It’s the Rules of Evidence Stupid: 25 Ways in Which Foreclosure Attorneys Are Knowingly Committing Fraud on Our State and Federal Courts

Sunday, February 4, 2018 – 3 PM HST
(Rebroadcast from June 14, 2015 – Its Super Bowl Sunday – everybody deserves a day off now and then)
Upcoming Discussion for Sunday’s THE FORECLOSURE HOUR
Sundays: 3 pm (HST) / 5 pm (PST) / 8 pm (EST). Click HERE to listen.

Not very long ago lenders filing foreclosure actions merely went into court filing affidavits that a borrower was behind in mortgage payments, offering into evidence virtually no specific documentation, not even a loan payment accounting known as the “loan general ledger.”

Notwithstanding whatever evidentiary challenges borrowers might have made previously, unlike in other areas of American Law, foreclosure judges would merely take a foreclosing plaintiff’s printed word for it.

It was only, for instance, in 2001 that Hawai’i Courts were instructed by the Hawaii Supreme Court to require that the loan general ledger proving a “default” be submitted into evidence before judgment could be entered.

And it was only in 2017 that the Hawaii Supreme Court held that a foreclosing mortgagee must prove its “standing at inception” to foreclose, having evidence of the possession of the underlying promissory note at the time the foreclosure lawsuit was first filed.

These evidentiary requirements in one form or another have now become commonplace in almost every State, but questions still remain concerning what level of proof on the part of a foreclosing mortgagee is necessary.

Unfortunately, in many state foreclosure courts such evidentiary requirements are still nonsensically considered satisfied where loan servicers merely attest to the foreclosing plaintiff having had possession of the underlying note at the time suit was filed and that their representatives are thoroughly familiar with all of the records of prior loan servicers, even where there has been a succession of prior loan servicers, and even, for instance, regarding the service of default notices years earlier, another threshold evidentiary requirement for foreclosing.

Such “I saw the supporting documents back at the office” or “I am totally familiar with how prior Ioan servicers handle their books and records (called “boarding”) is inadmissible hearsay unless supported by evidence based on personal knowledge.

The Foreclosure Hour took our listeners in June 2015 inside a courtroom in Kona, Hawaii where one foreclosure judge, years before it became popular to require evidentiary support in the form of personal knowledge for securing a foreclosure decree, displayed considerable foresight in refusing to accept mere allegations from otherwise polished foreclosure attorneys, requiring instead supporting proof.

Today, we rebroadcast that June 2015 show, suggesting that today borrowers facing foreclosure as well as judges presiding over foreclosure cases need to confront foreclosing plaintiffs with similar challenges and now demanding even greater detail.

Don’t let your pretender lender merely submit an affidavit simply swearing that “here is a copy of the default notice” and the “original” of the promissory note entitling it to foreclosure.

Regarding the default notice, for instance, foreclosing mortgagees must prove that it was actually sent.

If accompanied by no signed return receipt requested, which is usually the case, courts should require an affidavit from whoever claims to have sent out the default notice, or computer or other evidence that it was created on the date it bears.

Remember, you can defeat summary judgment with your declaration that you never received a default notice and had you, the copy presented by the foreclosing mortgagee is in any event defective as it includes a demand for unexplained amounts in addition to claimed monthly arrearages and late payments.

Next, regarding the standing issue, demand to see how the foreclosing mortgagee supposedly came to possess a bearer note, for instance, asking for proof of payment for an assignment of the mortgage debt, including banking records and copies of transmittal documents. And hire an expert such as Dr. Kelley to scientifically evaluate the so-called original note.

If a lost note affidavit is submitted to the court, seek to enforce the UCC evidentiary requirement in most jurisdictions that still an affidavit is required signed by the person claiming to have possessed and lost the original note.

Go to Court armed with your jurisdiction’s “Rules of Evidence” in hand and read the applicable Rules to your Judge.

Listen to what happened in one Kona Courtroom rebroadcast on today’s show, where we also review all of the 25 ways in which foreclosing attorneys have similarly been attempting to defraud our courts, transforming them too often into collection agencies for crooks, ashamedly with the aid of the Bar.

And remember: “It’s the Rules of Evidence Stupid” as the best way to defeat foreclosure.

If you miss the broadcast – go to Past Broadcasts.

Gary Victor Dubin
Dubin Law Offices
Suite 3100, Harbor Court
55 Merchant Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Office: (808) 537-2300
Cellular: (808) 392-9191
Facsimile: (808) 523-7733

Licensed in California and Hawaii


One thought on “It’s the Rules of Evidence Stupid: 25 Ways in Which Foreclosure Attorneys Are Knowingly Committing Fraud on Our State and Federal Courts

  1. Pingback: It’s the Rules of Evidence Stupid: 25 Ways in Which Foreclosure Attorneys Are Knowingly Committing Fraud on Our State and Federal Courts — Deadly Clear | California freelance paralegal

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s