Why You Don’t Know that Thousands of Homeowners Are Winning Foreclosure Cases

Bottom Line: As soon as there is a “negative outcome” for the Banks it goes into their trash compactor and disappears. The main tool is the use of a confidentiality agreement in which the homeowner practically gives up his/her life if they discuss the case at all. In these cases the banks have even paid more than the verdict or court order to silence the homeowner and their attorney. (see below)

The effect is that when you Google various terms searching for ways in which homeowners won, you don’t see very much. This discourages both homeowners from hiring attorneys and discourages lawyers from taking a case they think will be a loss.

The key to any successful result is persistence. Up until final payment or settlement the banks use a scripted pattern to discredit and undermine the confidence of both the attorney and the homeowner. It’s a form of bullying and it works. Lawyers who thought they could make $100,000 start thinking in terms of 1/10th that amount.

The latest and also a favorite tool of corporate defendants and banks is to settle the case at whatever the cost (written off as cost of doing business) and then approval of the court is sought by the bank where a prescripted order is submitted for the Judge to sign. The Proposed order says that the record of the case shall be expunged. And that is exactly what is pending in California where Bank of America is seeking to silence not only the homeowner and his lawyer but the court as well. The Judge is not taking it well.

Get a LendingLies Consult and a LendingLies Chain of Title Analysis! 202-838-6345 or info@lendinglies.com.
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave a message or make payments.
OR fill out our registration form FREE and we will contact you!
https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1502204714426
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

see BOA: Judge Erase Your Ruling, We’ll Pay the $46 Million Penalty

In a 107 page ruling Judge Klein described the behavior of Bank of America as “Kafkaesq”, “heartless”, “callous, cruel” and a “cynical disregard for the law.” Now BOA is back for third time to ask the judge to not only depublish his opinion but to expunge it. The obvious fear by BOA and the other banks is that if word gets out that you can get a $46 million result and perhaps $15 million or more in attorneys fees, things might change for the banks.

BOA is providing a carrot and stick approach to the homeowners. It is coercing the homeowners to agree to the order submitted by BOA for the Judge’s signature.

One of the couple’s attorneys told the judge at a previous hearing the proposed settlement provides “substantially more” than the $6 million the family would get from the court’s ruling.

The Judge is resisting because of public policy concerns, to wit: the same reason BOA wants it to go away is the reason why the Judge doesn’t agree. The decision can be used as precedent for homeowners.

The judge also said the the size of the punitive damages award against Bank of America was meant to “not be laughed off in the boardroom.”

See Sundquist v. Bank of America Corp., 14-02278, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of California (Sacramento).

21 Responses

  1. We are victims of Operation Homewrecker. The case was won in 2013 2014 in Eastern California. Though FBI,IRS,US Attys office of Eastern California stated we were one of 400 victims in this case,and I have paperwork to prove it,plus restitution ordered by judge and jury in this criminal case. We continue to fight civil case here in Illinois against LongBeach,Deutches and Chase banks. It’s a fraud again but our rights have been prevented. And now new law passed about predatory lending and whistleblowing,from the 7th Circut court of appeals in Illinois,and even more evidence is showing up to prove what we say. But they the banks keep omitting,and lying and the courts allow it. I am fighting since 2005 for us and our neighbors. Plus all the others who have been victims of predatory lending.

  2. Bruce Nelson…feel free to email it to me at ladydarkone99@yahoo.com

  3. Debbie Regan…I commend you for your incredibble victory. I tried to send a reply comment, lengthy as I am wont to do, but I failed to get it posted. After cruch today I may try to recover it and hit “post”. It is 6AM and I am still not awake yet. Again, CONGRATS and please do enjoy your victory.

    Bruce R Nelson
    Banner Elk, NC 28604

  4. I am that lady that Beverly Lavigne is talking about here in Maine. My case isn’t sealed, I think she used the wrong docket # at the Springvale District Court. Since my case went to the Maine Supreme Court, there are TWO different docket #’s. The one needed is the Springvale docket # which s 09-RE-385. I won my case, but not until I hired a lawyer to say to the Supreme Court exactly what I had been saying for 6 years as a pro se litigant. It took me 7 years and $10,000 to get the Supreme Court to admit my argument was right all along, that they made a clear and obvious mistake and reverse their decision and vacate the foreclosure judgment against me. But ONLY after I hired a bar card carrying member of their club! Here is the URL for my paperwork in my case if anyone is interested: http://forthepeople2011.blogspot.com/2016/08/i-won-my-foreclosure-case.html

  5. Reblogged this on California freelance paralegal and commented:
    Everyone needs to write this Judge and ask them not to sign the proposed order submitted by Bank of America. His mailing address and other contact information can be found here: http://www.caeb.uscourts.gov/Judges/Klein.aspx

  6. “ANON”…thats my story..me pro Se, Sec Of Commerce, he Tarzan! he has $$$ I have none, that is the plight of the poor vs the very, very rich when it comes to cour battles and U have a “fool for an attorney” (me pro se!

    bruc eGeezer nelson
    Banner Elk, NC 28694

  7. We filed a compliant at the Superior court to litigate the foreclosure based on illegalities in the assignment of mortgage. The bank and the servicer conducted non- judicial foreclosure without having our foreclosure defense suit dismissed. The judged denied banks attorney’s motion to dismiss the case. The bank’s attorney asked us to move out of the house threatening eviction. The house is now on the market for sale by the bank as a bank-owned property. What could we do to get damages for this behavior by the bank? We brought the complaint as Pro se.

  8. Yup,  in Maine they’re was a case withUS Bank and  when I  went to the court , I was told it was   a  sealed ORDER .!  But I did get the copy form the person who won the case… There criminal enterprise is outrageous !  They decide in secret who keeps their houses and who does not,  little to do with law.  I agree  with some internet  folks we need to subpoena   them for  their  bank accounts.  I had a title  search done and the man said, ” he could see  the fraud “, he could not understand  how the judge came up with an award to take my house and my business without any  debt showing up ?  I  don’t now if you read this , so I will end here. beverly 

  9. “Bottom Line: As soon as there is a “negative outcome” for the banks it goes into their trash compactor and disappears. The main tool is the use of a confidentiality agreement….” It sure is and it takes the homeowner’s attorney with it, i.e., it seems the attorney must agree not to ever use what it knows about / against a bankster again in any other case. At least that’s what I’ve seen, It’s a big hit to homeowners since it takes out attorneys who had what it takes to get past first base.

  10. Eh, ConreteFeet, U R out there…and I knew U R a whiz kid! But you are pretty damn good at your research. Me I am a Jonny cum later in all of this stuff…I am supposed to be enjoying my beautiful “Lassie Companion” Collie (Laddie, my VA designated best buddy:-) and living on my AAG reverse mortgage that Ross, et al stole from me because he and Bill and HSBC need my loot so Bill could hot sail it to Malta. Bitter, yeah to say the least. I wish that worm would sue me for libel and slander and defamation, I’d loose of course but he would be publicly exposed and that would be MY Victory!. If wishes were dreams and dreams could come true, eh? Thanks for your comments. Geezer

  11. In plain English, exactly what did BOA do to have the homeowners win a judgement? With familiarity with this bank and their scare tactics as well as this continuous line of assignments, how is one to be certain that they own mortgage? What about fraudulent mortgages also? Thanks for this one. I am always enlightened when visiting this site!

  12. Bruce – those are not my words… they are the words of the US District Court Judges… I just pieced together selected clear and concise passages from the court case to prove a point the court made – that even though the statute says the bank can sue in Illinois for foreclosure with just a mere allegation and a copy of a note and mortgage – once a factual challenge is made by the homeowner then…

    Therefore, Plaintiff is incorrect that, in order to establish standing, it may rely on its allegation that it is the “owner and holder of the underlying indebtedness” secured by the mortgages on CTC’s property. Rather, where a defendant asserts a factual challenge to standing, “the plaintiff bears the burden of supporting the allegations necessary for standing with ‘competent proof.” Retired Chi. Police Ass’n v. City of Chicago, 76 F.3d 856, 862 (7th Cir. 1996). “Competent proof” requires that the plaintiff “show[] by a preponderance of the evidence, or proof to a reasonable probability, that standing exists.” Id.

  13. Glad to see ole Conrete Footwear is still alive and kicking:-) Thing is, Boots, you are quite learned in legalese and no doubt coul/would hold your own in “pro se” or perhaps you have a “real” legal background…you see, I and perhaps most other of us are not equiped as it seems you might well be to stand B4 a Federal Court or Circuit Court Judge and kick the BeJesus out of the likes of a Wilbur Ross Jr High Dollar hot shot law firm. Whereas the truely “average” Joe, with out command of what I suspect you are in command of by your sagatuious and sageful writings above/below, I just wish I had the talent I suspect you may have been born with of perhaps become well heeled in being able to write with the smooth pen of a law clerk for a federal Ct Judge, et al.. Me, not the case. I get kicked in the teeth by a worm like Ross, get nauseated every time i see his smirking mouth , bald head and beady eyeballs peering thru those wire rim specs sitting/standing by his nest door neighbor from West palm beach ,Fl, next tpo Maralagos owner,”our ” Prez…well after I heave my big mac out I break out into a cold sweat, my USAF ptsd kicks in, the bueau cratic bs that I and a zillion ot5her vets suffer dealing with our “benefits” administered by a VA Admin that seems full of corruption, like the snot nosed VA dude who recently is being keelhauled fror use and abuse of taxpayer $$ to fery himself about like us average vets can never afford…and I relaize, now at 78, that the system REALLY is rigged. We serfs are stuck with a system that panders to the ultra wealthy and filthy rich whose sole reason d’etre is getting some of thos tax perks ole trumpster is flagging under their noses…and there is Ross, the worm who collaborated with Ocwen and HSBC, got those hotshot Lake Oswego Law guys and gal to say a 12th Fed Dist Ct Judge to ignore the strick Federal law of TILA he/she were sworn of uphold…hand on the Bible, B4 God Almighty…to follow the letter of the law REGARDLESS of their individual bias’ and pre3judices…which, when an igonant old fool like me dares to challenge the system, well he/she will show , in my case, me, how the cows eat the cabbage at their farm..No Note, No Standing…thats the law and all the effort of the weak kneed CFPB could not shake a red cent out of Ocwen for me and a whole bunch of other schmucks like me.

    But, I didg your words and only wish I were you with those powerful cement boots you wear…and I say that with RESPECT, not in anyway demeaning.

    God Bless you CementBoots.

    Bruce Nelson
    Banner elk, NC 28604

  14. https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilcdce/2:2012cv02145/55251/20/0.pdf?ts=1376961033

    1. The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, recently held in Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Mundie, 2016 IL App (1st) 152931 that an allegation that the plaintiff is a “mortgagee” under the IMFL is sufficient to plead its capacity to sue;

    2. However, a prior and significant dispositive contradictory ruling was held in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Urbana Division in OSK II LLC v. CTC Illinois Properties LLC et al, 12-2145 (2012) stating,

    Plaintiff responds that, to establish standing under the Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law, it need only allege the capacity in which it brings the foreclosure action and attach to its complaint copies of the promissory note and mortgage at issue…

    The Court’s approach to evaluating standing turns on whether the defendant lodges a facial or factual challenge. Apex Digital, Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 572 F. 3d 440, 443-44 (7th Cir. 2009)….

    … in a factual challenge, the defendant maintains that, although the allegations in the complaint are “facially sufficient, external facts call[] the court’s jurisdiction into question.” Id. “[W]hen considering a motion that launches a factual attack against jurisdiction, the district court may properly look beyond the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and view whatever evidence has been submitted on the issue to determine whether in fact subject matter jurisdiction exists.” Id.

    In this case, Defendants advance a factual challenge to Plaintiff’s standing, as they call into question Plaintiff’s allegation that … Bank assigned Plaintiff its rights in the promissory notes. Therefore, Plaintiff is incorrect that, in order to establish standing, it may rely on its allegation that it is the “owner and holder of the underlying indebtedness” secured by the mortgages on CTC’s property. Rather, where a defendant asserts a factual challenge to standing, “the plaintiff bears the burden of supporting the allegations necessary for standing with ‘competent proof.” Retired Chi. Police Ass’n v. City of Chicago, 76 F.3d 856, 862 (7th Cir. 1996). “Competent proof” requires that the plaintiff “show[] by a preponderance of the evidence, or proof to a reasonable probability, that standing exists.” Id.

    The Court, considering the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint and the evidence submitted on the issue, concludes that Plaintiff has failed to produce competent proof of its standing to sue for foreclosure. Plaintiff is certainly correct that it has formally complied with the relevant requirements for foreclosure complaints set forth by the Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law: Plaintiff has stated the capacity in which it brings this action… and has attached copies of the Notes and Mortgages. See 735 ILCS § 5/15-1504(a) (enumerating requirements for foreclosure complaint, including that plaintiff state the “[c]apacity in which plaintiff brings this foreclosure” attach “a copy of the mortgage and . . . a copy of the note secured thereby”).

    Nonetheless, compliance with the requirements of the IMFL does not establish standing where the note and mortgage attached to the complaint do not support the plaintiff’s allegation that it is the legal holder of the indebtedness secured by the mortgage. See Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Gilbert, No. 2–12–0164, 2012 IL App (2d) 120164, at *4 (Ill. App. Ct. Sept. 25, 2012) (rejecting plaintiff’s argument “that its standing to bring the action was established by its complaint”) (emphasis added);

  15. We have case information for you, as we are not bound by confidentiality.
    see the above comments from CRD.

  16. We just won a home for a woman in NY state. Email us at sncr.defenders@yahoo.com or call 818-453-3585 for details…we can help you.

  17. MEANWHILE BACK @ SCOTUS! Sure would like to find out what SCOTUS has uncovered so far re their “looksee” into a number of Federal Court Judges who, allegedly, abandoned us homeowners to the likds of mr. Wilbur Ross, Former sole owner of AHMSI, Mt William “Ocwen Financial” Enby (I can never remember how his last fracking name is spelt!), and their partner, HSBA, UK Bank who all lined up and conned (I allege) an Oregon !2th Dist Fed Judge to give them my home back i n 2014. please recall that I still hold the Polk County Circuit, Dallas, Oregon Ct Order by Judge Horner that awarded my home to me on the basis of Attorney for Ross/AHMSI who testified in Court under oath that AHMSI “does not have the Note!” in direct reply to Judge Horners question, “Ms. Shill, do you have the Note?”

    So, given I have blabbered endless ly for over 2+ yrs on Living Lies about this matter MAYBE I have missed something so if anyone knows what, if anything, about the SCOTUS so called investigation I sure would appreciate being brought up to date. In advance, I thank whomever.

    Bruce R. “geezerkatz” Nelson,Banner Elk, NC 28604

  18. A complaint sent to the FDIC received a reply that they cannot get involved in any claims against wrongdoing when the matter is in court in litigation. So the courts are left to do all the work that FDIC and CFPB fail to perform
    In protecting consumers from bank fraud. Thanks Neil for showing us the light

  19. Mnuchin!! CFPB has not protected homeowners AT ALL. Eric Holder’s DOJ. Their only obligation is to each other.

  20. excuez moi, I meant KAFKAESQ!

    geezerkatz, (who else?)

  21. NO BANK, NO “MORTGAGE SERVICING CO is more KAFKAESQUES then Wilbur Ross’ Secretary of Commerce of the USA’
    formerly solely owned AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING INC and his best friend William Erbys’ OCWEN FINANCIAL CO. none, nada in the entire corrupt world that CFPB was obliged to help consumers to be protected from their crimes!

    geezerkatz, (who else?)

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: