Tonight! What’s the Point of Foreclosure Defense? MONEY!

Thursdays LIVE! Click into the Neil Garfield Show

with Neil Garfield

or prior episodes

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

Tonight we talk about how to be persuasive in court so that the Judge realizes that the foreclosure might not result in any proceeds being used to pay down the debt. Everything else is important but secondary. Until lawyers and homeowners stop running away from the debt, the majority of foreclosure defenses will fail. Embrace it because they don’t have it.

The point of defending a foreclosure is saving the house or getting compensation for losing the house. Saving the house means defending it. Getting compensation means filing a lawsuit for damages. In nonjudicial states you need to file for a TRO in order to challenge the foreclosure.

The central point of foreclosure defense in the current era is to reveal the fact that the foreclosure will not result in payment of the debt. Everyone seems to think that the central point is to avoid paying the debt. There used to be only one defense to foreclosure: payment. In the current era starting in the late 1990’s there is another defense — lack of payment.

The issue is wrapping your head around something that is completely counter-intuitive. Why would anyone foreclose unless they were looking for money to pay down a debt?

The answer to that question sends most people into a tailspin, stumbling over their own words. In the end the judge doesn’t know what you are talking about and you lose your home unless you present a clear and persuasive reason to prevent foreclosure — namely that the party claiming foreclosure is not in fact the owner of the debt and probably has never seen nor possessed the original promissory note.

That claimant has never loaned any money and they don’t say that they have loaned you money. That claimant has never paid value for the debt, note or mortgage, they don’t say they did. In most cases you were mislead into believing that the Payee named on the promissory note was lending you money.

3 Responses

  1. I so feel for you Brian.
    I experienced the same.
    Fraud is still fraud no matter how it is litigated or the court outcome.
    It is where the “law” takes a backseat to what is right.
    It has been 7 years for me and I am just beginning to feel not like a “Walking Dead Man” any longer.
    Hopefully, your journey through this terrible loss will be fruitful and swift. It is never to late to re-create ones self.The light is at the end of the tunnel. Peace.

  2. Great episode Neil…

  3. Hi Neil, i was lucky to have found this site before defending my foreclisure in UD court. We lost in superior court, cal appellate court reversed and remanded because bank failed to prove substitution of trustee had authority and no recorded documenr was found. on remand a different judge granted summary judgement, allowing the newly found SOT, and bank still never had to provide proof of transfer, which they dont have. We also in good faith paid the rental rate during our appeal in case we lost so to keep possession of the house. that was 20000.00 thatbank kept after losing. And, after summary judgement, judge granted stay pending 2nd appeal if we paid back rent of 2700 in 3 days, which we didnt owe. and is not required. Long story short, bank stole our house, courts basically said ok, and even if appellate court said no that wrong, we had to appeal a 2nd time to get the lower court to maybe follow the law. i didnt have anything left to do the 2nd appeal, energy, hope, or a home, i am still trying to get on my feet after losing everything. i wonder What the point, everyday.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: