Smoke and Mirrors: Illinois Case

This 2016 Illinois case corroborates exactly what I have been saying for 11 years. Sleight of hand accounted for the 1st Mortgage that was payable to Lehman Brothers who funded every loan with advances from Investors who then owned the debt. The investors were cut out of the chain of paper and the chain of money.

Thus equitable principles were attempted in order to establish a right to foreclose. But nothing can take away the fact that the forecloser, as in virtually all foreclosure cases these days, is a complete stranger to any part of any transaction that is memorialized in fabricated, forged, robo-signed, false representations on worthless documents of transfer.

We can help evaluate your options!
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.
—————-

Hat tip to Cement Boots

see CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Parille, 2016 IL App (2d) 150286, (For some reason it won’t upload). Try This:

Citi steps into the paper chain based upon nothing and THAT is their legal problem. So they attempt to file multiple amended complaint that only get themselves in worse trouble because in the final analysis, they are making allegations that imply legal standing that they will never be able to prove.

Specifically they seek to have the court declare an equitable mortgage in favor of Citi. For the most part, equitable mortgages don’t exist, but there is a doctrine called equitable subrogation in which title to the existing mortgage shifts to a new owner because the new owner has paid for the debt — something that is impossible because even Citi does not say they paid the investors who owned the debt. Further, as this Court points out such a doctrine won’t do Citi any good if the initial mortgage was defective.

In short the fundamental assumptions (arising from political rather than legal policies) do not apply. Those assumptions are frequently erroneously raised to legal presumptions), that the debt MUST be owed by the homeowners to the putative foreclosing party and that the imperfections in the paper chain are technical in nature and that therefore allowing the homeowner to win would be inequitable.

As the Courts dig deeper they are confronting the fundamental conflict between political doctrine and legal doctrine. Political doctrine mandates that the banks win in order to preserve a financial system that is now largely dependent on a ladder of financial products deriving (hence derivative) their value from each other, but based upon the assumption that the base transaction exists. The base transaction in the paper chain is a loan by the Payee on the note. In this case as in most cases, there is no base transaction in real life that would support the closing documents. Hence all the paper deriving value from the nonexistent transaction is worthless.

The simple truth is that in order for equitable subrogation to apply, one must allege and prove facts that there is injury to the pleading party — something that none of the players could ever claim in this case. Injury could only occur in financial form. And the only thing lost to Citi or even the Lehman estate, which is still in bankruptcy, is the opportunity to make a profit by deceit.

12 Responses

  1. Can anyone shed some light on how the courts here in Illinois are allowing Non Licensed Debt collectors to come in last minute in a case and take possession ? I have letter’s from other AG in other State specifically Stating if they are not licensed they cannot foreclose. Shellpoint/New Penn/MTGLQ are criminals.

  2. Al infers that services include providing legal cross reference services to boilerplate docs & strategies developed to thwart homeowners & their lawyers as well as collaboration with outside counsel.

    https://www.acc.com/chapters/sanant/upload/2014-11-LexisNexis-CounselLink-Spotlight.pdf

  3. Atty Al West mentioned in a recent interview that the corporate bankers and servicers use this service as a match-maker with atty firms to do foreclosures.

    https://www.counsellink.com/

  4. Either the Parilles’ atty plead the case well or the judge(s) are catching on, or have just had enough. Or is it a mix of all three?
    Anyone have any idea on how the judge(s) have ruled on other or similar Foreclosuremcases?

  5. Have you ever investigated or have any cases with Farm Credit?

  6. This is a complicated and excellent case with loads of citations for folks to use for their own lawsuits…

    Remember – when it comes to making use of previous legal work – it is not whether someone won or lost under a particular judge, but rather how well they cited common, statute and case law in support of their claims or defenses, how the court responded, and how you can use them.

    Remember the NFL sportscaster who said, “On any given day, any team can win (or lose) no matter what their past record shows.”

    My favorite case citations are from Appellate decisions showing me how the homeowner or the attorney screwed up and LOST, complete with reverse instructions from the court to say how they would have won if argued and presented differently…

    Oh – this is not legal advice nor a recommendation for any particular electrician, carpenter or plumber… LOL

  7. Yes — this is a case regarding who signed what. Irrelevant. Look at what was supposedly “signed.” A normal mortgage – this cannot happen. Just recycled “debt” – no different from credit card debt. Cement — good point.

  8. The Opinion goes nowhere again.

  9. Welcome to The Hotel California… You can checkout any time you like but you can never leave… (The Eagles)

  10. How does this happen? Was never a “mortgage” to begin with.

  11. CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Parille, 2016 IL App (2d) 150286
    http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2016/2ndDistrict/2150286.pdf

    Opinion
    This appeal involves the attempt of the plaintiff, CitiMortgage, Inc., to foreclose upon the home of the defendants, Karyn and Anthony Parille, on the basis of a mortgage that turned out to be ineffective as a matter of law. After the Parilles raised this defense, CitiMortgage asserted other claims against the Parilles, including equitable lien, unjust enrichment, and fraud. The circuit court of Du Page County dismissed the third amended complaint with prejudice and denied leave to file a fourth amended complaint. CitiMortgage appeals. The circuit court also denied the Parilles’ motions to order the release of the mortgage from their title and for attorney fees; the Parilles have filed a cross-appeal from that denial. We affirm in part and reverse in part and remand.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: