How to Deal with the “Free House” Bias

If you are dealing with a bias held by most judges the only effective way of dealing with it is to meet the challenge head-on. If you dance around it it looks like you are trying to “get off on a technicality.”

Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.

I provide advice and consent to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM. A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.


Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).



A client asked me this morning about he “free house” bias and whether that will interfere with the decisions and ruling of the court. The answer is “of course it does.” And I again raise the issue that nobody wants to talk about — whether it is right or proper to voir dire the judge not just for bias, but for prejudgment decision before the case started. Here is the response I sent:

The answer to your “free house” question is this: You are correct in identifying that problem. We always start with presumption that the presiding judge will carry that bias with him/her into the courtroom.
However, as I have repeatedly found, once you pierce the foreclosure case, the credibility of the would-be foreclosing party declines to the point where the biased judge will ordinarily rule in favor of the homeowner — faced with inescapable legal defects in the position and assertions made by parties without standing.
But there are exceptions — judges who, in addition to having bias, have already ruled in their minds. For them the proceedings are a sham requirement and a test to see if the judge can APPEAR fair and impartial.
Countering the “free house” mindset first requires a demonstration that the homeowner is well aware that he can neither seek nor get a free house. That requires a presentation that concedes the fact that even if the note and mortgage were completely void, the debt remains and a judgment on that debt will result in a  judgment lien that could be foreclosed by the owner of that debt. That “concession” take the angst out of the “free house” conundrum for the judge and will often be an effective predicate to establishing the primary defense narrative.
So the question is not whether the homeowner will get a free house; it is whether this party seeking to foreclose title and take possession of this home has any right to do so. To say otherwise would be an invitation for anyone to fabricate documentation and foreclose, especially in cases where the homeowner concedes, relying upon false documentation of a false party. That scenario I have seen multiple times where the foreclosure is complete, the homeowner has moved out and basically forgotten about the house. The homeowner is later served with process or given notice that the house was foreclosed AGAIN by a different party.

8 Responses

  1. And Bush was president when crisis was first exposed — but not for long. What happened after that?

  2. Well — elaine021455 is correct. Too late. And, this week, it is the tenth anniversary of the beginning of exposure of the financial “crisis,” It is being talked about by the three that claimed to handle it — Ben Bernanke, Timothy Geithner, and Hank Paulson. Pats on the back were given for a “job well done.” Geez. .

    Ben is just in left field. He blames the cultural and political effects of the past 40 years. Hank is not much better. He avoids the reals issues. He says they did their best. You know the old economic story — 5 people in a boat, it is sinking — who do you save? The answer was the one who could save more than the others. Conclusion– save the investors. Most were saved, but not the real victims. Of course, the “investors” – whoever they may be – could no longer get their adjustable rising interest rate premium up to 15 or 16% — but they got their money back.

    Timothy came closest to the truth. He wanted write downs of mortgages. He wanted help for the homeowners. This surprises me as I do no recall this ten year ago. He says — too little came too late.

    Too little – too late. Exactly. And, if Timothy really believed this back then — who influenced him otherwise?

  3. All this info comes to0 late for us. After the banking orgy caused the crash in 2008 for which they got bailed out – the rest of us were left holding an empty bag. We lost our house, we lost ancestral waterfront property in Baltimore, our 401k and our dignity. We were forced out on a snowy day in March 2015 – as the new ‘owner’ Greg Dorn an asshole of a man with $400,00 cash – surveyed the house for ‘damages’ we may have done. We had sweat equity in that house! My husband had to undergo the final indignity while that asshole went over every inch of the house, questioning every ding and knick with wicked delight. That asshole waited FIVE years to get the house. That five years ate up our 401k in court and legal fees. We are 63 – we have had to start all over. We will never catch up.

  4. This is wrong – there is no debt after TILA rescission:
    3. If the creditor has delivered any money or property, the consumer may retain possession until the creditor has met its obligation under paragraph (d)(2) of this section. When the creditor has complied with that paragraph, the consumer shall tender the money or property to the creditor or, where the latter would be impracticable or inequitable, tender its reasonable value. At the consumer’s option, tender of property may be made at the location of the property or at the consumer’s residence. Tender of money must be made at the creditor’s designated place of business. If the creditor does not take possession of the money or property within 20 calendar days after the consumer’s tender, the consumer may keep it without further obligation.

  5. I just faced a new judge who argued that I received a financial benefit from all the payments I didnt make during eight years of court proceedings. My affirmative defense is unfair and deceptive practices by the Bank for violating HAMP requirements to make a payment 31 percent of my gross income. The previous judge heard arguement a and denied summary judgement for foreclosure. Now I am proving the bank violated HAMP with documented evidence of three different payments until the good judge compelled them to do it right….bank refused to remove fees and excess interest to correct their errors.
    They have unjustly gained $36,000 more than THE HAMP and tossed it into my new loan amount. It’s unsound banking practices according to the OCC. it’s a violation of the FTC act to engage in unfair practices for unjust enrichment.

  6. I agree with previous comments. You also do not address the very real damage these lawyers/debt collectors/banks/servicers have caused to honorable folks who followed all directions. Planned theft. There is no other term for it. Not an occasional computer ‘glitch’. Shame on our regulators and elected officials for not jailing the perpetrators and stopping the wholesale theft of America’s wealth. If Lady Liberty were in the courts, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. She would have demanded jury trials.

  7. It does not matter whether you are paying or not. Title is messed up. And, if you are paying, and it is the wrong party — status and title will NEVER be fixed. Believe me. .

    No one should pay Joe if the debt is really owed to Larry, Moe, and Curly. .

  8. Reblogged this on Deadly Clear.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: