know for a fact the Notes cannot be sold because they never where purchase, and Ginnie Mae is prohibited from originating, buying and selling a home mortgage loan at all!

  49. back to TN
    where did you want that issue to be
    justia? Judge Schlesinger is a criminal.

  50. john Gault
    what I found so far is the same case I cited Elliot v. Piersol about jurisdiction goes for judge losing their immunity when they rule against a nullity (ab INITIO JUDGMENT)

  51. john Gault The federal court removed my petition under Federal Question that the Federal Court has original jurisdiction of the money issue under the Constitution.

  52. from a case here somewhere (today):

    ” Thus, a federal court in Texas, hearing a case based on diversity (as opposed to a federal question), has to follow the laws of the applicable state in resolving a case before it.”

    I don’t know why they came up with “diversity jurisdiction” for fed courts. But where it exists, this says the fed court must still look to and follow the laws of the state they’re in when making their determinations when the dispute involves issues regulated by state law. “As opposed to a federal question” means the basis for resolution of the issue before the court is found in federal rules / laws (I guess). When banksters remove to fed court from state court, they do so almost always (on our cases) based on ‘complete diversity of citizenship’ (by states of residence or incorporation – all litigants hail from diff states) of the litigants involved, not because the issues are federal issues. With the poss exception of TILA and RESPA claims, mainly if not exclusively, our cases involve issues regulated by state law. Even our notes must be looked at generally by way of a particular state’s adaptation of the UCC (mostly that ends up being where the prop is located, but I think the law actually says a note is reg’d by the UCC in the state where it’s signed, which is why the location where a note is executed is always on a note). The banksters want fed court so they can, for one thing, rely on decisions out of other federal courts. I think.
    There are other reasons which are surely adverse to our interests, but I’ve yet to be able to define them. anyone?
    lay opinions for sure – ask a lawyer

    “Federal courts hear cases involving

    the constitutionality of a law;
    cases involving the laws and treaties of the U.S.;
    ambassadors and public ministers;
    disputes between two or more states;
    admiralty law; and
    bankruptcy cases.

    Before a federal court can hear a case, or “exercise its jurisdiction,” certain conditions must be met. First, under the Constitution, federal courts exercise only “judicial” powers. This means that federal judges may interpret the law only through the resolution of actual legal disputes, referred to in Article III of the Constitution as “Cases or Controversies.” A court cannot attempt to correct a problem on its own initiative, or to answer a hypothetical legal question.

    Second, assuming there is an actual case or controversy, the plaintiff in a federal lawsuit also must have legal “standing” to ask the court for a decision. That means the plaintiff must have been aggrieved, or legally harmed in some way, by the defendant.”

    Read more here (it’s pretty much easy reading):


  53. marilyn, I can’t really answer that. Seems like it would, but it may be limited to a particular court (ruling the same one day and the next). But it’s a good question. since any SC decision should be precedent. You might try a search (y or g) for “U.S. Supreme Court and stare decisis”. Please let us know what if anything you find.

  54. Neil was talking the other day (and Dan E) here about thepotential lack of poss of the note by the broker whose name is on it. He cited Jacobitz v Thomsen. Here’s another case.

    Borgonovo v. Henderson
    182 Cal. App. 2d 220

    [Civ. No. 18620. First Dist., Div. One. June 28, 1960.]

    MARIO BORGONOVO et al., Appellants, v. F. W. HENDERSON et al., Defendants; PACIFIC COMMERCIAL BUILDERS (a Corporation) et al., Respondents.

    “Appellants (the would-have-been-borrowers – sic) appeal from a judgment which declares that respondent Pacific Commercial Builders is a holder in due course of their promissory note and that (as such – sic) appellants have no right of setoff or recoupment against the note. We have concluded, however, that, since appellants deposited the note in escrow upon instructions not to negotiate* it until the payee complied with a condition precedent, and since the condition was not met, the payee’s assignment of the note to respondent Pacific Commercial Builders conveyed no interest, and it did not become a holder in due course because of failure of delivery of the note.”**

    * negotiate – to give possession to Henderson
    ** the failure of delivery was from Borgonovo to the named payee,
    Henderson, not failure of del between Henderson & Pacific

    I was concerned that the failure of possession by a broker, say, could be overcome by hidc status. Apparently not, at least by this case, Jacobitz (which I haven’t read), and likely many others. .

    The decision is here:


    I didn’t see if it’s been overturned by another case. Seeing if that’s been done with a case, it’s called sheparding or shepardizing.

    “Shepardizing not only helps check if the authorities in the case are still good but also provides a way to locate other references relevant to your research. Statutes, constitutions and ordinances can all be shepardized with success. ” The banksters and their attorneys all have the utilities necessary to do this and have grunts to do it for them.

  55. john galt
    Would you call a US SUPREME COURT DECISION

  56. Call it predestine? But but being from Nebraska and having this problem with MERS, in the state were MERS was never registered to do business in the state (statute 21-20,168), MERS attempted to register after I complained to the state in Dec 2010 but did not finish the process, but the foreclosure mill they were use to did in Dec 2010 register to do business in the state after the fact.

    What NE did in Jul 2008 was to enact Foreclosure Protection Act, and as part of the act is statute 76-2710 which directly talks to MERS about not being able to assign the title when not having a financial interest.

    So NE lost as it wanted MERS to register as a “mortgage bank) but MERS argued the they were not a “mortgage bank” to the NE Supreme Court and the court argue.

    Now NE does not want to spent more money to sue MERS but right now, but they don’t have too because the settlement are including the states, they been waiting on decisions out of other states to work for them. MERS and NE knows the battle they were in, and MERS has trapped itself, but if NE imo collects a one time settlement from MERS, then all the new revelations may not pay, but as long as NE now ride the coattails of the other entities it pure profit for the state, without fix having to fix a single bad file/document filed in the court system.
    Have you notice Neil does not read these post? Because if he had he would have learned sooner what he discovered in the last month. I look at my first post 1 1/2 yr ago, and I spelled out this securities issue.

  57. http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/some-texas-affirmative-defenses-descri-69283/

    this is a list of some aff defenses with explanations (from tx)

  58. Cynthia A. Mech, in case #07-16226 NV BK (and also went to DC) on
    May 12, 2008,


    swore she was a MERS’ officer and stated this (in this possibly judicially noticeable affidavit):

    “MERS was created by the mortgage banking industry to streamline the mortgage TRANSFER process by using ELECTRONIC COMMERCE to ELIMINATE PAPER. MERS is an innovative process that simplifies the way mortgage OWNERSHIP ….(is – sic) SOLD and tracked.”
    Well, dang, as an officer of MERS, I guess she should know what they do, right? ‘Electronically transfer and eliminate paper’. She also swore MERS was the holder of the note, which is a legal conclusion she was no doubt unqualified to make. And compare to what MERS swore about the same time in MERS v Nebraska Dept of Banking and Finance: MERS had not a thing, nothing, nada to do with notes – ever. (MERS was fighting tooth and nail to avoid licensing in NB.)

    What is true is that MERS, just like the rest of these yeahoos, is not a hidc and never could be unless they met the statutory provisions for a hidc. How did they claim holder status: Ms Mech, on info and belief, was an employee of the alleged servicer (don’t remember for sure). As also an officer of MERS, she claimed that her status with MERS and her alleged possession made MERS the holder of a note endorsed in blank. Under that ‘reasoning’, why wasn’t the holder her employer, at whose desk she sat? Under that reasoning, any number of jerkies can claim possession….joe is holder, no, joe’s agent of sam, no tom is custodian for joe…… That’s obviously the problem with blank endorsements and it’s why the threshold for and what invokes jurisdiction is injury. The truth is, neither the servicer nor MERS was the holder of the note, at least neither was the rpii who might suffer the injury for non-payment (unless they bought the note – not), if anyone sustained an injury other than by contract to do so (insurance, guar, etc).
    Notes say they may be enforced by someone who takes them by TRANSFER (see UCC def). There’s been no transfer to a guy who just gets his hands on a note and there sure as heck is no transfer of a paper note ‘transferred’ electronically (because it wasn’t created electronically).
    lay opinions as always

  59. KC I am going to court because I don’t want the money? Your honor I only want to be right, but I don’t want a judgement where it involves money, and if you award me more than a penny I will not take it, because its about the principal? So why not just write the bank and tell them how you feel that they wronged you and be done with it, because your not about money!

    I am about getting what I consider mind, and if that offend you, there are many out there that don’t think you deserve a single red cent because you were behind on your payment, and christine think you want a free house!

  60. Iwantmynpv, interesting mo. Like the post , basically you ask the fundamentals. What are we why are we here and where are we going. Made me smile thank you for clarification.

  61. I haven’t read any of attorney Butler’s cases to know how it lines up with others’ “show me the note” caption for his m.o. But, I do know in this case, the h.o. wanted “show me the note” for forensic testing and, gee, the case settled:


  62. re: assert aff defenses in first responsive pleading or they’re waived (as a matter of law). That’s true, but like just about everything, there may be an exception. Prob not, but might be. If so, people who didn’t assert them could yet (even tho if so, it would require a dang good reason / excuse, I would think). Jan, you around? Got any info?

  63. There is a principle of law called “stare decisis”. It basically says that when a court rules one way one day, it must rule the same another. Looks like a dbl edged sword, except …when the first ruling was made which abandoned a prior state holding, that ruling cant be relied on subsequently. The only way I know of (read think) that this isn’t true is if that court intended and said it was overturning the original ruling / case.or if that case had been patently overturned by a subsequent decision out of a higher court. This – stare decisis – should be ‘automatic’, but it likely won’t be. The opponent of that ruling and its prodigy will need to point this out.
    There is no restriction on arguing the merits (or more specifically, the lack thereof) of a prior case being relied on by your opponent, as in, that decision was wrong because……

    These are strictly lay opinions. Ask a lawyer who knows “S” from shortcakes.
    I know I’ve said this five times, but I’ll say it again: if one is the defendant, one might request a more definitive stmt regarding the claim: is the bankster claiming as a holder or a holder in due course?
    What we want is evidence of the hidc status (or to out that the bankster isn’t because he can’t meet the at least somewhat dispositive prerequisites of being a hidc). We have a right, an absoute right, to know under color of what the bankster is asserting its claim and to thus know and plan our response to the complaint. Take 10 (but only part of the hidc rule):

    “2) the holder took the instrument (i) for value, (ii) in good faith, (iii) without notice that the instrument is overdue or has been dishonored or that there is an uncured default with respect to payment of another instrument issued as part of the same series,* (iv) without notice that the instrument contains an unauthorized signature or has been altered, (v) without notice of any claim to the instrument described in Section 3-306, and (vi) without notice that any party has a defense or claim in recoupment described in Section 3-305(a).”

    I say the current assignment of the note and dot to a trust (or anyone) after the borrower’s default is prima facie evidence** the current yeahoo is not a hidc and subject to all affirmative defenses, including, but not limited to:

    unclean hands
    prior payment / accord and satisfaction
    fraud / fraud in the inducement (alleged with specificity)
    failure to join an indispensable party (rpii)
    no legally cognizable injury
    unconscionable agreements or provisions*
    failure of condition precedent
    third party guarantee / co-obligor / new obligor / novation
    defendant was unrepresented when entering agreement
    failure of consideration (this one’s for carrie!)
    failure to mitigate

    Affirmative must be asserted in the ‘first responsive pleading’ or they are waived. Can one preserve them pending the more definitive answer? I don’t know.

    Here is a sample answer with aff defenses from an attorney:


    *It’s on the list to find out just what that means – entirely.

    **strategy wise, might be best to not allege the current assgt is prima facie evid the current claimant is not a hidc – save that for use when he squawks about answering the req for more definitive stmt re: holder v hidc / capacity.
    These are strictly lay opinions. Ask a lawyer who knows “S” from shortcakes – one who practices business law, say. Contracts, any contracts, are generally subject to affirmative defenses, even if they vary somewhat from promissory note defenses. Attorneys who practice business law are going to understand aff defenses, being well-versed in asserting them.

  64. KC it all about money because the houses are resold and you need money to replace what been stolen. Attorneys are looking for monies to represent you!!!! Investors are seeking monies for the damages they received and the reason rewards are given is because monies are to be recovered. If nit me in 2011 was the first which I believe was the first information these agencies received then someone else will get that reward!

    I was a victim of these crimes and I turned that event into a fact finding event, and it was when I first talked to Bill Hultman one of the founders of MERS on the phone in Aug 2010 that I knew a fraud was taking place! Telling the OCC in OCT 2010 about the fact that MERS was creating fraudulent assignment is what was mention in the Szymoniak v. Ace. Szymoniak which it look as if she stole her information from her client and filed it under her name, received $18 million, because it was about money!

  65. KC I first reported to the SEC a claim back on Aug 2011 about the Ginnie Mae securities program and if not me then somebody else early but I doubt it, because no one was talking about it before me.

    Still people are not aware of it, and is it about money? The foreclosed illegally upon my family, so that piece of knowledge was “Priceless” and it lead me on this course. But does it matter that in 2005 I tried to help the Military families and other folk to get FHA or VA loan they were being denied? Writing Warren Buffett of the problem in Jun 2005.

    So the whistle-blower program come with it the fact you may be killed because you exposing a trillion dollar ponzi, as I walk around with my weapon because I felt in danger. So if it not about money for us all we would not be arguing with the banks!

    KC if you not paid your payment and you want to stay in your house, is not about the MONEY? Yes it about the money in every single case, and what I done is informed the Federal Government how to recover $24 billion, should I not expect a recovery fee? They created a whistle-blower program that awards monies for information that leads to the recovery of funds stolen from the taxpayer! So it about MONEY, and its about people getting back their homes!

  66. I’m reading the case (CA AG v (alleged) bad actors) at the A man’s link and what to my wonderous eyes should appear: Count III –
    PERJURY BY DECLARATION – I like it!! When a bankster submits a declaration from a person with no knowledge of what he speaks and represents that he does, that in and of itself is perjurous imo, as is any lies told in the dec, of course. BS declarations are right up there with fraud and Iqbal as weapons of mass destruction, which is why I have pretty much begged NG to get into the stinking rules of evidence: impeaching the hearsay affidavit or declaration.

  67. 28 U.S. Code § 1652 – State laws as rules of decision

    “The laws of the several states, except where the Constitution or treaties of the United States or Acts of Congress otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in civil actions in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply.”
    * *
    “Historical Revision Notes

    Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 725 (R.S. § 721).
    “Civil actions” was substituted for “trials at common law” to clarify the meaning of the Rules of Decision Act in the light of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Such Act has been held to apply to suits in equity.
    Changes were made in phraseology.”

    Yeah, I’m stalling. Have some work to do I don’t want to do. But this and Erie are informative – and helpful if cases are found which cite Erie for a better understanding.

  68. modifications don’r make sense to me.You would only be reaffirming an ultra vire contract that the bank would reword to their benefit.

  69. re: the Erie Doctrine (e.tolle)

    “The Erie case involved a fundamental question of federalism and the jurisdiction of federal courts in the United States. In 1789, the Congress passed a law still in effect today called the Rules of Decision Act (28 U.S.C. § 1652), which states that the laws of a state furnish the rules of decision for a federal court sitting in that state. Thus, a federal court in Texas, hearing a case based on diversity (as opposed to a federal question), has to follow the laws of the applicable state in resolving a case before it.”


    “The case overturned Swift v. Tyson, which allowed federal judges sitting in a state to ignore the common law local decisions of state courts in the same state, in cases based on diversity jurisdiction.”

  70. That is right that is why Tnharry went balistic when I mention the word recuse the judges. Produce the note etc…..

    They are intimidated first the Judges and then the Judges intimidate the Lawyers etc……


  71. Christine, you know me, right? Tolle is exactly correct with his analysis of Minnesota and the states’ actions against Butler. It seems that the closer we get to truth, the harder the judges work to deride and discredit the attorneys and homeowners who ARE FIGHTING ON THE RIGHT ISSUES. Butler did nothing wrong but press his point in front of multiple justices trying to get them to see the wrongs that have been committed by the Minnesota assembly in their efforts to protect the banks. They knew exactly what they were doing, and so far succeeded in allowing anybody to get foreclosure on a copy of a note. Endorsed or not, recorded mortgage or not, PETE or not, doesn’t matter. And the actions against Bill Butler are intended to intimidate ANY LAWYER who comes forward fighting on behalf of homeowners.

  72. RE: ” Although I do expect to be paid for the discovery!”

    Is that why you are in this Charles, the money?

    I hate to be the one to burst your bubble.. but you were hardly the 1st to discover or report. Don’t hold your Breath.

    I mean that in a nice way.

  73. “I’ve often wondered what would push a black woman from NC to adopt a screen name of “New England blonde” and swear up and down that she is from RI. The reason in fact is very obvious: the poor thing has never come to grips with her own identity and her origins. Hence the nastiness. Poor thing”

    Be very careful christine…and yes, that is a caution. Where you come from “blacks” perhaps don’t have blonde hair, but of course that would not be me. If I were black, I wouldn’t be ashamed to tout that fact. You are bordering on racist comments.

    It would be good if you supplied your license number to practice here, so the rest of us can check your credentials to service others’ in a legal capacity.

    There is no one here, except you, who has not felt the wrath of your nastiness and scathing judgments. Why anyone here thinks you are so valuable, your venom and abuse is accepted or warranted I’ll never know.

    It is also surprising and suspect that Neil allows his clients and bloggers to be subjected to your behavior. In my opinion, having success in parts of this conversion by the banks, you are not well informed and do not grasp the strategic elements, procedures and case law necessary to succeed in this venue. All while cutting and pasting easily gathered articles, making derogatory comments about the country that has given you the right to “defame” it continually.

    Check your sources of information…and learn how to interpret information and FACTS, before regurgitating them, as truths. You only embarrass yourself!

  74. Let me say again that we need to fight this thing on what being settled on right now and that on the securities aspect of them not having liens nor owning the debt. As I already knew Ginnie Mae has a problem with separation of debt & lien, but with this purchase by Fannie of the Citi tells me they like Ginnie took signed endorsed Notes without paying a red cent for the loans.

    If more people complained that its this issue that going to get brought up, it make them deal with it now instead of the bank thinking that they are done. What we see winning in court lately is “No Standing” and if was supposed to be dealt with in the Jan 2012 IFR settlement.

    These guys have no leg to stand on because they cannot present Note that they are listed on or a single receipt of purchase! I been writing and writing to let these agencies know I am still wanting to have my whistle-blower claim address.

    Maybe it was the day when the head of SEC legal called me with 4 other attorneys in attendant on the conference call, was not some random response to for a guy submitting that Ginnie Mae was running a Ponzi scheme as they did not have any underlying collateral at all for a $1.1 trillion securities program. What I am reporting helps millions and not just one person in me. Although I do expect to be paid for the discovery!

    I am 100% sure that these loan Notes are invalid as they been separated from the debts, and it not possible also to have valid titles!

  75. Payback by James Brown.



  76. RE: ” Property rights and interests ARE determined by state law.”

    That’s the smartest thing I’ve heard all day. Thank You JG.

  77. e tolle – Iqbal has been used to kill thousands if not millions of homeowners’ cases – it’s their main weapon (besides fraud). it’s been very effective – was hard to fight. Thanks for the perspective. Imo anyone fighting or thinking about it should cut and paste your info and get the cases referenced. Property rights and interests ARE determined by state law.

  78. christine I get it that when a couple that looking down the barrel of the shotgun of foreclosure and your defending them, you take the road to modify but as E. Tolle is saying that it with a Non-Financial Interest party.

    Here is a group of thugs that have stolen your TV, and are offering to sell it back to you for a month amount. How are we not checking the chain of title, as if these loans are others types of loans that are not Fannie, Freddie purchased loans or FHA or VA and are not held under the conditions of a HAMP!

    Modifications are not some automatic procedure that a valid lender has to do, so as you are negotiating to stop a foreclosure, then your only hope is to ignore valid ownership of debt and simple agree a new financial agreement with a different party. However all that being done is not defending people who been victims, but people who simply got behind with no real grievances against the banks and are using the current state of the crisis to their advantage.

    Now as I say that, I do put full blame on the banks for creating this crisis, and they should be responsible for the damage they caused. So in a case where there is no separation of Note & Debt, or Note & Title. what are you asking the judge for? I not understand what the damages one is claiming as if a bank does not have the right to foreclose when payment not made?

    I do get it now I think that what we are talking about in after the fact of foreclosing that maybe christine is only forcing modifications, however I feel once the spotlight off that these mod are going to be dealt with in whatever terms the banks demand, especially since they denied millions of a mod obligated by an agreement with the Fed Gov, and should be the other reason christine’s clients are in court!

  79. Man you’re really lowering your own bar today Christine.

    Why not stay on point? I didn’t prescribe violence whatsoever in my post. What I did state is that the problems here will never be resolved as long as we allow this criminality to proceed unchecked. If in fact you want to discuss violence, we’d need to get into what the banks are doing on a minute by minute basis, not only to foreclosure victims but the world at large through rate fixing, money laundering, HFT, commodities, frontrunning, etc. But let’s stay on point.

    Who are you accusing of playing dumb? Me? Butler? I don’t understand your stance here. If you think Bill Butler is playing dumb, you’re not seeing the real picture here. Butler, IMHO, is a hero for standing up and shouting that the emperor has no clothes, or pointing out the Potemkin villages, or whatever metaphor you want to place on it. Playing dumb is one who turns a blind eye to the criminality so long as she gets her piece of the pie. Modifying your void mortgage with the criminal enterprise pretending to have a valid say is not only dumb, it’s aiding and abetting further crimes against your friends and neighbors. But I guess you’re OK with that stance as long as you got yours. Screw everyone else.

    Once again it’s obvious that you’ve never read Bulter’s cases. It’s the judges who deem them to be “show the note” cases, a tag not situated in reality whatsoever. As you are all too aware, laws vary from state to state, and in my original post I showed the 150 year Minnesota case law cites that show how and why quiet title defense is a viable approach, that is, unless the federal judges all decide to nip any and all attempts at endangering their banks in the bud.

    Next, you resort to your standard fall back material when cornered into an indefensible argument i.e. everybody watching TV, voting, etc. You make a really lame showing of your stance when you lump Bill Butler in with awaiting the regulators. He’s doing everything but awaiting aid. And here’s a news flash Christine, many if not presently most on Living Lies frequent this site to stay up on the latest arguments, not to hear you trash talk those who haven’t followed your path.

    Butler is still licensed to practice before all Minnesota State Courts, the United States Supreme Court, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Tax Court, and I fully expect to see him before the Supreme Court before all is said and done. We’ll see how this shakes out. The fact that 7 of 7 of the properties that were involved in only one of the cases where Butler was sanctioned $50K are without a doubt void, should present some problems for a Supreme Court who muddied the waters and created mayhem with the lunacy called Jackson v. MERS, where they refused to answer the very clear question posed to them, choosing to go down an indecipherable and illogical rabbit hole that threatens generations to come if not countered. They’ll finally be forced to show how they can justify contradicting the U.S. Supreme Court’s long standing Carpenter v. Longan decision, instead opting for a ruling that allows anyone looking even somewhat like a banker the go ahead at foreclosing on anyone in their sights, even non-judicially.

    As to Butler’s so-called victory in the aforementioned Aurora case, he’s already threatened that if he doesn’t gain traction going forward with that ruling, which was all about unrecorded assignments and robosigning, he’s taking it all the way. I look forward to him exposing the infrastructure attempting to uphold this façade in the courts. There’s no way these rulings can continue to be exposed to the light of day without the truth finally shining through.

  80. I’ve often wondered what would push a black woman from NC to adopt a screen name of “New England blonde” and swear up and down that she is from RI. The reason in fact is very obvious: the poor thing has never come to grips with her own identity and her origins. Hence the nastiness. Poor thing.

  81. And Yes, E.ToLLe, I believe that what Butler did was commit an enormous breach of ethics on the part of an attorney: it is one thing to go on a crusade about something definitely wrong, such as the banks’ behavior. It is another to use others’ life as a shield. The reason i respect Joe Bannister,. Sherry Jackson Peel and others like them is that they fight their battles on their own, without dragging other down with them.

    Yes, I agree with Mandelman. There is such thing as a fiduciary and professional duty owed by attorneys to their clients.


    Attorney Argues “Produce the Note” and Makes a Bad Situation Worse for Homeowners Facing Foreclosure

    Now, those that trusted him will find themselves responsible for paying the defendant’s legal fees… can you even imagine what that bill will look like? I don’t know how much the bills come to for lawyers to defend GMAC/Ally, MERS, U.S. Bank, Deutsche Bank, Bank of New York Mellon, et al, but let’s just say that I’ll be shocked if it doesn’t total six figures, which would mean bills of thousands of dollars per homeowner.

    What happened here is not an example of homeowners fighting to keep their homes… it’s not an example of foreclosure defense at all. It’s only an example of how what’s happening on the homeowner’s side of this fight, can be every bit as destructive as what the other side has done and been willing to do. It makes homeowners all across America at risk of losing their homes look bad… if not downright sad and even ridiculous. And by doing so, it makes the banks look good, like the reasonable parties.

    Mr. Butler has managed to accomplish something with this case that I hadn’t thought possible… he has made the most horrible situation this country has seen since the 1930s… that much worse.

  82. “I don’t really believe that violence will resolve anything”:

    Neither does berating and abusive commentary, continually diminishing pain and suffering, that goes along with the clarity to fight…Then posting mis-information or misunderstood concepts and case details, with a silver bullet mentality…there is no such thing.

  83. “Christine, this is where you and I are worlds apart.” True: it all depends what we want to see accomplished.

    I don’t really believe that violence will resolve anything: I’ve seen what it does too often and I’ve seen what the opposite accomplishes. I don’t believe that playing stupid makes one iota of difference on the contrary and I don’t believe that the Bultlers of this world are achieving any result. I can’t see how being suspended or disbarred can help homeowners in any way. And he took down with him 30 people who trusted him.

    What I do believe is that the time to play dumb has long gone, people had 7 years to stop feeding the bank-and-corruption problem but still haven’t and the world appears split between the doers and the talkers. Mandelman, John Wright, Weidner, Stopa, etc. are the doers. Not the majority. And this country keeps listening to TV, congress and the administration and waiting for regulators to come and fix the problem while coming to blogs such as this one, not so that they could exchange practical information, mind you, but to pour out their emotions and analyze the MERS problem ad nauseam. And wehen things don’t turn out the way they’d like, they still come back to commiserate with each other while doing… just about nothing!

    Not a pretty picture.

  84. And the path goes back to Produce the Note. How does Neil Garfield negotiate a loan modification with an entity that is not authorized to do a loan modification? What the F word. What are we all on Acid?


  85. I would add also court audit.



  86. @Christine, this is yet another prime example where someone makes a statement, you run off for 20 minutes getting the Google/Cliff notes education on the matter, and then run back into the room to educate all the little folk. You no not of what you speak.

    The Butler appellate decision wasn’t very bad as you state…..did you read it? Are you familiar with the fact set? I am. I know several of the Plaintiffs. It’s Murphy v. Aurora Loan Services, and I’d suggest you bone up on the facts of the case before you regale us with your wisdom. Some background:

    Plaintiffs (borrowers) sued multiple banks and MERS in a quiet title action. Minnesota statute 559.01 states:


    Any person in possession of real property personally or through the person’s tenant, or any other person having or claiming title to vacant or unoccupied real property, may bring an action against another who claims an estate or interest therein, or a lien thereon, adverse to the person bringing the action, for the purpose of determining such adverse claim and the rights of the parties, respectively.

    This is chiseled in MN law, not the “show me the note” argument that every single one of these sanctioning fed judges claimed. Butler never once asked to see the note, from day one he’s argued well established case law:

    The object of this statute is to force one claiming an adverse claim or lien to establish or abandon his claim; that with respect to the claim of the defendant the position of the parties is the reverse of that occupied by the parties to an ordinary action; that the defendant becomes practically plaintiff; and takes the affirmative in pleading and proof, while the plaintiff becomes practically the defendant, and defends against the claim. Alt v. Groff, 65 Minn.191, 192, 68 N.W. 9, 10 (1896).

    The only facts necessary to set up a claim under the statute are possession by the plaintiff and a claim adverse to him by the defendant. Steele v. Fish, 2 Minn. 153 (1858).

    All the plaintiff needs to show is possession; the burden is then on the defendant to prove the validity of his claim. Walton v. Perkins, 28 Minn. 413 (1881).

    As Butler has written:

    “….the Federal Judicial Center, a government entity, in March of 2011, performed an analysis of federal court behavior before and after a case called Ashcroft v. Iqbal. The report analyzes how Iqbal has affected federal judges’ employment of a powerful docket-clearing federal procedural rule, Rule 12(b)(6), both before and after the Iqbal decision.

    At page 14 of the report, the FJC found that before Iqbal, in 2006, federal courts dismissed an already very high 47 percent of all “financial instrument” (e.g., promissory note) claims. But after Iqbal, and after the October 2008 bailouts that operated as a back-door satisfaction of $16 trillion of consumer “financial instruments,” the federal courts have dismissed an astonishing 91.2 percent of all financial instruments claims.”

    Christine, this is where you and I are worlds apart. You believe in playing within their system, seeking a middle ground, looking for a modification through dotted I’s and crossed T’s that works for both sides along the lines of Martin Andleman. I don’t. I side with Butler’s camp where we call bullshit as loud as we can, exclaiming that 62 million mortgages are toast, and not worth the paper they’re written on. And screw MERS while we’re at it. No one agreed to their bullshit. And to take it s step further, IMO, there’s absolutely no way to rectify these facts short of taking each and every borrower’s mortgage apart and analyzing who-what-where-when-and-how the criminality transpired. Too much workload? Let the banks pay for each and every examination. It’s the least that they can do short of what they’re doing now….making a mockery of justice and what’s left of our government.

    In sum, and I know you love to tout procedure, I believe (and once again I quote Butler) “what the federal judges in Minnesota are doing is employing Iqbal and Rule 12 to summarily dismiss Minnesota plaintiffs’ quiet title claims without any due process and without applying 150 years of Minnesota law squarely placing the burden of proof on the Bailout Banks. It is a violation of the Erie Doctrine for federal courts to apply federal procedural rules in a manner that denies state substantive law rights. Rule 12 is a federal procedural rule. The burden of proof is a state substantive law right.”

    Having never read your individual case, I have no idea what approach you took, but I’m well aware of your philosophy on these matters. However, this crime spree is so big, and joined with the complicity of not only all of the financial institutions but our government as well, that it seems a given that millions of borrowers should not be asked to defend themselves against what we all know to be a totally fraudulent system. Think Charles Reed. Think me, when the MN Department of Commerce wholeheartedly agreed with me when I showed them that at least several million mortgages written in MN to be illegal. Yet they chose not to lift a finger to prosecute these banks, no doubt fearing toppling the fraudulent system they’ve worked so hard to implement. Instead, they look the other way and allow the SOL to run out.

    I’m pretty sure your response will be along the lines of, “How’s that working out for you?” I’ll pre-answer by saying that unless we defeat this enemy that is dead-set on taking everything with a mortgage and even some without, we are set to be in debt peonage for generations to come. It’s no longer about winning your individual case, as in I GOT MINE! It’s about throwing off these chains before we forget we’re wearing them.

  87. Oh yeah, I almost forgot… “The check is not in the mail”.

  88. Obviously, I need to take a moment from this site once again. DIVERSION< DIVERSION < DIVERSION.

    Are we that simple? We as a a people always lose because we are easily distracted. They keep us fighting, and setting upon one another with a piker mentality, and we readily take chum floating on the surface of an ocean of substance.

    We have been reduced to fighting about the meaningless. Never forget this you fucking idiots…

    People of all religions fought and died to save the Jews!

    People of all races fought and died to end slavery!

    Men and women stood together to instill Woman Rights in this County!

    Many heterosexuals fought to allow homosexuals their constitutional rights.

    It goes on and on…..

    People of all nationality made these united states great, and although each group was shit on in their early years or arrival – they have overcome!

    Spanish – English debate is nonsense. Our children should be speaking 5 languages in preparation of global competition.

    Democrat and Republican politicians don't truly vote your issues as they should – they both tow the party line to secure their own self-centered ideals, while ensuring a job in the future, but they keep us divided as a voting-people with two simple meaningless words.

    If we, the common folk, allow them to continue to divide us into these multiple sub-groups – we will lose it all. It is much easier to put-down an intellectual awakening of the people if we are divided. They will simply set us upon one another as competing factions for a couple of morsels of self worth, and some mundane feeling of "being right".

    I see recent posts about this pledge of allegiance bullshit. Pledge allegiance to a flag? Are you really pledging allegiance to your fellow country-men and women when you slap your right hand over your heart and face a piece of cloth fluttering in the wind?

    What actions do we take as individuals immediately after reciting the rah-rah patriotic bullshit. We go back to our self-centered capitalist agenda with a focus on "self". Don't just recite the words as you have been instructed your whole life. Write them down, and read the Pledge aloud!! You will that you never really act upon the pledge – it just makes you feel good inside for a few moments – nothing more than an emotional orgasm of sort.

    Who are we? What have we become? How do we make the changes? Focusing on those 3 common themes, with honesty and integrity – will set us all free, and we will all be enlightened.

    The history books are part of the programming we force on our children because we are too lazy to investigate and give them the real facts; such as,

    Christopher Columbus did not discover America!

    The Native Americans were not savages!

    Thanksgiving is a religious holiday, not a national holiday.

    The Boston Tea party had nothing to do with tea!

    The civil war was not about ending slavery!

    The creation of the Federal Reserve Corp. had nothing to do with ending bank panics!

    The Great Depression was orchestrated to consolidate assets and to remove the US to a fractional gold standard, which started our indebtedness to private banks!

    The dollar was worth a dollar in the year 1905!

    The dollar reserve is coming to an end!

    and yes folks…

    Kennedy was killed for introducing the silver standard under executive orders, there are other intelligent life forms in the universe and finally… Bill Clinton caught a blowjob from Monica Lewinsky.

    In the end, it seems we are all right about the wrong thing!


  89. charles: and stuff like this, too:

    “Fannie just paid Citi $10.3 billion for 63,000 loan talking about servicing rights.”

  90. charles!! When you reference some material, would you puhleeze link it???? thanks

  91. shelley – where are you contributing these days? I’d like to catch up on what you’re up to; I think you look at stuff I don’t.

  92. This topic had over a 100 comments, now it has around 50. I think there was a lot of back and forth that maybe went off topic, but I posted a comment that I feel was well researched and it too disappeared.

  93. Subpoena the phone records from all calls of client with bank from the bank (they have to keep these for years) – as well as every single note entry and internal email request copy from “investor” of their denial or instructions – it is all there – stop this mediation non-sense – it is just another diversion to keep these cases off of public record

  94. Everything is documented from the date entry that locked the loan to confession letter by non other than Wells Fargo. However I see why attorney are not getting it because we want federal court for treble damage, and the attorneys are stuck in state court land.

    What I am talking about are what most loans in this country are, and that Fannie, Freddie, FHA and VA loans and most are going to be securitized and as its turning out none are titled correctly.

    Did any of you Attorneys read Szymoniak v. Ace? How about all the current securities settlement and the up coming $50 billion deal? It these loans have a defect in underwriting as they are putting out, then how was those loan not defected for the borrowers?

    So the lender are being made to buy back these loans, but how are they buying back something the never purchase in the first place. You know they did not buy them because they buying them now, as Fannie just paid Citi $10.3 billion for 63,000 loan talking about servicing rights.

    Who is on title at the land recording office and who is in possession of the Note. Next is there an endorsement? If there is an blank endorsement without an assignment dated the date on a sale, that Note is forever separated from the debt and if the loan already foreclosed the damage is done as that Note is no longer valid, because its been separated from the debt if its been placed into one of these GSE, by way of relinquishing the Note with a blank endorsement without exchange of monies.

    The differences we are having here are with people who may not even realized that the loan was securitized, and are working with a party that got no skin in the game, but are in court claiming the want your house, but your attorney telling the judge we don’t expect the house for free, but the homeowner was paying on time for 10yrs until all these securities collapsed because of the bad loan the there an admitted underwriting problem.

    OK I don’t write well at all, but I not allowing the non financially interested party tell some judge I want something for free when they not got a nickel in this dime!

  95. KC,

    It’s not a “pick and choose” what fits you. It’s a process that encompasses 1 to 6.


    Seeking group therapy here won’t help you. What’s left of the group? Take action or move on.

  96. This is what they did originally to me in 2009. It is part of their game to decieve you. Nothing has changed in five years. Why should it the banks pay nothing for all the harm and no one goes to jail unless it is a little guy or gal or homeowner.

  97. All I can add to this is, all the information has been great and hopefully helpful to all. I paid attention. I had an attorney and Sun Trust did finally do what they said they would. got a good modification and a great rate. I would have hope more for the principal reduction part, but in the end, my payment went down $800, which was the point of the whole thing and works for me. The side note to this is they called and settled the 2nd for 35% of the balance, if I paid 3 payments or 1, I just paid it and got rid of the 2nd with little impact to my credit. So results do happen, but you have to stay focused.

  98. RE: ‘Find out if they recorded what they ought to have” .Prrfect.

    “Find out what they hijacked” ?

  99. Charles,

    Free house is not my argument and has never been.

    My argument all along has always been: know and follow the rules if you want to play banks’ game and get a crack at winning. If there are no rules, or until you know what they are, document, document, document. If you don’t know how, get everything in writing. If banks play their game by phone, create the written document from every communication.

    I don’t get into Ginnie, Fannie, MERS or WF and I don’t get into GSE securities. I don’t get into securitization as a whole and PSAs. Period. I’m proactive and practical: there is a right way and a wrong way to play the game. Learn the rules. That’s all I will contribute: so far, my way works for me. Works for every single solid defense attorney nationwide too. And by “solid” I mean: with proven track records.

    1) Don’t wait until you can’t pay your mortgage to investigate;
    2) Find out, just for the hell of it, who your players are;
    3) Find out if they recorded what they ought to have;
    4) Create a timeline from the day you first closed or the day your refinanced and list everything that has happened since: transfers, NODs, door hangers, letters, everything;
    5) Keep everything. Make written records of every phone call, meeting, everything. Put in your timeline;
    6) Start looking for where your money went.

    Oh… And I’m definitely not into theorizing and splitting hairs until the cows come home, blaming banks, government, regulators or what not: I stopped feeding them long ago. For me, they are a nuisance.

    I guess we are too far apart to communicate.

    Life is too short

  100. JG, hence the cash out loans …

  101. “The following shall not be treated as a refinancing……

    (4) A change in the payment schedule or a change in collateral requirements as a result of the consumer’s default or delinquency, unless the rate is increased, or the new amount financed exceeds the unpaid balance plus earned finance charge and premiums for continuation of insurance of the types described in § 1026.4(d).”

    Part of 12 CFR 1026.20 – Subsequent disclosure requirements.


    A borrower has no way to know if the ‘new amt financed’ exceeds the unpaid balance plus earned finance charges (read interest due and maybe late fees, I’d say). The amt financed is not generally the loan amt. It’s different because it accounts for what was paid by the borrower for the particular rate. The only way to really know what the amt financed is is with a Reg Z disclosure.
    But I would be surprised that if one has a substantial balloon due at the end of some 40 year amortization, the new amt financed is going to be higher than the old one, even with a reduced interest rate. The point is borrowers don’t know if their new amt financed is higher without the disclosure. Far as I can tell, this legislation leaves it to the (alleged) modifier to determine if disclosure is mandated. Maybe they only contemplated a lesser amt financed with mod, but that seems far fetched and / or crazy. The basis for that rule is said to be
    that in a refinance, new money is involved (don’t go crazy, carrie, et al), with the old debt being paid off. A modification is not deemed ‘new’ money (yeah, right – it’s new money if it’s in fact a new obligation). One way or another, imo, both the amt financed and the a.p.r. on a mod with a substantial balloon would in fact be higher than the existing loan UNless there were a substantial principle reduction. It seems honky as heck that someone else makes the determination about the amt financed.

    I also came across this little tidbit:

    “(c) Variable-rate adjustments. Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, an adjustment to the interest rate with or without a corresponding adjustment to the payment in a variable-rate transaction subject to § 1026.19(b) is an event requiring new disclosures to the consumer. At least once each year during which an interest rate adjustment is implemented without an accompanying payment change, and at least 25, but no more than 120, calendar days before a payment at a new level is due, the following disclosures, as applicable, must be delivered or placed in the mail: ….”

    The rest of this is also at the link above. .

  102. christine If a person has paid payments for 10yrs who is that free? The lenders/servicers claim an interest in the loan has not lent anyone monies or have purchase the debt, so who actually receiving a free house?

    You argument starts off giving ground that you believe the homeowner wants the house for free but that an impossibility unless the homeowner did not put any monies down and never made a payment.

    Starting with the down payment and each interest payment there is equity in that amount the homeowner has paid into paying off the loan. Now as the Contract/Note is no longer in the possession of the debt holder, the Note no longer exist as a Note because the holder of the Note does not also hold the debt.

    In the case of WaMu, the bank is a defunct bank closed down for bad banking practice and is not in court claiming they are owed a debt!

    We don’t care what a non-financially interest party is asking for, as they got no right to ask the court for any judgement as they have “No Standing”!

  103. Charles,

    I would very much like to read what you write but… I simply can’t. I don’t know how to. I see words put together. Every one of them, I know and understand. Put together the way you do it, it doesn’t make sense to me and I don’t have the material time to pour over what your wrote and decipher.

    I’m terribly sorry. It’s not hate. It’s just that I have exactly 24 hours each day and not a minute more. Gotta prioritize my time.

  104. christine in many cases its not about getting a free house but about who got an equity claim. If you take the WaMu pooled loans in GSEs securities without a sale occurring and the Notes endorsed in blank and handed over to the GSE, then it simply come down to who has the right to claim the debt the lien is claiming is owed.

    If the attorneys are going into battle think that 10yrs of payment is receiving a house for free, and the party that not borrowed any monies or purchase the debt deserves to come into court and claim the debt as their and foreclose is getting a house for free.

    The fight is between WaMu and the homeowner if there was a claim, but because WaMu is not in possession of a Note that they relinquished for zero sum, and they are not petitioning the court for the debt but some totally separate entity in Wells Fargo has submitted forgeries claiming ownership.

    Wells Fargo is slick by saying on the documents that they are the legal “holder” of the Promissory Note. Now saying your the “holder” misled the court because the “holder” is not the “holder in due course” but as Wells Fargo is the custodian or records and is holding the blank Note for Ginnie Mae cannot approach the court and file anything as if they are the owner of the Note.

    Wells Fargo is hired to due the job of holding the Note for Ginnie Mae and cannot pretend to be the “holder in due course”. Now if the borrowers paid $50,000 in payment over the loan, and Wells Fargo not lent a single red cent who got the ownership stake in the property? WaMu is not in court challenging the homeowners that they own the property free of this debt! Wells Fargo cannot speak for the dead!

  105. Neidermeyer I was joking. Great work on your other comments and Good luck

  106. @ Christine ,

    “Procedures will kill anyone every time.”
    Yes they will ,, I’m about to throw a huge monkey wrench at the plaintiff .. which will likely result in a voluntary dismissal by (subservicer pretending to be TRUSTEE)… after which I’m hoping for a SOL win in under a year..

  107. The Butler’s appeals court decision was very bad too but not for the reasons people would like to portrait.

    Minneapolis attorney suspended for ignoring fines, filing frivolous lawsuits
    Article by: RANDY FURST , Star Tribune Updated: January 15, 2014 – 7:47 PM
    William B. Butler remained defiant after courts cited him for using the same “brazen tactics” despite those arguments being rejected.

    I read the appeals court decision. I can see why the ruling was rendered as it was. Trying to circumvent the rules can only backfire. Just because banks do it doesn’t make it acceptable on the part of homeowners and their attorneys. If anything, it is damaging to homeowners and thei cause.


    Being “creative” isn’t enough. Ask Mitchell Stein. There are certain rules to follow. Gardner, Weidner, Stopa, Barnes, Babcock, Cox and many others nationwide haven’t been fined, discliplined or otherwise suspended. It is also interesting to note that not one MN attorney has ever taken part in -and graduated from’ Gardner’s foreclosure defense boot camp.

    Butler is no martyr.

  108. “A” Man ,

    Keep looking ,, they’ll chalk that up as a “scrivners error” and allow it to be understood as 2014.

  109. Bill Butler put the carriage before the horses. Mark Stopa is only one of the many attorneys to guard against the magical Quiet Title for years. Max Garner did long before Stopa even broached the subject. Quiet Title is not and has never been some action people file in lieu of all other ones. Quiet Title is what people file when all other issues have already been resolved. It has nothing to do with MN, AZ or CA. It has everything to do with strategy and understanding of the system.

    Quiet Title? Eliminate a Mortgage? Read This.
    Posted on December 2nd, 2013 by Mark Stopa

    Over the past few years, I’ve been able to get many hundreds of foreclosure cases dismissed. I’d like to think I’ve had a successful foreclosure defense practice, and I feel like I’ve made a difference for homeowners. It hasn’t always been easy, but it’s been a rewarding, enjoyable career path. For many homeowners, though, it’s not enough. A dismissal without prejudice means the bank can re-file, and they want more. ”Quiet title.” “Eliminate my mortgage.”

    Part of it is an unfortunate offshoot of the robo-signing fiasco and securitization debacle. “The banks committed fraud.” “The loan wasn’t securitized properly.” Many people mislead themselves into thinking this entitles them to a free house.

    Part of this is natural. After all, who wouldn’t want a free house? I would, and I’ve heard judges admit they would in open court. I can’t even call this “greed,” really. Everyone likes free stuff.

    What’s frustrating when I encounter these homeowners is their inability to be pragmatic. They’re not in court every day like I am. They don’t understand the climate of the judiciary. They don’t know how the law works. They don’t know how loathe judges are to ever rule this way.

    Take a look at the Third District’s November 20, 2013 ruling in BAC Home Loans Servicing, Inc. v. Gamarra. In that case, the trial court entered an Order granting the homeowners a quiet title judgment. Free house … right? Wrong. The Third District did not mince words when it overruled the lower court’s decision. As if to give a warning shot to any attorney seeking such a result for homeowners, the court began the opinion with the following:

    A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer”; or “(4) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. . . .” R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-3.3(a)(1), (4). Despite the clear and unambiguous directive of Rule 4-3.3(a), counsel representing the defendants, Mary Gamarra de Headley and Todd Headley (“the Headleys”) in this foreclosure action, made material misrepresentations in the Headleys’ motion for final judgment, resulting in the issuance of a final judgment that granted relief which was not pled.

    Read on. It only gets worse from there.

    This is why I don’t talk about quieting title. I don’t blog about it, and I’m loathe to ever discuss such relief with homeowners, much less seek it. No, I’m not afraid of getting my hand slapped. Quite simply, it’s almost always a complete waste of time and money, and it creates false hope/expectations for homeowners.

    Let’s put it this way … don’t you think if there were a realistic way to quiet title for Florida homeowners that I’d be doing it regularly?

    Quieting title is not impossible, but it’s close. So everyone reading this who perceives that as his/her goal needs to re-assess. “Quieting title” isn’t a goal in foreclosure defense. As for any lawyers trying this, you better be prepared. When the appellate court starts an opinion about quieting title and eliminating a mortgage by citing a Bar rule, this is a path upon which you must tread carefully.

  110. “If, on the other hand, the idea is to position yourself for a solid fight with good chances of winning, cooperate in good faith and document, document, document.”

    And then have a judge toss the entire deal on Rule 12(b)(6). Even if you win on appeal, you’re right back in Judge Bot N. Padefor’s courtroom. See Bill Butler’s so-called win in MN on a quiet title case, when it was remanded back and the federal judge said, I’m paraphrasing, but he explains the entire backstory on Youtube, “Don’t consider this a win. The bank gets the next move, like it or not.”

    Good chances of winning? Better luck with the lottery in some districts. AZ and MN for sure.

  111. Who is the lender? That is the million dollar question. or who are the lenders? Inverstors? everything but the note and chain of title or where are payments went We dont know Shit. All we know is we signed a multiple page contract that doesnt really mean anything anymore.


    A template for dealing with Attorneys and possible Judges from the other side. I already think I found a mistake.

    they claim to file Jan. 14, 2013 we’re in 2014

  112. People is this really an issue? As this is about an modification between a lender and its customer who the lender is saying the borrower is not in compliance with the agreement, and the borrower is agreeing that they are not so the agreement as written was not followed by the party that owed, but the party that owed is now demanding some written changed?

    I believe it will establish that there is an agreement it suddenly you after not making payment of a $1,000 and start paying $800 after this call from Wells would result in the same decision from a judge to try and block a foreclosure.

    But until that loan is paid off you ever trust what the other party going to do?

    This is not the situation at hand right now, and other as I already done by writing these agencies that I am still standing with these claims of Lack of Stacking on not just one loan but on $1.1 trillion Ginnie Mae pooling process! Fannie & Freddie got the same issues as they just purchase Mortgage Servicing Agreement for $10.3 billion for 63,000 loans to servicer that they allegedly already own? What wrong with that dollar figure!

    It in own hand for the taking now as they negotiate, and that $50 billion I think is thrown out now to see what shakes all claims out the tree, so truly this can get behind us. So banks are wanting to dealing with this, but as Senator Warren been asking the Justice Dept what of the monies owed the Taxpayer and were the list of violation under the HAMP, where people were illegally foreclosed!

    Let stop with the far out there theories and attack these securities just like the rich investors have!

  113. Again what do you do with a judge that blindly takes there side?

  114. ???

    Procedures will kill anyone every time.

  115. All paths go back to if they only produced the note we would save alot of tax payers money.

    Again Save TaxPayer Dollars and Produce the Note or now Glaski case proves that all we have to do is produce the note.


    This is only a suggestion consult an attorney if you can.


  116. Alessandro and Christine, you both forgot the Final Step.

    That’s unlike you Christine. ..? 🙂

    You go to court and get an injunction to change the public record to reflect such, and applicable damages of course.

  117. Hi Christine, thanks for pointing that out, I had not seen it until after you pointed it out.

  118. This article describes once again the Parallel Foreclosure trap. The banks stall the homeowner with HAMP mod paperwork while another division of the bank is actually going forward with foreclosure paperwork on the same home.

    It is actually possible that neither division knows what the other is doing, and that may be the wiggle room the banks use to have a defense in court over what on the surface appears to be an illegal act.

    What makes the act of Parallel Foreclosure illegal, or at least unethical in my opinion is A., the bank did not inform the customer that two actions were going on simultaneously regarding their homeownership when they only requested one action, and B. the temptation to foreclose becomes greater if the foreclosure paperwork has already been done.

    Example, if a person goes to the doctor with a serious condition and the doctor is also part owner of a mortuary, isn’t the doctor going to be tempted to divert some resources towards the mortuary aspect of their business and might not that affect how they treat a patient?

    Maybe its time to separate banks from both originating mortgage loans and also foreclosing on homes, have them choose, one or the other, but not both.

  119. Alessandro:

    That’s exactly what I said at 11:11 am.

  120. “…as long as there are no regulators to enforce laws they are right.”

    If the idea is to wait for regulators to intervene while you’re already months behind and falling further in your payments, sit and wait so more. Anyone with half a brain can tell you what will happen: guaranteed foreclosure without one iota of a valid defense. 7 years have not set regulators’ butts on fire. No indication it will change anytime soon.

    If, on the other hand, the idea is to position yourself for a solid fight with good chances of winning, cooperate in good faith and document, document, document. Intelligently and with a strategy. Standing is not something anyone ought to question when already months behind in mortgage payments. Many homeowners are now able to fight and win because they jumped through hoops for banks and… can prove that they acted in good faith.

    Wishful thinking doesn’t work. Proactive action does.

  121. Any chance this is a violation of the Settlements the state AGs signed?

    And BTW, Goss v. ABN was tossed because homeowner didn’t follow appellate court rules to file statement of issues before filing his appellate brief. Losing a home due to court rules is a reprehensible act.

  122. Once a meeting has occurred, draft a letter reviewing what occurred at the meeting and mail it (with proof of receipt by the bank) to the bank. If the bank doesn’t reply, they accept your version of events, if they do reply, then the agreement is suddenly in writing.

  123. I find out my hard hearing helps me in this banking deals . I like
    to have everything per e-mail don’t call me .
    Could be a trick also ,who knows ?

  124. Banks assume they are our masters and as long as there are no regulators to enforce laws they are right. At this point anyone who attempts to modify an alleged loan and makes “trial payments” without making damn sure that the person or entity you would be paying has the authority to take your money is crazy.

  125. And Neidermeyer,

    Many attorneys have broken their teeth trying to obtain those HAMP recordings through discovery. Ain’t that easy.

  126. Neidermeyer,

    Not quite true. HAMP calls may -or may not- be recorded and that would entirely depend on the guidelines established by the feds and the contracts signed by the banks participating in it (and, as you may recall, it was not compulsory).

    You, as the recipient or the initiator of the call, have to follow specific guidelines. The fact that the person and/or computer voice at the other end states: “This call MAY be monitored” doesn’t make your taping automatically admissible.

    Further, the assumption that all mods are HAMP is grossly erroneous.

    Enough about this subject. I give people pointers for what works. Up to them to do as they wish with it.

  127. Neil strike the last one.
    My editorial noting how WF got their ass handed to them out here in the 9th Circuit and in Illinois….. http://www.myfinancialrevival.com/featured/homeowners-face-uphill-battles-when-seeking-loan-modifications-in-mediation/
    I am making a movie about this today or tomorrow. We are kicking their ass in mediation out here in WA in one case, and in another case I worked on — that BoA Jane Mair case I posted here they are so pissed-off they are suing the mediator. Watch this vid from 3:00 – 6:00 as a witness to the mediation breaks it down:

  128. @KC & Christine ,

    If you are receiving a call from any HAMP mod person or customer service the CALL IS ALREADY BEING RECORDED from their end … making a recording from your end is perfectly OK and legal .. fully admissable and you don’t need to inform them you are making it … they already know a recording is being made.

  129. KC,

    My apologies. I misread you.

    Yes, the fact that a conversation took place is admissible. The substance depends on how the recording was done and whether in accordance with your state laws (and there is some leeway, depending on where the caller is calling from. Always make sure to ask the state he’s calling from.)

    By confirming said conversation in writing, it is admissible as part of the written records between the bank and you.

  130. KC,


    If the recording was taken in violation of state law, the substance of the entire conversation is out. The only thing that’s in is the fact that a conversation did take place. period.

    Shooting from the hip. Don’t do that. Most people lose because of bad advice they followed.

  131. Yes.. I agree Christine! Even if the recording is word for word and not admissible, … the conversation is admissible as personal knowledge in a written affidavit. Word for Word .. Employee Name.. ID#… beginning to end.. a minute to minute.


  132. These modification are only offer because of TARP fund were received by these lenders and they in return in Mar 2009 signed HAMP agreements. The directives of HARP tell you the process, and I would use those directive to fight these cases.

    However the damage is not done until their is a foreclosure and these banks will continue to F with people until that function is done, as many people don’t have the ability to fight these corporation and as we all witness right here, the attorney don’t have enough knowledge as to how all this crap works.

    Ian today in another post said that other should help me with my whistle-blower case, which is a point I don’t understand why other (attorneys) are not joining me as there is a lot of money to go around. These lenders refused to review up to 800,000 loans that were submitted to the under the HAMP.

    20% of the 4.2 million applicants where government insured and 86% of those loans were in Ginnie Mae pools. By law those loans could not be owned by Ginnie and the cow (Note) has been separated from its heart (Debt). making it impossible for there to be an approval authority for a modification.

    Now here what Wells Fargo maybe doing is that they are not putting the offer in writing because they don’t have the authority and would be committing itself to action. However buying time and extending a mod without any guarantees as the failure rate of the mod permanent is 25% with some revenue coming in, so we can be sure that the failure rate of the trail mod are at least 50% or higher, as there has only been 530,000 permanent.

    Right now they are working over details of this $50 billion settlement and I hoping this is being discus, but together to work for what we are all here talking about has baffled me. Attorneys are working to provide a living for themselves, but because this area of defending homeowners from banks, did not in the past provide for many cases, so it the road less traveled that we are having difficulties finding guides.

    What 10%-30% of $24 billion? We are working from a point that we know 800,000 government insured loan at an average $100,000 loan balance would pay a $10,000 illegal insurance claim. What part of this $8 billion plus $16 billion in treble damage, does the US taxpayer not want to claim?

  133. Check your state’s laws concerning recording of phone conversation. Just because you state that the conversation is being recorded doesn’t mean that you can produce the recording it later on. MA, for example, has some very stringent rules on how one is supposed to go about recording any phone conversation. NH’s rules are different and so are ME, VT or OH. 50 states have 50 different rules.

    Confirming after the fact in writing is pretty much universal.

  134. By the way, that works with anyone you do any kind of business with. Even simple e-mails can also serve the same purpose. “In the event that I don’t receive clalification in writing to the contrary within a week, I will conclude that we are in agreement and will proceed accordingly.”

    Best sentence you will ever need to protect yourself proactively.

    And whatever the bank or the bank’s attorney tells you, there is never, ever any rush. If they took 5 months to make a mod offer, you sure can wait another week or two to make sure you got everything absolutely right before signing anything.

  135. You are Good Christine! Really Good!

    My Favorite… This is KC, dba ISTC this call may be recorded for quality control purposes. Re-direct customer service .. pound them in questions. Before you know it .. you have them subject chatting and they TRY to redirect you back to the account,… thats when you nail them and want transferred to a supervisor (who has no idea the conversation is being recorded) ,,,, 🙂

  136. Common sense 101:

    Any time anyone tries to pull that kind of crap over you, there is a very innocuous (and yet powerful) way to have it in writing forever and be able to use it at any time later on: confirm yourself the terms of the phone conversation in writing, certified.

    Something along the lines of; “This will confirm the phone conversation Peter, Paul and yourself had on such date, at such time and during which the following was discussed (if you called first, you can document by getting the phone bill right away and keeping it in file. If they called you on your cell or landline, that helps for later on, if they try to deny that you ever talked. Discovery 101):
    1) Loan mod terms (go into details and recite every single point of it) 2) Duration of the trial period, first payment amount, date, etc., escrow payment, insurance, taxes, every single point discussed without exception
    3) Expected outcome and
    4) Expected date of final confirmation of the mod.

    At the end, all you need to write is: “In the event that I would have misunderstood any of the points discussed during our conversation, I thank you in advance for letting me know immediately by return mail so that I may adequately document my file. In the absence of any correction or clarification from your office within 15 days of this letter, I will conclude that we are in complete agreement and will proceed accordingly.”

    Lawyers know damn well that this is the best way to throw the ball in their camp. You wouldn’t believe how fast you start getting things in writing when you play it that way. And it’s also amazing how fast you realize that… you never, ever, ever understood what was verbally discussed. All of a sudden, they want to call you when they get the letter and fix it over the phone, verbally again. Easy then to say: “Jeez, obviously, i didn’t get it the first time around. Send it to me in writing. This way, we will both know that this time, there are no misunderstandings left.” Smile. Hang up.

  137. I had this experience with Bank of America (servicer)/Bank of New York Mellon(foreclosing party). The loan modification offer had no details, which were only conveyed verbally to me. I made the three trial payments and received what appeared to be an offer. But they didn’t sign it, it fell short of the verbal offer, and it didn’t credit me for the trial and other payments I had previously made to them, so I declined the offer.
    A local friend of mine, Greg, had a nearly identical experience with the same parties. He declined the offer with the additional complaint that he is legally blind and they were refusing to provide him with documents in a format he could read, in this case digital is sufficient and then he magnifies it on the screen. This is likely a violation of the Americans with Disabilities act, and just a jerky thing to do too.

  138. The bad news is that Wigod may no longer be positive law. The 6th just came out with a recent opinion, December 20, 2013, that at least somewhat disturbs Wigod.

    See GOSS v. ABN AMRO MORTGAGE GROUP, et al., No. 12-2627
    United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, December 20, 2013

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: