In 2005, reports started surfacing about fabricated documents, forged documents, and back-dated documents being used to promote “foreclosure” remedies. This one w as issued and submitted to the Supreme Court of New Jersey in 2010.
Like Florida and dozens of other states, the Supreme Court and lower appellate courts continued to ignore the most obvious conclusion: presumptions arising from such documents must be scrutinized and rejected if tested by the homeowner.
Despite the universal consensus about the use of fake documents that resulted in the 50-state settlement and dozens of other settlements, the best homeowners ever received was a promise not to do it again. That was a promise that was never kept nor even intended to be kept.
The one question that nobody asked was why fake documents became custom and practice. That only happens when there are fake claims. And indeed, all of the work I have performed since 2006, using my knowledge of investment banking as well as legal requirements under the UCC have essentially proven (in and out of courtrooms) that no claim exists at all.
Therefore there can be no claimant, plaintiff or beneficiary. The reliance on the apparent “holder” status relative to the note is irrelevant in the absence of a creditor who could authorize enforcement because it owns the implied unpaid account receivable. And just because homeowners think they owe money does not mean that there is in fact any obligation.
========
DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?
Nobody paid me to write this. I am self-funded, supported only by donations. My mission is to stop foreclosures and other collection efforts against homeowners and consumers without proof of loss. If you want to support this effort please click on this link and donate as much as you feel you can afford.
Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.
CLICK TO DONATE
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 75, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business, accounting and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*
FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!
CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. You will receive an email response from Mr. Garfield usually within 24 hours. In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
Click Here for Preliminary Document Review (PDR) [Basic, Plus, Premium) includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT). Includes title search under PDR Plus and PDR Premium.
Click here for Administrative Strategy ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE COMMENTS ON THIS BLOG AND ELSEWHERE ARE BASED ON THE ABILITY OF A HOMEOWNER TO WIN THE CASE NOT MERELY SETTLE IT. OTHER LAWYERS HAVE STRATEGIES DIRECTED AT SETTLEMENT OR MODIFICATION. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 14 years or more. In addition, although currently rare, it can also result in your homestead being free and clear of any mortgage lien that you contested. (No Guarantee).
Yes you DO need a lawyer.
If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.
Filed under: foreclosure |
Great article! Until the Supreme Court in Florida steps in, this travesty will continue against homeowners.
On February 7, 2022, Bank of America’s fabricated documentation was allowed in as evidence, while valid/accurate documentation distinguishing and refuting the discrepancies in timelines and alleged debt owed were removed as evidence. This team effort ensured that Bank of America won the case.