EXAMPLE OF PLEADING TRAPPING PRETENDERS IN THEIR OWN LIES

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

  1. Using the exhibits filed by the respondents the confusion created by the respondents, the on-record conduct of the Respondents in arrogant defiance and contempt of the this Court’s discharge injunction, and the breaks in chain of title that are self-evident (and clearly shown below), leads to the inescapable conclusion that the application for relief from stay was faked, the foreclosure sale was faked, the deed issued was improper, and the eviction was wrongful even without the issues of forgery and fabrication.
  1. The entire series of events caused by the respondents is based upon the substitution of an illegal notary clause for an actual affidavit with sworn testimony from an actual person with actual knowledge verifying the authority of the signatories and the authenticity of the documents. California notaries are expressly forbidden to attest to the authority of an individual for use in another state. Respondents nevertheless regularly use this device to create the appearance of authority when none exists. They did so when they used the name of Chevy Chase Bank, a defunct bank to apply for relief from stay, and they did so in connection with several key documents without which they would have no color of title to property or loans for which it is clear that had no actual authority or title.
  1. But for this sleight of hand trick by the Respondents, none of the actions to seek relief from stay in Petitioner’s bankruptcy and to collect on a debt that was not due to them, none of the actions for foreclosures, sale or possession would have or could have occurred. The following chain of title report is taken from the Respondents’ own exhibits with reference thereto.

4. Careful scrutiny of the chain disclosed below reveals the unlawful intermediation of parties that were at best conduits but who masqueraded as real parties in interest for the express purpose and intent of stealing from the Petitioner and the undisclosed creditor-investor, who probably still does not know what transpired in these actions. The result was a substantial loss to both the Petitioner and the other creditors of the Petitioner who could have otherwise been paid.

  1. When Chevy Chase applied for relief from stay, it was at best a bookkeeper.  It provided no proof of its own authority as to the decision to foreclose or even to establish the status of the debt. It was presumably receiving instructions from the “creditor.” The “creditor” from whom it was receiving such instructions may be presumed from the actions of the respondents to have been the Respondents themselves, who inserted themselves into the process without any right, justification, excuse or authority. Hence the application for relief from stay was fraudulently filed and procured.
  1. DEED OF TRUST: (EXHIBIT B)

6.1.                  GRANTOR/TRUSTOR: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

6.2.                  GRANTEE: NORTH AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY

6.3.                  BENEFICIARY: MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., “NOMINEE” FOR FIRST MAGNUS FINANCIAL CORPORATION

6.4.                  LENDER: FIRST MAGNUS FINANCIAL CORPORATION

  1. TRANSFER OF SERVICING RIGHTS 8/29/06 (EXHIBIT C)

7.1.                  ASSIGNOR: FIRST MAGNUS FINANCIAL CORPORATION

7.2.                  CHEVY CHASE BANK, F.S.B.

  1. NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE:  (EXHIBIT C -10)

8.1.                  ASSIGNOR: MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., “NOMINEE” FOR FIRST MAGNUS FINANCIAL CORPORATION.

8.1.1. Signed (allegedly) by Pamela Campbell as “Assistant Secretary” of MERS while she was employed by Cal-Western Reconveyance who is not and was not a member of MERS.

8.1.2. Campbell’s name has been widely cited as a known robo-signed signature affixed by numerous different people, as can be seen by the different signatures on sets of documents discovered in Maricopa County, corroborated similar reports from California and other states.

8.1.3. Petitioner has learned that whoever signed Pamela Campbell’s name must have used the user ID and password of someone other than Pamela Campbell — Probably someone from US Bank, who was by pretense asserting itself as the creditor.

8.1.4. Based upon Published information in cases, media and the MERS website, these facts would strongly indicate that the substitution of trustee document was neither prepared nor executed by anyone employed by Cal-Western and was probably prepared and executed by one of the many servicer providers that were in the business of fabrication and execution of false documents.

8.2.                  FIRST MAGNUS WAS LIQUIDATED PREVIOUS TO THE ALLEGED SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE IN A TUCSON BANKRUPTCY CASE

8.3.                  FIRST MAGNUS DID NOT CLAIM OWNERSHIP OF PETITIONER’S LOAN IN ITS PREVIOUSLY FILED BANKRUPTCY

8.3.1.     THUS EITHER FIRST MAGNUS WAS MERELY A NOMINEE FOR AN UNDISCLOSED LENDER AT ORIGINATION OF THE LOAN OR FIRST MAGNUS ASSIGNED THE LOAN TO A THIRD PARTY BEFORE THE FIRST MAGNUS BANKRUPTCY

8.3.1.1.         If First Magnus was a nominee, then it follows that there were two nominees on the Deed of Trust — First Magnus and MERS. Since no other institution was named, that leaves two nominees acting for an undisclosed principal. UNDER ARIZONA LAW NO LIEN COULD BE PERFECTED AGAINST THE LAND WITHOUT DISCLOSURE OF THE CREDITOR.

8.3.1.2.         If First Magnus assigned the loan to a third party before the First Magnus Bankruptcy, the documents submitted by Chevy Chase and the other “successors” are fabrications and forgeries by definition.

8.3.1.3.         EITHER WAY, APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY, THE SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE, THE NOTICE OF SALE, THE SALE, THE JUDGMENTS, AND THE EVICTION WERE ALL WITHOUT ANY COLOR OF AUTHORITY.

8.3.1.4.         EITHER WAY, THE ACTS UNDERTAKEN TO OBTAIN THOSE JUDGMENTS WERE CONTRARY TO THE DISCHARGE INJUNCTION ISSUED IN PETITIONER’S CASE.

8.3.1.5.         EITHER WAY THE DEMAND FOR RELIEF FROM STAY BY CHEVY CHASE IN PETITIONER’S BANKRUPTCY WAS WITHOUT COLOR OF AUTHORITY TO ACT ON BEHALF OF A CREDITOR THAT WAS NOT DISCLOSED DESPITE PETITIONER’S REPEATED ATTEMPTS TO REVEAL THE CREDITOR (ALSO CONTAINED IN THE PUTATIVE “SUCCESSORS” EXHIBITS)

8.3.1.5.1.              Petitioner has determined that the pooling and servicing agreement for the referenced pool contains language that requires the servicer to continue payments to the undisclosed creditor even if the homeowner fails to make payments. Said document also contains numerous references to insurance and credit enhancements that require payments and credits to the undisclosed creditor that were never revealed despite Petitioner’s numerous attempts to obtain said information. See Respondents Exhibits.

8.3.1.5.2.              Even if Chevy Chase was the authorized servicer at the time it applied for relief from stay, it failed to identify, contrary to OCC requirements, the status of the debt (and of course the identity of the creditor), taking into account all payments made. If the servicer complied with the pooling and servicing agreement then the creditor was receiving payments and reports that the loan was fully performing while at the same time other parties entered the picture out of the chain of title claiming a default. Hence the representation that Petitioner was in default was made either without knowledge or with reckless disregard for the truth.

8.3.1.5.3.              NO CREDITOR ON RECORD: The record is devoid of any representation from the true creditor that it is the creditor and the current status of the obligation, the amount due and what payments have been received from the servicer or other parties.

8.4.                  ASSIGNEE OF SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE: CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE CORPORATION (alleged by Petitioner robo-signed, forged and fabricated by Cal-Western using signature of Pamela E Campbell as “campbell,” reciting she is Assistant secretary of MERS, using notary clause in violation of California law attesting to Campbell’s authority). In short, Cal-Western appointed itself using an outsource provider to claim deniability as to the source of the document.

8.5.                  ABSENT FROM SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE: AUTHORITY OF PAMELA CAMPBELL, WHO WAS EMPLOYEE OF CAL-WESTERN, NOT MERS. No document has ever been produced showing a corporate resolution from First Magnus, MERS, or even Cal-Western to indicate that Campbell had any authority whatsoever. Instead the “successors” used a faked notary clause that violated California law to attest to Campbell’s authority. These “successors” thought it important to create some attestation of Campbell’s authority so they cannot now take the position that it was unnecessary.  In order to satisfy the requirements of title examination, the authority of Campbell would need to be established as these same “successors” have done in other cases where they filed a false Power of Attorney or Limited Power of Attorney.

  1. NOTICE OF TRUSTEE SALE: (EXHIBIT E)

9.1.                  TRUSTOR: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

9.2.                  CURRENT TRUSTEE (WITHOUT AUTHORITY): CAL-WESTERN

9.3.                  CURRENT BENEFICIARY: MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. (NOT AS NOMINEE), C/O CHEVY CHASE BANK . This is another indication that if MERS contact information for this loan was in care of Chevy Chase Bank FSB, then the document allegedly signed on behalf of MERS would not have been executed at the offices of Cal-Western, where Pamela Campbell worked as Assistant Vice President.

9.4.                CLEAR BREAK IN TITLE: NO MENTION OF FIRST MAGNUS FINANCIAL CORPORATION, “LENDER” IDENTIFIED IN DOT AS SECURED PARTY. Hence, the Notice of Sale was not on behalf of First Magnus, AMBAC, who shows on its website that it administers the pool identified by Respondent US Bank as supposedly owning the loan, nor even US Bank as successor to Assignee of First Magnus. Thus the Notice of Sale clearly states it is for MERS as the creditor, which is universally accepted as factually untrue, and contrary to the application to this Court for relief from stay obtained by Chevy Chase. Note that US BANK remains out of the picture — it is not mentioned on any document, recorded or otherwise.

9.5.                  EXECUTED BY CAL-WESTERN, “A LICENSED ESCROW AGENT”

  1. TRUSTEE’S DEED UPON SALE: (EXHIBIT I)

10.1.               CURRENT TRUSTEE: CAL-WESTERN (WITHOUT AUTHORITY

10.2.               GRANTEE: US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE RELATING TO CHEVY CHASE FUNDING LLC MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SERIES 2006-4

10.2.1.  FIRST TIME US BANK APPEARS — OUT OF CHAIN OF TITLE

10.2.2.  US BANK, TRUSTEE WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO ANY TRUST

10.2.2.1.      PETITIONER HAS DETERMINED THAT NO TRUST EXISTS

10.2.2.2.      PETITIONER HAS DETERMINED THAT US BANK IS NOT A TRUSTEE FOR ANY TRUST POSSESSING A CLAIM OR INTEREST IN PETITIONER’S LOAN

10.2.2.3.      PETITIONER HAS DETERMINED THAT AMBAC ADMINISTERS THE POOL ALLEGED TO HAVE RECEIVED THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LOAN, BUT THE DOCUMENTS DO NOT MENTION THE POOL NOR AMBAC.

10.2.3.  FIRST TIME CHEVY CHASE FUNDING LLC APPEARS, OUTSIDE CHAIN OF TITLE

10.2.4.  FIRST TIME MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SERIES 2006-4 APPEARS OUT OF CHAIN

10.2.5.  AMBAC, ADMINISTERS MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SERIES 2006-4 NEVER MADE A PARTY. AMBAC’s role is not yet known to Petitioner except that it claims ownership or rights to the same pool claimed by US Bank, “as Trustee, relating to” that pool. The presence of AMBAC and its known role in insurance and credit enhancement products for mortgage backed bonds indicates that it may have paid off the balance due to the investor-creditors who were the source of funds on Petitioner’s loan.

10.2.6.  NO CONSIDERATION FOR ISSUANCE OF TRUSTEE DEED: NO TENDER OF CASH OR DEBT OBLIGATION BY NOTE, AFFIDAVIT OR ANY OTHER DOCUMENTATION. NO CONSIDERATION FOR SALE. Thus the deed was issued in derogation of the rights of the true creditor, who remains undisclosed, as well as the rights of any other party who might have rights to the property or could have bid on the property. The result is that US BANK received title to property on which it had never made a loan, never purchased the obligation, and never had any authority to represent the true creditor, whether disclosed or not.

10.2.7.  SIGNED (PURPORTEDLY) BY RHONDA RORIE, WHO WAS UNAUTHORIZED EMPLOYEE NOTARIZING ROBO-SGINED DOCUMENTS FOR CAL-WESTERN, AGAIN alleged by Petitioner robo-signed, forged and fabricated by Cal-Western using signature of RHONDA RORIE as reciting she is A.V.P. of CALWESTERN, using notary clause in violation of California law attesting to RORIE’S authority).

  1. VERIFIED COMPLAINT: (EXHIBIT J) FOR EVICTION

11.1.               PLAINTIFF: US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE RELATING TO CHEVY CHASE FUNDING LLC MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SERIES 2006-4

11.1.1.  COMPOUNDING BREAK IN CHAIN OF TITLE (SEE ABOVE)

11.2.               DEFENDANT: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

11.3.               RECITES US BANK BECAME OWNER PURSUANT TO TRUSTEE SALE

11.4.               VERIFIED BY SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING BY DARREN BRONAUGH “ON BEHALF OF US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE RELATING TO CHEVY CHASE FUNDING LLC MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SERIES 2006-4.”

11.4.1.  FIRST TIME SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING APPEARS

11.4.2.  NO AUTHORITY REFERENCED OR ATTACHED

11.4.3.  DARREN BRONAUGH SIGNATURE HAS BEEN REVEALED AS ROBO-SIGNED ON NUMEROUS OTHER DOCUMENTS AND IS ALLEGED FORGED ON THIS VERIFIED COMPLAINT.

  1. 12.           LETTER FROM QUARLES AND BRADY 2/11/2011: (EXHIBIT (B)

12.1.               Asserts representation of US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE RELATING TO CHEVY CHASE FUNDING LLC MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SERIES 2006-4

12.2.               Does not assert representation of Specialized Loan Services, Chevy Chase Funding LLC, First Magnus Financial Corporation, Mortgage Electronic registration Systems, or Cal-Western.

12.3.               Demands possession for US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE RELATING TO CHEVY CHASE FUNDING LLC MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SERIES 2006-4

 

Wrongful Foreclosure Hits Cash Short-Sale Buyers Too: What? Ask Bank of America!

SERVICES YOU NEED

“Here is a simpler explanation: the financial services industry is throwing more paper at the system than it can handle. So they are getting away with “representations” rather than solid evidence and proof. If Judges would require at least a copy of the title report, this case would not have occurred — at least not in its current form. Of course THAT requirement would mean that they were looking at the facts, the chain of title and other things that borrowers and their attorneys have been screaming about for years. And the self-serving false affidavits would be tested by actual requirements of proof rather than the current presumptions that Judges are using to clear their calendars.”

EDITOR’S COMMENT: It’s really very simple. This case is not a “mistake”, it is a fatal flaw in the country’s judicial system and a fatal flaw in the country’s property title system. We can kick the can down the road or deal with it.

If this case does not prove to Fort Lauderdale lawyers that there is gold in these wrongful foreclosures (which is virtually every single foreclosure that has ever been started or concluded in the last 9 years) then shame on them for depriving their families of the  riches and luxuries that the owners of the foreclosure mills currently under criminal investigation have enjoyed from their yachts, jets and other perks. Let me put it this way, lawyers, would you rather make $10,000 from a PI case or $100,000 from each wrongful foreclosure case? Do I need to draw you a picture?

This man paid cash and bought the house on a short-sale. The satisfaction of mortgage was recorded and ignored because it is less expensive to use a credit report than to pull down the traditional title report before foreclosure. The satisfaction was a nullity anyway since the party who signed it had no authority to do so and the company for whom the satisfaction of mortgage was signed was not the mortgagee. But the deed was valid transferring title to the new owner. THIS IS WHY YOU NEED the COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS 6 MONTH SUBSCRIPTION INCLUDES MEMBERSHIP.

So BOA through its brand new BAC (after acquiring Countrywide) forecloses on the house as though the OLD OWNER still owned it and as if the mortgage was a valid encumbrance, and as if the note was evidence of an obligation that was outstanding. They even submitted the same tired false affidavits that caused GMAC to suspend foreclosures.

It is obvious but needs to be stated that ANYONE in the law firm and any person who signed papers in connection with the mortgage that was foreclosed had no personal knowledge of anything because if they did they would have known that the house was sold for cash and that there was no mortgage, even on paper. It is even more obvious that nobody is actually doing their job — not the servicers, not the foreclosure mills, not even the Judges. If they did, there wouldn’t be any foreclosures. But then the billions being made on the new “industry” of foreclosures would stop and that would make some very wealthy people unhappy — especially if they now have to give that back as damages for wrongful foreclosure.

Here is the rub. The old owner does not own it anymore because the old owner signed a deed. But the original mortgage of record is clouded because it is still there and nobody with authority has signed anything to remove it. So now the new owner, who paid cash, must file a quiet title action and maybe a slander of title action, wrongful foreclosure action etc for damages, all because in the magic world of “securitization” the paper doesn’t move, the loan is not securitized, the pool doesn’t own it, the loan was table funded, and there was no valid encumbrance, even though the mortgage was recorded.

Here is a simpler explanation: the financial services industry is throwing more paper at the system than it can handle. So they are getting away with “representations” rather than solid evidence and proof. If Judges would require at least a copy of the title report, this case would not have occurred — at least not in its current form. Of course THAT requirement would mean that they were looking at the facts, the chain of title and other things that borrowers and their attorneys have been screaming about for years. And the self-serving false affidavits would be tested by actual requirements of proof rather than the current presumptions that Judges are using to clear their calendars.

see Man Pays Cash, BOA forecloses and Sells the Property

Foreclosure Wave Hits Cash Buyers, Too

with 29 comments

By James Kwak

Since most of you probably read Calculated Risk, you’ve probably seen the Sun Sentinel story of the man in Florida who paid cash for a house–and still lost it in a foreclosure. Not only that, but he bought the house in a short sale in December 2009, the foreclosure sale happened in July 2010, and only then did he learn about the foreclosure proceeding.

Even after that,

“Grodensky said he spent months trying to figure out what happened, but said his questions to Bank of America and to the law firm Florida Default Law Group that handled the foreclosure have not been answered. Florida Default Law Group could not be reached for comment, despite several attempts by phone and e-mail. . . .

“It wasn’t until last week, when Grodensky brought his problem to the attention of the Sun Sentinel, that it began to be resolved.”

Bank of America now says it will correct the error “at its own expense.” How gracious of them.

If the legal system simply allows Bank of America to correct errors, at cost and with ordinary damages, after they happen, this type of abuse will only get worse. There’s obviously no incentive for banks not to make mistakes, and as a result they will behave as aggressively as possible at every opportunity possible. Yes, this was probably incompetence, not malice, on the part of the bank. But if you don’t force companies to pay for the consequences of their incompetence, they will remain willfully incompetent, and the end result will be the same.

South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com

Lauderdale man’s home sold out from under him in foreclosure mistake

By Harriet Johnson Brackey, Sun Sentinel

2:15 PM EDT, September 23, 2010

When Jason Grodensky bought his modest Fort Lauderdale home in December, he paid cash. But seven months later, he was surprised to learn that Bank of America had foreclosed on the house, even though Grodensky did not have a mortgage.

Grodensky knew nothing about the foreclosure until July, when he learned that the title to his home had been transferred to a government-backed lender. “I feel like I’m hanging in the wind and I’m scared to death,” said Grodensky. “How did some attorney put through a foreclosure illegally?”

Bank of America has acknowledged the error and will correct it at its own expense, said spokeswoman Jumana Bauwens.

Grodensky’s story and other tales of foreclosure mistakes started popping up recently across South Florida. This week, GMAC Mortgage, one of the nation’s largest mortgage servicers and a major mortgage lender, told real estate agents to stop evicting residents and suspend sales of properties that had been taken from homeowners in foreclosure. The company said it might have to “correct” some of its foreclosures, but was not halting those in process.

In Florida courts, which have been swamped with foreclosure cases for several years, mistakes “happen all the time,” said foreclosure defense attorney Matt Weidner in St. Petersburg. “It’s just not getting reported.”

And the legal efforts required to resolve a foreclosure mistake are complicated. “Unwrapping it is like unwrapping Fort Knox,” said Carol Asbury, a Fort Lauderdale foreclosure attorney. “It’s very difficult.”

The process is under increasing scrutiny, as Florida’s court system struggles with the mountain of cases that have resulted from the housing crisis.

Grodensky said he spent months trying to figure out what happened but said his questions to Bank of America and to the law firm Florida Default Law Group that handled the foreclosure have not been answered. Florida Default Law Group could not be reached for comment, despite several attempts by phone and e-mail. Grodensky said he has filed a claim with his title insurance company, but that, too, has not resulted in any action.

It wasn’t until last week, when Grodensky brought his problem to the attention of the Sun Sentinel, that it began to be resolved.

“It looks like it was a mistake in communication between us and the attorneys handling the foreclosure,” said Bauwens.

Court records show Countrywide Home Loans filed a foreclosure case in Broward County civil court against the former owner of the home on Southwest 14th Street in 2008. Bank of America took over Countrywide at the end of that year.

The following year, Grodensky and his father Steven bought the house for cash as an investment property. Jason Grodensky’s brother Kenny Sloan lives in the house now. They negotiated a short sale, which means the lender agreed to accept less than the mortgage amount. Documents show the sale proceeds were wired to Bank of America. The sale was recorded in December 2009 at the Broward County Property Appraiser’s Office.

But in court, the foreclosure case continued, the records show. There was a motion to dismiss the case in July, followed the next day by a motion to re-open it. A court-ordered foreclosure sale took place July 15. The property appraiser’s office recorded the transfer of the title to Fannie Mae the same day.

Bauwens said the lender would go back to court to rescind the foreclosure sale.

Broward Chief Judge Victor Tobin, who set up the county court’s foreclosure system, said this is the first he’s heard of this type of mistake. “From the court’s point of view we have no way of knowing that someone sells a house unless they tell us,” said Tobin. “The bank would first have to tell the lawyers and the lawyers would presumably ask the court for an order dismissing the case.”

Tobin said the court system is under pressure to clear up its foreclosure backlog. This year, the state court system pumped $6 million into the effort, hiring more temporary judges and staffers.

Some say there’s too much effort aimed at simply disposing of the cases.

“The evidence doesn’t matter, the proof doesn’t matter, due process doesn’t matter,” said Asbury, the attorney. “The only thing that matters is that they get rid of these cases.”

Mindy Watson-Cintron of Century 21 Tenace Realty said she was unable to stop a foreclosure even though she had a willing buyer for a Coral Springs home last summer. Watson-Cintron had a letter from GMAC Mortgage, agreeing to sell the house in a short sale. The letter indicates the deal would be accepted through Aug. 20.

Watson-Cintron said she called, pleaded and even spent three hours one day in the lobby of the law offices of David Stern in Plantation trying to get someone to agree to put the foreclosure on hold. Stern’s office is one of the nation’s largest foreclosure firms and, Watson-Citron said, represented GMAC in the foreclosure case.

But the foreclosure continued. The lender took back the home and now has it listed for sale — at a lower price than Watson-Cintron’s buyer offered. “The bank’s not talking to the attorneys and the attorneys are not talking to the courts,” she said.

Stern could not be reached for comment despite several attempts by phone and e-mail to his office. A spokesman for GMAC Mortgage promised to look into the case.

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum is investigating Stern’s firm, Florida Legal Default Group, based in Tampa, the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson in Fort Lauderdale and Shapiro & Fishman, which has offices in Boca Raton. Officials have said the investigation centers on whether foreclosure documents submitted by these firms were false, misleading or inaccurate.

In announcing its decision this week to halt evictions and suspend sales in foreclosure cases, GMAC cited a deposition by Jeffrey Stephan in a Palm Beach foreclosure case in which Stephan said he did not verify all the documents and did not sign them all in the presence of a notary. Stephan said he signed as many as 10,000 documents a month.

Some foreclosure defense attorneys have questioned whether similar practices involve other lenders as they push huge numbers of foreclosures through the courts. In one South Florida foreclosure case, Chase Home Finance executive Beth Cottrell said in a deposition in May that her team of eight supervisors signs 18,000 documents a month. Chase’s spokesperson did not comment.

Harriet Johnson Brackey can be reached at hjbrackey@SunSentinel.com or 954-356-4614.

AFTER THE SALE: PART I

Submitted by Charles Koppa. 6/9/2010

Editor’s Note: We are starting to look at events AFTER the sale has taken place and we are discovering a number of things:

  • CREDIT BID: Only the Creditor can submit a credit bid. All others must pay actual money. If a non-creditor submitted a credit bid (essentially bidding the “amount due” which as we have seen from the FTC action against BOA is incorrectly stated) then the procedure has been violated, the sale has not legally occurred. At least that is my interpretation.
  • Also the submission of a credit bid locks in the position of the parties. So if you are suing for wrongful or fraudulent foreclosure, they no longer have the option of fabricating documents as you raise one objection after another.
  • The obligation to return money rightfully owed to the homeowner continues but it is ignored. Thus even if the property is not sold to a bonafied purchaser for value without notice of defects, the net accounting due is the same. So the receipt of third party insurance, credit default swaps, or other credit enhancement payments is still required to be allocated to this loan. Hence there is a damage claim against the participants in the foreclosure and sale.
  • More later. For now read Charles’ comments below

REO’s and OREO’s have NO MERS Identification Numbers.

1.  Loan Servicer (as a MERS member) initiates the NOD and NOTS.
2.  When the auctioneer pronounces “Back To Beneficiary”, the securitized bond trust receives the MinBid at averages of 46% below the NOTS amount posted the day before.  Bondholder “paper certificate losses”  are unconscionably assigned against the Real Estate asset. “The Paper Trust” gains an untitled transfer of the Real Estate Asset which it NEVER Wanted!
3.  The Auction extinguishes the Toxic Security on Wall Street.  Counterparties collect on their bets.  Investor lose their investments” and the monthly cash interest streams are terminated.
4.  Simultaneously, the Servicer (and MERS) are extinguished from all public records.  Servicer collects on MGIC or other mortgage insurance to cover ALL their contrived losses and costs.
5.  When the re-sale is completed, “The Bookkeeping Trust” ALSO disappears from County Property RECORDS!!!
6.  Until re-sold, the real property travels at ZERO book value into an off balance sheet private entity (mostly controlled by the BHC) which was the SIV “depositor” (as an off balance entity) in setting up the REMIC and/or the Investment Trust in the first place.

Judge Buford Slams Mers for Its Own Confusion

Vargas_MTD_Tentative1

Judge Buford in Bankruptcy Court has no problem seeing the real issues. Here he is again stating that MERS has no standing and that MERS is confused as to whether it is acting in is own behalf or as agent for the note holder. He further makes it clear that the loan is not secured by the real property where MERS is the “nominee.” Since MERS admits, indeed advertises it will never make a claim to ownership of the note (otherwise nobody would use their service) there is absolutely no basis under law or equity in any court where it should be allowed to foreclose.

But they have done exactly that. So now that we know all those foreclosures were done illegally not for some procedural reason, but because MERS is not a creditor, what does that do to the hundreds of thousands of foreclosure sales that took place using MERS as “nominee” as the base of the chain. The answer, as anyone with knowledge of property law will tell you, is that the foreclosure sale is void, not voidable.

That in turn means that whoever owned it before the “sale” still owns it. Which of course means in most cases that there are hundreds of thousands of people who were homeowners that still own the property that was “foreclosed.” It also means, if the house is empty that they have the right to re-enter it. So you see, it is on this simple fact and basic black letter law that the entire foreclosure mess is proved to be an illusion. There is no mess. There is just a lot of paper that doesn’t mean anything.

If a Judge signed an order setting the sale date (as opposed to lifting the stay) THEN it is highly probable that in order to regain possession of the house you would need to file a quiet title action and quite possibly an action for damages.

Foreclosure: Michigan Postponements discussed

> Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 14:56:30 +0000
> To: ngarfield@msn.com
> Subject: [Livinglies’s Weblog] Comment: “Mortgage Meltdown: Foreclosure Offense or Defense in Trustee or Non-Judicial Sales

“Comment:
> In Michigan, the trustee CANNOT postpone the sale to another time. There is NO statute allowing them to do that. However, the mortgagee can postpone the the sale if the need arises.
> MCL 600.3220 Sale; adjournment; notice; posting; publication.
> Sec. 3220.
> Such sale may be adjourned from time to time by the sheriff or other officer or person appointed to make such sale at the request of the party in whose name the notice of sale is published by posting a notice of such adjournment before or at the time of and at the place where said sale is to be made, and if any adjournment be for more than 1 week at one time, the notice thereof, appended to the original notice of sale, shall also be published in the newspaper in which the original notice was published, the first publication to be within 10 days of the date from which the sale was adjourned and thereafter once in each full secular week during the time for which such sale shall be adjourned. No oral announcement of any adjournment shall be necessary.

RESPONSE:

Thanks for the info. A court order will usually do the trick. IN securitized transactions, a notice of sale from the Trustee is NOT proper since there are necessary and indispensable parties down and up the securitization chain that have legal, equitable and constructive rights, ownership, or control over the note and mortgage (Deed of Trust). Those must be named in a judicial foreclosure action. There is no way around that and any securitized loan that was sold by -non-judicial foreclosure is void for lack of proper jurisdiction and procedure. Title is clouded, as was found recently in a Texas case and several other cases that are now headed for appeals courts. Trustee breached fiduciary duty and contractual duty and so did the “lender”. The lender was paid and then got the property too. to add insult to injury the borrower can now be sued AGAIN by the real parties in interest, the investors, who possess the only claim to being holders in due course. These inestors are not in privity with any ofthe foreclosing parties — Trustee, Lender etc. Trustee should be removed for breaches of duty and a new one installed by the Court. Case should be referred to judicial foreclosure, if the new trustee determines that it can qualify for legal standing.
> Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 14:56:30 +0000
> To: ngarfield@msn.com
> From: donotreply@wordpress.com
> Subject: [Livinglies’s Weblog] Comment: “Mortgage Meltdown: Foreclosure Offense or Defense in Trustee or Non-Judicial Sales”
>
> New comment on your post #119 “Mortgage Meltdown: Foreclosure Offense or Defense in Trustee or Non-Judicial Sales”
> Author : C-T0001 (IP: 98.243.133.98 , c-98-243-133-98.hsd1.mi.comcast.net)
> E-mail : retroracers2007@yahoo.com
> URL : http://www.healthyhighway.com/foreclosure.htm
> Whois : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=98.243.133.98
> Comment:
> In Michigan, the trustee CANNOT postpone the sale to another time. There is NO statute allowing them to do that. However, the mortgagee can postpone the the sale if the need arises.
> MCL 600.3220 Sale; adjournment; notice; posting; publication.
> Sec. 3220.
> Such sale may be adjourned from time to time by the sheriff or other officer or person appointed to make such sale at the request of the party in whose name the notice of sale is published by posting a notice of such adjournment before or at the time of and at the place where said sale is to be made, and if any adjournment be for more than 1 week at one time, the notice thereof, appended to the original notice of sale, shall also be published in the newspaper in which the original notice was published, the first publication to be within 10 days of the date from which the sale was adjourned and thereafter once in each full secular week during the time for which such sale shall be adjourned. No oral announcement of any adjournment shall be necessary.

Foreclosure Defense Strategies: Sale Pending

 

Here is a strategy for one person in California whose lenders are GMAC and Countrywide. He is about one week away from sale of his property. Feel free to use what suits you.

  • Keep in mind that the hyper-inflated values used by the appraiser, lender, underwriter, and mortgage broker constitute a violation, in my opinion, of the very abuse that TILA (Truth in Lending Act) was intended to stop: hiding the true cost of your loan. 
  • If your house is priced at $500,000 and you agree to pay 5% interest, you are agreeing to pay $25,000 in interest. 
  • But if the real fair market value was only $350,000 then the $25,000 you are paying in interest is actually 7.14% and that was NOT disclosed in TILA statement and neither was the possibility that the appraisal could be wrong.
  • This means that the interest, points, costs and fees were all misrepresented and you are entitled to a full refund, which in the case below could amount to over $100,000 from the lender.

 

OK, first the disclaimer, since I am a licensed attorney in Florida and the United States Courts and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. I have not conducted an interview with you, offered you legal advice, nor suggested that you rely upon my advice or use my advice or any facts I share with you without consulting competent counsel in any state or Federal Court or in connection with any communication with your GMAC lender or Countrywide second mortgage. NEEDLESS TO SAY, WITH A SALE DATE LOOMING IN THE NEXT WEEK OR SO, YOU NEED TO MOVE VERY QUICKLY.

 

The following is an outline of information which you should read, re-read and study from livinglies.wordpress.com. 

 

Feel free to lift from this email or the blogsite any verbiage that is helpful to you in the pleadings you file in State and Federal Court (Bankruptcy Court). 

 

As I understand it, your intention is to first file a motion which I assume will look something like the following, and that you will be hand delivering the original to the Clerk of the Court, a copy to the Judge assigned to the case along with a request for an emergency hearing, and a copy to the attorney on the opposing side — and I assume that your local rules require your signature(s) on your Emergency Motion to be Notarized:

VERIFIED EMERGENCY MOTION TO SET SET ASIDE JUDGMENT, CANCEL SALE AND DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE OF JURISDICTION AND LACK OF STANDING

Comes now the defendants, xxxxxxxxxx and ___ xxxxxxx his wife, Defendants in the above-styled action and move this Court to vacate and set aside the Judgement entered on the __- day of ___, 2007/8, vacate and set aside the order dated __ day of ___, 2008 setting the sale date, and canceling the sale of the subject property and as grounds therefor says that the Plaintiff committed a fraud upon the Court in that the Plaintiff does not now and did not, at the time of the foreclosure, own the mortgage, the mortgage note, any security agreements, nor have the requisite power to represent the real party in interest, nor did the Plaintiff allege facts in support thereof. This Emergency motion is not filed for the purposes of delay. The true facts (and consequent fraud perpetrated upon this Court by Plaintiff) regarding the prior sale of the risk, servicing and ownership of the mortgage and note regarding the subject real property and alleged liability did not come to the attention of the undersigned defendants until the last 24 hours.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy was sent by FAX to opposing counsel at the following number _____________________ and by U.S. Mail at the following address _________________________.

SIGNATURE

NOTARY

 

I further understand that you intend to file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, await the motion for relief from stay for the foreclosure to proceed and that you intend to contest the motion for relief from stay by alleging the same thing as I have outlined in the State Court action and that in addition you will go to the Bankruptcy clerk’s office to file an adversary proceeding.

 

I assume you will put the “liability” in your bankruptcy proceeding as a contingent liability since it was procured by fraud along with a statement that the Creditor is not a creditor but claims to be one, and that the mortgage encumbrance is not a valid lien.

 

1. You have a house that was initially purchased in the year 2000 for $315,000.

2. You have done some refinancing during which your house was “appraised” at $750,000 around 3 1/2 years ago, which is about the middle of the period wherein a scheme had been hatched: money was made free by selling unratable securities to banks, governmental agencies, pensions, mutual funds and individual investors offering (a) a higher rate of return than they could otherwise get and (b) a higher rate of return than the underlying “investment” (mortgage) was paying. These were called collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) or collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) or other forms of “derivative securities, including but not limited to mortgage swap and other “hedge products, all of which were outside the regulatory scheme contemplated by the United States Federal Reserve and the various agencies controlling issuance and disclosure and sale or trading of such securities.

3. The seller’s of these securities obtained AAA ratings from Moody’s and S&P who were competing for market share of the ratings business and ended up literally going fishing with the people who were representatives of the securities that were being rated. Analysis was replaced by negotiation and thus AAA rated securities were sold when in fact they should have ben unrated.

4. The securities were sold to investors (including governments around the world, who now must write-off a portion of their “cash on hand” and cut back social services) with “disclosures” that the proceeds of sale would be used to pay the interest and repay the obligation, thus giving rise to an obvious Ponzi scheme, which was a violation of laws and rules under the Federal Securities and Exchange act of 1933, and the Securities and Exchange rules, and applicable and similar State laws and rules

5. The investment bankers and other intermediaries who were selling the securities were making a bundle of money through commissions, fees, and mark-ups from their own portfolio which they bought from mortgage aggregators.

6. The demand for these high rated “cash equivalent” securities sky-rocketed, causing the investment bankers and retail brokerages to step up pressure on mortgage aggregators to come up with more “product” to sell. This aggregation process is either done within the investment banking firm or by a third party who also gets a “mark-up”, rebate or kickback.

7. The aggregators went to mortgage brokers and lending institutions (financial and non-financial) offering financial incentives to the mortgage banks, non-financial lenders, and mortgage brokers to (a) steer customers (borrowers) into mortgage terms that were contrary to the interests of the borrower (b) contained terms that conformed to the needs of the investment bankers that were selling the bogus non-ratable securities and (c) adopting practices and tacit understandings to pressure or trick the borrower to sign the papers that would ultimately be aggregated into pools of the aforesaid bogus securities.

8. The “underwriting” lenders allowed practices of creating fictitious borrower income and assets, fictitious appraised values all driven up by the influx of “free money,” in which all parties to the transaction, except the borrower understood that there was no risk underwritten by the “lender” who was passing along the risk to the aggregator and eventually to the investor in the CDO or CMO.

9. Appraisers understood that they would never be hired again if they did not confirm the value of the property at a high enough level to close the financing deal and the sale of the home and were thus given improper financial incentives and coerced into providing fraudulent assessment of the value of surrounding property and the subject property itself.

10. Borrowers were thus lulled, pressured or tricked into believing that the fair market value was as stated in their closing documents, and that the lender, the underwriter and the insurers of title and property were all relying upon those representations concerning fair market value.

11. In fact, the reverse was true, all participants except the borrower understood full well that the fair market value was over-stated, that the risks were actually being undertaken by the borrower and the investor in the bogus securities and that all the parties in between were profiting from this Ponzi scheme.

12. As a result the borrowers were all overcharged for points, costs, fees, interest, in transactions that they never would have signed had full disclosure been made.

13. Under the above facts, the parties involved in the transaction, except the borrower, were engaged in a comprehensive nationwide scheme violating the provisions of the Truth in Lending Act, Securities Laws, RESPA and RICO and the comparable laws and rules of the applicable state agencies.

14. Multiple investigations of these actions are taking place under actions started by attorney generals of the United States and various state governments and at least one U.S.L Trustee in the Bankruptcy Court of Judge Raymond B Ray in the Southern District of Florida wherein the the trustee has been instructed to investigate the civil and criminal responsibilities of Countrywide Mortgage, the results of which will apply equally to thousands of other parties involved in this scheme which resulted in undermining the economy, money supply and wealth of the United States of America, other countries, and virtually all American citizens.

%d bloggers like this: