Foreclosure defense litigants usually find themselves in a fog of questions they can’t answer. That is because the banks are using a tactic that I have called “step-over.” If they can’t prove an essential element of a case they step over it and pretend it was already established before.
ADMIT NOTHING. ASSUME NOTHING.
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 consultation 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.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.
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).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
===========================
Well this is a good example of what I teach lawyers about cross examination for opposition to testimony by affidavit or even oral testimony under oath. It’s easy to say yes, that’s right. Not so easy to say how you know that is right. Good litigators chip away at each component part of each answer. In virtually all cases, the numbers and the documents don’t add up and there is no escape for the banks. They settle those cases under seal of confidentiality.
*
The banks have been getting away with this for years.
*
The foundation for all evidence of anything in a foreclosure case is whether the foreclosing party exists and whether it has any power to foreclose that has been granted by the owner of the debt. The banks step over this problem by producing a witness that says “we are the servicer of this loan, I am employed by the servicer, these are our business records.” In other words they pretend that they answered the question. But they didn’t. And they know it.
*
Other than prior conduct that “speaks” to the issue, there is no testimony from the actual party named as the foreclosing party. This insulates the only witnesses produced from answering any questions about the origin, existence of the foreclosing party or even whether the foreclosing party is a creditor or instead is acting as “holder” which means as a conduit for another party who might also be a conduit. More importantly no witness testifies that the nonparty claiming servicing rights actually has servicing rights and what duties are performed by the servicer at the direction of the undisclosed party behind the scenes. Hence most important of all is the fact that no witness testifies that the servicer’s business records are the business records of the foreclosing party. It is presumed. Attack it and it falls apart.
*
Let’s assume that the Trust actually did acquire the debts, notes and mortgages. Exactly how likely is it that the trustee would allow the servicer to see everything in the trust? ZERO. Why would they? Exactly how likely is it that the Trustee would grant total unfettered control over all of its assets without so much as a report to the trustee? ZERO. I could go on forever. Hopefully you get the idea. Exactly how likely is it that a Trustee would allow its name to be used in litigation without its knowledge or consent? ZERO. It’s only when the Trust doesn’t exist and doesn’t acquire anything that such behavior is perfectly OK.
*
Here is the truth: no lawyer at any foreclosure mill ever gets a call or even an email from the named foreclosing party nor anyone else. Instead it is all automated in the loose meaning of that word. In truth the referral for foreclosure, the selection of the name of the foreclosing party, and all decisions regarding any given loan are made by people who are employed by an organization with no right, title or interest in the subject loan. They in turn answer to a higher power — the big banks on Wall Street who are thoroughly insulated from liability as long as they can play trick or treat.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Filed under: foreclosure |
probably not, anon. But Neva is correct that proof of a fraud and the right litigator has resulted in compensation for the old owner. Rare at best. Check out state racketeering statutes. But beware, fraud is very hard to plead. Statute of limitations is killing a lot of peoples claims as well.
A tough slog at every turn.
I am being censored by WordPress. Sue them for your losses.
Probably cannot get the house back, but you could receive money to recompense your damages and loss of use, emotional distress, loss of business, loss of reputation, etc.
anon — highly unlikely if not impossible.
Roger — I know of others doing that too!!! But if they all know they have the government backing it will be very difficult. .
Ten years ago – the financial crisis exposure was very poorly handled. We were told financial markets would collapse if it were not handled the way it was. That was false. And, the true elements of the fraud have never been exposed.
Then when the settlements came, any further hope of investigation evaporated.
Investors were bailed out — of course, they could no longer get their hoped for 13 or 14% interest desperately needed especially for government pensions, but principal was returned. The real victims remain. Especially those that were told they could get out of these high interest loans, and that their homes were worth far more than actual value. As soon as the crisis hit, these homeowners became trapped.
I understand people will take what they can get to stay in their homes. But, government promoted modifications – that were too little too late – did not help. It only continued the cover up as to what really happened to these loans.,
I know of no government representative that is willing to take this on. The general perception is that everyone should just pay.
I have been posting here a very long time. What I have seen over the years is beyond despicable. And, those that know me — know that I am not in foreclosure.
And, to answer anon again — title cannot be fixed until there is foreclosure. So that is why it is highly unlikely.
If a house is foreclosed with fake evidence and false representations, is it possible to get it back after foreclosure?
ANON, colton, do what my lawyer and I did: file a suit against the Office of Lawyer Regulation and the Supreme Court for being part of the racketeering enterprise and violating your civil right to due process.
I’ll let you know how it goes…..
We are the largest united group of people in America. American Homeowners.
Reblogged this on Deadly Clear and commented:
“Here is the truth: no lawyer at any foreclosure mill ever gets a call or even an email from the named foreclosing party nor anyone else. Instead it is all automated in the loose meaning of that word.” USPTO patented automation.
All in the hands of our government. We should have rallied against it a decade ago. I urged that. When will the people say in joint unison – enough?
The courts and judges know about it too, what are we supposed to do about them?
There seems to be no end in sight for the giant fraud being played on the American people. Also, FYI WordPress has been censoring my posts if they are about the “D” word.
I am getting prepared for my next battle with Specialized Loan Servicing. These debt collector scumbags loan nothing. They just showed up on the Servicing scene after I asked too many unanswered questions to Bank of America.
This is absolutely one of the best I have seen from Neil. All true.
But, I still have to ask — Who is regulating the government? The government knows this too — and, does nothing about it. And this – according to many judges — is justification for their own bad behavior. . .