Patrick Giunta Esq. Scores Another Homeowner Win in South Florida v US Bank Trustee LSF9 Master Participation Trust: William Paatalo, Expert Testifies

Foreclosure volume has declined  but that doesn’t reduce the number of cases that are deficient and even fraudulent.

As more senior Judges have more time to review the evidence, the legal presumptions sought by foreclosure mills and come to conclusions about the facts, they  are increasingly suspicious about the claimant, the claim and the failure of proof of real facts.

Kudos again to trial lawyer Patrick Giunta, Esq. with offices in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Trial was held on October 7, 2019. This is the third time we have covered a win by Giunta.

Final Judgment for Defendant Case #50-2017-CA-012236, 10/8/19

Circuit Court West Palm Beach, Florida

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED AS FOLLOWS:

  1.  Plaintiff failed to prove it had standing to enforce the note.
  2.  On Count I, Mortgage Foreclosure, and Count II Re-establishment of Lost Note, Plaintiff US Bank as Trustee for the LSF9 Master Participation Trust take nothing by this action and the Defendants …. shall go hence without day.

Game set and match. The Judge here obviously sought to prevent the foreclosure mill from bringing another action.

Some judges upon finding that standing was lacking follow precedent and dismiss without prejudice enabling the foreclosure mill to try again. But more judges are taking great pains to examine the evidence and are coming to the legal conclusion that the Plaintiff’s proof failed.

Upon a factual finding of failure to prove a prima facie case, the court then enters Final Judgment, which for all purposes between that claimant and that borrower is a final determination on the merits.  Any future attempts to foreclose by US Bank or the LSF9 Master Participation Trust are barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel and the Rooker Feldman Doctrine if it applies.

If any attempt is made to bring another foreclosure action in the name of another entity, trust, LLC or corporation, they would also likely be barred without pleading and proving real facts that show that the Plaintiff is the owner of the debt and paid value for it and the previous parties had executed assignments and other documents without any right,  justification or excuse and without notice to the new claimant. That isn’t going to happen.

Giunta doesn’t take a lot of these cases but when he is engaged he tends to win. He understands securitization and relates it back to the failure to prove a prima facie case. He avoids trying to prove or even accepting the burden of proving who actually paid value for the debt, if anyone.

He employed Bill Paatalo in this case whose testimony underscored the deficiencies in the allegations, the documents, and the proof. Paatalo appeared as an expert fact witness.

 

 

Frustrated with Your Lawyer’s Attitude?

PRESUMPTIONS VERSUS FACTS

The bottom line is that lawyers want to do the best possible job for their client and get the best possible result. They like winning. But sometimes they must protect clients against themselves. It’s true there are lazy lawyers out there who take money and don’t do the work. But most of them want to win because their livelihood depends upon a good reputation in the courtroom which includes respect as a winner.

There is a  huge difference between what is written in statutes and case decisions and how and when they are applied. The fact that a court fails to apply the law that you think or even know should have been applied is not a failure of the lawyer so much as it is a failure of the courts to escape their bias. The simple fact is that I agree that most foreclosure cases should be decided in favor of the borrower but getting a court to agree is a daunting challenge to the skills of the lawyer representing a client who is largely seen as food for the system.

=====================================

GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit  the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM. The key to victory lies in understanding your own case.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 954-451-1230. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM 
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================

So in a recent email exchange here is what I said some things about legal presumptions. I should have added the following:

Another legal presumption or factual assumption employed by the courts and often overlooked by foreclosure defense lawyers arises from the naming of the alleged claimant. A typical naming convention used by lawyers for the “claimant” is “ABC Bank, as trustee for the certificate holders of the DEF, Inc. Trust pass through certificates series XYZ-YY-Z.

Several things are happening here.

  1. The case is being styled with the name of a bank creating a misleading impression that the bank has any involvement with the foreclosure.
  2. The reference to the bank as trustee is never supported by any assertion or allegation that it is indeed a trustee and under what trust agreement. The court erroneously presumes that the bank is a trustee for a valid trust who owns the claim.
  3. The reference to the certificate holders makes the certificate holders the claimant. But the pleading does not state the nature of the claim possessed by the certificate holders nor does it identify the certificate holder. In fact, the certificate holders have no right, title or interest to the debt, note or mortgage and are due nothing from the borrower. The court erroneously presumes that the reference to certificate holders is just a long way of referencing the trust.
  4. The reference to the corporation creates ambiguity as to the name of the trust or the party whom the lawyers are saying is represented in the foreclosure proceedings. The court presumes that the naming of the corporation is irrelevant.
  5. The reference to the certificate series falsely implies the certificates convey an interest in the subject debt, note or mortgage. By erroneously presuming this to be a fact the court is not only wrong factually but it is also accepting a presumption that i factually in conflict with the presumption that the claimant is a trust.

 

Here is what I wrote to the client:

I have no doubt that existing law, if properly applied, would be on your side. The problem is that the courts are bending over backwards to find false presumptions that create the illusion of applying existing law.

For example, the only claimant that can bring a foreclosure action as one who owns the debt and who has paid for it. Article 9 § 203 of the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted by state statute.

But the banks have convinced many courts that they comply with that statute. The way they do it is through the use of legal presumptions leading to false conclusions of fact.

So even though the named claimant has not paid value for the debt and doesn’t own the debt the courts end up concluding that the claimant does own the debt and has paid value for it. This is done through a circuitous application of legal presumptions.
*
By merely alleging that they have possession of the original note, it raises the assumption or presumption that they have the original note. This is probably false because most notes were destroyed and the banks were relying upon images.
*
By arriving at the conclusion of fact that the claimant is in possession of the original note (even though it is only a representative of the claimant that asserts possession) the courts then apply a legal presumption that the possessor of the original note has the authority to enforce it. There may be circumstances under which that is true, but that doesn’t mean that have the authority to enforce the mortgage.
*
By arriving at the conclusion that the claimant has the authority to enforce the note and has possession of the note, courts then take the leap that the claimant owns the note because they have alleged it. This is improper but it is nevertheless done because the court is looking for ways to justify a decision for the claimant.
*
By arriving at the conclusion that the claimant owns the note, and is not acting in a representative capacity (which is barred by Article 9 § 203 is of the Uniform Commercial Code) the court applies a legal presumption that the claimant has paid for the note (why else would they own it?). [NOTE: Many times the lawyers will say that the claimant is the holder of the note without saying that the claimant is the owner of the note. In such cases it could be argued that they are admitting to not owning the note but are merely claiming the right to enforce the note; by doing that they are admitting to not having paid value for the debt thus undermining their compliance with Article 9 §203 UCC as adopted by state statute. Hence while they might be able to enforce the note they cannot enforce the mortgage. The courts often erroneously presume that enforcement of the note (Article 3 UCC) is the same as enforcement of the mortgage (Article 9 UCC) — which should be addressed early and frequently by the defender of foreclosures.] 
*
By arriving at the conclusion that the claimant has paid for the note, the court applies a legal presumption that this is equivalent to payment of value for the debt. In this case the note is treated as a title document for the debt. This would only be true if the original payee on the note was also the source of funds for the debt.( In most cases the source of funding for the debt is an investment bank acting on its own behalf. But the investment bank never appears in the title chain nor as claimant in foreclosure).
*
Without the above assumptions and presumptions the claimant could never win at trial. The simple reason for that is that there’s never been a transaction in which the claimant paid value for the debt. It is only through the use of commonplace assumptions and legal presumptions that the court can arrive at the conclusion that the statutory condition precedent to initiating foreclosure has been satisfied.
*
In truth neither the court nor most lawyers actually go through the process of analysis that I have described above. If they did they would find multiple instances in which the presumptions should not be applied to a contested fact.
*
But the truth is that there is a bias to preserve the sanctity of contract and a belief that if the claimant is not allowed to succeed in foreclosure, the homeowner will receive a windfall benefit through the application of technical legal Doctrine.
*
The truth is that the court is granting Revenue to a fake party with a fake claim. The court is not preserving contract, since the contract has already been destroyed through securitization. There was no contract for revenue. There was only a contract for debt. 
*
And while the borrower might appear to be getting a windfall, the success of the borrower merely reflects the larger implied contract that included securitization and should have included payment to the borrower for use of the borrower’s name reputation and collateral. The windfall already occurred when the Investment Bank sold the parts of the debt for 12 times the amount of the actual debt.
*
So I mention all of this because I think it applies to your case. However you have an attorney and I don’t believe that a telephone conference with me is necessary or even appropriate. There is nothing in this email that your lawyer does not fully understand.
*
But the practice of law involves much more than written statutes or case decisions. The practical realities are that the courts are not inclined to give borrowers relief despite the fact that they are clearly entitled to it by any objective standard. The trial lawyer or appellate lawyer must make practical decisions on tactics and strategy based upon knowledge of local practice and the specific judges that will hear evidence or argument.
*
I understand your frustration. The situation seems clear to you and objectively speaking it is clear. but it has always been a daunting challenge to get the courts to agree. If your attorney wants a telephone conference with me, she can call me. But my knowledge of your attorney is that she has full command of the procedural options to oppose eviction or do anything else that might assist you. The only reason she might resist doing so is her belief that the action would be futile or potentially even result in adverse consequences to you.

Rescission and Burden of Proof

There are winners and losers in every courtroom. When dealing with TILA Rescission under 15 USC §1635 you must go the extra mile in not merely showing the court why you should win, but also revealing that the opposition is not actually losing anything. The same logic applies to every foreclosure where securitization is either obvious or lurking in the background.

The bottom line is that no payment of value has ever been paid or retained as a financial interest in the debt by the named claimant nor anyone in privity with the named claimant. Once you can show the court the possibility or probability that the foreclosure is simply a ruse to generate revenue then it is easier for the court to side with you. Once you show the court that your opposition refuses to disclose simple basic questions about ownership of the debt then you have the upper hand. Use it or lose it.

======================================

GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit  the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM. The key to victory lies in understanding your own case.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 954-451-1230. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM 
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================

Another analysis just completed for a client: The situation is that the homeowner sent a notice of rescission under the TILA REscission Statute 15 U.S.C. §1635 within days of having “consummated” the loan agreement. By statute that notice of rescission canceled the loan agreement and substituted in place of the loan agreement a statutory scheme for repayment of the debt which is NOT void. The notice of rescission only voids the written note and mortgage, it does not void the debt. The free house argument is pure myth.

The client goes on to ask how we can prove when the transactions occurred and who were the parties to those transactions and when they occurred. The answer is that you will never prove that. But you can raise an inference that the claimant is not the owner of the debt who has paid and retains value in the debt such that a successful foreclosure will not be used for restitution of an unpaid debt.

By undermining the presumptions arising from possession of facially valid and recorded documents you eliminate the ability of your opposition to use legal presumptions and thus require them to prove their case without those presumptions. The simple truth is that generally speaking they can never prove a case without legal presumptions. Once the presumptions are gone there is no case.

Here is my response:

It sounds like you are on solid ground. But as you probably know trial judges and even appellate judges and justices bend over backwards to either ignore or rule against the notice of rescission and its effect. For a long time, the bench has rebelled against the Truth in Lending Act generally. They rebelled against TILA rescission viscerally. Despite the unanimous SCOTUS decision in Jesinoski both the trial and lower appellate courts are unanimous in opposition to following the dictates of the statute and following the rule of law enunciated by SCOTUS.

You must be extremely aggressive and confrontative in standing your ground.
*
As for the “free house”  argument the answer is simple. There is no free house. unless you are seeking to quiet title, which I think is an unproductive strategy if you not on solid ground with TILA Rescission. You are only seeking to eliminate the current people from attempting to enforce the mortgage, collect on the note or enforce the note. The last point might be your weakest point (without rescission). Enforcement of the note under Article 3 of The Uniform Commercial Code is much more liberal the enforcement of the security instrument under Article 9.
*
It is actually possible that they could get a judgement on the note for monetary damages but not a judgment on the mortgage (without rescission in play). They can only get a judgment on the mortgage if the claimant has paid value for the debt. of course all of this should be irrelevant in view of the rescission which completely nullifies the note and mortgage.
Education of the court is extremely important. There is no free house in rescission. The obligation to repay remains the same. That obligation is not secured by the mortgage which has been rendered void nor is it payable pursuant to the terms of the promissory note which was also rendered void by the rescission. the obligation under contract (loan agreement)is simply replaced buy a statutory obligation to repay the debt.
They had ample opportunity to comply with the statute and get repaid. They didn’t. That is no fault of the homeowner.
*
If they want repayment of the debt they might be able to still get it. If they produce a claimant who has paid value for the debt and had no notice of the rescission and who regarded your current claimants as unlawful intervenors, the same as you, then it is possible but the court might allow the actual owner of the debt to comply with the statute and seek repayment of the debt.
*
At least that is what you will argue. You probably know that no such person exists. The ownership of the debt has been split from the party who paid value for it. So they probably don’t have anyone who qualifies.
*
As for your last question about discovering the actual dates on which the debt was purchased pursuant to Article 9 § 203 of the Uniform Commercial Code, as a condition precedent to enforcement of the security instrument (mortgage or deed of trust), the answer is that neither the debt nor the note were ever purchased for value. The whole point is that they’re saying that these transactions occurred when in fact they did not.
*

The only transaction that actually took place in which money exchanged hands is the one in which the certificates were sold to the investors. It might be successfully argued that the Investment Bank had paid the value for the debt so that is another possibility. If that argument succeeds then for a brief moment in time the Investment Bank was both the owner of the debt and the party who had paid value for it. But then it subsequently sold all attributes of the debt to the investors. the investors did not acquire any right title or interest directly in the subject debt, note or mortgage the only correct legal analysis would be that the Investment Bank retained bare naked title to the debt but had divested itself of any Financial interest in the debt. That divestiture generally occurred within 30 days from the date of funding the origination or acquisition of the loan.

*

So if you are looking for the dates of transactions in which money exchanged hands in exchange for ownership of the note you are not going to find them. but strategically you want to engage in exactly that investigation as you have indicated. there’s no need to hire a private investigator who will never have access to the money Trail starting with the investors in the Investment Bank. So your investigation would be limited to aggressive discovery. Your goal in discovery is to reveal the fact that they refuse to answer basic questions about the identity of the party who currently owns the debt by reason of having paid for it as required by article 9 section 203 of the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted by state statute.

*
This requires properly worded Discovery demands and aggressive efforts to compel Discovery, followed by motions for sanctions and probably a motion in limine.
*
Since you have a notice of rescission within the 3-year time period, what you are actually revealing is that your opposition has no legal standing. Their claims to have legal standing are entirely dependent upon the loan agreement which has been cancelled by your notice of rescission. Unless they can now also state that they are the owners of the debt by reason of having paid for it, they are not a creditor or a lender. therefore they have no legal standing to challenge legal sufficiency of the notice of rescission nor any standing to seek collection on the debt. And they certainly have no legal standing to enforce the note and mortgage which have been rendered void according to 15 USC 1635.
*
Their problem now is that their only claim now arises from the TILA rescission statute — and all such claims are barred by the statute of limitations on claims arising from the Truth in Lending Act. That time has long since expired.

*

It appears that no judge is going to like this argument even if it is completely logical and valid according to all generally accepted standards for legal analysis.

*
So you’re going to have to address the elephant in the living room. The fact remains that if you are successful, as you should be, you will end up with a windfall gain. The judge knows that and denying it will only undermine your credibility. The Counterpoint is that if your opposition does not own the debt by virtue of having paid for it pursuant to the requirements of statute then their attempt at foreclosure is really an attempt to generate Revenue. If the Foreclosure is not going to provide money for restitution of an unpaid debt it can’t be anything else other than Revenue.
*
In order to drill that point home you are going to need to argue, contrary to the judge’s bias, that not only is the current claimant not the owner of the debt by reason of having paid for it, but that the current claimant is not an authorized representative of any party who paid for the debt by reason of having paid for it and that the proceeds of foreclosure, if allowed, will never be used to pay down the debt. Again the only way you’re going to accomplish this is through very aggressive Discovery and motions.
*
Don’t attempt to prove the dates of transactions, the data for which is within the sole care custody and control of your opposition, and can be easily manipulated, if you only focus only on the paperwork.
*
Don’t accept that burden of proof. The only way your opposition has gotten this far is because of legal presumptions arising from that claimed possession of the original note. you need to research those legal presumptions. Generally speaking the legal presumption of fact must include the conclusion that the claimant is the owner of the debt by reason of having paid for it. Possession of the note is considered the same as title to the debt, The presumption arises therefore that possession of the note is ownership of the debt and the further presumption is that ownership of the debt is not likely to have been transferred without payment of value.

Legal presumptions are subject to rebuttal. the way to rebut the presumption is not by proving a particular fact but raising an inference that destroys the presumption. And the way to do that is by asking questions about payment to value for the debt (not just a note on mortgage) and pointing to the refusal of your opposition to give you an answer and to produce documents corroborating their answer.

After the appropriate motions, you will be able to legally require an inference that they are not the owner of the debt by reason of having paid for it and that they don’t represent anyone who does own the debt by reason of having paid for it. Once the presumption is rebutted, the burden of proof falls back onto your opposition. and because they violated the rules of discovery, your motion should demand that they be prohibited from introducing evidence to the contrary of your inference that they don’t own the debt by reason of having paid for it and they don’t represent anyone who owns the debt and who paid for it.

Don’t Admit Anything About the Servicers Either — It’s All a Lie

Want to know why this site is called LivingLies? Read on

Homeowners often challenged the authority of the named claimant while skipping over the actual party who is supporting the claim — the alleged servicer.

You might also want to challenge or at least question their authority to be a servicer. The fact that someone appointed them to be a servicer does not make them a servicer.

Calling themselves a “servicer” does not constitute authority to administer or even meddle in your loan account. As you will see below the entire purpose of subservicers is to create the illusion of a “Business records” exception to the hearsay rule without which the loan could not be enforced. The truth here is stranger than fiction. But it opens the door to understanding how to engage the enemy in trial combat.

That “payment history” is inadmissible hearsay because it was not created by the actual owner of the record at or near the time of a transaction and the actual input of data is neither secure mor even known as to author or source. Likewise escrow and insurance payment functions are not authorized unless the party is an actual servicer. The fact that a homeowner reasonably believed and relied upon representations of servicing authority is a basis for disgorgement — not an admission that the party collecting money or imposing fees and insurance premiums was authorized to do so.

PRACTICE NOTE: However, in order to do this effectively you must be very aggressive in the discovery stage of litigation. (1) ASK QUESTIONS, (2) MOVE TO COMPEL, (3) MOVE FOR SANCTIONS, (4) RENEW MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, (5) MOTION IN LIMINE AND (6) TIMELY OBJECTION AT TRIAL.

=======================================

GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit  the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM. The key to victory lies in understanding your own case.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 954-451-1230. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM 
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================
*
To be a “servicer” the company must received the appointment to administer the loan account from someone who is authorized to make the appointment. A power of attorney is only sufficient if the grantor is the owner of the debt — or had been given authority to make such appointment from the owner of the debt.
*
A person who is authorized to make the appointment is either the owner of the debt by virtue of having paid for the debt or an authorized representative of the owner of the debt by virtue of having paid for the debt. This is a key point that is frequently overlooked. By accepting the entity as a servicer, you are impliedly admitting that they have authorization and that a true creditor is in the chain upon which your opposition is placing reliance. In short, you are admitting to a false statement of facts that will undermine your defense narrative.
*
If the servicer is really authorized to act as such then your attempt to defeat foreclosure most likely fails because the case is about a real debt owed to a real owner of the debt.
*
The fact that they allege that they maintain records may be a true or false representation. But whether it is true or false, it does not mean that they had authorization to maintain those records or to take any other action in connection with the administration of the loan. Of course we know now that any such records are composed of both accurate and fabricated data.
*
We also know that the data is kept in a central repository much the same as MERS is used as a central repository for title.
*
The representations in your case about and intensive audit and boarding process most likely consist of fabricated documents and perjury. There was no audit and there was no boarding process. The data in most cases, and this probably applies to your case, was originated and maintained and manipulated at Black Knight formerly known as Lender Processing Systems.
*
Contrary to the requirements of law, the central repository does not ever handle any money or payments or disbursements and therefore does not create “business records” that could be used as an exception to the hearsay rule. The same thing applies MERS. These central repositories of data do not have any actual role in real life in connection with any financial transaction. Their purpose is the fabrication of data to support various purposes of their members.
*
All of this is very counterintuitive and difficult to wrap one’s mind around. but there is a reason for all of this subterfuge.
*
From a legal, accounting and finance perspective the debt was actually destroyed in the process of securitization. This was an intentional act to avoid potential risk of laws and liability. But for purposes of enforcement, the banks had to maintain the illusion of the existence of the debt. Since they had already destroyed the debt they had to fabricate evidence of its existence. This was done by the fabrication of documents, recording false utterances in title records, perjury in court and disingenuous argument in court.
*
The banks had to maintain the illusion of the existence of the debt because that is what is required under our current system of statutory laws. In all 50 states and U.S. territories, along with centuries of common law, it is a condition precedent to the enforcement of a foreclosure that the party claiming the remedy of foreclosure must be the owner of the debt by reason of having paid value for it.
*
The logic behind that is irrefutable. Foreclosure is an equitable remedy for restitution of an unpaid debt. It is the most severe remedy under civil law. Therefore, unlike a promissory note which only results in the rendition of a judgment for money damages, the Foreclosure must be for the sole purpose of paying down the debt. No exceptions.
*
The problem we constantly face in the courtroom is that there is an assumption that there is a party present in the courtroom who is seeking restitution for an unpaid debt, when in fact that party, along with others, is seeking revenue on its own behalf and on behalf of other participants.
*
The problem we face in court is that we must overcome the presumption that there was an actual legal claim on behalf of an actual legal claimant. Anything else must be viewed through the prism of skepticism about a borrower attempting to escape a debt. The nuance here is that the end result might indeed be let the borrower escapes the debt. But that is not because of anything that the borrower has done. In fact, the end result could be a remedy devised in court or by Statute in which the debt is reconstituted for purposes of enforcement, but for the benefit of the only parties who actually advance money and connection with that debt.
*
More importantly is that nonpayment of the debt does not directly result in any financial loss to any party. The loss is really the loss of an expectation of further profit after having generated revenue equal to 12 times the principal amount of the loan.
*
While there are many people who would argue to the contrary, they are arguing against faithful execution of our existing laws. There simply is no logic, common sense or legal analysis that supports using foreclosure processes as a means to obtain Revenue at the expense of both the borrower and the investor. And despite all appearances to the contrary, carefully created by the banks, that is exactly what  is happening.

Jurisdictional Defense —- Certificate Holders vs Trust

Litigators often miss the point that the foreclosure is brought on behalf of certificate holders who have no right, title or interest in the debt, note or mortgage — and there is no assertion, allegation or exhibit that says otherwise.

=======================================

GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit  the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM. The key to victory lies in understanding your own case.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 954-451-1230. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM 
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================

Here is an excerpt from one of my recent drafts on this subject:

*

LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION: the complaint attempts to state a cause of action on behalf of the certificate holders of an apparent trust, although the trust is not identified as to the jurisdiction in which it was created or the jurisdiction in which it operates.
*
Even assuming that such a trust exists and that it issued certificates, there is no allegation or attachment of an exhibit demonstrating that the certificates contain a conveyance enabling the holder of the certificate to enforce the alleged debt, note or mortgage upon which the complaint relies. In fact, independent investigation shows the exact opposite.
*
Nor is there any allegation that any money is due to the certificate holders or any allegation that the certificate holders possess the promissory note or have the right to enforce either the promissory note or the mortgage. Even if the indenture for the certificates were produced before this court, it would only show a contract for payment from a party other than the homeowner in this action. Accordingly, no justiciable controversy has been presented to the court. In the absence of an amendment curing the above defects, the complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
*
STANDING:
  1. As to Bank of New York Mellon there is no allegation or attachment to the complaint that alleges or demonstrates an agency relationship between Bank of New York Mellon and the certificate holders, on whose behalf the complaint is allegedly filed. If Bank of New York Mellon is the trustee of an existing trust and the trust is alleged to own the debt note and mortgage along with the rights to enforce, then the agency or representative capacity of Bank of New York Mellon is with the trust, and not with the certificate holders. Based upon the allegations of the complaint and independent research defendant asserts that there is no representative capacity between Bank of New York Mellon and the certificate holders.
  2. As to the alleged trust which has not been properly identified there is no allegation that the action is brought on behalf of the trust; but the implied allegation is that the trust is the plaintiff. The complaint states that the action is brought on behalf of the certificate holders who merely hold securities or instruments apparently issued in the name of the alleged trust. There is no allegation or exhibit attached to the complaint that would support any implication that Bank of New York Mellon possesses a power of attorney for the certificate holders or the trust. In fact, in litigation between Bank of New York Mellon and investors who have purchased such certificates, Bank of New York Mellon has denied any duty owed to the certificate holders.
  3. As to the certificate holders, there is no allegation or exhibit demonstrating that the certificate holders have any right, title or interest to the debt, note or mortgage nor any right to enforce the debt, note or mortgage. Based upon independent research, the certificate holders do not possess any right, title or interest to the debt, note or mortgage nor any right to enforce. In fact, in Tax Court litigation the certificate holders are deemed to be holding an unsecured obligation, to wit: a promise to pay issued in the name of a trust which may simply be the fictitious name of an investment bank. There is no contractual relationship between the defendant and the certificate holders. Further, no such relationship has been alleged or implied by the complaint or anything contained in the attachments to the complaint.
  4. As to the certificate holders, they are neither named nor identified. Yet the complaint states that the lawsuit is based upon a claim for restitution to the certificate holders. The reference to the trust may be identification of the certificates but not the certificate holders. In fact, based upon independent investigation, the holders of such certificates never received any payments from the borrower nor from any servicer who collected payments from the borrower nor from the proceeds of any foreclosure. In the case at bar. the complaint is framed to obscure the fact that the forced sale of the property will not be used to satisfy the debt, note or mortgage in whole or in part.
  5. As to any of the parties listed in the complaint as being a plaintiff or part of the plaintiff there is no allegation or exhibit demonstrating that any of them paid value for the debt, or received a conveyance of an interest in the debt, note or mortgage from a party who has paid value for the debt as required by article 9 § 203 of the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted by state law, which states that a condition precedent to the enforcement of a mortgage is the payment of value for the debt. Hence regardless of who is identified as being the actual plaintiff none of the parties listed can demonstrate financial injury arising from nonpayment or any other act by the defendant.
  6. In the absence of any amendment to cure the above defects, the entire complaint and exhibits must be dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and lack of a plaintiff who has legal standing to bring a claim against the defendant.
The only thing I would add to the existing second affirmative defense is the affirmative statement that based upon independent investigation, such signatures were neither authorized nor proper, to wit: they consist of forgeries or the product of robosigned in which the signature of a person is affixed without knowledge of the contents of the instrument to which it is affixed.
*
In my opinion, the specificity that I have employed in the above comments not only provides a basis for dismissal, but also the foundation to support Discovery requests that might otherwise be denied, to wit: who, if anyone, ever paid money for the debt?

Consent Order Contains Admission of False Affidavits and False Chains of Title

A lot of student loan debt ends up being claimed by “Trusts” that are exactly like REMIC trusts except they are not about residential mortgages. And as I have previously pointed out on these pages, the enforcement of those debts has gone through the same process of removing the risk of loss from those who made the loan and the creation of a scheme where it is perhaps impossible to find or identify any creditor who owns the debt by reason of having paid for it (as opposed to “owning the debt” by reason of having the promissory note or a copy of it).

As a side note, to the extent that debtors are prevented from discharging such debt because of government guarantees, I argue that such exclusion is inapplicable. Students should be able to discharge most student debt in bankruptcy. The risk has already been eliminated if the loans are subject to claims in securitization. The purpose of the guarantee has thus been eliminated.

=======================================

GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit  the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM. The key to victory lies in understanding your own case.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 954-451-1230. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM 
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================

Hat tip to summer chic

In this case, the CFPB filed suit essentially asserting its own administrative findings that mirror the defenses of homeowners in foreclosure, to wit: that the affidavits filed are false, and they are falsely signed and notarized, containing false information about title to the loan and false information about the business records.

What is interesting about this case is that the parties are submitting a consent order which includes as those findings of the court in paragraph 4 of the proposed consent order which states as follows:

See https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201709_cfpb_national-collegiate-student-loan-trusts_proposed-consent-judgment.pdf

4. Since at least November 1, 2012, in order to collect on defaulted private student loans, Defendants’ Servicers filed Collections Lawsuits on behalf of Defendants in state courts across the country. In support of these lawsuits, Subservicers on behalf of Defendants executed and filed affidavits that falsely claimed personal knowledge of the account records and the consumer’s debt, and in many cases, personal knowledge of the chain of assignments establishing ownership of the loans.In addition, Defendants’ Servicers on behalf of Defendants filed more than 2,000 debt collections lawsuits without the documentation necessary to prove Trust ownership of the loans or on debt that was time-barred. Finally, notaries for Defendants’ Servicers notarized over 25,000 affidavits even though they did not witness the affiants’ signatures.[e.s.]

PRACTICE NOTE: HOW TO USE THIS INFORMATION. Sometimes I erroneously assume that people know what to do with this type of information. So let’s be clear.

  • This information means that servicers, subservicers and lawyers claims regarding chain of title, business records, and their use of affidavits or even testimony is not entitled to the same presumption of credibility that might otherwise apply.
  • That means that the presumptions on the use of business records are not entitled to a presumption of credibility and that additional foundation testimony must be offered in order to assure the court that what is contained in the document is authorized, properly signed, properly notarized and most importantly accurate.
  • The entire case against debtors in these situations is entirely dependent upon the use of legal presumptions  that can be rebutted. Rebuttal of presumptions takes place under two general categories.
  • The first is that that the presumed fact can be shown to be untrue.
  • The second ius that the process of presumption should not apply because the proponent of the document clearly has a stake in the outcome of litigation and has a history of falsifying such documents.
  • Once you rebut the presumption, the case against the debot (homeowner, student) is gone.
  • The opposition has no evidence of proof of payment for the debt, and this has no foundation for claiming authority of the servicer, trustee or even the lawyer.
  • Such authority must come from the owner of a debt who has paid value for it.

Dan Edstrom senior forensic loan examiner writes the following:

This is similar to what is in the foreclosure review consent orders (from US Bank Consent Order dated April 13, 2011):
(2) In connection with certain foreclosures of loans in its residential mortgage servicing portfolio, the Bank:​
(a)​ filed or caused to be filed in state and federal courts affidavits executed by its employees making various assertions, such as the amount of the principal and interest due or the fees and expenses chargeable to the borrower, in which the affiant represented that the assertions in the affidavit were made based on personal knowledge or based on a review by the affiant of the relevant books and records, when, in many cases, they were not based on such personal knowledge or review of the relevant books and records;
(b) filed or caused to be filed in state and federal courts, or in local land records offices, numerous affidavits that were not properly notarized, including those not signed or affirmed in the presence of a notary;​
(c)​ failed to devote to its foreclosure processes adequate oversight, internal controls, policies, and procedures, compliance risk management, internal audit, third party management, and training; and​
(d)​ failed to sufficiently oversee outside counsel and other third-party providers handling foreclosure-related services.​
(3)​ By reason of the conduct set forth above, the Bank engaged in unsafe or unsound banking practices.
And what about this quote from the student loan consent order:
In addition, Defendants’ Servicers on behalf of Defendants filed more than 2,000 debt collections​ lawsuits without the documentation necessary to prove Trust ownership of​ the loans or on debt that was time-barred.
So wait a minute. They allege the debt cannot be discharged in BKR, but (alleged) student loan debt that hasn’t been paid on in years – isn’t it time barred?  How does collection action work after decades where they took affirmative debt collection steps after the debt was time barred?  In the instance I am thinking about, a dentist was BARRED from taking patients with some type of federally covered insurance and this forced them out of their occupation.  The student loan debt hadn’t been paid in 2 or 3 decades (in California).
So in a related case (time-barred debt) in BKR in CA, a debtor filed a lawsuit against a creditor for filing a proof of claim on a time-barred debt. He lost, the court ruled that if the proof of claim was not objected to (with the relevant objection being that the debt was time-barred), the debtor waived the affirmative defense.

How to Distinguish Between Ownership of the Debt, Ownership of the Note and Ownership of the Mortgage (or Deed of Trust)

Amongst the lay people who are researching issues regarding who actually can enforce a mortgage, there is confusion arising from specific terms of art used by lawyers in distinguishing between a debt, a note and a mortgage. This article is intended to clarify the subject for lawyers and pro litigants. The devil is in the details.

Bottom Line: In most cases foreclosures are allowed because of the presumption that the actual original note has been physically delivered to the current claimant from one who owned the debt because they both had paid money for it. In most cases merely denying that fact is insufficient to prevent the foreclosure because the court is erroneously presuming that even if the foreclosure is deficient the proceeds of sale will still go to pay the debt.

In most cases those presumptions are untrue but must be rebutted. And the way to rebut those presumptions is to formulate discovery that asks who paid for the debt, when and who were the parties to the transaction?

The  lawyers from the foreclosure mills will fight tooth and nail to prevent an order from the court directing them to answer the simple question of who actually owns the debt by reason of having paid value for it and thus who will receive the foreclosure sale proceeds as payment for the debt. The answer is almost always the same — the foreclosure mill is unable to identify such a party thus conceding the lack of subject matter jurisdiction and standing to bring the foreclosure action.

Eventually some party will be identified by changes in the law as being the legal owner of the debt. thus cleaning up the jurisdictional issue caused by utilizing parties who have neither suffered any financial injury nor are threatened with any such financial injury. But for now, the banks are stuck with the mess they created.

=======================================

GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit  the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM. The key to victory lies in understanding your own case.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 954-451-1230. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM 
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================

Transfer of debt is by payment for the debt. Payment means you have a legal and equitable right to claim the debt as your own. Payor is the new owner of the debt and the Payee is the prior owner of the debt. There are no exceptions.

*
The note is evidence of the debt. It is not the debt.
*
Payment of money to a borrower creates a debt or liability regardless of whether or not any document is signed.
*
Signing a document promising to pay creates a liability regardless of whether or not there was ny payment of money. In fact, if someone buys the note for value they become a holder in due course and the maker is liable even if they never received any money, value or consideration.
*
Enforcement of the debt alone is governed by statutory and common law.
*
Enforcement of notes and enforcement of the security instrument (mortgage or deed of trust) is controlled strictly by the adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).
*
Article 3 UCC governs the negotiation and enforcement of paper instruments containing an unconditional promise to pay a certain sum on a certain date.
*
Article 9 governs the transfer and enforcement of security agreements (mortgages and deeds of trust).
*
Whereas Article 3 does not require the holder of the note to be the owner of the debt for purposes of enforcement of the note, Article 9 requires the holder of the mortgage to be the owner of the debt as a condition precedent to enforcement of the mortgage. No exceptions.
*
Ordinarily the execution of the note causes the debt to be merged with the obligations under the terms of the note. But this is only true if the owner of the debt and payee under the note are the same party. If not, then the execution of the note creates two distinct liabilities — one for payment of the debt and one for payment under the terms of the “contract” (i.e., the note).
*
Before securitization it was customary that the owner of the debt had paid money to the borrower as a loan, and the execution of the note formalized the scheme for repayment. Hence under the merger doctrine the borrower who accepted the loan and the maker of the note were the same party and the Lender of the money to the borrower was also the payee named in the note.
*
Now this is not always the case and appears to be not the case in most loans, which is why the banks have resorted to fabricated backdated forged and robosigned documents. The Lender in many if not most loan originations was not the party named as payee on the note. And the party named as payee on the note had no authority to represent the interests of the lender. Where this is true, merger cannot apply. And where this is true, enforcement of the note is NOT enforcement of the debt. Rather it is enforcement of a liability created entirely by contract.
*
Foreclosure of a mortgage must be for payment of the debt, not just the liability on the note. All states have case law that says that transfer of mortgage without the debt are a nullity. This executing and receiving an assignment of mortgage and even recording it is a legal nullity unless the recipient paid money for the debt and the transferor was conveying ownership of the debt because the transferor had paid money for the debt. If those conditions are not met the executed and recorded assignment of mortgage is a legal nullity and the title record must be viewed by the court as lacking an assignment of mortgage.
*
The judiciary has not caught up with these discrepancies in most instances. Hence a judge will ordinarily presume that the delivery and endorsement of the note and the assignment of the mortgage was equivalent to the transfer of title to the debt, with payment being presumed for the debt. So while the law requires ownership of the debt by reason having paid for it, the courts presume that the debt was transferred along with the paper, subject to rebuttal by the maker and borrower.
*
The rubber meets the road when in discovery and defenses the borrower raises the issue of who paid for the debt and when. In the current world of securitization the answer will be the same: the banks won’t tell you and they won’t admit that the party named as claimant in the foreclosure never paid for the debt, despite appearances to the contrary. 

Keep the Envelopes! Attention Forensic Auditors! How to Show They Are Lying About Everything

The devil is in the details and it is in the details that actions don’t add up if one party is faking their status. 

=======================================

GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit  the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM. The key to victory lies in understanding your own case.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 954-451-1230. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM 
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================

Hat tip to Summer Chic

I have long described the practice of sending out correspondence and notices from, say for example PennyMac, from an address that has never been PennyMac. Summer Chic discovered with some snooping that the letter she received from “PennyMac” was sent from a Bank of America location. Bank of America claims no connection with PennyMac. In many such scenarios Bank of America claims no connection with the loan.

Of course that might very well be true. Because in the securitization game the real records are kept at the investment bank (who at least WAS the real party in interest when the loan was originated or acquired)  and a central repository from which documents, notices and other instruments are created, signed, sent and filed. In most cases this central repository is Black Knight, which is the new name of Lender Processing Systems, (LPS) who had a subsidiary or division called DOCX.

This is why the claims of a “Boarding process” are pure fiction, because the records are always kept in the same place and never move.

DOCX you might remember is the place where most of not all document fabrications took place including signatures that were forged or robosigned. Fabrication as you know means that they were creating documents that did not previously exist. Those documents did not exist for only one reason, to wit: there was no transaction  to document so the document was never prepared until it was necessary to fake it for the purposes of foreclosures.

Incredibly Black Knight is now used as a trusted source of information about mortgages and foreclosures despite being the central entity (operating through third party contractors) from which false documents are created and used in foreclosures.

It was necessary to fake it because under the law, it isn’t enough to allege or assert that a borrower failed to pay. Failure to pay is only a breach as to the owner of the debt who is entitled to receive the payment because he/she/it paid money for the debt and the rights to enforce. But no such payment ever occurred. If there is no rebach there is no claim.

So in order to cover-up the illusions created by fabrications of documents, it was necessary to fake the sending, filing and serving of process of documents. While this was accomplished in some corrupt courts (one right here in Florida), ordinarily it was accomplished by sending the notices not from the central repository, Black Knight, which would make it obvious that it was all coming from one place, but from different locations around the country — hundreds of them.

So in our example, PennyMac agrees to let Black Knight use its name for notices, and Bank of America agrees to have the notice sent from one of its thousands of locations. In reality the notice came from Black Knight and neither PennyMac nor Bank of America know what is contained in the notice, nor do they care.

In court, as I have repeatedly said, it is unwise to try and allege and prove all of that, because you will never get access to the real records of Black Knight, Pennymac or Bank of America. If you could you would would have one big class action lawsuit against all three of those entities. It is well hidden under agreements that might never see the light of day.

BUT, you can use discovery and cross examination to gradually educate a reluctant judge so that he/she gets increasingly uncomfortable with what they are hearing. By using discovery effectively you could even bar the introduction of certain evidence and legal presumptions because you never received an acceptable response to your requests for discovery.

The questions are quite simple: using the envelope as evidence (after proper foundation testimony or as a exhibit for ID to be later admitted into evidence) you elicit the fact that either the entity does not maintain any address at that location and never did or that the witness doesn’t know and that the employer refuses to answer.

You are asking the question “Who sent this notice?” knowing full well it wasn’t the witness or his employer or anyone else in the chain of title. If the witness slips and answers truthfully (which happens occasionally) that it was Black Knight then you’re off to the races with questions about what Black Knight is doing sending out notices on a loan with which they supposedly have no connection and on whose behalf the notices were actually sent.

Chase-WAMU: Is it time to Declare Non Judicial Foreclosure Unconstitutional As Applied?

Faced with a notice of foreclosure sale from a company claiming to be the trustee on a deed of trust, homeowners in judicial states are forced to defend using well known facts in the public domain that are not evidence in a court of law. This is particularly evident in scenarios like the Chase WAMU Agreement with the FDIC and the US Bankruptcy Trustee on September 25, 2008.

In my opinion the allowance for nonjudicial foreclosure in circumstances where a new party appears under a lawyer’s claim that the new party is the beneficiary under a deed of trust under parole claims of securitization is an unconstitutional application of an otherwise constitutional  statutory scheme.

All such foreclosures should be converted to judicial and the claimant must prove the essential element under Article 9 §203 UCC that it has a financial interest in the debt because they paid for it. Forcing homeowners to prove that such an interest does not exist is requiring homeowners to have access to knowledge that is unavailable and solely within the control of the party falsely claiming to have the right to enforce the deed of trust and promissory note.

In my opinion this is an unconstitutional application of an otherwise constitutional statutory framework. In plain language it favors expediency and moral hazard over truth or justice.

=======================================

GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit  the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM. The key to victory lies in understanding your own case.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 954-451-1230. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM 
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================

I have received questions, most notably from Bill Paatalo, the famed Private Investigator who has provided so much information to lawyers, homeowners and a=everyone else about the foreclosure crisis relating to non judicial foreclosures and the Chase-WAMU farce in particular. Here is my answer:

If what you’re saying is that the FDIC never became the beneficiary under the deed of trust, that is correct. But the legal question is whether it needed to become the beneficiary under the deed of trust. As merely a receiver for WAMU the question is whether WAMU was a beneficiary under the deed of trust and the answer is no because they had already sold their interest or presold it before origination.

*
If WAMU was an actual beneficiary then the FDIC was the receiver for the beneficial interest held by WAMU. If that is the case the FDIC could have been represented to be beneficiary on behalf of the WAMU estate for foreclosures that occurred during the time that FDIC was receiver.
*
If WAMU was not an actual beneficiary and could not, as your snippet suggests, sell what it did not own, then the FDIC’s receivership is irrelevant except to show that they had no record of any loans owned by WAMU.
*
One key question that arises therefore is what is a beneficiary? In compliance with Article 9 §203 UCC I think all states that a beneficiary is one who has paid value for the debt, owns it and currently would suffer a debit or loss against that asset by reason of nonpayment by the borrower. Anything less and it is not a beneficiary. And if it isn’t beneficiary, it cannot instruct the trustee to send out notices as though it was a beneficiary.
*
So any notice of substitution of trustee, which starts the whole foreclosure process is bogus — i.e., void as in a nullity. The newly named trustee does not possess the powers of a trustee under a deed of trust. Hence the notice of default, sale and trustee deed are equally bogus and void. They are all nullities and that means they never happened under out laws even though there are lawyers claiming that they did happen.
*
Despite the Ivanova decision in California declaring that such foreclosures can only be attacked after the illegal foreclosure, this is actually contrary to both California law and the due process requirements of the US Constitution.
*
With more and more evidence of fake documents referring to nonexistent financial transactions, the time is ripe for some persistent homeowner, with the help of a good lawyer, to challenge not only the entire Chase-WAMU bogus set up, but to get a ruling from a Federal judge that the abr to preemptive lawsuits to stop collection or foreclosure activity is unconstitutional as applied.
*
In nonjudicial states it converts a statutory system which is barely within constitutional bounds to an unconstitutional deprivation of property and civil rights without due process, forcing the homeowners to come up with answers and data only available to the malfeasant players seeking to collect revenue instead of paying down the debt.

How to Use Reports and Affidavits in Foreclosure Litigation: Required Reading for Forensic Audit Seminar Next Friday

Reports and affidavits are helpful but not always useful as evidence. It seems that many people think an affidavit from me will be the magic bullet in their case. It could be but only with proper presentation and following the rules of civil procedure and the laws of evidence.

This is required reading for people attending the forensic audit seminar next Friday. In the end I am seeking your reports to conform to the style and content of what I present at the seminar, in this article and other articles appearing on this blog. The end result for homeowner and their attorneys is to file reports and affidavits that are not only admitted into evidence but also given great weight by the trier of fact.

In plain language I would like to outsource the preparation of the forensic reports on the facts and limit my involvement to what I do best: present the facts with opinion corroborated by those facts. That means learning which facts are likely to give the homeowner’s lawyer some traction and which facts are just surplus accusations that can never be proven in a foreclosure case.

Because in a foreclosure case, the issue is not whether the players are bad players, evil or even thieves. The issue is whether the players can successfully present a case in which it appears that they have satisfied the conditions precedent and the elements of a prima facie case for enforcement of the mortgage through foreclosure.

The answer to that is either yes or no. And walking into any courtroom the presumption, at the very beginning, is that the answer is yes. Our job is turn that around and persuade through logic and facts that the presumption of the existence of the elements for a prima facie case for foreclosure are missing. And while out burden of proof is only a predominance of the evidence, in practice, for homeowners, that translates as something more than “more likely than not.” Where the answer is close, the court will always lean toward the party seeking foreclosure.

=======================================

GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit  the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM. The key to victory lies in understanding your own case.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 954-451-1230. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM 
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================

*

An affidavit is a sworn statement. It is not evidence unless a judge admits it as evidence. And it get no weight as evidence unless the trier of fact (the judge in most foreclosure cases) decides to give it weight. The judge won’t allow it or give it weight if it is merely opinions that are not persuasively presented by reference to specific facts or absence of facts. So while my affidavit may be helpful, it is not the opinion that counts nearly as much as the credibility and persuasiveness of the affidavit or report. There is also confusion as to how and when to use forensic reports or affidavits from me. So let me put it this way.

*
In what I call the case analysis, we ordinarily perform vigorous investigation and analysis and then sum up what we have found in the context of what we think might be the best issues on which you could get traction in court.
*
Sometimes we render an opinion and conclusions based upon a forensic report done by others, which we prefer to do. We then issue a report that can be formatted into the form of an affidavit. The issue being addressed in this article is for forensic examiners, homeowners and their lawyers.  An affidavit is frequently requested from me under the mistaken belief that possession of such an affidavit will be crushing blow to the lawyers seeking to enforce the mortgage or deed of trust on behalf of a party who does not ordinarily qualify as a claimant.
*
The simple truth is that the affidavit, no matter how strong or how great does nothing by itself. The issue is how and when the affidavit is used and under what circumstances — e.g. will the homeowner seek to have it introduced as fact or opinion. And will my testimony be used to pride adequate foundation for the affidavit to be introduced as evidence in a court proceeding.
*
So frequently the affidavit homeowners are seeking is “limited scope.” That code for “on the cheap.” I don’t issue reports or affidavits that I don’t think I can defend easily in court under cross examination.  But even if the scope is limited to one question, to wit: in my opinion is US bank a real party in interest, as you know I have already answered that in the articles I have published, although such articles are not necessarily applicable to any one specific case. The answer was “NO.”
*
And you say you want that answer in affidavit form. This is where consultation with local counsel is critical. There are several different ways the affidavit can be phrased and I have some doubts as to whether the answer, in the form of an affidavit, is going to help you. If you don’t know how and when to use the affidavit it won’t do you any good.
*
But I concede that it might do some good inasmuch as sometimes the affidavit is accepted in court in connection with a motion for summary judgment. In all other circumstances the affidavit is not admitted into evidence unless I am retained to appear in court or at deposition in lieu of live testimony in which I give live testimony providing the foundation for the admission of the affidavit into evidence.
*
The admission of opinion evidence is restricted based upon the court’s acceptance of my credentials, experience, education, training etc. To date no court in any state has rejected me as an expert who could give an opinion on the securitization of residential debt.
*
But in all cases where my affidavit or testimony was accepted it wasn’t the opinion that was given weight, it was my report on the facts, revealing an absence of necessary elements to the claim for enforcement of the debt, note or mortgage.
*
Opinion evidence is not admissible without a court approval or order. If it is opposed there is a hearing on whether to allow opinion evidence and if so whether it will be allowed from me.
*
So an affidavit that for a lay person or their lawyer could be helpful to shore up confidence in the attorney’s presentation of the defense, but not much more. It would look something like this.
Based upon the chain of title revealed in the forensic report and my examination of the actual documents recorded, together with my education, knowledge, my proprietary database, and my experience in the securitization of businesses and assets including debt, it is my firm opinion that US Bank never purchased the debt of the homeowner nor did US Bank ever receive ownership of the debt from any person who had paid value for the debt. 

*

Third party claims of possession of the homeowner’s promissory note are attenuated in terms of credibility and lack foundation as to whether such possession by third parties would be possession by US Bank. But such claims are nevertheless taken as true for purposes of this opinion.
 
Based upon Article 9 §203 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) there are two deficiencies in the claim of U.S. Bank to enforce the security instrument (mortgage), to wit: 
a) it does not and never has complied with the condition precedent in the UCC that it paid value and therefore has a direct financial stake in the come of a forced sale through foreclosure (i.e., the sale will not produce money proceeds that are paid to US Bank either in a representative capacity nor on its own behalf and
*
b) US Bank does not possess any claim for restitution because it has suffered no loss. Nor is US Bank expecting the receipt of any funds regardless of whether or not the homeowner makes a payment. While foreclosures have been concluded in the name used as claimant in this case, the proceeds of sale of foreclosed property has never been received or deposited by US Bank or on behalf of U.S. Bank.
*
The claim to enforce the mortgage like all civil claims must present a legal person that is possessed of a claim for restitution of a legal debt owed to the claimant based upon a duty of the opposing party owed to the claimant that was breached by the opposing party that produced real legally recognized injury to the claimant.
*
Failure to own the debt is therefore failure to present a legally recognizable claim to enforce the security instrument. Such failure is generally regarded in case decisions to be construed as a lack of jurisdiction by the trial court to consider any controversy where the real parties in interest are not present in person or by proxy.
*
In this case, neither of these conditions is met. The implied trust (and/or US bank as “trustee”), if it/they has any legal existence, has never entered into any financial transaction in which the debt was sold for value or transferred by a person who had paid value. This eliminates compliance with the UCC condition precedent to enforcement and eliminates judicial standing for US Bank to even bring a claim inasmuch as it lacks a legally recognized claim for anything against the homeowner in the case at bar. 

*
The affiant concedes that there is confusion in case decisions on this subject in which possession of the original note gives rise to the presumption of a right to enforce it. While it is doubtful that US Bank ever acquired possession of the original note much less rights to enforce the note, even assuming those conditions were met, that would only raise a presumption of title to the debt and the right to enforce it. But that presumption is factually and completely rebutted by the absence of any claim, transaction or instrument indicating that on any certain day the debt was sold to US Bank.
*
In fact, my specific knowledge regarding the securitization of debt is that an investment bank (brokerage firm) funded the origination or acquisition of the debt and retained ownership of the debt for usually less than 30 days. Hence no transaction in which the debt was sold could have taken place without the participation of the investment bank who advanced the funds. No such transaction ever occurred between the investment bank and US Bank.

Hence the subject debt was never sold or entrusted to US Bank. Hence possession of the note, at most, entitles the possessor to enforce the note, albeit not as a holder in due course since no value was paid. Such enforcement would be under Article 3 of the UCC and not under Article 9 relating to enforcement of secured transactions. 
*
My conclusion is that none of the parties named in connection with the claim against the homeowner have legal standing nor have any of them satisfied the condition precedent to enforcement of the mortgage through foreclosure.

In answer to the specific question posed by the homeowner’s attorney as to the status of US Bank in connection with this loan agreement, US Bank is not a real party in interest with any actual financial stake or risk of loss relating to the loan agreement nor was its purpose ever to serve as an actual trustee for a legal trustee of an actual trust that had any actual financial stake or risk of loss relating to the subject loan agreement.

Although certificates were sold in the name of the trust by the investment bank and other derivative contracts were sold based upon the value of the certificates, none of those contracts transfers any right, title or financial interest, nor any right to enforce, the subject debt, note and mortgage.

Hence any representations that US Bank is serving as authorized representative or trustee on behalf of the holders of such certificates or contracts is not relevant, since none of them have the right to enforce nor any ownership of the debt, even if they did receive the risk of  loss associated with the actual debt. 

So here is where local counsel comes into the picture. Depending upon how he or she wants to present your defense, is the above what they want, or do they want something more, less or different? Are you getting involved in pleading, discovery, preparation for a hearing or trial?

Because my credentials give me credibility and status, and because I would rather review forensic reports than prepare them, I am giving the free forensic law seminar on August 2 which is sold out. It is my hope that the business plans of forensic examiners will be enhanced by associations with established experts like myself in which affidavits are filed not by the examiners whose credentials nearly always in doubt but rather under the signature of someone whose credentials are not in doubt.

California Decision for Borrower Post Sale in Eviction Proceeding

BIG HAT TIP TO STEPHEN LOPEZ, ESQUIRE FOR THIS SAN DIEGO WIN!!

This is the latest of a string of decisions from trial judges who took the time to carefully analyze the law and then facts. In this case the issue was whether the Plaintiff in a lawsuit for Unlawful Detainer could be awarded Summary Judgment simply because the sale had been recorded.

This decision, following the law in all jurisdictions, says that recording the sale is interesting but not dispositive. If the actual sale was void because ti was conducted in favor of a party who was not a true beneficiary under the deed of trust, then the sale itself is void.

This judge quote approvingly from otheor case decisions words to the effect that any other decision would produce the absurd result of allowing completely disinterested parties to issue instructions to sell the property and then claim possession of homestead property.

Despite the long line of “bad results” published, this case shows that a case properly presented, properly argued and based upon sound legal reasoning has a good chance of gaining traction even after the foreclosure has been allowed to proceed. That means you need to prepare and be certain as to your facts and that you don’t ask the court to presume facts in your favor.

We don’t know how this case will  be decided at trial, if there is one. In all probability this case, like thousands of others like it, will most likely be buried by settlement with the homeowner and payment to the homeowner for executing a confidentiality agreement.

For those who bother to actually read the decision it looks like I wrote it. I didn’t. My point is that what I have provided in my articles is not theory. It is fact based upon established law and the real facts of most foreclosure cases. The assignments are void.

If the Plaintiff in this Unlawful Detainer case is unable to prove at trial that it is the owner of the debt it will lose because owning the debt is the key component or element of being a beneficiary under a deed of trust and a key component or element of a valid credit bid.

See 2019.07.15 – Minute order for MSJ

=======================================

GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit  the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM. The key to victory lies in understanding your own case.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 954-451-1230. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM 
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================

Key quotes from this decision:

“To establish that he is a proper plaintiff, one who has purchased property at a trustee’s sale and seeks to evict the occupant in possession must show that he acquired the property at a regularly conducted sale and thereafter “duly perfected” his title.” ((Code Civ. Proc., § 1161 a, subdiv. 3.) (Id.))[California]”

“[W]here the plaintiff in the unlawful detainer action is the purchaser at a trustee’s sale, he or she ‘need only prove a sale in compliance with the statute and deed of trust, followed by the purchase at such sale, and the defendant may raise objections only on that phase of the issue of title.”‘ (Bank of New York Mellon v. Preciado, (2013) 224 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1, citing, Old Nat’/ Fin. Servs. V. Seibert (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 460, 465, 239 Cal.Rptr. 728.) “The statute” with which a post-foreclosure plaintiff must prove compliance is Civ. Code, § 2924. (Bank of New York Mellon v. Preciado, supra, citing Seidell v. Anglo-California Trusts Co. (1942) 55 Cal.App.2d 913, 920, 132 P.2d 12.)

The term ‘duly’ implies that all of those elements necessary to a valid sale exist, else there would not be a sale at all.” (Bank of New York Mellon v. Preciado, supra at 9-10, citing Kessler v. Bridge (1958) 161 Cal.App.2d Supp. 837, 841, 327 P .2d 241 [internal citations omitted].) This holding by the court in Preciado makes clear that in Code Civ. Proc., § 1161a post-foreclosure trustee sale cases, a focus on the sale itself (rather than simply the recorded title documentation) is part of the analysis of determining  whether the title was “duly perfected.”

subsequent buyer must also prove that the trustee sale was conducted in accordance with Civ. Code, § 2924 and that title has been duly perfected. (Stephens, Parlain & Cunningham v. Hollis, supra, at p. 242.)

[l]f the borrower defaults on the loan, only the current beneficiary may direct the trustee to undertake the nonjudicial foreclosure process. “[O]nly the ‘true owner’ or ‘beneficial holder’ of a Deed of Trust can bring to completion a nonjudicial foreclosure under California law.” (Barrioneuveo v Chase Bank, N.A. (N.D.Cal.2012) 885 F.Supp.2d 964, 972.” (Id. at pp. 927-928.) Where the nonjudicial post-foreclosure trustee sale is not property initiated, ” … a borrower may base a wrongful foreclosure claim on allegations that the foreclosing party acted without authority because the assignment by which it purportedly became beneficiary under the deed of trust was not merely voidable but void.” (Yvanonova, supra, at pp. 851-852.)

“A void contract is without legal effect. (Rest.2d Contracts,§ 7, com. A.) “It binds no one and is a mere nullity.” (Little v. CFS Service Corp. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1354, 1362, 233 Cal.Rptr. 923.) “Such a contract has no existence whatever. It has no legal entity for any purpose and neither action nor inaction of a party to it can validate it …. ” (Colby v. Title Ins. And Trust Co. (1911) 160 Cal. 632, 644, 117 P. 913.) “If a purported assignment necessary to the chain by which the foreclosing entity claims that power is absolutely void, meaning of no legal force or effect whatsoever, [internal citations omitted] the foreclosing entity has acted without legal authority by pursuing a trustee’s sale, and such an unauthorized sale constitutes a wrongful foreclosure. (Yvanonova, supra, at pp. 855-856; citing Barrionuevo v. Chase Bank, N.A., at pp. 973-974.

it would be an “‘odd result indeed’ were a court to conclude a homeowner had no recourse where anyone, even a stranger to the debt, had declared a default and ordered a trustee’s sale.”

“[w]hen a non-debtholder forecloses, a homeowner is harmed because he or she has lost her home to an entity with no legal right to take it. If not for the void assignment, the incorrect entity would not have pursued a wrongful foreclosure. Therefore, the void assignment is the cause-in-fact of the homeowner’s injury and all he or she is required to allege on the element of prejudice.” (Id. at pp. 555-556.) “A contrary rule would lead to a legally untenable situation – i.e., that anyone can foreclose on a homeowner because someone has the right to foreclose. ‘And since lenders can avoid the court system entirely through nonjudicial foreclosures, there would be no court oversight whatsoever.”‘

What is Fair?

The question should not be the bipolar question of who gets a “free house,” with the answer being the borrower or a party claiming entitlement to enforce. The question should be how to create a new equitable and legal infrastructure to clean up the mess that the banks created without unnecessarily penalizing either the investors who put up the money in the first place and the borrowers who put up their lives.

This is a question that BOTH the courts and the legislatures must face for failure to do so compounds the already compounding chaos and tragedy that befell our nation when the scheme initially collapsed in 2008.

=======================================

GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit  the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM. The key to victory lies in understanding your own case.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 954-451-1230. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM 
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================
The borrower was lured into a loan contract in which she thought that the named lender had a financial interest in the outcome of the contract. The actual lender was a remote investment bank about whom she had received no disclosure and, as an average person of ordinary knowledge and means, had no access to information that would revealed the true nature of the contract.
*
Rather than seeking to conform to law in selling such loan products the real lender sought to avoid the law.
*
Rather than making money through the receipt of interest payments, the real lender intended and quickly divested itself of any interest or expectation of receiving interest or principal payments. The real lender also divested itself all of all risk of loss associated with payments. In short, the real purpose of the loan was to create multiple vehicles that could be sold as private contracts, resulting in the receipt of money that far exceeded the principal amount of the loan made to the borrower.
*
While ordinary residential homeowners normally rely on the premise that the loan’s purpose was to generate revenue and profit for the lender through the receipt of interest payments, her named lender would not and did not receive interest payments and had no profit except from fees paid by the remote investment bank through conduits.
*
Thus the actual lender entered into a loan arrangement without contract for the sole purpose of selling various attributes of the loan to as many investors as possible using as many complex financial instruments as they could conjure. The borrower had entered the arrangement believing that the named lender was the actual lender and that all compensation arising from the consummation of the loan was disclosed.
*
The actual lender retained no direct interest in the performance or outcome of the loan. The borrower was unaware that they had signed up for an arrangement in which the other side of the equation would create millions of dollars in “trading profits” arising from the declared existence of the loan, along with her name, reputation, signature and the collateral of her home.
*
Hence the goal of the lender was to create such loans regardless of quality. In fact, the lower the quality the more profit they made. And foreclosures became the vehicle by which the actual lender (investment bank) covered up the violation of federal and state lending statutes and common law doctrines of fair dealing and public policy.
*
Since judges thought that the proceeds of a foreclosure sale would go to the owner of the debt, and thus pay down the debt, they thought that there was little harm in granting foreclosures even if the paperwork was somewhat “dodgy.” But an increasing number of judges are questioning two main issues.
*
The first issue, which has been repeatedly voiced by hundreds of judges since 2008, is why there have been so many changes in the name of the servicer who supposedly was authorized to administer the loan and whether the servicer was actually administering the loan for or on behalf of an owner of the debt as required by law. Because without that its records would not  be allowed in as an exception to the hearsay rule. (The claimed “servicer” would just be a company that had intervened for its own financial interest which included fees for enabling a successful foreclosure. Hence their records would not have intrinsic credibility of a third party who had no interest in the outcome of litigation).
*
The second issue which is being raised with increasing frequency is why it was necessary to create documents of dubious origin and authenticity? In an industry that created virtually all the paperwork required for closing loan transactions, and created the industry standards for maintenance of such documents how and why did they manage to lose or destroy the original promissory note so often? (And why was it necessary to fabricate any documents?)
*
And a third issue which is only now being discussed with some earnest, is whether the right to resell the loan automatically includes the the right to use the personal data of the borrower for many sales of many of the loan attributes that were not contemplated by the borrower because they were hidden from the borrower.
*
Europe is ahead of the U.S. in understanding that personal data is a property right. But laws in the U.S. do answer the question. Where the contract in known by only one side to have attributes that are withheld from the other side it is subject to the doctrine of implied contract (assumpsit) in which the party discovering the true nature of the contract may enforce a right to receive compensation for the attributes that were previously unknown.
*
There can be little doubt that nearly all loan arrangements for residential property as collateral since 1996 have all the elements of an implied contract that is far beyond the scope of the written contract. Hence there can be no doubt that the borrowers are entitled to some form of compensation or damages arising from the implied contract and/or the violation of disclosure requirements in the Truth in Lending Act and state lending laws.
*
The scope of this issue is a fact. In 1983 there was zero in nominal or actual value of instruments deriving their value from debt. Today there is over 1 quadrillion ($1,000,000,000,000,000) dollars in the shadow banking market. The total amount of fiat (actual) currency in the world is only 85 trillion ($85,000,000,000,000) dollars.
*
The meaning is clear: for every dollar ($1.00) in real transactions of fiat currency there is, on average, $11.75 in trading profits for the banks and investors who trade in that market. That means that for the average of loan of $200,000 it is almost certain that the profits generated from the origination or acquisitions that loans was on average $2,352,941. In other words, payoff on the loan was incidental to the loan transaction — not the point of the loan arrangement.
*
The current claim by the banks is that this enormous profit from lending is the result of separate contracts and transactions that should not be included as part of the original contract with borrowers.
*
The claim by borrowers, while phrased in different ways, is that somehow the borrowers should be receiving some compensation or allowance as part of the package since the base transactions from which all value was derived for further instruments or agreements was their own signature, name, reputation and home as at least apparent collateral. Borrowers consider the non disclosure of the actual intention of the actual lender to be base violations of TILA and state lending laws.
*
In addition, with the proceeds of foreclosure sale being distributed as revenue rather than the payoff of a loan receivable, existing law is insufficient to deal with the crisis of nonpayment by borrowers most of whom have been paying servicers who have been feeding such payments into large pools of cash from which payments are made to the holders of “certificates” who only have a right to receive payments from the investment banker who was doing  business under the name of a nonexistent trust.
*
In some sense the holders of such certificates are the ones most likely to be considered owners of the debt. But the certificates themselves and the accompanying contracts (prospectus) clearly state that the certificates convey no right, title or interest in the borrower’s debt, note or mortgage.
*
There is no right of investors to enforce the certificates against borrowers and the certificates are not “mortgage backed” despite claims to the contrary. This has already been decided in several tax cases. Their exemption from securities regulation is therefore unfounded.
*
This has resulted in various parties posing as authorized enforcers of the debt and the security instrument ( mortgage or deed of trust). Regardless of their claimed title or status, all such entities share one controlling characteristic: they all initially or eventually claim to be acting in a representative capacity even when they present themselves as the “holder” of the note or any other claim to rights to enforce the note or mortgage.
*
The evolution of such claims lends some perspective. Initially foreclosures were brought in the name of “servicers” and when challenged the servicing claims were then accompanied by an denial of securitization or the existence of any trust that owned the debt, note or mortgage. As it turned out the lawyers for such entities were telling the truth — there was no such trust nor would it have been the owner of the debt, note or mortgage even it had existed.
*
In addition foreclosures were brought in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS).
*
Neither the servicers nor MERS ever could assert or allege that they had any right, title or interest in debt, note or mortgage. In the case of MERS it could not even alleged possession of the note or mortgage and had handled no money whatsoever in relation to any loan.
*
And in all cases the proceeds of foreclosure sales permitted by the courts were distributed as revenue to several participant claiming authority to act, including the lawyers, servicers, master servicers, and the investment bank. In no case were such proceeds distributed to the owners of certificates issued in the name of a “trust.” Several forensic analysts tracked the “credit bids” and quickly discovered that those bids were not submitted by a creditor.
*
The existence of the actual debt from the borrower has been converted from actual to theoretical; this explains the lack of any identified party who is the owner of the debt. This is not a problem created by borrowers who knew nothing of this scheme nor do they now understand it.
*
This all results in the posing of three issues that need to be addressed head on if this crisis is to end.
  • The first which everyone has voiced since the beginning of the crisis is whether the homeowner should get a “free house” merely because the paperwork is now out of order.
  • The second is whether the current parties receiving revenue from the sale of foreclosed homes should be allowed to receive a “free house.”
  • The third is whether the borrowers have always been entitled to receive compensation for the larger implied contract in which compensation and revenue was generated from the origination or acquisition of their loan.
*
Since this is a pervasive issue occurring through tens of millions of loan contracts, the best possible vehicle for addressing a remedy is through government action that goes far beyond the nominal settlements that have been announced thus far.
*
All stakeholders should be given a voice at this table. Any approach that is punitive only to one particular class of stakeholders should be rejected. Laws need to be changed to reflect the modernization of financial instruments, only after consideration of the effects of such changes. Any law that simply makes it easier to foreclose or to merely cover up the title and legal errors that have been occurring for 20 years should also be rejected.
*
If we are to make sense out of this chaos that was in fact conjured and created by investment banks, then we need changes in our property laws, contract laws, securities laws, lending laws, laws of civil procedure and due process, and laws of evidence. If the banks have put themselves in a position where they cannot foreclose on mortgages, that should not be the end of the inquiry.
*
The question should not be the bipolar question of who gets a “free house,” with the answer being the borrower or a party claiming entitlement to enforce. The question should be how to create a new equitable and legal infrastructure to clean up the mess that the banks created without unnecessarily penalizing either the investors who put up the money in the first place and the borrowers who put up their lives. 

How do I Use Article 9 §203 UCC Requiring Value Be Paid for Debt?

Many of you have essentially asked the same question referring to Article 9 §203 UCC as adopted by the laws of your state. There is no known cause of action for breach of that statute although one might be conjured. It is an interesting suggestion.
My reference to it is simple: the statute says that a condition precedent to enforcement of the security instrument (mortgage or deed of trust) is that the party seeking to enforce must have paid value for the security instrument. Translating that, it automatically means that if someone paid for it then they paid for the debt. BUT all law in all states says that if the “seller” or transferor does  not own the debt then the transfer of the mortgage is a nullity.
A condition precedent means you can’t do one thing without first doing the other. We are a nation of laws and personal bias about this is irrelevant.
GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit  the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM. The key to victory lies in understanding your own case.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 954-451-1230. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM 
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================

*

What many lawyers continue to miss is that there is a difference between the laws entitling someone to enforce a note and the laws entitling someone to enforce a mortgage. There are different public policies behind each one. For Notes, the public policy is to encourage the free flow of negotiable instruments in the marketplace. For mortgages, the public policy is to make sure that the civil equivalent of the death penalty (loss of home) is not imposed by someone who actually has no interest in the debt.
*
It is an added protection. As a condition precedent it means that standing to enforce the note is different from standing to enforce the mortgage. It is both factual and jurisdictional.
*
The grey area occurs because many states adopt the doctrine that if someone has the right to enforce the note they automatically have the right to enforce the mortgage. Although that seems to contradict the Article 9 §203 provision it actually doesn’t. That is because possession of the note by a person who is entitled to enforce it raises the legal presumption that the value was paid by the person on whose behalf the note and mortgage are enforced.
*
This is a fuzzy area of the law. But boiled down to its simplest components, it means that possession of the note is deemed (presumed) to be possession of legal title to the debt which, as we know from Article 9 §203 can only be true if the person has value invested in the deal.
*
The point of that policy is that if the forced sale of the house is not going to produce proceeds that will be used to pay down the debt, then the foreclosure should not occur. If the person on whose behalf the foreclosure is brought is not the owner of the actual debt then without evidence from the lawyers representing the party named as Plaintiff or Beneficiary, there is no evidence that the proceeds will go towards paying down the debt and the court is required, with no discretion, to enter judgment for the homeowner.
*
So the question comes down to whether the party claiming both possession and entitlement to enforce the note is the owner of the debt. The answer is yes if the homeowner does nothing. This presumption can be rebutted. A simple question as to whether the value was paid and if so, how many times, and demanding the dates and parties involved, would clear up the question if the banks had a factual answer. They don’t. They present a legal argument instead. As virtually all lawyers know, their job is to win however they can do it. So if they can’t dazzle the court with facts they can baffle the courts with bullshit.
*
Carefully educating the judge who most probably slept through the UCC classes in law school is key to winning on this basis but it has been done many times. All jurisdictions have case decisions that reflect what I have described above. You must find those decisions and present them as part of your pleadings, memoranda and argument in court. 

Payment History as Exception to Hearsay Rule

A recent decision from the 1st Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals applying FRE 803(6) states the current law — whether you like it or not. Pretending these decisions don’t exist or trying to avoid them is both pointless and highly likely to undermine your credibility in any other narrative or argument. Note that SCOTUS Justice Souter not only sat in on this review but wrote the opinion.

Simply stated the transaction history will be admitted into evidence every time — UNLESS the borrower disputes their content and demands a hearing on truthfulness of the foundation testimony in which the magic words are spoken, as set forth in the Federal Rule and virtually all state court rules.

That means that unless you have done the right research, the right investigation and the right discovery you will have no admissible evidence with which to dispel the notion that the transaction history is anything more than an independent reliable summary of events that is admissible as proof of the truth of the transactions that occurred, and which did not occur with respect to the borrower.

see 18-1719P-01A U.S. Bank Trust v Jones, No. 18-1719

GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit  the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM. The key to victory lies in understanding your own case.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 954-451-1230. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM 
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================

The lawyers for the servicer are pretending to be the lawyers for US Bank who knows nothing about the foreclosure and doesn’t care as long as it receives its monthly check in exchange for the license it granted for use of its name to make it seem like this is an institutional foreclosure.

Those lawyers are going to throw this case at you when you challenge the payment history on grounds of hearsay or foundation. Tactically that is what you want them to do because then you can quote from the same case as follows:

the business records of loan servicers may not always carry the requisite indicia of reliability. See, e.g., Brief for National Consumer Law Center and Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization as Amici Curiae 12-18. It therefore bears repeating: the admission of integrated business records in this context must turn, as it does here, on the particular facts of each case.

So if you have been reading or listening to my work then you know that I have been saying categorically that if you are able to persuade the judge that your case stands alone or is unique in some respect and NOT try to make blanket accusations about industry practices in general as the focus of your claim, then you are much more likely to obtain a favorable result.

Souter emphasizes that this is a case by case decision and admits that servicer records might be neither truthful nor trustworthy. But that is not enough to bar them from evidence. Your defense can’t be equal to “we don’t dispute what is in those records but we dispute whether those records qualify as an exemption.” You have just slammed the door in your own face.

If you are admitting even tacitly that the debt exists, that you have not paid it, and that there is a loss attributable to your failure to make a payment, you have lost the case. If you admit that the record is accurate, even tacitly by not contesting anything within it, that record is coming into evidence.

The Judge will always find a way. And to be perfectly fair, the judge should  find a way to make justice happen. If you owe the money and the party claiming the money or the foreclosure does so in an effort to pay down the actual debt, they should win and you should lose.

There is no law that says that technical deficiencies should preclude an otherwise valid claim. Sounds like I am arguing for the bank, right?

The rejoinder is that through research and discovery and investigation you have uncovered the following documents from the public records, from the claimant’s records and from regulatory authorities and the following witnesses. They will show that the homeowner disputes the content of those records and has consistently done so since discovering erroneous information on them, and that the transaction history is at best unreliable and at worst a pure fabrication, just as this same servicer has done in these cases……

The legal argument is not that the records are permanently barred or that the truth of the matters asserted are permanently barred. It is that the opposing lawyers must produce a witness who can be cross examined and who can reconcile the factual issues that the homeowner has challenged.

The opposing lawyers will then stipulate for purposes of “judicial economy” that they no longer seek to recover based upon the contested transactions, and that they will reduce their demand accordingly. That looks like you are cooked.

But the rejoinder would be that while the homeowner accepts the admission that the records are incorrect (you ARE allowed to recharacterize the statement of opposing counsel) these erroneous statements were made before the notice letters were sent, which were a legal condition precedent to the pursuit of foreclosure. You argue that they have now failed to comply with statutes that are to be strictly construed where someone is threatened with the loss of their home. Both the amount stated as due and the amount required to reinstate were incorrect.

The whole scenario comes down to the fact that you must use facts to persuade the judge that the opposing attorney must prove his case instead of relying upon legal presumptions and exceptions to the hearsay rule. You must push hard on this because you know they cannot prove the facts, they cannot prove authority, they cannot prove ownership because they are all only doing this for fees, not for recovery on the debt. The lawyers have no knowledge as to the identity of the creditor and they don’t care. You don’t need to prove that. But you do need to raise it as a question mark in the head of the judge.

Those transaction histories might have some accurate information in them but they are being produced by a party who has an actual interest in the outcome of litigation, so they are not trustworthy and they contain errors that the servicing company now admits, although candidly there is a real question as to whether the servicing company is not simply a volunteer out for profit, the same as the lawyer and US Bank.

Also remember to attack foundation this way: US Bank or a trust is asserted to be the claimant. Unless someone can provide foundation testimony based upon personal knowledge that these records are the records of the claimant, then the records of the “servicer” may be barred. No representative of US Bank comes to trial. It is always a representative of a servicer.

In  discovery the absence of records showing disbursements  to creditors by the “servicer” might be sufficient to establish that the transaction history is not the whole story even if it is right and they should not be allowed to enter only one part of the transaction record supposedly conducted in the name of the Trustee or Trust. To whom were they forwarding the borrower’s payments? When did they stop? Did they stop because the debt is now owned by someone else or because it was enver owned by the trustee or the trust?

McDonough v Smith: High Court Open Door on Fabrication of Evidence

This decision is extremely important for 2 reasons.

1st, it reaffirms a right under federal law to bring an action for damages for fabrication of evidence.

2nd, and equally important, it establishes that the time to bring such a claim does not start until the conclusion of litigation, whether successful or unsuccessful.

see Article on McDonough v Smith McDonough v. Smith, No. 18-485 (U.S. Jun. 20, 2019)

See U.S. Supreme Court mcdonough-v-smith-5

see 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.

I am uncertain at the time of writing this as to whether or not any attorney has thought to bring an action for damages based upon this statute. but it certainly seems applicable to foreclosure actions in which assignments, endorsements, notices, correspondence, and even deeds are fabricated for the purposes of obtaining a judgment in court.

[Additional Comments: after analyzing the cases, it would appear that this federal statute provides the basis for a cause of action for money damages and injunction.

However, close analysis of the cases involved strongly indicates that a homeowner will be able to use this statute only if he prevails in the prior foreclosure action.

While many attorneys are bringing wrongful foreclosure claims, and claims based upon fraud, this federal statute is probably an important addition for 2 reasons: (1) the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the case and foreclosure is over and is probably tolled by active concealment; (2) it appears as though the burden of proof might be a mere preponderance of the evidence that fabricated instruments and fabricated testimony were used in the pursuit of a wrongful foreclosure.]

If I am right about the SOL, that eliminates a primary defense of the potential defendants. If I am right about the burden of proof, it makes it far easier to prove a case against the defendants than using a cause of action for fraud.

This statute could be used in conjunction with virtually all foreclosure defenses and which claims of securitization are made and documents are fabricated, robo-signed and forged.

At this point, as any foreclosure Defense Attorney and most pro se litigants can tell you, virtually all foreclosures are based upon some chain of title that includes various alleged transfers or apparent transfers of the subject debt, note or mortgage.

Nearly all such alleged transfers do not exist except for the paper on which a reference is made to an assignment, endorsement, power of attorney or some other document that may or may not exist, and in all probability has been fabricated, backdated, forged and/or robosigned. all such documents are only valid if they refer to an actual event in real life. In connection with loans, the only relevant events are transfers of money. And in real life, in nearly all cases, no transfer of money ever occurred in connection with the execution of documents that were fabricated for the sole purpose of obtaining a foreclosure sale.

if I am correct in my interpretation, the statute could be used to include multiple defendants that might otherwise escape liability for actions alleged in a complaint for damages related to the fabrication of evidence and the use of fabricated evidence in furtherance of the scheme to obtain a wrongful foreclosure.

Illinois Court of Appeals Cracks Code of Silence on Who Pays Foreclosure Mills

The wording of the decision strongly suggests that whether the claimant is US Bank, Deutsch or BONY Mellon et al, the third party who is actually paying the lawyer must be disclosed — at least if the homeowner asks.

Given the nature of the role that the alleged Trustee plays — i.e., none except to give the appearance of institutional involvement — this decision opens the door not only to disclosure but to possibly answering the question of who is pretending to be the creditor.

GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit  the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM. The key to victory lies in understanding your own case.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 954-451-1230. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM 
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================

Hat tip Gregg DaGoose

Note that I endorse the reasoning here. The case should not used as authority as precedent except in the 1st District of Illinois. And of course the decision might further appealed.

see  https://jnswire.s3.amazonaws.com/jns-media/32/15/1386226/Margules_v_Beckstedt_appeal.pdf

We conclude that neither attorney-client privilege nor the Rules of Professional Conduct shield the identity of Steck’s third-party client, so affirm the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.

Relevant here, the citation requested “[a]ll documents evidencing any payments received by [Steck] or any others employed by [him] with respect to any representation of John Beckstedt [or When 2 Trade Group LLC] or by any other individual or entity acting on [their] behalf.” In addition, the citation requested “[a]ll documents evidencing any retainer received or held by No. 1-19-0012 – 3 – [Steck] or any others employed by or in partnership with [him] with respect to any representation of John Beckstedt [or When 2 Trade Group LLC] whether paid by [them] or by any other individual or entity acting on [their] behalf.” Steck, while noting and reserving some objections, denied having been paid by the debtors or anyone purporting to act on their behalf.

Steck responded that he had “no invoices, evidence of payment or other like records” because he had never billed or issued statements to Beckstedt or When 2 Trade. It was in this series of e-mails that Steck first asserted that “any information [he] ha[d] about [his] clients other than When 2 Trade and Beckstedt is privileged, including their identity.” [e.s.]

Attorney-client privilege “must be strictly confined within its narrowest possible limits.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Radojcic, 2013 IL 114197, ¶ 41. Generally, the privilege does not protect a client’s identity. Cesena, 201 Ill. App. 3d at 104-05 (citing People v. Williams, 97 Ill. 2d 252, 295 (1983)). Two exceptions have been recognized: (i) where “the client will be prejudiced in ‘some substantial way’ if his identity were disclosed” (id. at 105 (quoting Williams, 97 Ill. 2d at 295)) and (ii) where protection would be in the public interest (id. (citing Shatkin, 128 Ill. App. 3d at 525); see also People v. Doe, 55 Ill. App. 3d 811, 815 (1977) (collecting cases)). The party asserting the privilege bears the burden of establishing that it applies. Shatkin, 128 Ill. App. 3d at 525.

plaintiffs cannot even attempt to put forward “some evidence” until they know the identity of the third party. Steck’s assertion of privilege as to his client’s identity has cut off the litigation before questions about plaintiffs’ evidentiary basis No. 1-19-0012 – 10 – could even be asked. Steck inserted the issue of attorney-client privilege into this case, and as the proponent of the privilege, he must show its application. [e.s.]

In Shatkin, the court recognized that a client’s identity is not protected by attorney-client privilege because “disclosure of the identity of an attorney’s client provides proof of the existence of the relationship, provides the opposing party with proof that his [or her] opponent is not solely a nominal party, and provides proof to the court that the client whose secret is treasured is actual flesh and blood.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Shatkin, 128 Ill. App. 3d at 525; see also Doe, 55 Ill. App. 3d at 814.

It follows then that requests could be made in discovery.

The first is whether the named claimant (e.g. US bank) has any retainer agreement with the foreclosure mill.  This is relevant to the issue of an award of fees in judicial foreclosure proceedings.

The second is “all documents evidencing any payments received by [foreclosure law firm] or any others employed by it with respect to any representation of [e.g. US Bank, BONY Mellon, Deutsch] or [e.g. Ocwen, SPS] or by any other individual or entity acting on [their] behalf.” In addition, the request for production should probably include “all documents evidencing any retainer received or held by [foreclosure law firm] or any others employed by or in partnership with it with respect to any representation of [e.g. US Bank, BONY Mellon Deutsch] whether paid by [them] or by any other individual or entity acting on their behalf.”

The third is possibly a subpoena making the same demand for discovery made to the alleged servicer and its predecessors. This is relevant to the issue of whether the named claimant is in fact the real party in interest or, as set forth in the defense narrative, is acting as a sham conduit or front for third party actors.

No the Mortgages Are Not Securities, But the “Certificates” Do Not Qualify for Exemption As “Mortgaged Backed”

For those straining to find a way to categorize mortgage loans as securities I offer this based upon my licensing, training and experience as a Wall Street Broker and Investment Banker and as an attorney who has practiced law, including securities law for over 42 years.

You are climbing the right tree but you are on the wrong branch, in my opinion. Despite possible legal and logical arguments for your point of view there is no way any court is going to take the common mortgage loan and say it is a security, and therefore was subject to regulation, registration, disclosure and sales restrictions. And the secondary market does not rise to the level of a free exchange. While loans appear to be traded under the guise of securitization they are not actually traded.

BUT
I like your reasoning when applied to (a) certificates issued by investment banks in which the investment bank makes promises to pay a passive income stream and (b) derivative and hedge contracts issued on the basis of deriving their value from the certificates.
*
The specific challenge I think should be on the status of the certificates or “bonds” issued by the investment banks. If securitization in theory were a reality then under the 1998 exemption they would not be treated as securities and could not be regulated.
*
That would mean that the fictitious name used by the investment bank was a real entity, an existing Trust (or special purpose vehicle) (a) organized and existing under the laws of some jurisdiction and (b) the trust actually acquired loans through (i) purchase for value or (ii) through  conveyance from a trustor/settlor who owned the loans, debts, notes and mortgages.
*
But that isn’t what happened in practice. The entire business plan of the investment banks who participated in this scheme was predicated on their ability to sell the loans multiple times in multiple ways to multiple layers and classes of investors, thus creating profits far in excess of the amount of  the loan.
*
Right now each of those sales is considered a separate private contract that is (a) separate and apart from the loan agreement and (b) not subject to securities regulation due to exemption under the 1998 law that does not allow securities regulation of mortgage-backed instruments.
*
So the goal should be to show that
*
(a) the securitization scheme was entirely based on the loan agreement under the single transaction and step transaction doctrines and therefore was not separate from the loan transactions
*
(b) the certificates or bonds were not mortgage-backed because the holders have no right, title or interest to the loan agreements, debts, notes or mortgages and
*
(c) the derivative and hedge contracts deriving their value from the certificates were securities based upon the certificates (“bonds”) that are more in the nature of warrants and options on the value of the certificates rather than any direct interest in the debt, note or mortgage of any borrower.
*
Hence both the certificates and hedge contracts and all other derivatives of the certificates would be subject to regulation as securities. Based upon information I have that is very suggestive although not conclusive, it appears that the Internal Revenue Service has already arrived at the conclusion that the certificates are not mortgage-backed and the trusts are not viable entities because in order to have a valid trust it must have assets and active affairs. It must also have identifiable beneficiaries, a trustor etc.
*
None of those elements are present or even alleged or asserted by the lawyers for the foreclosure mills. The only “beneficiary” is the investment bank, not the certificate holders who all expressly or impliedly disclaim any right, title or interest in the loans, debts, notes or mortgages and have no right to enforce. This has already been decided in tax court. The owners of certificates are not the holders of secured debt.
*
There is no “res” or “thing” that is entrusted to the named Trustee of the so-called REMIC Trust for the benefit of identifiable beneficiaries. There is no settlor who conveyed loans to the Trustee to hold in trust for identifiable beneficiary except that as a catch-all the investment bank is named as beneficiary of any title to anything that might be attributed to the trust, if only the trust existed.
*
Attacking this from the top down is the job of regulators who refuse to do so. But the attack can occur from the bottom up in courts. As shown above, in any case where a trust is referenced in a foreclosure there is no legal standing. That is there is no existing entity that owns the debt. The investment bank funded the origination or acquisition of the loan but contemporaneously sold off the value of the debt, the risk of loss, the cash flow and other attributes of the loan.
*
The notes had to be destroyed and a new culture based upon images had to be put in place even if it violated law. The problem with the courts is not that they don;t get it; I think a lot of judges get it but don’t like the outcome of applying the law as it currently exists. So they wink and nod at fabricated notes, assignments and endorsements.
But those same judges, when confronted with unexplained deficiencies are forced to rule in favor of borrowers. And they do. This would best be done in mass joinder, class action or some other vehicle where resources could be pooled, but the procedural deck is stacked against such efforts.

===============================
GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit  the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM. The key to victory lies in understanding your own case.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 954-451-1230. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM 
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================

How to argue the “allonge”

An Allonge is defined as follows:
*
Allonge. Additional paper firmly attached to Commercial Paper, such as a promissory note, to provide room to write endorsements. An allonge is necessary when there is insufficient space on the document itself for the endorsements.
*
So the elements for a prima facie case involving proof of an allonge are as follows:
 
  1. It’s on a paper that is separate from the instrument (promissory note) itself.
  2. It contains endorsements (technically spelled “indorsements”). The endorsement conveys an interest in the note from the current owner to a new owner. It might contain restrictive covenants as to whether it is conveyed with or without recourse. 
  3. A condition precedent seems to be that there be insufficient space on the original instrument (note). This has not gained clarity in litigation. The presentation of an “allonge” contained a simple small stamped endorsement when there was room to place it directly on the note is indicative of foul play. At the very least it requires an explanation of why the endorsement wasn’t placed on the original. 
  4. It must be so firmly and permanently affixed to the note that it is actually part of the original instrument. In normal transactions involving commercial paper this requirement is strictly construed. In securitized residential loans this has not been strictly construed and applied. It is important to note that this requirement is meant to prevent the very thing that has been occurring for the past 20 years — unauthorized trading in debts that are neither owned by the buyer or the seller. 
An allonge can contain an endorsement to nobody, in which case it became “bearer paper.” Whoever has it in their possession is the owner of the note. But we have seen in securitization that being the owner of the note and being the owner of the debt are not the same thing. 
*
Notwithstanding the difference, the note can often be enforced without evidence of ownership of the debt because of legal presumptions arising from possession of the note. 
*
However, the fact that a party is entitled to judgment on a note does not mean they are entitled to enforce the mortgage or deed of trust which does require ownership of the debt as explicitly and expressly required by statutes in all US jurisdictions who have adopted verbatim the requirements of the Uniform Commercial Code Article 9 §203 which requires payment of value as a condition precedent to enforcement of the encumbrance (mortgage or deed of trust). 
*
It is custom and practice of the “industry” involved in foreclosures to use fabricated allonges that are not attached and never were attached to the original note. Such allonges are often executed by either a stamped endorsement or the signature of an “authorized signer.” In many if not most cases the authorized signer turns out to have been the real estate or mortgage broker on the loan at the time of origination. As such their “authorization” can be challenged. 
*
Upon investigation, discovery and analysis it usually turns out that neither the endorser nor the endorsee had ever paid value for an interest in the debt or the note. This revelation is useful in defeating presumptions arising from possession of the note. This revelation thus raises questions that may be sufficient to rebut legal presumptions that the court might otherwise employ in deciding the case. 
*
In fact, it could be used to defeat the presumption that the note is now evidence of the debt or that the merger doctrine, designed to prevent dual liability, even applies. This leaves the note as a separate claim for liability — separate, that is, from the debt itself. If the mortgage or deed of trust states that it secures the note that could mean that the mortgage is void or has become void. However if the security instrument ( mortgage or deed of trust) refers to the debt, then the security instrument would not be void unless the debt never occurred — i.e., there was no loan. 
*
You should refrain from making any decisions or taking any actions based upon “interpretations” or “advice” from the internet even if it from a knowledgeable licensed attorney like myself. You should get assistance from a professional who analyzes your specific situation to determine whether you can get traction in raising defenses or claims related to these issues. 
*

My Final Word On Quiet Title Strategies

Most people do not have a clear understanding about Quiet Title, because it means one thing to them and another thing in court. The common misconception about quiet title is that it is a thing that just happens, like the result of a magic bullet. In fact quiet title is a court process that begins with a lawsuit by the homeowner and ends with a court order declaring that the mortgage or deed of trust should be removed from the chain of title.
*
The most typical use of quiet title claims is clearing the chain of title of recorded documents that mistakenly or fraudulently describe the wrong property. The use of quiet title against a mortgage or deed of trust does not generally get traction in a court of law.
*
But the more recent strategy of attacking the assignment of mortgage and seeking nullification of that instrument has met with some success and it should succeed, because you are attacking the facial and substantive validity of that specific instrument and not the entire mortgage or deed of trust. That strategy merely attacks the technical requirements for creation and recording of an an instrument affecting title to real property and attacking the substantive validity of the assignment by revealing that the debt was not transferred to the assignee by a party who owned the debt.
*
The current fad of proving unenforceability of the indebtedness does not provide the foundation for quiet title unless you can prove that that (a) the indebtedness never existed or (b) the debt has been satisfied. It is entirely possible for a court of law to determine that the mortgage or deed of trust cannot be enforced by the parties who initiated foreclosure. But that does not mean that the mortgage or deed of trust is a nullity. So winning the case on the debt against a particular party who sought to enforce it does not automatically mean that you proved a prima facie case that the debt was never or is not now subject to enforcement by anyone.
*
The elements for quiet title are fairly simple. The lawsuit asks for a declaratory judgment finding, as a matter of fact and law, that the encumbrance is a nullity, which means that legally the encumbrance does not exist — not that it should not exist. In plain language that means that a judge finds that the mortgage or deed of trust does not secure any indebtedness owed by the owner of the property to the mortgagee on a mortgage or the beneficiary on a deed of trust.
*
 The “mortgagee” or “beneficiary” includes legal successors to the named mortgagee on the mortgage or the named beneficiary (lender) on the deed of trust. Successfully attacking the assignment means that you have negated the assignment which returns the title to the mortgage to the previous party who might be the the original mortgagee or beneficiary or lender.
*
Where MERS has been used as a buffer in the title chain legal practitioners should be aware that the MERS relationship to the original “lender” is tenuous at best and most probably nonexistent to pretenders who claim to be successors — because most loans were table funded without any legal or equitable relationship between MERS and the investment bank that funded the origination or acquisition of the loan. Since no transfer of beneficial interest or interest of a mortgagee legally exists without transfer of the debt, it is nearly impossible for anyone to show an assignment with a legal transfer of the debt from an owner of that debt.
*
The only way the pretender lenders can succeed is by wearing down the homeowner who must be willing to expend considerable time, money and energy defending his property. They can do this by using legal arguments that come from legal presumptions a rising from the apparent facial validity of self serving documents they have fabricated, forged or robosigned to create the illusion of a legal chain of title.
*
Securitization has opened many doors to homeowners who persistently and effectively challenge the parties who initiate foreclosures. It is now almost always true that the party who initiates a foreclosure is not the actual owner of the debt nor does that party represent a legal entity that owns the debt. Transfer of a mortgage without the debt has been stated by courts throughout the 50 states to be a “nullity,” which means that the transfer never legally occurred despite the writing on a face of a document purporting to be an assignment of mortgage.
*
The word, “nullity” is what you are after and it probably only applies to the assignment. It probably will never be applied, despite arguments to the contrary, to the actual encumbrance except after a period of years after the attempts to foreclose have failed multiple times, it is evident that the the debt will never be enforced or is otherwise barred by the doctrine of latches or the statute of limitations.
*
Thus strategically it is important to start off with an analysis of legal title performed by a title analyst who has education and training to do it. That normally means an attorney but it could mean a person who writes title policies or who assesses title risk for title insurance companies. After the analysis, then you need someone who can suggest strategies and tactics that can be reviewed and implemented by local counsel  or pro se with the guidance of local counsel using hybrid legal services.
*
We provide the title analysis if you don’t already have it based upon a current title search, including copies of the recorded documents, and we provide a 30 minute recorded CONSULT based upon a review of both the title analysis and unrecorded documents such as notices, correspondence or statements from some party purporting to be the “servicer.”
*
Nothing contained in this email or anywhere on this blog should be considered legal advice upon which you can rely. Get a lawyer.

SCOTUS Revives Qui Tam Actions

Until this decision I had assumed that Qui Tam actions were essentially dead in relation to the mortgage meltdown. Now I don’t think so.

The question presented is whether actions brought by a private person acting as a relator on behalf of a government entity can bring claims for damages under the False Claims Act. Such actions are barred by the statute of limitations, which requires a violation to be brought within six years of the violation or three years “after the date when facts material to the right of action are known or reasonably should have been known by the official of the United States charged with responsibility to act in the circumstances.”[3] 

In a unanimous decision the Court held that the tolling period applies to private relator actions. This does not by any stretch of the imagination create a slam dunk. Relators must have special knowledge of the false claim and the damage caused to the government. It will still be necessary to argue in an uphill battle that the true facts of the securitization scheme are only now unfolding as more evidence appears that the parties claiming foreclosure are neither seeking nor receiving the benefit of sale proceeds on foreclosed property.

Some claims might relate back to the origination of mortgages and some relate to the trading of paper creating the illusion of ownership of loans. Still others may relate to the effect on local and State government (as long as the Federal government was involved in covering their expenses) in the bailout presumably for losses incurred as a result of default on mortgage loans in which there was no loss to the party who received the bailout, nor did such bailout proceeds ever find the investors who actually funded the origination or acquisition of loans.

And remember that a relator needs to prove special knowledge that is arguably unique. The statute was meant to cover whistleblowers from within an agency or commercial enterprise but is broader than that. The courts tend to restrict the use of Qui Tam actions when brought by a relator who is not an “insider.”

See https://www.natlawreview.com/article/supreme-court-recognizes-longer-statute-limitations-qui-tam-plaintiffs-false-claims

See Review of False Claims Act 18-315_1b8e

See Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Hunt

I also find some relevance in the decision penned by J. Thomas writing for the court as it applies to TILA Rescission, FDCPA claims, RESPA claims and other claims based upon statute:

Because a single use of a statutory phrase generally must have a fixed meaning, see Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U. S. 135, 143, interpretations that would “attribute different meanings to the same phrase” should be avoided, Reno v. Bossier Parish School Bd., 528 U. S. 320, 329. Here, the clear text of the statute controls. Cochise’s reliance on Graham County Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 545 U. S. 409, is misplaced. Nothing in Graham County supports giving the phrase “civil action under section 3730” in §3731(b) two different meanings depending on whether the Government intervenes. While the Graham County Court sought “a construction that avoids . . . counterintuitive results,” there the text “admit of two plausible interpretations.” Id., at 421, 419, n. 2. Here, Cochise points to no other plausible interpretation of the text, so the “ ‘judicial inquiry is complete.’ ” Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U. S. 438, 462. Pp. 4–8. (e.s.)

Point of reference:

I still believe that local governments are using up their time or might be time barred on a legitimate claim that was never pursued — that the trading of loans and certificates were transactions relating to property interests within the State or County and that income or revenue was due to the government and was never paid. A levy of the amount due followed by a lien and then followed by a foreclosure on the mortgages would likely result in either revenue to the government or government ownership of the mortgages which could be subject to negotiations with the homeowners wherein the principal balance is vastly reduced and the government receives all of the revenue to which it is entitled. This produces both a fiscal stimulus to the State economy and much needed revenue to the state at a cost of virtually zero.

In Arizona, where this strategy was first explored it was determined by state finance officials in coordination with the relevant chairpersons of select committees in the State House and Senate and the governor’s office that the entire state deficit of $3 Billion could have been covered. Intervention by political figures who answered to the banks intervened and thus prevented the deployment of this strategy.

I alone developed the idea and introduced it a the request of the then chairman of the House Judiciary committee. We worked hard on it for 6 months. Intervention by political figures who answered to the banks intervened and thus prevented the deployment of this strategy. It still might work.

See also

http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/809786/White+Collar+Crime+Fraud/False+Claims+Act+Statute+of+Limitations+Relators+Now+Get+Up+to+10+Years+to+File+Suit

The Court also held that the relator’s knowledge does not trigger the limitations period. The statute refers to knowledge of “the official of the United States charged with responsibility to act in the circumstances[.]” Had the Court interpreted this provision to include relators, fears of protracted tolling by relators would largely dissipate because the qui tam action would have to be filed within three years of the relator’s knowledge or six-years of the violation, whichever is later. The Court rejected this approach, finding the express reference to “the” government official excludes private citizen relators. The Court held it is the government’s knowledge that triggers the limitations period.

The Court, however, left unanswered the question of which government official’s knowledge triggers the limitations period. The government argued in its briefs and at oral argument that such official is the Attorney General or delegate. As we have noted in prior posts (see Holland & Knight’s Government Contracts Blog, “ Self-Disclosure and the FCA Statute of Limitations: Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States v. ex. rel. Billy Joe Hunt,” March 27, 2019), there is a broader question as to whether knowledge by governmental actors outside of DOJ, including knowledge trigged by self-disclosure, should start the limitations period. The Court did not rule on this question, though its decision hints at an interpretation that includes only the Attorney General. If true, DOJ becomes the sole repository for disclosures that trigger the limitations period. That is, unless defendants can argue that DOJ “should have known” of the violation when investigative bodies such as the Office of Inspector General or the FBI have actual knowledge of the violation … more on this latter issue is sure to come.

%d bloggers like this: