WE HAVE REVAMPED OUR SERVICE OFFERINGS TO MEET THE REQUESTS OF LAWYERS AND HOMEOWNERS. This is not an offer for legal representation. In order to make it easier to serve you and get better results please take a moment to fill out our FREE registration form https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1453992450583
Our services consist mainly of the following:
-
30 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys
-
60 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys
-
Case review and analysis
-
Rescission review and drafting of documents for notice and recording
-
COMBO Title and Securitization Review
-
Expert witness declarations and testimony
-
Consultant to attorneys representing homeowners
-
Books and Manuals authored by Neil Garfield are also available, plus video seminars on DVD.
For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688. You also may fill out our Registration form which, upon submission, will automatically be sent to us. That form can be found at https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1452614114632. By filling out this form you will be allowing us to see your current status. If you call or email us at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com your question or request for service can then be answered more easily.
================================
THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-
Finally a decision on the central point of what I have been arguing for years — that the substitution of trustee in nonjudicial states is a sham.
The issue is why is the homeowner stuck with merely getting damages? The homeowner should be getting title cleared. The foreclosure sale was void ab initio because the “substituted” trustee never had the authority to send the notice of default nor the notice of sale.
We are back to talking about void means void. This is a potential gray area — because the state statute probably says that any sale which on its face complies with state statutes is presumptively valid — which might make the sale voidable instead of void.
Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: damages, disclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, fraud, securitization |
I am facing my first court date in judicial foreclosure against Wells Fargo I’m disabled currently and need attorney on payments???? Haven’t made a payment on house in over six years this is a fraudulent case please assist in directing me to attorney which is into this type case 253 223 1704 they are also missing original note …
Mistake in my post 3/6/201 8:51pm. Jill Smith KEPT $4,000 and only returned $1,000, without doing the agreed work!
Apologies for use of the wrong word in “how to write an impeachable complaint”, which we DO NOT want to do! Rather, “how to write an impeccable complaint” and other documents.
Neil,
Hooker V. B of A Wells QLS, Washington Superior Ct, King County, is NOT “a decision on the central point of what [you] have been arguing for years — that the substitution of trustee in nonjudicial states is a sham.”, though I agree with your statement.
The issues in Hooker against alleged Trustee, Quality Loan Service Corporation of Washington (QLSCW, properly; Quality Loan Service (QLS) is a California corporation*) are that the alleged Trustee was not legally qualified to conduct sales in Washington BECAUSE they violated Washington’s Deed of Trust Act (DTA) RCW 61.24 on two points.
QLSCW’s specific violations fall under:
(1) RCW 61.24.010(1)(a), which requires a corporate Trustee to have at least one corporate officer who is a Washington resident; and
(2) RCW 61.24.010(2), which requires a Trustee of a deed of trust to have been appointed by the beneficiary of the deed of trust.”
“Quality’s violations of the Deeds of Trust Act are grounds to sustain Plaintiff’s claim for damages against Quality pursuant the Consumer Protection Act, Chapter 19.86 RCW. The Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment in her favor and against Quality for treble the amount of her injury, along with her costs of suit, including her reasonable attorneys’ fees.”
*My Footnote: Both QLSCW (Washington corp) and QLS (Calif. corp) are owned by the same individual attorneys, who are located and licensed in California, and who have an office, McCarthy & Holthus LLP in Pouslbo, Washington. Since NONE of the owners or officers of QLSCW were residents of Washington, they were illegally doing business in Washington.
I have my own personal research, photos, signatures, on these and other QLSCW violations by a personal trip, with husband as witness with me, from our home in Walla Walla County to Poulsbo Island, Washington. I’m told that others have done similar.
Chase, which is illegally involved with our homestead, was attempting to foreclose on our homestead by illegal substitution of Trustee QLSCW from 2012 to 1/2016. Chase didn’t even bother to file for record an illegal Assignment. Yet, with the same issues and more as in Hooker, Walla Walla Superior Court Judge Lohrmann, who heard our TRO, granted Chase, QLSCW, FNMA, and individuals summary judgment, with plenty of MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE. We will return for VOID JUDGMENT.
On 6/4/2015, we rescinded the VOID non-consummated WaMu “loan”.
We are searching for an eastern Washington attorney, Spokane or other, to handle our Enforcement of Rescission action in the Spokane fed ct. I’ve heard the judge in that ct is fair, honest, inclined toward homeowners.
On 12/29/2015, we received from MTGLQ Investors LP a “Notice of Assignment, Sale, or Transfer of Ownership of Mortgage Loan (15 U.S.C. sec 1641(g))” dated 12/23/2015. On its face it does not comply with the referenced code and, therefore, without question, violates the code.
If anyone has use of my personal research against QLSCW, just ask. I found that, until I brought the argument forth against QLSCW in our case here, QLSCW was NEVER authorized to do business in Washington since its 2/13/2004 application with SOS. They allegedly lined up AFTER that, but not really! HOW MANY PEOPLE DO YOU THINK HONEST ATTORNEYS CAN HELP RECOVER ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE DAMAGES AND HOMES FOR AGAINST QLSCW, CHASE, FNMA, ETC. IN WASHINGTON SINCE 2004? which I alluded to in my 9/6/2013 pro se Complaint. AND, they could safely take the cases on contingency.
Though my 9/5/2013 complaint was not all it should have been (I know a lot more even now on how to write an impeachable complaint by the law course I am studying with JurisdictionaryLaw.com; just copy and paste it into your browser.), I believe enough is there to have been granted TRO, PI, and opportunity to amend. Instead, presiding Superior Ct Judge Lohrmann did not require Chase to prove up ownership or holder of the Note, or DT, and chose to ignore ALL the material facts in dispute, and did MANY other wrongs too numerous to mention here.
By the way, Neil and all, Jill Smith, Washington attorney, has severely financially and representationally injured at least two homeowners in Washington who heard of her through this blog and radio broadcasts. One for $5,000, but only under a great deal of pressure, finally returned $4,000. So has Oregon attorney Jeff Barnes, for $5,000 from one person I know of and, thankfully, did not get my money–he kept upping the price till I couldn’t see it in sight. He kept the entire $5k, saying it took all that to read the documents on which to start the case!
I also found, by checking through an atty, that atty Jill Smith has NOT yet filed an Enforcement of Rescission action in fed ct or King County, Washington, yet is taking money as experienced in the field. Beware of talk!!!!! If she has, let her bring it forth here.
Neil, I suggest that YOU, or someone you appoint for the purpose, do background research on attorneys you recommend. Otherwise, you do more harm than good, as in these instances.
Also, Neil, can you possibly reply to my online Application that I, with much time, completed weeks ago, and sent documents requested on the form? I will really appreciate it.
No confidence in “horses” or “men of might” or “wise men”.
Back to work by faith in the living God Yehovah and the Man Yehowshua’ he anointed with dominion in earth, and those with him.
Beryl
@ shellystotalbodyworks
I believe it is extremely important to review the build-up to the CORE ARGUMENTS in the memorandum(s) concerning the CONDUIT SERVICER’s status and capacity as an INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, as the court found, rather than an agent of a principal.
An interesting point: other than a reference to a servicing agreement between Bank of America and Wells Fargo, there appears no mention of any of the actors in the SECURITIZATION scheme.
you also need to send to fbi,doj, if you don’t want to I will. send me what marie did,. djabelanger@hotmail.com
shelly,
why don’t you send it out to 60 mins, / and others
Some tidbits which may help someone:
Quit Claim deeds create a cloud on title. A QC deed in the chain of title to a property may (may, not saying always does) preclude good faith purchaser status..
Trustee deeds without warranties (see warranties in a warranty deed) create a cloud on the title and preclude the purchaser and all down the line from being deemed good faith purchasers.
These are STRICTLY LAY OPINIONS AND NOT ADVICE OF ANY KIND
Ask a lawyer, preferably one who has worked as a title examiner
Elex: “Same crap the CA Appelles pulled on me, claiming that in this case, Wells was the ‘agent’ of BofA due to the atty-in-fact. THAT does not satisfy the statute of frauds unless the atty-in-fact authorization had a schedule of loans that included the subject loan attached to it.”
I couldn’t agree more fwiw. These appts of attorneys-in-fact which are cropping up are missing more than one document to establish the
authority in regard to any particular loan and the POA doc itself recites caveats to the appt authority which may only be found in another document (generaly the PSA and or master svcing agreement).
We need letters to the Seattle City Mayor and counsel to expose this audit publicly. The city attorney tried constantly to cause Marie to compromise her audit without success. Blacking out most of the guts of the audit to protect the banks and MERS. The city has the ability to stop fraudulent foreclosures and prevent homeless Americans, stop the suicides of many and the nightmare of Americans living in a twilight zone and to make the banks and MERS pay millions of dollars like the county did in Oregon to help those already homeless but instead are asking for taxation of the people to help and the big corportations to send funds for the homeless project when they know where they can get the funds from the very criminals who have caused the homeless situation. We have a RCW that pays $5,000.00 a fraudulent assignment that is worth millions to fund the homeless and pay for roads and teachers pay. The Seattle mayor and counsel are hiding the review from exposure. I am part of a group exposing this audit and crime.
Everyone needs to demand the Hooker case to be published. The courts auto publish every bank won case and almost never publish the borrowers won cases. Disgusting.
Omar Bazzari attorney from Burien Washington is the attorney for the Hooker case.
I also will email ANYONE a certified copy of the Marie McDonnell Review of King County Records. The Seattle City Counsel chooses to conceal it and will not make it public. However Marie McDonnell sent a certified copy to me and others to share because she is not obligated to keep it a secret. Karen Pooley was instrumental in pushing the City Counsel to do the audit and then the audit was mailed to me by an unknown person so I sent an email to Marie to send a declaration or affidavit with it to expose it. She called me to find out how I had acquired it and told me it did not matter she would certify every page and send it to me to expose so I leaked and exposed it to the public as far as I can reach out.
Kalifornia, please email me at Shelleystotalbodyworks@comcast.net and I will send you what you need.
CORRECTION:
The King County records may be available online:
http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/clerk/access-records/records.aspx
UGH!
My apologies for the typos and grammar errors, below.
@ shellystotalbodyworks (or anyone in Kings County, state of Washington)
The case number is: 14-2-11009-0 (Connie Hooker v. Bank of America)
Because the document filings do not appear to be available online, this is a request that anyone in the vicinity to travel to the clerk’s office and acquire a copy of the moving, opposing, and deciding documents supporting the Superior Court’s decision referenced in the article. Then, post of documents somewhere online and submit a link here. Doing so will assist not only the people of King County (where Marie McDonnell (McDonnell Property Analytics) performed a scathing audit of the real property record recordings which was quashed by either the City Council or a sub-committee.
How the status and capacity of the Bank of America-to-WELLS FARGO relationship as an independent contractor versus agent is essential to examine, and without the moving, opposing, and deciding documents, we are all operating in the blind.
Please help.
Ian I am not sure where I am at on the Wells Fargo recent settlement of the $1.2 billion that is said to be about all of Wells FHA issues. However DOJ is still investigating Wells and all the discrimination in lending & foreclosing. I got my Senator office looking into it but the final settlement agreement not been finish yet. I don’t see how they can exclude my claim but you never know with these folks. I don’t see how with my claim and Szymoniak lawsuit that the issue is not a part of putting all this to bed!
So does the running of the statute of limitations apply? Meanin time expired to collect the debt?
Chas reed- have you gotten anywhere with your whistleblower lawsuit? Or have you been stonewalled?
Reblogged this on AXJ USA NEWS.
This is huge because in Washington State is the home of Washington Mutual Bank and after Sept 25, 2008 not longer exist and Wells Fargo Bank was foreclosing as if they were working for a bank that was a “failed bank”!
We are talking about 1.3 million loans Nation wide but how many thousand of these foreclosures in Washington State? It taken long enough!
Same crap the CA Appelles pulled on me, claiming that in this case, Wells was the ‘agent’ of BofA due to the atty-in-fact. THAT does not satisfy the statute of frauds unless the atty-in-fact authorization had a schedule of loans that included the subject loan attached to it.
In my particular case the Appalling judges had to overlook a second atty-in-fact that was presented in the pleadings and failed to distinguish why they chose the agency that would allow the bank to win over the agency that would cause the bank to lose, since neither ‘agent’ provided a document specific to the subject loan.