Yvanova not Ibanez

EVERYONE GOT PAID. THERE IS NO FORECLOSURE INVOLVING A REMIC TRUST IN WHICH ANYONE HAS LOST MONEY BECAUSE A HOMEOWNER DIDN’T MAKE A PAYMENT. 

All assignments “for value” in such siotautions are fake and false.

I don’t know why I keep doing it but ever since both decisions were in existence I have continually mixed up the names.

I did it again in the webinar yesterday when I referred to the Ibanez decision from Massachusetts when I meant to refer to the Yvanova decision in California. I’m sorry!

The Yvanova decision was the one in which the California Supreme Court correctly stated the law regarding obligation being owed to  SOMEBODY rather than just ANYBODY. But the same court went on to say that no action could be brought for wrongful foreclosure until the foreclosure was complete. That too was a correct statement of the law. (There is no lawsuit that can be pled until the claim matures).

see also

Ratification of Void Assignments to REMIC Trust is Clear Nonsense

But in other courts, Yvanova was taken to mean that you could do nothing about a void assignment until after the foreclosure was over and you could do nothing to stop an illegal foreclosure — which is wrong and it is not what the Yvanova court stated.

In fact, it has become false “doctrine” that preemptive action by borrowers is impossible and premature. There is no such decision in existence and there are many ways to seek nullification and injunction against the use of a void instrument. The use of a QWR and DVL under FDCPA and FTC regulations is a good way to make tracks in the sand before you file.

The Ibanez decision in Massachusetts was somewhat different. The high court there ruled that if the paperwork was either incomplete or defective that neither US Bank nor Wells Fargo had any right to foreclose. That meant that most foreclosrures in the state had to be redone — but that didn’t happen.

see https://livinglies.me/2011/01/10/massachusetts-ibanez-is-shot-heard-around-the-world/

Both decisions start with what I have been saying from the start. The entire foreclosure scheme is a hoax and a scam. But in both cases decisions after those opinions were handed down retreated from the basic application of the most basic laws of common sense, statute, customs and practices.

And today, in both states, foreclosures are merrily being concluded destroying the lives of thousands of homeowners who do not realize that they have no reason to give up their home. My message is KEEP YOUR HOUSE. 96% of all foreclsorues are not challenged even a little bit. If everyone did challenge them and litgated their cases properly, my data shows that they would win, flat out, between 65% and 80% of the time.

In plain langauge while the line of cases follwign these key decisions creates an adverse atmosphere for the hoemowner, my experience, and that of many otehr lawyers who have litigated these issues since the early 2000s, shows that most judges who start with thinking the end result is “inevitable” (i.e., foreclosure approved), can be persuaded to conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support the claim.

 

The reason that the foreclosure mills cannot produce any real evidence to support their false claims when challenged is that there were no transctions supporting any of the purported endorsements of notes or assignments of mortgages. That is all faked.

And by the way, as I have pointed out repetaedly, it is no theory that foreclosures are based upon mortgages, not notes. There is no such thing as a foreclosure of a note. That does not exist anywhere in any US jurisidicition. People who argue otehrwise are deeply mistaken. But like all false claims you can make any theory fly if nobody opposes it.

And as pointed out by Attorney Randy Ackley in West Palm beach, Florida, my guest last night on the Neil Garfield Show, the mortgage lien cannot legally attach to an obligation or a note that has been converted into a security that has no relationship to the homeowner or any promise made by the homeowner.

And the reason for that is simple. Everyone has been paid and everyone continues to get paid in real life regardless of whether or not some homeowner makes a payment to someone unknown company claiming to be a servicer who is not actually receiving or disbursing the payment.

All of that thappened because securitization  did not invovle sale of the loan, debt, note or mortgage. If it did, the securities firms could not have sold it ten or twelve times over without committing outright fraud.The real scheme enabled the investment banks to generate many times the amount of any transaction with any hoemowner. So a default in any sense, much less the classic sense, is impossible.

EVERYONE GOT PAID. THERE IS NO FORECLOSURE INVOLVING A REMIC TRUST IN WHICH ANYONE HAS LOST MONEY BECAUSE A HOMEOWNER DIDN’T MAKE A PAYMENT.

 

3 Responses

  1. Question – who is legally allowed to credit report to agencies? Anyone? Must they be legal?

  2. IT is COMPLEX. But the records are there.

  3. Neil – don’t worry about the Ibanez v. Yvanova referral. Your seminar was the best according to one who attended – (Not me – I am not an attorney, and not pro se). Where I fundamentally disagree here – is where the “loans” came from to begin with. The prior loan is paid off with insurance — reported in internal default by homeowner prior to refi or purchase and without disclosure to homeowner who thinks they got a valid refi or purchase with REAL FUNDING. NOT!!!! So correct — paid off – but the big problem is – it was paid off by someone else – NOT THE HOMEOWNER – BEFORE the refi or purchase by the homeowner ever occurred and without disclosure to the homeowner or with their knowledge. Meaning — you never got a mortgage – you got reinstated debt. Nothing different than a modification from onset. That is what is missing here. Layered unsecured debt. Thanks.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: