TONIGHT! How to confront legal presumptions and get to the real facts.

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the EAST COAST Neil Garfield Show

Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays


Foreclosure defense essentially boils down to three major categories. Procedural errors, lack of standing and absence of an actual creditor.
Procedural errors involve improper notice, improper accounting, and inconsistent documents.
As for no creditor and no party with standing, it all depends upon the burden of proof decided by the judge. If he/she says the forecloser must prove their case with facts and not presumptions, then you probably will win. If he/she says you must prove lack of standing and/or the absence of a creditor then you must file for discovery and hope that the judge won’t sustain objections.
But there is a middle ground that I have been writing about. It’s all about legal presumptions regarding facially valid documents and self-authenticating signatures. The New York case I wrote about yesterday explains it better than I do.
The bottom line is that in our system any party who makes an assertion must prove it and the party against whom such assertion is made must have an opportunity to challenge it. If it is not challenged by pleadings or objections then the “fact” is true for purposes of the case at hand.
In certain circumstances certain facts are legally presumed to exist unless they are challenged with at least some credible evidence that shows the presumed facts may not be true.
Tonight we talk about how to deal with those presumptions and how much proof you need to undermine the presumptions and thus force the foreclosing party (if it exists at all) to prove its case with real evidence, testimony and documents that are valid and authenticated.
Based upon 12 years of experience with this issue I have concluded with complete certainty that the named foreclosers are pretenders and that they have no right, title or interest in the loans. More importantly I have concluded that the lawyers for the named foreclosers do not have witnesses nor documents that can be corroborated or authenticated.
This leaves ownership of the debt in the winds. The fact that the court is not given the information necessary to conclude that the party who initiated foreclosure is not the creditor and that as far as the case is concerned  no creditor stepped forward is not a problem for homeowners. It is a problem for the banks who want the courts to grant foreclosure to whoever claims it.

10 Responses

  1. corruptionpedia2, – good article. Yes, the Fed was and is aware. In the wake of the financial crisis, they rewarded bad behavior and punished the people (and some good banks too). It amazes me that the trusts that evolved during the crisis are still viewed by courts as valid. When the government came in with TARP, they purchased bonds from the too big to fail banks. These were fake bonds because they were securitized from nothing. There were no loans on any bank’s balance sheet that the bonds could have been derived from – or they would not have needed TARP. TARP was bad — they should have just let the banks fail. The system would be stronger and better today had they done the right thing. .

    Obviously, bad behavior was bailed out, and as the three in control then said — Blame the people. They decided they would blame the people. .

    The settlements helped keep the fraud under wrap.

    There is no one to regulate the government. Except us by voting. But it does not matter who gets in Dems or Reps — they all play the game and no one has the courage to stand up to it.

    Kali — don’t stop!!!! Too many give up. I know you will not.

  2. Just want to share an article. Ex-bank regulator: We don’t understand ‘how systemically broken the system is”.

  3. …state-specific, or federal-specific, PLEADING STANDARDS, e.g., ultimate fact/evidentiary/notice — MATTERS…

    …in order support a motion to COMPEL DISCOVERY…



  5. …FACT(s) MATTER(s)…


  7. …and following ANON’s comment…

    …the fundamental question(s) is: WHAT WE KNOW NOW…

  8. Could be Javagold — if you purchased the home. Most of the “loans” in these so called “trusts” were refinances, but some were claimed purchases. If it is claimed to be in one of these trusts, it was just a transfer of debt. These trusts were not, and are not, valid securitization of valid bank loan assets.

    Consumer beware — if we only knew then what we know now.

  9. Anon. The last refinance on the property of the previous owner ????
    I always have 2 questions that never get answers. Where did my $100k hard Deposit go ?? And who is currently paying the property taxes ??

  10. I have nothing to do with this blog. I highly recommend – not as an attorney or as an advocate — but just a concerned person – that people do not go a route to challenge foreclosure alone. Too many pro-se cases. Too many bad decisions resulting. You need experts like Neil and his team. I have absolutely no connection to promote this.

    I also recommend that Neil dig into the the funding of the last refinance in question — and the so called loan prior to that last so-called refinance. They are connected. If Neil does not do this — you will not get to the bottom of what really went on.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: