This decision, although not yet for publication, brings us another step closer to exposure to the largest economic crime in human history. Every lawyer should read it more than once in its entirety. It contains the arguments and the narrative for most successful defense strategies against fraudulent foreclosures.
Fundamental to understanding why foreclosures are fraudulent and why most borrowers should prevail is an examination of how the banks and servicers attempt to paper over the absence of (a) ownership of the debt and the failure to identify the owner and (b) any evidence of an actual nexus with the supposed contract they are seeking to enforce — in the absence of anyone else claiming the right to enforce. Their entire premise rests on bank control of who knows about the subject debt.
That void is what produced this decision and the decisions around the country in discovery, in motions (especially motions for summary judgment), and at trial that have been in favor of homeowners and then buried under settlements restricted by the seal of confidentiality —- thousands of them.
GO TO LENDINGLIES to order forms and services
Let us help you plan your answers, affirmative defenses, discovery requests and defense narrative:
954-451-1230 or 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult. You will make things a lot easier on us and yourself if you fill out the registration form. It’s free without any obligation. No advertisements, no restrictions.
Purchase now Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense webinar including 3.5 hours of lecture, questions and answers, plus course materials that include PowerPoint Presentations. Presenters: Attorney and Expert Neil Garfield, Forensic Auditor Dan Edstrom, Attorney Charles Marshall and and Private Investigator Bill Paatalo. The webinar and materials are all downloadable.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 954-451-1230 or 202-838-6345. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
GO TO WWW.LENDINGLIES.COM OR https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments. It’s better than calling!
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
====================================
See HSBC, Deutsch, PNC adv Felicitas Moore, Intermediate Court of Appeals, Hawai’i
Hat Tip to Da Goose and Awesome Order on Failure of Qualified Witness and Documents
Special kudos to Hawai’i Dubin Law Offices, representing the homeowner.
Whether this case will stand up to further appeal is a question that can only be answered by time. But I think that it will and that this case, like many in the past few weeks and months, is striking at the achilles heal of fraudulent foreclosures. It is worthy of study because it does much of the research and analysis for you. It is not binding in any other state and may not be binding even in Hawai’i, since it is currently designated as “not for Publication.”
If I were to write an article detailing the many fine points raised by this appellate court, it would be a book. So read the article and look for the following points:
- The existence and administration of the books and records of the supposed “REMIC” Trustee for the supposed trust is directly challenged, although indirectly.
- Summary Judgment just became more difficult for the banks and servicers, if you use the reasoning in this opinion.
- Verification of complaint by “authorized Signor” or the “attorney” does NOT end the inquiry into the facts.
- Presumptions work against the foreclosing party in motions for summary judgment.
- Courts are getting suspicious of anything proffered by a foreclosing party when there is an alleged “REMIC” “trust” involved.
- Affidavits or declarations that the affiant personally has possession of the note do NOT establish (a) possession or (b) the right to enforce before the foreclosure was initiated. [This will lead to even more backdating of documents]
- FOUNDATION: Self declaration of knowledge and competency are insufficient. Foundation requires that the affiant or declarant specifically state how he/she came into such knowledge and why he/she is competent to testify.
- A self-serving declaration that the affiant is the custodian of records as to one case” raises red flags. Such declarations are only proper when they come from an individual who is, in the ordinary course of business, the records custodian for the business. [This raises some very uncomfortable questions for the banks and servicers, to wit: there are no business records for the trust because (a) the trustee has no right to keep them or even review information that would be entered on such records and (b) the trust has no business that requires record-keeping. So the assumption that the servicer’s records are the records of the trust named as the foreclosing party is simply not true and more importantly, lacks the required foundation to get such records into evidence.]
- Self-serving declarations do not necessarily authenticate any documents.
- Attorneys for the banks and servicers are put on notice that chickens may come home to roost — for filing attestations to facts, about which they knew nothing or worse, about which they knew were untrue.
Filed under: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, forgery, legal standing, Servicer | Tagged: affidavits, declaration, Deutsch, FOUNDATION, Hawaii, HSBC, MOORE, notes, PNC, presumptions, self-serving, transfer, TRUTH | 3 Comments »