The “Loan Closing” Debunked in Court Decision Slapping Attorney Title Fund

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.


Editor’s Comment: This decision (described in the article below, corroborates my recent articles as to what happened at closing. Instructions were not followed, except for the instructions contained in the assignment and assumption agreement, and other instructions received from the securities broker or its alter ego companies.

Note the reference to “closing agents’ fraud.” That refers to multiple violations by the closing agent or closing attorney. This is the tip of the iceberg. The closing agents took money from one party and applied it to the benefit of a sham entity that was controlled or was the alter ego of the securities broker that was selling bogus mortgage bonds to investors, contrary to instructions from government authorities.

At the end of the day, everybody knows everything. Eventually the basic black letter law will be followed, to wit: preparing documents for the borrower to sign that refer to a loan transaction in which the designated lender loaned nothing creates void documents that cannot be enforced — except possibly by a holder in due course. The risk in that case is generally shifted to the party who signed the papers and let them go into the stream of commerce. But to assert HDC status the party must show

  1. Purchase — Payment of money
  2. Delivery to Depositor and Custodian as per PSA
  3. Good faith
  4. No knowledge of borrower’s defenses

If the banks could have asserted HDC status, they would have because it would eliminate nearly all borrower defenses. But they didn’t allege HDC status which corroborates my view that the Trust never purchased or funded the origination of any loans (nor did the Trust ever receive delivery of the loan documents, as specified in the PSA — tot he Depositor and Custodian). Hence any “authority” derived from the securitization documents is a sham since the terms of the REMIC Trust were ignored and no transaction ever occurred.

This is why the servicers should be ignored and the inquiry and evidence should all relate to the actual lenders who were duped into thinking they were investing into a REMIC Trust. They got a notice of having purchased the bonds, but their money was never delivered to the Trust which issued the Bonds without consideration.

Removing the servicers from the mix gives both the borrowers and the real lenders an opportunity to settle matters relating to the loan balance and provide an opportunity for the execution of a new, enforceable mortgage reflecting economic reality.

The decision described in the article below shows that my prediction 7 years ago is coming true — the ultimate liability will be traced to what happened at the closing table — not just because of violations of lending laws, but because the contract was never formed and could never be enforced, thus eviscerating any documentation to the contrary including the note and mortgage.

One caveat: Closing agents were duped into allowing third party funds applied  to a loan closing with a non-lender. The process of wire transfer was deliberately obscured by the securities  broker and its alter egos. The title companies might be liable but the real party who owes damages is the party who received the benefit of the fraudulent scheme — the securities broker who both sold bogus mortgage bonds to “investors” (who turned out to be “lenders”) and sold bogus loan papers to borrowers. This is where BOA, Goldman Sachs, CitiMortgage, U.S. Bank, Chase, Wells Fargo are all trying their best to distract the attention of the Courts and the government regulators. The actual money trail is what cooks them.



MIAMI (CN) – A title insurer owes $4.9 million for contributing to the failure of mortgages that caused the defunct Washington Mutual Bank to lose millions of dollars, a federal judge ruled.
The Florida-based Attorneys’ Title Insurance Fund (ATIF) issues title insurance policies in real estate transactions. Agents and attorneys in its network may also act as closing agents, supervising the final transactions between buyers and sellers and overseeing the transfer of money and property.
Between 2005 and 2007, ATIF provided closing agents for 14 South Florida residential loans extended by the now-failed Washington Mutual Bank. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which took over WaMu in 2008 and investigated 500 of its defaulted loans, alleged that ATIF’s agents caused WaMu to lend money to unqualified borrowers under false pretenses, leading to more than $9 million in losses for the bank.
The FDIC claimed in a 2012 federal complaint that the title insurer refused to honor agreements in which it promised to reimburse WaMu for losses arising out of its closing agents’ fraud or their failure to follow the bank’s closing instructions.
In addressing the parties’ motions for summary judgment, U.S. District Judge Patricia Seitz ruled that the FDIC has standing to pursue damages based on the closing indemnity agreements. Even though WaMu sold the loans in question to Chase in 2008, the indemnity agreements are separate from the loans’ title insurance policies, because they protect lenders against different risks, according to the Sept. 3 ruling.
Indemnity agreements are designed “to quell a lender’s understandable fear of entrusting an unknown agent with large sums of money and important legal documents,” while title insurance protects against defects in title, the 28-page order states.
ATIF also cannot argue that the FDIC sold its indemnity rights to Chase when it transferred the loans, Seitz said.
Because the FDIC failed to timely notify the insurer of WaMu’s claims under the indemnity agreements for eight defaulted loans, it cannot pursue damages for those loans. The FDIC was required to give notice of the claims within 90 days of learning of an agent’s fraudulent conduct or failure to follow closing instructions. In some cases, the agency waited a few years before making the indemnity-based claims, according to the ruling.
The FDIC may, however, recover damages based on the agreements for the six remaining loans. The borrowers in the six transactions defaulted on the loans, causing WaMu to sell the notes at a substantial loss. Since the FDIC can establish that the losses arose out of the closing agents’ misconduct, such as failure to follow the bank’s closing instructions and providing inaccurate closing documents, the insurer is liable for the difference between the unpaid balance and the value recovered for each loan.
ATIF failed to prove that the FDIC’s $4.9 million figure, which is based on the agency’s investigation of Chase’s records of the purchased WaMu loans, is invalid, Seitz concluded.
In a separate
order, Seitz refused to disqualify a Chase representative who testified about the business records on which the FDIC based its damages figure. Although the FDIC disclosed the witness’s name only after the discovery cutoff, its notice that a Chase employee would testify about the damages complied with discovery deadlines. What’s more, there is no proof that the testimony prejudiced the insurer’s case. The testimony merely certifies Chase’s records, and does not offer an opinion on the FDIC’s damages calculation, according to the 5-page order.
Attorneys for the insurer did not respond to a request for comment.
The FDIC asked for $3.7 million pre-judgment interest as of Sept. 5, while ATIF argued that the interest should not exceed $2.5 million. The parties must respond to each other’s estimates by Monday.

Title Insurers Agents Liable for Not Following Instructions at Closing

119 Responses

  1. The plaintiff has not shown proof of a claim for wich relief can be granted. They lack the standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the court. MSJ. Did you pay your taxes? That could spell Trouble with a capital T.

  2. I believe if the judge though you had nothing he would judged for the bank. He slimmed it down to what he though were the issues!

  3. I think you motion for a dismissal because of “Lack of Standing” because the judge says he familiar with other cases were WaMu is out of business. I would at least get him down on making Wells Fargo proof were they have the ability to be listed in title as the owner of the debt, regardless of what they are saying that they are the holder, because the holder does not give Wells the opportunity to be in title.

    In order to submit to the court that through the land recording office is only reserve for the party that is owned the debt and not someone acting for someone owned a debt. If they are working for Fannie, then Fannie needs to bring the case to the court if they did purchase the debt. It not like Fannie’s CEO is expect to show up in court in NJ or the other 50 States that they purchased a loan.

    You got the proof in the Note and it sound as they judge is leading you to that point. The Note is without Wells Fargo or Fannie listed as the party the Note is being given too!

    But congratulation on having the balls to do what you did so far!

  4. *** Initial Conference Hearing *** Update

    Judge called our case up .. explained he would be setting dates for discovery, interogs, depositions, etc.

    Oct 22 .. all interrogatories must be mailed by Oct 22 (30 days)

    Dec 22 .. all answers must be returned by Dec 22 (60 days)

    Jan 22 … any depositions completed by Jan 22 (30 days)

    Jan 26 … Trial Readiness Hearing

    * The Judge did make a point in telling me that at any time Motions may be submitted for different reasons .. one example being that the Plaintiff might submit a Motion for Summary Judgment asking the Court to make a decision in their favor based on the evidence that is in front of the court , i.e. .. the documents proving their case, the note, the mortgage, the evidence of a default .. he explained that if it does happen and he decides in favor of the Plaintiff, then the case is sent back to the foreclosure unit in Trenton and marked as being a Foreclosure Judgment…( I guess that means no trial takes place, and without the benefit of discovery it puts the defendant at a huge disadvantage in trying to oppose such a Motion without having the benefit of the evidence from discovery .. not a very good system).

    ** I did make him aware of the fact that my case includes a note that was last in the hands of Washington Mutual Bank which is no longer in business and that it raises many issues that I feel needs to be addressed (I was trying to pre-empt their MSJ by planting the seeds to my opposition in his mind) .. he said he is aware of similar issues raised in other cases regarding those concerns. Basically left it at lets see what happens and we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it.

    *** I also informed the Judge that I was currently being Dual Tracked, as WF was negotiating with us in an attempt to offer us a modification, while at the same time the banks law firm is actively litigating a foreclosure action. I told him that WF called and told us during a conference call with their underwriter, that they have suspended the foreclosure. I informed the Judge about the Dodd-Frank Act that went into effect January of 2014 … making dual tracking punishable with monetary damages. I asked the Judge what his opinion is of this.

    He said that in his experience most banks put the foreclosure on the shelf for a few months or however long it takes for modification. He then rambled on about how modifications are a good thing that can benefit you the homeowner … he was steering the narrative away from my question of whether they were in violation of the law.

    When he finally ended praising modification , I got him back on the issue of dual tracking .. and explained to him how an offer of a trial modification usually requires a Defendant to waive his rights to any future claims against the bank .. and it leaves us in a catch-22 , as we’re also stuck trying to defend against a foreclosure at the same time.

    He agreed with me .. and said that it would be something that I could bring up on Motion and then he would be able to address it better.
    He did say that a trial modification may include that waiver, but that if the bank doesn’t make the modification good after the trial period, then you should not be held to the waivers you signed in it. But he added that I should carefully read the terms if they offer me one.

    So I guess he was telling me to make a Motion to the court and complain that the Plaintiff is in violation of the Dodd-Frank Act? And if it’s proven true, they might have to pay damages .. not sure, but I think that’s what the law says.

    The biggest concern right now besides the dual tracking is the real possibility that the law firm begins preparing a Motion for Summary Judgment .. and submits it before I get the benefit of discovery.

    Maybe I should submit a Motion to Dismiss – Lack of Standing?

  5. Lack of Prosecution Magloire v Bank of NY

  6. Dwight you need to call the deeds office to find out about assignment!

  7. Being holder of the blank Note does not allow the holder to place itself as the owner of the debt in the local land recording office as this is a fraudulent position. Wells Fargo can process the paperwork as a servicer like an attorney processes the paper but are not claiming to the owner of the debt.

    But Wells Fargo placing itself in title denied you the right to know who the owner is actually suppose to be. Yes there could be other copies of the Note in a file at different stages.

    By Wells Fargo having MERS assign them into title is criminal because Wells Fargo is not the owner of the debt, and the assignment works to conceal the identity of the actual owner if there is an actual owner of.

    This is not suppose to be some secret transaction for you not to be able to know who your suppose to own a debt too. If as you said that Wells Fargo admitted to not being the owner of the debt, they are not the party to be bring the case against you, but they can answer question a to servicing the loan but are not the one making the decision for a totally separated corporation, and they must obtain permission from who they are working for. However Wells Fargo cannot submit to the court a assignment of the Title/Lien (Mortgage or Deed of Trust) that they are the owner when the case is that they are not the owner as they have stated. Nothing gives Wells Fargo the ability to substitute for the real owner!

    So what is that the “investor” owner want in this matter, and what made then owner of the debt. What is the actual debt that the current owner paid for the loan if they paid for the debt. When did they purchase it, and was it when the loan was alleged to be in default, and why would they pay full priced for a defaulted loan. Is a $200,000 loan that not collectable in full worth full value, when the property is now valued at 65% of the original loan due and PMI is only paying 20% of the loan amount?

    Dwight I think it important to bring to the courts attention as Wells Fargo servicing of your loan is located in Milwaukee WI, and Fannie is located in VA or MD that why would they feel the need to have Wells Fargo lie about being owner to the court to obtain control over the deed of trust or mortgage!

    UCC 9 states the ownership must be proof other than the originator! Why after 7yrs does the owner not present purchase document and proof of exchange for monies!

  8. I’m thinking that this is my argument ….

    1) Commerce Bank negotiated the note to WaMu at the closing once they stamped and signed the note “pay to the order of WaMu”

    2) MERS never recorded any assignment of the mortgage to WaMu in any public records.

    3) At some point in time it appears that the note was sold to a MBS and there is evidence that a Am Trust Bank of Cleveland , Ohio called our homeowners insurance agent and had that name placed in the policy as the 1st mortgagee .

    4) At some point in time Fannie Mae became known as the “owner” or “investor” of the debt.

    5) At some point in time Wells Fargo became the servicer .

    6) At some point in time WaMu went out of business / failed

    7) In 2007 the servicer WF filed a foreclosure complaint but did not include documents proving standing.

    8) In 2010 Defendant Motioned to Vacate the Judgment.

    9) At the 2010 hearing WF in their exhibits showed a note that was NOT stamped by WaMu

    10) At the 2011 next hearing they showed up in court with the alleged note NOW STAMPED IN BLANK BY WAMU , they contend it was always in their files as such.

    So we need to find out the answer to the questions above. And we need to establish who owns the debt now. And who authorized WF to enforce the note and mortgage.

    Who has the ability to satisfy the mortgage ?

  9. Charles .. Wells Fargo has always claimed they are “holders” and have never said they purchased the debt.

    But my fear is in knowing that mere “holders” get to foreclose on the peoples homes everyday in courts around this country.

    And they are doing it with Notes Stamped in Blank .. like mine is.

    Where in the law or the UCC3 or UCC9 does it say Wells Fargo has to show proof that they purchased this debt ?

    They are not claiming they purchased it.

    Everything I have ever read says that any holder of an endorsed note can enforce that note.

    Washington Mutual negotiated the note when they stamped it in blank, so any holder can enforce it?

    So how do I overcome this ?

  10. Dwight you should submit a motion to dismiss, due to the fact that Wells Fargo not a party to the action! The question is if Wells Fargo purchase the loan debt why did they not Notify you in writing of this fact!

  11. Dwight what give MERS power (not really) is the original recording of the DOT, as the lenders are instructed to first record the DOT and then MERS is suppose to kick in as the system that keeps the chain of title in this unbroken link. However this cannot happen in my opinion because Fannie is not a member of MERS as a lender, and as WaMu is seized an the last signer of the Note and it needs to grant it authority to another, it cannot as well as MERS who needs to get authorization to transfer the DOT to Wells, could not be done because WaMu is declared a “failed bank” on Sept 25, 2008, with is why the sick back to Commerce to make it appear that this is were MERS was granted authority, but Commerce is completely done with the deal once it sold the loan to WaMu as the Note show that Commerce endorsed the Note to WaMu!

    No one can ever now fill in that blank area on the Note because the signer who left it blank no longer exist!

  12. God Bless You Brother Charles .. I hope I will not even have to get into the details Monday morning .. but I now have a better understanding and can touch on some of the talking points if needed in order to keep my case alive and able to proceed to trial .. which would open the door for discovery, interogs, testimony, authenticated documents, etc.

    Hope the Judge agrees that material issues of standing are raised and Defendant deserves a trial on the issues of standing.

    The county land records are listed on the internet .. the only MERS assignment ever recorded was the Oct. 8, 2007 assignment of mortgage that says MERS as nominee for Commerce Bank now assigns to Wells Fargo.

    We have mortgages in New Jersey , no Deed of trusts here.

    The same original Mortgage document is what they are relying on, the one we signed with Commerce Bank naming them the “lender”.

    But the MERS clause in the mortgage says that MERS has the right to assign this mortgage to anyone , even for the purpose of foreclosure.

  13. Dwight first it you got time before the hearing stop by the deeds office and see if you can get the Deed of Trust (DOT) and any assignments of that 1st mortgages.

    1. The Note is signed by you at the closing along with the DOT and the DOT is suppose to be recorded.
    2. Next the loan is sold to WaMu and the Note is endorsed to WaMu from Commerce, with Commerce signing WaMu name in the endorse area. Now the assignment of the DOT must be done at the same time, because if not the DOT is no good because a day after Commerce does not have the authority to sign the DOT over because they no longer own the Note & debt.
    3. Now WaMu sell the Note to Fannie Mae but when endorsing the Note the do not sign Fannie in the endorsement area on the Note, so that area is left blank (blank Note). So that their are no dates of the transaction for the sales as in date signature of the banks, you need all the other document to be able to tell if the transactions were done within the right authority period.

    So now it get tricky for them because WaMu is servicing at the start and is in possession of the Note, and at some point they need to tell the court when they came in possession of the blank Note that in evident. They need to explain why they are still in possession of a blank Note and why at this current time it not executed with Wells Fargo’s name inserted later on the Note as them purchasing it.

    4. So because WaMu signed the blank endorsement, we have to think that it was WaMu that sold the loan to Fannie, and at that point the Note was signed blank and a assignment was supposed to be prepared with the date of the sell recorded on the DOT, but Fannie does not want it recorded as they don’t need to have it recorded as long as they don’t sell it. But they must be prepared because they cannot be performed later, but can be recorded late.
    5. So now Wells is in court claiming to be the holder of the Note, but are or are not claiming the be the owner of the debt, so they would need an assignment form Fannie from a sale to be in court in this action, as its only reversed for the “holder in due course”!
    6. The reason UCC 9 says that the non-originator must provide proof of purchase, as you can see that there needs to be at least one Deed of Trust recorded and three assignment of that DOT! The date must match because the day after the sale the ex-owner is not longer the owner with any ability to have recorded in the local county land recording office!

    Bottom line is that Note is still blank and must be forever because WaMu signed it in blank and the no longer exist! So that the Note is in blank and Wells Fargo is in title as the owner of because there no provision for the service to hold the lien, it show a separation of the blank Note and the Debt, and causes the current title to be in correct. This is not saying that Fannie did not purchase the debt, but Fannie is not a mortgage lender and cannot act as one!

  14. Charles .. you said “the note was not assigned by WaMu” … I thought only the mortgages got assigned by MERS .. WF argues they are the holders of the note , which gives them the right to enforce .

    Did you mean the note was not “sold” to WF ?

    Who can fill in the blank on the stamp from WaMu ?

    Can WF write their own name into the blank line ?

    They have to prove that they purchased the note ?

    Is there anything they can do to make this a valid transfer? which would give them the right to foreclose ?

    In a nutshell .. the argument I am raising is that the note was last owned by WaMu , correct ?

    And that once that bank went under , nobody now has the ability to go back and negotiate the note by purchasing it from WaMu ?

    It is basically a note that is floating around with no real owner?

    The plaintiff Wells Fargo has no authority to enforce the mortgage against the note ? why? Because they have to own the note to enforce the mortgage? or they have to show that the real owner of the note has given them the authority to enforce it ?

    How do most servicers show they have authority to enforce?

  15. Dwight from what you have written in my humble non lawyer opinion you need to get the rules down and understand how discovery works
    Please get the books. There’s advice on line that the court itself provides but there are things hidden. Don’t loose to a procedural trick that’s what you need to avoid

  16. mycookiejar, In life when your born with nothing and someone ask for help, you help. You bitterness because of whatever stop you from helping Dwight who no matter what we say was going to take the hill, because there was no re-enforcement coming.

    I don’t believe your actually mad at me because we don’t know each other from a can of paint, I hope Dwight the best, and if your deserving for what your fighting for I hope you the best.

    My you and your family have more joy and happiness than you can handle.

    Dwight my brother from another brother Airborne, because you got a big pair to fight the fight most men cannot fight through the fear of failure to get out of the starter block. Good luck my brother, as we are our brother’s keeper!

  17. I wouldn’t be coming down on you so hard if I didn’t care. You don’t need coddled or bs’ed by an x banker, , you need an attorney.

  18. Hook Line and Sinker. Unbelieveable! Attack the Mortgage 1st! And if you can’t understand the language. Hire an Attorney!

  19. Oh that’s not argument – then Dwight
    So should not be so stressful

  20. Thank you Charles, Deborah and everyone who has responded with advice and encouragement. Mondays initial conference is usually meant to set the dates and timeframes for interogs, discovery, trial date .. but I know he’ll try to make sure we have real valid meritorious issues that questions their standing .. and which would allow the case to go to trial.

  21. Good Grief!

  22. Dwight, Deborah is correct as your not going to have all day to explain, and maybe don’t get to the dual tracking because as it says not to do it, but since you would have too spent to must time fight it with the OCC at a later time.

    Now I think since the Note is admitted to court you need to show the judge the obvious thing wrong with it and that is that it blank and Wells Fargo who is in court was not assigned the Note by WaMu.

    I feel it I only had a few minutes I would says since Sept 25, 2008 It been realized that WaMu who owned my loan as the Note SHOWS, and as the loan is a Fannie Mae program loan (different from owning it) and as possession for the modification I being offer by Wells Fargo as the current service of the loan, they told me that the loan is an “investor” loan. “Investor loan” means that it is not owned by the Wells.

    So what different does it make that Fannie or Wells Fargo owns the loan is that Wells or Fannie owns the loan is that they are two different companies operating as different entities, were Wells is a register National Bank that is regulated to make mortgage loan, and is regulated by the Office of Comptroller of Currency (OCC). Fannie is not a lender who is regulated by the state of NJ or is a National Bank and is not regulated by and banking regulator to originate a home mortgage loan.

    So it important that you be able to confront the owner as to what is there claim! Home mortgage lenders who extend monies to borrower are the only entities that are in entitle as the “holder in due course”. Wells Fargo is in court in possession of the Note only because they were selected to be the custodian of records, and by no means does the possession of the Note by the custodian mean they are owner of the debt!

    Dwight that the best I believe you got at this moment, is where your throwing it in Wells lap to lie about ownership, and if the judge rules against this then if will cause you harm because you not been able to confront Fannie.

  23. Then get an attorney ASAP

  24. Dwight zone in on points of fact in your favor ( you gotta beat their MSJ ) and keep it simple you have 15 mins approximately to impress the judge write it down memorize and recognize the strong points you can’t argue the whole Ponzi scheme in 15 mins
    And that’s all I have to say bout that ( forest)

  25. I need to bring up the current “Dual Tracking” that they are engaging in right now too .. I thought the Dodd-Frank Act made it a violation which is punishable ..

    The WF lawyer told me outside court that my understanding of it is wrong, that they are indeed allowed to litigate during modification negotiations and review .. they just cannot go to sheriffs sale” ..

    I’m not sure that her understanding is correct.

    We’ll see what the Judge says .. although he always seems to see things in the banks favor.

    Maybe I should quote right from the Act which became law in January of 2014

  26. All great points Deborah and Charles … Now when I go before the Judge Monday morning for the initial conference hearing on this matter, it’s going to be important that I keep my words to a minimum and not engage the Judge in any discussion about “default” “admit to missing payments” etc., etc . these are traps that a Judge of equity is allowed to rely on later when he rules that you made “admissions” and that you admitted to being in “default” .. a lot of good cases have been lost after the homeowner made these admissions, so I need to be careful how I respond to his inquisition Monday morning.

    April Charney who NG posts about here, says you should just respond by politely telling the Judge that “you stand on your pleadings”. Maybe a Judge has to accept the written pleadings as your position if you are not willing to engage him in a conversation about the “default” or the alleged “loan that you signed, your signatures are here in front of me showing you signed a note and a mortgage and now you won’t pay”.

    She says that you should simply state that “the alleged transaction that you refer to was between ourselves and a different party, not this plaintiff is court .. and it was never completed and is thus invalid and unenforceable.”

    I’m not sure how that will go over .. but I need to have my responses ready so that I don’t kill my own case before we even get started.

    He may ask me to briefly explain what I’m getting at , what am I hoping to accomplish with a trial … what would a good response be ?

    Another thing is .. I want the plaintiff to bear the burden of proof in this case .. I am challenging that they are the real party in interest , now the whole entire case should not rest on me proving they are not the real party in interest .. the case should also be about them proving that they are the real party in interest.

    This will be a critical hurdle to clear Monday morning .. he can still rule that I have no case or have not raised an issue of material fact to allow this to proceed .. so I really need to have my talking points ready.

    Any help is appreciated.

  27. I’m so sorry I can’t type on old iPhone
    Hope u got gist – “gird kosher” what the hell us thAt iPhone lingo. Anyhow gotta go

  28. Charles Reed
    You make sense to me I have so much from the past that I can’t bring into court ( sol) with the same latkes wells and Fannie with a gird kosher mill law firm in the middle retained by Fannie. I believe any Arizonian who had dealings with these parties trying to defend their home and rights thereto know who I mean.

  29. Deborah winn you make great points, and I saying that the point is that Fannie Mae is owner of the debt, for this proceeding and not Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo is in court claiming to be the “holder in due course” when we know according to the FDIC and JPMorgan sale that it did not include Fannie, Freddie purchase loans and Ginnie Mae pooled government insured loans (FHA, VA, USDA).

    Fannie is collecting damage in all these lawsuits and the government is acting for them as the two agencies are in control of the government because they were seized in 2008. I am saying that the point needs to be made that the Fannie is suppose to be the one to bring that action not Wells as owner.

    Simply being the Federal Gov does not give it the right to have Wells Fargo enter a false Assignment of Deed of Trust in order to foreclosure. Because there are no Federal laws on foreclosures and it is a state only matter and does not make an illegal act legal simply to avoid facing the homeowner.

    When WaMu was seized the only thing that was seized was WMu asset, and that not at question now because Wells and Fannie are saying the blank Notes is their, which an exchange of monies had to have been done in order for Fannie or WaMu to now come to the court claiming a debt due.

    Let not get confused what we are saying for and that is how is Wells Fargo in court claiming that Dwight owes Wells Fargo! 7 year after the last payment was received tell us that they had a problem of some sorts!

  30. “Official Comment 4 to §3-302 makes it clear that the payee can qualify as a holder in due course in some rare situations. Normally, the payee is so involved in the underlying transaction that he or she has notice of problems affecting payment obligations, and thus cannot be a holder in due course.”

  31. Ok Dwight study the legal weight of ” for value received” and ” consideration
    With regards to the assignment(s) Neil has written about this aspect and because in accounting terms they are two different things. You must be impeccable in creating your record get all the transcripts because 100 to 1 I bet you will go to appeal since all we “pro se ers ” are put through the wringer until you give up. But as Winston Churchill said ” we will never surrender” ( might drop dead trying tho)
    Best to you.
    You might consider this:

    “In spite of §3-302(c), which would seem to reach the opposite result, the federal courts have held that federal agencies such as the FDIC when taking over failed financial institutions acquire holder in due course status as a matter of federal law”
    And as follows:
    “The confusing part of the value requirement is that giving value is not the same thing as giving consideration. Read §3-303’s Official Comment 1, first paragraph. The drafters of the Code decided that one gives value only to the extent that the holder has performed the consideration or made some irrevocable commitment in connection with it. If all that has been exchanged for the instrument is an unexecuted promise and then a problem arises, the holder has the self-help remedy of refusing to perform and does not need the extraordinary status of holding in due course; thus, the holder has not given value under the Code.”

  32. Charles … Excellent presentation of the issues . I’m going to do my research and make copies of anything I find regarding the welcome letter, the FDIC WaMu failure, etc., etc. Thank you so much Brother.
    I will really need to read and learn how to explain UCC3 -vs- UCC9 , and how to easily explain difference between holder / hidc … and how to explain why in my case UCC9 should be the guiding code and mandate proof of purchase in order to show ownership.

  33. I understand and appreciate where all of you are coming from, and I do agree with the advice that I receive from each of you.

    The deck is stacked against us in foreclosure cases and the judicial system is blatantly changing the rules of the game (due process and equal protection) to heavily favor the banks and institutions. So we as a group always need to be objective, open and receptive to hearing each others opinions and theories on the issues. Whether the theory holds water or not at the end of the day, it’s important to understand it and to consider using it as another way to attack the validity of the mortgage.

    I have spoken to many lawyers over the past 7 years and have not been impressed with any of them. Until just recently, most of the fc defense lawyers only knew one strategy, bankruptcy chapter 13.

    When I would find ones who had “aggressive foreclosure defense” and the such in their advertisements , they were usually the ones who meant that they would attempt to help you get a modification.

    And then I saw a lawyer who advertised that he was trained in many of the popular fc defense programs that are popular online and by some of the popular web defense attorneys .. wow I thought .. maybe this is the one who can understand how to articulate the arguments and use the existing laws to make a good solid case .. So when I spoke to him and after a long discussion, even he warned that a modification was a victory and explained that none of the Judges in New Jersey were going to allow the borrower to get off on a technicality or even fraud and broken laws by the banks .. he said he has had private discussions with some of the Judges who have asked him “why?” he fights so hard for these borrowers in each case knowing that the courts are not about to start giving the borrowers a free house . So you see the thinking of these Judges? Our arguments may be valid , but they already know in their minds that they really don’t want you to get the house, they want you to settle with the bank and get a modification.

    This same lawyer eventually wanted to know how I was able to beat the Wells Fargo substituted-in lawyers from the Princeton, NJ office.
    When he found out that I had the balls to confront the Judge in my case and threatened to file a formal complaint for judiciary misconduct, he told me that he “is friends with my Judge, and would not want my case”. Knowing that I had just made a mistake talking to this guy, I quickly added “oh no, I never made any complaint and the Judge and I actually worked together the rest of that case against Wells Fargo, he’s a really nice Judge and it was just a misunderstanding on my part”. I said those things because I know these people inside the system see each other all the time and they talk. I didn’t need this young lawyer running around trying to score points with the Judge by telling tales on me behind my back. So I cleaned it up the best I could and moved on. His price menu for foreclosure defense was 750/750/750 and 200 hr.
    …. filing the answer – filing the opposition – appearing at initial hearing. …. and then 200 dollars an hour to perform discovery and interrogatories , etc. etc .. I told him I would talk it over with my wife and be back in touch .. I never called him back.

    In 7 years .. I have not yet met a lawyer like Neil Garfield.

    So I felt that I was paying too much money to have somebody else negotiate a modification for me , I could negotiate my modification.

    But now I see the value of an attorney .. for the procedural aspect !

    They have the knowledge of procedural strategy to help protect my due process rights .. but they lack the actual arguments , they lack the knowledge and ability to articulate the arguments we speak of here, and they lack the backbone and balls to fight that kind of fight.

    And that has been my dilemma . But at this point you are right, a lawyer could only help , as long as the one I find is in the fight with me and understands the arguments …

    and then, if we lose and rely on a modification .. at least we made a case on the record .. and possibly an appealable case that could be reviewed by the appellate division.

    The Atlantic City lawyer has me worried because he too is a friend of this Judge .. and maybe he read my papers and the ones from the old case where I complained to the Judge that it appeared he was violating the Canons with what I suspected was an Ex Parte communication with the WF attorneys regarding their note .. where they were asking for an adjournment .. and when we came into court, he seemed to already know they needed time to fabricate a new note with the stamp from WaMu .. but he never asked them about the note in court at that first hearing .. so how did he know they needed time to find it? he never asked them during court.

    Now here I am back before this same Judge .. and the first thing he does is wipe out almost all of my affirmative defenses, which is an unusual thing for a Judge to do , most Judges allow the defenses to stand and can weed them out during the trial.

    I’m wondering if he already has his mind made up about my case and is now on a mission to finally make sure he takes my house and gives it to the servicer Wells Fargo.

    This is why Charles points should be taken seriously , these are points that may need to be part of the record so that later an Appeals court can find the error of the lower Court.

  34. DwightNJ I thought about what the judge did and he right to have at that it this point thrown out the other issue, but he wanting you to example the ownership, which is as you said Fannie Mae, and this procedure is causing you to not be able to confront them.

    The MERS report will show that Fannie is the “investor” if you can pull it up on line and show Wells as the servicer. The Note has already been presented you said with the WaMu stamp with the blank endorsement.

    So the judge is directing you to what he unclear on to me and that is why you believe that Wells Fargo is not the rightful holder. You must be able to explain the difference between holder and “holder in due course” and as a request of the Jul 31, 2006 servicing agreement between WaMu and Wells (look for Welcome letter from Wells from 2006) the Welcome letter shows that from WaMu to Wells only is notification of the transferring of servicing.

    Because WaMu owned the loan and with the loan being in the blank state, without mentioning who they were endorsing the Note over to, there must be other documentation to show that Wells does own the debt. So it must be known that your not arguing whether the Deed of Trust follows the Note, but you are arguing that the “debt” does not follow Note unless the Note is purchase.

    So how is it possible that Wells is in possession of the blank Note is because they been hired like a bank to act as the “custodian of records” and is being placed in safe keeping with Wells as Fannie Mae operate with all there purchased loan in this same manner. However because neither Fannie or Wells or WaMu originated the loan and Commerce did, we need to establish ownership, because only the holder that owns the debt can be placed in title with a lien.

    The evidence has been entered in court already the Wells Fargo is not the owner of the debt, because the Note is currently in a blank status. Yes UCC 3 give the entity in physical possession of the blank Note owner of the document, but the document is a contract for debt only, and that why UCC 9 requires that a non “originator” of the debt provide proof of purchase.

    So all that you are asking the court is the ability to confront the owner of the debt, who is the only entity that can be in title, and is the only entity that can call the Note due, because they are the one owed the debt. Wells Fargo is working as the servicer & custodian through the Jul 31, 2006 mortgage servicing agreement. The agreement was for government owned loans with Fannie being treated as government owned because of this quasi relationship like Freddie.

    All your asking the court is if Wells is claiming ownership during these 7yrs is to show where on the Note they purchased it, and a receipt of an exchange in monies from Wells to WaMu on the date of the sale. Right now the best Wells Fargo can show is that they are the servicer for WaMu from 2006, however as of Sept 25, 2008 WaMu was seized and declared a “failed bank” (go to FDIC site and pull up that release). WaMu does not have the ability to act as a bank after Sept 25, 2008 and the Note does not have a name or date as to when it was exchanged and in its current status it still show WaMu as the last holder of the debt, but because they no longer exist, they cannot speak for itself and are not in court calling the debt due!

    So it must be explain who and how the debt being called due! What is Wells Fargo doing in court? Show the purchase agreement and the money!

  35. @sloppy, So whistleblowers are freeloader that have devised schemes to get rich quick. wow! So let see in 1971 when I was 13yrs old, I got Ginnie Mae to require lender to relinquish blank Notes that they not purchase to them for underlying collateral?

    Does getting rich quick make you less rich? Is it inferior to getting rich old? What quick? Does inheriting parent’s money count as getting rich quick? Like the Waltons, Mars, Rockefellers or other rich families? It called being born rich!

  36. Correction – I meant auto correct to say ” what happened in my case was unique” It was lucky i found something.

  37. Dwight if you want to stay in your home – get that attorney you talked to who you mentioned on this thread and talk him into doing contingency or monthly fee contingency that you can afford, otherwise you are going to make an almighty f up and kick your self later. I’m telling you after 5 years trying to litigate it is very tricky. They got the house and what he likened in my case is unique. When I decided to defend myself I had not a darn thing left to loose, so I thought – but I lost more – like five years and still going on of my life and enjoyment of, they ruined everything and get it – they do not care.

  38. They don’t work for free Charles. I guess you will have to pay them to find out. I’m actually a very objective person , I object to freeloaders, I object to get rich quick dilusions and I object to your theories.

  39. @sloppy if you could be object as Neil, me and the rest of the world is realizing the Wells Fargo got an major issue with WaMu and as with all these settlement you see the Fannie and Freddie got a huge problem with being able to show that they are owners of the debt ala New York!

    What I given Dwight are suggestion on attacking the Note which raises the question of assignments. I given him information on modifications and dual tracking.

    Our hatred for one another is not an issue here and you so little of a person, that your not trying to help other than shoot your mouth off about Dwight getting an attorney, when he already been down that road.

    So sloppy were does the attorney make money in this state court proceeding?

  40. I wouldn’t have to be so negitive if you weren’t giving such bad advice.

  41. @sloppycookiejar Dwight gotten by for 7yrs without a attorney, but it not because he not been in seek of one. In case you don’t know that Wells Fargo is a $1trillion asset company, so you act like there are hundreds of attorney out there defending these cases when there no money to be made in defending a person to stay in there home.

    So that your telling Dwight to stop the processing and go get an attorney is like your world and that unreal. Dwight telling you he not got monies to hire some team of attorneys to fight their team of attorney, but most all attorney will feel that Dwight wants a house for free and that the end of the advice he would receive. Don’t you think that in 7yrs that Dwight been in search of that attorney that would handle his case?

    He just said the attorney he found did not get back with him and his case was scheduled for this last Friday and not attorney. The guy ask for help and I tried to give it to him, because Dwight was going to face this legal system with or without us because that what he feel is right. What I felt was right was to give him what I had and if that help, that what I think God wants us to do. I could have not written, but it like when I served in the military when 98% of the country stayed home, I went! Right or wrong I gave what I had. Now I know what I am saying is correct and that the Fannie and Freddie deal are different from what I reported in Ginnie Mae, but there are some similarities, and the biggest one is that it Wells Fargo and this loan was not included in the JPMorgan sale and is being serviced by Wells.

    So sloppy go dig a hole and jump in it as your always so negative!

  42. LOL Dwight. Look, State Laws Vary. The Judge did you a huge favor letting you preceed on Lack of Standing. Don’t blow it, hire an attorney. Request continuence to seek councel. Otherwise your going to become just another hateful loser here. You won’t have anyone to blame but yourself. And for Heavens Sake don’t feed Charlie! If it smells like tuna, it probably is. Sorry Charlie!

  43. State of Illinois vs Countrywide, Order Entered 2008. Have you read the consent decree? Dum Da Dum Dum Dum

  44. Cookie & Charles .. I want to invite you both to visit me along the Jersey Shore .. go out for dinner and drinks .. and then a nice walk along the beach together .. or a boat ride out on the bay at night ?
    Lets all work together , we’re all on the same team. Can you two share a bedroom together .. we only have the one spare bedroom , can you at least come spend a weekend together and I’ll bet you end up as best friends in the end .. how does October 8th sound? It’s a full moon, one of the red blood moons this year .. we can all go deep sea fishing together.. sound good?

  45. @sloppy you act like because I expect to be paid what the government has put up for an award as if I am committing a crime, but it not like for one it returns billions of dollars to the taxpayer coffers and helps out people who were a victim to what we know was a crime.

    I did not create the fraud, I am just reporting it and hope to get paid for my discovery, and if that makes you hot and bothered so be it because I will be to rich to talk to you after the fact!

  46. Moron, I don’t scam them, I protect them from people like you looking to make a quick buck.

  47. @Sloppycookienut you forgot one and that is your Certified Crazy as a freaking bed bug!

    If the matter I am talking about was settled in 2008 why is Dwight having problems today with his situation? How could the problem I am talking about have been settled in 2008 when in fact it really just started Sept 25, 2008.

    Babygirl I am trying to help him, and your talking BS. He tried to get an attorney who knew he was going to court yesterday but the guy did not show up for him. So sloppy F you and your Fing attorneys. As an abstractor and closing agent did not give you the areas to know what the crap was going on with originations or foreclosures. And as for a reverse mortgage specialist how did it feel to be screwing the elderly out their home and probably explains why you butt is involved in the estate deal in the first place!

    You got to love this nut sloppy!

  48. I’m a certified title abstracter, a certified reverse mortgage specialist, certified signing agent. I have my own team of attornies and I have two wins under my belt. Charles on the other hand didn’t fight his fc. He has a dream of becoming a millionaire from his 2011 whistle blower claim on issues settled in 08. Its just a dream, he has empty pockets, a dry mouth and NO MILK.

  49. DwightNJ sloppycookiejar is a nut don listen to her. OK since 2007 it you not pay into your escrow account Wells Fargo been fronting that monies to keep your property taxes paid and insurance. So if your being order an modification sure they want you to change the payee. Your not paying it and the county not going to give you any part of what they been sending a check for, so you got nothing to lose. The insurance is only going to pay out if something like the house burns down.

    The judge is right about part of the fraud not hurting you because its not been establish that it a fraud yet as your only guessing at this time. But what I would do is submit a Motion that Wells Fargo not the party to bring the claim, base on the Note. The Note is blank and neither party disputes this, however Wells Fargo only the holder of the blank Note due to there duties as the custodian of records for Fannie Mae.

    Do you have any letter from Wells that telling you that your loan is an investor loan? Tell the judge you agree that the deed of trust would follow the Note if the Note was in the hands of the entity that could file the assignment, but because the blank Note belong to Fannie then Wells Fargo cannot be the “holder in due course” because Fannie is.

    Do you see were I am coming from and that is your being denied your right to communicate with the actual “holder in due course” who Wells got authorization to work out a modification which they are currently doing. Get a copy of the National Mortgage Settlement which says there is no dual tracking ala New York v. Wells Fargo!

    Yes if the originator is foreclosing under UCC 9 they don’t have to provide proof of purchase and can simply foreclosed, but because other than the originator in Wells Fargo is trying to foreclose, there must be a proof of purchase. What should be obvious is this started in 2007 and its 2014 and all that time Wells Fargo been servicing the loan, so there a reason and that is because Wells Fargo not the “holder in due course” and I would say there is some kind of accounting problem with simply bringing in a receipt after 7 years!

  50. How can a Judge rule on a Motion by plaintiff that the homeowner cannot bring any allegations of fraud in defending this foreclosure?

    That’s a bunch of bullshit .. I thought fraud was never supposed to be allowed access thru the doors of the courthouse , no matter what !

    This Judge seems to think that as long as the fraud is part of a document in the banks claim to foreclose , it should be allowed .

    His reasoning ? That the homeowner is not a party to a fraudulent assignment of mortgage and has no legal standing to challenge it.

    But it is still a fraud being used in the courthouse , regardless of who it is between … it is a fraud that is determining the outcome of a case in the judicial system .. and that is never supposed to be allowed.

    How do I appeal a Judges decision on such a stupid motion ?

    Or do I wait for the trial to begin and just make it part of the record so that I could appeal later?

  51. Nope don’t change the ins to them. That’s a trick to get an admission from you. Make sure the policy holders (the estate) are/remain loss payee and You pay the preium. Corelodgic is used to hide the party paying taxes as MERS does the rpii. Redeem those taxes! No Trust! And for heavens sake hire the attorney.

  52. Cookie … what is it in the mortgage that we should be attacking ?

  53. Charles .. so basically I’m arguing that WF has no authority to bring this claim as the real party in interest ?

    And that Fannie Mae cannot be in the title ?

    Somebody has to show proof of a purchase from WaMu ?

    This hard-headed Judge I am in front of seems to go along with the theory that ..

    1) a holder of a note is always entitled to enforce that note simply by being in possession of it (according to UCC-3)

    2) The mortgage follows the note (MERS assignments don’t matter)

    How do I overcome that ?

  54. If you paid your house sitter her fees in advance and her services were no longer needed due to her negliance, would you be entitled to a refund?

  55. Cookie Jar … I had PMI on my refinance at the time, and it appears it has continued to make the property tax payments this entire time thru WF as servicer?

    WF is attempting to offer me a modification , and has sent a letter recently asking us to change the first mortgagee on our homeowners insurance policy into their name !

    Right now the first mortgagee named on the policy is Am Trust Bank of Cleveland, Ohio … not sure how or why that has been there all these years.

    The lawyer in Atlantic City received my documents 2 weeks ago and I never heard back from him , left him a message and he never returned my call. During our last telephone conversation he told me that he was “good friends” with the Judge in my case .. hmmmmm

  56. You don’t have to do any such thing Dwight. Charles is FOS all the way up to his ears! Did you send the attorney the docs he requested? The mortgage and the mortgage statements?

  57. DwightNJ first it already establish that the Note is endorsed in blank, so next you must show that Fannie Mae is the owner of that Note, which should be simply done by asking the Defendant and showing the MERS assignment from their system. Next if you can get something faxed from Fannie Mae, were you said you already been told that Fannie is in control of your mortgage loan. But let the fact that it is a Fannie program loan be an issue because it two different thing to have a Fannie Mae underwritten program loan, which only means that was the program your were applying and qualified for. In order for Fannie to now be in charge of your loan requires that they purchased that loan.

    The judge must understand that what currently going on is that Wells Fargo is in court as the service and custodian of record from the mortgage servicing agreement dated Jul 31, 2006 now Wells Fargo seems to have taken that News Release down now, but you can goolge Wells Fargo $140 billion servicing agreement with Washington Mutual Bank. The point is to get the judge to see you were prevented from finding out who is alleged to be the “holder in due course”!

    So the agreement is that while being misled as to who is the owner of the debt with the Notice of Default that says Wells Fargo is the lawful holder of the Promissory Note and the assignment also is saying they are holders, miss leads the court, you and the public because a simple holder i.e. custodian of records that not purchase the debt cannot be entered into title and does so to foreclose not for Fannie but for Wells Fargo how is not the debt holder.

    You got to make the judge see it not fair out of an illegal act to have to be in court defending yourself against Wells Fargo. The fact that Wells Fargo is not the allege owner of the debt, but Fannie is, the court should not be reviewing the case, because Wells Fargo does not have a financial interest in the loan.

    It not as if a debt exist that they issue, but to whom the debt is do to. If your currently being offered a modification by the Wells Fargo who is working for Fannie, they how can it be seriously being consider if your in court fighting a foreclosure.

    Make the judge determine that if Fannie is the owner that he saying the Wells has the right to title the county land recorder that they are the owner of the debt and be placed in title position as owner. The question needs to be brought up why is not Fannie being represented. Next is that Fannie is not the recorded home loan lender and is not a direct lender to home owners, so it not the fact that a loan may or may not be owed to Fannie but as they are not a home mortgage lender they situation appears to be a unsecured loan.

    I not saying he going to listen to the unsecured argument but at least if you foreclosed and your harmed, this would be an issue for you to bring back up.

    So the main point that I would want the court to have Wells Fargo tell in what capacity are they in court as. The Note is blank with a WaMu stamp, and as Fannie is saying they are the owner of the loan, then it impossible for Wells Fargo to ever own the Note, because Fannie is with being named on the face of the note (endorsed as) can never ever re-endorse the blank Note because WaMu did not place their name in the endorsement spot!

    Not being an attorney this is now I would attack the problem, because you are attacking the contract/Note. I know at its current state it impossible for both Wells or Fannie to both have owned the loan at some point in time, but one could have owned it. However as Wells Fargo did have the service agreement with WaMu and Fannie saying they are the owner, I entitled to believe that, but UCC 9 make a now originator to simply provide proof of purchase. I believe that Fannie problem is that they are not a leader and there problem now with then now all a sudden wanting to be place in title, when in fact they are not register to lend monies to home loan borrowers.

    There is the question as Fannie is not a lender or mortgage servicer then how did it expect legally to receive payment from you? loan Shark lends monies but cannot come to courts with a claim! You may have two broken legs, but they cannot use the court for an illegal transaction, even if monies were borrowed. That the problem I believe Fannie and Freddie has!

  58. This is part of a letter I received from opp counsel. They want to settle. The Judge actually ruled on a Mot to Compel in my favor:

    “If you agree in principle to settle the case for $2,500, then a settlement agreement will be prepared. My client does not incur the cost of having counsel prepare a settlement agreement until and unless the opposing party indicates that he or she wishes to settle at the monetary term proposed. The settlement agreement will be a standard one. You would release all your claims and your lawsuit would be dismissed with prejudice. There would be standard provisions regarding confidentiality.

    Please advise if you would like to move forward with settlement.”

    Told him the note needs to be retired or paid in full. Said I want a satisfaction of mortgage but since they do not own the Note or the debt that will be difficult.

  59. Dwight, hire the Attorney you spoke with. Charles lost his home in 2011. He knows squat about procedure or the language in the mortgage. Its the Mortgage you attack! You never did answer my question about tax n ins. Even people with reverse mortgages lose their homes for non payment of real estate taxes.

  60. Charles … you have been awesome .. lets hope this can help my case. Now if all this is true …

    1) my note is endorsed in blank from WaMu
    2) it is listed on Fannie Mae website as owned by them
    3) Wells Fargo is the servicer claiming “holder” to foreclose

    What is my winning argument to defeat Wells Fargo ?

    Remember…the Judge looks at the party holding the note as the PETE , the person entitled to enforce.

    I guess I would have to challenge that premise, and argue that all holders of a note are not automatically allowed to enforce it ?

    And keep breaking it down for me Charles .. what exactly is the argument I make to the Judge .. why can’t Wells Fargo enforce it?

    The UCC is so confusing, it makes it seem as though any holder can enforce a note .

    But by what authority do they enforce it? Do they need to even have the authority of the owner of the note in order to enforce it?

    Can Fannie Mae simply say “we authorized Wells Fargo to enforce”

    Fannie Mae can claim they now own the loan .. no assignment on record because of MERS .. but the last assignment shows MERS giving the assignment to Wells Fargo.

    What is my argument ? That Fannie Mae can’t prove that they did indeed purchase the debt ? No proof of purchase ?

  61. DwightNJ great you know at least two thing and the is that Commerce does not own the loan any longer if WaMu stamp is on it endorsing it, and now you know for sure that Fannie claiming they own it because it in their system. Now it depend on what type of modification as to the rate and term. If they are processing you for a HAMP they they have to halt the foreclosure because it is on a dual track with is suppose to be illegal under the HAMP agreement. You need to call Fannie Mae and tell them that you are being dual tracked. New York was suing Wells Fargo for dual tracking as it is against the National Mortgage Settlement.

    The Stamp endorse cannot come from WaMu unless they owned the loan! So since the Note has a WaMu stamp that what is presumed to be the case, and now both Fannie need to provide proof of purchase. Get what you printed off and provide that because both that and the Note plus if you log onto MERS and print that screen it will show Fannie as the investor. Your your social security number and if that does not give you the information, on your loan application 1009 it should have a MIM number somewhere on it, or on the Note you received at closing in your closing packet. I hope I helped some!

  62. Charles .. all good points .. but what if they say that Commerce is the lender and never sold the loan to anyone ? Does the stamp endorsement on the note mean they sold it to WaMu ??

    And what if the judge says “the mortgage follows the note” ?
    How can you argue it’s unsecure if the mortgage follows the note?

    We are currently being reviewed for a modification by WF .. the lady called us at home and said she was sitting with the underwriter, they had a few questions and then said they were going to attempt to modify … I told them to do their best to reduce principal and stretch it out to 40 years if they have to in order to make it work, I reminded them of the national mortgage settlement they were signatories of , that required them to reduce principal if needed to keep borrowers in their homes .. they told us the foreclosure has been suspended . (but the attorney at court said that only means they suspend sheriffs sale , but litigation continues even during a modification review … I asked if that was dual tracking, lawyer said no.

    But I like what you’re saying about the note being sold to WaMu .. the endorsement from Commerce is proof it was sold to WaMu correct?

    And I still feel it ended up in a trust .. but would a title search show if it went to a trust? or does a title search only find public land records and assignments ? MERS hides the truth .

    I entered my info on Fannie Mae website and it confirms they have or control our loan.

  63. DwightNJ don’t worry about the now stamp Note because a file is going to have maybe a few copies of the Note at different stages, because it goes through different stages. However the one stamped with WaMu on it at least should that WaMu owned the loan at one time, which is great.

    The reason it great is it forces Wells Fargo or Fannie or both to show were they purchased it. So instead of a theory it now a fact they must prove. I think the worst is that Fannie proves they did purchase it and has a receipt, however they are not in title as the “holder in due course” and it a unsecured loan. So now the Judge should have to figure that if he allows a foreclosure it will change once the foreclosure is done, that it now harmed you, because if Fannie does not have a signed and dated assignment on the date of the sale it cannot now get one and recorded because WaMu is no longer with us.

    So the fact is the only one who can determine what WaMu intention were is WaMu and they are dead. WaMu could have never wanted to transfer the assignment because they did not file one at the court. So get the Title search and I bet WaMu did not get the deed transferred to them because they were using MERS to act as if it transfer the title to members of MERS only. So once WaMu was declared a “failed bank” MERS could not represent WaMu because it no longer existed.

    However your process did start in 2007, and that they did not handle this then, maybe good new because WaMu could have step back in and foreclosed. So maybe there is not even proof by Fannie of a purchase. But at least I think you got enough to make the Judge think about if he going to harm you by allowing the foreclosure.

    I wish you could get an attorney that understood this, but because there not any monies for you to win is a problem. Have you looked into a modification to give you a solution? Because if not your most likely going to have to try and fight this after the fact your harmed!

  64. @Ian, I got no clue about the 27% deal with Fannie

  65. Charles .. the note they (WF) allege to have in their possession is now stamped in blank by WaMu .. that’s what the foreclosure mill lawyers brought in last time .. (I believe they had it fabricated)
    But a few months ago Wells Fargo replied to my QWR and sent a copy of the note according to their records and it does not show a stamp on it from WaMu .

    I’ll do those other things too .. thanks.

    if the note comes in as having a stamp in blank, does that kill my case?

  66. DwightNJ, if you get pass Monday, then you need to get a copy of the Note in it current condition as it going to be blank with WaMu endorsing it, So call the OCC and request that they get a copy fax to them, and them under the Freedom of information request the Note from the OCC.

    Next spend $100 to get a title search from a title company as it will provide you with any recording including the deed of trust and assignment of transfers.

    Next call the FDIC and tell them that you got a WaMu loan that was originated by Commerce and ask if they can help you get the date the loan was sold to WaMu. This will at least show that a sale occurred between the two.

    Next go on line to MERS and print out who the investor is in their system as it going to have Wells Fargo as the servicer and Fannie Mae as the investor (owner)!

    Call Fannie Mae and ask if your loan is owned by them, and try to get something of them in writing that they own your loan.

    Your point I believe in this will come down to the loan being an unsecured loan. Because you are not harmed yet you need to deal with that fact, but between now and Jan, Wells Fargo will have come to some kind of settlement because all they other have. Hopefully you will be afforded a refinance. I don’t see a way that the issue just going to go away because your still in the home. If they had foreclosed then there damage because of the forgeries. I see the Judge not addressing a forged assignment because at this point its mute, because its not damaged you, and would have only damaged the actual holder of the debt and it that Fannie Mae or WaMu they are not the one in court.

    Having the Note will at least show Wells is not a party too. But it not going to stop unless you can work something out with Fannie. I believe you can prolong it, but what the end game!

  67. Thank you everyone , I do appreciate all of your kind words and encouragement, it means a lot to me as I suffer the stinging effects of the joke known as our judicial system, and how it has created a different set of standards aimed at homeowners attempting to defend against the Ponzi scheme foreclosure. The rocket docket mentality inside the foreclosure courtroom exhibits no evidence of justice , as everything has been twisted and corrupted in favor of the banks.

    My initial case conference hearing was set for Monday 9/22/14.

    Wells Fargo lawyers Motioned the court to strike 25 of my 33 affirmative defenses , and my counterclaim .. with prejudice.

    I filed in Opposition to their Motion and todays hearing was for Oral Arguments on the Motion.

    Sadly I was never given the opportunity to argue anything, as the Judge pretty much had his mind already made up that he would grant them the Motion. He looked at me and said “but your case is still proceeding .. you can still argue Standing, but I’m granting the Plaintiffs Motion and signing an Order to dismiss 25 of your 33 defenses and your counterclaim. He then quickly read over the plaintiffs Motion to strike .. briefly touching on all their reasons why the affirmative defenses should be dismissed .. there was no oral arguments.

    So in this twisted system, Defendants without any Discovery yet, are virtually kicked in the knees before their case ever starts. Meanwhile the Plaintiff whose allegations in their complaint falls way short of fulfilling the burden of proof , gets a helping hand by the court to make sure the homeowner is burdened with a heavy disadvantage right out of the gate .. holding the defendant to a higher standard of pleading the affirmative defenses , than the court holds the plaintiff to with filing the complaint and proving standing as the real party in interest.

    a few of the defenses that were dismissed ….. are as follows ,

    1) The fraudulent/forged MERS Assignment ….
    Judge agrees with Plaintiff that any defense regarding the MERS assignment must be stricken. There is simply no credence to Defendants argument regarding the validity of the publicly recorded assignment of mortgage, and all defenses based on this theory must be stricken. It is a publicly recorded document affixed with the stamp and seal of the County Clerk. It is self authenticating. Borrowers are strangers to the document and therefore have no legal standing to challenge it. (I tried to object to that being included, the Judge looked up and said “you can’t object”) I thought that I could offer an argument.

    2) Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ….
    Judge agrees that Wells Fargo is not a “Debt Collector”, they are a creditor.

    3) TILA violations ….
    Statute of limitations has expired

    4) Consumer Fraud Act …
    Statute of limitations has expired

    5) Fair Foreclosure Act ..
    Defendants have no private right of action under the act.

    6) Fraud …
    Any Fraud claims or Defenses are barred. 6 year statute of limitations.

    7) RESPA violations … failing to make certain disclosures …
    Defendant has no private right of action. Law was not created for private right of action for violations.

    8) All theories about naked nominee, table funded loan, REMIC Trusts, rebuttable presumptions , holder, holder in due course, etc … are nothing more than the Defendants rambling stream of theories .. none of which are defenses to the foreclosure of this loan. All of these defenses must be stricken in their entirety.

    9) Plaintiffs failed to attach or include all necessary documents to their complaint .. no mortgage, no assignment of mortgage, no note .. a clear violation of the NJ Rules for filing a foreclosure complaint ..
    … Plaintiff says they did attach everything (NOT) and that defendant only “vaguely” claims we violated “court rules”.

    10) Lack of Standing due to fraud, fraudulent documents ..
    Dismissed with prejudice . No inquiry , no questions, no discovery, no oral arguments .. just rubber stamped Wells Fargo’s Motion.

    And 15 more similarly dismissed before I ever had discovery to support my defenses … this is not justice. My defenses should not have been dismissed with prejudice before I ever got discovery as a defendant. A court can always wipe out defenses once the trial gets underway and after discovery is conducted. Why hold the defendants to such a high standard when the banks standards are being changed daily to make it easier for them to win foreclosure cases.

    So I guess I’m left with proceeding with trying to prove that no valid contract ever took place between us and the pretender lender at origination. Try and find evidence about Charles Reed’s point about Fannie Mae / WaMu issues , ownership … by what authority does Wells Fargo claim they can enforce the note and mortgage , etc ..

    Man … I have a lot of work to do .. Monday morning he will most likely schedule discovery, interrogatories, etc , etc .. the trial will be held by beginning of January from what he was telling others .. I feel like I still have a shot … but I need to form a strategy now.

    Also .. Plaintiffs will probably hit me with a Motion for Summary Judgment … you know that will be coming.

    I feel defeated.

  68. OneWest Bank sent me a check for $25 under the OCC Independent Foreclosure Review.
    It arrived after 19 months of so called Independent Audit Review by Rust Consulting.
    They were sent close to a Bankers Box of evidence of harm.
    Now it is my understanding many people who submitted the required claim form by the December 31, 2012 deadline are getting in the mail letters of $ 0 (not even the $300 that the other servicers provided as part of the end of the program behind close door deal).

    Now in the article below- sunlight is being directed to the sale of Onewest bank to CIT. Daily News is a mainstream paper- so Neil your long and hard efforts are in in the mainstream- kudos!

  69. Chas reed- over on Jeff Barnes site he mentions that anyone foreclosing a FNMA mortgage gets a 27 point “kicker” as he put it- is that 27% of the mortgage being foreclosed? What do you know about this? First time I’ve seen this fact. And with Barnes it is a fact. No bs from him.

  70. Charles, its referred to as a tier2 YSP. Monoply Money.

  71. Dwight, request a continuence to seek councel. There are SOLs for lack of want to prosecute. Did you keep the property insured and the re taxes paid? Attack the Contract.

  72. DwighNJ- good luck in court this morning!

  73. Dwight
    Please get an attorney. Your doing great but please find a good one, ask around someone always knows someone I would never do this pain again it took over my life 5 years and barely off first base, It does that. I’m not trying to put you off promise I just know it’s the kinda stuff that will suck you and your family dry. Find one start looking.

  74. DwughtNJ you got them and a key point is that Commerce was I am sure a correspondent lender with WaMu, and the funded the loan to get a higher yield for the loan, but they had to title the loan and that started MERS to do an Option 1 Transfer Beneficial Rights which is going to be recorded on the Milestone report.

    Now where the dysfunction is that WaMu fails to record the assignment which they would have to have done if they sold the loan to Fannie because after the fact WaMu would not have the authority after the date of sale because they not longer are the owner of the debt.

    So What was needed is that through some attorney who was acting as an Employee of MERS who needs to skip over WaMu because they not record the assignment and skip back to Commerce who probably has no clue what going on, and there to make it appear that Commerce sold the loan to Wells Fargo back in 2007.

    Call Commerce and ask them to provide you with a letter of the date of sale and to whom, and also request it through the FDIC because they would have become the regulator for WaMu.

    The reason they not requesting the court action through Fannie is that is Notes blank and no assignment exist from WaMu to Fannie. So best they could have is an unsecured debt, and cannot foreclosed on your house. I believe that this issue is coming to a head with the Wells Fargo’s negotiation with Justice Dept because it to easy now to figure out what they have done!

  75. Charles … thank you , the assignment of mortgage that they are relying on says that MERS as nominee for Commerce Bank, assigns the mortgage to Wells Fargo .. it’s dated Oct 8, 2007 … it has a forged signature in the place of the notary (I compared it to his real sig that I found online on a different assignment) all of the names on my AOM are known robo-signors .. my assignment is a blatant fraud with evidence of forgery of the notary .. not sure if it voids the assignment.

    My objections and argument are they fabricated both documents , the note and the assignment.

    The Wells Fargo employee handbook tells of fabricating and adding stamps , etc . to documents in order to foreclose … an employee who was quoted in a whistle-blower article describes how he doctored the notes and added stamps in blank for the purpose of foreclosures.
    Neil G. posted an article on the handbook and said that alone should be reason for deeper discovery in these WF cases.

    Now if WF did legitimately purchase our loan, why not just file the complaint as holder in due course? they filed as holders and they claim the lender is Commerce and Fannie Mae is the investor.

    Someone at some point in the past had my homeowners insurance put the name – Am Trust Bank , Cleveland, Ohio – into first mortgagee on my homeowners policy … nobody knows who did it or when exactly, but it goes back as far as 2008 in the files of the agency records.

    Am Trust Bank was seized by OTS and named a failed bank.

    Who the heck really owns my note?

    are these material issues that I raise , that should allow the Judge to deny the plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss my defenses ? My argument at oral arguments Friday morning is that these are material issues that deserve discovery , they are Triable issues and we shouls proceed to a trial in order to reveal the facts .. with the production of witnesses , authenticated documents, testimony, interrogatories, etc.

    The Fannie Mae / WaMu mystery is a valid issue ..

    the Am Trust Bank mystery .. who is the real owner of the debt?

    Wells Fargo will argue that they as “holders” are allowed to enforce the mortgage and foreclose.

    Can you all be here in the morning, and I’ll tell the Judge to log-on to this site so he can speak with you all right here in the comments section?

  76. DwightNJ could your Fannie Mae loan have been sold in Jul 31, 2006 to Wells Fargo that did purchase a few loans in that deal. However I am more entitle to believe that the loan was probably owed by Fannie Mae and placed into a securities but that assignment was not prepared on that day of the sale and hopefully never prepared.

    What does your Notice of Default, Substitution of Trustee and Assignment of the Mortgage? If Wells Fargo had placed itself in title they have broken the law because they are not the “holder in due course” and cannot foreclose for Fannie as Fannie or foreclose as Wells Fargo. This is what Fannie has claimed and won in some of this settlement and that is that the documentation was not completed at the time of the sale.

    So you either got an issue were they started down the wrong path in 2007 and should have simply at that point foreclosed as WaMu and no one could have disputed it because the originator could have claimed it still was in physical possession of the Note. Its seem there is a major problem of being able to show proof of ownership and they got no receipt of purchase.

    I think a way to keep from admitting a default on your part is to who they are saying the debt is to. If they are saying that the debt to WaMu is the issue is not on trail because WaMu not bringing the claim, and Wells Fargo does not represent the “failed bank” at this moment and whether they ever actually could be the servicer in not on trail, because WaMu not in court. I would think that it correct in saying that your once debt with WaMu has been settled and that because they were not in possession of your Note when they were seized or as the FDIC presented it would have been purchase by JPMorgan Bank.

    So as it being said by you the Wells Fargo is saying it is a Fannie Mae loan, then Fannie Mae is the one who should be bring the action. You can have a Fannie Mae program loan which only means the loan meet those requirements which must be explained, which is different from Fannie Mae later purchasing the loan from WaMu. The Judge must be told that Fannie Mae is not a lender and does not and cannot originate a home mortgage loan!

  77. Theft of the title prior to default and leveraging it 10/1 over 30yrs. Now that’s something you can sink your teeth in. Remember the MERS so called 30yr title warrantys they offered up to apiese the courts?

  78. Bull hocky! A balloon payment does not prevent a sale. Good Grief! A slandered or unmarketable title decreases the property value causing a financial loss and can prevent a sale.

  79. I’m still trying to understand the UCC9 and how it pertains to my case .. if in fact my note was part of a securities of Fannie Mae/ WaMu … how do I argue the UCC 9 point to my Judge ? What am I looking for?
    What is the fatal mistake Wells Fargo has as the holder of my note?

    Here is from NG blog he wrote a few months back ..

    The banks fall right through the trap door on this one —- they prove that there was probable cause to believe that they were a valid creditor on the note (UCC3) but not a valid enforcer under the deed of trust (mortgage) (UCC9).

    By alleging they are a holder and not a holder in due course they are admitting they didn’t pay for it and/or admitting that they took delivery with knowledge of the defenses of the borrower. That is basic black letter law, in my opinion. And one of the defenses is lack of consideration. either way they either need to show they paid for it — either directly with proof of a wire transfer receipt etc. or by getting a judgment on the note. THEN they can enforce the judgment. Neither way is non-judicial foreclosure permissible or constitutional.

    Thus by their own argument and admissions they are an unsecured creditor with no right to enforce the mortgage because there is no question that they never paid value or consideration for the mortgage, which is the most basic requirement under UCC Article 9.

  80. Charles … the note that Wells Fargo eventually showed to the Judge has a stamp in blank from Washington Mutual .. Wells Fargo is not named anywhere on the note.

    The original pretender lender Commerce Bank first stamped it to Washington Mutual > pay to the order of Washington Mutual bank.

    And now Wells Fargo, as servicer and alleging “holder” status is foreclosing with a note that is stamped in blank from WaMu .

    My wife thinks that WF probably took over as servicer in 2006 , like you point out .

    When WF filed the FC complaint in 2007, they never provided any evidence of the note because the complaint was uncontested and never went to court ..

    when we finally challenged them … they showed a copy of the note and there was no stamp in blank from WaMu .. it was just a copy of the original note from Commerce stamped to WaMu.

    Then after we challenged that note , they came to court with a note that now had the stamped endorsement “IN BLANK” from WaMu.

    Wells Fargo was the servicer and is not claiming they own the note.
    They are claiming they are “holders” of the note that is stamped in blank.

    Now , what would my argument be to the Judge ? What reason am I telling him to allow a trial and discovery on this issue ?

    I cannot argue that WF needs to show proof of purchase, they do not claim they are owners .. just “holders” who are trying to enforce.

    Fannie Mae is definitely involved, we are listed on their website as being owned by them. WF has told us that Fannie Mae is the investor.

    We have never been told what Trust our loan was sold to.

    The only clue we have so far is that a Trust Bank of Ohio was listed on our homeowners insurance policy as the first mortgagee ..

    We only learned this recently when Wells Fargo asked us to put them on our Homeowners insurance policy as first mortgagee.

    Wells Fargo is currently attempting to offer us a modification, they want us to list them on our homeowners insurance policy as mortgagee.

    If a modification offer comes thru , I heard that they sometimes have a clause saying that you waive your rights to bring any claims against them.

    Getting back to the WaMu – Fannie Mae issue ..

    What exactly is the argument I’m making now that you see the note is stamped and endorsed in blank ?

    Yes it is a Fannie Mae .. and it most likely was a MBS .. but I have no proof of it.

    UCC9 .. Wells Fargo did not originate the loan and must provide proof they purchased it ?? why ?? because it was invested in a Trust as some point ? its clearly stamped in blank .. you say that means it was probably part of a MBS securities ..

    So when I’m explaining this to the Judge , what am I telling him that I need from a trial ??

    What is the issue that I am raising that tells the Judge that WF cannot foreclose on this property ?

    Thank you for being patient … keep breaking it down into the simplest of terms for me to say in court ..

    WF has a note stamped in blank .. what is the problem that I’m telling the Judge ? what are we looking for in discovery ? what is the issue that could kill this foreclosure ?

  81. DwightNJ, I have many years’ experience in litigation/law. I am not a lawyer, but I can help myself fairly easily. When you are dealing with crooks and you know it, it can be used against them. They will screw up, because they only look at things from a cheating point of view.

  82. Louise .. Your story of the mediation large balloon payment made my wife mad when I read it to her .. it’s not fair that they trap you into a no win situation like that where you can’t sell and move on at some point. It’s like they still have you under the threat of foreclosure because you can never sell and get away from them. Good luck , hope you prevail.

  83. DwightNJ I have been in this mess for 7 years, and in January it will begin the 8th year. I got a mediation which was very bad for me except for my monthly payment. They put a balloon payment on the confidential settlement so that I could never sell or pay off the house. All this is for an $88k note. However, since they are crooks, I knew they would breach the contract and they did. Now, I have a lawsuit outside of equity court and have a trial date. We shall see if they show up. I also have dox coming to me on a ruling by the judge on Mot to Compel. They have not produced anything as of yet, and it was due Monday. Hang in there. You can always appeal.

  84. @N Yes, the title companies are in it up to their eyeballs. In my state all real estate transactions have to be done by attorneys, so, of course, they are part of the scam. I was told I could sell my house and pass title without any problem AS LONG AS THE NOTE/DEBT WAS PAID OFF during the transaction. I went to an atty to get an opinion on my title, and they told me business as usual and after all, MERS was in there, too. Lots of fear!

  85. @ louise ,

    Unfortunately, we all should have sued the title companies, too!

    My title company ( K.E.L. Title ) was owned by the same attorney group that was my first (worthless) foreclosure defense firm ,,, K.E.L. Attorneys in Orlando Florida … K.E.L. Attorneys failed to follow my directions in ascertaining the actual owner of the note by demanding the identity of the entity that made the payment for the note and subsequent transfers… K.E.L. allowed it’s title arm to be seized by the state of Florida when it found out about the partners fraud liability … I’m glad they’re making money now fleecing the rubes that actually believe they’ll get a good defense out of them because they’ll need it to pay me off.

  86. DwightNJ, brother wish I was there with you. However a Note is usually three pages and the last page is where you going to have the endorsement. The endorse stamp will look like this:

    Pay to the order of
    <blank of name of bank
    Without Recourse
    Washington Mutual Bank, FA
    By "Signature"
    Printed Name

    So underneath the pay to the order of need to list Wells Fargo. The judge needs to know is the servicing agreement that you were a part of and that going to be from Jul 31, 2006 (it on line on Wells's web site), you at some point you received a Welcome letter, as I did not received my letter until close to Dec 2006.

    The Judge need to understand that Wells Fargo is bringing this issue up but saying the loan belong to Fannie Mae but Wells is trying to tell the court that WaMu endorsed the Note to them? There a basic problem with what they are saying.

    It should be know that the CEO of WaMu and the executive of the bank were fined by Congress for running this bank into the ground and all the bad practices and reckless banking.

    One thing is I think this is a Fannie Mae owned loan because that never would have been owned by Wells Fargo, because Wells long ago had a falling out with Fannie Mae, and only produced Freddie Mac loans.

    So separate what Wells is claiming, whether they are saying they purchase the loan which means they must have a receipt of an exchange of monies from the date of the sale, and assignment of the deed of trust or mortgage (depending on state) that must be dated the day of. It cannot be dated after because WaMu would not have the authorization as it would no longer be the "holder in due course"!

    The problem it look like to me is that WaMu probably never prepared the assignment so now Wells have to fake as if they purchase the loan from WaMu. If you could find out if you loan was in a Fannie Mortgage Back Securities it help because it explains the blank endorsed Note! But according to UCC 9 as we know that Wells did not originated the loan they must provide proof of purchase!

  87. Thank you everyone for your responses .. I wish you could all come to the Jersey shore and walk into court with me on Friday morning …

    This is the 2nd attempt by WF to foreclose on me .. 2007 the first time I never answered the complaint … uncontested … Final Judgment was entered … Sheriffs sale date was scheduled .. and then I rose up at the last second and fought back as Pro Se in late 2010 .. filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and vacate the judgment and Sheriffs sale … my case lasted a year, just on my last second desperation Motion .. 3 different hearings and then a 4th one scheduled …. where the Judge ordered that WF needs to produce witnesses to give testimony !! They caved at that point and walked away , wrote their own order to dismiss and vacate the Judgment and Sheriffs sale … all because they did not want to put any witnesses on the stand under oath. Nov. 2011

    So this has been going on since Sept. of 2007 , first complaint filed.

    In court on that first complaint in Oct. 2010 , they had an exhibit in their certifications showing a note with no stamp from WaMu .. 2010 !!

    They showed it as a reply to my emergency motion before the Sheriffs sale .. they were trying to show the Judge in their paper reply before we got to court that they were indeed the owners of the note and mortgage .. and included the copies of each as exhibits in the reply. They certified that “they were true and accurate copies of the note in their possession” .. so before we ever got in front of the Judge, I replied back to the court with my own written statement about what they had just shown as their exhibit .. saying that the note was not even stamped or endorsed by WaMu to them (WF) .. and that WaMu was now out of business !!

    They must have freaked out and realized they screwed up , because they frantically called me asking if I would agree to an adjournment.

    Then they called the court and informed the Judges secretary that I had agreed to an adjournment ..

    The Judge must have found it to be perplexing .. it didn’t make sense, why would Wells Fargo , who already had a final Judgment and a Sheriffs sale scheduled , suddenly freeze just 2 days before the hearing? They had just sent a reply days before that saying they had all their documents and that my Motion had no merit. So why did they now need more time ?? for what ??

    The Judge had his secretary call me and ask why I had agreed to allow WF to request an adjournment .. I told her that I was acting Pro Se and didn’t really understand why they had asked me , but that they had said it would at least buy me a couple more months in the house .. well she put me on hold and probably had the Judge sitting there listening. When she got back on the phone she told me “No, the Judge is not going to allow them an adjournment .. you just come to court as scheduled”. She sounded like the Judge was pissed off at WF.

    Looking back now .. it was probably my reply that caused it .. when I pointed out that the note in their exhibit had no stamp from WaMu and that WaMu was no longer in business , it was now 2010 when this hearing was about to take place .. how were they going to get WaMu to endorse the note ??

    I believe the WF attorneys had “Ex Parte” communications with the Judge after that phone conversation with me .. it is a serious violation of a Judges canons and ethics to get caught working with one side to protect their case when the other side is not present.

    Because when I walked into court 2 days later … BOOM … they had the whole thing worked out .. the Judge knew the problem they had although he had never asked them about it in court ..

    The Judge knew I had them dead to rights with my foot on their throats.
    He must have had a discussion with them and agreed to give them time to fabricate a note with a stamp on it from WaMu .. they had a secret deal worked out before court started .

    The reason I know this is simple … the Judge never asked them if they had the note (even though it was an exhibit in their reply) he must have talked to them about why they were asking for an adjournment when the final judgment and Sheriffs sale was already set and ready .. they probably told him the reason for the adjournment request was because I questioned the note and the fact that WaMu was out of business in my written reply to their written reply in the days leading up to the hearing.

    So court starts that day and he calls us up .. and he goes into a tirade attacking me and verbally assaulting me as I’m standing there in front of a packed, over-flowing court room full of lawyers .. you could hear them giggling with approval as he verbally slapped me around as a “deadbeat who thought he could borrow money to buy a house and doesn’t want to pay it back” … this was as I was attempting to utter my very first sentence , he interrupted me and bashed me to kingdom come … and he wouldn’t stop …

    Each time I attempted to state the reason for my Motion to Dismiss and Vacate .. I was alleging Fraud and Lack of Standing … he would again jump in and ridicule me to the delight of the lawyers who were all showing deference to him by laughing at his immature childish antics.
    Now I’m a 6′ 1 240 lb tough union construction worker and bailbond agent/bounty hunter .. my blood was boiling and surging up my neck into my brain with anger … this jerk was a total scumbag and I was getting the shaft in a court of law .. I couldn’t believe what I was witnessing with my own eyes and ears .. and it was happening to me.

    The WF attorney had not even said a word yet … this went on for a good 10 mins … I would attempt to explain why there was fraud and lack of standing … he would intentionally interrupt me when I was making a valid point .. and he would ask a stupid question that had nothing to do with my opening statement .. like , how much is your monthly mortgage payment sir ??
    How much do you earn sir ???
    Look sir .. you’re not going to get a free house and I’m not going to grant your motion .. so have you entered mediation yet ??
    I told him I was in the hospital with cancer trying to fight for my life. That was the reason I missed some payments and when I told WF they promised me a medical hardship workout plan .. but instead they filed a foreclosure .. I never received the call from their medical hardship worker .

    .. and that’s when he must have felt like maybe he had gone too far … now he had a look of embarrassment on his face as the courtroom went silent .

    Now keep in mind, I had not yet ever been allowed to state my case on the record , this was my Motion on Fraud and Lack of Standing …

    The WF attorney had not yet said a word … we were now 20 mins into this hearing.

    And the Judge says to me … “well, I will do this much for you, I’m going to let you see that they do have the note on their possession… but they need time to locate it … so I’m going to adjourn this and have you all come back in 2 and a half months .. middle of December 2010 .. that way the bank will have time to locate where the note is .. you know these things are kept in vaults somewhere and well , they need time to find it”

    2 and a half months later they came to court with a note and a fresh blue stamp on it in blank from WaMu . It was now Dec. 2010
    WaMu went out of business in Sept. 2008.

    I objected to the note and said that I do not believe its the real note.
    I argued that it needed to be authenticated .. and I needed to see records of the transfers .. and people who were firsthand witnesses to all of this stuff.

    So the Judge adjourned again .. told us to come back in Feb 2011

    Told WF to have a witness certify that everything was valid.

    In Feb 2011 .. they show up with a stupid certification of a girl who works for WF stating that she reviewed the business records and that we are indeed in default .

    Nothing about the note transfers .. nothing about WaMu

    So I objected to her written certification and argued that we were getting off the trail .. we needed to focus back on the issue of WaMu and the mysterious appearing stamp on the note …

    The Judge agreed with me and ordered a special plenary hearing so we could address all of these issues .. he wanted WF to bring in key witnesses and once and for all put this to rest , with testimony on the witness stand.

    So from Feb 2011 … all the way to Nov 2011 .. they adjourned ..

    and kept adjourning … and finally 2 days before the hearing, they sent an Order to Dismiss and Vacate the Final Judgment , and Vacate the Sheriffs sale .

    Nov. 2011 …… all the way to …… June 2014

    Now WF files again … same note .. same attorney … same Judge.

    This time I answer the complaint and deny everything. I make no admissions about anything to do with a default or the debt.

    Initial first conference hearing scheduled for Sept 22 2014

    WF attorney files a Motion to Dismiss my affirmative defenses and my counterclaims. Oral arguments on Friday Sept 19, 2014 9:00am

    I replied to their Motion with my Opposition .

    So here we are … this case has not even begun yet .. this hearing is only on their Plaintiffs Motion to strike all of my answer and defenses.

    I could virtually lose the case at this hearing if the Judge grants them their Motion. There would be no trial , no discovery, nothing … this is why I need to win this Oral Argument and convince this same Judge to allow me the full due process and discovery in order to defend against the allegations in this complaint .. all the same players . Just a different year. This Judge had invested a year of the courts time and resources to this Plaintiff last time .. and they walked away.

    All he was asking them was to produce some witnesses and explain the WaMu issues.

    So I’m not sure how he’ll act .. he will probably be pissed off that I am still living in my house all these years .. without a resolution. this all began in 2007 and here we go again .. with the same issues.
    Difference this time is I deny everything , I am not walking into the trap of admitting a default … that’s what the Judges want you to admit, so they can throw it into foreclosure judgment. I need to argue why I deserve a chance for this to go to trial , where we can get discovery and witnesses .. and authenticate documents .. and reveal the truth about the WaMu / Fannie Mae connection to my loan .. etc.

    I just pray that God protect me and allow the Judge to grant me a right to go to trial over this … that is what this hearing is all about , whether I get the right to have a trial over this contested foreclosure. WF is saying that I should not get the right because my pleadings are inartful and promote wild theories about what might have taken place at the origination .. they are asking the Judge to throw out my answer and all of my defenses right now, before the real trial begins.

    I know I have some valid arguments and issues .. but it’s not easy to put them into short , quick talking points .. like if the Judge asks , so what are you saying?? How did they breach the mortgage contract?

    What difference does it make about WaMu stamp now? This plaintiff is in the possession of the stamped note now , that’s all that should matter right ?? the Judge might ask

    Charles is saying the note with the blank endorsement means a lot .. but I’m having trouble knowing how to explain it. that’s the problem.

    They will contend that the note was stamped by WaMu before they went out of business in 2008 ..

    How do you win this argument .. how do you prove it either way?

    thanks everyone .. I appreciate you letting me vent this out.

    My wife tells me not to worry about it .. that if we lose the house and have to move .. our life is more important than this house , we have a little daughter and there’s been so many nights I’m wrapped up in this foreclosure bullshit I can’t even spend quality time playing with her. It breaks my heart how much time a person needs to invest to try and defend themselves against these banks .. the injury is causes to struggling families is huge , the stress is unimaginable .. and with all of the billions of settlement dollars paid out … none of it has fixed the problem we face in court.

  88. Dwight remember this, re MTD, burden is on the defendant to prove beyond doubt that plaintiff can’t prove NO set of facts to support their claim. ( hence discovery important the earlier the better to get as much as you can discover before that MTD, this is why they do it before you get into discovery because we all know- the more you dig, the more you find. Big big thing is each case is different and it’s useless to try to help via a blogg you can only plant seeds to get into researching for yourself but we all need proper council truth be known , and that I’m sorry to say is rare, at a price we can afford. we are simply left to do as my father always said ” the best we can with what we have got”.

  89. Dwight been readin
    First get the language in the deed of trust note discrepancies in the paper trail thereafter, it’s good you informed the court there was no stamp from wamu
    Why no discovery that can commence immediately after complaint is served need not be expensive send your disclosure statements and serve them with list if admissions and first set if interrogatories, you can send another set later- Get NOLO book ” how to represent yourself in court
    Or if you can get an attorney on contingency plan ( god I feel your pain trust me) this early discovery is needed to bring out facts you need to support your view and further evidence
    For your counterclaim and affirmative defenses you must substantiate with evidence which will width stand the
    Scrutiny of the court
    Any account statements you have for example – notices , forms, irs forms like 1099a 1099c that you have been issued scrutinze them dates matter they really do
    In my case the beny could not be the beny or the lender in the material date if foreclosure notice or trustee sale but is named as such in 1099a this is a fine example of fraud.
    I’m not an attorney but I have been in your shoes and any help is good
    What you do now is so important and you are at your most vulnerable,
    Any lawyers out there willing to guide this person ??

  90. Sexist PIG!

  91. That’s right Deb. I really need to Work on my Anger issues with the broker attornies. Rest assured I am working on resolving them. Sloppy? Really Charles. Only in your dreams! You will never get a chance to find out! Pfffft!

  92. Charles I’m not sure how I feel about it all each day I discover what this world really is and how it turns and I’m adjusting as best I can. There are people in power that can help us but to hold on to that power means they will forsake us. They have. All we have left is the rule of law and our futures lie in the hands of our courts.

  93. Nobody told KC to Behave. She got sent to quiet time with her friends. 🙂

  94. Its ok Charles, we will give you some more time to let it sink in. You have farther to travel back to reality tha the rest. My GPS couldn’t locate LaLa Land. Did you leave bread crumbs to fnd your way back?

  95. Deborah wynn, read the link and it was good, but I written President Obama about that same subject since Jan 2009. Bernanke all along was going to be unfair as long as he could supply the banks with capital as he wrote books about what he would do in a Great Depression type situation.

    Here recently he said the the Great Recession was actual worst than the Great Depression. So here is a man I feel slapping himself on the back for were we are today. But were we are today is that Wall Street got save while allowing Main Street to hurt as Back Street on the wrong side of the track & town.

    People are acting amazed but the Fed printed $16 trillion dollars, that I talked about since Dylan Ratigan reported on his short lived show. I guy that was telling it like it was and suddenly he gone?

    After 60 Minutes Apr 3, 2011 DocX exposure, been like the Financial Crisis stopped and not been investigating even as the same Whistle-blower in Lynn Szymoniak got a larger story that she is reporting in her Feb 2014 lawsuit!

  96. if I took the principal of the loan and added let’s say $90000 we will call advanced FEEs , that equals the amount they tried to collect from the estate/me n et al. When Hell Freezes Over! Just Saying. Fee Simple

  97. DwightNJ It sound as if Commerce was just brokering the loan with WaMu as I am sure that title is recorded still in WaMu name unless Wells Fargo illegally submitted and got recorded an assignment. First it need to be establish who your in court with!

    The legal team should be representing Fannie Mae and not Wells Fargo who is only the servicer of the mortgage loan. Now your loan I am assuming your loan was originated before Jul 31, 2006 when the enter into the mortgage service agreement. You should have a Welcome letter from Wells Fargo telling you they were replacing WaMu as your servicer (only servicing)!

    If payment stop after Sept 25, 2008 the day WaMu was seized by the OTS and declared a “failed bank” on that day by the FDIC, I am saying that no payment could have been received by Wells Fargo because they were servicing the mortgage loan for WaMu and not Fannie Mae.

    Here what been discovered by the recent settlement that the Justice Dept for the Fannie & Freddie securities is that yes these two purchase loans, but what was suppose to be done was the at the time of the sale the seller was suppose to prepare the assignment but not to record them, but have them ready to record if needed i.e. future sale of the loan or foreclosing. However if that Note was signed and endorsed in blank there cannot be a future sale unless there is proof of purchase by Fannie.

    So for you to not be in default and them make their claim, is a purchase agreement and receipt of the exchange of monies. UCC9 tell that it the originator of the loan is not the one demanding the Note due, then all other must show proof of ownership. We know for a fact that Fannie did not originate the home mortgage loan because they don’t originate loans.

    Here what I bet what has happen, which Fannie has brought up that the sellers failed to prepare the assignments. Because Wells Fargo not already recorded the title with Fannie on it I am sure that WaMu (who was the worst of the bank) failed to ensure a assignment was signed and dated on the day of sale and WaMu dead and cannot back date the assignment as the no longer exist!

    It sound as if Fannie got maybe an unsecured loan at best, that cannot be attached to the property unless in your state it is presumed that title automatically follows the Note. So I am even wondering whether there is proof of purchase, but since what your going through usually resulted in a win for the bank, the road they were accustom to is what they are sticking with.

    Now as Wells Fargo has yet to settle with Wells Fargo fully and the issue of WaMu serviced loans have not been address may help you because this issue is currently being discuss. Maybe someone here that an attorney can tell us if you can ask the court to prolong this action until those settlements are resolved. I don’t see really how this is resolve until the Justice Dept resolves FHFA loan Wells is servicing. Wells has already settled with FHFA in Nov 2013 for $335 million. The court should now that these thing are going on.

  98. Who is the Nut now? Louise? Charles? Slap! Slap! You should have followed the directions and played by the rules! Shadowcat.

  99. Your Honor, I am not a borrower on the note, I did not sign my husbands note. Your Honor, I intended to sign a mortgage and give a lien. I was led to believe that is what I did. Many Blessings To All. I think this is where someone TRYs to block me again. L8R

  100. Correction, it is possible if the latter were put into reverse. But you’d need consent from all the settlors.

  101. You can be I default to a non lender buying up your re tax bill and fCing on them.

  102. Dwight, the Bigger they are, the Harder they Fall. That goes for the Attornies to. There are bad apples in every bushal. Focus on the Trust! Did you pay your RE taxes and keep the property insured? Get yourself an attorney in the Jurisdiction your property is located. James, do you have a mortgage or a deed of trust? The game here includes a note, a mortgage and a mortgage note. Impossible!

  103. You know Dwight pro se has it’s advantages tho not many-
    Maybe just pose the question to judge you are unclear of wells capacity to be claiming an interest, are they claiming holder or holder in due course. Remember you are creating a record. Don’t forget to buy the transcript of the hearing it should not cost much. I got mine and they were of use later on.

  104. How can you be in default to a non lender. Not harmed
    Who is the real HDC with out bearing counterfeit docs. Need to see consideration as well as ” for value received”. Their books the money trail. Dwight find a good attorney or perhaps a forensic accountant that will take payment plan. Did you get the NOLO series and read on line cornell law In the interim. Fir argument research get your script ready and don’t let them take control of the narrative stick to your points I would say ” well back to what I was saying your honor” shift it right back answer them if you feel you can you have 15 mins to get the judges attention. Stand tall god is there with you.

    Not an attorney just sharing what helped me. Best scenario get an attorney like Charney that’s versed on subject matter

  105. Wish you all the best Dwight. You have a set

  106. I’ll say this the FDIC has no interest in anything raised by the borrower they are not our friend. In the receivership of banks they sit around the table and the deal goes something like this – FDIC will pay you 40% to take these loans the ones that go bad/ are bad and you foreclose we give 100c on the dollar. Now consider the fact that most of indymac loans were toxic there’s a big incentive for the ex Goldman guys to buy these toxic assets (can’t get FDIC to talk to me under a FOIA request re tha disposition of my “loan” during its ” life” – all files were apparently transferred to one west) including “servicing rights” aka debt collection – but for the 100th time. Indymac was notthe beneficiary and not the lender right Neil.

  107. Now that I answered the foreclosure complaint with my affirmative defenses and counterclaims .. Wells Fargo switched lawyers from their normal fc mill firm to their main firm to fight me .. they immediately submitted a Motion to Dismiss all of my affirmative defenses and counterclaims .. I then submitted my Opposition to their Motion and basically used April Charney’s and another lawyers language I saw on this blog … “We don’t know these people (WF) and don’t know the debt that they are claiming … We have Denied it in our pleadings and we have made no admissions .. The Plaintiffs (WF) allege they are mere “holders” of questionable documents and as holders they are subject to any and all defenses of an alleged borrower .. since we Defendants Deny the allegations and make no admissions, the Plaintiff loses the presumptions that they seek to utilize to enforce the alleged debt” … Now I go into Court Friday morning (Pro Se) at 9:00 am for the Oral Arguments … I’m really nervous and have a sick feeling in my stomach over this . Commerce Bank was my pretender lender who already had “pay to the order of Washington Mutual Bank” stamped on my note before the closing … we thought we were to pay Commerce the monthly payments, but they told us to pay WaMu instead … our homeowners insurance lists some Trust Bank in Ohio as the owners and first Mortgagee .. not sure where they got that info from … and then around the time WaMu was about to go under, Wells Fargo took over as the servicer … now WF seeks to foreclose .. all they tell us is that Fannie Mae is the owner/investor of our loan .. the note they used last time had no stamp from WaMu .. when I brought that up to the courts attention, WF mysteriously came to court with a note that now had the stamp from WaMu on it in blank … that was in 2011 .. long after WaMu was gone … I feel they fabricated the stamp and note .. but anyway , back to the oral arguments … what am I trying to accomplish at this hearing ?? To get the Judge to allow this case to proceed to a trial ?? with discovery !! But how do I win this oral argument ?? What do I need to be careful of .. do not admit default , deny if asked … April Charney recommends telling the Judge that “I stand on my pleadings” if he tries to pressure you to talk about missed payments, default, etc.

  108. Reblogged this on patrickainsworth.

  109. James Smith what kind of loan is it Prime, FHA, VA or Subprime?

  110. 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 of Trust/Mortgage on the referenced property.

  111. Ankle biting and prefrontal lobotomies.

  112. I’m sure there will be a lot of ankle biting in litigation over the next few years.

  113. Indeed Louise
    Watch this space.

  114. The sham title company, sham capital asset funding company, sham plender are all the long arms of the brokers alter ego. Did I mention I have issues with brokers that need to be worked out?

  115. Unfortunately, we all should have sued the title companies, too!

  116. Im looking for an assignment of mortgage with robosignor Nadine Homan’s name on it.

  117. Remember now of the loan sold to JPMorgan were Ginnie Mae MBS pooled loan nor were they Fannie of Freddie loans, as the JPMorgan settlement showed and were JPMorgan is now suing the FDIC!

    Washington Mutual is the gift that keep giving!

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: