A Foreclosure Judgment and Sale is a Forced Assignment Against the Interests of Investors and For the Interests of the Bank Intermediaries

For more information on foreclosure offense, expert witness consultations and foreclosure defense please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688. We offer litigation support in all 50 states to attorneys. We refer new clients without a referral fee or co-counsel fee unless we are retained for litigation support. Bankruptcy lawyers take note: Don’t be too quick admit the loan exists nor that a default occurred and especially don’t admit the loan is secured. FREE INFORMATION, ARTICLES AND FORMS CAN BE FOUND ON LEFT SIDE OF THE BLOG. Consultations available by appointment in person, by Skype and by phone.


Successfully hoodwinking a Judge into entering a Judgment of Foreclosure and forcing the sale of a homeowner’s property has the effect of transferring the loss on that loan from the securities broker and its co-venturers to the Pension Fund that gave the money to the securities broker. Up until the moment of the foreclosure, the loss will fall on the securities brokers for damages, refunds etc. Once foreclosure is entered it sets in motion a legal cascade that protects the securities broker from further claims for fraud against the investors, insurers, and guarantors.

The securities broker was thought to be turning over the proceeds to the Trust which issued bonds in an IPO. Instead the securities broker used the money for purposes and in ways that were — according to the pleadings of the investors, the government, guarantors, and insurers — FRAUDULENT. Besides raising the issue of unclean hands, these facts eviscerate the legal enforcement of loan documents that were, according to those same parties, fraudulent, unenforceable and subject to claims for damages and punitive damages from borrowers.

There is a difference between documents that talk about a transaction and the transaction documents themselves. That is the essence of the fraud perpetrated by the banks in most of the foreclosure actions that I have reviewed. The documents that talk about a transaction are referring to a transaction that never existed. Documents that “talk about” a transaction include a note, mortgage, assignment, power of attorney etc. Documents that ARE the transaction documents include the actual evidence of actual payments like a wire transfer or canceled check and the actual evidence of delivery of the loan documents — like Fedex receipts or other form of correspondence showing that the recipient was (a) the right recipient and (b) actually received the documents.

The actual movement of the actual money and actual Transaction Documents has been shrouded in secrecy since this mortgage mess began. It is time to come clean.

THE REAL DEBT: The real debt does NOT arise unless someone gets something from someone else that is legally recognized as “value” or consideration. Upon receipt of that, the recipient now owes a duty to the party who gave that “something” to him or her. In this case, it is simple. If you give money to someone, it is presumed that a debt arises to pay it back — to the person who loaned it to you. What has happened here is that the real debt arose by operation of common law (and in some cases statutory law) when the borrower received the money or the money was used, with his consent, for his benefit. Now he owes the money back. And he owes it to the party whose money was used to fund the loan transaction — not the party on paperwork that “talks about” the transaction.

The implied ratification that is being used in the courts is wrong. The investors not only deny the validity of the loan transactions with homeowners, but they have sued the securities brokers for fraud (not just breach of contract) and they have received considerable sums of money in settlement of their claims. How those settlement effect the balance owed by the debtor is unclear — but it certainly introduces the concept that damages have been mitigated, and the predatory loan practices and appraisal fraud at closing might entitle the borrowers to a piece of those settlements — probably in the form of a credit against the amount owed.

Thus when demand is made to see the actual transaction documents, like a canceled check or wire transfer receipt, the banks fight it tooth and nail. When I represented banks and foreclosures, if the defendant challenged whether or not there was a transaction and if it was properly done, I would immediately submit the affidavits real witnesses with real knowledge of the transaction and absolute proof with a copy of a canceled check, wire transfer receipt or deposit into the borrowers account. The dispute would be over. There would be nothing to litigate.

There is no question in my mind that the banks are afraid of the question of payment and delivery. With increasing frequency, I am advised of confidential settlements where the homeowner’s attorney was relentless in pursuing the truth about the loan, the ownership (of the DEBT, not the “note” which is supposed to be ONLY evidence of the debt) and the balance. The problem is that none of the parties in the “chain” ever paid a dime (except in fees) and none of them ever received delivery of closing documents. This is corroborated by the absence of the Depositor and Custodian in the “chain”.

The plain truth is that the securities broker took money from the investor/lender and instead of of delivering the proceeds to the Trust (I.e, lending the money to the Trust), the securities broker set up an elaborate scheme of loaning the money directly to borrowers. So they diverted money from the Trust to the borrower’s closing table. Then they diverted title to the loan from the investor/lenders to a controlled entity of the securities broker.

The actual lender is left with virtually no proof of the loan. The note and mortgage is been made out in favor of an entity that was never disclosed to the investor and would never have been approved by the investor is the fund manager of the pension fund had been advised of the actual way in which the money of the pension fund had been channeled into mortgage originations and mortgage acquisitions.

Since the prospectus and the pooling and servicing agreement both rule out the right of the investors and the Trustee from inquiring into the status of the loans or the the “portfolio” (which is nonexistent),  it is a perfect storm for moral hazard.  The securities broker is left with unbridled ability to do anything it wants with the money received from the investor without the investor ever knowing what happened.

Hence the focal point for our purposes is the negligence or intentional act of the closing agent in receiving money from one actual lender who was undisclosed and then applying it to closing documents with a pretender lender who was a controlled entity of the securities broker.  So what you have here is an undisclosed lender who is involuntarily lending money directly a homeowner purchase or refinance a home. The trust is ignored  an obviously the terms of the trust are avoided and ignored. The REMIC Trust is unfunded and essentially without a trustee —  and none of the transactions contemplated in the prospectus and pooling and servicing agreement ever occurred.

The final judgment of foreclosure forces the “assignment” into a “trust” that was unfunded, didn’t have a Trustee with any real powers, and didn’t ever get delivery of the closing documents to the Depositor or Custodian. This results in forcing a bad loan into the trust, which presumably enables the broker to force the loss from the bad loans onto the investors. They also lose their REMIC status which means that the Trust is operating outside the 90 day cutoff period. So the Trust now has a taxable event instead of being treated as a conduit like a Subchapter S corporation. This creates double taxation for the investor/lenders.

The forced “purchase” of the REMIC Trust takes place without notice to the investors or the Trust as to the conflict of interest between the Servicers, securities brokers and other co-venturers. The foreclosure is pushed through even when there is a credible offer of modification from the borrower that would allow the investor to recover perhaps as much as 1000% of the amount reported as final proceeds on liquidation of the REO property.

So one of the big questions that goes unanswered as yet, is why are the investor/lenders not given notice and an opportunity to be heard when the real impact of the foreclosure only effects them and does not effect the intermediaries, whose interests are separate and apart from the debt that arose when the borrower received the money from the investor/lender?

The only parties that benefit from a foreclosure sale are the ones actively pursuing the foreclosure who of course receive fees that are disproportional to the effort, but more importantly the securities broker closes the door on potential liability for refunds, repurchases, damages to be paid from fraud claims from investors, guarantors and other parties and even punitive damages arising out of the multiple sales of the same asset to different parties.

If the current servicers were removed, since they have no actual authority anyway (The trust was ignored so the authority arising from the trust must be ignored), foreclosures would virtually end. Nearly all cases would be settled on one set of terms or another, enabling the investors to recover far more money (even though they are legally unsecured) than what the current “intermediaries” are giving them.

If this narrative gets out into the mainstream, the foreclosing parties would be screwed. It would show that they have no right to foreclosure based upon a voidable mortgage securing a void promissory note. I received many calls last week applauding the articles I wrote last week explaining the securitization process — in concept, as it was written and how it operated in the real world ignoring the REMIC Trust entity. This is an attack on any claim the forecloser makes to having the rights to enforce — which can only come from a party who does have the right to enforce.

see http://livinglies.me/2014/09/10/securitization-for-lawyers-conflicts-between-reality-the-documents-and-the-concept/

124 Responses

  1. Louise, where do you keep coming up with this nonsense. You need to stop listening to fraudsters that ripoff homeowners with such specious misinformation. Instead, you’re guilty of spreading it.

    Flores v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 2010 WL 2719848, at *4 (D. Md. July 7, 2010), the borrower argued that his lender “already recovered for [the borrower’s] default on her mortgage payments, because various ‘credit enhancement policies,'” such as “a credit default swap or default insurance,” “compensated the injured parties in full.” The court rejected the argument, explaining that the fact that a “mortgage may have been combined with many others into a securitized pool on which a credit default swap, or some other insuring-financial product, was purchased, does not absolve [the borrower] of responsibility for the Note.” Id. at *5; see also Fourness v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., 2010 WL 5071049, at *2 (D. Nev. Dec. 6, 2010) (dismissing claim that borrowers’ obligations were discharged where “the investors of the mortgage backed securities were paid as a result of . . . credit default swaps and/or federal bailout funds).

  2. Ian, I can think of several scenarios how this may have happened, and none are nefarious.

  3. 2 loans. Sounds like wife et al retained an attorney. Smart Move! Good Luck to Them!

  4. Ian, the notes were sold multiple times. In fact, some may have been sold more than 20 times. Actually, you owe nothing because it has been paid off by selling it multiple times as well as insurance that has paid it off. The servicers lose nothing, and you lose everything.

  5. Ex-US Officials Demanded a 30 Billion Dollar Bribe (page title on Veteranstoday.com)

    Reported by Veterans Today today:

    Our hardworking senators caught on tape in a $30 billion blackmail of former Ronald Reagan special agent to insure themselves a handsome “retirement nest egg” else they will have him murdered:

    Senator Songstad and Governor Sundquist Plot to Kill Lee Wanta Caught on Tape!


    Make sure you vote for these guys next time around!

  6. Rock- thanks for the reply. I “care” because I have/had a “double-funded” loan- 2 loans submitted to FNMA on the same day, one at 11:43 am, the other taken out at 3:57 pm. Two different settlement sheets, both marked “paid in full”. Both sent to me by XYZ bank. One with a cash out of $12,312.00, the other with a cash out of $34.646.00. We got the smaller amount. Who got the larger amount? The 2nd loan was on my credit report- when I sent a letter to both Equifax and Experian, they removed it. Case closed. Now you know the fraud at Fannie and Freddie has cost trillions, and my wife and three kids are just hapless victims. But not for long.

  7. That’s why we have attornies put them on notice of our claims and send QWRs before default. By doing this you get them to take a position and its in writing. When put on notice they cant kick the can down the road.

  8. Yes, E.Tolle, banks and servicers are financially harmed by wasting time answering letters from parrots who have no clue what they’re talking about or doing.

  9. Would either one of you, Rock or your lapdog cookie, please show me where any bank, servicer, or otherwise, has been financially or otherwise harmed by non-compliance with either a QWR or a servicer-info request? Hell is about to freeze over, but I’ll wait.

  10. You’re Good Rock! Pay particular attention as to how the request and response are to be sent. Gets a lil harry for them, face the Truth or add mail fraud to the list of crimes.

  11. E. ToLLe, people receive monetary awards from banks who’ve violated that statute, when they know what they’re doing.

    Also, you have to know how to write a QWR in order for the bank to have to answer.

    MorEquity, Inc. v. Naeem, 118 F. Supp. 2d 885, 901 (N.D. Ill. 2000) (dismissing a RESPA claim because “[a]ccording to the allegations …, the letter sought information about the validity of the loan and mortgage documents, but made no inquiry as to the status of the [ ] account balance”); see also Thurman v. Barclays Cap. Real Estate Corp., 2011 WL 846441, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2011) (“A QWR must seek information relating to the servicing of the loan; a request for loan origination documents is not a QWR.”).

  12. Rock steadfastly states, Ian, just write your servicer, they have to tell you. 15 U.S.C. 1641 (f)(2)


    Yeah. Just like they have to answer QWRs….oh wait, they don’t do that either. Welcome to mortgagor reality Rock. They never do what they’re supposed to do because there are zero ramifications when they don’t. There are no regulators regulating. Nobody’s minding the regulatory store, except to keep the revolving door greased. At that they’re very efficient.

  13. Re: Louise, none of that would happen if you know what you are doing. . . I Agree 100 percent. They don’t have a Leg to Stand On! Hire an Attorney in the Jurisdiction you property is located

  14. lousie, I’ve heard a lot of B.S., but this takes the cake.

    Do you REALLY think anyone believes “Opp. counsel in the previous case even put into the pleadings that he was having off the record ex parte conversations/meetings with the judge?” That would be an admittance by counsel AND the judge of outrageous conduct!

    I don’t believe it for a second.

  15. Rock, unfortunately you do not know what you are talking about. Opp. counsel in the previous case even put into the pleadings that he was having off the record ex parte conversations/meetings with the judge. How about that? How about notes that appear after a year of litigation?

  16. Lousie, none of that will happen if you know what you’re doing.

  17. Hey, Rock, I guess you did not know that attys for banks/servicers frequently do not follow due process, do not produce documents in discovery, do not produce documents even with a motion to compel, make misrepresentations in court and produce forged documents. I know I was there, and I saw the documents and the procedures. Whatta mess.

  18. Ian, just write your servicer, they have to tell you. 15 U.S.C. 1641 (f)(2)


    BTW, why do you care?

  19. @Ian, right on. There is no creditor. Nobody owns nothing.

  20. Rock- my inquiries as to who is the principal, investor, owner, creditor, lender, mortgagor, or any other moniker as to who the servicer is servicing for has gotten me a bunch of entities who went out of business prior to 2009. Inquiries to the various Secretaries of State have shown the owner of the “XYZ 2005-x Trust” to have had their licenses yanked due to negative net worth and failure to meet minimum capital requirements.
    On the MERS loan ID or whatever it’s called, the “investor” went OOB in 2009. No successors or assigns, just a dead end. So the servicer is collecting for which principal?

  21. Just say No, Pay what you Owe and Protect your little piece of the Rock. Don’t get hit in the Head with it like Charles, you will go Nuts.

  22. James, this is how:

    A servicing agent has standing to prosecute a foreclosure case on behalf of the principal. Mortgage Electronic Registration Service v. Azize, 965 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (court held that a party who was not the beneficial owner of a mortgage had standing to foreclose upon the mortgage); Taylor v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co.,
    44 So. 3d 618 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (Florida Rules of Civil Procedure allow an action to be prosecuted for someone acting for the real party in interest).

  23. Can someone help me out. Im just trying to figure out how WF can initiate a foreclosure on behalf of a Creditor that no longer exists. Below are the opening statements of the Foreclosure Letter:

    Dear Mr. Smith:

    Please be advised that this law firm has been retained by Wells Fargo Home Mortgage (“Servicer”) regarding a default in your Deed of Trust/Mortgage Note payable to Mortgage Lenders Network USA, Inc.(“Creditor”) in the original principal amount of $135,000.00 (“Note”). Repayment of the Note is secured by a Deed ofTrust/Mortgage on the referenced property.

  24. I love it louise, you’re my hero! Good for you…if people run their own business like these guys, WOW

    They have spent a boat load on me too. BOA house on paper same thing: sold the house for $70k.

    And the thing is: had an insurance issue with water damage from the contractor damaging a new roof over the addition, couldn’t get the place repaired…with the lawsuits. Not pretty.

    I’ve had about 6 suits to date and counting. No matter what, I walk with my head high, cause I didn’t lay down.

    Over time, because I am not a lawyer I have had to think outside the box and stopped trying to use all that legal lingo, just the facts and procedure to the best of my ability. And I do have an attorney, that sometimes advises me…lucky for a change, been ripped off by most of them.

  25. In my first set of lawsuits, foreclosure, federal (mine) and theirs Deutsche Bank vs me, they had to have spent over $250,000 defending a case where the note is allegedly worth $88,000. Can you smell desperation?

  26. I’m fine, cookies

  27. I stand corrected louise…and you got it. The case that is being referred to with BOA I had a wrongful “suspense” account going back, LOL It cost them too and the lawyer did it pro bono, got his fees paid!

    Diminishing returns…got a $1200 per month mortgage, not paid in 5 years, $72,000.00 enough to walk and start over.

  28. Poppy, first let us define “win” or “winning” A friend of mine has not paid his mortgage for 5 years and put his 3 daughters through college. He does not care about the house. That is a big WIN for him and his children.

  29. Actually, Poppy having your stuff posted around with erroneous facts is libel, because it is written. There are people in this world who have problems being a decent human being. I figure the ones C. is targeting are actually posting some good stuff–that would threaten her.

  30. You know I wouldn’t post the links without your permission, no more than I would post Christines Wins in State and Federal court without hers. . And you dag gone well know my idenity as we have communicated newenglandblonde@ What is your problem today?

  31. Curious you and christine spend a lot of time worrying about my stuff….no wonder your losing and clogging up the blog. Yawn-Yawn

    Had enough of you!

  32. Not….still pending, but I have nothing to prove. Moved to another Judge complaints of misconduct by many in Delaware…get your facts straight, cookiejar. Check Pacer, if you know how to navigate it!

    People who attack, hidden from view are bullies. I however, have had my personal things gone through, pasted around, with erroneous facts…that is slander. Appears this is not happening to anyone else, very curious.

    You “need” to make sure in attempting to discredit my case and filings you are 100% correct. If you are, I have zero issue with it!

  33. You should have stopped while you were ahead. Bully? Really? If my memory serves me correctly the Judge denied your request for reconsideration. What sayath you? You know better!

  34. And cookies, the case you speak of…not the same one in Delaware…The “house” situation was on appeal with BOA/Countrywide…did anyone check that, NO. I dropped it on legal advice and let them foreclose. Not worth the time, money or emotions…I have every single piece of paperwork in my cases.

    A suit will be filed at a later date as I have: EMC Mortgage, Bankers Trust Co, NA, Duetsche Bank, Morris-Hardwick-Schnider, LLC, Chase Bank of Texas, Dan Rizzo, Americas Wholesale Lending, Countrywide, Countrywide Home Loans, Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, Bank of America Home Loans, Bank of America Home Loans Servicing, BOA, NA, MERS, Equity First Mortgage, Brock & Scott, Lisa Campbell, FHA, and various substitute trustees I cannot remember….are you following this so far? And the deed was filed in Alaska going back…and the QWR goes back to 1987. So, there is more than meets the eye here.

    As for christine…never went toward her, until she came at me, telling me she was a black belt. Vague threat, but still a cautionary, muted threat!

    Finally, anyone doing this has balls, period. Takes guts to fight with Billionaire assholes….but hiding your identity and bullying someone, really?

  35. Didn’t say YOU were involved…Geez. Said: she, christine has incriminated some others here…I don’t really believe her anyway! Relax

  36. Next time Poppy, don’t drag me in the middle of this little war between you two Christines. I BITE back. Its the 1st time I heard about any emails between you two. And if you recall the other Christine and I have different opinons about a lot of things. Why would you suggest I would be involved?

  37. If I had no class I would post christine’s email, very tacky. She is wrong, as you said: court records have much of the information, one must know what it means and follow the ultimate outcome.

    And so you know: I have little faith in judges decisions much of the time. IMHO, 12(b)(6) should be filed at these lawyers, failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Hammer Hit! Out of my court….

  38. They are not in a knot….but let people that want the info gather it themselves, like the rest of us.

    And I can tell you, Cromwell got in a bit of trouble from New Century case for buying Pacer stuff and posting it.

    Really, are you okay with me doing that to you? Let’s give all a fair shake here. The entire event should be allowed in court and that is not what is happening. And wins and loses are very subjective as ToLLe said: 15 years to go back at ’em…I see it too!

  39. Exactly, louise. I have no ill will and only TRY to share my own experience, court rulings and strategy for this horrific theft.

    It is eerily suspicious why some only go after a certain few, when it is very clear to me, all here are suffering in their own way and have learned everything they thought they knew to be true, is all a lie.

    And I for one cannot judge as every story has a great deal more going on than what is in court filings. That is only a blip of what most have gone through.

  40. Now Poppy don’t get your britches in a knot with me. The information is public record. If public records are not accurate, how is that my fault? Sharing public information is not a crime. I’m the kind of person who asked your Permission to post it here, to prove your point of course. Why so defensive? I would have thought you would want to prove Her wrong. Behave Christine!

  41. Poppy, one of them is just crazy and does not make sense and the other one is a sociopath. I am sorry to hear that you have been subjected to this. I have some experience with this type of attack. I am impressed with your actions to Pacer, AOL, etc. Going to keep your post for further reference. What happened to civility?

  42. “Lost the house to the state”

    Hah? Whether you know it or not that case is very similar to yours…previous owner dies, house does not transfer to wife…wife dies 1 1/2 years later again no estate transfer…the VP of the lending company if the trustee…DAH?

    And your buddy christine, if memory serves she has a suspense account, Geez! Been down that road, good paperwork kicks them right in the ass. non-lawyer.

    If you want to post my “personal” files make sure they are accurate, slander is an issue with false information. I have made a complaint to the attorneys for the trust in Delaware and Pacer. Filed complaints with AOL christine’s IP party and sent inquiry to attorney for Federal Law breach. I mean really: you think it is okay to publish people’s personal court files to attempt to discredit them or is it just me the two of you are looking to take out and why?

    Is anyone watching this? Could be you…

  43. Rock, knowing the law and watching other people try to sashay around it is another.

  44. Rock here what I am saying is that Wells Fargo did not tell the homeowners who the owner of the debt was because there was no owner as WaMu was a “failed bank”! We are talking about 100,000 foreclosure conducted of the ex-WaMu during 2009-2010 alone!

  45. Has nothing to do with what I am saying, cookies.

    New Century case is not the same as North Carolina, one.

    Next: I didn’t pay the fees for the appeal, which that appeal was not on my behalf (White and Galope)…DAH.

    The Lower court gave me an “indigent” pass to file and do phone hearings, the appeals court wanted to veto that and have me do over…I refused; however, the appeals court will not hear a case UNTIL all remedies and actions in the lower courts jurisdiction and authority have been heard…hence the Motion for Reconsideration is pending from June 27th, 2014. Christine needs to get the stuff straight AND learn how to navigate Pacer, it is all there.

    Finally, the house has been sold…so what? I have paperwork from 1987 from the original owner. They never took title, ever legally. If you want to know facts ask me, not some jealous abusive snipe. That case is Countrywide/BOA…and none of this was my doing. Period

    E. ToLLe is right. I have 10 years to file against BOA/Countrywide for all of my damages and the behavior. I’m good. Footnote: if you saw my paperwork you wouldn’t believe it. And I have an attorney…

  46. Louise, the servicer must tell you who the owner is if you know the law.

  47. @Poppy, I probably don’t need to tell you this but if you are getting threats from anyone, make sure you save them and also print them out in case of virus attack or other types of attacks. I used to have somebody doing that to me. The IP address can be traced back. It can be construed as a violation of federal law including wire fraud, etc.

  48. Mr. Reed, you clearly don’t understand court holdings. You keep making an asinine statement after I give you the law: “a servicer that does not own the debt cannot foreclose for the owner of the debt.”

    Mortgage Electronic Registration Service v. Azize, 965 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (court held that a party who WAS NOT the beneficial OWNER of a mortgage had standing to foreclose upon the mortgage).

  49. E.Tolle with you again. We have been here a long time. Some people have just not caught up yet. Also, what happened to Gene? Is Rock another Gene? I used to have a confidential settlement court-ordered which Ocwen breached. Thus, I sued them for, wait for it, breach of contract, bad faith, declaratory judgment, negligence & gross negligence. What’s a girl to do? Gotta kick ’em right where it counts. Opp. counsel told me I was not entitled to know who the creditor/owner is? Really? If you think about it, if they had that info, they would reveal it immediately and throw you out of court. But they do not have it, so they are resisting presenting it to the judge. Can’t wait to tell a jury all about it. He will probably be objecting to my opening remarks to the jury.

  50. I don’t know about that Poppy. But Public records speak for themself. They say you lost your home to the state. They say the Judge dismissed you claims and you lost on appeal to. With your permission – I could post the links here. You didn’t follow the directions, no one to blame but yourself. Sorry.

  51. E. ToLLe: Bravo…you got it! Very hard to get a claim/damages when you are still in the home not making payments, IMO – non-attorney

    Staying out of this but: SOL is not when fraud is discovered…sorry

    FYI: getting threatening emails from cookies best friend christine….in my mail, 3 to date! Incriminating some here.

  52. Cookiejeers says, “Wrong Again. The SOL runs from the time you discovered the Fraud.”

    I’ll give you this much….you do work hard at imbecility. And you’re really good at it. Or does it just come easy for you? Run in the family? I wasn’t aware that an IQ could have negative numbers. You’re special.


    No such sale shall be held invalid or set aside unless the action in which its validity is called in question be commenced, or the defense alleging its invalidity be interposed, within 15 years after the date of such sale; provided that persons under disability, as provided in section 580.20, may commence such action or interpose such defense within the time therein provided. This section shall not affect or prejudice the rights of any bona fide purchaser.

  53. E.Tolle, I am with you. Old and mean is always better than young and dumb. or as Abbott and Costello would say, “slowly I turned, inch by inch….”

  54. Rock, yes the servicer can foreclose but one of the big questions since the gitgo on this mess is that the servicer does not reveal who he is foreclosing for–therein lies the rub. Who the hell is the owner/creditor? Servicer does not want to reveal that, because there is no owner/creditor. They are just stealing your money. You never get to own your house, and you never stop paying.

  55. Rock what part of this don’t you understand and that is I am not saying a servicer cannot foreclose as Wells Fargo, JPM, Citi and BOA are also servicer and they do own mortgage loans. However what I am saying that a servicer that does not own the debt cannot foreclose for the owner of the debt, but cannot place itself as the owner of the debt to do so. The servicer act at the pleasure of the owner and just cannot foreclose as if it were making the financial and legal decision for the owner bank. Just as an Attorney wants for its client, the case is not Mr. Rock v. ABC homeowner.

    So it not the servicer actually foreclosing but there filing the document. It not like the owner not available and needs to be there, as the lenders been authorized to lending in the state were the property is located.

    Because you represent a doctor it does not authorize you to perform surgery. If the servicer could foreclose there would not be a need for the forged assignment. A non-owner servicer cannot be in title as the “holder in due course” and the “holder in due course” is party that can be in title as!

  56. Wrong Again. The SOL runs from the time you discovered the Fraud.

  57. Sloppy that part of the point we made here is there is a problem also with who is claiming to be the servicer because there is not “holder in due course” as WaMu was seized on Sept 25, 2008 and it know for a fact the the loans were being held for the Ginnie Mae MBS, which cause and already separation of the blank Notes and debts to be more clearer because the alleged owner of the debt was dead!

    You Sloppy need to get a clue. I don’t know what you playing as you turned over to the Federal Gov, but it show you only here to talk crazy and not solve anything but to cry about some stupid estate sale gone wrong! Good luck with that! That right you do have attorneys on it!

  58. Actually Mr. Reed, for someone who has no clue what they’re talking about, you have the audacity to to try a disparage someone by making a ludicrous statement like “a servicer that not even on the Note has the ability to act for a lender who also not listed on the Notes and either had purchase the debt, in sloppy’s mind it can get assigned as “holder in due course” and foreclose makes sense in the insane person’s mind.” Actually, your mental status is in question, because only a moron would make a statement that servicers can’t foreclose:

    A servicing agent has standing to prosecute a foreclosure case on behalf of the principal. Mortgage Electronic Registration Service v. Azize, 965 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (court held that a party who was not the beneficial owner of a mortgage had standing to foreclose upon the mortgage); Taylor v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co.,
    44 So. 3d 618 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (Florida Rules of Civil Procedure allow an action to be prosecuted for someone acting for the real party in interest).

  59. “As for E-Tollee, another disgruntled loser.”

    Wrong again. It never was about “saving” the house. By statute I have 17 years to go after their fraudulent foreclosure, and I’m happy to bide my time waiting for a sea change. A tide raises all ships, and the tide’s turning.

  60. Your True Colors are Showing Charles. If there is no enforcable contract, there is no servicer. Doesn’t take a genuis to figure that out.

  61. So Mr. Rock you are telling us that the law does not work? You are saying that a bank and servicer that cannot show ownership should just be able to say it so and it so, while the Justice Dept is making the same crooks/lender pay in this recent round over $38 billion on top of over $35 billion in past wrongs.

    I understand at the beginning of this crisis the legal system did not understand ownership, and like you attorneys not seeing a payout because there were no practicing attorney who had not graduated last in their class, were dealing with all these folks with no money to pay the fees, when you and your saw no wins possible.

    No court are seeing the same agreement of show me the Note, but now it show me the Note where your are granted ownership and a receipt. The house for free was coined by the press, but this was always about out of the two parties in court who had equity in the property, and now it clear that those claiming to have had a claim cannot provide a single piece of proof they purchase JACK!

  62. mysloppycookie or whatever your calling yourself today you had to take that jab. However with your claims to have created everything from the first aqueduct to the space shuttle, but you talk about “contract law” but a servicer that not even on the Note has the ability to act for a lender who also not listed on the Notes and either had purchase the debt, in sloppy’s mind it can get assigned as “holder in due course” and foreclose makes sense in the insane person’s mind.

    However in the next sentence sloppy says she reported to the Federal Government what I have claimed over two year prior to me reporting it, but I reported that the parties claiming to be the “holder in due course” are not who they claim to be as they don’t possess the debt and are not listed on the blank endorsed Notes as the owner of the debt.

    Sloppy if you not purchase the debt and are not on the titles, and there is no party in court claiming a debt is due that hold the debt, another cannot insert itself as the authority to bring this action. Who is the holder on the blank Notes (custodian) working for? Since there in no NAME insert in on the line for owner, does it only seem logical to have proof of just how one because owner of debt with a receipt of purchase?

    Crazy women get a life!

  63. With all the I want something for nothing morons here . . Never Mind. As for the Nut cases who threaten my life up North in Cook County . . Never Mind. As for E-Tollee, another disgruntled loser.

  64. Mr. Reed, never said the banks never “did nothing wrong,” just pointing out that these arguments are worthless, except for trying to stall.

  65. Rock On! I found out just how unenforcable the mortgage was when I tried to enforce it. Contract Law 101. Charles, I think you’ve been hit in the head one to many times by a rock. Bob, all true, they did it all, small peanuts compared to the elephant in the room.

  66. As to Bimbo Cookie’s threat…. …. Had you played nice, you too would know my idenity [sic] and have access to My Wins.

    Mycookiejars, aka KC, aka Kathleen Charlotte, as she used to be known here before getting herself tossed numerous times, couldn’t win a free kitten if she was the only raffle ticket holder. If memory serves, she’s from Illinois, more than likely Cook County, and serves in the high position of notary while she works her way up to Walmart Team Member, one of these days, hopefully.

    Anyone following her advice, much less her drool-filled mental-like ramblings would be well served to try something else, oh say… cyanide, for she truly knows not what she writes. Take this little (very little) gem for example:

    “MERS has authority to assign the note as nominee for the lender. But because the note and the mortgage was separated [sic] they have no authority to assign the mortgage. Especially under the pretence [sic] of authority of All trustees and or benificaries [sic]. Pisses Me Off!”

    All wrong, by reason of insanity. Life without parole I say. Solitary, for every inmate’s sake.

  67. A holder with the right to enforce gets that authority from who? Holder and HIDC put on notice of KCs Claims. Did I mention I have isues with brokers and their sham companies?

  68. E.Tolle perfect comment. Rock says that a holder does not have to show a consideration and a holder in due course does? That because a holder can go to the court house legally and get assigned to the securities instrument, because they paid no consideration.

    This is the mentality homeowner have had to deal with from attorneys, and we wonder why in 2014 there is still this big mess. Banks are settling for $17bn, $13bn, $7bn, $1bn and $550 mn so far according to a Rock type, because they did nothing wrong?

  69. Louise, in Rock’s courtroom, forged notes and fraudulent assignments don’t matter. You took out a loan, didn’t you?

  70. Louise, its the difference between a “holder” and a “holder in due course”.

    The existence of consideration is not essential in case of a holder, but a holder in due course obtains the instrument after paying its full value.

  71. @Rock it is a fact that every single loan placed into the Ginnie Mae MBS must have a free and clear loan and the Note be endorsed in blank and relinquished to them.

    So as you say the bank always shows up with the Note in the end, but showing up with a Note that because of the securities it placed in, requires from the day the blank Note is placed into the MBS until life stops on Earth must be remain a blank endorsement because Ginnie Mae cannot and does not purchase the loan so it not the owner of the debt and is not placed on the face of the Note.

    Now if the servicers/banks comes to court with an accepted Ginnie Mae pooled loan, the fact is that Note could only be blank when it get introduced to the court because there is no legal way to have an endorsed named Note after it been endorsed in blank without a purchase occurring.

    Here what I knew is that Wells Fargo was not my lender as I was a Mortgage Loan Officer at the bank that originated the loan and locked that loan rate. I knew we were selling the loan to Washington Mutual (WaMu) and I put the file in the overnite box after the closing dept prepared the purchasing package.

    So as i was in contact with the OCC I requested that Wells Fargo send the OCC a current copy of the Note in its current condition which was after the foreclosed and over 1yr & 4mths past. The Note was still as it must have been a blank endorsement with only one other endorsement and that was the Sr VP of Mortgage lending at Great Western Bank (my ex-boss) who signed and endorsed the Note to WaMu.

    This faxed copy of the Note in Wells Fargo later responded with a letter that they were not the “holder in due course” and they were working for the investor in Ginnie Mae. This is the problem that Wells Fargo has in handling 1.3 million government insured WaMu loan from the Jul 31, 2006 servicing agreement and at a 4% to 4.5% foreclosure rate of government insured loans during 2009-2010 when they already admitted to not processing these loans and through the HAMP and the VA HAMP did not even start with them until 7 months after the effective date of the program, and we already know the $70 billion loses that the FHA took!

    Wells Fargo is a wrap I predict because it to well documented as to what occurred and any and every Note of these loan must be blank as there is no provision in the law to later re-endorse them!

  72. Please explain. Thanks,

  73. Louise, no they don’t. You will lose that argument.

  74. Rock, the bank has to show the receipts, wire transfers and how much the servicer allegedly paid for the transfer and note. I already have a forged note in my deal, but they really screwed up the assignment. However, if need be, I will be appealing as my case is for breach of contract, declaratory judgment, bad faith, etc. Not in equity court.

  75. louise, language in pretrial dicta is worthless. Moreover, the bank will provide the note at trial or before, they always do.

  76. I think Bob G was trying to say that the order Aurora Loan Serv v. Scheller has some very good paragraphs that apply and that Judge Spinner is starting to see the light:

    “Defendants further seek leave to interpose a Second Amended Answer, based in part, upon substantial questions of fact, not the least of which are who the real party in interest is respecting the mortgage and which party, if any, is vested with the legal right to enforce the note and mortgage. Defendants’ counsel has raised genuine and substantial issues as to just who the real party Plaintiff might be (and it may well not be either of the named Plaintiffs in these two actions). Defendants have raised serious and substantial questions as to the identity of the party that is entitled to enforce the note and mortgage.

    The Court is constrained to note, from an examination of all of the papers filed herein, that the plain and express language of the instrument dated June 28, 2012 which purports to assign the mortgage at issue from Aurora Loan Services LLC to Nationstar Mortgage LLC transfers only the mortgage but does not convey the underlying obligation. Moreover, a plaintiff, in order to establish standing, must come forward with proof sufficient to demonstrate that it was actually in possession of both the mortgage and the underlying obligation that it secures at the time of the commencement of the suit, HSBC Bank USA v. Hernandez 92 AD 3d 843 (2nd Dept. 2012). In New York, it has long been settled law that the assignment of a mortgage without a concomitant transfer of the underlying obligation that it secures is a nullity, Merritt v. Bartholick 36 NY 44 (1867); hence, this assignment is absolutely void on its face.” I have to agree with him.

  77. Bob G, your statement: “As upsetting as some posters here may find, it appears as though the tide is turning in NY.”

    Sorry, but all this case means is the Defendants get to amend their complaint. “ORDERED that Defendants shall serve and file their Second Amended Answer within twenty one (21) days from the date of this Order.”

    This will go to trial and like all of the other cases before it where they’ve made these stall arguments, where the homeowner will get booted to the curb.

    Attacking the mortgage transaction (contract) is the ONLY methodology that saves homes and gets homeowners compensation.

  78. Post something that gives usable information. No more word salads and no more krap that does not apply in this forum.

  79. I have my own wins and your posts do not make sense.

  80. Good one Bob G, and it is what its is, and I just waiting to see how the Justice Dept deal with Wells Fargo were Washington Mutual Bank did a ton of business there according to the county land recording office that shows plenty of deed on file today that has the defunct bank in title!

    You figure that the State Attorney General and the US Attorney in the NY District would have been all over this, as I contract both plus the special financial group party headed by NY AG & Federal Agencies.

    Just as the ruling you just gave us show that very simply you provide the Notes and receipts, and if not you got nothing. Just how hard is it to have a Note that properly endorsed and a cancel check or proof of transfer electronic funds? These are banks in most case that are claiming to be the owners of and if their duty to keep track of transactions, but they don’t have proof of a $999,000 loan being purchase?

  81. As upsetting as some posters here may find, it appears as though the tide is turning in NY.


  82. Louise, Had you played nice, you too would know my idenity and have access to My Wins. Had you played nice, I’m sure you would have access to Christines Wins in Federal and State Court both. . Oh Well.

  83. Wrong Answer Louise. I tried to help Ivent/ Stripes. If memory serves me right, she had her Greed n Stupid both on and Lost her Business and Home to the State, The Public. . Your headed down the same path Sister.

  84. Brokers have always been misleading and get nasty when things don’t go their way. Some things don’t change. Personal Knowledge! Did I mention I have issues with Brokers?

  85. Charles, do not waste your time with Cookie. She is stripes and not playing with a full deck and wasting our time as she always has.

  86. Deborah your right.

  87. Sorry Deb, I’m still dealing with my anger issues with Brokers.

  88. Happens every time I wear this t shirt

  89. Wired , that’s twice today I told someone to be a peace maker
    Peace out to all on here. I love the concept.:)

  90. Well cookie good move on your part re loss payee and satisfaction issue, but as you might sumise AF were not on my side particularly and I was not understanding any of it because it all happened so fast. Stop arguing with Charles he’s a good guy and you are a good guy. Don’t you get it they want us fussing, Jesus if we can’t get along on a blogg do you think it’s going to happen later when the chit hits the fan, you know it will eventually, one sinks we all sink.

  91. I followed their directions. The only nut case is you. Funny thIng is when I reported (not file a whistle blower claim ) they already knew. Many things transpired in 2008. Your a little slow for a brokern. I will repeat myself one more time … You Missed The Bus! Your still in denial, there’s a Cure for That. SLAP! SLAP! Did I mention that I have issues with Brokers?

  92. mysloppycookie I doubt you knew or know much about Ginnie Mae MBS and plus there was no whistle-blower program 2yrs before I submitted my claim as it was done on the first day they open the program up. So unless you got some time machine I don’t think you submitted anything.

    Two years would have been 2009 and there would not have been evident out there at the time because the cases had not worked through yet. It was the HAMPs program that identified the flaw in the system.

    Before that time there was not going to be enough centrally group loan for you to understand what was coming on. But there is billions of damage done and I sure that the taxpayer in the end will not care were the information came from and what somebody is paid because they are getting 3 times the damages!

    But your a nut and cannot even help yourself and as you said you got attorneys so how did you figure out anything?

  93. Who has the authority to file the satisfaction of Mortgage? No Trust.

  94. I don’t know why you think the taxpayers would pay you for information I gave them for Free 2yrs prior to your failue to state a claim as a whistle blower was filed. ROTFLMBO! Talk about living a lie!

  95. Funny thing is Charles, thedeceased had no mortgage. And cashier checks to their beneficiaries was on the closing table. They were paid in cold hard cash, of course we want the title. Imagine their shock when they got my call. They thought we got title and that their parents trust had been closed. We’re not sueing each other, we joined each other. Duh!

  96. mysloppycookie stealing home at a bargain from people who did not know better (but lucky one child step in), is not an honest way to live. Look you sound like some opportunist and the chicken have come home to roost. Everything happen for a reason and it not about getting knock down but in getting back up is the hard part.

    What I will be doing is collecting a reward fro getting back the US taxpayers billions of dollars and no paying attorneys to beat out some dead people’s children out of their family home!

    I learned you have no heart and you like to argue, but your problem could be over it you paid the children the honest figure, but you not that kind of person because as you say your CHEAP and dishonest!

  97. Sorry Charlie. I don’t have a price, I can’t be bought, blackmailed or extorted. Maybe if you had lived within your means and been more of a cheap skate like me and paid your bills you wouldn’t have been put on the curb way back then. You would have hired an attorney like the rest of us. Pfffft!

  98. mycookiewhatever, Does your justice involve a money value? You see everybody got a price baby and your just cheap!

  99. Wouldn’t it be Great to Drive the Karma Bus instead of ride it? If only, I would do a U turn and … Never Mind. Broker Charlie, I don’t need help here. They know I’m Right. I’ve. Had my own legal team a very long time. I seek Justice. You seek self enrichment .

  100. They thought I was bluffing and pulled the force placed ins scam and filed fc for tax n is claiming they paid them the past 5yrs You know apparently you can’t fc on a unsecured debt, especially of only one spouse. Don’t Sign Nuttin. I can follow directions. :). *Add Fraud on the Court Again and Criminal Slander to Title to the List.

  101. Deb, I have the tax reciepts because I paid them. And every year upon annual renewal of ins, BOA added themself as loss payee, and I boot them off again. Met with my ins agent of 30yrs and instructed them not to accept payments from anyone but me and do not change the loss payee without our direct consent. And that would be given when I received Proof of their Claim.

  102. Cookie all that can be brought in under discovery. The servicer had American family cancel MY property insurance I says don’t you dare I live here they said it was covered under theirs now. I had further issues with AF they cancelled my direct debit for my vehicle and then tried to hit me with a big bill just before Christmas- that direct debit had been in place for 12 years, I paid them for their retroactive ” mistake” and went to progressive. the taxes were paid by ? I mean can you even trust the record look at land records

  103. mycookiejars here my point with you is that your problem is total different from 99.9% of the world and there not anyone giving you as advise or disputing your position because we don’t know the full story to your problem, but you continue to bring up this .01% problem that your obviously engross in as everyone else here is in there problem, but your problem does not deal with the mortgage crisis, but it did with this side deal with a real person and not the mortgage industry.

    We cannot help you here because 99.9% have not gotten involved in an estate sale. You took the jab first as you always do, and we are right back to the point your not getting help here. At least me and Neil are close, and your off the farm!

  104. Louise I think your covered under statute of frauds
    Not an atty check on it per state

  105. Here is what someone asked and that was were is the harm? There is no harm until the homeowners are prevented from access to their property and the Federal Gov is tricked into purchasing the properties and paying out false insurance claims.

    Let say all the loans were originated illegally but the terms were agreed upon, but once payments are stopped then the issue of how the loan was created and whether the lenders maintained ownership of the Note & debt. The crime of falsely claiming ownership and providing the courts with forgeries to foreclose and collect insurance monies, does harm the invested homeowner who is the only one that got monies invested in the loan, and the FHA & VA are purchasing properties from the non-owner and the subsequent insurance payouts.

    Neither the servicer, pretend bank, investors or Ginnie Mae has a valid claim to the properties they had foreclosed!

  106. Really Charles? You bet part of my situation is different. My Greedy not only stole title to my lfe estate, he stole title from the sellers estate 1st. You can’t get much Greedier than that. They have lawyers n we have lawyers. And the lawyer has new lawyers now. You must be exhaused chasing the bus, hang in there its almost nap time.

  107. I am surety. I am entitled.

  108. Opp. counsel in my case started sweating bullets when we talked about proof of payment for the debt and how much it was. He told me that I was not entitled to that info. Bet I am going to bring that up at my trial in October.

  109. mycookiejars or what ever you calling yourself to day, I knew at a point you would take a shot, but I feel story for you because it seem that your smart and crying for help, but no one on the same pages as you in your situation, but you will clog up the page everyday wanting someone to understand your problem.

    At least Neil and I are close to agreeing to this problem. I don’t see many people other than you having problems with some estate deal that gone for you. However I bet if your offering to pay someone in full now, they thin that the properties is worth way more than what was paid, and in 2014 I am sure the values even greater. Some like you got a compensation problem and not simply everybody did not sign off deal!

  110. Deb, were they the party paying you tax n ins? Check your state laws on fc on re taxes. That. They can do and it would explain why the avg fc takes over 1100 days.

  111. And can I again ask why is the debt collector named Lender on a1099a when they could not be. They were not the beneficiary at the time of sale of my home as named on the notice because at the material time of the sale they were liquidated and assets were sold one of them being servicing rights otherwise categorized as debt collector.
    Great post today.

  112. You missed the Bus Charles.

  113. Fraud on the Facie and Fraud in the Inducement. Slander to Title. Big Butts just got his little pecker nailed outside AG settlement, 2nd time is Criminal Slander to Title. And I Have Friends in High Places. Many Blessings to All

  114. Neil problem is he wants to be a discoverer when people already have discover the lands and are living there. Neil got to understand that there are only certain corporation that can make mortgage loans and that going to be banks that are authorized and mortgage lenders, and not ever rich guy with a pocket full of money.

    Neil fails to realize that mortgage lenders are not banks and don’t have banking operations so the funding wires are coming from a bank to fund the loan who are the mortgage companies banks they do business with.

    Next the larger banks in JPMorgan, Citi, BOA and Wells Fargo are going to fund there loans as they are these trillion dollar corporation, and even if monies may come from a different source as Neil is suggesting the wire coming from that large bank as if that bank was funding the loan because they are funding it. Let say that investor A is giving monies to create loan so that the investors can get its monies insured as a securities, it still the bank that must make the loan as the investor is not a lender. So let say the securities is created then there no real exchange of monies at the time of the sale or after because the monies already been delivered.

    However still the monies cannot be reclaimed as being the seed money, and it not it talking about the wrong loan being produce that were placed into the securities!

    Once Neil get pass think that investor were actual lending monies to the homeowners he can go forward, bucause he stop on with the rest of the crime!

  115. Direction #1, pay your taxes and ins. Direction#2, Keep Your Butt Parked. Direction#3, have an attorney represent you. Direction#4, do your own homework. Xxxxxx. I can follow directions. Can You?

  116. Its actually see. My Cookie Jars vs Buttwipes. You never did follow the directions, you were always the kid looking for shortcuts.

  117. First things free the homes are not free if monies by the homeowners have been paid by down payments or a single payment. The homeowners in Ginnie Mae MBS have the Notes physically held by a third party in Ginnie Mae who under no circumstances originates, buys or sell home mortgage loans.

    Neil almost there but he fail to want to understand that monies can come from anywhere, however ONLY a registered lender can make the loan under the law. The investors are not lenders and are not acting as lenders and may have given monies that they though was going for a different purpose, does not make the investor the owner of the loans.

    At best there is a misappropriation of funds, but the settlements have not been about you used our monies illegally, but that you sold us bad underwritten or fraudulently had greater risk loan in the securities or falsified documents to gain insurance coverage against the Federal Government.

    The Federal Government I am sure is aware of what taken place, but it is still playing this game of hiding the disposal of these securities, because what the servicers have done is to involve the investors who are in possession of the monies from the crimes. The investors may not have know a single thing about what took place as they are saying, but that does not give them the right to keep the funds from the illegal business, just as Mob wives!

    Ginnie Mae MBS are a easier animal because there are less moving pieces and instead of a non-existing Trust, it is Ginnie Mae that takes physical possession of the blank Notes. Washington Mutual (WaMu) is a great example why, because it was seized and outside of the banks operations the loan were already owned by another party in Ginnie Mae who already took the measure to further separate the blank Notes from WaMu, when it enter into a mortgage servicing agreement on Jul 31, 2006 with Wells Fargo buys the building housing the blank Notes and evidence of the actual physically exchange is in stone!

    Let me say I don’t think as Neil says that the servicer are legit, because once Ginnie Mae in physical possession as a non lender cannot collect the payment and does not have the authorization to give it to some surrogate! As WaMu go under it no longer has any dealing with MERS, yet MERS acts as it has this unbroken chain of ownership, but the last party connected with MERS and the loans is no longer existing due to being shut down by the Federal Gov!

    So MERS or DocX supplies millions of forged assignment of security instruments to foreclose by tricking the local land recorders that been the “holder” is the same thing as “holder in due course” without claiming it on the document, however simply submitting the document that only a “holder in due course” can submit is the same as flat out standing it on the assignment!

    Neil late to the party as the bank I feel are handling this through back channels or simply may do as with JPMorgan, Suntrust and BOA handled it under a different name, but Wells Fargo being the most blatant they are going to have to handled it face on, but I am sure there are fighting it because they are saying they were working for Ginnie Mae in the matter. Ginnie Mae cannot give an unlawful order or simply sit quiet and make it legal for what Wells Fargo has done!

  118. See them Breech?

    breach – noun \ˈbrēch\

    : a failure to do what is required by a law an agreement or a duty : failure to act in a required or promised way


    breech – noun \ˈbrēch\

    : the lower, rear part of the trunk of the body; buttocks. The hind or lower part of anything. The ass end. See also: My Cookie Jars.

  119. I pitty mr broker n mr attorney, after the living hell they put us thru. They should have played by the rules. Got caught with thee dirty hands in All the Cookie Jars. Signed Grandma

  120. File It or Refund It. Decisions . . . Decisions. They Hate Me Right Now.

  121. Enforce the Contract. See them Breech? File or Refund?

  122. Contract Law. : )

  123. “With increasing frequency, I am advised of confidential settlements where the homeowner’s attorney was relentless in pursuing the truth about the loan, the ownership (of the DEBT, not the “note” which is supposed to be ONLY evidence of the debt) and the balance.” -Neil Garfield.

    Every time anybody asks for proof of these so-called “wins,” the only answer is they are “confidential settlements.” However, court holdings all over the country is uncontroverted proof there have been NO “settlements” “confidential” or otherwise, when making these frivolous arguments.

    However, there is proof of homeowners receiving free homes & multi-million dollar awards attacking the mortgage transaction (contract).


Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: