Sham Affidavit Rule in Federal Courts Might Apply to State Court Actions in Foreclosure

A sham affidavit is one that asserts facts that are inconsistent with facts alleged in pleadings or previously proffered in discovery, prior affidavit or proffered documents. This happens a lot in foreclosure cases when foreclosure mills file motions for summary judgment. They often casually change the claimant by reference or name adding some power of attorney or other claim that is not attached or explained. The sham affidavit rule bars the affidavit in its entirety if it asserts facts or positions that are not consistent with prior assertions.
The sham affidavit rule can apply to attempts to contradict not only prior deposition testimony, but prior written discovery as well. We’ve blogged about the sham affidavit rule a number of times. Briefly, the rule is that:
[A] party cannot create a genuine issue of fact sufficient to survive summary judgment simply by contradicting his or her own previous sworn statement (by, say, filing a later affidavit that flatly contradicts that party’s earlier sworn deposition) without explaining the contradiction or attempting to resolve the disparity.
Cleveland v. Policy Management Systems Corp., 526 U.S. 795, 805-06 (1999) (string citation omitted). See also Perma Research & Development Co. v. Singer Co., 410 F.2d 572, 578 (2d Cir. 1969) (generally viewed as the seminal case on sham affidavits). https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=60c7a1e1-4d34-4916-9a12-f41ab8fc5bf6
If a sham affidavit is filed, it is therefore barred unless the affidavit itself refers to the prior assertions and explains the differences that appear in the current affidavit. This explanation is not something that anyone in the foreclosure mill or servicer can do since they don’t have access to any of the facts causing the issuance of a default letter or foreclosure in the first place. They are just following orders.

*Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.*

FREE REVIEW:

If you want to submit your registration form click on the following link and give us as much information as you can. CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us.

BETA TEST — DISCOVERY SUPPORT

Discovery

In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:

*CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA

*CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)

*CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS

*CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)

*

FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.

*Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

How to Deal with Motion for Substitution of Plaintiff in Foreclosure Actions

The single basic tool of the investment banks, who are secretly running the whole foreclosure show, is musical chairs. By rotating the players they can successfully bar the courts and the litigants from knowing or pinning down who is real and what is real. All of that ends if you sue the investment bank.

Look at any foreclosure in which claims of securitization are known or suspected and you will find “rotation”.

In nonjudicial states it starts with “Substitution of Trustee” on the deed of trust which can be done without any motion.

Before or after that there is a change in the name of the servicer, which has perplexed judges since I first entered the picture in 2006.

Then there was a change in the credit bid after the foreclosure was complete or during the foreclosure sale where a new party mysteriously ended up “owning” the property.

And now we see with increasing frequency, the substitution of a new claimant or plaintiff during the foreclosure proceedings.

Motion for substitution of Plaintiff are becoming the rage simply because most state courts require a wrongful foreclosure action to be against the party who initiated the action. So the investment banks simply took their cue from that. They designate a new Plaintiff or a new claimant during the proceeding. Presto there is no wrongful foreclosure action. But there still may be the normal abuse of process claim.

Either way, they have no right to designate the first or the new Plaintiff or claimant. 


I would say that the likelihood of successful opposition to the motion for substitution of plaintiff is very low, as long as some explanation is offered. But this should trigger aggressive discovery where you go after the transaction by which the new plaintiff became the designee.

In a nutshell no such transaction exists because there was also no transaction by which the first Plaintiff became a creditor. It is all smoke and mirror. 


I am not saying that you shouldn’t oppose the motion for substitution of plaintiff. What I am saying is that the judge will regard it as merely a housekeeping chore until you raise the central issues of your defense narrative.

The moral of the story is that if you are going to sue for wrongful foreclosure you should be naming the investment bank that was calling the shots. Everyone else is a moving target with plausible deniability. That may not always be so easy to determine, but it isn’t impossible. We can help with that.

If you go after the investment bank you will be able to overcome the plausible deniability and technical requirements of claims based upon wrongful foreclosure. You can say that the action was brought by them using the name of a sham conduit. The change in “Plaintiff” therefore changes nothing.

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.*

FREE REVIEW:

If you want to submit your registration form click on the following link and give us as much information as you can. CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us.In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:

*CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA

*CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)

*CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS (not yet)

*CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)

*FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT.  THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.

*Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

Could IRS Enforcement of REMICs Bring Wall Street Into Line? Yes but they won’t do it. Investors and homeowners continue to suffer as victims of fraud.

The most obvious places to look for correction in the illegal conspiracies masquerading as securitization of residential debt were the IRS , the SEC, the FDIC and the FTC and probably later the CFPB. Qui tam (whistleblower) actions were regularly dismissed because the agency that lost money due to false claims rejected the notion that it was a false claim or that anything bad had occurred. Sheila Bair lost her job as head of the FDIC for protesting policy set by Presidents Bush and Obama that failed to hold the line.

So here is a 2014 article that talks about how we could have regulated the investment banks through IRS examination of the REMICs.

Corruption is the answer. Too many people were making too much money and were “donating” too much money to people in public office. Enforcement was impossible. The real answer is extremely simple — stop all private money in elections. All elections should be publicly funded. No exceptions.

see.. PA Journal of Business Law – REMIC Tax Enforcement

The problem remains that US government agencies refuse to police schemes that are labelled as securitization of debt. If they are securitization of debt then market forces apply and everything COULD even out in the end. The problem is that the debt was never sold into a securitized scheme and nobody cares even though that has eliminated even the possibility of the existence of any creditor.

*
REMIC policing by the IRS would be ideal to reveal the fatal deficiencies and fraudulent character of these securitizations schemes. It is why the first 9 lawyers tasked with drafting the documents for securitization all quit with one declaring that she would not be party to or an accessory to a criminal enterprise. There is no entity that qualifies as REMIC in residential loans. AND the reason is very simple:  neither investors nor the trust is buying the loans.
*
So all the tests and premises about having an ownership interest, and about the quality of the loans are all false tests designed to cover up the fact that there has never been securitization of any residential loan except is very specific rare circumstances where individual mortgage brokers have sold loans to small groups of investors with repurchase agreements. In most instances those turned out to be scams.
*
The way they got away with it is that there was a securitization process — i.e., one in which new securities were issued, even if they were unregulated. But only those schooled in Wall Street finance grasp the fact that they were securitizing bets on data — something that is very ornate and complex.
*
Once you DO grasp the idea of what they really were doing and are still doing then you see why all the documents in all the foreclosures had to be fabricated, forged, backdated and robosigned. 
*

You can also see why they have robowitnesses come to court and why they show only the business records of a servicer who has no contact with the so-called principal named in the claim or lawsuit. You can see why there is never a proffer of the business records of a creditor because there is no creditor.

*

There cannot be contact between foreclosure mill and trustee of REMIC trust, there cannot be contact between “servicer” and Trustee of REMIC trust, there cannot be direct contact between investment bank and any of the players because any such contact would undermine the essential ingredient of the entire plan — plausible deniability of intent or knowledge of the scope of the illegal plan.

*
The job of the litigator is to assume that that the entire thing is fraudulent and to ask for what they cannot give — answers to simple questions about the ownership and authority and status of the “obligation” that in reality is nothing more than a return of the consideration paid for a license to sue the homeowner’s private data and homeownership as mere points of reference for the issuance and trading of complex securities.
*
But you must make it look like all of those companies are in actual contact and that payments from consumers or from the forced sale of their property are going to a creditor. You need to do that in order to give a judge cover for ruling in favor of the investment bank who is not even in the courtroom.
*
The answer is as simple as simple can be: they are making everything up.
*
Documents are not real unless they memorialize something that happened in the real world. But Wall Street banks put together a plan that made it appear that a sale of the debt occured where there had been no such sale. Or to be even more specific, they made it appear that there had been a purchase by or on behalf of the investors or trusts. Nothing could have been further from the truth. The truth is that investment bankers never looked at homeowner transactions as loans. They saw the money they paid to homeowners as a cost and condition precedent to creating and selling new securities. 
*
Why no creditor? Because that is how you escape liability for lending law violations. 
*
Why call it a loan? Because that is how you keep consumers from bargaining for their share of the very rich pie created by investment banks in the sale and trading of derivatives, insurance contracts, hedge products and just plain bets on fictitious “movement” of data that was completely controlled, in the sole discretion, of the investment banks. 
*
They were printing money for themselves. The losers were and remain investors who buy “certificates” that are nothing more than a cover for underwriting the sale of securities for a company that doesn’t exist. the losers are the homeowners whose issuance of a note and mortgage triggers a vast undisclosed profit scheme in which the wealth of America shifted from the many to the few.

*
BUYING RMBS CERTIFICATES IS LIKE BUYING TULIPS JUST BECAUSE THERE IS A MOB OF PEOPLE WHO FOR COMPLETELY IRRATIONAL AND TEMPORARY REASONS THINK THEY ARE VALUABLE.
*

FREE REVIEW:

If you want to submit your registration form click on the following link and give us as much information as you can. CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us.
In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT.  IT IS NOT A SHORT PROCESS IF YOU PREVAIL. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
*
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

The Curious Distraction of Applying “Adverse Possession” Rules to Foreclosures that are Time Barred by Statutes of Limitation.

The reference to “adverse possession” in any of these cases is not about legally changing title due to the statute of limitations enabling adverse possession. I know what that looks like. Possession that is adverse is not the legal definition of the statute governing “adverse possession”. Not even close. In this case the court was using the words “adverse possession” loosely. An adverse possession claim is procedural and substantive.
*
For adverse possession to even be an issue that a court could adjudicate one would need to file a complaint alleging that the Plaintiff did NOT have legal title but had possessed the property is an open, adverse way directly against the interests of the title owner. No such complaint has been filed or even referenced in your case or this opinion from the court.
*
In the absence of a claim in which a Plaintiff seeks specific relief, the court has no authority or jurisdiction to even consider, much less decide a case. Any ruling predicated on the existence of such a claim  is ultra vires (beyond the authority of the court).
*
The only possible procedural exception would be that evidence was admitted without objection into the court record supporting proof that the Plaintiff was occupying land owned by the defendant and that such possession was open, notorious, continuous, hostile, adverse, exclusive and all the other elements of adverse possession. Then a motion to amend the pleading to conform to the evidence could be heard and granted. No such motion was brought in your case or any of these case you are showing me.
*
So none of the cases are or even could be adverse possession cases. Opposing counsel is standing adverse possession on its head. She is saying that you are the owner and you are the possessor but that your ownership and possession are adverse to their interest in a process called foreclosure. Note that by definition they are not saying they own or possess the property already. And they are not even saying they have a right to possession. They are saying they have a right to foreclose. The issue of possession could not even be before the court until the court grants foreclosure and there is a sale of the property.
*
The right to foreclose is based upon procedural and substantive law. The right to foreclose comes from contract. The contract is the mortgage. The mortgage, contrary to what everyone usually says, has many provisions in it that state that the mortgagor/owner of the property has agreed to undertake certain obligations of maintenance, insurance, and otherwise prevent the value from declining in value except for ordinary wear and tear and passage of time.
*
In addition to those covenants the mortgage provides a right to the mortgagee to foreclose if the mortgagor is in breach of the mortgage covenants, one of which is the payment of money in accordance with the terms and conditions of a promissory note. The payment of money is usually referred to as the note which sets forth how much money and the terms of payment. Thus the owner of the property is a mortgagor under the mortgage and an obligor under the note. Those are two separate instruments. 
*
If the note is evidence of an underlying debt like a loan from the Payee to the Payor, then the underlying debt is merged into the note by judicial doctrine to prevent the appearance of two liabilities for the same debt. If the named payee on the note is not actually the party who loaned the money then the merger doctrine does not apply and you have two legal liabilities — one because the debtor received money and the other because the same person executed a negotiable instrument that creates a separate liability regardless of the facts and circumstances of the “loan.”
*
In such circumstances the Payor could complain and defend that it received no consideration from the payee and avoid liability at trial, but that would not result in dismissal of the lawsuit. That would be a question of fact for the trier of fact to decide.
*
And if the negotiable instrument (note) was purchased for value in good faith and without knowledge of the Payor’s defense of lack of consideration, it is quite possible for a judgment to be entered against the Payor, which could include foreclosure of the mortgage which provides for foreclosure in the event that the obligor/mortgagor breaches the terms of the note. And all of that would be in addition to claims that could be made by the real owner of the debt to get paid. The recourse for the homeowner in such a situation is solely against the party who lured him into a signing a note without ever providing the consideration and without any intent to do so.
*
As you can see from this exposition, it is entirely possible for the homeowner to theoretically lose twice and be left with a remedy against a now bankrupt originator.
*
All of the above is necessary context to see where these courts are going wrong about the existence of the mortgage lien and its enforceability. They are entirely correct in seeing the note as distinguishable from the mortgage and even distinguishable from the debt. They could and often are three separate legal issues, each with its own set of rules. And those rules can vary depending upon the type of proceedings in which they are considered.
*
This is why in bankruptcy the lien survives discharge of the obligation for the debt. That isn’t logic. It is just law. The obvious theory would be how can they foreclose on a debt that no longer exists? And the answer is a legal fiction in which the debt is somehow owed by the land, which I know is absurd but that is the law. However that has nothing to do whatsoever with the statute of limitations and the rules of procedure in a state court. And there is zero support in statutes or case law that it does. That is also the law. It’s not matter of persuasive logic.
*
Your case is not a bankruptcy case nor does the defense rely upon discharge from bankruptcy which is the only proceeding in which the debt is eliminated as personal liability of the debtor but is retained as a liability against the land. No such doctrine applies in any other proceeding in federal or state courts. Nor has any case even considered the proposition. Nobody has ever suggested that the bankruptcy rule could be applied as doctrine to somehow change other statutory laws passed by the legislature that might bar collection, administration or enforcement of a debt, note or mortgage. It doesn’t exist and your opposition is not saying it does exist. So the issue does not exist.
*
What your opposition is tapping into is the idea that the mortgage and the note are separate contracts each susceptible to independent enforcement. For example even if a homeowner is up to date on payments due on a legal debt owed to a real lender the lender could still foreclose if the homeowner failed to comply with local laws and ordinances such that the value of the collateral was threatened and the government agency was threatening fines, liens and foreclosure. The mortgage contract, is, as your opposition suggests, independent up to a point.
*
The obvious logical argument in the absence of an enforceable underlying legal debt, is whether the covenants under the mortgage survive even if the note is not enforceable. I would point out here that your opposition is not advancing any such argument and that therefore even if the court were aware of this analysis it would still be wrong to consider it because the court is supposed to be deciding issues brought before it by the parties — not advocating for one side or the other.
*
If a Judge, as former trial lawyer, sees something that might advance the cause of one side or the other, the judge is required to be silent unless there are grounds for the court to sua sponte decide on an issue not raised by either side — like jurisdiction.
*
There are several logical and legal reasons why the mortgage continues to exist even though the underlying debt is unenforceable, which is most certainly and indisputably the case in your situation. One is simply that the statute of limitations can be waived or renewed by conduct of the debtor. While this has not happened YET, the fact that it is unlikely is speculative and no reason to cancel the mortgage lien.  And because of that possibility — along with the fact that no statute cancels the mortgage when the action is barred on the underlying debt — the mortgage lien continues to survive as a lien.
*
The mortgagee, assuming the assignments of mortgage were valid and legal and supported by consideration (very problematic in your situation), has potential or inchoate rights that cannot be extinguished. But that does not give any right to the mortgagee to foreclose the mortgage for the sole reason that the mortgagor, as payor/obligor on the note breached the note — at least not where such a claim is time barred by an unambiguous express statute addressing that claim.
*
The enforcement of the obligation is barred by the statute of limitations even though the breach is self-evident. This is a matter of public policy that the legislature of each state decides. Your state may have decided that if you don’t file the claim with six years of the breach you can’t bring the claim later. That is the law.
*
Only a law that that specifically expressly supersedes another law can be used to avoid the legal requirements and restrictions of the other law. No such law has been invoked in any of these cases (because none exists) and there is no pronouncement from any court that the law of adverse possession supersedes the statute of limitations on debt because only the legislature can do that.
*
The current statute of limitations is clear, unambiguous and expressly articulated.  If the legislature had meant to make an exception for mortgage loans, lawmakers would have declared the exception in the current statute rather than some vague presumed intent to allow for a conflict of laws where none exists.
*
The conflict only exists if it is invented. Opposing counsel has invented the conflict and convinced the court to follow her proposed “logic.” But like all arguments, if you start with the wrong premise, you end up with the wrong result. There is no conflict of laws and therefore there is no basis for the court to presume one exists.
*
Whether the debt exists or not is a separate question. The fact that a claim is time barred on a debt does not extinguish the debt unless there is a law that says that is the case. Some states have passed such laws.
*
Assuming the debt exists for purposes of this argument, there must be a creditor who has paid value for the debt in exchange for ownership or conveyance of that debt. It is pure speculation as to the reason why no claim was filed for within the express statutory period of six years after what opposing counsel claims was a default and acceleration of the debt. And it doesn’t matter what the reason was.
*
The claim is barred as matter of statute and public policy. The court receives no argument, assertion or basis for tolling the statute of limitations. That issue does not exist before the court.
*
Hence the only possible conclusion is that the statute of limitations applies and the current claim is time-barred; the mortgage agreement cannot be enforced in the future unless and until, during the express term of the mortgage contract, the mortgagor renews the debt or otherwise breaches the terms and conditions of the mortgage agreement — and a legally recognized mortgagee seeks such enforcement.
*

Three Card Monty: Why is Pandemic Relief Going to Servicers? Why are they not claiming relief for REMIC Trusts? Will homeowner debts be reduced by Federal payments to “Servicers?”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/21/business/mortgage-investors-coronavirus.html?referringSource=articleShare

By failing to require a credit to homeowners when the Federal government makes payments on claimed obligations, the bailout is simply adding to profit of investment banks, servicers and foreclosure mills. They are eating their cake and having it too. Obligations are paid off but their claim against homeowners remains unchanged.

Sign Petition to Change the rules to Protect Homeowners from Fraudclosure.

Foreclosures are filed in the name of a named Trustee for a collection of words that is then treated as an entity. More specifically it is treated as a trust. Sometimes the foreclosure mill goes further and says it is filed for the holders of certificates.

  • If a “trust” is the claimant in a foreclosure, why isn’t it a claimant in a plea for relief due to nonpayments from homeowners?
  • If the holders of certificates are suffering economic loss from nonpayment by homeowners why are they not the direct recipients of Federal relief?
  • Who is really going to get Federal bailout money and will it cover a loss or will it be profit?
  • If the ultimate result is that obligations are being paid, why isn’t the homeowner getting notice of a corresponding reduction in the amount of payments claimed as due?
  • Who is the real party collecting money and why?

The answers are obvious. Wall Street is again playing fast and loose with its labels to suit its own ends. If investors fail to receive payments promised them by the investment banks they have only the rights set forth in their contract with an investment bank —- the “underwriter” that underwrote the offering of certificates that were false labelled as “mortgage backed” and again falsely labeled as “bonds.” But the underwriter was actually the issuer. So the entire proceeds of sale of certificates went to the investment bank instead of a “REMIC Trust.”

And that is why there is no trust getting a Federal bailout and there was no trust getting a Federal bailout in 2008-2009. No trust has any claim to any money. So why are they Plaintiffs in judicial foreclosures and beneficiaries in nonjudicial foreclosures? Because the Wall Street banks are inserting a jumble of words to escape liability for making false claims.

Investors have no right to receive the payments from homeowners. So the relief package proposed by Fannie and Freddie is designed to shore up the value and liquidity of holding unregulated securities (certificates) in a market that is wholly controlled by investment banks (not a free market) and completely dependent on continued sales of certificates that are neither worthy of the high ratings conferred upon them by rating agencies nor worthy of being insured (unless the insurance contract is a ruse backed up by the expectation of a Federal bailout, again).

Hidden beneath the waves of economic loss and relief packages is an essential truth about what Wall Street has most people believing was the securitization of loans. But the loans were never sold, much less divided into pieces that were sold off as securities. It was personal data that was securitized and then there were complex instruments indexed on that personal homeowner data that was securitized. None of it had anything to do with the sale of any loan nor the collection of any money from homeowners.

While the foreclosure judgment and a sale of property  results in money proceeds, as I have reported here, it never goes to any Trustee, trust, or even investor. The money is sent to companies that have claimed to be servicers although they never say they are servicing on behalf of owners of the loans. that’s because the loans were never sold.

Those self-proclaimed “servicers” are actually collecting money for the investment banks who have labelled themselves “Master Servicers.” The investment banks receive money from multiple sources — continued sales of “certificates” (falsely  dubbed mortgage backed bonds), homeowner payments, and most importantly trading profits on various derivative and hedge contracts.

The obligation of the investment bank to make any payment to any investor who paid for a certificate is limited to their agreement when they purchased the certificate from the investment bank.

That obligation is in large part discretionary — i.e., it is based upon the sole discretion of the investment bank as to whether money paid to investors can be recovered and is further restricted by a discretionary determination s to whether there have been “events” based on indexing to certain data that is called “loan data.”

The servicing companies mentioned in the article cited above have no obligation to make any payments to the investors. Their function is to distribute money to investors by access to funds made available by the investment bank. And the assumption that their thin capitalization puts them in danger of extinction is a misapprehension of the true facts.

“Servicers” have no obligation to make payments to investors. None. Investors will get paid as long as investment banks see a reason to pay them. And the investment banks will see a reason to pay them as long as they can sell more certificates.

The proof is in the pudding. After the payments are made, homeowners are never given notice that the money claimed as due from them has been reduced. The game is on — get money from homeowners, force the sale of their homes even though everyone is getting paid. 

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.

FREE REVIEW:

If you want to submit your registration form click on the following link and give us as much information as you can. CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us.
In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT.  IT IS NOT A SHORT PROCESS IF YOU PREVAIL. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
*
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

This will probably get me in plenty of hot water with lawyers. Homeowners should be winning foreclosures most of the time. The reason they don’t? — Ineffective Counsel.

The problem is not the judges. The problem is the lawyers who walk into court believing that the loan is real, claimant is real, the claim is real and that they are only looking for technical ways to get their client out of a valid deal.
The problem is exacerbated by magical thinking — that by pointing out bad acts by the foreclosure mill or servicer they will automatically cancel the mortgage, get quiet title and somehow the “debt” will disappear. Is it any wonder that judges are responding negatively to such assertions?
*
Well I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that the primary basis for appeal in capital murder cases — ineffective counsel — is the real reason why homeowners think that the courts are ignoring the obvious. This is most manifest in a phenomenon I refer to as hallway trial lawyers. When they are speaking to their clients in the hallway outside the courtroom they sound great; but once inside the courtroom they are either mute or should be mute.
*
Hallway lawyers can be great trial lawyers — if they would only prepare and obsessively roll the issues over in their mind as they approach a hearing or filing of a motion, pleading, or brief. And they would win far more often than they would lose if they did the work. That takes two things that most people lack — other than trial lawyers — commitment and courage. Like any performer you must give it your best and accept a pie in the face occasionally.
*
In 45 years of litigation I have won and lost cases. Most of them I won. In hindsight I would say that virtually every loss is attributable to one factor —- lack of adequate planning, preparation and execution.
*
My own experience is that when I have done my job as a litigator I have consistently successfully defended foreclosure cases because there is no case. That knowledge propels to me to object, challenge and refute basic assumptions in an orderly, timely and effective way. I am clear as to the basis of my objections and challenges and how it it lacks foundation, relevance or relies upon inadmissible statements or documents. And I am relentless. 
*
While there are judges who simply refuse to consider any possibility of a homeowner victory, many of such judges can be turned when approached correctly. They are merely starting from assumptions they are required to make. They are not against the homeowner. They are for the rule of law.
*
The problem is not the judges. The problem is the lawyers who walk into court believing that the loan is real, the claim is real and that they are only looking for technical ways to get their client out of a valid deal. The problem is exacerbated by magical thinking — that by pointing out bad acts by the foreclosure mill or servicer they will automatically cancel the mortgage, get quiet title and somehow the “debt” will disappear. Is it any wonder that judges are responding negatively to such assertions? 
*
Why should any judge relieve a debtor of an obligation because of bad acts by a creditor? The answer is that they should not because if they did they would be destroying the foundation of a nation of laws. If you were owed the money then you would not think that is such a good idea either.
*
That is why I strive to show the truth of the transaction between the homeowner and whoever sold the transactional documents for the homeowner to sign or the truth behind the acquisition of what had been a valid loan agreement.
*
For the homeowner it was a loan and as soon as you admit that it was a loan, you are already in deep trouble. By admitting the loan you admit the existence of a conventional creditor and a conventional debtor. You also admit the existence of a conventional debt and you can’t contest  the non payment by the homeowner and therefore you are conceding that the homeowner is in breach of a loan agreement without excuse. Fabricating paperwork is no excuse to get out of paying a loan you received. You still owe the money.
*
The lawyers and homeowners who complain that this gives them no place to go are missing the essential truth of Wall Street securitization: in nearly all cases the debt was never sold. If you start with the wrong premise you will always end up with the wrong result. 
*
The entire enterprise was about selling and reselling private financial data of homeowners who for their part were tricked into thinking they were entering a loan agreement while the other side spared no effort in avoiding the title and liability of a lender under lending laws. That is not a loan and the agreement was not a loan agreement. 
*
More importantly, the agreement might not be enforceable at all since (a) there was no meeting of the minds and (b) there was an absence of consideration caused by the payment of consideration together with an obligation to pay it back.
*
For the investment banks this was solely about getting consent to sell private data and issuing sand trading securities based on the data not any debt. Anyone who does not understand the significance of that should probably not be litigating these cases. They will lose and thus contribute to the growing body of evidence that most people lose defending actions titled or labelled as foreclosures even though most people could win.
*
Mass joinder and mass petitions to change the mandatory requirements for filing foreclosure actions can be done with direction from licensed people who actually understand that there is neither an actual claimant nor a claim in the creation, administration, servicing or enforcement of any transactional documents in which a homeowner is one of the parties.
*
My opinion is that without central direction, preparation, investigation, and strategic and tactical planning by experienced trial lawyers, homeowners will continue to be food for a profitable scheme created and advanced by Wall Street.
*
My opinion is that this is a massive social issue as well. By finally denying Wall Street banks of profit from foreclosures and all the profitable events leading up to foreclosure, the vast inequality of power and wealth can be addressed, at least in part.
*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW:

If you want to submit your registration form click on the following link and give us as much information as you can. CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us.
In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT.  IT IS NOT A SHORT PROCESS IF YOU PREVAIL. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
*
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

The Problem With those Powers of Attorney

Just because a power of attorney appears to be facially valid doesn’t  mean that it IS facially valid, nor that it is substantively valid.

Sign Petition to Change the rules to Protect Homeowners from Fraudclosure.

Powers of Attorney are part of the strategy engineered by investment banks on Wall Street. Here is the problem with the POA or LPOA strategy.

In summary it is merely part of a larger strategy that seeks to create the illusion of real claims by real parties when in fact no such claim exists and no claimant exists. the claimant never gets the proceeds of foreclosure sale.

*
The reason they do it is to insert an intermediary who can claim plausible deniability and that they were just following orders. It also serves the purpose of creating the illusion of a representative capacity between principal and agent.
*
And that serves to create the illusion that the “principal” is somehow relevant to the transactional documents with the homeowner — although they never come right out and say that (because it is untrue).
*
So the introduction of a Power of Attorney or Limited Power of Attorney is merely sleight of hand maneuvering to get a judge to believe that nobody would have gone to the trouble of creating and executing these documents unless there was something real going on. Unfortunately most lawyers, including those who represent homeowners in foreclosure, believe that to be true. As a result they completely miss the strategy that works in defeating such actions that are falsely labelled as foreclosures.
*
Here is the truth.
*
No POA ever gives anyone the right to claim ownership, control, administrative rights or the right to enforce any obligation of any homeowner. Instead it says it gives rights to speak for a label which may or may not be a legal entity — i.e., a “trust” which in fact is either nonexistent or “inchoate” under law.
*
No trust, no matter how well written, creates a valid legal trust unless and until something of value is entrusted to the named trustee to hold for the benefit of defined beneficiaries upon certain terms expressly set forth in the trust. If the trustee does not own the alleged obligation, then the trust is irrelevant to any claim or proceeding.
*
No named “trustee” has ever been party to a transaction in which the named trustee has ever received something of value from a seller or settlor who conveyed anything to the named trustee much less ownership of any obligation, note or mortgage from any homeowner.
*
The existence of a note and mortgage is generally construed to be prima facie evidence of the existence of a loan agreement. But the absence of any “lender” conduct of the counterparties to those transactional documents demonstrates conclusively that there was no meeting of the minds. This leads to the counterintuitive conclusion that the investment banks wanted the transaction to look like a loan but but were completely unwilling to be considered “lenders” for purposes of compliance with lending statutes.
*
The homeowner had every reasonable basis to think he/she was getting a loan — which means that there was a lender with a risk of loss and who therefore would not underwrite a transaction that was doomed to fail. Instead the real parties in interest, operating through dummy entities, were intentionally creating agreements that were extremely likely to fail. This enabled them to bet against the viability of those agreements. Therefore the less the quality of the appraisal, the loan terms, the household income etc., the more certain the investment bank could be of making money though failure of the DATA (not the debt) to perform. But since the investment banks and the homeowners had entirely different transactions in mind, there could be no meeting of the minds and there never was.
*
None of the counterparties or their representatives ever considered themselves to be lenders. None of them ever purchased any obligation from a homeowner and registered such purchase as an asset receivable from a homeowner nor did they make an entry on the liability side of their balance sheet as a reserve for bad debt. Clearly nobody on the other side wanted to be liable as a lender for violations of lending statutes. None of them wanted to be “lenders.” Hence the transactional documents do not represent  meeting of the minds.
*
Therefore, every such Power of Attorney grants nothing. It might be facially valid but it is not substantively valid because the purported grantor owned nothing and therefore could grant no powers over assets that were not owned.
*
Note that I no longer refer to “loan documents.” Instead I refer to transactional documents. That is because I no longer believe that the transaction involving the homeowner should be referred to as a loan, even though that was what was intended by the homeowner. It wasn’t intended as a loan by anyone else who was directly or indirectly a counterparty to the transaction with the homeowner.
*
In nearly all cases, the original transactional documents referred to the purchase of the homeowner’s consent and rights to resell personal data. The part of the transaction requiring payments from the homeowner was merely a vehicle for reducing the consideration paid for that consent. And the only place it is obliquely albeit not directly referenced as a loan is in actions that are falsely labelled as foreclosures. In all other transactions and documents the subject is clearly the sale and trading on data, not ownership of any debt owed by anyone.
*
In a court of equity (i.e., foreclosure) the payment of consideration concurrent with an obligation to return that consideration should be treated as no consideration.
*
Hence the apparent contract is rendered unenforceable for lack of consideration. This construction does not produce any financial loss to any party who paid consideration to the homeowner. All such parties are richly rewarded for procuring the signature of the homeowner far in excess of any claim for repayment of the consideration paid for the homeowner’s consent. This construction merely restricts the profits of the players in “securitization” to a level that is fair and proper after full disclosure.
*
Further, in a court of equity, the payment of consideration for the consent of the homeowner to allow sale and resale of his personal  financial data should have been disclosed, was legally required to be disclosed and failure of which disclosure is a basis for the court to use its inherent authority to determine the amount of the compensation to be fairly paid to homeowners.
*

That amount would be equal to what homeowners would have demanded in general and what investment banks would have offered as incentives in a free market with full disclosure.

*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.

FREE REVIEW:

If you want to submit your registration form click on the following link and give us as much information as you can. CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us.
In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
*
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

Why Homeowners Lose Their Homes to Crooked Banks

The first and foremost thing about this is that where any loan is subject to claims of securitization, that claim is false. So no investor ever  bought any loan, debt, note or mortgage. Not ever. All documents claiming to memorialize such transactions are false. So the designated claimant has no claim.

To win these cases you must be realistic about what you are up against. The justice system doesn’t care about the merits of any claim, defense or denial unless it is properly and timely presented in accordance with the established rules of procedure and laws of evidence. It is not really an oversimplification to say that noncompliance with the rules means you lose even if you are right.

I can file a lawsuit against you, the reader, for anything right now even though I have no claim and I can win — and maybe claim your property to satisfy the judgement. The fact that I never had a claim is irrelevant to the system. Once the judgment or order is entered that is the law of the case. This is what crooked banks are using as their means to gain more profit through foreclosures.

[Practice Note: there is a very real privacy issue that has not been adequately explored in connection with homeowner transactions. If the true nature of the homeowner transaction was to obtain consent to sell private data then the consideration might be zero — because the money given to homeowners was offset entirely by a duty to pay it back with interest. So in addition to a lack of informed consent, the failure of consideration might negate all consent. This might augment a claim for quantum meruit for the real plan: the issuance and trading of securities.] 

The presence of questions does not mean that there is an absence of evidence. While the burden of proof is on the claimant to establish the necessary elements for a prima facie case, procedural law favors the claimant, especially in foreclosure cases. Homeowners can and should win, but they often lose because they think that being right is enough.

The apparent facial validity of the documents presented means that even if the documents were fabricated and the plaintiff was misrepresented as having legal existence, for purposes of the case, the judge is required to presume that the claim is true and that the claimant is real. the perpetrators of such a fraud get to enjoy the fruits of their labor. the property is sold and the proceeds are distributed as revenue without any accountability.

*
Merely denying those facts is insufficient. You must be able to produce evidence to the contrary, to wit: either facts that show that the presumption is untrue or, more likely, the fact that the Foreclosure Mill was unable to or unwilling to answer basic questions about the ownership and authority over the debt.

*
Many lawyers and pro se litigants make a common error. They think that by denying the existence of the plaintiff or the claim that they have shifted the burden back to the claimant or at least the Foreclosure Mill.  This assumption is misplaced particularly in foreclosure litigation. theoretically the denial of a fact that has been alleged is sufficient to force the claimant to prove the allegation of fact. But in foreclosures, thanks to form pleading, very few facts actually need to be alleged in order for a Judicial or non-judicial foreclosure to proceed.
*
The denial from the homeowner is therefore a denial of facts that have not been alleged. It gets worse. The presumption arising from documents that appear to have facial validity ends the matter unless the court is faced with credible and persuasive evidence to the contrary.
*
And the Foreclosure mill is never going to admit that it doesn’t have a client who is a claimant, and it is never going to admit that the claim doesn’t exist.
*
The only avenue open to the homeowner is the exhaustion of all procedures and remedies under the rules of discovery. At the conclusion of that process, the homeowner will be in a position to argue that the failure of the opposition to answer the most basic questions about the claim that they have submitted, combined with their refusal to even follow court orders, should result in sanctions and further, should result in an inference that the claimant doesn’t exist and that the claim is without merit.
*
This would not automatically mean that the homeowner wins the case. While sanctions under these circumstances could include striking the pleadings or the claim or the proof of claim in bankruptcy court, the judge is probably going to be more inclined to grant a motion in limine by the homeowner that prevent the Foreclosure Mill from introducing any evidence of ownership or authority over the debt, note or mortgage.
*
That SHOULD end it but often doesn’t. Even then many courts will leave open the possibility of producing actual proof of ownership or authority over the debt. Appellate courts have been inconsistent in reversing or affirming such orders.

*
The fact that they did not prove the claim independently of the legal presumptions merely means that the judge was satisfied that the prima facie case had been established.

*
So the way homeowners are often presenting their position is basically that the judge should not have assumed that the elements of a prima facie case had in fact been established. But that means that you had introduced sufficient evidence to cast doubt on the validity of the documents relied upon in the foreclosure. By that point, the judge has already decided that you didn’t. You raised questions and denied things but you proved nothing.
*
So you are now so far down the road in the Foreclosure action that it is probably impossible to reopen any form of discovery. This is why I recommend in such cases that you file an independent lawsuit that could survive a motion to dismiss. By filing lawsuit you raise issues that can be subject of inquiry in discovery, depositions, and subpoenas duces tecum.

*

I think pro se litigants in particular also might be confusing the difference between a void judgment and an erroneous judgment. Arguments often appear to be directed to an erroneous judgment, although they contain good arguments against jurisdiction, which could be directed to characterizing the judgment as void. You need to be more specific that the judgment is void and why and not confuse your arguments of error with your argument of lack of jurisdiction.
*
This is not something you’re going to be able to do on your own. You need to hire an attorney.
*
SECURITIZATION NOTES: All securitizations I have reviewed have one thing in common: the sale of certificates that do not convey any right, title or interest to any debt, note or mortgage. No other financial transaction takes place after that point — except payment of some of the investor money to homeowners. Tax court cases make this abundantly clear: holders of certificates have no secured interest in anything and no interest at all in the performance or enforcement of any obligation.
*
The transaction with homeowners was simply acquiring consent from the homeowner to sell private data multiple times to multiple buyers.
*
No payments from homeowners — either voluntary or involuntary — are ever forwarded to anyone who has paid money. No proceeds from foreclosure are ever paid to reduce any debt because there is no asset receivable on any balance sheet in which the debt is claimed.
*
Thus the presentation of a payment history in court is a distraction from the fact that there is no evidence of any records of any company that claims a loss from nonpayment on a debt.
*
A proper objection to the introduction of such a document could be lack of foundation and lack of relevance — unless there is testimony or other evidence linking the payment history with the books of account of the claimant, there is no claim. But like all objections, if not timely raised it is waived. 
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.

FREE REVIEW:

If you want to submit your registration form click on the following link and give us as much information as you can. CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us.
In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. IN FACT, STATISTICS SHOW THAT MOST HOMEOWNERS FAIL TO PRESENT THEIR DEFENSE PROPERLY. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
*
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

Magic Bullet? Maybe this: the foreclosure “team” are all witnesses, not claimants

The fact that the foreclosure players know — or even witnessed — the fact that you refused to make any further payments makes them a witness, not a claimant. 
*
The investment banks say they are not liable as lenders for noncompliance with lending laws. OK. A good lawyer can make a powerful argument for estoppel — the investment banks cannot take one position — that it wasn’t a loan in terms of regulation of lenders   — and then that it is a loan so they can foreclose without a creditor.
*
Two wrongs don’t make something right. The fact that they used a shill as the originator doesn’t mean they are allowed or should be allowed to use another shill to falsely invoke foreclosure laws and procedures. You can’t foreclose on a debt that does not exist.
*
Most homeowners take out their frustration by attacking the judge or the opposing lawyer. This is a mistake on many levels.
*
My concern here is that you are far too interested in two subjects that have the least probability of you achieving anything. The object of your ire is understandable. But you may be playing into the hand of the banks if you continue.
*
The Judge, even if he or she is the most reprehensible person on Earth, is simply untouchable without very specific evidence that links the Judge to a corrupt scheme in which the decision of the Judge is directly tied to the scheme and where the Judge receives a  specifically identified reward for a corrupt decision. This does not exist in your case and it rarely exists in any case. So attacks on the Judge’s integrity or intelligence will provoke what they would when you attack anyone for anything. They get defensive and antagonistic — just the opposite of what you need.

*

The foreclosure mill, even if they too consist of the most reprehensible human beings on the planet, is considered immune from liability for misrepresenting things in court. You don’t need to agree with this for it to be true. And railing against that fact will get you nowhere. I have tried to go after the lawyers and the result has been consistently negative — claim dismissed because of “litigation immunity.”
*
So going after the Judge and the lawyers is a waste of valuable time, money and energy — something that the banks need you to do because they are sitting on a plan that claims money due when there is no money due to them, if at all. That is foreclosure.
*
So if you are addressing the Judge for example, you first do what you must do whenever you are attempting to establish rapport with anyone — find common ground. You talk about obvious things about which you all agree so you are perceived as reasonable.
*
THEN you move on to your argument about how this situation does not lead to the same result as the conventional case of foreclosure where an actual creditor is actually claiming a right to payment of an actual debt that is actually carried on its books as an asset receivable, which means that nonpayment did in fact cause it financial injury.
*
Under our laws and just plain common sense, if you see someone rob a bank for example, then you, as a witness, have no right to sue the robber for the money they stole; true simply because they didn’t steal it from you. Why should you get any money that was stolen from the bank? And that is your point. The fact that the foreclosure players know — or even witnessed — the fact that you refused to make any further payments makes them a witness, not a claimant. 
*
And yet…. if you do make the claim against the robber and the bank failed to press its own claim, you could get a judgement especially if the robber failed to raise any defenses. After all he knows he stole the money. [I am not equating homeowners with robbers. I am equitating banks with a unscrupulous version of you, making a claim to which you and  they are not entitled to receive any redress under law or common sense.]
*
The question is not whether you owed the money or had any reason to pay or not to pay. The question is why are they appearing as claimants instead of witnesses in a claim by someone who actually did suffer some financial loss caused by your alleged nonpayment.
*
And the question is why isn’t such a person (creditor) present in the foreclosure? Where are they? Who are they? Do they exist? If they don’t exist, was the transaction with the homeowner actually a loan transaction or was it something else entirely that was disguised as a loan transaction? 
*
So you START with the premise that all legal debts should be paid to the obligee — the person to whom the debt is owed. Everyone agrees with that. And you follow with the premise, under the U.S. Constitution, that only people who have been injured can seek redress in court. You get the judge to agree that everyone agrees that if someone fails to pay a mortgage debt to someone who owns it, they should be subject to foreclosure, forced sale of their home, no matter how long it has been in the family, and evicted if they try to stay anyway.
*
You talk about it as though you are in favor of foreclosure because that is where every judge starts. You don’t talk about foreclosure as though it is a new scheme that doesn’t have any support in logic or law because foreclosure has existed for centuries. It must exist because if someone parts with their money to give you a loan, they must be able to force repayment if you are unable or unwilling to make repayment. But that does not mean that a witness to nonpayment can make a claim.
*
And you must take the time to study and understand the true nature of what has been really been going on. Securitization is by definition the issuance of securities. While it can be a source of financing it is just as often a means to distribute risk. The reason why thinly capitalized companies like DiTech and Quicken Loans were given hundreds of millions of dollars to sell trillions of dollars of low interest loans was not because the investment banks had come up with a new formula to squeeze profit out of low interest payments.
*
It was because the return of principal and interest payments was irrelevant to their plan. The “failure” of such repayment plans was a centerpoint of the plan and they bet on it, making more and more money as each “loan” “failed.” Their plan was to sell securities. And the more securities they sold the more money they made because unlike all other securitization plans, they were not selling securities from an independent legal entity (client) that was going into business and using the proceeds to conduct or grow its business.
*
Instead they were selling securities for themselves, taking the money and using as little of it as possible to cover the scheme. The money used to create the illusion of loans was a cover for the real scheme.
*
The money, if any, that was sent to closing agents to close a transaction that was inaccurately described as a loan transaction was not delivered by the banks with the intent of creating a conventional loan product subject to lending laws. That would have made the investment bank a lender and they would have been named as such on the note and mortgage.
*
Quite the contrary. It was designed to evade lending laws in a scheme that had has its hallmark claims by the investment banks, who were running the show, that the scheme did not subject them to lending laws and was not a loan. 
*
By designating a false flag “originator” who was contractually unrelated to the investment bank and who received fees and bonuses from acting as though it was a lender, the banks now claim that they are not regulated by lending laws.
*
My position is take them at their word and stop fighting them.
*
OK, you are right but the only reason you are not subject to lending laws is that you did not engage in lending. So the money that arrived at the closing table was disguised conditional payment in exchange for a the homeowner’s signature on documents that could be used to fill in data on a spreadsheet.
*
It was that data (not the loans) that was sold dozens of times thus relieving the investment bank from any risk of loss. The money was a fee paid to homeowners who were lured into transactions that were fraudulently disguised as loans but were in fact part of a plan to steal money and homes.
*
Foreclosure is sought because it represents still more revenue and because by not foreclosing the banks would be admitting this wasn’t a loan in the first place. The money that went to homeowners or which was paid on their behalf was not a loan — it was only part of payment of a fee to which the homeowner was entitled (under quantum meruit) but knew nothing about and never had any opportunity to engage in free market negotiation.
*
The reason why (a) there is no creditor and the reason why (b) all the documents are fabricated and (c) all this testimony is pre-scripted for perjury is simply that it wasn’t a loan to begin with — and nobody now is carrying the loan as an asset receivable on their books. NOBODY! The loan does not and never did exist. And that is because the money received was not a loan, it was payment for signature and implied consent to use private data for resale.
*
The most basic law of contract is that there must be, at the outset, a meeting of the minds. The homeowner went into the transaction believing the false assertions that the money was a loan — instead of consideration for use of his or her private financial information and his or her signature.
*
The investment bank went into the transaction through a myriad of sham conduits posing as “lenders” for exorbitant fees. The investment banks were not lending money. They were paying money so they could issue and profit from the sale of securities in “securitization.” Without that there would have been transaction at all. Refer to the “Step Transaction Doctrine” and “Single Transaction Doctrine” for support in case decisions and statutes. You’ll find multiple references on this blog from the early days (2007–2008) of this blog.
*
The investment banks say they are not liable as lenders for noncompliance with lending laws. OK. A good lawyer can make a powerful argument for estoppel — the investment banks cannot take one position — that it wasn’t a loan in terms of regulation of lenders   — and then that it is a loan so they can foreclose without a creditor.
*
But to get the judge to even consider such an apparently ridiculous assertion you need to demonstrate, step by step, relentlessly, that the foreclosure team has nothing. That doesn’t happen in one pleading or one hearing. It ONLY happens if you know and consistently use and apply the rules and laws relating to court procedure, discovery and trial objections.
==
PRACTICE NOTES:
This argument can be made directly where the transaction was originated by the investment banks. Don’t get lost in the “warehouse lender” thickets — they were just one of many steps in a the circuitous process by which investment banks gave money to homeowners.
*
But where a real loan was actually made by a real lender and then acquired by investment banks through what they called “securitization” then the argument shifts to the idea that the debt was extinguished at acquisition. this is because when all was said and done there was no creditor who was holding the debt as an asset receivable on its books.
*
The fundamental point here, which can be corroborated with any knowledgeable person in the world of finance, is that neither the delivery of money to homeowners nor the acquisition of the debt after a real loan was originated was related to securitization as it had ever been done in the past.
*
Securitization is simply the process of dividing up an asset into shares and selling them. This was never done in connection with these transactions. Nobody ever received a share of any loan. Securitization in this context consisted solely of the issuance of securities by the securities brokerage firm (investment bank) posing as an underwriter for a “trust name” that was merely a fictitious name of the the underwriter itself. That is not securitization. The job of the litigator is to gently and relentlessly lead the judge to conclude that this might indeed be the case and thus deny the foreclosure.
====
Neil F Garfield, 73, is a Florida licensed attorney. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker. securities analyst, and financial analyst.

FREE REVIEW:

If you want to submit your registration form click on the following link and give us as much information as you can. CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us.
In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. IN FACT, STATISTICS SHOW THAT MOST HOMEOWNERS FAIL TO PRESENT THEIR DEFENSE PROPERLY. EVEN THOSE THAT PRESENT THE DEFENSES PROPERLY LOSE, AT LEAST AT THE TRIAL COURT LEVEL, AT LEAST 1/3 OF THE TIME. IN ADDITION IT IS NOT A SHORT PROCESS IF YOU PREVAIL. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
*
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

You got the loan didn’t you? Maybe not.

STOP ADMITTING THINGS YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT. STOP USING WORDS YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.
*
OK so let’s address that. It is quite natural to think that in ordinary circumstances that a loan was made and therefore some amount of money is due to somebody. So how do we address that natural bias? Allow me to play with that here.
*
The presumption that a loan was made is just that — a presumption. It isn’t a fact unless the alleged borrower agrees he received money and that it was a loan transaction — or it is proven (which never happens). It is a conclusive presumption in the absence of a challenge by the borrower because that is how our system works. It takes the customary experience and makes it into a presumption.
*
And clearly the fact that the borrower executed documents that are considered to be part of a loan agreement, raises two presumptions. The first is that there was money paid and the second is that it was a loan. And in the context of what we were all accustomed to seeing in the marketplace and what we were all taught in law school this is reasonable and almost unassailable presumption. Almost. It is still presumption which means that theoretically at least it is subject to rebuttal.
*
All presumptions fail if the court finds that the source of documents used as the basis for the presumption of particular facts come from a source that is suspicious or not credible. The fact that documents come from an interested party does not in and of itself result in the failure of a presumption if the documents are otherwise deemed to be trustworthy.
*
So on what basis could a homeowner claim there was no loan or even deny that a loan of money was made? The fact that the homeowner believes that in the refinancing no money actually exchanged hands is clearly insufficient to challenge anything. So is there anything to this?
*
Well to begin with the homeowner actually has no idea what happend at the “loan closing.” But one thing we know for sure is that no loan closing involves any money until after the closing. The documents are signed in the expectation of consideration not upon the receipt of consideration. And since the homeowner is not party to anything that happens after closing, the homeowner is without knowledge as to whether there was money paid, and if so, to whom or why. So his proper response to any implied or actual representation or allegation of a payment of money is that he is without knowledge and accordingly denies same and demands strict proof thereof.
*
This should probably be added to the Answer wherever it is possible to do so such as “Defendant denies knowledge and accordingly denies the implied allegation that money was paid and demand strict proof thereof.”
*
This procedurally puts the matter in issue although not plausibly in the eyes of any judge. Thus the door is open for discovery as to payment contemporaneous with closing, by whom to whom and in what amount. Proof of payment will reveal in nearly all cases that the money came by wire transfer from an intermediary for an investment bank and not from any account owned or controlled by the named originator.
*
Based on that fact the homeowner could establish that there was no consideration between the homeowner and the originator — unless the originator could establish that it was operating as agent for the investment bank.
*
The problem of course is that nobody has ever received an answer to that demand in discovery.  So you need to get an order compelling an answer and then sanctions for failure to comply and then an order in limine preventing the foreclosure mill from introducing any evidence to the effect that value was paid by the originator. You are certainly entitled to an inference, if not a presumption, that no value was paid.
*
And at trial, if there was one, failure to object based upon lack of foundation would be fatal to the homeowner who would have given up his hard won gains in one swift fell swoop.
*
Assuming money was paid by someone, next is the issue of whether it was a loan. This seems obvious so it is a steep climb to get a judge to think otherwise. But let’s look at this.
*
The documentation was presented as a loan but was that presentation a disguise for another different transaction that the homeowner knew nothing about? Who were the parties to that transaction? What was the nature of the transaction? What were the terms of the transaction?
*
The only way you can bring this into an issue of fact is by denying (not denying knowledge) the implied allegation that the execution of the note and mortgage was part of a loan transaction. You’ll need an affidavit that says it was something else. That puts the matter in issue and then subject to discovery as stated above but the judge is going to be highly skeptical of what appears to be a slam dunk.
*
So it is better practice to not only deny the implied allegation but affirmative assert (affirmative defense) that it was a disguised transaction (violating TILA disclosure, RESPA and alter FDCPA) in which the homeowner’s signature, name, reputation and property were used in a plan that was entirely devoted to selling securities such that the end result was that nobody was holding an asset receivable reflecting the principal or interest due on the alleged “loan.”
*
In short the risk of loss was eliminated and nobody suffers financial injury from nonpayment. In fact, all parties on the back end were paid and are getting paid. Again that puts the theory in issue and opens the discovery door which terrifies the banks even though most foreclosure mills are not knowledgeable enough to recognize the danger of such a defense.
*
To spice things up, the homeowner should allege that had proper disclosure been made he would have a choice of potential counterparties to such a securities issuer agreement and then bargained (quantum meruit) for more compensation than the mere receipt of a sum of money that had to be repaid. And in fact there is actual evidence out there that this is exactly what is happening — with the offers of payment of closing costs, no interest for 6 months, etc. The homeowner simply doesn’t know why such offers are being made.
*
And to further spice things up you seek damages in the affirmative defense for violations of all relevant statutes, including securities statutes because the securities issued included the note and mortgage which were converted into securities. Remember that the statute of limitations does not apply to affirmative defenses which are limited in recovery to the amount sought by the claimant, plus attorney fees. (recoupment)
*
Once again you will never get a response to discovery so you need to go through the process of compelling response,, sanctions motion in limine and objections in court. And you argue that you are entitled to an inference that the execution of the note and mortgage was merely a ruse for the commencement of a transaction that the homeowner (never refer to them as “borrower”) knew nothing about.
*
And so you arrive at the conclusion that the scheme was about the business of issuing of securities without which no payment would ever have occurred for any purpose by the parties who are supposedly involved in what they called a “loan” and which they want the court to treat as a “loan” even though nobody owns the debt because everyone has already been paid. Nobody who paid value ever received ownership of the debt, note or mortgage. And nobody who received  an instrument of conveyance ever paid value. It was all a ruse to create the appearance of a foreclosure when in fact they were seeking profit.
*
The homeowner is not getting a free house. The homeowner is getting what the investment bank deemed was “enough” to compensate the homeowner for his consent to the sale of his name, signature, reputation and home data. Maybe that compensation was enough and maybe it wasn’t.
*
But what we do know is that the homeowner never had a chance to bargain for anything different and that the investment banks and all players in the issuance and trading of securities and all players in foreclosure have generated revenue and net income far in excess of what they claim to be a loan and far greater than what they should have disclosed if in fact the execution of the note and mortgage was a loan closing.
*
Since they didn’t disclose it and they refused to be identified as lenders, they should not then be allowed to treat the transaction as a loan. Their failure to disclose was an admission that they were not lending money and that their business model did not require repayment from the homeowner. The foreclosure therefore is the continuing pursuit of profit rather than repayment of a debt, which is not owned by anyone as an asset receivable on any books of account. In short it is not a foreclosure nor even a proper cause of action — because there is no cause of action for loss of expected profit unless there is a contract expressly providing for it.
*
Neil F Garfield, 73, is a Florida licensed attorney. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker. securities analyst, and financial analyst.

FREE REVIEW:

If you want to submit your registration form click on the following link and give us as much information as you can. CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us.
In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. IN FACT, STATISTICS SHOW THAT MOST HOMEOWNERS FAIL TO PRESENT THEIR DEFENSE PROPERLY. EVEN THOSE THAT PRESENT THE DEFENSES PROPERLY LOSE, AT LEAST AT THE TRIAL COURT LEVEL, AT LEAST 1/3 OF THE TIME. IN ADDITION IT IS NOT A SHORT PROCESS IF YOU PREVAIL. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
*
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

Tonight! Don’t stop fighting or thinking about tomorrow! 3pm PDT 6PM EDT

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the WEST COAST Neil Garfield Show

with Charles Marshall and Bill Paatalo

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

 

The 2008 crash may seem like 12 years ago. Yet the conditions persist – victimizing both homeowners and investors. Homeowners still have no frame of reference or education as to how they could receive a loan without anyone owning the debt and why anyone would be party to such a transaction. Arguably investors by this point should know better. The problem is money — stockbrokers get to call themselves investment banks and courtesy of the 2008 crash they created are now commercial banks too. They are making money hand over fist on every sale of a “certificate,” “derivative” and homestead.

Bill Paatalo will discuss on the Show today how he is taking the fight to the Defendants in his Oregon case, previously discussed on the Show, in which the Defendants are now seeking massive attorney’s fees, over six-figures. The same Defendants who managed to secure a judgment based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, are claiming now this same Court has jurisdiction to bring an attorney’s fee motion never raised in previous pleadings. The game is on. The “banks” are taking the position that they can eat their cake and still have it.

Charles Marshall will discuss how the ongoing institutional bias issues long present in foreclosure law cases is stubbornly creating a messy and patchwork terrain for borrowers to navigate in the COVID-19 era, with a focus on California. He will address this through an update of particularly the latest California-based coronavirus-related developments in court access, foreclosures, and post-auction evictions.

Wait! Somebody must have paid something right?

How do you know what was paid by whom and when and what terms applied? The whole point here is that money was paid by investors who did not receive ownership to the debt, note or mortgage. Nor did they assign any equitable right to the debt, note or mortgage. Since the value was paid by a party who never received ownership, no “successor” would have any reason to pay value for ownership nor did they do so.
*
And before you decide to shift gears, the investment bank took in money from investors as a commercial deposit — i.e. a  third party loan — as part of purchase of promissory note (certificate) to make payments to the buyers. While that COULD have resulted in the vinestment bank becoming the owner of the debt, note and mortgage on loans granted to borrowers, it didn’t. Like the investors who bought certificates, they paid for it but not in exchange for ownership of the debt, note or mortgage.
*
Not one note or mortgage was made payable to the investment bank and not one “Loan” transaction was funded directly by the investment bank who channeled funds through several existing legal business entities. This was done to evade liability for lending law violations and as Chase found out you can’t have it both ways. You either were the lender or you were not. You either “succeeded” to the position of the predecessor or you didn’t.
*
The media gets it wrong because they cannot conceive of a scheme that simply isn’t allowed under existing law and if it was allowed there would be changes in all affiliated laws as well — this giving investors the real scoop on what was being done with their money and the borrowers the real scoop on how much revenue was being generated from the origination or acquisition of their loan. In the current custom and practice of securitization of residential debt, the certificates and possibly the promissory notes would be regulated as securities.
*
The key change in the law that is needed for securitization to be allowed as practiced and for title to be cleared is the designation of a non-owner who didn’t pay value for the debt to be the creditor. This is a massive paradigm shift, but one which is probably needed. But right now the ONLY way we can acquire a debt is through payment of value for it in exchange for rights of ownership of the debt.
*
That is precisely where the media, attempting to report on the facts, gets it wrong. they simply cannot conceive of a scenario where all this paperwork would be flying around and that such instruments would be meaningless, without value and legal nullities — except for erroneous legal presumptions arising from the erroneous conclusions that the instruments have facial validity. So you see court decisions and article referring to sales that never occurred. They also report loans that never occurred.
*
And so we have a huge body of law allowing foreclosure rewarding people and business entities who receive the proceeds of forced sale as revenue instead of payment on a debt they never owned or paid for. And that is required change in the law that is needed. Upon revision of all relevant statutes, once a business entity is “designated” as creditor all efforts by anyone else must stop as to collection, processing, administering, or enforcement of any debt, note or mortgage. The game of musical chairs played by investments banks, servicers, “trustees” etc. must stop if we are to make sense out of any of this.
*
In most cases loans were originated from non capitalized brokers or sellers of loan products, not lenders or were creditors. This information is withheld from borrowers contrary to the requirements of Federal and state disclosure requirements to consumer borrowers.
*
Also withheld from borrowers is the fact that their signature, name, reputation and home is being used as part of a securitization scheme in which the loan labeling is misleading because neither the originator nor even the “warehouse lender” has any risk of loss. The entire transaction is different from what the borrower thought and different from what the borrower had a right to think as per common law, Federal and state lending statutes.
*
Borrowers are not required to understand that the “loan” is no longer part of the system in which money supply increases (because that already happened when investors purchased certificates from investment banks).  But under current law lender s ARE required to know that and do know that and they further know that their incentive is to get the signature of a consumer for fees not interest income.
*
The entire burden of viability of any consumer loan is not on the borrower (Caveat emptor) but on the lender who knows better. That is the law. AND the law presumes that the risk of loss is a self-regulating market force that forces lenders to make good loans. But what happens when there is no such risk? The transaction is changed and the transaction is no longer within the boundaries of the existing lending laws.
*
In short, such transactions are either not legal or carry heavy penalties for violations. If banks avoid such liabilities by intentional concealment of the true facts and thus produce catastrophic anomalies in the marketplace (see 2008) displacing tens of millions of people from their homes, why should those homeowners bear the full burden of such a catastrophe? Both policy and law agree on this. They shouldn’t.
*
The counterpart in what was labeled as a loan agreement was in actuality a vendor to the investment banking industry who didn’t receive interest as revenue for making a loan and who had no risk of loss. It was a scheme where all participants received fees, commissions, bonuses trading profits and other compensation arising from the origination of the transaction intentionally mislabeled as a loan in which the mislabeled “lender” was seen as seeking interest income on principal when in fact the interest payments and even the payments on principal were completely irrelevant to the originators and the “warehouse” lenders.
*
“Successors” under current law are merely designees not successors because they have not contributed any money toward payment of value for the debt — a basic black letter requirement under current law.
*
All of this is very counterintuitive and it is meant to be. The more complicated the banks make it the more everyone relies on the banks to tell them what these paper instruments mean and what events are memorialized in those paper instruments. But the plain fact is that there are no events memorialized in the paper instruments. There were no transactions. Why would anyone pay value for a debt that is not owned by the “seller?”
*

FDCPA Claims Might Not Be Barred By Statute of Limitations

Here is a powerful argument that SCOTUS acknowledged: nobody should benefit from their own fraudulent conduct. The FDCPA has a one year statute of limitations. And people have tried to litigate on the premise that the one year should run from the date of discovery not when the violation occurred. The courts have disagreed saying that if Congress wanted it to be the date of discovery it would have said so.

But if the date of discovery was delayed because of additional fraudulent conduct by the defendant then the courts, although always leaning heavily toward the banks, are left in a quandary. And SCOTUS acknowledged that issue and refused to rule directly on it because the consumer failed to preserve the issue on appeal — another example of how rules can lead to failure of you don’t follow them.

The wording of the opinion  and the opinion of analysts strongly suggests that if you plead, with specificity, fraudulent representations and conduct that caused the delay your claim is not barred until one year after the discovery of the violation.

Note that his will not help people who discovered or “should have discovered” the violation more than one year before filing suit.

Note also that it is one thing to plead and another to prove. Fraud requires specific pleading and proof regarding detrimental reliance on the fraud and causation of damages. The damage under this part of  the case would be that the consumer was unable to ascertain the violation and thus seek a remedy. Just using the word “fraud” is the surest ticket to failure.

see Fossano Article on Mondaq

See Rotkiske v. Klemm Rotkiske v. Klemm, No. 18-328 (U.S. Dec. 10, 2019)

Rotkiske v. Klemm, — S. Ct. — (2019) left open the question of whether a plaintiff can avoid the one-year statute of limitations by establishing that the delay in bringing the claim was the caused by the defendant’s fraudulent conduct. The answer to that question will have to await a case where the plaintiff properly preserves the argument on appeal. On a related note, the case reminds attorneys to ensure that they preserve all of their clients’ arguments at all stages of a case.

FDCPA violations could expose debt collectors to considerable damages and penalties, as well as legal costs and fees.

From the case:

Rotkiske argued for the application of a “discovery rule” to delay the beginning of the limitations period until the date that he knew or should have known of the alleged FDCPA violation. Relying on the statute’s plain language, the District Court rejected Rotkiske’s approach and dismissed the action. The Third Circuit affirmed. Held: Absent the application of an equitable doctrine, §1692k(d)’s statute of limitations begins to run when the alleged FDCPA violation occurs, not when the violation is discovered. Pp. 4-7.

Rotkiske v. Klemm, No. 18-328, at *1 (U.S. Dec. 10, 2019)

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) authorizes private civil actions against debt collectors who engage in certain prohibited practices. 91 Stat. 881, 15 U. S. C. §1692k(a). An action under the FDCPA may be brought “within one year from the date on which the violation occurs.” §1692k(d). This case requires us to determine when the FDCPA’s limitations period begins to run. We hold that, absent the application of an equitable doctrine, the statute of limitations in §1692k(d) begins to run on the date on which the alleged FDCPA violation occurs, not the date on which the violation is discovered.

Rotkiske v. Klemm, No. 18-328, at *3 (U.S. Dec. 10, 2019)

“Rotkiske’s amended complaint alleged that equitable tolling excused his otherwise untimely filing because Klemm purposely served process in a manner that ensured he would not receive service.” Rotkiske v. Klemm, No. 18-328, at *5 (U.S. Dec. 10, 2019)

This Court has noted the existence of decisions applying a discovery rule in “fraud cases” that is distinct from the traditional equitable tolling doctrine. Merck & Co. v. Reynolds559 U. S. 633, 644 (2010); Gabelli v. SEC568 U. S. 442, 450 (2013) (referring to the “fraud discovery rule”). And it has repeatedly characterized these decisions as applying an equity-based doctrineCalifornia Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ SecuritiesInc., 582 U. S. ___, ___-___ (2017) (slip op., at 10-11); Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez572 U. S. 1, 10-11 (2014); Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Simmonds566 U. S. 221, 226-227 (2012); Young v. United States535 U. S. 43, 49-50 (2002). Rotkiske failed to preserve this issue before the Third Circuit, 890 F. 3d, at 428, and failed to raise this issue in his petition for certiorari. Accordingly, Rotkiske cannot rely on this doctrine to excuse his otherwise untimely filing. (e.s.)

* * *

Rotkiske v. Klemm, No. 18-328, at *9 (U.S. Dec. 10, 2019)

Practice Note: I would suggest that practitioners take a close look at modifications as falling within two different doctrines and maybe more. 

First, modification offer from one who is not authorized to make the offer is a violation of the FDCPA. The acceptance and enforcement of payments under a modification agreement might also be a violation of the FDCPA. It is procured under duress.  It is a fraudulent misrepresentation designed to induce the borrower to waive defenses, change lenders (without realizing it) and essentially create an entirely new contract that may or may not incorporate the original note or mortgage. 

Second, the modification has many earmarks of a new financing subject to disclosures required for the origination of any loan. It makes the “new” claimed servicer the lender or the agent of a lender who is not disclosed and who probably has no claim within the chain of title relied upon by the servicer when it made the offer to modify. AND it might well be that it reflects an actual payment in the case where the loan was securitized after a bona fide loan. AND it has entirely new terms with new principal, new interests and frequently a new term.

That sounds like a refinancing to me. If I am right, then the modification is subject to rescission, to wit: (1) 3 day TILA rescission, (2) 3 year TILA rescission and (3) common law rescission. In addition there are claims under RESPA and FDCPA that would appear to arise anew. The specific disclosures required are contained in Federal lending law (TILA) and state deceptive lending laws. ALl such laws are incorporated into contracts for lending by operation of law. So it is not only fraud it is a violation of statute. 

The fraud in such situations is that an interloper falsely poses as a lender or agent of lender. The borrower is in financial emotional distress is induced to enter an agreement that the borrower reasonably believes is for (a) the benefit of the borrower and the (b) creditor who has paid for his debt and owns it — because that is the representation of the servicer who offered it. That is  false. The borrower is injured because while seeking settlement or at least communication with the actual party who has paid for and owns his debt he was prevented from doing so and the borrower had no way of knowing that the servicer’s representations were untrue.

As always discovery is key to proving these allegations and without follow up motions to compel and motions for sanctions discovery won’t do you any good. They won’t answer because they can’t answer. 

PennyMac Laundromat: Is anything real there?

PennyMac appears to be a vehicle of “cleaning” fatal title deficiencies to the debt, note and/or mortgage on loans. It operates on behalf of CitiMortgage and multiple other entities on loans where the selection of a claimant is essentially random.

The basic playbook of the banks is to insert a real business entity with no actual connection or transaction involving payment of value for the debt, note or mortgage and fabricating documents to imply that such transactions exist. My investigation and that of others reveals that PennyMac is one such sham conduit, in order to create documents that give rise to the legal presumptions that are available when a document appears to be facially valid.

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

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.
========================
PennyMac is generally used as a vehicle to launder bad title and pursue foreclosures on behalf of entities that have no right, title or interest in the debt, note or mortgage. Generally speaking all of the documents that purport to involve PennyMac and its predecessors are fabricated and false. They are false because they falsely imply the existence of financial transactions in which value was paid for the debt.
*
All residential home loans are about money and nothing else. The banks seek to distract you and the courts from looking at the money and instead, direct you into looking to documents. If I produced a document that looked facially valid, a judge might accept it as valid and true even though the matter asserted in the document is actually untrue. So for example if I were to produce a “facially valid” document saying I am your father, it wouldn’t be true but it would still be taken as true until you rebut the presumption arising from the “facially valid document.
*
So the first step is really examining a document to determine whether it is facially valid. There are times, strategies and tactics where it might be wise to direct the court’s attention to this issue by simply filing a motion that disputes the facial validity of a particular pleading oir document and asks for an evidentiary hearing on the subject. Some judges grant such motions because a ruling from such a proceeding might propel the case to an early end.
*
A facially valid means what is says. If the document recites all the elements required by statute and it is properly signed (and notarized if so required), the document is facially valid and the legal presumptions are available to the proponent of such a document or pleading.
*
So the court takes as true all assertions on the face of the document. A document is not facially valid if it is impossible to determine what is asserted as factually true.
*
A reference to an external document that is not attached or even identified frequently results in a dispute over the facial validity of the document which may require an evidentiary hearing on the validity and authenticity of the document. But if the opposing party fails to raise such an objection the document will be accepted as facially valid and then the factual assertions contained or implied by the document will generally be taken as true.
*
The debt lies at the root of the loan, the servicing, the collection, and the enforcement of the loan. Without the debt, there is no authority. Without the debt the action is not a foreclosure even though the lawyers label it as a foreclosure. The lawsuit or notice of sale is merely a device to generate revenue which is expressly void against public policy and law.
*
The problem is that the banks developed a scheme by which investors paid for the debt and never received ownership of the debt, note or mortgage. This means that third parties receive borrower payments, insurance payments, bailout payments and proceeds of foreclosure sales — something which is not allowed under current law, nor should it be allowed.
*
None of these third parties ever turn over such money to the investors who paid for value but did not pay value in exchange for ownership of the debt. As a result, any document implying the transfer of the debt through payment of value is substantively invalid because no such transaction ever occurred in the real world.
*
There is no reason for a “successor” to pay a “predecessor” if neither of them owned the debt. The only way you get to own a debt is by paying for it with real value which means money. When you ask for a description of such transactions you will be met with a variety of obscure objections whereas if they had it, they would gleefully reveal it. Neither the note nor the mortgage (or deed of trust) can be actually fully separated from the debt because the obligation to make payment on the debt is all that those documents are about.
*
I’m not saying the debt doesn’t exist. I’m saying based upon review and analysis of documents, there is nobody in the chain of title relied upon by your opposition who has ever participated in a transaction in which value was paid for the debt. Ownership of the debt can only be accomplished, based upon my research, by payment of value for the debt. See Article 9 §203 of the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted by all U.S. jurisdictions including your own.
*
Payment of value for the debt is a condition precedent to enforcement of the debt. This is both common sense and statutory law. If “servicing”, administration, collection or enforcement of the debt is performed on behalf of a claimant that does not own the debt, then the condition precedent is not met. Such actions are illegal and any documents that are created to support such illegal actions are void.
*
If the “servicer” or holder of a limited power of attorney, as in many cases, is not the legally authorized representative of a party who possesses ownership of the debt (i.e., they paid for it) then their actions are illegal, unauthorized and probably fraudulent. In a foreclosure the court must know (not hope) that the proceeds of the foreclosure sale will go to a party or group of parties who paid value in exchange for ownership of the debt. If the court does not know that, it isn’t a foreclosure, which is a remedy exclusively designed to provide restitution of an unpaid debt. 
*
The issue confronting you is that the documents, at first blush, appear to be facially valid. But the reference to an unidentified unattached external document like a Power of Attorney in lieu of an actual servicing agreement reciting the authority of the parties, makes such documents facially invalid but still subject to proof. Upon proving authority as I have outlined above, the document could be deemed valid, if the proffering party proves the line of succession that starts with an owner of the debt. In virtually all “securitization” cases I don’t think any such line of succession exists.

Navigating LOST COMMUNICATION With “Servicers” Who Are in Reality Merely Steering You Into Foreclosure

The main point is that borrowers must calibrate their thinking. Debtors are not dealing with anyone who wants to collect payments. They are dealing with someone who wants a foreclosure so they can steal the proceeds. The forced sale of the house generates revenue that is distributed to several players involved in the foreclosure effort and several players involved in the REO sale and eviction.

The rest of the money goes to the securities brokerage firm (investment bank) where there is no loan receivable account against which to credit the deposit. In short, while labeled as various vaguely described transactions, the substance of the deposit is that it is revenue even if it is not declared as such for tax purposes.

Against this backdrop a common complaint I receive is that borrowers are in good faith attempting to make payments or send documents requested by the “servicer” only to find that they are unable to do so or that the documents were lost. So they ask me what to do next.

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

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.
========================

RULE #1: STOP CALLING THEM “THE BANK.” THEY ARE MOST LIKELY NOT THE BANK — AND THEY DO NOT EVEN QUALIFY AS SERVICERS IN MOST INSTANCES. THINK OF THEM AS SCAM ARTISTS WHO HAVE GAINED YOUR CONFIDENCE (I.E. CON MEN) TO PREVENT YOU FROM INQUIRING ABOUT WHO SHOULD BE RECEIVING YOUR PAYMENTS OR THE PROCEEDS OF A FORECLOSURE SALE. 

*
Technically you are most likely NOT dealing with anyone who qualifies as a creditor nor even a debt collector, who could only be functioning on authority from an actual creditor. So theoretically you would be well within your legal rights to simply not pay money to a party who is not entitled to receive them.
*
Reality is different from theory. While in past times anyone attempting to collect, process or enforce a debt would be required to disclose everything about their ownership, agency or authority, today virtually everyone presumes that any such party has legal status. Because of that presumption, refusing to make payments as demanded is fraught with the risk that (1) the pretender lender will declare you to be in default and (2) start enforcement proceedings against you based upon fabricated but nonetheless facially valid documentation.
*
So my usual and primary advice is to refrain from any action or inaction that puts you in a worse position than the one you find yourself. And I always recommend at least consulting with local counsel before deciding on any course of action.
*
That usually means you make the payments.
*
The only other alternative is to file a lawsuit in which you ask to deposit the funds in the court registry because you want to make the payments but you don’t believe the party demanding those payments has any actual legal right to do so.
*
INTERPLEADER: An interesting twist on this type of pleading could be that you file your lawsuit, asking for attorney fees, and name both the servicer demanding payment and the investment bank (securities brokerage firm(s)) that is/are most likely behind the securitization scheme. This would be an interpleader lawsuit that basically says I have this money, it is for a debt I owe, Party A demands it, but I think Party B might be the one to whom it is owed. I have no assurance from Party A that the money would be given to Party B or any other entity that has paid for the debt and is therefore entitled to receive the proceeds of my payments. I don’t care who gets it. I just want to know who to pay. 
*
In a further twist (which could negate your right to receive attorney fees) such an action could also include a count for disgorgement if the court finds that the party demanding payment was not entitled to receive it. That could mean return or deposit of all money ever received by the parties named as respondents in the interpleader action.

Generally, disgorgement is a form of “[r]estitution measured by the defendant’s wrongful gain.” Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 51, Comment a, p. 204 (2010) (Restatement (Third)). Disgorgement requires that the defendant give up “those gains … properly attributable to the defendant’s interference with the claimant’s legally protected rights.” Ibid . Beginning in the 1970’s, courts ordered disgorgement in SEC enforcement proceedings in order to “deprive … defendants of their profits in order to remove any monetary reward for violating” securities laws and to “protect the investing public by providing an effective deterrent to future violations.”Texas Gulf,312 F.Supp., at 92.

Kokesh v. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, 137 S. Ct. 1635, 1640 (2017)

*
Federal jurisdiction could apply.

Whereas statutory interpleader may be brought in the district where any claimant resides ( 28 U.S.C. § 1397), Rule interpleader based upon diversity of citizenship may be brought only in the district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside ( 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (a)). And whereas statutory interpleader enables a plaintiff to employ nationwide service of process ( 28 U.S.C. § 2361), service of process under Rule 22 is confined to that provided in Rule 4. See generally 3 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 22.04.

State Farm Fire Cas. Co. v. Tashire, 386 U.S. 523, 530 n.3 (1967)

*
In all events any attempts at communication or payment that are frustrated by the party demanding that payment should be documented by U.S. Postal Service, Certified Mail, return receipt requested — because your attempts will be denied. The robowitness or affiant on an affidavit will say there is no record of such attempts. LIke the above, an interim measure would be to pay the money into a trust account administered by an attorney or some other legally recognized escrow agent.
*
I have seen many judges ask the borrower who relates this story what they did with the money after it was refused. If there answer is that they spent it, the judge often construes that as undermining the credibility of the borrower’s testimony. But if the borrower says it was paid into escrow where it still remains most judges regard that in a light favorable to the borrower and it raises their antagonism toward the lawyers and the servicer who are now presumed to have screwed things up even if they were actually entitled to collect, process or enforce the debt.
*
PRACTICE NOTE: While actual tender of actual payment certainly bars any legal enforcement action to collect the tendered payment, it does not render the entire lien unenforceable. BUT if the notice of default and end of month statements show an amount due that should have been reduced by the amount of the tendered payment then the notice of default and subsequent notice of sale or lawsuit could be defective. And if the refusal to accept payment was part of a larger scheme to steer the borrower into foreclosure, that i sone building block in a case for illegal, fraudulent and/or wrongful foreclosure. 
*
Beware of the proof requirements against a court bias that the borrower was probably trying to game the system. We all know that it is the other side gaming the system but the court presumes otherwise, partly because it is legally required to do so based upon the facial validity of the documents presented — even if they are fabricated. For that reason I frequently suggest attempts at payment or delivery of documents in person at a branch or regional office, witnesses to such attempts, photos, and even video, where it is legal to do so. Signs posted to the effect that there is video surveillance might suffice as permission to record. Check with local counsel.
*
In addition, in litigation you can demand copies of recordings made at particular locations and/or times. The response will be they don’t have that recording but if you can get a judge to require them to produce the recordings on either side of the time frame in which the contact occurred, they will likely retreat because the absence of the video or audio recording will speak volumes about their conduct.

TILA Claims Can be Raised in Recoupment – Defensively

As Russ Baldwin and other lawyers have pointed out, borrowers can raise and use TILA violations and maybe FDCPA violations defensively even if they are otherwise barred as affirmative claims. The way it works is simple — the affirmative defense of recoupment for violations of statute, if proven, result in an offset to the amount demanded by the opposing party up to the amount of the Plaintiff’s claim (i.e., the amount claimed as owed).

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

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.
========================

In nonjudicial states, there is a serious constitutional question because it is only in states requiring judicial foreclosure that you can file an affirmative defense. It is in the application of the nonjudicial statutes that you get an unconstitutional result. A borrower should be able to say that he or she has affirmative defenses to the claim for foreclosure and that therefore the case must be transferred to a judicial foreclosure. But so far, that isn’t the case. And one day some smart constitutional lawyer is going to make new law.

But in the meantime the high number of TILA and FDCPA violations could go a long way toward decreasing and even negating the final award to the claimant even if the court presumes ownership and control over the debt, note and mortgage. My own experience is that the foreclosure mills start throwing out various settlement offers as soon as FDCPA is raised and probably would so if TILA violations were raised defensively.

see 2006 opinion In Re Sadie Faust https://www.leagle.com/decision/2006447353br941440

However, while the applicable statute of limitations may preclude Debtor from asserting TILA violations affirmatively, it does not affect her right to assert them defensively, i.e., by recoupment. See In re Ross, 338 B.R. 266, 269 n. 9 (Bankr. E.D.Pa.2006). And it is recoupment which the Amended Complaint specifically seeks. Amended Complaint, p. 4, WHEREFORE clause. “Recoupment is a common law contract doctrine that allows `countervailing claims, which otherwise could not have been asserted together to be raised in a case based upon any one of them.'” Integra Bank/Pittsburgh v. Freeman, 839 F.Supp. 326, 330 (E.D.Pa.1993), (citing Lee v. Schweiker, 739 F.2d 870 (3d Cir.1984)). Unlike setoff, recoupment “lessens or defeats any recovery by the plaintiff.” Algrant v. Evergreen Valley Nurseries L.P., 126 F.3d 178, 184 (3d Cir.1997) (quoting Household Consumer Discount Co. v. Vespaziani, 490 Pa. 209, 219, 415 A.2d 689, 694 (1980)). A party may assert recoupment as a defense after a statute of limitations period has lapsed. Beach v. Ocwen Fed. Bank 523 U.S. 410, 417-418, 118 S.Ct. 1408, 1412, 140 L.Ed.2d 566 (1998). The defense must be related to the nature of the demand made by the other party, that is, it must arise from the same contractual transaction. Algrant, 126 F.3d at 184.

In this case, the TILA claims arise out of the mortgage loan. It is alleged that the lender failed to disclose certain finance charges and the “high cost” of the mortgage loan. Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 22-24. Although otherwise tardy, such claims may nevertheless be raised via recoupment.

Also see Stake Center v Logix https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-utd-2_13-cv-01090/pdf/USCOURTS-utd-2_13-cv-01090-0.pdf

I frankly don’t know whether or not setoff claims might be barred by the statute of limitations. I can see court doctrine going either way. But on recoupment, the defense is based on the exact same transaction as the one in the complaint. So on that basis TILA claims would not be barred but FDCPA claims could be barred if the statutory period has expired. TILA and foreclosure arise from origination of the loan. FDCPA arises in collection often by a third party. So it could be that FDCPA would be setoff whereas TILA would be recoupment.

Although “[s]ome jurisdictions have dissolved the distinction between setoff [and] recoupment . . . for pleading purposes,”9 the concepts are nonetheless substantively distinct. “[A] setoff, as distinguished from a recoupment . . . ar[i]se[s] from different transactions, or occurrences, between the same parties.”10 Recoupment “describe[s] a claim that defendant could assert against plaintiff only if it arose from the same transaction as plaintiff’s claim.”11 The breach-of-contract counterclaim Defendant seeks to assert against Plaintiff arises from the same transaction or occurrence that gave rise to the claims Plaintiff asserted in its Complaint. As such, Defendant’s affirmative defense of setoff is not duplicative of its proposed breach-of-contract counterclaim. Moreover, even if the Court were to construe Defendant’s affirmative defense of setoff as an affirmative defense for recoupment, Defendant’s proposed counterclaim seeks relief in excess of the damages that would be available under a recoupment defense, including attorney fees, costs, and equitable rescission. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that amending the Answer to include Defendant’s breach-of-contract counterclaim will serve to maximize the parties’ opportunity to have their dispute decided on the merits and will not prejudice Plaintiff’s ability to prepare a defense.

Investors Were Not Injured By Non Payment from Homeowners. They Were Injured by Non Payment from Investment Banks

The trap door is thinking that investors were hurt by borrowers failing to make payments when in fact they were injured by brokerage companies not paying them regardless of how much money was being received and created. This trap door inevitably leads one into thinking that the money proceeds from a forced sale of property in foreclosure are being paid to investors. That is just not true.

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

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.
NOTE WE ARE STILL EXPERIENCING TECHNICAL ISSUES BETWEEN OUR STORE AND ONE OF OUR PAYPAL ACCOUNTS LINKED TO THE LENDINGLIES.COM STORE. IF YOU ENCOUNTER DIFFICULTIES COMPLETING YOUR ORDERS PLEASE EMAIL US AT NEILFGARFIELD@HOTMAIL.COM OR MAKE PAYMENT THROUGH PAYPAL AT OUR OTHER PAYPAL ACCOUNT GTCHONORS.LLBLOG@GMAIL.COM
========================

Exchange between me and fairly knowledgeable client:

Client: “But if investors put up the money then they would be the injured party if borrowers don’t pay, or at least if things were normal.”

From me:

Incorrect. Investors were injured by  the failure of brokerage firms to make payments to them that were purely optional. Investors were not injured by failure of borrowers to pay their mortgage payments as defined in the promissory note.

At the option of the investment bank, the investors who paid value for the certificates issued by the investment bank, continue to receive payments. Those payments come from a reserve pool of money funded entirely by the investors initial purchase of certificates (but they are labeled “Servicer advances”).

You are falling through the trap door that the banks and their lawyers have created. Investors did not put up money to purchase your loan or acquire it or originate your loan. They had no legal part in that unless a judge were to enter an order stating that while the form of the transaction says they had nothing to do with your loan, the investors were nonetheless substantively the “lenders.” The banks and the investors would argue against that since it would make investors liable for lending and servicing violations.

You are presuming something that the banks want you to presume. The truth is that the investors were told that they would be paid by the brokerage firm that set up the plan of what they called “securitization.”

The promise received by investors was from the brokerage firm not the borrower. The money on deposit with the brokerage firm was used to originate or acquire loans as a cost of doing business, to wit: the business of issuing and trading in derivative securities to which neither the investors nor “borrowers” were parties and therefore received no compensation despite the fact that without them none of those trades could have taken place.

The promise (certificate or mortgage bond) was issued in the name of a “trust” that at best was inchoate” under law (i.e., “sleeping”). The trust name was merely a business name under which the brokerage firm was doing business. The promise was not secured by any interest in the debt, note or mortgage on any loan. In fact, at the time of investment there were no loans in any portfolio that were the subject of the investment. There was a promise to aggregate such a portfolio and the list of loans attached to the prospectus is subject to the disclaimer that it is not the real list but rather an example of the kind of data the investors will see when the offering of certificates is complete.

The certificates themselves do not convey and right, title or interest to the debt, note or mortgage on any loan. The investors merely hold an unsecured promise to pay where the promissor is the brokerage firm (Investment bank) and the amount of payments to be received by investors are indexed on the data for an aggregate of loans; but such payments are entirely dependent upon the sole discretion of the investment bank (Brokerage firm) and the performance of the index — i.e., the performance of borrowers.

Investors thus receive money as long as the investment bank wants them to receive money regardless of actual performance of loans. The non performance of borrowers represents an excuse for the investment bank to stop paying the entire amount of their promise, if the managers of the investment bank so choose.

But since the investment bank (brokerage firm) was using money deposited on account the net result is that the investors paid value for the origination or acquisition of the debt but never got to own it under current law.

And the investment bank briefly became the “owner” of the debt without having actually paid for it, and then created a “sale” at its trading desk in which the loans were “sold” to the “trust” at an enormous premium (second tier yield spread premium) from the amount that was actually loaned to borrowers at much higher interest rates than the amount demanded by the investors. 

Bottom Line: Under current law in all jurisdictions nobody qualifies as the owner of the debt by reason of having paid for it because those two functions were split by the investment bank.

The value was paid by investors who did not receive ownership of the debt. The ownership of the debt as in the hands of the brokerage firm that started the securitization scheme and then transferred to itself using the name of the fictional trust. Hence the brokerage firm, directly or indirectly continued to “own” the debt without having actually paid for it. This is legally impossible under current law.

Under current law, nobody can claim to own or enforce a debt without having paid value for it. A transfer of rights to a mortgage is a legal nullity unless there is a concurrent payment of value for the debt. The only possible claimant in a court of equity is the investment bank, but they continue to hide behind multiple layers of sham conduits who actually have no contractual or other relationship with the investment bank. All such “securitized” loans are therefore orphans under current law where the debt, note and mortgage cannot be legally enforced.

The only way they have been enforced has the acceptance by the courts of erroneous presumptions that effectively reconstitute the debt, note and mortgage out of the prior transactions that split it all up. This produced the opportunity for profits that were far in excess of the loan itself which was viewed by the investment bank as simply a cost of doing business rather than an actual loan. Besides violating current law under the Uniform Commercial Code it also violates public policy as explicitly enunciated under the Federal Truth in Lending Act and public policy stated in various state laws prohibiting deceptive lending and servicing practices.

Those excessive profits should, in my opinion, be the subject of reallocation that includes the investors and borrowers without whom those profits could not exist. These are the actions for disgorgement and recoupment to which I have referred elsewhere on this blog. But in order to have real teeth I believe it is necessary to join the investment banks who had a role in the claimed “securitization.”

In affirmative defenses you can name a third party but you must express the defense as something for which the actual named claimant is vicariously accountable. Otherwise you need to file a counterclaim, the downside of which is that many such claims are barred by the statute of limitations whereas affirmative defenses are not usually subject to the statute of limitations.

The reason you can’t get a straight answer to discovery is that ownership and payment have been split between two entirely different parties. Yet current law demands that the enforcing party be (a) the owner of the debt, note and mortgage and (b) the party who paid value for the loan. In most situations involving claims of securitization that requirement cannot and is not meant to be fulfilled.

Clearly  changes in the law are required to allow for securitizations as practiced. But in order to do that the laws regarding disclosures to investors and borrowers must get far more specific and rigorous so that freer market forces can apply. With transparency market corrections for excessive or even unconscionable transactions are possible — allowing both borrowers and investors to bargain for a share of the bounty created by securitization arising from the investment of investors and borrowers.

Current law supports disgorgement of such profits because they were not disclosed. But current law fails to identify such “trading profits” as arising from the the actual transaction with investors, on one hand, and the borrowers on the other hand. This might be accomplished in the courts.

But a far better alternative is to level the playing field with clearly worded statutes that prevent what had been merely intermediaries from draining of money and other value from the only two real parties in interest as defined by both the single transaction doctrine and the step transaction doctrine.

Post Judgment Assignments Continue to Baffle Homeowners and Foreclosure Defense Lawyers

Charles Koppa in San Diego was the first person  to point out to me that the activities after even a nonjudicial sale told the real story about the what was going on. That was back in 2008. Lately I have been getting questions relating to post-sale or post judgment activities.

There is a doctrine that says that upon judgment in a judicial state or upon sale in a nonjudicial state, the mortgage or deed of trust is merged into the judgment or sale respectively.

The most recent questions I have received suggest that perhaps the debt, note and mortgage or deed of trust is extinguished by the judgment or sale. They are not. Merger is different from invalidation or extinguishment. And vacating a judgment or sale merely restores the parties back to where they were before the judgment or sale.

But sloppy orders from the bench sometimes creates doubt or uncertainty as to the rights and duties of the parties.

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

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 the answer to a recent question posed by a reader:

The law does not prevent someone from executing an assignment of mortgage. The question is whether such an assignment has any effect, and if so, what is that effect?

*
 This question appears to be coming up with increasing frequency and I am ignorant of the reasons why this is suddenly rearing its head.
*
First I will say that any attempt to position yourself such that the judgment eliminated the note and mortgage and therefore you are exempt from writ of possession or liability on the debt is a false position and would undermine your credibility in court, in my opinion. If the Judgment is vacated it merely returns the parties to the position they were in before the judgment was entered. Neither the mortgage nor note nor debt have been extinguished in such circumstances.
*
Second the entry of a final judgment of foreclosure has the effect of replacing the rights under the mortgage and note with rights arising from entry of the final judgment. In plain language this means that once Judgment is entered, the forced sale of the property may be scheduled and conducted and a new deed upon such sale has the effect of transferring title from the homeowner to the successful bidder at auction.
*
The successful bidder can be and often is the party named as the claimant in the foreclosure action. Instead of bidding with cash, the bid is normally a “credit bid” which means that the claimant in the successful foreclosure case uses the money award in the final judgment in place of cash.
*
Many different legal presumptions arise from each step of the foreclosure process.
*
There can be an “assignment” after foreclosure judgment has been entered but it is not technically an assignment of mortgage which is generally treated as merged into the final judgment of foreclosure. A document that purports to be an assignment of mortgage post-judgment would probably be ineffective to assign the mortgage which no longer legally exists, even though it remains in the title record. It would also be ineffective to assign the debt unless a court chose to treat the assignment as an assignment of rights under the final judgment of foreclosure.
*
The law does not prevent someone from executing an assignment of rights under the final judgment. But like all documents it must be both facially and actually valid. If it is facially valid then it is the burden of the homeowner to show that it actually had no validity. It has no validity if there was no completion of the transaction as required by law. By “the transaction” I mean the transaction implied by the assignment. No reasonable person would give up rights to a mortgage worth hundreds of thousands of dollars without payment.
*
As with most documents arising from claims of “securitized” loans there is no actual transaction in which money exchanged hands because the original consideration came from a third party outside of the entire chain of title. This the only party entitled to receive payment, under current law, would be the last party to pay value.
*

While I am not aware of any specific case law that deals with assignment of bidding rights or any other post judgment assignments, it seems likely that such an assignment would be required to meet the same test as an assignment of mortgage, to wit: that the assignment is a legal nullity (i.e., it never happened, it has no legal effect) unless there was a concurrent financial transaction in which value was paid for the debt.

This is definitely the requirement under current law in all U.S. jurisdictions. While the courts have twisted their interpretations beyond all recognition to make it seem like the requirement of payment of value has been satisfied, this can only be done through legal presumptions.

And the legal presumptions can be rebutted.

The key strategy for revealing the falsity of the presumption is discovery where the homeowner borrower asks the simple questions about the dates and parties to transaction in which value was paid for the debt, note or mortgage.

Generally speaking you will never see answer to such questions because if they did answer they would be admitting that nobody in the chain of title ever paid value as required by law. And generally speaking there are very few occasions where the court won’t order them to answer it. And generally speaking there are very few occasions where they don’t violate the court order which opens the door to inferences and presumptions in favor of the homeowner’s defensive position.

Interesting NY Decision on Acceleration: U.S. Bank N.A. v. Gordon, 176 A.D.3d 1006 (2d Dept. 2019)

 “failure to pay this delinquency, plus additional payments and fees that may become due, will result in the acceleration of your Mortgage Note. Once acceleration has occurred, a foreclosure action . . . may be initiated.”

the Notice of Default stated that “[t]o avoid the possibility of acceleration,” Defendants were required to make certain payments by a specific time, or ASC “will proceed to automatically accelerate your loan.” (Emphasis added).

see https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/ny-appellate-court-holds-default-letter-29981/

So it seems that in New York a notice of intention to accelerate or any notice that says that the supposed “lender” will accelerate is not the same as an actual acceleration. Actually that makes sense because any other interpretation would defy the intent of the notice of default. the notice of default is for the purpose of giving the borrower notice that unless they bring their payments up to date, the entire loan will become due.

The inherent logical and legal problem with this decision is that it is inconsistent with Florida (see Bartram case) and other states who made decisions as to implied “deceleration” for purposes of evading the effects of the statute of limitation. In fact, this very decision uses such “logic” to arrive at the conclusion that the “lender” is not barred because there was no acceleration. There was only an expression of an intent to do so. therefore any claims arising from acceleration could not arise.

In short the courts are speaking out multiple sides of their mouths.

On the one hand they say that deceleration which has never been claimed or noticed occurs upon the rendition of an order dismissing a defective foreclosure action and that the statute of limitations does not run on the balance where the “lender” has  given “notice” that it is intending to accelerate. The courts have thus “interpreted” a legal fiction into practical existence contrary to the rules of law. The acceleration is rendered void upon losing in court. There are various possible criticisms of such doctrine but the best one I think is “nuts.”

On another hand (or mouth) they are approving of “interpretation” of a notice of default declaring an intent to accelerate as actual being the acceleration for purposes of foreclosure. This is also crazy. If the notice of intention to accelerate was the actual acceleration then the notice would be fatally defective pursuant to paragraph 22 — which requires notice of default and an opportunity to cure it without paying the whole balance. So “intent to accelerate” cannot be the same as declaring acceleration since it would violate both law and contact. yet there it is in most courts where the “intent” is sufficient (according to most judges) to be an actual declaration of acceleration.

And still on another hand (or mouth) they are saying that acceleration does not occur where the lender declares only an intent to accelerate. This again is insane in the context of the foregoing “doctrines” imposed by the courts.

And of course the declaration of intent is contained in a “notice of default” that is a complete legal nullity, to wit: it is declared on behalf of U.S. Bank and a trust neither of which have any interest in the loan.

In short, the courts are willing to bend every rule, break any logical flow, and divert every rule in order to rule in favor of nonentities just like this case. U.S. Bank had no right, title or interest in the loan, debt, note or mortgage and neither suffered any financial loss for nor was it exposed to any default  declared or otherwise. And neither did any entity supposedly or presumably represented by U.S. Bank.

Note that acceleration can be accomplished through filing of a lawsuit where acceleration is declared. But in nonjudicial states, this is not possible if nonjudicial foreclosure is pursued.

Foreclosure Defense: To BKR or not to BKR, here are the issues in Bankruptcy

The bottom line is that Chapter 7, 11, or 13 bankruptcy can be effective tolls in defending against unlawful foreclosures, but hey are not magic bullets. Like all legal procedures attempting to navigate them without a licensed legal professional who is a known quantity in Bankruptcy Court, is at the very least hazardous.

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

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 a client in the service of our country for whom I am rendering services with minimal charges. He asks me now about filing a bankruptcy petition. LIke all litigation strategies contesting unlawful foreclosures, success really depends upon either a successful discovery strategy, a successful cross examination of the robo witness, or both. Here is what I wrote to him:

First I need to coordinate with your BKR attorney. Make absolutely certain that you put nothing on any of your schedules that could be construed as admitting that  there is a valid secured lien in favor of anyone. Second, you might not need to file a lawsuit, because they will probably file a proof of claim — and you can object to the proof of claim. We often trip them up exactly there. If they don’t file a proof of claim (theoretically they are are not required to do so if they claim to be a secured creditor) you can file one for them in which you state that nothing is owed and there is no lien in favor of the named creditor.

*
But if your schedules are done correctly (contrary to virtually all software used by BKR attorneys) they will be forced to file a proof of claim, because you will be listing the house as an asset that is collateral for a loan, if it still exists, that may be owned by John Doe.
*
They might also file a motion to lift stay (MLS). That gets tricky because the threshold on such a motion is whether there is ANY color of a claim that could be pursued in the state courts or by nonjudicial foreclosure and subsequent possession. Assuming we are right that the current claimant has no claim, the lawyers and/or servicers will produce fake documents that are facially valid, even though they are totally fake.
*
In most instances the facially valid documents are taken as sufficient color of title or claim such that the stay is lifted. While this is often treated by both attorneys and judges as a judgment on the merits, it is not. It is merely a determination by the bankruptcy court that in the interest of judicial economy and the bankruptcy estate, the matter should be resolved under state law, rather than Federal bankruptcy law.
*
Depending upon how the wind is blowing, you can file a lawsuit. You can do this in one of three ways: (1) an adversary lawsuit in the bankruptcy court seeking declaratory, injunctive or supplemental relief, (2) a collateral action in state court or (3) a collateral action in Federal court.
*
The key to any of this is getting discovery. First you serve interrogatories, requests to produce and requests for admissions directed at who owns the debt by reason of having paid for it. The added implied component is that they paid a party who owned the debt by reason of having paid for it. And the further implied element is that the claimant paid value for THE debt not just any debt, such as that arising solely from the note itself which may or may not be evidence of the debt.
*
Then you file a motion to compel if they don’t answer or object. That is standard fare for the foreclosure mills. If they do have a confirmable money trail you are most likely going to lose, so if you get to that point, I think it would be wise to settle. While there have been some judges who simply won’t give anything to homeowners and who think that all homeowners in foreclosure are deadbeats, my experience is that the overwhelming majority of judges will grant an order to compel answers to the discovery propounded to the claimant.
*
The big mistake made by pro se litigants is that they snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by failing to file a motion to compel and then failing to file a motion for sanction seeking to strike the pleadings and enter judgment for the homeowner. the plain simple fact is that in most cases the entire foreclosure case rests upon a paper trail that diverges from the money trail. If you are successful, at a minimum, you will be undermining the prima facie case that the claimant is pursuing foreclosure for restitution of an unpaid debt owed to the claimant — and you will win at least 65% of the time (based upon my experience).
*
The reason for the high percentage of cases in which the foreclosure mills lose the case is simply that they don’t have a real client, a real claim or a real claimant. Their entire case is completely dependent upon presumptions arising from the facially validity of fake documents.
*
As I have seen repeatedly, possession of the note is by the law firm and the law firm is naming a claimant as client with whom they have had no contact nor any retainer agreement. It is all based upon plausible deniability of everything blows up. And the lawyers under current construction of litigation privilege seem to have total immunity for pushing a revenue scheme that includes the law firm.
%d bloggers like this: