URGENT! Washington Homeowners Demand Governor Inslee reject Bill 2057 NOW!


The Washington State Legislature is one vote away from making changes to Bill  2057 that would be detrimental to homeowners.  The changes would clear the way for anyone, without proof, to claim to be in possession of a promissory note, and to make it a slam-dunk to foreclosure non-judicially.

The state of Arkansas masterminded this type of non-judicial rule, that allows complete strangers in nice suits, and in possession of well photo-shopped documents to waltz into court and claim ownership.  If this bill is passed, the servicer will provide doctored prima facie evidence consisting of a fabricated mortgage note, fake assignment(s) and even a perjured or deceptive affidavit from a servicer to establish the right to foreclose.

This bill will pave the way for banks to commit massive fraud with the homeowner having no defenses until after their home is foreclosed by a stranger who had no standing except by resorting to the presentation of deceptive documents.

Governor Inslee has not signed this bill yet! Please contact his office to send a message that he should NOT sign this bill into law in its current form. We can ask him to please do a line item veto of this section at least!

Here is the section with the most important and disturbing changes. The words in (( )) will be eliminated from the current law, IF this new bill is signed into law by Governor Inslee.

See page 25 at this link: http://leg.wa.gov/…/EducationAndInfo/Guide_to_Lawmaking.pdf

“After reviewing a bill, the Governor may decide to sign it, veto a section of the bill (usually called a line-item veto), or veto all of it. Actual line item vetoes are only permitted in the budget”

Specifically, the language of RCW 61.24.030(7)(a) on page 2 of the bill:

(7)(a) That, for residential real property, before the notice of trustee’s sale is recorded, transmitted, or served, the trustee shall have proof that the beneficiary is the ((owner)) holder of any promissory note or other obligation secured by the deed of trust. A declaration by the beneficiary made under the penalty of perjury stating that the beneficiary is the ((actual)) holder of ((the))any promissory note or other obligation secured by the deed of trust shall be sufficient proof as required under this subsection.

NOTE: By changing “owner” to “holder” means the servicer/debt collector asserting authority to foreclose, does not have to own the underlying debt.

By changing “the promissory note” to “any promissory note” the legislature is allowing the servicer/debt collector to only have a copy of the promissory note, a negotiable instrument.

Can a bank cash a copy of a personal check? No! But, this legislature is going to allow a bank to foreclose the lien using only a copy of a negotiable instrument– despite widespread knowledge that banks routinely forge and fabricate promissory notes.  This is not acceptable and a complete capitulation by the legislature and the so-called homeowner advocates involved in crafting this bill, to the bank and foreclosure industry in Washington State.

It is imperative that the world “holder” should be changed to “owner”  to be consistent with the previous reference to “owner” in (7)(a)!!! AND, it should be made a felony to make false statement(s) in a beneficiary declaration.  Of course, this bill has been created because it is common knowledge that the notes were destroyed and  servicers rarely know who the owner is.

You can send a message online to Governor Inslee at this link: https://www.governor.wa.gov/…/con…/send-gov-inslee-e-message

Governor Inslee contact page: https://www.governor.wa.gov/…/c…/contacting-governors-office

The Washington State Legislature will clarify four long-standing issues in foreclosure and DOTA law:

-Resolution of the Jordan vs. NationStar case
-No judicial process for homes with deceased borrowers
-Fix to statutory language for owner/holder/actual holder
-Process to file non-monetary interest in Washington state for trustees

The bill, HB 2057, initially began as a draft document to negotiate back in 2017 but was met with fierce opposition- as this version of the bill should also be.

The beneficiary declaration will now be provided at the same time as the Notice of Default, and the NOD will now include information on the first page identifying the beneficiary and trustee.  The problem with the beneficiary declaration is that if the bank engages in perjury or fraud, they can claim plausible deniability by claiming that they were not aware of any trust issues, document deficiencies, or that the purported chain of title was defective.  The beneficiary declaration is simply window dressing.


13 Responses

  1. did not know how to fill all the boxes!

  2. Peterson,
    Where did I indicate you were a loser? That was a giant leap.

  3. Mr. WAR,

    I’m not a scholar on WA statutes, and don’t claim to be. I just did a little reading, made some observations, and comments, and raised a coupla-3 questions. I just wanted to participate … to contribute.

    I’m glad you’re still engaged in the fight, but having been assessed by you as an ignorant quitter, and loser, driving home that I’m just not good enough, I won’t bother trying to measure up again.

  4. William,
    Yes, the WA DOTA is already bad, so let’s allow the crooks to make it worse???

    If you can’t see that ANY promissory note rather than THE promissory note would allow the crooks to take the house with a Xerox of the note, or with an e-note (which the banksters are trying to push in all 50 states) I don’t know how to make it even more clear to you!?!

    And FYI, the UCC is not connected to the WA DOTA. They do not have to be interpreted together!

    Your attitude is like so many homeowners who say, “I lost, so I don’t care anymore.” Terrible.

  5. I don’t see that these proposed changes are dramatically worse than the current WA DOTA (which is already pretty bad).

    RCW 61.24.005(2) already defines “Beneficiary” as “… the holder of the instrument …”

    Further, the WA UCC already accords PETE status to a holder.

    “RCW 62A.3-301
    Person entitled to enforce instrument.
    ‘Person entitled to enforce’ an instrument means (i) the holder of the instrument, (ii) a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder, or (iii) a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to RCW 62A.3-309 or 62A.3-418(d). A person may be a person entitled to enforce the instrument even though the person is not the owner of the instrument or is in wrongful possession of the instrument.”

    The “beneficiary declaration” seems to be the worst part of this. Where a “beneficiary declaration” is accepted as “sufficient proof” does it matter what it is that is required to be proved, either ownership or holdership?

    In judicial proceedings (foreclosure, or otherwise) an affidavit, or declaration, is hearsay. In providing that a “bene-dec” is “sufficient proof” the statute has abrogated WA ER 801(c), which defines hearsay as:

    “(c) Hearsay. ‘Hearsay’ is a statement, other than one made by
    the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered
    in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.”

    The statement can be either oral, or written.

    Inadmissible hearsay is not rendered admissible by virtue of the fact that it is sworn. Sworn hearsay is still hearsay.

    I don’t see this section of WA DOTA expressly permitting the use of a copy. Perhaps that is in another section. But …

    WA RE 1002 typically requires the original:

    “RULE 1002
    To prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph,
    the original writing, recording, or photograph is required,
    except as otherwise provided in these rules or by rules adopted
    by the Supreme Court of this state or by statute.”

    Does the WA DOTA abrogate ALL of the WA ER?

  6. This FRAUDULENT BEHAVIOR did NOT STOP the men in nice suits from stealing our home, our health, nor our sanity.
    Deutsche v Holden
    Summit County, Ohio Civil Court, Ohio Appellate Court, in which our case was overturned by the lower court. Ohio Supreme Court decided to side with the men in nice suits. In the end, Chase Bank sent us a check for $100.00 stating that they, MAY have mishandled the way in which they handled our loan modification. My family no longer has any fight left in us. We are broken.
    Glenn and Ann Holden
    Akron, Ohio

  7. Doesn’t this go against the Constitution protecting our property rights? Unconstitutional laws are VOID? I am sending out to all I know to stop this bill. A dollar bill is a note Counterfeiting is not allowed for the dollar bills.

  8. It just happened to me in Florida! Miamidade 2013-22092-ca-06

  9. Reblogged this on Deadly Clear and commented:
    We all need to be active – All across the USA.. Every legislator ought to have a copy of David Dayen’s Chain of Title! https://www.amazon.com/Chain-Title-Americans-Uncovered-Foreclosure/dp/1620971585

  10. Sunman, please send emails to the Governor’s policy advisors. Most especially paulette.avalos@gov.wa.gov. She is his Financial policy advisor.

    Thank you!

  11. Link did not work…
    Any idea how to get around it?

  12. It is getting worse.

  13. Washingtonians,
    Please act! The financial crooks are gearing up for Round 2 of economic theft of the American taxpayer! Don’t let them!

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: