A Year-End Special: Firsthand Comments and Experiences of Our Listeners Battling Foreclosures Nationwide

A Year-End Special: Firsthand Comments and Experiences of Our Listeners Battling Foreclosures Nationwide

This Sunday’s Show will air in Hawaii at 2:00 p.m. (HST) instead 3:00 p.m., its otherwise regular time. Honolulu KHVH Radio & Internet. The Foreclosure Hour

 

John and I receive thousands of letters, emails, and voice mail messages annually from our listeners from just about every State and some foreign countries, detailing their personal experiences trying to fend off foreclosures and evictions.

Time limitations naturally permit us to personally respond to only a few.

We thought that we would, therefore, start a new tradition by reading some of those experiences on our year-end show(s) enabling us to respond in that way to more inquiries. Continue reading

Advertisements

Serial Filings That Block a Creditor: Better Not to Obtain More Relief Than You Need

Just a side note: There are more efficient ways to deal with foreclosure rather than use the bankruptcy courts.

Bankruptcy-RealEstate-Insights

In re Ross, 838 F.3d 779 (3rd Cir. 2017)

A debtor filed bankruptcy to block a foreclosure. When he sought to voluntarily dismiss the case, the bankruptcy court granted the request but also enjoined him from filing at any time in the indefinite future. The order was appealed first to the district court and then to the Third Circuit.

View original post 1,085 more words

Why Foreclosing Securitized Trust Plaintiffs Cannot Prove Entitlement To Foreclose

(December 12, 2017, Hawaii) The Foreclosure Hour TODAY at 3 pm (HST) / (5 pm EST) will discuss one of Hawaii’s latest FORECLOSURE APPEAL cases, HSBC Bank USA v. Yamashita, where after a pro-bank decision in the lower circuit court was overturned on appeal.

The Hawaii ICA noted, “[T]he [Hawaii] supreme court then expressed that “[a] foreclosing plaintiff’s burden to prove entitlement to enforce the note overlaps with the requirements of standing in foreclosure actions as ‘standing is concerned with whether the parties have the right to bring suit.'” Continue reading

Reverse mortgages: Evict woman, 92, over 27¢?

Every time that Tom Selleck reverse mortgage runs, we ask each other “doesn’t he have any personal ethics, or is the money he makes from the commercial more important?” Other people must be asking too, because the issue is addressed in the commercial.

Justice League

Actor and pitchman Tom Selleck, among others, has helped persuade more than 1 million seniors in markets like Palm Beach County that reverse mortgages are not “too good to be true.”

But a federal agency overseen by Housing Secretary Ben Carson of Palm Beach Gardens says an insurance program backing reverse mortgages is “losing money and can no longer remain viable in its present form.”

Foreclosures in reverse mortgages climbed to more than 3,600 a month last year, up from less than 500 a month in prior years, according to government data analyzed by nonprofit groups.

A 92-year-old Florida woman with a reverse mortgage faced a foreclosure filing because she owed 27 cents, a legal aid group said.

Read on.

View original post

Wall St. traders secretly used chat rooms to rig Treasury bond prices: suit

Justice League

Wall Street banks secretly shared client information in online chat rooms in order to rig auctions for the $14 trillion US Treasurys market, according to an explosive lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court on Wednesday.

The move wrongly fattened the banks’ profits and picked profits from clients, the suit claims.

The new accusations, leveled by several pension funds and wealthy individual investors, are contained in an expanded class-action suit originally filed in July 2015 — and include an unusual twist: Some of the evidence came from confidential informants and one of the banks sued in the earlier action.

Read on.

View original post

Foreclosure: Debtor Who Fails to Pay Has an Uphill Battle Finding a Remedy Based on Procedural Defects

confidence gameIt appears the homeowners were victims of a nationwide predatory mortgage lending scheme, a complex confidence game – as most homeowners were, that led the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to file suit against Bank of America, et. al., its former and current subsidiaries and partners, on October 24, 2012. USA v. BofA, et. al., USDC Southern District of NY, 12 Civ. 1422 (JSR) (Oct. 2012). Due to the nature of the DOJ case, documents were originally sealed, some were released, though many remain sealed today. The overall DOJ case did not completely resolve until May 23, 2016. The case publicly unleashed the secret that prime and subprime loans by large mortgage companies such as Countrywide and New Century Mortgage Corporation (“NC”) sold and pledged their procured loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government-sponsored enterprises (“GSE”):

“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac purchase single-family residential mortgages from lenders” (DOJ Intervenor Complaint, ¶18). “GSEs buy single-family mortgages from mortgage companies and other financial institutions [. . .] then either hold the loans in their investment portfolios or bundle them into mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”) that they sell to investors.” (DOJ Intervenor Complaint, ¶27)” (emphasis added).

See also the book RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT by Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner.

fraudulent concealmentIn most cases, the issues are really “fraud on the court” and “fraudulent concealment.” The wrongful fabricated assignments were supposed to have been removed from the land records offices according to the National Mortgage Settlement and several other federal agency consent orders. National Mortgage Complaint (NMS), Case 1:12-cv-00361-RMC filed on March 14, 2012, in the USDC for the District of Columbia. The Consent Judgment had a Settlement Term Sheet (“NMS Consent Order”) filed on April 4, 2012, and specifically identified the terms under which the banks and servicers must comply.

The real interesting issues that are just now surfacing include the intentional concealment of Fannie or Freddie (GSE) as the “Real Party in Interest.” They stay hidden until after the bank sale and somehow magically appear as a buyer. GSEs buy originating loans – not defaulted bad debt. So, something appears really fishy when a GSE, or GSE/Treasury troll gets involved AFTER a foreclosure sale.

It appears from the inception, FANNIE/FREDDIE’S ROLES WERE INTENTIONALLY CONCEALED. Pursuant to Fannie’s 2008 Servicing Guidelines:

Fannie Mae is at all times the owner of the mortgage note, whether the note is in Fannie Mae’s portfolio or whether owned as trustee, for example, as trustee for an MBS trust. In addition, Fannie Mae at all times has possession of and is the holder of the mortgage note, except in the limited circumstances expressly described below” (emphasis added).

Failure to disclose all parties of interest upon filing the Complaint is an omission so material in nature that not only does it void the judgments, in this case it is intentional fraud on the Court. Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford Empire Co., [322 U.S. 238 (1944)] (This motion asks this Court to utilize its “historic power of equity to set aside [a] fraudulently begotten judgment[]” in order to uphold the “preservation of the integrity of the judicial process”).

Fannie & Freddie (GSEs) had servicing guidelines during this period of time that required servicers to conceal them as the real party of interest as the GSE’s known debt was out of control.

fannie denied concealmentOver the years the GSEs changed their policies because the courts have rejected the notion that an action could be brought in the name of a servicer. See In re Viencek, 273 B.R. 354, 357, 59 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 2002) (requiring that servicing agent amend a proof of claim to identify the owner of the claim), In re Kang Jin Hwang, 396 B.R. 757 at 767, (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008) (finding that servicer was not the real party in interest), Bank of New York v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 280 [2d Dept 2011], (“The foreclosure of a mortgage cannot be pursued by one who has no demonstrated right to the debt”).

When researching home loans on the GSEs’ database, loans in GSE securitization pools will not show up on their website “loan search.” Again, this is another example of hiding debt. MERS® System, for example, was created to specifically track investors and ownership, allowing GSEs and banks to remove debt-related assets from their accounting, while still tracking the asset.

Who does this hurt? ANSWER: GSE investors, taxpayers, homeowners, and probably the judges that have mutual funds that contain GSE (MBS) shares, for example, Vanguard, PIMCO.

bailout barofskyBTW – Homeowners have wanted to pay and more often than not were induced by the government HAMP program that advertised calling the servicer for a modification. That program was a scam – see the book BAILOUT by Neil Barofsky, Chapter 8, Foaming the runway. Once homeowners were sucked into the default process the majority had a difficult time getting back into a payment program. The homeowners were not allowed to make payments – it appears the banks, GSEs and Treasury wanted foreclosures rather than long term payment programs because liquidity is essential.

This is research – this is not legal advice. Contact an attorney to see if you have an alternative action. Closely research and dissect your documents. Ask if, for example, a Rule 60(b) and/or FRCP 60(d)(3) is an option.

Bankruptcy-RealEstate-Insights

Turner v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (In re Turner), 859 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2017) –

The debtors brought multiple claims following foreclosure of their residence. After the bankruptcy court dismissed the claims in a decision that was affirmed by the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, the debtors appealed to the 9th Circuit.

View original post 909 more words

CA Judge: HELOC Notes Are Not Negotiable Instruments — Possession Is Not Enough — Pretender Lenders Must Prove the Debt and Ownership

Livinglies's Weblog

Here we have a ruling that firmly states the obvious, with widespread ramifications. HELOC (Home Equity Line of Credit) promissory notes represent evidence of a debt depending upon how much the homeowner borrows, repays or otherwise receives advances. It is not a promise to pay a single unqualified amount of money.

While the mortgage or deed of trust on the primary mortgage carries with it obligations to pay variable sums, the promissory note does not, which is why judges treat the note as a negotiable instrument if it is valid on its face.

What you are going to see is that the HELOC is left out of foreclosure because the pretender lender cannot prove the debt or its ownership. If the HELOC and the primary mortgage involve the same pretender lender, then discovery on the HELOC is relevant both because the HELOC might convert the first mortgage from a purchase…

View original post 576 more words

IN 2015, SIX OF THE SEVEN LARGEST HAMP SERVICERS WRONGFULLY TERMINATED HOMEOWNERS OUT OF HAMP

SIGTARP QUARTERLY REPORT TO CONGRESS I JANUARY 27, 2016

SIGTARP’s concerns over servicer misconduct contributing to homeowner redefaults in HAMP have been borne out. Treasury’s findings in its on-site visits to the largest seven mortgage servicers in HAMP over the most recent four quarters show disturbing and what should be unacceptable results, as 6 of 7 of the mortgage servicers had wrongfully terminated homeowners who were in “good standing” out of HAMP.

These staggering findings clearly show that servicer misconduct is contributing to some homeowners falling out of HAMP. Homeowners were wrongly terminated from HAMP by their servicer despite making timely mortgage payments, putting them at risk of losing their home. These homeowners were forced out of HAMP through no fault of their own. Mortgage servicers did not give these homeowners a fair shot. As these instances were found through sampling, Treasury does not know how many other homeowners were also wrongfully forced out of HAMP. Continue reading

Plan Valuation of Secured Claims: What Happens When Foreclosure Value Is Higher Than Without Foreclosure?

If you can find a jury that would “feel sorry” for the banks, good luck. It appears this was originally a HUD deal and the agency isn’t structured as a “for profit” entity. It is structured to enable affordable construction of low-income housing. When the 2008 crash hit (and continues) as a result of the corrupt unregulated derivative scheme, the construction industry was, and still is, devastated. Construction, construction materials, labor & housing were the 2 driving wheels on the truck of the economy – and have been flattened due to the illegal antics of the past 20 years, and particularly the last 10 years. If a debtor, or any homeowner is capable of making payments pursuant to a reasonable plan – for the sake of the economy, the plan should move forward.

After TRILLION$ paid out by the banks in bailouts, fines, settlements and compensation for corruption and illegal activities, banks don’t deserve the benefit of doubt – or gifts from the courts. “Our courts should not be collection agencies for crooks.” — John Waihee, Governor of Hawaii, 1986-1994.

Bankruptcy-RealEstate-Insights

First Southern Nat’l. Bank v. Sunnyslope Housing Ltd. P’ship. (In re Sunnyslope Housing Ltd. P’ship.), 859 F.3d 637 (9th Cir. 2017)

A creditor appealed a bankruptcy court order valuing a secured claim at $3.9 million for purposes of a Chapter 11 plan. The district court affirmed, but the Court of Appeals panel reversed and remanded. Then the 9th Circuit granted a rehearing en banc. The primary issue was how to value property subject to low-income housing restrictions. The court also addressed the proper “cramdown” rate and feasibility of a 40-year balloon payment plan.

View original post 1,375 more words

JPMorgan Says Family Awarded $8 Billion Verdict Deserves Nothing

Who ever the Hoppers had for their legal team was terrific! Too bad juries can’t award prison sentences.

Justice League

JPMorgan Chase & Co. urged a judge to throw out a stunning $8 billion jury verdict over a mismanaged inheritance, saying the family deserves nothing.

“The law and evidence do not support any claim against JPMorgan, much less the unprecedented multi-billion-dollar punitive damage award, which the heirs have already admitted is unconstitutionally excessive,” the bank said in a filing in Dallas probate court.

Two children of Max Hopper, a former American Airlines executive who died in 2010, have already asked that the damages for them and their father’s estate be reduced to about $74 million, while his widow has yet to weigh in with any adjustment to the ninth-largest verdict in U.S. history.

Read on.

View original post