LivingLies: “If a trust is named or implied as mortgagee or beneficiary you are not just threatening the one case of foreclosure filed against you, but all foreclosures initiated in the name of that trust.”
LivingLies: “Where the nonjudicial post-foreclosure trustee sale is not property initiated, ” … a borrower may base a wrongful foreclosure claim on allegations that the foreclosing party acted without authority because the assignment by which it purportedly became beneficiary under the deed of trust was not merely voidable but void.” (Yvanonova, supra, at pp. 851-852.) “A void contract is without legal effect. (Rest.2d Contracts,§ 7, com. A.) “It binds no one and is a mere nullity.” (Little v. CFS Service Corp. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1354, 1362, 233 Cal.Rptr. 923.)
“Such a contract has no existence whatever. It has no legal entity for any purpose and neither action nor inaction of a party to it can validate it …. ” (Colby v. Title Ins. And Trust Co. (1911) 160 Cal. 632, 644, 117 P. 913.) “If a purported assignment necessary to the chain by which the foreclosing entity claims that power is absolutely void, meaning of no legal force or effect whatsoever, [internal citations omitted] the foreclosing entity has acted without legal authority by pursuing a trustee’s sale, and such an unauthorized sale constitutes a wrongful foreclosure. (Yvanonova, supra, at pp. 855-856; citing Barrionuevo v. Chase Bank, N.A., at pp. 973-974.”
LivingLies: “For some reason I have been getting more questions about MERS lately. My analogy has always been that MERS is like a holograph of an empty paper bag. So here are some basic factors for the checklist and analysis: MERS never signed any contract with any borrower.
- MERS never has any contractual or other legal relationship with investors (certificate holders) or Government Sponsored Entities (GSEs) like Fannie, Freddie or Sallie.
- MERS never signed any agreement or contract with most named “lenders.”
- MERS never signed any agreement or contract with respect to any specific loan transaction or acquisition.
- MERS was never the Payee on any note from a borrower.
- MERS never loaned any money in any residential loan transaction.
- MERS never paid any money for the acquisition of any residential loan agreement, debt, note or mortgage.
- MERS never handled any money arising from the origination of the loan.
- MERS never handled any money raising from administration of the loan.
- MERS never received a loan payment. …”
“Homeowners come to loan examiners for one purpose: to find a way to get relief from a deal that was probably not viable when it was made and is certainly not viable now. They are usually “behind” in their payments. Their accounts have been declared delinquent and notices of default have been sent and received. Phone calls, letters and even statutory requests under RESPA and FDCPA are routinely ignored.
So the homeowner is asking you “who am I really dealing with here and what can I do to get through to the real people who own my debt?” You probably can never answer that question because the answer is more theoretical than actual. But your investigation can arm them with the information they need to undercut the case against them. And THAT is how homeowners win cases against false claimants making false claims.
The fact that all the documents in all the loans are fabricated, forged and robosigned as distractions from the real facts does little to advance the position of your client. But you are not an advocate. You are a fact finder.”
WAKE UP AMERICA!
The goal is foreclosure. There can be no doubt that the modification process over the last 20 years has been largely an exercise in futility. That’s because the parties who are asserting the right to collect, enforce or administer residential loans actually have no interest in making the loan a performing loan.
And that is because they do not have any of the loans as an asset on their balance sheets. Allowing a nonperforming loan to be modified would merely preserve a stream of revenue consisting of principal, interest, insurance, and taxes together with fees is attached to that revenue stream.
But a foreclosure results in the sale of the property. This produces a windfall equivalent to the sales proceeds. This windfall is distributed as revenue to all of the players who participated in the foreclosure, including at least one undisclosed player – the investment bank (or the successor investment bank) that started the scheme.
Foreclosure is the civil equivalent of capital punishment recognized for centuries as a drastic draconian remedy. Why would you let that happen simply because someone wants to make more money than they already did off of a transaction in which the homeowner received no disclosure of the true nature of the deal?
Source: Why Standing is Important
A recent decision from the 1st Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals applying FRE 803(6) states the current law — whether you like it or not. Pretending these decisions don’t exist or trying to avoid them is both pointless and highly likely to undermine your credibility in any other narrative or argument. Note that…
“Simply stated the transaction history will be admitted into evidence every time — UNLESS the borrower disputes their content and demands a hearing on truthfulness of the foundation testimony in which the magic words are spoken, as set forth in the Federal Rule and virtually all state court rules.”
We are inundated with requests for help. We will try to get to each request in timely fashion but in the meantime perhaps this post will be of some assistance. Most people start off by bringing to us a case that is already in progress. But for those whose case is just starting this article…
We didn’t see rehypothecation (pledging, re-using, hypothecating) mentioned in my Mortgage or Note, did you? We certainly wouldn’t have agreed to that either.
“Risks and rewards have increased as collateral is rehypothecated, i.e., used by lenders for their own purposes. Such leveraging allows lenders to become borrowers. Mark-to-market practices, shorting and rehypothecation thus increase risks for the financial system. [e.s.]”
see http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/06/financialization-promotes-dangerous-speculation/ This was originally hailed as a brilliant financial innovation as US Fed chair Alan Greenspan believed that CDOs transferred risk from banks to investors able and willing to take it on. But securitization not only increased systemic risks, but also did not reduce risk to the originating banks who had sold off the loans.…
“It’s nice to have an attorney who pays attention. It’s not so nice when homeowners have to sue their attorney for malpractice for either (a.) dropping the ball for not paying attention; or (b.) blatantly promising to do something and then failing to do it.”
(BREAKING NEWS — OP-ED) — The poster of this blog is a consultant to attorneys on chain of title matters and thus does not render legal advice. The matters opined in this short post are those of the author of this post and only reflect what educational value is offered.
Was it really clerical error or weren’t the attorneys for the bank paying attention to detail?
The rules of civil procedure affect not just homeowners (many of who choose to represent themselves pro se) but they also affect financial institutions whose attorneys “drop the ball”. In this case, the homeowners (even though it’s asserted they were in default) took their civil procedure matter all the way to the Maine Supreme Court … and won an affirmation on their judgment on the pleadings! Don’t you love it when that happens? See the ruling below (it’s only 9 pages…
View original post 126 more words