GKW Publishes Memo on Arizona Steinberger case with Florida Case Citations

Periodically we publish things that we think are important and can be of use to fellow practicing attorneys. When I read the Steinberger decision I felt it was just plain right. And I knew at a glance it was applicable in Florida and other states. This case, in combination with other legal arguments will help tip the outcome in many cases for years to come. And it reveals some simple concepts that are not being discussed in the main stream of legal writing. The main thing is the simple idea that banks cannot lure people into default, foreclose on them and get away with it. Where the Glaski case in California shows that the banks can and should be liable for wrongful foreclosure, the Steinberger decision shows one of the ways that can be mapped out in your pleadings.

For Litigation Support from GKW (Garfield Kelley and White) attorneys please call 850-765-1236. To schedule a consultation you can also call 520-405-1688 or 954-495-9867.

Steinberger Memo

ATTACHMENT A – Steinberger v McVey

118 Responses

  1. it wants to come back, and alternatively one might infer if ANYONE wants to be a substitute trustee or foreclosing trustee, they must meet the following requirements:

    1. Maintain physical presence in the State with adequate staffing and knowledgeable people who can actually answer substantive questions about the loan status or so-called default status.

    2. The office must be authorized to accept payments to reinstate a mortgage.

    3. The office must be authorized in all respects to postpone, reschedule or cancel the foreclosures (this taking out the layers of corporate bureaucracy) which means that someone with real decision-making authority must be physically present in the office during normal business hours.

    4. Discloses the contact information for the State office to the borrower.

    5. Identifies the actual creditor with a loan receivable that is due and the same information for the authorized servicer for that loan.

    6. Provides proof that the “note holder” actually has an enforceable interest. That means they must show and prove the existence of the actual loan receivable and the person or entity to whom the obligation is owed.

    7. Applies fees and costs only as allowed by law.

    8. Acts in good faith toward the borrower. “For purposes of this Consent Judgment only, it is a breach of good faith to enter into an agreement with a note owner, beneficiary or its agent wherein Defendant agrees to stop or postpone a foreclosure only when approved by the note owner, beneficiary or agent, or to defy solely to a single party when acting as a trustee.” [That is because it is a breach of the statutory duties of the trustee to bind itself contractually to following the orders of the beneficiary only and not include the duties of good faith toward the Trustor].

    9. They cannot act as both trustee and beneficiary. [Implication: if the Trustee that is substituted is owned or controlled, contractually or otherwise, by the beneficiary they may not serve as Trustee.]

    10. Trustees cannot only refer to defaults in fact, not as reported. What this means in terms the degree of due diligence required is yet to be determined.

    see WA-Recontrust Consent Decree

  2. I like it Deborah….good! They deserve nothing less…the debt collectors, I mean…

  3. Some read/watch the news and i am for sure concerned about the plane that ” disappeared” but for years of my life now i focus on this issue. I do it for my child as this affects all our children and their children. Our rights to buy land without being set up to have it stolen from us.
    I told someone the other day ” this is not a sport. as poppy said and i quote her below ( take note all ye bashers on here).
    “They are ALL at the trough, fighting for the remnants of what was once someone’s life! And that is the reality”

  4. so elex….

    MERS is the beneficiary, for New Century, trustee is U.S. Bank…assigned in 2012 from 2007, while in bankruptcy. How’s that work?

    Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha,…………………………………………………Okay

  5. Typos sorry just opened my eyes
    But link is good

  6. ~~~~~~ Retired person’s job interview:~~~~~

    Interviewer: “What would you consider to be your greatest weakness?”

    Applicant: “Honesty.”

    Interviewer: “Honesty? I don’t think honesty is a weakness.”

    Applicant: “I don’t give a —- what you think.”

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 🙂 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  7. @eleaquistor the jusdge was wrong in his smart comment the the borrower must owe somebody, because if the alleged lender not in court the term of that agreement are not at issue as to whether a borrower is current, behind or the loan for whatever reason that debt is retired or forgiven, as they are not in court claiming anything and is really not at issue.

    Here is were I believe that all loans of lender who have “failed” as with WaMu and IndyMac and these blank notes were in the possession of another there will never be a situation were that debt can be collected and if the flaw of the Ginnie Mae securities system!

  8. @johngault – You’re welcome for the link to the Junod case. I’m glad you learned something from it. Too bad you didn’t read my other posts.

    In the heat of battle borrower’s attorney let the judge get away with 2 cheap shots – the borrower owes “someone”, and the judge who used up borrower’s “mic” time trying to locate some impertinent reference. I will be requesting a tentative ruling before oral argument in my case before that same court to try to cut off that ploy. I was glad to hear the judge press bankster’s attorney on the difference between execution date of assignment vs. recording date. That is a staple tactic used by banksters to throw confusion upon the waters. My pleadings reflect execution dates and effective execution dates with no reference to recorded dates.

    Appellate cases in CA seem to have been exercises of submission by confusion on the judges’ part. The other staple words intentionally mixed up by the banksters are “initiate” and “conduct”. Only the beneficiary can initiate a foreclosure, whether judicial or non-judicial. In a non-judicial initiation a notice of intent to sell is an instruction to the trustee to conduct a non-judicial foreclosure.

    Words have meaning. Too many words leaves a stench behind.

  9. http://mortgagenewsclips.com/securitization-sites/

    Todays Laugh brought to you by Rob …….

    Sex After Death
    A couple made a pact that whomever died first would come back and inform the other of the afterlife, since they both wondered about life after death.
    After a long life together, the husband was the first to die. True to his word, he made the first contact, “Connie ….Connie.”
    “Is that you, Joe?”
    “Yes, I’ve come back like we agreed.”
    “That’s wonderful! What’s it like?”
    “Well, I get up in the morning, I have sex. I have breakfast and then it’s off to the golf course. I have sex again, bathe in the warm sun and then have sex a couple of more times. Then I have lunch (you’d be proud – lots of greens) another romp around the golf course, then pretty much have sex the rest of the afternoon. After supper, it’s back to golf course again. Then it’s more sex until late at night. I catch some much needed sleep and then the next day it starts all over again.”
    “Oh, Joe you surely must be in Heaven!”

    “Well, not exactly. I’m a rabbit on a golf course in Arizona.”


  10. johngault I don’t know enough about the w/h total process and I am only referring to Ginnie so you could be right there. I know that John Paulson demanded that the Longbeach loans to be entered into the CDO’s that he and Goldman Sachs created that did fail, and he made like $9 billion in two years and most of that was from the CDS he bet with over at AIG.

  11. charles – I know little to nothing of GNMA per se. It’s possible, if GNMA has poss of notes endorsed in blank, it’s because the notes are collateral to GNMA. Don’t know enough to speculate why. Remember, and as a former loan officer you prob do, at least at one time, warehouse lenders took poss of notes, partly to preclude anyone’s enforcement before the w/h lender was paid off. They had a contract which said when the w/h lender’s borrower, the note payee, paid them off, they would release the notes. Until the contract date for the payoff by the home lender to the w/h lender came and went, the w/h lender, tho in poss of the notes, had no right to enforce them against their makers. As to the w/h lender, the notes were CDO’s. GNMA could be a bailee. Why I don’t know. But these contracts by and between these players can’t be ignored. Problem, obviously, is we don’t have them.

  12. “for the benefit of both homeowners and lenders”

    Oh my, “the lenders” very telling statement…IMHO. If the REAL lenders wanted relief, they would have come forward years ago, gene. You do not need to be a lawyer to figure that one out!

    One could go on and on about this. Inflated appraisals, altering documents, offering “anyone” a loan…ignoring credit, Good gawd. Intentional stuff. Loans were not for securitization, but if they could sell “fast and furious”….on the banking level, not the movie.

    They are ALL at the trough, fighting for the remnants of what was once someone’s life! And that is the reality!

  13. Here the problem in a nut shell and that is the reason the loan are blank is because in order for an entity to actually hold the Notes as a owner the holder must be an entity who is a lender capable of servicing the product fully and has purchase the loans.

    There is not a case where a trust is recorded as the lender or some servicer as the holder in due course, but these companies are not registered to lend at all, or in the case it is another bank that acting as the trust it still must be able to show a purchase!

    Going forward in these cases of blank Notes and MERS is mention, should result in victories because as we can see the court are turning that corner and asking….how do you own the debt! “No Standing” let me see the Notes with dates!

  14. When party A has a note and party B has the collateral instrument (!), even if a bk trustee could claw back the note, in states which require security first or if the loan agreement spells it out, the notes alone wouldn’t be enforceable. Ordinarily, if the bk trustee got the notes, he could sue for the assignments of the coll instruments, but that was in the days before there was a willful, original split. Who would he sue? The last note owner or the guy with the dot or both? I think it’s so that people (loan buyers and sellers) may agree that a note and its collateral may be split for some reason or another of their own, but I can’t believe that allows or contemplates an original split.

    For anyone who cares, here’s why the note is no good with security first: in states which have that statute or if the contract says so, the first action on a note secured by a home must be against the collateral. The note owner may not sue for judgment on the note.
    Therefore, without the coll instrument, the note holder has no course of action against the note maker, because it’s only the coll instrument which ties the note to a home. Even with judicial foreclosure, you don’t see actions for judgment purely on the note with home loans. The claimant may also be seeking a deficiency j (where allowed by law), but he is primarily seeking a judgment for foreclosure.
    lay opinions

  15. That’s if securitizing unseasoned loans is lawful. I don’t think it is and hopefully one day I’ll be able to say exactly why not. If we ever find out that FNMA’s guarantee was a “fix” for unlawfully securitizing unseasoned loans, than I’ll probably believe in a peaceful form of anarchy and get in Christine’s court. I’ll rent billboards; I’ll do something. If loans were properly seasoned, chances are they wouldn’t have needed credit enhancements. Course, that would’ve cut out a lot of early-default loans from “sec’n”. Swear words, lots of them.

  16. What part of the whistleblower just getting $69 million for his claim do people not understand? JPMorgan admitted to badly underwriting these loan and falsifying documents, so at what point were the loans they gave to borrowers ever valid loans? Now it going to be up to attorney to have prove that any FHA or VA loan they produced and foreclosure was a valid loan product!

    I see a huge class action suit as none of the government insured Ginnie Mae pooled loan were even reviewed for a HAMP modification, because Ginnie Mae was in possession of the blank Notes!

    So as johngault is saying these loan were foreclosed with MERS help in creating forged assignment to foreclose as the IndyMac, WaMu and Countrywide loans will demonstrate that the loans were in Ginnie pools (FHA & VA) and Ginnie Mae is not a member of MERS as a home mortgage lender and does not have the authority to bring a foreclosure action because it is know for a fact that they don’t buy or sell home mortgage loans!

  17. About those agency ratings and bk remoteness. Let’s say a bunch of people want to be caterers in 10 cities near D.C. Each of those districts has its own rules and one has to test and pass the exam for each. Someone else comes up with the idea to have one school which teaches all those rules and the applicant may take just one test which is recognized by all the districts. Great. Every hopeful caterer takes that course, passes the test, and off they go.

    It was kind of the same thing with that bk remoteness. If one entity hadn’t been created to handle the collateral instruments (the notes are another matter), every current and every going-to-be depositor, looks to me, would have had to create a bk remote entity before a loan could be transferred to a trust to not only resolve a rating issue, but to handle a very legitimate concern on unseasoned loans, i.e. new, loans (the ability for a bk trustee, say, to claw back those loans or at least the coll instruments). So MERS may have legitimately handled a real problem.
    It gets the “may” – for here – because of the notes allegedly being transferred). I can’t say why a bk remote entity would help in ratings where part of that rating was designed to make the investments look more sound as to repayment. Only credit enhancements would offer
    any comfort about repayment on crummy and or unseasoned loans.
    But for whatever benefit a bk remote entity may have provided, a mers wouldn’t have been a bad way to go. Obvious problems are that to accomplish what they wanted, they couldn’t record or even execute the assgts, at least until the loans became bk remote as a result of the age of the transfer to the trust. And then saying that someone else, not mers, held the beneficial interest seems a killer to me, also. It makes
    the entity’s claim of being bk remote due for the paper shredder since they, as a result, were saying someone else held that interest; if I were a bk trustee, say, I’d pretty much call that a sham. They wanted it both ways – MERS was a separate and distinct ben from the lender for bk remoteness and mers morphs into an agent when it comes for foreclosure. It was part of their original plan to have foreclosures done in mers’ name. The only thing I can think of is that the duplicity
    was planned – bk remote entity over there, agent over here.

    But one thing is clear: for their plan of bk remoteness to work, the dots simply could not be assigned to trusts without the arduous task of
    seeing they weren’t done within the claw back time for each loan, which unfortunately for them, is generally beyond the trust’s closing date. But they never intended to assign to the trust, or didn’t, even before they alleged agency. We’ve never resolved whether or not the trustee of the sec’n trust is 1) a legal entity and 2) is its mers’ membership relevant (if mers is an agent, that is)? We can’t even tell just now if mers even alleges the trustee’s membership is relevant, not after the Consent order when the assignments began on properties in default (theretofore, assignments were only to be done by members – in mers’ name – if the note were transferred to a non-member).

  18. johngualt MERS stop foreclosing in it name a couple of years back, and that was not for no reason. What you are saying makes no sense that the loan has to be signed in blank and be in the possession of one of the MERS members.

    First of all why if I am the owner of the Notes would I need to have it signed in blank when if the Note is my Note it would already be endorsed to me. By endorsing the Note in blank would suggest that that there was a reason to have the signed in blank.

    Why would a bank that own the loans take the risk of having Note in blank laying around opposed to in a endorsed state were only the bank itself can claim the Note. There is no reason for the owner to have the Note in blank period! Now we know why the are in a blank status so that they can be held by a Ginnie Mae for the underlying collateral for the securities.

    Plus if the borrower can show that the Notes have been transferred to another in a blank state then they must present a bill of sale and a bill of sale but with receipts!

  19. MERS membership rules (2008, I think):

    “Rule 8 Section 2:(a)

    If a Member chooses to conduct foreclosures in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., the note must be endorsed in blank and in possession of one of the Member’s MERS certifying officers. If the investor so allows, then MERS can be designated as the note-holder.”

  20. R.E.I.T.S.

  21. Charles,

    RE: “Give up everybody because your all wrong because Gene said you are. ”

    Where do you see that statement from Gene?

    Gene, Great News! I second Christine’s “God Bless You” !!

  22. If that were the MERS’ m.o., which I say it was – that MERS was the note holder as well as the ben, than first of all, a trust surely wasn’t, was it? So all those homes were taken by mers, the lender, creditor, etc. Or kindly tell me why not. One court found, as do I, no evidence of agency in the membership agreement. Okay, so scratch agency.
    The member signs the membership agreement (unlike the dot) which addresses the m.o.with the note being in the poss of the servicer in order to foreclose in MERS’ name. What relationship exactly could be determined from this agreement? And that MERS may enforce the note, and if so, in what capacity?
    We haven’t looked at this at all. First, imo, we have to determine what relationship (if any) is created and then if that relationship can pass muster if mers is in fact an agent (which it isn’t imo), but is their most recent allegation -or- can it pass muster with mers not being an agent. I’m going to try to find that part of the agreement, but in the meantime, it certainly does appear that mers did claim to be not just the ben, but the note holder entitled to enforce in its own right (86’ing any interest by any trust).

  23. Give up everybody because your all wrong because Gene said you are. But now he not even wasting his time on foreclosure and is concentrating on modifications. So the 10 million who have been foreclosed are supposed to do what? Modification is not an option when another family is living in your home, as its called foreclosure.

    So stop what your doing as you got no hope and Gene not offering any strategy other than?????????????????

  24. kc – good catch on that Junod v Mers et al at your link. Very interesting listening on the oral arguments and imo a must-listen for anyone incl attorneys litigating in that jurisdiction; good to know what and how the other side is going to babble and mislead imo. One of the defenses opposing counsel comes up with is that the borrower has been paying the (alleged) servicer for the trust, whom the borrower is now saying can’t own the loan (there is really rebuttal for this imo, but….) I would do my best (it’d take some work) to use that statement against banksters and demand to know for whom the servicing purports to service and as of what date and how were they notified of the name of the party for whom they are servicing, because apparently, if we don’t, they’ll use our payments against us.
    I’m reminded that that gang once bald-faced told a court that changes in the servicing entity were recorded, which of course is a whopper. I guess there isn’t much they won’t say to get what they want. I’m also reminded of an older case I have wherein the bankster’s attorney told the court something like “and that endorsement that you see there, that’s in blank. What they want with foreclosure is a blank endorsement.” (pick-a-party, as Neil says).

    Why were notes endorsed in blank (IF they were), other than the obvious? Those guys know the note and dot must be unified for enforcement. Before the Consent Order, MERS on info and belief told the members that in order to f/c in mers’ name, the servicer had to have the note. (how did mers know they did? far as I know, they sure as sam hey didn’t). As a pick-a holder-note, then, MERS determined that the servicer-employee’s MERS officership hat made mers the note holder and since MERS was the ben, there you go: unity! Don’t believe me? Look at their membership agreement from around 2009 or so. MERs also told at least one court that it was the holder of the note. Probably lots of courts, but definitely one.
    lay opinions as always

  25. @gene, just what we need is a switch hitter that working for the lender and borrower on modifications. 4.2 million application through the HAMP and only 500,000 modifications….why?

    Where Gene going to be at when Obama out of office and these modification that are not a part of one’s contract are all sold to a Wilbur Ross, and he rapes as many as he can and then sell them to Warren Buffett!

    A modification is putting off today what they are going to do in the future. What give the government the right to make someone grant a modification when it their money that granted the loan. The key to the lenders screwing the people was because the mods don’t have to be granted…period!

  26. None of you know who I am, but there are a few here that I have actually spoken with in years past. A couple I did work for, and a couple that I told had no hope.

    I am still actively involved with foreclosure issues, but on a different level than before.

    I don’t play the games of speculative ideas that have no basis in facts, and only serve to worsen the situation for homeowners. For me, it is now about develops methods that actually solve the problems that are encountered today with loan mods and litigation, and for the benefit of both homeowners and lenders.

  27. Christine, do you know who Gene is?

  28. Group therapy is seriously thinning down…

    The hope is that those who no longer show up finally realized that this blog is not where wins happen. When Nancy Drewe stopped peddling here, I got the hint: she could no longer make her living, despite glowing reviews from NG and many “Huh?” from desperate homeowners. She screwed a few people out of a few thousand bucksfor no result and moved on. An unsuccessful gig. Backed by glowing LL reviews though. Legal exposure on LL. No one here benefited from either advice.

    MS did very well for a while. Some got conned out of $4,000 in his Maher Soliman Hey days, down to $2,500 in his Master Servicer days, when his credibility got shaken but still, he made out quite well from LL. Somewhere in the vicinity of $10,000 a month, according to his own statements. Hasn’t posted for a couple of weeks though and Gawd knows he won’t shy away from a buck. I guess there’s none left here to be made.and he knowns it. Any success story from that angle?

    Tnharry and Gene still trying to put sense FOR FREE into those lost souls, bless their hearts, and making not one dent. Bob G. gave up. Jan Van Eyck gave up, Tom Cox hasn’t heen around for a while…

    Weird, weird world people hung on to. They don’t want to think and act. They want experts to do it all for them while reserving the right to bitch, moan, complain, blame, accuse and… SUE!

    Weird 320M people society… “We The People”, they says. Weird.

  29. On an ISC/Rent to Own Mortgage ,,,,,
    the debtor is ….. ?
    And the creditor is ….. ?

    Would you say that the Creditor/Plaintiff and the Debtor/Defendant should each obtain separate council because perhaps there might be a 5th amendment conflict between husband and wife?

  30. kc yes you are correct that another could be given permission to foreclose however this is not what was being done as the others were acting as if they were the “holder in due course” and not for the hidc.

    These servicer/banks are signing check in a sense as Wells Fargo, BOA, JPMorgan but the checking account is that of Ginnie Mae who got an fraudulent account in the first place.

    We are discussing MERS, but they are not a legal corporation imo and I believe that with the recent settlement of JPMorgan for the $614 million is a smoke screen to not deal with the legality of the MERS assignments.

    What other corporation can act in this manner and not be regulated by anybody? How can they act for a bank as the beneficial and not themselves be a bank? The assignment are done between banks and MERS is not a bank. MERS cannot act in any manner as a bank because they are not one, and it they only act to deny the borrowers of their rights!

  31. I hope she paid her taxes… 🙂

  32. Charles, I am going to say this again …

    Contingent remainders/beneficiaries can not be “accelerated ” and made to take effect until …….. Christine Croaks.

    Long Live Christine!

  33. RE: ” One thing is for sure – the borrower cannot
    authorize a third party to enforce someone else’s note.
    lay opinions”

    Agreed, but the creditor could authorize MERS … to FC (but MERS would have to identify who they were acting on behalf of …. fkkkkd

    On an ISC/Rent to Own Mortgage ,,,,,
    the debtor is ….. ?
    And the creditor is ….. ?

  34. kc as we all know that Ginnie Mae is not a lender and is not a member of MERS as a lender, but slickly they have themselves inserted as the beneficial in this Transfer Beneficial Rights. But we know that because of UCC 3 and that Ginnie Mae is in physical possession of the blank Note that must be relinquish in order for the lenders to participate in the selling of Ginnie Mae Mortgage Backed Securities.

    So what do you think they are trying to establish with this transfer as the are legally holder of the Notes? Yes we know that the court have now ruled that MERS is only tracker of the loan servicing but that not how they were acting and as beneficial for, is not just some county tracking servicing!

    Understand the game as that is that Ginnie Mae want it to be thought that they are the “holder in due course” and have give permission for the lender to stay in title to take care of things, when in fact Ginnie Mae does not have the ability to decide whether a non holder of the debt stay in title!

  35. kc asks:
    “How did they gain control over all our assets and hold them on their books as capital?”
    I don’t know. Got paid for the loans but didn’t show the off-setting funds
    received as liabilities to the ownership (booked as capital?) of the non-transferred notes? Maybe you’ll just tell us – if you know? I don’t think they gained control over all our assets, just our land. But then, I guess they did also gain control of pension and so on funds. Nice gig if you can get it.

  36. jerry, you may be right – about a “mortgage”. Carpenter may still stand for a mtg (but not a dot) following a note. But, because the mtg, unlike the note, involves real property, still have to reconcile it with the statute of frauds. But then, an important distinction with a mortgage is that it’s a lien and of itself, doesn’t create an attachable security. For that reason, because it’s a passive “vehicle” and doesn’t create or grant any form of title to anyone, it may be that even today with the SofF, a mortgage, a passive lien, is supposed to follow the note. MERS, of course, made that impossible by unbelievably inserting words of conveyance – to MERS (!) – , a third party, in the mortgage. So I agree with you that the lender has an unsecured note and what that means when considering all there is to consider. Plus I just can’t see how it’s legitimate to break up the loan contract that way. We might think about what they’re argument would be if these things were pointed out to a court, say. I’m not sure they’d have one. Maybe they would if the lender were named the mtgee originally and then they assigned the
    lien to MERS (or anyone), but they decided to skip that and put in the imo unlawful conveyance in a mtg and to a third party yet. They’ll just say there’s no injury because what should be a lien still requires judicial foreclosure (so we need to think about that, I think, and actually, what I first think is that conveyance is unlawful, as I said, but we need to be able to say exactly why.) But if I had one of those
    “mortgages”, I wouldn’t hesitate to make these arguments.
    lay opinions and not advice – ask a lawyer

  37. Recordation is not required if the beneficial interest in the loan is sold or traded between MERS members.
    An assignment is issued only when the debt is sold to a member outside of MERS.

    Sold to who?
    For how much?

  38. RE: KC if MERS is a electronic registry for title

    kc.. Wrong! they are not, and never claimed to be… that would be the land recorders office.

    MERS tracks what?

  39. KC if MERS is a electronic registry for title (allegedly), that would be the Transfer Beneficial Rights. The are not dealing in insurance!

  40. Does G.M. really issue the securities or do they insure the payments to the investors?

  41. RE: (for example) Ginnie Mae does is once they accept the loan into the Ginnie Mae securities,

    Accept the .. … what ?

    A. loan
    B. debt
    C. note
    D. nothing
    E. dot
    F. mortgage
    G. assets
    H. all of the above
    I. none of the above
    J. Insurance Agreement
    K. Title to the house
    L. Title to the Estate
    M. CDS
    N. other

  42. johngault you must understand another trick that MERS does and that is they (for example) Ginnie Mae does is once they accept the loan into the Ginnie Mae securities, they send out a batch alert to the lenders through GinnieNET and have them input into MERS Transfer Beneficial Right Opt 1. This behind the scenes put Ginnie Mae into the Beneficial position.

    Now as far as the county land recording office this little transfer is not disclosed. Now it still does not mean anything at the State level because it not report and does not have any valid law it follows because Ginnie Mae has not purchase the loans!

    The entire thing is a fraud which certain term are used as if this crap was official, but its all apart of the con!

  43. LOOK!!

    KC, on March 8, 2014 at 3:39 pm said:


    Verbal diarrhea does not impress me either.

  44. Come on JG … Think about it,

    How did they gain control over all our assets and hold them on their books as capital?


  45. Look! Listen!! Real oral arguments over Glaski by warriors in the trenches fighting for homeowners in California!!

    http://www.bergmangutierrez.com/bergman-gutierrez-argues-important-foreclosure-case-9th-circuit-court-appeals (audio player)

    Verbal diarrhea does not impress me.

  46. RE: Never minding the split of the note from the dot / mtg caused by MERS being the ben / mtgee …….

    And MERS is ? Come ON? Just say it!

    If the Estate has beneficiaries ……… and
    IF Estate is the Mortgagee/Creditor in an ISC …..

    Who is MERS?

    Just say it!

  47. Never minding the split of the note from the dot / mtg caused by MERS being the ben / mtgee (which was the intent or a biggie – for bk remoteness), does that actually work for bk remoteness, I wonder. The lenders made a third party the ben / mtgee, BUT the lenders retained just about if not absolute control (but they could NOT designate MERS an agent). Let’s say one of the lenders in the chain had recently filed bk and the bk trustee was after that lender’s assets. Because of the amt of control, primarily the right to assign the ben / mtg (albeit in the nominee’s name), could a hard-charging bk trustee pierce that deal and have it found the dot / mtg is really the property of that lender? How about a hard-charging creditor? How about when the the FDIC steps in? If looked at in the proper light, would that whole deal be called a sham (as to bk remoteness)? Because of borrower litigation (and the Consent Order I reckon), MERS was pretty much forced to allege agency (or the members did it for them and said “tough”), the very relationship that would spell doom “over there”. But you know what? The time of claw back potential etc had come and gone for many of those loans by the time the S hit the fan. So I guess they felt safer is then alleging agency. They did exactly what I said they did the other day. They were a separate and distinct third party for a season – for distinct and articulable reasons – and then when they had to and the coast was clear, they alleged agency. MERSCorp et al did in fact create a heck of a mess, not only for all of us, but for themselves.
    Here’s the way I see it:

    1) the banksters wanted triple A ratings for their securities

    2) to get that, the rating agencies demanded credit enhancements
    of some kind – $$. (it’s important to know just what those were and
    be able to spell it out)

    3) Not only were some of these loans sub-prime, but they could all
    go into the pools and be sold as secuirties as unseasoned loans,
    which imo was taboo – to sell securities on these particular assets
    unseasoned. The credit enhancement imo was also a fix and an
    unlawful one for this problem.

    4) Beyond the first credit enhancement, the rating agencies were
    concerned about bk-remoteness, so they wanted more
    enhancements before giving the desired rating – more $$ and
    headaches. Either that or the non-bk remoteness was just
    plain a deal-killer. Also, in short, the very article of the UCC on which
    they came to rely, article 3 with its bearer provisions, was cause
    for concern to the agencies . If anyone didn’t transfer the note to the trust to be
    securitized, that ‘anyone’ could try to enforce the note. Knowing
    these notes need the collateral instrument for enforcement,
    they would register (voluntarily!) the transfers on the MERS
    computer database and assgts could only be done, if ever,
    (pre-Consent Order) to the note transferee showing in the
    database. Pursuant to the membership agreement with MERSCorp, the assgts would be done by members,but in MERS’, the
    beneficiary’s, name. (had to be in MERS’ name). It could not
    be assigned in a lender or successor’s own right.

    5) So MERSCorp created MERS as a single purpose entity to hold
    the dots and mtgs. No one is an employee of MERS, not
    even its corporate officers. MERS no doubt had NO creditors,
    either. The members’ agreement, as deadlyclear often points
    out, is with MERSCorp, not MERS, so if a pi&&ing match ensues,
    it would be between MERSCorp, not MERS, and a member.

    6) Over there, MERS, and not the lender, is thee beneficiary
    for bk remoteness and any etc’s. With homeowners, however, MERS magically
    morphed into an agent, to avoid the significant and dispositive
    issue of original bifurcation. They wanted, needed, it both ways.
    But as I said, by then the bk-remoteness of many of these loans would not be an issue, any claw-back period having expired.

    So what we’ve got is original split of the note and collateral instrument – by design. I said they got stupid when they decided to skip making the orig lender the ben and then assigning to MERS. Was it more convenient or did they realize they had to because of the bk remoteness in regard to the orig lender? Don’t know, but it was fatal imo. Courts may well find that some Restatement is down with reunification (by way of a MERS’ assignment to the note owner). That, to me, is a far cry from the fact of original bifurcation with the borrower having a home loan note with one party and a collateral agreement with another, two different parties. The lender never had a security interest to perfect. MERS’ security interest seems perfected, but is it, given that MERS has no interest in the thing it secures? The entire enchalada rests on 1) the legality of that deal in the first place (given the statutory scheme, generally, of “mortgage loans” including security first and 2) whether or not originally bifurcated instruments may be unified.
    There were other reasons for “MERS”, also, like the passivity of the trusts and enforcement. Mortgages require judicial foreclosure. This takes “action”. Where “action” is not allowable, making anyone, including the servicer, one’s agent for the action is still action by the principal. Partly fmr, we need to address the “MERS may foreclose” in the collateral instruments. One thing is for sure – the borrower cannot
    authorize a third party to enforce someone else’s note.
    lay opinions

  48. Mortgage Loan .. referring to the Note and the DOT
    Mortgage Lien?

    The Title to the Estate went into irrevocable trust and trust closed?

    The Note was redirected and went into securities?

    That’s where it gets confusing.

    Are they saying they now want to dump the losses onto the trusts?

    And the (the hard money lenders) the intentional beneficiary who benefits during the life of the Estate vial rents from the proceeds of an ISC?

    I’m confused?

  49. Did you know the Estate can go on a payment plan for taxes?

    No, I didn’t either ….

    I just did it, it was my responsibility and I just do it!

    The amount really owed? Debt Scrap Price Plus Taxes?

    Hmmm … what .. of the amount owed can fc on a piece of land?

    As Surety ….. As Surety …..

    Yawn… time for a catnap.

  50. Embrace MERS …. It gives you the right to challenge the assignment the bustteeed con ordered.

    Unless the busteeed con paid the taxes ins and you didn’t pay the busttteeed back when they billed you? . Ut Ohhh …

  51. Funded Trusts …. ?

    The defendants knew at the time of the transfer of the Plaintiffs Note into Securities (Estate Trust) that the Mortgage was unenforceable?

  52. Modify Fraud?

  53. So “if” the Estate is held in Trust Irrevocably (can not be modified) ,
    *sniffles*, sigh ‘ 🙂

    Lets just say … there is a lot of restraint going on from both sides.

    Many Blessings to All !

  54. Reverse the Cylinder …
    Ownership is Known …
    Same address ..
    Same phone …

  55. Somebody charged off a LOC for the ISCs without knowledge of .. and option to .. at such price …….as Surety?

  56. Servicer of Installment Sale Contract?

  57. RE: However .. it may not seize assets of non-debtors

    BK remote from unsecured debts ….. Irrevocable Living Trusts?

  58. RE: However .. it may not seize assets of non-debtors

    Unless they are saying the Estate is the debtor/borrower,
    and that would mean … ?

  59. Security First …

    Failure to procure a proper judicial fc …. ? SOL ?

  60. An unsecured debt (by way of judgment can attach to a debtors assets). I agree …

    However .. it may not seize assets of non-debtors.

  61. Passive lien, (off record lien) to clear the Estate into Irrevocable Trust?

    Passive lien, with intentional beneficial interests/ profits (passive pass thru payment of rents?) during the life of the estate?

    Contingent remainders can not be “accelerated ” and made to take effect until …….. ?

  62. @ Johngault @ 7:53 ,,

    Right on with the passive lien language and such ,, that came up when I was fighting a junk debt collector for my brother in laws condo (bought 2006 , fc in 2009 when he lost his construction job) ,, not only did this idiot lawyer file after the statute of limitations had run,,, but the condo association (all condo associations) place a passive lien on your unit at closing … note went to bank in fc , mortgage now a nullity , condo ass had already collected max legally allowed from fc’ing bank (1% in of mtg amount FL) , no longer a note or mortgage for the associations claim to go against… They were “sol” ,, but I got $3k for my BIL because we got a demand to produce the original signed contract and the association ledger for FDCPA compliance and they failed ,, also didn’t remove negatives from reporting agencies…

  63. Jerry its easy to prove the separation of Note, debt and title (mortgage, deed of trust, securities) as it a part of the Ginnie Mae MBS system that it done in this manner. Notes must be relinquished to Ginnie Mae who cannot by law purchase the debt!

  64. If you can prove the separation of Note and Mortgage were split, (Note being in one entity and Mortgage in another entity) then Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 16 Wall. 271 271 (1872) addresses this very point. Sue for the note Mortgage a Nullity, still good law.

  65. This is not that complicated as these Notes in pools have the bankruptcy procedure done at the time the loans are accepted in the securities. I stay on the Ginnie Mae MBS because all the files are placed into the pool the exact same way and that is without a purchase occurring so that cuts MERS out of assigning the assignments because Ginnie Mae is not a member of MERS as a lender.

    Ginnie Mae not being a lender and not ever being on the face of the Note and not being able to provide proof of a purchase of the debt, and they have no right to come to the state court to be placed into the “lien holder” position.

    You must expose the easiest crack in the armor and it will expose the rest of the flaws. What do we know for a fact? The is that Ginnie Mae is not a lender, yet they must have the Notes signed with a blank endorsement and relinquished to Ginnie Mae.

    So what the big light in your face? It is who got the right to foreclose as Ginnie Mae is in possession day one of the pooling possess so now come foreclosure of the properties how does the Notes get transfer back to the lenders as there was no sale in the first place. You must understand the separation of Note and debt, and the cases of these allege mergers but the loans are in securities with non-negotiable document that we can show that on the face of the Note its nowhere has Ginnie Mae’s name or that they got a receipt of purchase.

    What in the public record? The security instrument! We know who in a securities with government loan mostly as 95% of the loan are in a Ginnie Mae pool. Knowing we got a 95% of certain loan in FHA & VA this is the easiest way to crack the secret. However I already believe this has been crack with the JPMorgan $614 million settlement, but who they wanted to pay part of the settlement reward does not address how a baldy underwritten file or falsified documented file or combination of both, then become the insurance claimed damages by a bank no longer holding the Note.

    The bank first sought out to defraud the Federal Government by there initial action, but needed in the end to break the law to continue with the plot.

  66. KC…my DOT says, MERS is the nominee under the deed of trust.. How can a nominee hold anything and move it, by way of their nominee status? I have a real problem understanding that one. And they continue to nominee others…I mean really. Where does the nomineeing end?

  67. The bk remoteness involves all note holders because, for one, a bk trustee may ‘claw back’ for the benefit of the bk estate some transfers by the debtor which took place within a certain amt of time prior to the filing of bk (think they have to be found to be prejudical transfers or like that, but I forget). By having another party named as the ben, the bk trustee or even any one of the note holders’ creditors could reach the note (by judgment and possibly personal property lien before that), but not the dot.* Have to do some thinking to find the value (except in AZ). And that other party had to be bullet proof, i.e., subject to NO creditor (or employee) claims. It appears the alleged bk remoteness of MERS, as opposed to the lack of bk remoteness of other entities in the “chain”, was beneficial because they didn’t have to pay more moolah for something to protect against creditor or bk trustee claims. If the ben were the agent of the lender, this would not work.

    *hence the imo-unlawful conveyance to MERS in a ‘mortgage’, which precluded the not-bk-remote-lender and its note transferees from having a lien themselves. Plus that makes MERS own something, so out-the-window bk remoteness; this may be what Ellen Brown was talking about. Wowie zowie. Well, better late than never – for some of us.

  68. About the assgts – in other words, contrary to what we’re being fed,
    MERS, thee ben, authorized the members to execute ITS assignments (by calling them officers). Had to be in MERS’ name because MERS is thee ben. * Still a load since the member and non-member employees aren’t true MERS’ officers, but the effort is made to make it appear that way. And it doesn’t address the orig split. If they hadn’t changed their m.o. and left the lender as the ben and then assigned, they might carry on forever (if in fact re-unification is allowable). But imo, that decision to make MERS the orig ben and not assign was fatal as cyanide: the lender doesn’t have a perfected security interest and the loan contract is with two “separate and distinct” parties.
    It’s the note which is purchased in a home loan transfer, but it may be that this particular ben is actually charging money to assign the dot to someone else. I don’t actually believe that (could well be, tho), but unless the consideration recited in the assgt is for the note (and how’s that again?), it has no place in the assgt. imo.

    *I said the members retained control and / so the part of the membership agreement stating that the members would do the assignments (albeit in MERS’ name) and not MERS must have been a big comfort to the members (contractually, MERS, the real MERS, couldn’t assign the dot). How nice for them (plus the attempt at the disclaimer of ben interest in the recorded dot).

  69. Courts have it backwards. MERS isn’t an agent and the reason that the dot says MERS can foreclose is because as thee ben, it could. Except for the little problem that the note and dot have been split at the origination, which is diff than it being done once the dot is perfected in the lender’s name (they really did get stupid when they changed from naming the lender as the ben and then assigning to MERS). But what’s really going on in a dot is what courts have backwards. Where it says “MERS is acting solely as a nominee” is a stmt for the LENDER’S benefit, and has nada to do with the borrower. (And as I always say, and as I now recall, Judge Grossman agrees – Agard – a borrower can’t make anyone anyone else’s anything, and so would any judge who put his thinking cap on) It’s MERS and CO’s way of assuring the lender that MERS will not claim a beneficial interest in the dot. Otherwise, what’s to stop them or what if MERS had creditors? We think, well, a dot is useless without the note, but as we’ve now seen, some courts have ruled in favor of the ben f/c’g, regardless of the note (that is so tweaked). If the language isn’t a certainty that MERS can’t claim a beneficial interest in the dot, it certainly is a place to start for a lender to posit that MERS has no beneficial interest against anyone, including MERS or MERSCorp, who might decide otherwise for whatever reason(s).
    I just don’t think that’s a legit scenario: to make A the lender and B the ben in the collateral instrument, because it’s together that the note and the dot form a complete home loan contract, even if it weren’t for the other problems, like the security interest held by a diff party, so the actual lender’s security interest isn’t perfected, in fact, it doesn’t really have one. The relationship between MERS and others may be spelled out in another agreement between them, but they wanted it in public record as best they could that MERS has no beneficial interest (but they also wanted to be able to foreclose in MERS’ name and that’s why that’s in the dot – it’s a notification, nothing more) But again, it’s messed because of the original bifurcation of two material parts of a contract. In the agreement, the unrecorded one, the club-members retain control, although they act in the nominee’s name. If it weren’t for that agreement, they couldn’t do that. Mers, the beneficiary, would be the only one who could avail itself of the dot. The way the whole thing is operated is not only legally messed up, it’s abusive to the borrower. They made MERS thee ben in name only for purposes x,y, and z, but the members did in fact retain control. The membership agreement (prior to the Consent Order) spelled out that it was the member who was to execute an assgt in MERS’ name, but only if the note were transferred to a non-member. * Til then, there would be no assgt. The split would be maintained. It’s only after a good deal of borrower
    confrontations that MERS began calling itself an agent. The Consent Order turned up the flame. As the beneficiary, MERS MUST execute an assignment in order for the note and the dot to be unified for enforcement (but, there was no orig unity to RE unify and I obviously think that’s a mongo problem for them).

    *At least one court that we know of recently has said it finds no support for agency in the member agreement. Of course not. That’s not the deal and in fact would’ve messed up the deal.
    I just want to point out again that the dot says MERS IS the ben and that “MERS” executes the assgts in its own right, not as an agent.

    lay opinions

  70. ” MERS was a facilitator of securitization,” said Grayson, a Democratic member of the House Financial Services Committee.”

    Steve Liesman explained in 2007:

    “How do you create a subprime derivative? …You take a bunch of mortgages… and put them into one big thing. We call it a Mortgage Backed Security. Say it’s $50 million worth… Now you take a bunch of these Mortgage Backed Securities and you put them into one very big thing… The one thing about all these guys here [in the one very big thing] is that they’re all subprime borrowers, their credit is bad or there’s something about them that doesn’t make it prime…

    Watch, we’re going to make some triple A paper out of this… Now we have a $1 billion vehicle here. We’re going to slice it up into five different pieces. Call them tranches… The key is, they’re not divided by “Jane’s is here” and “Joe’s is here.” Jane is actually in all five pieces here. Because what we’re doing is, the BBB tranche, they’re going to take the first losses for whoever is in the pool, all the way up to about 8% of the losses. What we’re saying is, you’ve got losses in the thing, I’m going to take them and in return you’re going to pay me a relatively high interest rate… All the way up to triple A, where 24% of the losses are below that. Twenty-four percent have to go bad before they see any losses. Here’s the magic as far as Wall Street’s concerned. We have taken subprime paper and created GE quality paper out of it. We have a triple A tranche here.”

    Ellen Brown explained the significance of MERS in this process:

    “The top tranche is triple A because it includes the mortgages that did NOT default; but no one could know which those were until the defaults occurred, when the defaulting mortgages got assigned to the lower tranches and foreclosure went forward. That could explain why the mortgages could not be assigned to the proper group of investors immediately: the homes only fell into their designated tranches when they went into default. The clever designers of these vehicles tried to have it both ways by conveying the properties to an electronic dummy conduit called MERS (an acronym for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems), which would hold them in the meantime. MERS would then assign them to the proper tranche as the defaults occurred. But the rating agencies required that the conduit be “bankruptcy remote,” which meant it could hold title to nothing; and courts have started to take notice of this defect.”

    jg: don’t get the second part of the last sentence. Of what did MERS
    hold title? Well, I guess, as it turns out, since they turned the mtg lien into a security (unlawfully imo, guess MERS held title to some real estate. Actually, when an instrument is meant to create a lien and it’s changed to a conveyance to the other party (not even a trustee!), there must be a word for that. I’m trying to find, fwiw, a “mortgage” to read since that NJ one is buried somewhere.

    (Gonzalo Lira made the same point.)

    “Indeed, the secretary and treasurer of MERS admitted this in a deposition, stating (page 32, lines 9-20):

    As a requirement for mortgages that were securing loans or promissory notes that were sold to securitize trust, the rating agencies would only allow mortgages MERS — well let me step back. They required that a bankruptcy remote single purpose entity be created in order for transactions holding loans secured by MERS, by mortgages MERS served as mortgagee to be in those pools and receive a rating, an investment grade rating without any changes to the credit enhancement. They required that to be a bankruptcy remote single purpose subsidiary of MERS, of Merscorp.”

    jg: if this reads, I’m a monkey’s uncle. It doesn’t, but one glean a little. So MERS was created (partly) to be that bk remote spe because the rating agencies demanded there be one for bk remoteness in order not to require “any changes to the credit enhancement”. Is this to say that loans going into trusts required credit enhancement and that without the bk remoteness of an alleged spe, those enhancement reqs would be greater for the ratings sought (and shockingly received)? I’m of a mind that one of the reasons for credit enhancements in the first place is because the loans are unseasoned. I’m thinking that’s why FNMA came up with its guarantee, also.

    Many commercial mortgages may be held by MERS as well, and for the same reason.

    Harper’s points out:

    [MERS] facilitated the buying and selling of mortgage debt at great speed* and greatly reduced cost. It was a key innovation in expediting the packaging of mortgage-backed securities. Soon after the registry launched, in 1999, the Wall Street ratings agencies pronounced the system sound. “The legal mechanism set up to put creditors on notice of a mortgage is valid,” as was “the ability to foreclose,” assured Moody’s.** That same year, Lehman Brothers issued the first AAA-rated mortgage-backed security built out of MERS mortgages. By the end of 2002, MERS was registering itself as the owner of 21,000 loans every day. Five years later, at the peak of the housing bubble, MERS registered some two thirds of all home loans in the United States.

    *jg: how’s that? Did those guys trade electronically (which is no trade imo if the notes weren’t created as e-notes)? **I disagree. Courts say
    the purpose of recordation is to put others (creditors, buyers, generally) on notice of an encumberance, which is true, but it’s way not the only reason for recordation. Imo, unless MERS is arm’s length (and not an agent), there is no notice of anyone’s interest x possibly the orig lender if there is no assgt noticed by recordation. If MERS is arm’s length (and not an agent), then the only notice needed to be imparted is accomplished by recordation of the orig dot until “MERS” assigns it. Unless one is in WA or any other state whose SC has ruled that MERS is not a beneficiary, in which case, imo, the dot is simply not perfected (and may be avoided in or out of bk court). I think the following is also from “Harper’s”:
    “Without the efficiencies of MERS there probably would never have been a mortgage-finance bubble.

    (In addition, the same mortgage was sometimes pledged to numerous buyers at the same time. This wouldn’t have been possible without the vaporware title given by MERS. And some – like foreclosure attorney Neil Garfield – think that the ability to pledge the same mortgage multiple times is a feature, rather than a bug, of MERS……)

    jg: well, that would certainly help explain the economic tsunami and says to me, if true, this would have brought on the collapse, regardless if borrower’s made their payments on not. One dollar can repay someone owed one dollar, but of course it can’t repay 4 people owed a dollar.

    Some of this is taken, for informational purposes, from “washingtonsblog.com”. I don’t know the author’s name (maybe it’s washington), but I like him or her.

    Anything I said is my own lay opinion. The people who’s opinions are quoted aren’t giving legal advice, either.

  71. Neidermeyer – I am cheering for you – Ocwen and others before have acted fraudulently while servicing my loan…Wells Fargo is the Master Servicer….I wish you success!!

    I think Tnharry and Gene – are trying to help – I would rather have my theories tested and maybe debunked here than in a Court.

    Johngault – I admire your passion for the end of MERS – I think I have an example of MERS and why it is no more than smoke and mirrors – I sent you a message a while back – and you did respond (thanks) – but did I mention the recorded assignment? Guess which one? Yep – the wrong one – what a system. Wonder who made the mistake since I can’t fathom how it could have been MERS?

    Just want to thank the people who do post things that they have tried, considered – helpful information.

  72. johngault very good thought process. As Ian is saying I feel in my gut that we are close and each day it does seem as more and more information is released it certifies what we all been saying.

    john MERS must have the security interest recorded first and then their scheme of this unbroken chain of ownership as long as its between MERS members.

    They have circumvented the system with a administrative foreclosure process that does not even require the document which the entire thing is base on to not be recorded in a copy form undated when an additional transaction occurs.

    Let take Ginnie Mae who is only the insurer to the “investors” who have purchase the MBS, but by they are not authorize to incur a debt for the taxpayer, and that includes purchasing home mortgage loans that Ginnie Mae publish that they don’t originate, buy or sell them or Ginnie Mae MBS.

    However as these loan are pooled together and Ginnie Mae is guarantying them at 100% the have as a bankruptcy remote procedure, where the lender relinquishes the Notes endorsed in blank.

    Understand that once relinquished in this manner without a sale that if Ginnie Mae is not in possession of the Notes it has no proof of any underlying collateral for the securities. So there not going to be a case where they are allowing another to take possession of the collateral as it would become the property of that entity.

    Because the Notes are in a blank format and does not list Ginnie Mae on the Notes anywhere they cannot assign the Note to another as the Note no longer contain a debt by the current holder of the debt.

    Now how they been getting around the reuniting of the Note and the debt without an explanation is because first the court are not aware of the relinquishing of the Note as they don’t have one on file and don’t ever required one. But with UCC 9 says that as long as the originator is in possession of the Note that they don’t have the burden of proof.

    This is why Countrywide never relinquish the Notes to the loans to the trust. We are finding that JPMorgan did not purchase the loans in the Washington Mutual FDIC arranged deal and that Fannie, Freddie and Ginnie Mae claimed those loan as those loan were in their pools!

    I don’t see a way this does not clear itself up as it been reported along time ago, and with the Szymoniak case being file this issue must be dealt with, because the government cannot cover it up as to much is out in the public domain.

  73. Mers doesn’t purport, at least by way of a dot, to own any form of title to the real property. It merely purports to own or have legal title to the rights of the ben. Not even the real ben / lender has either form of title – the dot trustee does and the homeowner the other. If Mers has purported to own any title to the real estate, I’d like to see that (esp in a court proceeding). I don’t believe I’ve ever even seen a NOD for a “mortgage”, actually.
    kc, lay it out here, will ya already? What was wrong with the right of the party to sign the deed to you and or your spouse? I think you’re implying legal title was not passed because whomever executed that deed didn’t have it to convey. Lenders don’t generally make loans on anything short of fee simple because they could end up with no collateral. COULD they? Suppose so, but imo it would be junior to the interest of the guy who actually owns legal title and anyway, that guy might be found to have both legal and equitable.
    There was a guy who sold his home on contract to a gal. (He had legal title, she had equitable.) The contract wasn’t recorded (oops). Guy went out and got a new loan on the property ( a crummy one to boot). Gal found out when the lender went to foreclose. Quite a battle ensued. Her interests should have been senior, but the lender for the guy had no notice of those interests when it made the loan and was found to be a bona fide lender for value.* But actually, just possession by one not in title has been found to be notice of a potential claim to an interest, and some courts have said that that possession puts everyone (i.e., the lender) on ‘inquiry’ notice. I don’t believe that argument was made by the gal nor do I know the outcome (haven’t looked lately). As to your situation, no one, including me, has enough facts for an opinion, but one thing in my strictly lay opinion – whether or not the lender in your deal is a bona fide lender (pretty much akin to a bona fide purchaser) depends on what it knew or should have known. You’ve got the title commitment and or policy? Buyers get both, right? Is someone else claiming an interest in the home?

    *Conversely, also in my lay opinion, that’s why bk trustees and some debtors may avoid unrecorded interests – NO notice and they have the status, as a matter of law, as bona fide purchasers for value.
    The bk trustee has that status even if he has actual knowledge of
    an unrecorded interest. BK rules are created from other rules. I’ve been meaning to find out the ones which give rise to the bk ones, but well, you know (the point is I believe those rules apply without bk). These bk rules are the ones the banksters are trying hard to get 86’d.

    This is from a BK case (this one is Chapter 11): It’s part of an unpublished ruling on a contested mtn for relief from stay:

    “The trustee in bankruptcy may increase the amount of property of the estate available for distribution to creditors by exercising certain avoidance powers enumerated, inter alia, in Bankruptcy Code Sections 544, 547, and 548.23 An individual debtor may acquire the same duties and responsibilities of a trustee in bankruptcy by filing a chapter 11 petition, seeking to reorganize or to file a plan of liquidation. Because the debtor in possession is vested with the same powers of the trustee, the debtor in possession may pursue avoidance actions as well. In this case, the individual Debtors filed a chapter 11 petition seeking to reorganize, and no bankruptcy trustee has yet been appointed in this case. As a result, the Debtors exercise the rights of a bankruptcy trustee concerning the ability to avoid certain transfers or transactions.

    Because of the avoidance powers of the bankruptcy trustee or the debtor in possession, this Court requires that if a party seeking relief from the automatic stay asserts a perfected security interest in any property of the estate, that moving party must be able to present at least a prima facie case that it has such a perfected security interest under applicable law. **The fact that the transaction is not avoidable between the parties to the underlying loan transaction is not dispositive of whether the transaction may be avoided by third parties that are, for instance, bona fide purchasers.” **

    lay opinions – ask a lawyer

  74. Contingent remainders can not be “accelerated ” and made to take effect ……..

  75. Neidermier- I agree wholeheartedly w you. Covering up all this fraud has been like a game of whack-a-mole for the govt and the banks and other nonbank banks and institutions. And the truth is getting harder to suppress on a weekly, if not daily basis. So the tide is turning, I just don’t know what the next step will be to blame the fraud on the borrowers again or what. Foreclosure suicides are now over 16000, and if caused by fraud, is that accessory to murder?

  76. RE: ” Most people own their homes in what is called “fee simple”. There are two sub-parts to that title: equitable and legal”

    Yes, We made a fee simple purchase but did not receive both legal and equitable title after borrowing the money and paying the money for the purchase. How can you convey something you haven’t received yet?

    If you were the Trustee of the Seller Estate and you get notice …
    that I didn’t get what I bought ..

    Would you talk to your attorney before talking to me?

  77. Expressed that MERS ONLY holds legal title.

  78. Title to Estate transferred and conveyed irrevocably warranted free and clear of all liens ..?

  79. JG, Title to the Estate transferred and conveyed irrevocably?

    Mortgage & Profits off of the Estates Trust at the same time?

    Double Dipping? Collecting on both?

  80. Gentlemen! Come on! Wish I could say this privately, but I can’t, so have to say it here. Please don’t substitute attacks on the man’s arguments for ones on the man. I don’t want to call anyone out because first of all, who am I? Right. Just another commentor here, trying to contribute and learn. And I’m pretty sure that’s the real truth about you more learned guys, also. I think we all appreciate your contributions, whatever they are (some of them, the ones you might skip, are no doubt born of long, trying ordeals) Please keep ’em coming, but stick to the argument, okay? Let’s not become the enemy. Thanks for reading (and your contributions).

  81. I’ve commented that I was “horrified” to see a conveyance in a mortgage (v a dot), but I couldn’t articulate why. Now I think I can fwiw.
    The following is based on what I was taught and a case I happened on (not on foreclosure, tho): A mortgage is a lien. That’s why it requires judicial foreclosure. A lien is only “passive”; it’s not enforceable by attaching the borrower’s assets or the property. It surely can and does lead to attachment, but by itself, it can’t. A dot on the other hand IS a conveyance of an actual interest in the property, the home. There’s a difference between a ‘lien’ and ‘security’. A dot, because it’s a conveyance, is ‘security’. To enforce an agreement which is secured by a lien requires a court order. Because a dot is security (not a lien even tho it’s otherwise treated as such), and because of the Dot Act (I’d say), a lender may enforce the security without court action, without a court order.
    The conveyance in a mtg which I saw was in NJ. The property was conveyed to MERS (so those who know me can imagine my reaction) at not only the conveyance itself, but to MERS. I’m generally looking at dot cases, so hadn’t seen a ‘mortgage’ “post-MERS” at that point.

    How and why did they turn a collateral instrument which is a lien into a security? (a conveyance in the mtg does that) Under what authority? Most people own their homes in what is called “fee simple”. There are two sub-parts to that title: equitable and legal, and in a dot, one is granted to the dot trustee to hold in trust for the ben and the homeowner retains the other. Since an instrument which is a mortgage, a two-party instrument, and is a lien, despite the alleged conveyance in a MERS’ mortgage, it nonetheless requires judicial foreclosure; the lender must seek and get court approval to enforce the lien created in and by the mortgage. So got me why for certain they included a conveyance in a mtg. But, imo they shouldn’t if not couldn’t have.
    My thought this minute about why they did this (because surely not even that gang thought it could skip judicial foreclosure with a mortgage, a passive instrument, a lien: they didn’t want the mortgage to “follow the note”, so to preclude that, or any adjudication that it did,** they put MERS in the act. That woudn’t work if MERS were an agent; MERS had to be another party, arm’s length succinctly, so that party had to be a nominee, another party. Their very goal was to bifurcate the note and mtg. Had they not, the name of the lender trying to enforce the note couldn’t be avoided. (and they couldn’t call MERS the ben because there is no ben in a mortgage).
    Since the mortgage is just a (passive) lien, and enforcement requires judicial approval, yes, they would have had to name the real party in interest in that action, the lender. MERS had no interest in the note, so they shouldn’t have been using MERS or ANY third party as that party at all (the owner of a lien), as a claimant OR in the mortgage, but they got away with it for a very long time. In fact, it’s just totally legally skewed imo. Also, imo, the lender, whomever the hey that is, has no “lien” to try to convert to “security” – anywhere. That doesn’t mean, except for entanglements not in their favor about security first, a lender couldn’t still enforce the note and attach the home (and other assets) with a judgment, just like unsecured creditors do.
    lay opinions as always

    I see we’ve got some legal thinkers here today. Agree or disagree, but have at it! I’d appreciate any critique. And I’d also be interested in feedback from anyone – did I make my argument clear? Charles?

  82. Just got back from a long walk

    @Charles , I told my lawyer “I’m driving this thing ’til the wheels fall off” , sounds like you’re of the same mindset … YES , I chose the name Neidermeyer because I can be a complete asshole when I’m being cheated and lied to,, 99% of people never see that side of me …. I’ve been enough of an insider (used to be a stockbroker) to see the fraud firsthand on a daily basis… I’m broke now but I’ve accomplished more with no resources than TN Harry ever has…

    @TN Harry ,,, what’s with this “/SIGH” nonsense … From now on your pledge name is EEYORE ,,, In the recent thread about the recorder that pledged to clean up the mess you said “except endorsed notes aren’t within the purview of the county recorder…and his job is to record documents that facially meet the requirements for recording. it’s am improper reach to go beyond that and make himself a trier of facts. that’s the role of the court. and the most obvious issue – if he does try to conduct a review of each and every document presented for recording, within 1 month they will have ballooned to a 12 month backlog of documents to record. it’s all feel good rhetoric.” TYPICAL EEYORE “NUTTIN WE KIN DO ABOUT IT SO LETS ALL FEEL SORRY FOR OURSELVES” BS..

    I pointed out a way to MAKE THE CLEANUP BEGIN TO HAPPEN… I made a positive change at the clerk/recorder level in my area and I’m a total outsider with only one thing you don’t have ,,, BALLS.

    I’ve got things to do, I’m watching the kids tonight … but I’ll leave you with an inspirational speech from brother Bluto https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8lT1o0sDwI

  83. Unfortunately, I agree with tn and gene…but I still think the run is on the contractual issues. Just saying; been there, done that…it’s valid.

    When I say unfortunate, that’s not to mean…what they say is incorrect; rather, it sucks. These cats have learned the game over decades and they do it well, while having Billions to throw at the issues we face!

    But the high side there are wins…it is doable.

    As for tn and Gene…the titles in millions of cases are completely disrupted, in some cases destroyed. The deed offices around the country are in complete disarray, corrupted. Lawlessness will not sustain itself. And the thing, America is collapsing at some level. Financial stability is tenuous…and faltering each day. Liberty has been bought…the country is ripe for anarchy. IMHO

    You can only squeeze an orange to a point! Some of us will get through it, many won’t…sad!

  84. tnharry we are dealing with foreign corporation to the states that the giant mortgage corporations in Fannie, Freddie & Ginnie who we know for a fact have the lenders relinquish to them as Ginnie Mae is forbid by law to purchase them. Now we come to foreclosing and these holder are hiding in the back ground allowing servicers to foreclose by fraud.

    Once a blank Note is physically transferred it cannot ever be transferred again because the physical holder cannot endorse a blank Note because the Notes does not grant a non party on the face of the Notes to sign it!

    These securities are not allowed to join in a state action as they are not register to do business in the freaking states. In fact as the loan debt are not purchase there can be no harm to the holder who is not the “holder in due course”!

    This is why homeowners are losing because these lawyer are not smart enough to figure it out, so they turn on the homeowner and eat their young. Do tell me what you cannot do, but tell me what you can do, as WE are not laying down to die!

  85. /sigh

  86. The banks create forgeries to avoid having to face a judge as they have “No Standing” yet we are going to court with parties that have “No Standing” at all.

    And one more thing as these loan are traded on the NY Stock Market and that is who allegedly holders through UCC 3, then as a possession of something that located in NY should bring the matter to Fed Court anyway. We got a federal agreement as far as the contracts!

    No one is located in the state but the homeowners, and as Fannie, Freddie & Ginnie are not register to do business in any of these states so there matters cannot even be brought to the state level if you think about it. What state are these agencies registered to make home mortgage loans? But we see with these settlements that they are claiming the loans and purchasing the foreclosures, which are a joke with Fannie & Freddie as no monies are changing hand if your talking about you owned the loans in the first place! If the loan was your loan your not purchasing it from ABC Bank on the steps of the courthouse!

  87. tnharry these banks don’t have the right to use the court or administrative foreclosures because they are only being allowed due to the fact of forged assignments. Your saying the the court does not deal in this civil arrangement, however that untrue as the bank through MERS & DocX have been provide to be involved in violating state & fed laws.

    You cannot claim we have no right of the state courts while denying us illegally with admitted falsified document being used as JPMorgan just did and paid $614 million.

    So JPMorgan and the fed gov settle that wrong doing was going on and them turn around to say the the homeowner was not harmed by the action of the bank.

    I am going with the fact that the banks are admitting that they committed fraud with this loans that have made them pay restitution and admitted too the crime.

    So is it not relevant that the only reason the bank is performing the administrative foreclose is due to the fact that DocX Lorraine Brown and team on the outskirt of Atlanta GA is in jail in Michigan for creating 1 million forged mortgage document that she sold around the country to all the large banks and was part of the Jan 2012 foreclosure settlement.

    It crazy that the states got $25 billion settlement yet there titles are suppose to be good to take someones property? The Fed Gov needs to inform each county as to what record they recovered from DocX and inform all involved so that the false records and be rescinded!

  88. @ Gene ,

    I don’t wish for a collapse ,, but TN Harry and the others that support the corruption of the judiciary ,, turning us into a banana republic is far worse in the long run … We don’t have 20 years like Japan did … because the engines of the world are stopping ,, the US is dead ,, Japan has been dead , All of Europe except Germany is dead and China is dying …

    Where are you going to find the economic horsepower to drag the carcass of the USA forward for 20 years? Chile? , Iceland? (hey didn’t their experiment work out?? just saying!) , the new improved USSR?

    The only solution ,, and after all this time it will be painful ,, is to get back on track and end the corruption… There is no engine big enough to drag us … look at what supporting us has done to China! we must get back on our feet.

    The USA in 2013 is the Great Britain of the 1970’s ,,, but there is no big brother country with the power to save us.

  89. @ TN Harry

    re : “A few cases:” post @ 2:19pm

    OK , you’re a lawyer … I’ll accept that

    OK , you’re always the wet blanket … ALWAYS

    OK , If you’re here it’s either because you are here to discourage … OR … you’re here to help … you never offer a strategy forward or propose any new method of attack ,,, you’re personally safe .. you know how to offer advice without actually offering advice … yet you never do…

    What is your plan to restore the courts to civility rather than allow them to remain the domain of brutes that bash us with impunity , forged docs , gleefully accepted by the courts and all the other illegalities.

    I’ll make the assumption that your solution does not involve piano wire… because that’s where we are heading.

  90. I thought I was proving your point, referring to a case that lost.
    Maybe I could have chosen a better example but there is a lot to learn from cases that lost … enclosed was this little tid bit …

    Section 1983 does not reach all constitutional injuries, but only those caused by persons acting “under color of state law.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Flagg Brothers, Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 98 S.Ct. 1729, 56 L.Ed.2d 185 (1978); Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 95 S.Ct. 449, 42 L.Ed.2d 477 (1974

    And this one ……

    “, prescription is defined as a manner of acquiring the ownership of property, or discharging debts, by the effect of time. The prescription by which debts are released is a bar to both personal and real actions resulting from the creditor’s failure to pursue his claim during the time fixed by law “

  91. neidermeyer

    Your name must fit you, if Animal House is any guide.

    New York? K St? Try 3500 miles away, living in a city that had a 65% drop in home values and 1 in 4 homes foreclosed upon.

    Sounds like you actually wish for a collapse……..if so, you should really spend some time studying the Depression and then take the effects and apply to urban environments.

    If Japan is any example, the US will be able to survive two decades or more before any collapse. But the effects can be lessened in a number of ways.

    BTW, MERS just won the Dallas County Texas case brought against it by the local recorder. Of course, it is just that the judge was either bought off, or did not understand the issues, if this website is any guide.

  92. @ GENE ,

    I agree with your assessment of the actions taken in the current situation…

    but your argument that it’s better to die chained with festering sores and blood poisoning losing our rights in order to help the banks rather than to do the right thing will lead to the same economic collapse … and spread it out over a longer period of time with no road back to health ,, because you propose destroying that road ,,, property rights

    The collapse is coming ,, you can’t stop it .. you’re just making it worse.

    Go back to your Lobster and caviar lunch at whatever trendy Manhattan or “K” Street eatery you’re hanging out at …

  93. @ TN Harry

    You just get more and more ridiculous sounding as this goes on … Attacking Charles because of advancing an argument where you cannot see any state involvement ….. shortly after dismissing Weidners “Certiorari” which , if you had read it , has state involvement demonstrated and documented end-to-end and it’s main focus is 14th ammendment DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS


    TNHARRY , I’m calling you out ,, What have you done to stop even a small amount of the fraud… I have inserted myself into over a dozen cases where the plaintiff lacked standing but somehow ended up with the sale and forced my circuit to change how they handled auctions,, gaining for my county over $15M in fee income every year since 2010 ,, I DID IT ,, I WAS BANNED FROM THE AUCTIONS because I wasn’t a “true bidder” , I was there to throw a monkey wrench and throw I DID! ,, After a year the banks finally got tired of seeing “UNABLE TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE” on their case dockets… I got my county to address the fraud in the auction process … I have also helped friends and family with junk debt buyer suits and haven’t lost a single one… even got one family member $3,000 in FDCPA fines (those suits are amazingly easy to “86”)… I am on track to absolutely murder OCWEN with a 9 figure claim using documents belonging to the party they are illegally impersonating…and I can show where they have pulled the same fraud at least a few thousand times in my state… I’m expecting them to come back with a settlement offer of course…

    Damn it HARRY you’re a lawyer ,, you’re blind to the corruption ,, you see it as “how business gets done” ,,, well WE (the ROYAL “we”) aren’t going to take it from you and your bretheren on the bench.


  94. Once again, tnharry is correct. That is no benefit of the Arizona case to Florida at all. Same as with Glaski in CA and any other state. It does not apply.

    First, one must look at the particular state statutes to see if they are the same, and then relevant case law within the state. Only if there is nothing applicable can one consider outside jurisdictional cases, but it had better be applicable and on point, with the laws being similar.

    NG is only stirring the pot again. He knows it means nothing, but it sure sounds good.

    BTW, remember when everyone thought Ibanez was going to change the country and the battles? What happened? Nothing…………

    The simple fact is that those here will never get their wishes of invalidating securitization and MERS. Nor any arguments about conspiracy and whatever else is postulated.

    If the arguments were upheld, every financial institution would collapse. So would all other investment firms, pension funds, the Stock Market, Equities and most other entities.

    The Credit Markets would immediately freeze up again, and businesses would not be able to get funds to pay their employees, big firms or little.

    As to those who think that the Investors are on your side, get real. I have spoken with many of the Investors and the truth is that they want the foreclosures to continue, and to speed up. Every delay costs them money.

    Meanwhile, the government wants to slow things down only, and spread everything out over an extended period. The reason is that with the trillions of dollars at risk, the only way to prevent complete collapse is to spread the pain out over 10 year or more to come.

    Those who say “let it collapse”, have never really considered the implications. It would be far worse than the Depression. In the Depression, we were still a non urban society for the most part. Today, completely urban. Things collapse, and the “jackals” really come out and loot, steal and who knows what else.

  95. I fear you may have attention deficit disorder

  96. A few cases:

    It is well-established that the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clause applies to state action, not private conduct. See Flagg Brothers, Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 156, 98 S. Ct. 1729, 56 L. Ed. 2d 185 (1978). Thus, on its face, Plaintiff’s complaint seems not to state a claim since the non-judicial foreclosure at issue is by definition a contractually-determined act involving private parties, not the state. Plaintiff recognizes this [*7] hurdle to her claim, but argues that Tennessee statutes recognizing, enforcing, and regulating non-judicial foreclosure effectively “convert” such foreclosures into state action. This argument is unpersuasive.
    “[T]he actions of a private party will not be attributed to the state unless the state actually compels the action.” King v. Emery, 836 F.2d 1348, 1988 WL 1101, *1 (6th Cir. 1988); see also United States v. Coleman, 628 F.2d 961, 964 (6th Cir. 1980) (“where state involvement in private action constitutes no more than acquiescence or tacit approval, the private action is not transformed into state action even if the private party would not have acted without the authorization of state law”). Plaintiff provides a laundry-list of terms in Tennessee’s non-judicial foreclosure statutes that purportedly make the state “pervasively involved” in the foreclosure process.n1 However, these provisions show only that Tennessee recognizes the right of private parties to contract for power of sale, provides some default terms in the event contracts authorizing power of sale are silent on some issues, and will enforce such contracts. They do not show that Tennessee compels non-judicial foreclosure, [*8] or is otherwise so entwined with the non-judicial foreclosure process that its apparent private character is only illusory. In fact, if Tennessee’s recognition and willingness to enforce private contracts authorizing non-judicial foreclosure amounts to State action, it is difficult to see why the enforcement of almost any private contractual remedy in Tennessee would not be State action.
    Drake v. Citimortgage, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40236, 6-8 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 13, 2011)

    The Court notes that Plaintiffs’ due process claim was previously directed against Defendant; now Plaintiffs raise this claim against the Court. Insofar as Plaintiffs object to Judge Binder’s analysis of Plaintiffs’ due process claim against Defendant, the Court agrees with Judge Binder: the Fifth Amendment does not apply to private parties like Defendant; it is not a “state actor.” See Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 13, 68 S. Ct. 836, 92 L. Ed. 1161 (1948) (The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments “erect[] no shield against merely private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful.”); cf. Malinski v. New York, 324 U.S. 401, 415, 65 S. Ct. 781, 89 L. Ed. 1029 (1945) (Frankfurter, J., concurring) (“Of course the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has the same meaning. To suppose that ‘due process of law’ meant one [*30] thing in the Fifth Amendment and another in the Fourteenth is too frivolous to require elaborate rejection.”). Thus, Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which the Court could grant relief.
    Kloss v. RBS Citizens, N.A., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15200, 29-30 ( E.D. Mich. Feb. 6, 2014)

    Stanton’s due process claim also fails. The Sixth Circuit has held that Michigan’s statute regulating foreclosure by advertisement does not involve state action for purposes of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Northrip v. Fed. Nat’l Mortgage Ass’n, 527 F.2d 23, 27-28 (6th Cir. 1975). As the Michigan Court of Appeals has stated, “foreclosure by advertisement is not a judicial action and does not involve state action for purposes of the Due Process Clause, but rather is based on contract between the mortgagor and the mortgagee.” Cheff v. Edwards, 203 Mich. App. 557, 560, 513 N.W.2d 439, 441 (1994). Moreover, based upon its review of the foreclosure by advertisement [*10] statute, the Court finds no provision therein requiring the mortgagee to present the original promissory note to the mortgagor for the foreclosure to be valid. Cf. Diessner v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., 618 F. Supp. 2d 1184, 1187 (D. Ariz. 2009) (stating that “Arizona’s nonjudicial foreclosure statute does not require presentation of the original note before commencing foreclosure proceedings”). Presentation of the note is unnecessary because foreclosure by advertisement is a separate remedy from an action at law on the note. Guardian Depositors Corp. v. Powers, 296 Mich. 553, 560, 296 N.W. 675, 678 (1941). Accordingly, Stanton’s due process claim fails.
    Stanton v. Fed. Mortg. Assoc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15905, 9-10 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 23, 2010)

  97. Let look at this matter where JPMorgan in a court in NY settling that they cheated the Fed Gov’s FHA & VA programs with bad underwriting and falsified loan documents, and the homeowner in the state of NM is in court at the same time, claiming falsified document on the exact same file were used to foreclosed.

    What happening in NY is effecting what going on in NM and all the other 49 states, and as with the internet were technology has grown pass the laws on the books, yet there are good ole fashion criminal laws on the books that these judges have a responsibility of referring these crimes that have appeared in their court rooms!

    The involvement of the Fed Gov in these securities is denying homeowner their state rights and Constitutional Rights of illegal seizure by the Federal Gov when Ginnie Mae ownership is being claimed!

  98. @Charles, you keep trying to go off on tangents. How is a middle appellate court decision on a case in Arizona that was not decided on the merits applicable to Florida?

    and for bonus points : how does a nonjudicial foreclosure that includes no component of a sheriff, clerk, or judge confirming the sale meet the state action requirement for a due process violation claim?

  99. Let me add that the Federal Gov has used a law that was not meant for what they are going after these bank for decade long abuses to reach settlement and the first being BOA and now JPMorgan, as they got 9 other probes for other banks and are working on a $50 billion settlement.

    Attorneys need to follow the money settlement to win these cases. It not bad underwriting or initial falsified document that cause the Fed Gov damage, but it the action taken to submit False Claims. What made the False Claims happen were the forged assignment of these banks that had “No Standing”!

    The Fed Gov is not in each state court challenging the assignment but are taking the entire course of actions and saying they are all the same crimes in each state. If the bank are settling base on a False Claim means the bank were not entitled to those proceeds, and did not have a right to claim!

  100. You got a industry that set out to destroy the states recording system, and the states can play as if if did not happen or deal with the attack. The mortgage industry clearly set up business to control at any cost who calling the shots in what was and still is the states’s records to clearly know the chain of ownership.

    This is not some random crook taking advantage of a few clowns, but an industry the attacking the local recording system by design!

  101. Due process arguments are inapplicable in the absence of state action. That is indisputable, black letter law. And the majority of the nonjudicial foreclosures lack the requisite state action component.

    Throwing stones from the bleachers at the proponents of bad information is in fact more productive than engaging in completely baseless and useless litigation as suggested in the Weidner post and Garfield’s recent wildly inaccurate post on due process claims.

  102. @ TNHARRY ,

    I’m not a lawyer and didn’t even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night …

    I’m not going to address your arguments in the 09:49 and 10:26 comments because you clearly are overlooking the big picture with the Federal cases and the multi billion $$$ fines levied for these same abuses … I’m just going to let our disagreement slide about how relevant these cases from around the country are…

    I would ask you to do something positive for a change … please read Matt Weidners latest blog entry … http://mattweidnerlaw.com/petition-us-supreme-court-foreclosure-fraud-allowed-continue-florida-courts/ and file your own petition for a writ of Certiorari in your state ,, this is a nationwide problem and it is infecting every civil docket item destroying our country.. without property rights we lose civil rights and we become nothing more than slaves… the country is in a decline at this point which appears steady and irreversible IF WE DON”T RECLAIM OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHTS AS ENUNCIATED IN OUR FOUNDING DOCUMENTS…

    Don’t just whine and throw stones from the bleachers… DO SOMETHING THAT WILL HELP.

  103. I think that with the inventing of MERS by national mortgage industry is a different animal than courts have every seen, where private industry, quasi Gov agencies and Gov agency have conspired to eliminate cost and recording at the local level.

    I believe that we have attack this for what it is like Gov had to go after Al Capone. I do feel this is a RICO operation that the mortgage industry is engaging in!

  104. The John Doe crime analogy is inapplicable. He’s still guilty of NY crimes, not CA crimes. They arrest him and send him back to NY to be tried in NY court for NY crimes.

  105. I know I’m usually portrayed as an ass on this site, but I think it’s a valid point. #1: the case isn’t even from the Arizona Supreme Court, #2: it deals with the appeal of a motion to dismiss, so it’s not a decision on the merits, #3: every statute and case cited in the decision is either an AZ statute or an AZ case. There’s just no precedential value here in another state and I still say it’s just plain dangerous for a licensed attorney to suggest to the public that there is.

  106. continuing with my last post: If John Doe is committing crimes in NY it follows him to CA, and these are national corporation not local banks, and they are dealing with this national registry!

  107. tnharry would not another state where the same defendant is providing evident that they are acting in a wrongful way understand company standard should be acceptable when the company operates throughout the country.

    I think that its important to other states that MERS has gone to the NE Supreme Court and won claiming they are not a “mortgage back” and in other states are claiming that they cannot assign the title.

    Just as with New Mexico in their most recent decision BOA v. Quintana, is relevant because it not just this problem of some local bank and a isolated incident. The state of Washington and other states are coming to the same conclusion, because they are dealing with the same national corporations!

    If Joe Doe is committing crimes in

  108. ” I knew at a glance it was applicable in Florida and other states.” Most bizarre post ever. Arizona cases have almost as little authority in Florida courts as Tom Clancy novels do. Opinions from other jurisdictions have no value beyond being somewhat persuasive. And the farther away those states are, the less persuasive they tend to be. A NY decision would have less impact in a suit in Georgia than an Alabama decision would, by way of example.



Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: