The DJSP suit against Stern alleges the firm knew at the time of the transaction that it was filing forged foreclosure documents, forging signatures and robo-signing foreclosure affidavits without giving them a proper review. It also alleges the firm was prosecuting foreclosures without obtaining proper service of process and filing inaccurate and/or incomplete court documents.
via DJSP sues David J. Stern alleging fraud in purchase of mortgage processing arm « HousingWire.
I noticed a tidbit in the FT that I think is more significant than commonly understood: “Fannie and Freddie are paying the legal fees of the former executives, officials said.” To be clear, it’s not Fannie and Freddie putting out these fees, it’s the taxpayer that owns and continually pumps capital into these companies.
via Matt Stoller: Taxpayers Paying to Defend ex-Fannie, Freddie Executives from SEC « naked capitalism.
The development reported by the Financial Times’ Shahien Nasiripour, that the inspector general for the FHFA, the supervisor of Fannie and Freddie, and the Federal Home Loan bank, has decided to share information with New York State attorney general Eric Schneiderman, is far more significant than it appears on the surface.
It’s a well deserved slap in the face of the Department of Justice.
Foreclosure lawyers have been pointing out for a while that banks didn’t have the paperwork to do the foreclosures correctly. They were foreclosing on people who weren’t behind, they were foreclosing on people who were supposed to be in loan modifications, and they were foreclosing in the name of the wrong company. There were significant false statements being made in court filings to foreclose. There have been settlement negotiations led by Tom Miller, the attorney general of Iowa, along with some of the federal agencies, that’s been going on for over a year now. A couple of the state attorneys general have now said, enough is enough, we’re not getting anywhere.
In the wake of the recent real-estate meltdown, the borrower of a nonperforming loan called his lender with promising news: “I have a buyer looking to make an all-cash offer for my Florida property. Will you meet with us tomorrow?” The lender’s answer: “No.”
Disturbingly, this implausible response is not uncharacteristic of lenders who exploit FDIC loss-share agreements by seeking to foreclose on nonperforming loans, even when prudent business judgment calls for short sale or loan modification solutions. By perverting the terms and spirit of loss-share agreements, these lenders are reaping windfalls while prolonging the foreclosure crisis, depressing real-estate values and sticking taxpayers with the bill.
via This FDIC-Sponsored Scheme Lets Loss-Share Lenders Get Rich Off Foreclosure | Embargo Zone.
By contrast, “a transfer of the mortgage without the debt is a nullity, and no interest is acquired by it” (Merritt v Bantholick, 36 NY 44, 45; see Carpenter v Longan, 83 US 271, 274 [an assignment of the mortgage without the note is a nullity]; US Bank N.A. v Madero, 80 AD3d 751,
752; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d at 754; Kluge v Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537, 538 [plaintiff, the assignee of a mortgage without the underlying note, could not bring a foreclosure action]; Flyer
v Sullivan, 284 App Div 697, 698 [mortgagee’s assignment of the mortgage lien, without assignment of the debt, is a nullity]; Beak v Walts, 266 App Div 900). A “mortgage is merely security for a debt or other obligation and cannot exist independently of the debt or obligation” (FGB Realty Advisors BANK OF NEW YORK v SILVERBERG v Parisi, 265 AD2d 297, 298). Consequently, the foreclosure of a mortgage cannot be pursued by
one who has no demonstrated right to the debt (id.; see Bergman on New York Mortgage Foreclosures § 12.05[1][a][1991]).
“This Court is mindful of the impact that this decision may have on the mortgage industry in New York, and perhaps the nation. Nonetheless, the law must not yield to expediency and the convenience of lending institutions. Proper procedures must be followed to ensure the reliability of the chain of ownership, to secure the dependable transfer of property, and to assure the enforcement of the rules that govern real property.”
“Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of standing.”
“Thus, the order is reversed, on the law, and the motion of the defendants Stephen Silverberg and Fredrica Silverberg pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of standing is granted.”Bank of New York v Silverberg.
BOSTON – Five national banks have been sued in connection with their roles in allegedly pursuing illegal foreclosures on properties in Massachusetts as well as deceptive loan servicing, Attorney General Martha Coakley announced today. The lawsuit was filed today in Suffolk Superior Court against Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, Citi, and GMAC. It also names Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. “MERS” and its parent, MERSCORP Inc., as defendants.
THE OCTOBER 2008 BAILOUT PAID OFF THE HOLDERS OF MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITES AND DERIVATIVE INSUREDS
The facts indicate that the Federal Reserve “printed” at least 16 trillion dollars as part of the 2008 bailouts. The bigger questions, however, who got it, why and what did the Fed get in return? The Fed doesn’t just print money. It prints money to buy stuff. Most often this is U.S. Treasuries. That changed in October of 2008. In and after October 2008 the Fed printed new money to buy mortgage-backed securities (MBS) that were defaulting at a rapid rate. Want proof? Here is a link to the Federal Reserve balance sheet which shows that the Fed is holding over a trillion dollars in mortgage backed securities that it began acquiring in 2008.
1. Continue to pay monthly mortgage payments(even if you are behind, high interest rate, could rent for less per month, or upside down on value?)
2. Pursue a Loan Modification with “The Bank” (If “the bank” does not own your loan, how can they modify? NOTE: “the bank” is PROHIBITED from modifying loans in their own servicing contracts)
3. Pursue a Short Sale with “The Bank” (Again… if “the bank” does not own your loan, who is “approving” such a “sale”… NOTE: recent litigation has proven many short sales to be INVALID… even years later…what a mess! In addition, countless short sale “victims” have reported receiving from the IRS a notice of income taxes due on the amount “forgiven” by the bank. Imagine paying for the house even though you no longer own it!)
4. Send a “Qualified Written Request” or pursue “damages” from predatory lending/deceptive lending practices or “Truth in Lending” claims with or without an “Audit”(If the original lender is out of business, and “the bank” does not own your loan… Who is the liable party for these damages?)
5. Demonstrate “Robo-Signing” or “Fraud” on the public record - (”The Bank” may respond that the documents recorded were “in error” only to rescind, and record corrected documents in their place)
6. Demand that “The Bank” produce the note (NOTE: State law in 49 states provides a loop hole where “the bank” does not have to produce the note in order to enforce the obligation)
7. File Bankruptcy (Only provides a temporary delay of game, delaying the inevitable, unless combined with a specific supplemental strategy)
8. Record “documents” of your own against the public record, i.e. Lis Pendens, Lien, (Historically these were successful, however now “the bank” does not even slow down to look at these, only to file litigation later to clear title.)
9. Pursue unending “PostPonements” by paying a monthly service (Again… this only delays the inevitable, and only works in the short term, eventually postponements fail causing the foreclosure sale to go through).
or…
10. PROCURE THE EVIDENCE NECESSARY TO PROVE THE OBLIGATION WAS SATISFIED IN FULL, AND WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF AN ATTORNEY, SEEK A COURT ORDER TO QUIET TITLE TO YOUR PROPERTY FOREVER.
A judge rejected a proposed $285 million mortgage securities fraud settlement between Citigroup and the SEC. He instead ordered Citi to face trial in July 2012
via CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News.
Robosigning is criminal, and I’m so grateful that Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto has the courage and integrity to prosecute people for committing it.
The very term “robo-signing” has, I think, inhibited prosecution because banks have successfully messaged that it was “just a harmless technicality; the real villain is the debtor, he defaulted.” “Just a technicality” is a plausible line because the conjured image is more ridiculous than scary, and as a nation we’re biased against debtors.
via The Dehumanizing Nature of Robo-Signing « Reality Check.
Fannie Mae, the mortgage finance giant, learned as early as 2003 of extensive foreclosure abuses among the law firms it had hired to remove troubled borrowers from their homes. But the company did little to correct the firms’ practices, according to a report issued Tuesday.
via Fannie Mae Ignored Foreclosure Misdeeds, Report Says - NYTimes.com.
At the start of 2011, the total number of non-current mortgages in the U.S. stood at 6,870,000. In January 2010, it was 8,118,000.
Attorney General Kamala D. Harris today announced that the California Department of Justice, in conjunction with the State Bar of California, has sued multiple entities accused of fraudulently taking millions of dollars from thousands of homeowners who were led to believe they would receive relief on their mortgages.
via Press Release | State of California - Department of Justice - Kamala D. Harris Attorney General.
Mortgage industry employees are still signing documents they haven’t read and using fake signatures more than eight months after big banks and mortgage companies promised to stop the illegal practices that led to a nationwide halt of home foreclosures.
via The Associated Press: AP Exclusive: Mortgage ‘robo-signing’ goes on.
In practice, when servicers needed to create mortgage assignments to replace missing ones for foreclosure cases, their own employees, signing as MERS officials, printed out newminted documents and signed their names to them. MERS has served in effect as an instant teller machine for mortgage assignments. Servicers simply have their own employees sign the needed documents as MERS officials.
via Life on MERS: Archive is at center of mortgage mess | Reuters.
To settle civil charges, Wells Fargo will pay an $85 million fine and compensate borrowers for allegedly falsifying loan documents and steering some borrowers to higher-interest subprime mortgages
via Wells Fargo to pay $85M over mortgage abuses - On Deadline - USATODAY.com.
A push by U.S. banks to win broad liability releases has become one of the main obstacles in talks to resolve a nationwide probe of mortgage-servicing and foreclosure practices
via Bank Foreclosure Deal Held Up Over Liability - Bloomberg.
For Cynthia Griffin, the court victory is a small step in what has been a long fight.
Nevertheless, for the first time in months, the stress of not knowing if she and husband Matthew Griffin will lose their home is gone.
via Premature foreclosure - Coeur d’Alene Press: Local News.
I mean, can you imagine if your bank handled your checking account this way, failing to credit your deposits and charging you outrageous fees without telling you about them? You’d change banks in a heartbeat. But therein lies the rub: Borrowers aren’t the mortgage servicers’ customers, and borrowers have no way to change servicers.
via Decoding the GOP Argument Against Punishing Banks for Their Mortgage Crimes - DailyFinance.
The AGs’ 27-page proposal leaked out last week. The settlement would be with Bank of America Corp, Wells Fargo & Co, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Citigroup and GMAC/Ally Financial Inc.
Missing from the document, however, are proposals for make-or-break issues such as:
The dollar amount of penalties the servicers would pay, and where money from the penalties would go. The document lists no amount, but a figure of at least $20 billion has been widely discussed. Whether the banks and their personnel may get immunity from potential state and federal criminal prosecution for filing forged or fraudulent documents in foreclosure cases.
via Analysis: Mortgage settlement proposal likely doomed | Reuters.
Representatives from six major banks that skipped a hearing
via Daily Business Review: Judge holds bankers in contempt, threatens jail.
* Allegations Deutsche Bank filed false documents
* Inquiry could affect foreclosures across United States
* Testimony demanded from Deutsche Bank officials
via US investigates Deutsche Bank in foreclosure case | Reuters.
Bank of America announced Monday that it had paid more than $2.5 billion to buy back troubled mortgages and resolve related claims from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — deals that may prompt a wave of such settlements by big banks.
via Real Estate | Bank of America buys back $2.5 billion in bad mortgages | Seattle Times Newspaper.
Real Estate, Housing and Recovery: The Next Robo-Signing Crisis? - CNBC.
distressed loan pipelines are “poised to get out of control beginning in Q1″
In case it’s not crystal clear, this isn’t the “Great Recession”.
It’s really the Great Bank Robbery.
via Infowars » It’s Not the “Great Recession”. It’s the Great BANK ROBBERY » Print.
The evidence shows, at the very least, it bought massive amounts of fraud.
via Fed Spent the Last 20 Months Buying $1 Trillion in Mortgage Fraud! | Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.
It only took him a second to sign each foreclosure document. That’s how good Tam Doan got at his job in Bank of America’s pre-sale foreclosure department in Southern California. Of course, he didn’t have time to actually read the paperwork he was signing, he said, and in some cases, he didn’t even know what documents he was putting his pen to. “I had no idea what I was signing,”
Quiz
1. What are “robo-signers?”
A Computers that auto-approve loans.
B Bank employees who sign loan documents without first reviewing their content.
C Powerful cyborgs that pressure bank employees to sign off on financial documents that are known to be inaccurate.
via Tam Doan: I was a Bank of America robosigner - Oct. 28, 2010.
Wrongful Bank Foreclosure
1/29/2010
Andrew J Garcia
Wrongful Foreclosures and the “Trashing Out” of the American Dream
The term “trashing out” in the foreclosure world, refers to the process of entering a home that’s been seized by a bank as part of the foreclosure process and then disposing of any of the contents that have been left behind by the home owners. “Trash out” crews literally go into a seized home and haul away anything that is left in the house.
“Trashing out” is not a pretty sight , though, because it literally involves throwing people’s possessions and personal property into a dumpster or the local landfill. In a matter of hours, “trash out” crews can blast through a home and dispose of furniture, clothing, family photos, tools and children’s games.
In the trash out world, a family’s possessions are measured in cubic yards, not memories. Anything over 35 cubic yards of possessions to remove is considered a big job in the industry.
Imagine the injustice then when a home is wrongfully foreclosed on and seized by a bank that has no banking relationship with a homeowner and a “trash out” crew enters the home and disposes of all sorts of meaningful personal possesions. In a larger sense, wrongful foreclosures are the “trashing out” of the American Dream.
Banks are seizing American homes today at an alarming and unprecedented rate. Like a train running down the track, once a bank starts the foreclosure process it can be almost impossible to stop it. And, once a bank has “trashed out” a wrongfully seized home, there’s no turning back. We want to hear stories from homeowners whose homes have been “trashed out” and from any former employees who worked on a “trash out” crew.
racist, predatory lending practices by the company led to increased foreclosures.
The latest complaint was filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Baltimore.
via Baltimore Sues Wells Fargo Again Over Lending - wjz.com.
What’s frustrating about gaffes that Bank of America (BAC) has suffered with its mangled attempts at home repossession is that they seem so avoidable. It’s happened again.
via Bank of America, another wrongful foreclosure? - FierceFinance.
Charlie and Maria Cardoso paid cash in 2005 for their house in Spring Hill. Five years later, Bank of America foreclosed on it.
via Bank of America forecloses on house that couple had paid cash for - St. Petersburg Times.
The latest ugly news for Bank of America is actually coming from Europe, where big institutional money managers and other mortgage securities buyers are now beginning to organize for an assault.
via A European Lynch Mob Is Coming For Bank of America - Matt Schifrin - Buffetts Next Door - Forbes.
Some Sand in the Gears of Securitizing - CNBC. Was the great securitization machine that made hundreds of billions of dollars in mortgage loans based on a legal foundation of sand?
“In their zeal to complete foreclosure proceedings, some banks send representatives to change the locks on properties in foreclosure, even as they remain occupied. The incidents of lock-changing pile further skepticism on a process recently plagued by scandal.”
(CNN) — Replique D’Amelio plays with her two children on their spacious lawn well aware the threat of foreclosure hangs like a cloud above the Wappingers Falls, New York home.
D’Amelio, though, is confident she’s found a legal strategy that will not only keep her in place, but could also stop mortgage bankers in their tracks as they attempt to lay claim to properties of hundreds of thousands of Americans who are delinquent on mortgage payments.
Embattled homeowner says bank can’t prove it owns her loan - Oct. 12, 2010.
“After watching this interview even the “non believers” will have a hard time arguing that the massively corrupt banking system can avoid the crash…
This is not just $45.5 Trillion in fraudulent assets (mostly Teir 1 assets for banks) but tacking on all the derivatives we end up with a number in the QUADRILLIONS!WITHIN A MATTER OF WEEKS THE HOUSE OF CARDS WILL FALL, THE DECK WILL BE RESHUFFLED AND WE WILL DEAL THE CARDS AGAIN….EVERYBODY HOLDING A FRESH NEW HAND.
ARE YOU READY?”
Bank of America lifts foreclosure freeze in 23 states - Oct. 18, 2010. LOL… REVIEWING 100K FILES IN LESS TIME THAN IT TOOK FOR THE ROBOSIGNERS TO SIGN OFF ON THE AFFIDAVITS…LOL
Soldier in Iraq Loses Home Over $800 Debt | Mother Jones.
Michael Clauer is a captain in the Army Reserve who commanded over 100 soldiers in Iraq. But while he was fighting for his country, a different kind of battle was brewing on the home front. Last September, Michael returned to Frisco, Texas, to find that his homeowners’ association had foreclosed on his $300,000 house—and sold it for $3,500.
Rescuing nation’s foreclosure town - Slavic Village, Ohio… Video - CNN Business News. TEARING DOWN HOUSES AS THE SOLUTION? WOW… GUESS YOU CANT EVEN GIVE AWAY HOUSES ANYMORE…
A FATHER’S FIGHT TO SAVE HIS FAMILY HOME FROM FORECLOSURE. - CNN iReport. SUCCESS!
AN INSPIRATION TO ALL HOMEOWNERS! YOU CAN DO IT! His answer? Dont Give up! HE DID IT!
Foreclosures Are More Profitable Than Loan Modifications, According To New Report.
Mortgage companies are more likely to foreclose on homeowners than modify their loans because they make more money off foreclosures, argues a new report by a consumer advocacy group.
Published: November 18, 2009
The coroner’s report left no doubt as to the cause of death: toxic loans.
A sign noting the takeover of Haven Trust. Regulators told the bank to reduce its risky loans, but the warning came too late.
That was the conclusion of a financial autopsy that federal officials performed on Haven Trust Bank, a small bank in Duluth, Ga., that collapsed last December.
In what sounds like an episode of “CSI: Wall Street,” dozens of government investigators — the coroners of the financial crisis — are conducting post-mortems on failed lenders across the nation. Their findings paint a striking portrait of management missteps and regulatory lapses.
via Mario Kenny.
A second wave of foreclosures is poised to hit the market, potentially undermining housing recovery efforts as more homes add to the glut of inventory and drive down prices.
Mortgage delinquencies hit record-high in 3Q - USATODAY.com.
WASHINGTON (AP) — More than 14% of American homeowners with a mortgage were either behind on their payments or in foreclosure at the end of September, a record-high for the ninth straight quarter and a problem that could threaten the U.S. economic recovery.
Foreclosure Fraud - What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You.
Folks in 99.9% of these loans, the Trust owns the loan. The Trust is comprised of several to several hundred investors who own a “piece” of the loan. But more than that… EVERY loan including the specific loan in our fictitious case above has been bought and sold NO LESS THAN 3-4 times. When a Note is sold/transferred (and it is a true sale by the way), the Note MUST be endorsed, just like a check. From one payee to the next. IF the loan was securitized and it is very safe to assume that every loan is/was, there will be NO LESS THAN 3 endorsements on the actual, ORIGINAL note which has the borrower/defendant’s wet signature on it.
So when XYZ Lender produces the “Original” Note for the court and it has NO endorsements on it, it’s what we call a FRAUD folks - one way or another, it is NOT the original nor is it a copy of the original note OR, in the alternative, XYZ Lender lied to the SEC, the Securities and Exchange Commission AND the IRS. You see, in securitization, all of this activity MUST be disclosed. No, it’s not proprietary or confidential, it’s PUBLIC DISCLOSURE. These documents filed with the SEC are very specific.
Court of Appeals held that where a mortgage is recorded with MERS named as the lender’s nominee and mortgagee on the instrument, the beneficial ownership and servicing rights may be transferred among MERS members, and that a reading of the Mortgage, Note and Assignment “make clear” that both the Mortgage and Note were assigned.
HSBC Bank USA v Miller
2009 NY Slip Op 29444
Decided on October 29, 2009
Supreme Court, Sullivan County
Meddaugh, J.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the printed Official Reports.
Decided on October 29, 2009
Supreme Court, Sullivan County
HSBC Bank USA, National Association, As Trustee for WFALT 2007-PA02 3451 Hammond Avenue Waterloo, La 50704-5400, Plaintiff
against
Jeffrey F. Miller, Board of Managers, Emerald Green Property Owner’s Association, Inc., JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., JOHN DOE, (said names being fictitious, it being the intention of Plaintiff to designate any and all occupants of premises being foreclosed herein, and any parties, corporations or entities, if any, having or claiming an interest or lien upon the mortgaged premises, Defendants.
4786-2008
Steven J. Baum, P.C.
By Megan B. Szeliga, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
P.O. Box 1291
Buffalo, New York 14240-1291
John S. Edwards, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendant
317 Little Tor Road South
New City, New York 10956
Mark M. Meddaugh, J.
The Plaintiff filed a motion to for leave to reargue the Decision and Order of this Court, which granted the motion of the Defendant, Jeffrey F. Miller, dismissing the complaint in the above-referenced matter on the grounds that the Plaintiff lacks standing to maintain this foreclosure action.
The Court found, in its prior decision, that the Assignment of Mortgage attached to the Plaintiff’s papers in opposition to the original motion only referred to the assignment of the mortgage, and made no reference to the note. The Court noted that the Assignment had only the vague reference that “the said assignor hereby grants and conveys unto said assignee, the assignor’s beneficial interest under the mortgage ” which the Court found was insufficient to establish that both the note and the mortgage had been assigned to the Plaintiff.
Upon reargument, Plaintiff’s counsel asserts that the Assignment provides in pertinent part that:
Said assignor hereby assigns unto the above named Assignee the said Mortgage, and the full benefit of all powers and of all covenants and Provisions therein contained, and the said Assignor hereby grants and conveys unto the Assignee, the Assignor’s beneficial interest under the mortgage. (Emphasis added by Plaintiff’s counsel)
Plaintiff’s counsel then relies on language appearing in page 3 of the mortgage as follows:
BORROWERS TRANSFER TO LENDER OF RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY
I mortgage, grant and convey the property to MERS (solely as nominee for the lender and lender’s successors in interest) and its successors in interest subject to the terms of the Security Instrument. This means that, by signing this Security Instrument, I am giving Lender those rights that Applicable Law gives to Lenders who hold mortgages on real property. I am giving Lender those rights to protect Lender from possible losses that might result if I fail to:
(A)Pay all the amounts that I owe Lender as stated in the Note including, but not limited to, all renewals, extensions, and modifications of the Note;
(B)Pay, with interest, any amounts that lender spends under this Security Interest to protect the value of the Property and Lender’s rights in the Property;
(C)Keep all of my other promises and agreements under this Security Instrument and the Note. (Emphasis added by Plaintiff’s counsel)
Plaintiff counsel also refers to Page 4 of the Mortgage in the section entitled Covenants [*2]under the Mortgage which provides:
I promise and agree with the Lender as follows:
1.Borrower’s Promise to Pay. I will pay to the Lender on time Principal and Interest due under the Note and any prepayment, late charges and other amounts under the Note and any prepayment, late charges and other amounts under the Note. I will also pay all amounts for Escrow Items under Section 3 of this Security Instrument,
Payment due under the Note and this Security Instrument shall be made in U.S. Currency . . . . . (Emphasis added by Plaintiff’s counsel)
Plaintiff argues when the Assignment and Mortgage are read “as a totality they make clear that the Note was transferred along with the Mortgage by and through (sic) the Assignment in this matter.”
It is further argued that the Note holder has standing to maintain a foreclosure action so long as the mortgage and note have been delivered to that party. It is further argued that case law provides that a mortgage can be transferred by delivery, without a written assignment.
The Defendant, Jeffrey Miller, by his attorney, argues that the prior decision was correct in finding that, in the absence of proof that both the Note and the Mortgage sought to be foreclosed have been assigned to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is without standing to maintain a foreclosure action. The Defendant further argues that the Plaintiff has again failed to establish that it is the holder of both the mortgage and the underlying debt.
In reply, the Plaintiff’s counsel argues that the Court of Appeals held that where a mortgage is recorded with MERS named as the lender’s nominee and mortgagee on the instrument, the beneficial ownership and servicing rights may be transferred among MERS members, and that a reading of the Mortgage, Note and Assignment “make clear” that both the Mortgage and Note were assigned.
Conclusions of Law
The Plaintiff herein is requesting that the Court reconsider its decision that the Plaintiff failed to establish that it has standing in this action, due to the lack of a reference to the Note in the Assignment of the Mortgage.
The Plaintiff’s Counsel is apparently abandoning the arguments which she made in opposition to the Defendant’s prior motion to dismiss, in which she first cited nonexistent language in the Assignment, claiming that the Assignment explicitly assigned the mortgage “together with the bond or obligation described in said mortgage, and the moneys due to grow thereon with interest” (Emphasis added by Plaintiff’s counsel) (See, Affirmation of Megan B. Szeliga, Esq., affirmed on March 6, 2009). The second assertion made by Plaintiff’s counsel was that “[a]s a matter of course, the note also follows the mortgage,” and that “title to the Note passed upon physical delivery from MERS to the Plaintiff” (See, Affirmation of Megan B. Szeliga, Esq., affirmed on March 6, 2009, ¶16). The assertion that the note follows the mortgage is unsupported any law, and the assertion that the original note was transferred by physical delivery to the Plaintiff is made only in an affirmation by Plaintiff’s
counsel and is unsupported by any evidentiary factual support from a person with personal knowledge of the facts.
The Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledges that the Note is a negotiable instrument (See, [*3]Affirmation of Megan B. Szeliga, Esq., affirmed on March 6, 2009, ¶ 19). In Slutsky v. Blooming Grove Inn, Inc., 147 AD2d 208, 542 NYS2d 721 [2nd Dept., 1989], the Court held that when “[t]he note secured by the mortgage is a negotiable instrument ( see, UCC 3-104) [it] requires indorsement on the instrument itself or on a paper so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof’ (UCC 3-202[2] ) in order to effectuate a valid assignment’” of the entire instrument (cf., UCC 3-202[3], [4]).”
In the case at bar, the Note attached to the Plaintiff’s papers contains the following undated, unexplained indorsement on the last page thereof, “Pay to the Order of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. without recourse by: Real Estate Mortgage Network, Inc., Eric Hahn, Vice President.” It would appear, therefore, that the beneficial interest in the Note was transferred to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and that it is Wells Fargo, N.A. who is entitled to receive payments under the Note. No date was provided for that transfer. By contrast, in Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Coakley, 41 AD3d 674, 838 NYS2d 622 [2nd Dept., 2007]), the Court outlined the history of indorsement from the original mortgage, to another transferee, followed by an indorsement in blank which was ultimately transferred and tendered to MERS. The Coakley Court concluded that it had been established that MERS was the lawful owner of the promissory note at the commencement of the action, and of the mortgage, that it
had standing to bring the action.
The Court notes that the Lender listed on the Note is Real Estate Mortgage Network, Inc. (no reference in contained on the Note to indicate that MERS has become the nominee of the lender on the note), and the Note further provides that anyone who takes this Note by transfer and who is entitled to receive payments under the Note is called the Note Holder.
The Court finds no proof in the papers that the Note was transferred from the Lender described on the Note to MERS as a Note Holder, and even if there was proof of an initial transfer to MERS, there was no proof that the Note was then transferred from MERS to the Plaintiff.
The documentary proof provided by Plaintiff’s counsel supports a finding that the Note at issue was transferred to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., whereas the Assignment of Mortgage indicates that the mortgage was assigned by MERS, as nominee for Real Estate Mortgage Network, Inc., to the Plaintiff herein.
In Kluge v. Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537, 536 NYS2d 92 [2nd Dept., 1988] the Court held that the assignment of a mortgage without transfer of the debt is a nullity and a cause of action for foreclosure must fail. In Merritt v. Bartholick, 36 NY 44 [1867] the Court of Appeals held that as a mortgage is but an incident to the debt which it is intended to secure (cites omitted ), the logical conclusion is that a transfer of the mortgage without the debt is a nullity, and no interest is assigned by it. The security cannot be separated from the debt, and exist independently of it. This is the necessary legal conclusion, and recognized as the rule by a long course of judicial decisions.” It should be noted that in MERSCORP, Inc. v. Romaine, 8 NY3d 90, 828 NYS2d 266 [2006], Justice Ciparick, in her concurring opinion specifically notes that the Court’s ruling left for another day the argument made by the County of Suffolk and various amici “that MERS has violated the clear prohibition against
separating a lien from its debt and that MERS does not have standing to bring foreclosure actions * * * (see, e.g., Merritt v. Bartholick, 36 NY44, 45 [1867]). [*4]
The Plaintiff’s counsel has argued that the transfer of the note to the Plaintiff is implied by a combined reading of the Assignment and the Mortgage itself, but the Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to establish that it is a holder of the note by indorsement at the time the foreclosure action was commenced (First Trust Nat. Ass’n v. Meisels, 234 AD2d 414, 651 NYS2d 121 [2nd Dept., 1996]), nor did the language of the assignment explicitly assign “the note or obligation described and secured by said mortgage”(In re Stralem, 303 AD2d 120, 758 NYS2d 345 [2nd Dept., 2003]). Accordingly, the Court shall not alter its prior finding that the Plaintiff failed to establish that it has standing to maintain the instant mortgage foreclosure proceeding.
Wherefore, based on the foregoing, the Plaintiff’s motion seeking reargument is denied.This memorandum shall constitute the Decision and Order of this Court. The original Decision and Order, together with the motion papers have been forwarded to the Clerk’s office for filing. The filing of this Order does not relieve counsel from the obligation to serve a copy of this order, together with notice of entry, pursuant to CPLR § 5513(a).
Dated: October____, 2009
Monticello, New York
ENTER
__________________________________________
HON. MARK M. MEDDAUGH
Acting Supreme Court Justice
Big Banks: More money, less lending - Oct. 20, 2009.
NEW YORK (Fortune) — A river of cash has flowed into the biggest banks over the past year. But for borrowers, it has been more of a meandering stream.
Deposits at the top five bank holding companies soared 29% in the year ended June 30, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
All told, the five biggest deposit-taking banks added $852 billion in core deposits over the past year — essentially checking and savings accounts of less than $100,000.
Over the same period, their loan portfolios rose by just $564 billion.
This is noteworthy because these five banks received more than $100 billion in direct taxpayer assistance via the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) — a program that was set up to replenish the depleted capital levels of banks and allow them to boost lending to consumers and small businesses.
The Robber Barons Are Back — Hide Your Money
By Scott Thill, AlterNet. Posted October 19, 2009.
The Dow’s at 10,000, and the bankers are reaping huge bonuses, but the economy in which the rest of us live is a disaster.
via The Robber Barons Are Back — Hide Your Money | Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace | AlterNet.
St. Pete homeowner faces loan modification confusion.
Back in March, when the Making Home Affordable plan was announced, Brady contacted her mortgage company, EMC, to check into getting a loan modification.
By June, Brady said, EMC had cut her payments from about $1,000 a month to $496.
“Then on the fourth month, they send me the past due balance and tell me I’m three months overdue and they will foreclose on this property,” Brady said.
Homeowner to Mortgage Servicing Company: “Step Up and Do the Right Thing” - Denise Richardson.
I am a victim of Mortgage Servicing Fraud. My story began with a broker acquired mortgage, sold to Countrywide. Countrywide either misapplied or “lost” $11400 in payments. They filed in court against us although we had proof of the payments. A we continued to dispute the amount they were in financial trouble so they sold our loan. 2 wks later they were bought by B of A. Our loan went to a new company named Quantum. They accepted $19200 in payments, but applied most of it to fees associated with the lost payments that had been sent to Countrywide.
They stopped accepting payments when we started really loudly disputing the accounting and asking again and again for an accounting of our loan and the lost payments. They sold the loan to a new company named Kondaur Capital. They refused all payments and restarted the court case originally started by Countrywide.
Arkansas Supreme Court Denies MERS Legal Standing « Livinglies’s Weblog.
Everybody’s talking about the Kansas Appellate Decision?
What about this one from Arkansas’s Supreme Court?
Same issues, MERS and “black letter law” ….
MERS **Lost** and the Arkansas Supreme Court
cited the Landmark v KESLER Kansas Decision.
—————————————————————
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM, INC., APPELLANT, VS. SOUTHWEST HOMES OF ARKANSAS, APPELLEE
No. 08-1299
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
2009 Ark. LEXIS 121
March 19, 2009, Opinion Delivered
NOTICE:
THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION.
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Rehearing denied by Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys. v. Southwest Homes of Ark., Inc., 2009 Ark. LEXIS 458 (Ark., Apr. 23, 2009)
Filing fake documents to establish the right to take possession of someone’s home? That’s not something a lawyer should do.
So what if that were suddenly happening in cases all over the nation? What if some law firms that specialize in bulk handling of mortgage foreclosures for the lending industry were having so much trouble finding original loan documents, and documents showing the ownership trail as debts were packaged and resold, that many started filing forged documents in their place?
That seems to be the fact, according to a study by a Florida Bar group. And Harley Herman, a lawyer who is part of a Florida Bar group pushing for a special review of ethics violations in foreclosure cases, says this is a serious problem.
Which Bank Owes Couple $400K? - Phoenix News Story - KPHO Phoenix.
PHOENIX — Paul and Christine Dickey have a certificate of deposit worth $400,000, but they have not been able to collect the cash.
The Casa Grande couple has spent a year trying figure out which bank owes them the money.Paul’s father bought the $10,000 CD in 1980 from First National Bank of Arizona branch in Benson, Ariz. Since then, the bank has changed hands three times.”I hope we get to the bottom of who owns the bank that this is written on, “ Christine Dickey said.In 1981, the bank changed its name to First Interstate Bank.In 1996, Wells Fargo bought the bank.In 1997, the National Bank of Arizona took over and still owns the branch today.Tuesday, a representative said he was unable to find any record for any certificate of deposit for Paul Dickey.”Pure frustration,” is how Dickey describes his interactions with employees at the bank.“Nobody wants to take responsibility for this,” Christine said.The Dickeys have hired a lawyer to help, but he told CBS 5 News he has no idea which bank is responsible for cashing the CD.The Dickeys discovered the CD last fall while searching through old documents.”This thing appeared in my hands and I looked at it and I gasped,” Paul said. “I’d completely forgotten it.”“It was purchased by husband’s father…who was dying at the time. It was sort of payment to my husband for taking caring of him,” Christine said.The couple said if they ever figure out who owes them $400,000, they plan to donate some of the money to charity and save the rest for a rainy day.”I see not-too-good of times facing us right now, and it would smooth over a lot for our family,” Dickey said.
At the roots of the worst recession since the Great Depression were unaffordable home mortgages packaged into securities, sold to investors, and used as capital assets by financial institutions.
The process of securitization, as well as financial institution over-leveraging associated with it, has been well documented and explored. However, there is one company that was a party to more questionable loans and foreclosures than any other and yet has received virtually no attention in the academic literature.
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., commonly referred to as “MERS,” is the recorded owner of over half of the nation’s residential mortgages. MERS operates a computer database designed to track servicing and ownership rights of mortgage loans anywhere in the United States. But, it also acts as a proxy for the real parties in interest in county land title records.
The Complete Article regarding MERS… Now available for FREE download here…
http://freestopforeclosure.com/FORECLOSURE_SUBPRIME_MORTGAGE_LENDING_AND_MERS.pdf
Most importantly, MERS is also filing foreclosure lawsuits on behalf of financiers against hundreds of thousands of American families. This Article explores the legal and public policy foundations of this odd, but extremely powerful, company that is so attached to America’s financial destiny. It begins with a brief explanation of the origins of the county real property recording systems and the law governing real property liens. Then, it explains how MERS works, why mortgage bankers created the company, and what MERS has done to transform the underlying assumptions of state real property recording law. Next, it explores controversial doctrinal issues confronting MERS and the companies that have relied on it, including (1) whether MERS actually has standing to bring foreclosure actions; (2) whether MERS should be considered a debt collector under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; and (3) whether loans recorded in MERS’ name should have priority in various collateral competitions under state law and the federal bankruptcy code. The article culminates in a discussion of MERS’ culpability in fostering the mortgage foreclosure crisis and what the long term effects of privatized land title records will have on our public information infrastructure. The Article concludes by considers whether the mortgage banking industry, in creating and embracing MERS, has subverted the democratic governance of the nation’s real property recording system.
The Article available for FREE download here… http://freestopforeclosure.com/FORECLOSURE_SUBPRIME_MORTGAGE_LENDING_AND_MERS.pdf
…has explored the legal and public policy foundations of the Mortgage Electronic Registration System. MERS maintains a central national database tracking mortgage servicing rights for loans registered on its system. In addition to its database, MERS has taken on two related but distinct roles in the American home mortgage market. First, mortgage finance companies use MERS’ name as a proxy in county land title records in order to avoid paying taxes to local governments for recording assignments during the life of a loan. Second, where local courts have allowed it, MERS creates something of a foreclosure doppelganger by allowing the actual parties in interest to bring residential foreclosures under MERS’ corporate identity instead of their own. Recording loans in the name MERS, rather than the actual parities in interest, has generally not been explicitly authorized under the state title recording acts that trace their lineage back to the earliest years of the American republic. By adopting such a radical shift in how mortgages are recorded and foreclosed without legislative change, the mortgage finance companies have rebuilt their industry on a legal foundation of sand. MERS’ claim to own legal title to a mortgage loan’s security interest, divorced from the promissory note and entitlement to receive loan payments, is in direct tension with precedent that has been well settled for over a hundred years. MERS’ role in prosecuting home mortgage foreclosures should bring it within the scope of the federal Fair Debt Collection Act—a statute that MERS has generally made little attempt to comply with. And it is unclear whether recording a mortgage or mortgage assignment in the name of someone other than that actual mortgagee and assignee should be sufficient to protect those actual parties in interest from subsequent purchasers. Indeed there is a compelling argument that loans where MERS is recorded as the original mortgagee should be avoidable by bankruptcy trustees in many states.
The shift away from recording loans in the name of actual mortgagees and assignees represents an important policy change that erodes not only the tax base of local governments, but also the usefulness of the public land title information infrastructure. MERS did not, by itself, cause the mortgage finance crisis and its ensuing aftermath. However, it was an important cog in the machine that churned out the millions of unsuitable, poorly underwritten, and incompletely documented mortgages that were destined for foreclosure. In the aftermath of the mortgage finance crisis that has crippled the American economy, necessitated massive taxpayer bailouts of financial institutions, and left millions of American families ejected from their homes, the judiciary has an obligation to aggressively reexamine our financiers’ cut corners, false assumptions, and jaundiced legal theory.
Be sure to Learn more about this subject, and many others that can STOP FORECLOSURE IN ITS TRACKS! -Available only in the Stop Foreclosure Toolbox for only $97!
Allan Hennessey
Author - StopForeclosureToolbox.com
800-552-9313 Ext 111
CLEVELAND (CNNMoney.com) — When homeowners moved away after a wave of foreclosures in Cleveland’s working-class neighborhood of Slavic Village, crime took off.
Slavic Village is known as the worst neighborhood in the nation for foreclosures. In a study for CNNMoney, RealtyTrac calculated that properties in its ZIP code recorded more foreclosure filings in three months than anywhere else in the United States.
According to Jim Rokakis, Cuyahoga County Treasurer, more than 800 houses now sit vacant and moldering in the area, which was founded in the 1840s by Polish and Bohemian immigrants who worked in area steel mills and factories.
The first thing that happened after owners moved out of foreclosed homes in Slavic Village was that squatters and looters moved in, according to Mark Wiseman, director of the Cuyahoga County Foreclosure Prevention Program. “In the inner city, it takes about 72 hours for a house to be looted after it is vacant,” he said.
Walking around the neighborhood, Mark Seifert, director of the East Side Organizing Project pointed out a home he said was still occupied less than two weeks before. The gutters and downspouts were already gone, and trash covered the yard.
Long-time Slavic Village resident Joe Krasucki had celebrated his 78th birthday last spring, when, late in the evening, he heard some noise and went out for a look. Reports said he’d had run-ins with local gangs before. A neighbor’s abandoned house had already been stripped of its aluminum siding and, according to Rokakis, Krasucki thought the looters were back, working on his home. Outside, he was attacked and badly beaten. He died some days later.
After stripping the siding, looters don’t take long to make a vacant property nearly worthless.
“If someone takes the doors, moldings, appliances, it’s bad enough,” said Wiseman. “But once they pull the piping out, it’s all over; they do it with a sledge hammer.”
Putting a house back together takes money, more money than the restored home could bring on the market. And stopgap programs, such as razing derelict houses, aren’t feasible - Cuyahoga County only has a few million dollars available for demolition work, and Wiseman estimates at least $100 million is needed.
Many houses in Slavic Village have had their siding stripped up to the roof lines. A few criminal masterminds even stripped vinyl siding, apparently unaware of the difference in wholesale scrap prices between plastic and metal.
When a house is derelict, people will dump garbage in the yard, rather than pay for haulage. Windows are broken, and doors are stolen, opening up the interior to the elements. In Cleveland’s cold and damp climate, the houses deteriorate quickly. But some not badly enough to keep drug dealers out.
Asteve’e “Cookie” Thomas was just 12 years old this past summer when she was gunned down coming out of a Slavic Village candy store, caught in a crossfire from suspected dealers engaged in a drug war. Seifert said one of the alleged shooters was using an abandoned house in the neighborhood as a base.
According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, five people, including Thomas and Krasucki, have been killed in Slavic Village in the past two years: In July, Grady Smith, 27, was shot outside his home while working on his car. In Nov. 2006, Roman Grasela, 71, died of blows to his head after his house was broken into. And in October 2005, Therese Szelugowski, 76, died weeks after falling and hitting her head after she was mugged.
Some Slavic Village home owners, still hoping to salvage something out of houses they have vacated, have installed stout doors on entryways with thick locks. They board up windows with three-quarter-inch, exterior-grade plywood.
Others attempt to thwart looters by advertising the lack of anything of value inside. They paint signs saying: “No copper, No wiring, PVC.”
Residents have tried to fight back, organizing neighborhood watch groups and lobbying the police, who, many feel, are too often missing in action.
Seifert pointed out an open, empty lot on one block that had been used by car thieves for months and months to store and strip parts from stolen cars. It took a concerted effort by a local group called “Bring Back the 70’s” (which refers to the street numbers in the neighborhood) to get the police to clear the lot of the thieves.
But as the number of empty lots and abandoned houses grows where houses and residents were once packed in a tight community, there are fewer and fewer neighbors to fight the battle
http://cnnmoney.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Crime+scene%3A+foreclosure+-+Nov.+19%2C+2007&expire=-1&urlID=25010653&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmoney.cnn.com%2F2007%2F11%2F16%2Freal_estate%2Fsuprime_and_crime%2Findex.htm&partnerID=2200
http://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/ReferenceMaterials/SupplementalAdmiraltyRules.htm
The facts surrounding the Jordans’ case are depressingly familiar. In 2004, interested in refinancing their adjustable-rate mortgage as a fixed-rate loan, they said they were promised by NovaStar that they would receive one. In actuality, their lawsuit says, they received a $124,000 loan with an initial interest rate of 10.45 percent that could rise as high as 17.45 percent over the life of the loan.
Mrs. Jordan, 66, said that she and her husband, who is disabled, provided NovaStar with full documentation of their pension, annuity and “More articles about Social Security.” statements showing that their net monthly income was $2,697. That meant that the initial mortgage payment on the new loan — $1,215 — amounted to 45 percent of the Jordans’ monthly net income.
The Jordans were charged $5,934 when they took on the mortgage, almost 5 percent of the loan amount. The loan proceeds paid off the previous mortgage, $11,000 in debts and provided them with $9,616 in cash.
Neither of the Jordans knew the loan was adjustable until two years after the closing, according to the lawsuit. That was when they began getting notices of an interest-rate increase from Nova- Star. The monthly payment is now $1,385.
“I got duped,” Mrs. Jordan said. “They knew how much money we got each month. Next thing I know I couldn’t buy anything to eat and I couldn’t pay my other bills.”
All the defendants in the case have asked the judge to dismiss it. The Jordans are awaiting his ruling. Perhaps the most famous case that linked a brokerage firm with a predatory lender was the one involving First Alliance, an aggressive lender that declared bankruptcy in 2000, and “More articles about Lehman Brothers.” Lehman Brothers its main financier.
More than 7,500 borrowers had successfully sued First Alliance for fraud, and in 2003 a jury found that Lehman, which had lent First Alliance roughly $500 million over the years to finance its lending, “substantially assisted” it in its fraudulent activities. Lehman was ordered to pay $5.1 million, or 10 percent of damages in the case, for its role.
Another case, from 2004, took up the issue of liability for abusive lending that went beyond a loan’s originator. That case, which involved “More information about Wells Fargo & Co” Wells Fargo and a borrower named Michael L. Short, was settled after the court denied two motions to dismiss it.
That matter turned on the language in the securitization’s pooling and servicing agreement, which provides details not only on the types of loans in a pool but also on the relationships of various parties involved in it.
Diane Thompson, a lawyer with the National Consumer Law Center, said that the meaning of the agreement was that “the trustee was a joint venture with the originator and was therefore responsible for everything that happened in that joint venture.”
Many such agreements, she said, create a joint venture by force of law. “Everybody I know that has tried this argument has had pretty good success. Absolutely we are going to see more of these cases.”
And let us not forget that late in the mortgage mania, Wall Street was no longer content simply to package these loans and sell them to investors. Eager for the profits generated by originating these loans, big firms bought subprime lenders to keep their securitization machinery humming. This could expose the firms to liability.
“I think something that hasn’t been explored much is the extent to which the financial services industry has exposure to litigation risk in securitizations,” Professor Engel said. “As the industry got faster and looser, Wall Street just stopped paying attention. And when you stop paying attention, you get in trouble.”
Don’t get misled by titles. The wording of the statute clearly uses “verification” not validation. Verification generally means some sworn document or affidavit. This means when you contest the debt under FDCPA (in addition to sending a QWR) the party who is supposedly collecting or enforcing the debt has a duty to “obtain verification”. And that means they can’t verify it themselves unless they are the actual lender. And the statutes says pretty clearly that they must give the lenders name and contact information — past and present. STRATEGY: IF THEY SUPPLY SUCH A DOCUMENT, PICK UP THE PHONE AND SPEAK WITH THE PERSON WHO SIGNED IT.I CAN PRACTICALLY GUARANTEE THEY WILL DISCLAIM EVERYTHING THAT WAS IN IT AND POSSIBLY EVEN THAT THEY SIGNED IT.
15 U.S.C. 1692 ———–
DENIED! Thats right You Pretender Lenders committing FRAUD!
Take your worthless COPIES of Public Records that DO NOT have your name on it and GO HOME!
If you are being foreclosed upon by someone other than who you signed your loan with… this case applies to you!
Learn to beat the FRAUDSTERS with this PUBLISHED case DECISION that is included in StopForeclosureToolbox.com
Get your StopForeclosureToolbox.com package for only $97 for a limited time!
The toolbox contains 1000’s of pages of explanations in everyday plain english, that homeowners have used to understand this confusing mortgage foreclosure mess, and develop a game plan to STAY IN THEIR HOMES.
Find case law, sample forms, and much, much, more!
~
Pretender Lenders — read and weep. Game Over. Over the next 6-12 months the entire foreclosure mess is going to be turned on its head as it becomes apparent to even the most skeptical that the mortgage mess is just that — a mess. From the time the deed was recorded to the time the assignments, powers of attorneys, notarizations and other documents were fabricated and executed there is an 18 minute Nixonian gap in the record that cannot be cured. Just because you produce documents, however real they appear, does not mean you can shift the burden of proof onto the borrower.
If you say you have a claim, you must prove it. If you say you are the lender, you must prove it.
Bottom Line: Every acquisition of residential real property that was allegedly subject to a securitized mortgage is subject to nullification whether it was by non-judicial foreclosure, judicial foreclosure, short-sale, modification or just a regular sale. Every foreclosure, short-sale or modification is subject to the same fatal flaw. Pension funds are not going to file foreclosure suits even though they are the ones who allegedly own the loans.
Legislators take notice: Just because bankers give you money doesn’t mean they can change 1000 years of common law, statutory law and constitutional law. It just won’t fly. And if you are a legislator looking to get elected or re-elected, your failure to act on what is now an obvious need to clear title and restore the wealth of your citizens who were cheated and defrauded, will be punished by the votes of your constituents.
http://www.youtube.com/user/FreeStopForeclosure
Free! Stop Foreclosure! › Tools — WordPress.
This forum FreeStopForeclosure.com, may be new, but the research and information behind StopForeclosureToolbox.com is not… The incredible information that homeowners need to know on how to stop foreclosure, is on that site, and they have a FREE Report, that describes this American Tragedy in detail, and how homeowners can defend their home. This report covers “Produce The Note”, “Dispute the Debt”, and many other strategies. It has step by step instructions on how you can Stop Your Foreclosure!
Good Luck!
Allan Hennessey
Foreclosure Protection Expert
1-800-552-9313 Ext 111
This Blog is dedicated to helping smart homeowners
discover the information necessary to defend your home, before it is too late!
Tired of the misinformation? Had enough?
Undo the Anger and Frustration with simple Step-by-step instructions.
You can save your home!
Learn how today!
Powered by WordPress
