Tonight! The elevator pitch in foreclosure defense. Getting rid of the feeling of weakness 6PM EST 3PM PST

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the Neil Garfield Show

Tonight’s Show Hosted by Neil Garfield, Esq.

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

So the Defense in your case is that

  • there is no claim, and thus no default
  • the named designated claimant is a nominee and has no claim, and
  • the designated company claiming to be a servicer is not servicing (i.e.,  it does not receive, account for or disburse payments from homeowners) and has no authority to declare a default much less prove that a default occurred — i.e., that the designated claimant suffered some actual economic injury arising from nonpayment that can be corroborated by admissible evidence.

And just to put a finer point on it, I strongly recommend that any lawsuit should be brought against the named Bank and not “as trustee” for anything. This is because the basic premise of your defense is that there is no trust that owns any underlying obligation owed by you to the trust.

Your secondary defense is that there is no underlying obligation owed to the Bank.

And your third line of defense is that any agency authority claimed by a company that has been designated as a “servicer” is irrelevant and immaterial and therefore not admissible into evidence unless the principal (US Bank) owns an underlying unpaid obligation due from the homeowner to U.S. Bank. See 9-203 UCC.

You do NOT advance some theory of securitization except as context. Do not attempt to prove how the current iteration of securitization operates. You will fail. But if you attack the simple most basic elements of the claim against you at the earliest possible time you will usually win the case — simply because there is no claim and no viable claimant.

And if I had to identify the main reason why so many homeowners fail in their defense of foreclosures it is that they or their lawyers project weakness on the issues of whether or not the unpaid loan account receivable exists, who actually claims to own it, who is actually authorized to represent the named claimant (owner), and the admissibility of a payment history in lieu of an actual loan account record starting with the origination of the loan and showing all debit and all credits to the loan account bearing the name of the homeowner.

2 Responses

  1. Preaching to the choir.

    But The judges do NOT give a sh*t. And it’s been well over 10 years now. The Entire Country should be on board by now and the Fraudclosures should have ended. But the parasites in Government refuse to do anything. And I’m starting with Elizabeth Warren who has been silent as a mouse. Cowards !!!

  2. Neil that is one of the shortest yet most relevant posts to date. Sort of like “ what part of NO don’t you understand”?!

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: