$5.4 Million Verdict Under Attack

For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

This is for general information only. It is no substitute for advice from a licensed lawyer.


See http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/Lenders-ask-court-to-toss-foreclosure-verdict-6720243.php

See also Alabama Jury Awards $400,000 for Deutsch-Ocwen Wrongful Foreclosure — http://www.cunninghambounds.com/who-we-are/resources/news/news-item/2015/12/12/deutsche-bank-and-ocwen-to-pay-$400-000-for-wrongful-foreclosure

So Wells Fargo is on a path that might well settle the issue of presumptions versus fact. WFB is saying to the trial court that it doesn’t matter whether they really own the loan, the note and mortgage. All that matters is that they submitted their self serving paperwork that was more than likely fabricated and forged. The Jury verdict found that neither WFB nor the “Trust” owned the subject loan.

Either WFB knows something that the rest of us do not or they are stepping on a rake. Their position is contrary to the rule of law that has existed for hundreds of years. If there was no transaction in which the “trust” purchased the loan, then it doesn’t make any difference how much self-serving paperwork they create or fabricate.

WFB has stepped over the line and is currently asserting a defense out of pure arrogance. What they are saying is that the court should vacate the jury verdict because they have created paperwork that could be evidence of ownership of the loan. Obviously that “evidence” (fabricated documents) was deemed to be not credible by the Jury. And the Judge already ruled on the point when he gave the Jury instructions on how to deliberate.

If the Texas court grants the WFB motion it will be giant step backward for American jurisprudence. As for the size of the award, their argument is disingenuous. The jury looked at the evidence as a whole. They determined that it was appropriate to punish Wells Fargo for their wrongful behavior of proceeding on the false pretense of owning the loan.

89 Responses

  1. How can i find the attorneys name for this couple

  2. How can i uptain the name of this couple. I have a very similar situation

  3. Hello Everyone,

    Received denial of all post trial motions today. Moving on to appeal. I have been sifting through the Wolf case docs because it is the most similar to ours here in Texas. Can anyone point me in the right direction for the Wolf’s Appellate Brief?


  4. Harris County Superior Court
    Proposed Final Judgment

    “On Plaintiff’s motion, the Court has disregarded the jury’s answer to Question No. 10 (Wells Fargo is a Holder of the Texas Home Equity Fixed/Adjustable Rate Note (Defendant’s Exhibit 2)). Because it appears to the Court, based on the remaining findings identified above, that the jury’s verdict was for Plaintiffs and against Defendants, judgment should be rendered on the verdict in favor of Mary Ellen Wolf and David Wolf and against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee for Carrington Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2006-NC3 Asset Backed Pass-Through Certificates; and Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC.”

    Judgment is for $1.25 million.

    I’ll post the documents soon.

  5. Please pardon me.

    I should have pointed to #95 as Wells Fargo’s motion, and #97 as the index of Exhibits.

  6. Gentlemen & Ladies

    Please find Wells Fargo’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict as well as related documents & Exhibits as 65 – 118 at the link below:


  7. WALL STREET EXECS will regret the day PENNY CANDY got sold in bulk.

  8. The truth is, nothing is irrelevant regarding the topic of fraudclosure when criminals use unlawful practice of the law to criminalize their innocent victims.

    They call themselves ATTORNEYS, JUDGES & LAW PRACTICES but engage in OFF-TOPIC HYPOTHESES because NO LEGAL PROOF OF CLAIM was ever entered by them.


    I’m certainly not their patsy to be unlawfully criminalized for the CRIMINAL MICHEVIOUSNESS of BANK ATTORNEYS & JUDGES who don’t have LEGAL PROOF OF CLAIM to pursue.

  9. WF asserted that it was in poss of the note and therefore WF owns it.
    If that’s not true, what says it’s not true? Facts? Law? Both?

  10. POLITICAL BARBARISM would be the proper verbage for what has gone on by these cover up cons who think everyone else is disposable but them.

    They use our IDENTITY unlawfully & then pay themselves off by knocking us off when the jig is up.

  11. @ Stupendous Man – Defender of Liberty, Foe of Tyranny

    There’s excerpts of trial transcripts, which will be a most interesting read.

  12. @ Stupendous Man – Defender of Liberty, Foe of Tyranny

    Later this evening, I will post an update to the Wolf matter including the documents and exhibits so that everyone can dissect and discuss.

  13. @ Stupendous Man – Defender of Liberty, Foe of Tyranny


    Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgement Notwithstanding the Verdict is set for hearing in front of the Court at 9:00 a.m. on Monday, January 11, 2016.”

  14. @ Sheri Daniel:

    Your petition reads quite well.

    It looks like you did your homework (research).

    DO let us know if the VSC takes up your appeal.

  15. @ Kalifornia:

    Post judgment there are several paths available (not in any particular order, [and not necessarily complete]):

    1) Motion for a new trial (FRCP 59).
    2) Motion to vacate (FRCP 60).
    3) Motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict, or judgment as a matter of law (FRCP 50).
    4) Appeal to higher court.

    Be assured ANY judgment that goes against a bank is … not by itself enough. They will exhaust their options.

  16. QUESTION FOR THE BOARD…I seem to recall that there’s a reg or statute that says that a National Bank can be served with process by service upon any of its branch offices. But i can’t seem to find the actual legal authority for such service. Anyone here know where to find this info? Thanx.

  17. That was Philip Linza v. PHH, in Yuba County, CA. The money is still not disbursed. I just have to make an observation that winning a case by judgment seems a truly rare event. Less than 1% of these conflicts go to a jury. Let’s give juries a chance!

  18. @ Wolf v. Wells Fargo

    The looming question of law as to whether a homeowner has STANDING TO CHALLENGE ASSIGNMENT(S) of the DEED OF TRUST / SECURITY INSTRUMENT…


    Please disregard the last post.

    There is NO appeal filed in the FIRST COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS on the Wolf matter, Case #2011-36476.

    To CLARIFY: WELLS is moving the Harris County District Court Judge to reconsider and amend the jury’s verdict.


    If I recall correctly, in Kalifornia a bank recently made a similar post-verdict maneuver here to the county superior court, I think it was in Yolo County (????), on a $16+ MILLION dollar jury verdict…?

    Jury nullification by a singular judge…?


  20. @ Wolf v. Wells Fargo

    Thus far, a query on the website of the FIRST COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS of the Wolf matter, Case #2011-36476 returns nothing:


    In order to follow the APPEAL, IF ANYONE is in the vicinity of the FIRST COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS
    Physical Address
    First Court of Appeals
    301 Fannin Street, Room 208
    Houston, Texas 77002-2066

    assistance will be requested.


  21. @ Wolf v. Wells Fargo

    Assuming Plaintiff’s counsel read the court’s inclination correctly, there had to have been a strategical decision to take the risk to bring the Plaintiff’s controversy before a jury of peers on a civil matter (how many in Texas I do not know), as opposed to the additional expense and risk of placing the matter before a singular judge on a Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, which never occurred, likely for good reason.

  22. @ Wolf v. Wells Fargo Bank

    Throughout the operative complaint (see #63), plaintiff counsel’s attack is focused on:

    (1) The 2006 CONDUIT TRANSACTION and the required CONTEMPORANEOUS negotiation and delivery of the NOTE and Deed of Trust through the INTERMEDIARIES to the REMIC TRUST as mandated pursuant to the SECURITIZATION SCHEME INSTRUMENTS;

    (2) The 2009 fabrication of the “assignment” of the security instrument / “transfer of lien” by an unauthorized entity / individual;

    (3) The obvious “assignment” of the security instrument to a party other than the REMIC TRUST, thereby BIFURCATING the security instrument from the REMIC TRUST purporting to be the owner / holder of the NOTE since 2006; and

    (4) The 2009 “assignment” is a sham intended to mislead the court and the jury.

    The opposition’s answer is a FAIL.

  23. @ johngault

    Here are some further responses:

    It is my belief that naming the purported robo-signer and/or notary public is necessary to the discovery process in terms of escalating interrogatories; request(s) for production of documents; admissions; depositions; etc. Without naming the robo-signer and/or notary, there is no access to impeach them.

    The Wolf’s 4th amended complaint was not verified. I admit that I do not know Texas law, and I admit that I do not know Kalifornia law per se, but I do know that in Kalifornia if a verified complaint is filed, then the Defendant(s) must ANSWER each and every assertion averred in the verified complaint, numbered paragraph by paragraph.

    As a point of fact, in Kalifornia a litigant CAN NOT pursue a TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER or PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION without filing a VERIFIED COMPLAINT.

    The reason I point to the issue of the necessity of filing a VERIFIED COMPLAINT, or conversely the consequence of the failure to file a verified complaint as in the instance of the Wolf matter, is exemplified in the opposition’s ANSWER to the UNVERIFIED 4th AMENDED COMPLAINT, which has 154 numbered paragraphs averred (see #63); whereas the opposition’s ANSWER to the UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT has only 37 responsive paragraphs (see #64).

    The point: The operative complaint having 154 paragraphs versus the answer having only 37 responsive paragraphs results in 117 of plaintiff’s averments going unanswered on the record, before the court, and in front of the jury.


  24. The rants demean the integrity and credibility of the entire discussion. Some like myself are looking for credible help in our own cases.

  25. …does not evidence exist for a moderator to have JUST CAUSE to now squelch the OFF-TOPIC HIJACKING of the Wolf matter thread?

  26. …in a word: NARCISSISM…

  27. SIGH…

    …another thread HIJACKED by OFF-TOPIC speculative conclusions…

  28. For example, I took the time to write to CONGRESSMAN BOBBY RUSH regarding the MORTGAGE FRAUD & I never got his response.

    I found out later he has AFFILIATION to the BLACK PANTHER PARTY therefore, there should be no FRAUDCLOSURES in ILLINOIS because the ILLINOIS STATES ATTORNEY can only be considred to be one in the same RADICAL PARTY MEMBER.



  29. Therefore, when POLITICIANS have SPY AGENT CREDENTIALS, everyone has them. We can only be considered to be living on the defensive when that happens because that results in the LEGAL SYSTEM being used for the sole purpose of EXTORTION being used for the CRIMINAL undermining of our LEGAL RIGHTS.



    That is really the problem in FRAUDCLOSURE because AIG got bailed out, & OBAMA followed suit bailing out FOREIGN SPY AGENCIES which is unlawful.

    Therefore, nothing the LEGAL SYSTEM is doing in the U.S. can be considered LEGALLY JUSTIFIABLE when DEFENDANTS have been rendered SCAPEGOAT LIABILITIES by what can only be described to be FOREIGN PICK UP ARTISTS.

  31. Because of the NOTARY CONTROVERSY that got swept under the rug by cult leaders, the missing rolodexes will never be retreived from the wreckage of MORTGAGE SERVICING HEGEMONY.

    Therefore, the only logical explanation why those particular cult leaders can’t be located to be subpoeaned to testify to the whereabouts of those missing roldexes, is maybe because they’re SPY AGENTS & they have the missing roldexes hidden in some undisclosed location.

    Maybe Bengazi or the Kremiln who knows because everything is FALSIFIED EVIDENCE when SPIES relocate.

  32. So when the final votes get counted from the next presidential election, he made certain the final result will depend solely upon the RE-DISTRICTING of the WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT BUSINESS OFFICES BOARD OF ELECTIONS BUREAUS who he is COMMANDEERING from his POWDER ROOM.

  33. That could very well be the reason why GEORGE SOROS bought up so much of our WATER RIGHTS,
    because what comes out of the end of the drain pipe is what really matters.

  34. What of the hideous error of the MISSING BANK MALFEASANCE SLIPS?

    Maybe the FEDERAL BANKING REGULATORS should hire FORENSIC SCIENTISTS to investigate DEUTSCHE BANK toilet paper rolls.

  35. Is that what we’re here for, to chastise other people’s point of view Kalifornia?

    Some people don’t take everything into perspective & others do.

    Maybe others view this controversy is being extremely controversial while others take the vantage point of ignorance to that.

    I believe in what the GOOD BOOK says, the one REAGAN believed in, that one good turn deserves the other.

    Far be it from me to try to cause controversy like the self proclaimed elite does because they have millions of tiaras & I only have one.

  36. Kalifornia. Sincere thank you for the help

  37. @ Wolf v. Wells Fargo Bank

    The link below to the “assignment” the jury found fraudulent:


  38. @ Sheri Daniel

    Please pardon the delay. The link below is to the jury verdict:


  39. @ Ms. LVent

    I’m not the only one who considers that a singular off-topic rant is completely understandable and easily overlooked based upon passionate commentary. It happens all the time on LL. However, REPEATED off-topic rants REPEATING speculative conclusions crosses the boundary of respect; abusing the privilege of posting commentary that everyone else is abiding by. Moreover, once again, as is evident here, just trying to mitigate the repeated off-topic rants on speculative conclusions is a thread-killer.

    After so many repeated off-topic rants in too many individual threads, by now it should be obvious your speculative conclusions are openly and notoriously known to all.

    Ask yourself (please do not answer here): Why the need to keep shoving speculative conclusions down the reader’s throat?

    Ask yourself (please do not answer here): When will enough be enough on the repetition speculative conclusions in the individual threads, and when will it matter enough to contribute commentary for the benefit of others that stays on-topic?

    Please answer this question here: What was accomplished in the Wolf matter that is useful to others similarly situated?

  40. In fact, I envision MAURICE GREENBERG & LARRY SILVERSTEIN buddying up & perusing blogs like this one trying to CONTROL the meaningful thoughts of others.

    They’re probably wearing war paint, hula skirts & their secretaries tiaras while sipping CHIANTI & spying on everyone.

  41. Oh really Kalifornia? You think speaking the truth regarding the circumstances underlying these FRAUDCLOSURES is OFF TOPIC RANTS?

    I beg to differ. I consider OFF TOPIC RANTS to be comments by those obviously trying to COVER UP the CRIMES of others.

    Therefore, my opinion is your OFF TOPIC RANTS need to be moderated.

    Because if you think you’re ABOVE THE LAW & you think you have the LEGAL AUTHORITY to misjudge the meaningful thoughts of others that’s CONTROL FRAUD my friend & you’re breaking the law IMHO.

    Furthermore, if my thoughts get eradicated from this blog by the THOUGHT POLICE, everyone is in trouble because one voice eradicated is one voice too many & is one up for the enemies of our CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEDGE to our LEGAL RIGHT to speak freely & say what we think.

    I don’t think for others & no one should or they’re oppressed slaves.

  42. @ Ms. LVent

    First, this reply to your comment(s) is OFF TOPIC, but intended to do nothing more than steer or corral the commentary back onto the topic of the Wolf matter; nothing more.

    I respectfully apologize for not recalling the spelling of your name,

    Further, the record on LL evidences the fact that your speech has not been denied, but rather tolerated. I hope you’ll agree that freedom of speech is not absolute, e.g., yelling “fire” in a crowded building.

    Here on LL, no one, myself included, has asked for anything other than to cease and desist on the OFF TOPIC rants — nothing more. In fact, on the one hand, I believe your germane experience(s) have value and may substantially contribute to the collective consciousness. On the other hand, the endless OFF TOPIC rants are a problem, and generally tend to HIJACK the course of an important thread of information / commentary.

    In case you have not noticed, please review some of the contemporaneously retrospective threads and decide for your self whether or not your comments are ON / OFF TOPIC.

    For a broader perspective on the years of history of invading threads, please review the body of comments at stopforeclosurefraud.com.

    FYI, this thread is principally about the Wolf matter, where a Texas jury decided a $5.4 MILLION dollar verdict was in warranted. Below, there are links provided to the filings. Please pick one, make a reference to one in ON TOPIC commentary, and let’s move onward.

    That is all.

  43. Do we need law degrees to blog here Kalifornia?

    Because I see the need for not misjudging the character of others just because they might not have gone to law school & they view things from their perspective & not from the perspective of others.

  44. That’s not my name Kalifornia, so clearly your being disengenious.

    Moreover, denying ones FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT to FREE SPEECH is TOTALITARIANISM because whatever someone has to say is RELEVANT, in our FREE REPUBLIC, no matter what the topic is.

    The reason being is that someone might think what I have to say is extremely relevant.

    Not being in AGREEMENT with someone doesn’t make their comment irrelevant, otherwise, the same could be said regarding your comment that caused the controversy in the first place.

  45. @ Ms. Venturana

    It appears to be further disregard for the following:


    Please Keep Comments On-Topic

    Posted on December 31, 2015 by Neil Garfield

    Dear LivingLies Readers,

    We have expanded our staff to moderate comments.

    I would appreciate your assistance by ensuring that your comments on each post stay on-topic and are relevant to the issue. This is a site for people to discuss foreclosure and credit fraud; as well as political and legal developments related to these issues. Comments that are off-topic or promote a product or service will be removed. Please keep the comments civil. LivingLies is a place to share information, discuss experiences and for consumers to unite and assist one another. Please keep your comments coming-

    Thank you and Happy New Year.

  46. @ Ms. Venturana

    How are your comments related to the Wolf matter?


    They’re just re-establishing their own CRIME SCENES by trying to make them sound legitimate .

  48. What’s been BIFURCATED HOSS?


  49. Because of RULE 19, there isn’t LEGAL JUST CAUSE for TRIAL, because the TRUST NEVER EXISTED.

    The TRUST rested because it was never created.

    Therefore, these JURY TRIALS can only be considered COVER UPS for the wrongdoings of the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION who rep TBTF daily.

    Where’s the SPREAD SHEETS for the YIELD FRAUD MR.LEW?

    That’s the question the U.S. DISTRICT ATTORNEY should be investigating.

  50. @ johngault

    I need to re-review the Wolf’s documents in order to contribute positively to the dissection and discussion on the case — to follow.

    Responding to some of your comment(s):

    At a minimum, there was FRAUD AT THE INCEPTION of the transaction in that the ORIGINATOR was not, and never intended to be, a “lender” of its own monies. The ORIGINATOR was a “LINO” (Lender In Name Only). The ORIGINATOR was in fact a “broker” who “flipped” the EXECUTED PROMISSORY NOTE into a CONDUIT transaction, and most likely never had possession of the original NOTE for ENDORSEMENT — blank or otherwise. As such, TILA is implicated, and a disputed question of fact exists as to whether a CONSUMMATION of the transaction between the borrower and the TRUE LENDER ever actually occurred.

    As affirmed by Well’s own documentation, these were “CONDUIT LOANS” with no “lender” per se: https://www08.wellsfargomedia.com/assets/pdf/commercial/financing/real-estate/Conduit_Loan_Servicing.pdf

    In the context of a GSE securitization, it appears that if the ORIGINATOR / LINO remains in the picture, it is not because it is a “lender” but rather is circumstantial evidence that the ORIGINATOR / LINO has retained the SERVICING of the ACCOUNT PROCEEDS in the converted capacity as a SERVICER pursuant to a REMIC TRUST INDENTURE / PSA / etc. The purpose of the SERVICER is to administer the ACCOUNT PROCEEDS (the PAYMENT INTANGIBLE that has been BIFURCATED from the PROMISSORY NOTE) for redistribution to the UNDISCLOSED INTERMEDIARIES in the securitization scheme before the investors receive their purported pass-through proceeds.

    In my humble opinion, a SERVICER should never be anywhere in the chain of title via an ASSIGNMENT of the deed of trust / SECURITY INSTRUMENT because it is neither a “lender” of its own monies, nor does it have a beneficial interest in the PROMISSORY NOTE (obligation). The NOTE was supposed to be NEGOTIATED and DELIVERED with ENDORSEMENTS through the UNDISCLOSED chain of INTERMEDIARIES to the REMIC TRUST. The STATUTE OF FRAUDS is implicated as a result of the INTERMEDIARIES failure to PERFECT an interest in the NOTE, even if only for “a cup of coffee.”

    Generally, in the event that a SERVICER has an “assignment” of the SECURITY INSTRUMENT, in whatever form, recorded in the county records, by operation of law the SECURITY INSTRUMENT becomes a NULLITY as a consequence of the first BIFURCATION of it from the NOTE, and the NOTE has no longer has a security.

  51. What’s fair for one should be fsir for everyone jury or not, because we’re being sued in HARASSMENT SUITS UNLAWFULLY for SLANDER OF TITLE by the SECRETARY OF THE U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, past & present for their MALICIOUS SLANDER OF OUR TITLES.

    Therefore, it is with MALICIOUS MALINTENT by THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION to rub it in our faces that some get MONETARY RESTITUTION & not everyone.

    It’s like when some cop tells you GET OUT OF YOUR CAR without LEGAL JUST CAUSE, you’re being MALICIOUSLY MALIGNED by FORCED SUBJOGATION.

    The underlying reason is UNLAWFULLNESS by the COMMANDER IN CHIEF who clearly believes in HAND PICKING the WINNERS to.DESTROY EVIDENCE he behaves like some FEUDAL LORD without having the LEGAL CAPACITY to do so.

  52. I’m delighted to note that Ms McDonnel agrees with me, though she says it differently than I do: the language in the note has a caveat and the note rules: the party entitled to enforce the note is the guy 1) to whom the note has been transferred AND 2) has the right to payment on the note. Acc to MM, a party has the right to payment when he is the guy who’s owed the moolah because he paid for the note.
    See depo dkt 61 page 26 She concurs (not to misquote, I hope) that one in mere poss of a bearer note may yet not be entitled to enforce it. Default law such as the UCC may not trump contracts.
    Imo, even a bona fide transferee who’s paid for a note may not bring action on it until the borrower and anyone else entitled to notice has that notice. This is generally accomplished by recordation of the assignment of the dot or mortgage. I count the entire populace as those entitled to notice if for no other reason than they then have the opp to bid at sale which is their right to do. Lenders don’t get to keep their id secret and just tell a few of their buds. Courts have said recordation is almost if not exclusively for the benefit of the lender. I disagree. Pre-Mers, since the recordations of assignments went naturally from A to B to C, there was no reason to suspect their veracity (meaning A and B had sold the notes along with assigning the coll instruments). Bidders at sale could feel confidant they were paying the right party. Today, there’s not a chance.

  53. kalifornia – did you notice that Wolf named the individual robosignor as a defendant?

  54. Color me whatever, but I just can’t get my graying head around securitization and home loans. If there is a pool sold to a trust which sells securities to investors on the aggregate amt and pays on the aggregate, obviously there are two sets of books. The one on my loan, say, and the one on the pool (and maybe a third which shows the payments made or to be made on losses from non-payment, the books we never see and at this rate, never will). The trust,and hence the securities buyers, don’t ever know if I make my payment or not. Only the servicer does. If I default, they’re coming after me based on the servicer’s books, not the trusts and thus not the investors. How could I possibly mitigate or negotiate a work out with my “lender”? I couldn’t.
    A third party with very definite interests of its own (and even regardless of whether or not those interests are at odds with mine or the “lender”) has been interjected in my deal without my informed consent. This strikes me anew as BS. Back in the old days, when loans were made by S & L’s, say, one could try to work something out if one fell on hard times. They must’ve had some kind of guidelines because even the S & L loaned its customers / depositors money, i.e., it had an obligation to safeguard that money. If the real estate market had hit the skids as it has from time to time historically (but not like this mess), it may have been that the lender, the S & L, would be motivated to work with me since it didn’t really want my house back at a value way the heck under my loan amt (since of course that would result in a loss of depositor funds).

    It wasn’t broken. It’s broken now imo, between securitization and “MERS”. Home sales are important to our economy but not as important as our rights and the law. We had plenty of secondary sources for lending (if lending guidelines are truly followed). Securitization is a product of greed, pure and simple – and ugly, just a way for a handful of people to get rich. It hasn’t benefitted anyone but those few. The cost has been dear. Not all ideas we can come up with should be implemented. The wealthy or at least some don’t like to pay taxes contributing to social programs like welfare, food stamps, child care, insurance, and so on. So they found or stumbled on ways to compensate themselves in the form of getting even more money. That’s what I believe.
    We’ve lost our moral compass. What we have now is a cacophony of disgrace.


    SAY NO TO A MERS MORTGAGE – Try your credit union or join one

  55. kalifornia – I agree – this would be a good case to disect and discuss. I’d like to participate if I can. I’m pretty busy just now is my problem, tho. I can contribute this just now, from a partial read of doc 63. I don’t know why it’s written that changes of servicing are recorded when they have never been recorded. They COULD be recorded, maybe, but
    they haven’t been. As far as I understand a change in servicing, the
    first notification to the borrower must come from the OLD servicer and then, and only then, one should get a “welcome letter” mol from the new servicer.
    I don’t know a lot about securitization. what I think I get from 63 is that there’s a rate on the note, first of all (and imo it contains an undisclosed guarantee fee of around 1/4 a percentage to fnma if it’s a “fnma loan”, i.e., fnma has either committed to buy the loan pre-closing or the lender or ‘initial aggregator’ (who is often the source of funds regardless of where it got the funds unless he uses the investors and then it’s not regardless at all) intends to sell it to fnma (the more likely between already sold to fnma or headed to fnma, I think, but forget), so it was underwritten allegedly to fnma’s guidelines. That note rate isn’t offered to the investors. a lower one is. Some money is taken from the p & i each month and paid to someone who insures something on non-agency loans. Sr tranches get paid at one rate, others at lesser rates, but and some investors taking riskier positions with higher returns stand to not get a return at all. Say a loan pool is aggregately 500 million with P & i of 3 million. I don’t know what amt of that (the 500 million and payment thereon) is sold. Undersold? Oversold? This matters, I’d say – is someone retaining an interest on alleged true sales? Think that’s the proper question.
    But, one thing seems clear enough, I think, anyway. Other parties – parties besides the (named) lender and the borrower(s) are to become interested parties. That would be the entities who receive the fee paid each month for some kind of coverage.What they actually cover, got me. I got a whiff a few months ago that there’s a difference with a distinction about those who become sureties over think it was guarantors. There’s a reason AIG waived subrogation. Thought I knew it way back, have since forgotten, but I remember thinking it told “the story”.
    I haven’t even finished reading 63, sorry to say. But I will fwiw and hope to get to others.
    Still, if the loan were supposedly part of a pool sold to a trust but not delivered, I ventured years back that this resulted in a security interest for the trust (but not a true sale) by operation of the (default law) UCC, which is turned to to settle the unclear or disagreements about who’s on first. “Normally” if parties treat something one way, the law could if not would uphold a defacto sale, guess it could be called, but that isn’t true imo re: these trusts as they don’t get their tax-preferential treatment on mere security interests to my knowledge. This would mean, wouldn’t it, the entity called ABC3-T trust owes taxes on the income which wasn’t really pass-through. How not actually conveying the loans impacts the depositor who still actually owns the loan (subject to the security interests) as to taxation, got me.
    There’s NO doubt in my mind that MERSCorp set up an electronic registry. How I get it that works is the paper note is scanned into the registry, is then destroyed, and then only one party, the guy with the beneficial interest in the note, is to have the “key” to the digital note which is now allegedly the “authoritative” note. Having this ‘key’ is the alleged key to ownership of a note endorsed in blank. The key would be of no value if the note were never endorsed or endorsed to XYZ and not the key-holder. Do they make new entries and change the party with the key in legit electronic trading (which to my knowledge is not yet sanctioned)?
    I don’t know if they tried to move these notes electronically even though they weren’t created as digital or electronic notes (at last reading, it took the borrower’s consent), but they may have. But I don’t believe there’s any kind of paper or money trail thru the chain described in 63 and as we mostly know already. I think they skipped whatever they could to get any money of their own out of these loans. Someone knows all this stuff. Unfortunately, those someones don’t weigh in here at LL.

    Some of this i know, some is speculation. I think it’s beyond speculation that these notes weren’t physically transferred to the trusts – there was no time to get endorsements and move them to all the people who needed them in the chain to achieve the desired and sold bk remoteness (not to mention the normal reasons delivery is required), leaving only security interests to anyone who’s money was accepted for purchase. I can’t say now how such a note is enforced and who has rights against whom, if I ever had an idea about it. Maybe I’ll get some answers reading more of this case or maybe you have some…..???

  56. @Kalifornia looking on the Harris County court website I can see another hearing is scheduled for Jan 4….final order in Texas case is still pending…

    …my case did not need to get into the details of securitization….for one fraud the loan mod docs are simply invalid contracts…..and for the other fraud BOA isn’t trying to claim they are the lender yet the foreclosure and eviction were done in their name. It’s Wells that is claiming BOA is the lender.

    My case could have a far reaching impact as I believe Wells Fargo executed a lot of these invalid contract loan mods..docs executed in name of Wells yet they are not the “lender” ..over a long period of time. Mine were done in 2009 and this spring I saw one in Maryland that was done the same way in 2012….

    It was an attorney who first confirmed for me that these are not valid contracts…..but he said it was too BIG to take to court. He thought the courts in VA would not touch it..

  57. @ Sheri Daniel

    The Jury’s verdict is there, but the appeal will likely be filed in the Texas appellate court for that county.

  58. @ johngault

    I believe there is much to be processed and learned from this case, and we should collectively dissect and discuss on the blog.

    I hoped that would have already occurred beginning in mid-November, but it seemed to be under-appreciated.

  59. I will look up the county website….I was going thru looking for the final order and Wells most recent objection to the $5.4 million verdict. haven’t found it yet.

  60. Kalifornia – you’re the man (or woman)! THANK YOU FOR THAT FILE.
    63 has a very good description of the securitization process starting at about p. 14. (It’s the 4th amended petition out of the homeowners who by now have attorneys. Aren’t they lucky?) I am concerned that this may turn on the facts or at least partially re: AWL since there are yet a zillion loans out there (aren’t there?) wherein “AWL” claimed to be a corporation or otherwise an entity capable of contracting. But courts, to the extent some have, have done the banksters dirty work for them long enough, eh? Maybe after the banksters free-for-all-anything-goes of the last seven years, we’ll see a return to the rule of law. At any rate, thanks again.

  61. @ Sheri Daniel

    Take a look at the Register of Actions / Docket on the county court house website, which will help with processing the documentation.

    The fabricated documents notwithstanding, it appears that Marie McDonnell’s expert testimony persuaded the jury.

  62. Kalifornia is an angel! Happy New Year! and to Neil know that your website is truly working to help people…..Kalifornia has given me reading material for the next day or so.

  63. greg, on November 19, 2015 at 1:27 am said:

    kali & all

    as promised…
    here is the complete wolf v wells fargo as collected by kali – but in ONE complete zip file…(saves you 1-1/2 hours downloading 64 discrete pdf files)



  64. @ Sheri Daniel

    part 1

    Kalifornia, on November 18, 2015 at 9:23 pm said:

    New Link for Wolf v. WELLS FARGO. Other than the Third Amended Petition, the balance should be in the general chronological and procedural order.


  65. In my experience you hever kniw what they ate going to do
    I just told the truth they did not and as my late father always maintained, eventually, they hang themselves woth their own rope and that is what i call, poetic justice. Believe you can do it Sheri. Happy new year.

  66. @ Sheri Daniels

    Kalifornia, on November 23, 2015 at 11:51 pm said:

    Kalifornia, on November 18, 2015 at 9:23 pm said:

    New Link for Wolf v. WELLS FARGO. Other than the Third Amended Petition, the balance should be in the general chronological and procedural order.


    greg, on November 19, 2015 at 1:27 am said:

    kali & all

    as promised…
    here is the complete wolf v wells fargo as collected by kali – but in ONE complete zip file…(saves you 1-1/2 hours downloading 64 discrete pdf files)



  67. My response to Deborah Wynn…..I hope it’s checkmate….I was trying to make it so clear they couldn’t wiggle out from under it…..but it is probably why they have avoided any discusssion of the docs..and the note and standing…..and have tried to get the case dismissed on statute of limitations and res judicata.

  68. The federal 4th cir is the old case. It’s a long story how they filed unlawful detainer in state court and when I filed a defense they removed my defense to federal court so the case went forward in two different courts. They did succeed in evicting me in state court before the defense was heard in federal court. But that’s all old now.

    A new case was filed only in Virginia court May 2015. my email is sheri.great.falls@gmail.com send me your email and I will send you the Petition to the Supreme Court VA and/or the Complaint….the Complaint is rather lengthy because I attached 75 pages of documentary evidence knowing I would not be given another chance to present it.

    In Virginia, for issues of real estate and title, the case goes directly from circuit court to the Supreme Court….no stopover at the Court of Appeals

  69. Sheri,

    Supreme Court of Virginia shows you on the December writ panel.

    But I’m not finding your Court of Appeals of Virginia opinion.

    I DO find the opinion in your appeal to the US 4th Circuit COA.

    Is there a link you can provide to the CAV opinion?

  70. Thats called check mate sheri

  71. Let me clarify “the docs don’t lie” the only way Wells could dispute the docs now is to admit they are false.

  72. Right Sheri
    I did not involve Mers either

  73. My case is different than any I have seen after reviewing a couple hundred federal cases. After reading the local federal court tossed out MERS as a “mere’ formality” I did not pursue any issues related to MERS. I had other issues to pursue.

    It involves 2 houses….one securitized, one not securitized but owned alleged by BOA….except in January of this year I got a letter from BOA via CFPB stating they have no record they are the investor. Wells is the servicer. the note was assigned by Wells to Wells but never to BOA.. Wells has stonewalled for a year now. The foreclosure and eviction were done in the name of BOA. That is Part I: frauds one thru three of the complaint. Part II: Frauds 4 thru 7 of the complaint have to do with the loan modifications that I got, but Wells sent me false and predatory documents to sign….naming Wells as lender when Wells is not the lender for either house. They then used the false loan mods to execute the foreclosures and this is documented with the Final Foreclosure Accountings as submitted to the circuit (trial ) court. and recorded in the land records.

    It’s taken me a while to simplify this mess and present it in such a way there is little room for interpreatation. The docs just don’t lie.


  74. I have The famous Erica Johnson Seck – assignment done after liquidating the guy on the 1099a nearly 4 years after the ” partcular” “trust” closed so what asset exactly was she assigning retroactively devoid of authority

  75. That IS the purpose of MERS

  76. jg i could nit agree more until the DEATH OF MERS nothing will be different because they have the smoke and mirrors

  77. And the hits just keep on comin’.

  78. I haven’t read this case yet, and maybe won’t,, but I don’t need to to know that WF most likely used a purposely blank endorsement* on the note (probably really a copy of a digital copy) or alternatively, now that the coast is clear, actually stuck a trust’s name in the blank endorsement spot and then used its own employee or employee of an affiliate – aka “mers officer” – to execute an assgt to whomever it chose.
    *blank endorsement: the only reason for this imo is so they could do just what they’re doing. Actually, that was probably a bonus benefit
    after first allowing them not to actually move these notes. Further, anything but a blank endorsement would mess them up on their
    digital “authoritative” copy planned by if not implemented by MERSCorp. I can’t swear that MC implemented the digital / authoritative copy program it created, but it looks like it to me. You can’t have a digital authoritative copy with anything but a blank endorsement because if someone’s name is in there, it would undermine the party who had the digital “key” if it’s not the party whose name is in the ‘pay to the order of’ spot on the note; it must be blank.

    EIGHT years ago, Judge Boyko in Ohio told the banksters “not in my court” when they brought f/c’s with no interest in the loans. What’s changed since then? Not much at all for the other real party to the business transaction, the hapless homeowner. Banksters began (or continued) their infamous White Papers, telling each other how to game the system through the use of these alleged ‘mers officers’, a twist in foreclosure mechanics that appeared (only) handily covered after the Consent Order which resulted in no more foreclosures in mers’ name. They technically complied perhaps with the Order, but not with the intent and spirit of it since it turned into a free-for-all and the alleged appointment of low level employees of foreclosure mills and others as mers’ officers to spit out thousands and thousands if not millions of robo-signed assignments. Members asked Hultman to appoint chop-shop grunts as MERS’ officers and apparently he did just that. MERSCorp is liable for everyone of those assignments which were robo-signed, and yet Hultman and his cronies there in Reston, VA etc. remain unprosecuted and unscathed.
    The truth is, they weren’t to use these employee-made-officers to execute assignments, mainly because the membership agreement only allowed assignments (by those parading as mers-officers) when the beneficial interest in the loan was sold to a non-mers-member. They weren’t authorized and aren’t to my knowledge to execute assignments among themselves. One agreement or instrument is only as good as the agreement or instrument relied on in executing the second. And yet, who produced the MERSCORP Membership Agreement? It was never a blog-topic here that I recall.
    People made a few, very few, in-roads, so the banksters now get powers of attorney out of people alleging authority to enter into a POA agreement on behalf of securitized trusts. Next, the recipients of the POAs simply appoint others of their choosing (often an affiliate or subsidiary) to execute the documents they deem necessary to foreclose on one’s home.
    We can’t argue the UCC’s application (or not, particularly article III’s) to these transactions because we don’t get the UCC – eight years later. And why should we, when it would be a career? Most of us don’t get the application of the security first rule and how it interplays with rights of enforcement of a note,and again, why should we have to? We didn’t start the fire.
    A “mers” assignment is as worthless as the paper it’s written on if the assignee has no beneficial interest in the loan. IF the UCC article III applies and if one in poss of a bearer note is entitled to enforce, how does that square with the real party in interest rule which requires that guy to be injured by non-performance? (maybe it’s addressed in NG’s blog-case, but I doubt it).
    Anyway you cut it, none of us should have to learn all this unhappy, unholy CRAP. If we persist in our efforts, imo we should concentrate on getting discovery, NG, and nothing else because the anything else, any theories, are usually of no value without it.
    The only true solution imo, besides the long overdue prosecutions of MERSCorp et al for at least the robo-signing, is the END of MERSCorp and its lousy, stinking computer program (should’ve been called HAL). THEY are NOT too big to fail or jail.


    It’s a crying shame Christine can’t reach enough people and convince them to stop feeding the monster by keeping accounts with US Bank, Wells Fargo, Bank of UnAmerica, Chase, etc.

    Other than that, happy new year, y’all!

    For anyone interested in Boyko who missed it:


  79. Response to stupendous man….the petition was filed early October, the Wells Fargo Opposition filed early November…In early Dec..I had a writ hearing, that is 10 min before a panel of 3 judges, to explain why they should hear the appeal….the trial court, without a trial, dismissed on demurrer all the attorney defendants and then in the plea in bar dismissed the case on grounds of statute of limitations and res judicata…..in the writ hearing I explained that Wells defense of statute of limitations just cannot be true because the document needed for the key fraud count was filed and dated BY THE COURT less than 2 years before the complaint was filed….cannot be statute of limitations and res judicata cannot be because evidence did not exist during previous court case…..

    to answer your question…it seems it depends..in previous months they have granted some appeals and then granted some more at a later date……on Dec. 22 they granted some appeals but I have NOT received notice that mine is granted OR denied…….so I guess they are thinking about it….

    today my company essentially fired me…..2016 has got to get better


  80. Sheri,

    How long does it usually take the VA Supreme Court to rule on petitions?

    Have you been able to arrange some sort of stay of enforcement of the trial court ruling?

  81. To Elaine, my deepest sympathies and your story is discouraging….I am currently still fighting….now waiting for Supreme Court of Virginia to see if they will hear my appeal. I am on a roller coaster of ups and downs……but each person who stands up to this fraud makes a difference…..and hopefully if enough people stand up it will eventually come to light and stop.


  82. So go look at those 1099a and 1099c

  83. neil said
    “Either WFB knows something that the rest of us do not or they are stepping on a rake. Their position is contrary to the rule of law that has existed for hundreds of years. If there was no transaction in which the “trust” purchased the loan, then it doesn’t make any difference how much self-serving paperwork”

  84. Elaine
    I had suits in federal and state court
    The issue under state court and the ruling was done devoid of service of process devoid of allowing me the time to respond even if i knew they were having a ” hearing” i paid for a disc of the ” hearing ” it would not open because there was no hearing, being not on the judges calander and held a day before my tolling had passed – that is for starters theres far more after that as i continued to assert my legal rights – pro se, so. This is not off topic because if you are mowed over to this extent then you dont even get to shine a light on those documents they submit into evidence as fact. I made the record however and it stands.

  85. We fought for five years and lost. I always wanted to know how on Earth an already sullied foreclosure mill here in Maryland (Shapiro & Burson – now Shapiro & Brown) were able to sashay into court with fabricated documents and obvious backdating and forgeries and were able to sashay away with my house. We had been pointing these facts out since 2010 while still pro se. My last attorney came with legal guns blazing claiming fraud on the court. NONE of it mattered. He was astounded. He told me that had he walked into court with fabricated documents he’d have his license revoked. We thought for sure that the ‘sale’ would never stand up to ratification. Sadly it did.

  86. Can someone please get me copies of the court documents? I need them NOW! Many thanks.

  87. Somebodies will end up under the proverbial bus eventually and i will not be the guys at the top now will it.

  88. They dare to my question is where do they get their brass b#%^}
    I think we know where, they have been indemnified in my humble opinion since these royally educated lawyers risk their careers representing the banks. cant last forever though.

Contribute to the discussion!