Bagels at a Bar mitzvah Part II

M

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
This is why number of foreclosure cases filed in Oregon declines big time since 2019, since most of them are actually debt-collection:

5. NEW UTCR 5.180 Consumer Debt Collection Requirement.
In 2019, the Uniform Trial Court Rules Committee added UTCR 5.180,
which places additional obligations in Oregon State court actions to collect
a debt.
(a) Any action for collection of a debt under ORS 646A.670, when the
plaintiff is either a debt-buyer or is a debt collector as defined in
ORS 646.639 brining the action on a debt-buyer’s behalf must
include in the title: “SUBJECT TO ORS 646A.670(1) and UTCR
5.180(2)”
(b) In the body (presumably the complaint), include a statement to the
effect: “See the Oregon Judicial Department’s website for
information about debt-collection cases”
(c) Attach and incorporate by reference in the Complaint a completed
Consumer Debt Collection Disclosure Statement in substantially
Chapter 8—Show Me the Money—Obtaining and Collecting Your Client’s Judgment
Fundamentals of Oregon Civil Trial Procedure 8–2
the same form as set forth in
http://www.courts.oregon.gov/Pages/default.aspx), including a
statement that the plaintiff has complied with ORS 646A.670(1).
(d) If the pleading does not comply with the rule, written notice is
given to the plaintiff that the case will be dismissed 30 days from
the date of mailing the notice unless the plaintiff has complied with
the rule by that time.
(e) If the plaintiff moves for entry of a judgment of default, the motion
must include a declaration, under penalty of perjury, that the initial
pleading complied with ORS 646.670(1).
PRACTICE TIP: Some courts are rejecting complaints for collection of non-consumer debts
as non-compliant with UTCR 5.180. If you are filing a non-consumer case
to which UTCR 5.180 does not apply, consider including language in the
title similar to the following: “Consumer Collection – Not Subject to ORS
646A.670(1) or UTCRT 5.180(2).” IN that manner, a clerk may be less
inclined to send a notice.
 
isisis

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Recently received a notice of sale. Now my attorney who should be going ex parte for a TRO has mysteriously vanished. Gulp. This is precisely why it's essential to have a plan B, C and D firmly in place at all times.

I'm preparing complaints to the CFPB and California's version the DFPI. Then might as well include the Attorney General and even the DA since the NOS revived my FDCPA claim. Both are supposed to be able to enforce debt collection rules under their general law enforcement authority not that they will but making noise is good. Also some of this kinda qualifies as criminal. After all threatening to do something they can't legally do that would cause irreparable harm while demanding I give them money I don't owe is extortion, no attempted extortion.

And of course filing a Chapter 13 as a last resort, maybe naming them as an unsecured creditor since they've materially breached the contract or else secured but only with regard to the debt amount and not the intervening payments.

Sorry for having gone awol here. Needed some time to remember that life isn't just about mortgage law........
 
isisis

isisis

LoanSafe Member
moretrouble said:
In your discovery, ask for the mortgage loan schedule (current and history) and if you don't get it in time, file a motion to compel, . If your current statement has a different loan number than what was securitized, the loan with the default amount was simply transferred (by making an accounting entry, no funding involved) to a new collection account with a new number, the balance of the new collection account is 3 times the balance of the loan with the original loan number in the trust. There is no loan with the new account number and unpaid balance in the current mortgage loan schedule. They are using the trust names to collect on the new balance. The old loan has been paid down using the trust fund while the new loan has been accruing interests and fees, and so on.,, Originally I thought the old master servicer repurchased the default loans but now I doubt it.
Click to expand...
My loan number changed back in 2014 when Bayview took over from Bofa. More recently my "balance" has deceased and I've been scratching my head about that, figuring maybe someone is math challenged while assuming that if it ever became more than figurative that the amount all of a sudden would include all the high interest arrears with charges and fees earning interest as well. To which they're not entitled because the payments never became due - their material failure to perform having suspended them and the charges and fees aren't authorized under the terms of the DOT since I'm not in default, an FDCPA violation.
 
M

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
isisis said:
Recently received a notice of sale. Now my attorney who should be going ex parte for a TRO has mysteriously vanished. Gulp. This is precisely why it's essential to have a plan B, C and D firmly in place at all times.

I'm preparing complaints to the CFPB and California's version the DFPI. Then might as well include the Attorney General and even the DA since the NOS revived my FDCPA claim. Both are supposed to be able to enforce debt collection rules under their general law enforcement authority not that they will but making noise is good. Also some of this kinda qualifies as criminal. After all threatening to do something they can't legally do that would cause irreparable harm while demanding I give them money I don't owe is extortion, no attempted extortion.

And of course filing a Chapter 13 as a last resort, maybe naming them as an unsecured creditor since they've materially breached the contract or else secured but only with regard to the debt amount and not the intervening payments.

Sorry for having gone awol here. Needed some time to remember that life isn't just about mortgage law........
Click to expand...
Having been fight these crooks for 13 +1/2 years, I know exactly how you feel Isisis. The battles go in burst. You get busy for a few months then break for a few months , then get busy again. I was really busy for 3 and half years after they filed the foreclosure to learn the court rules, research cases, laws.filed the appeal, petition... then had 2 +1/2 year break, then the stupid attorney filed the writ , now I get busy again. The total hours I 've spent is approx. 1500 hours averaging 25 hours/month so it's not a free house. If I had to to pay an attorney it would have cost me over $200K and probably in no better shape.
I agree with you. You'll need a plan A, B, C , D but also have a decision tree and timeline with milestones. If this happens by this date, I'll do this, that happens I'll do that. Have it all planned then just execute.. I find having plans reduce overall stress and not having to think about the theft often.
Anyway, I've decided I rather live in my van down the river than taking a bribe (loan mod) before I file the federal suit even at the risk of losing,i. e. running into the Federal judge who might be just as corrupt as the state judge. Plan to go all the way to U. S. Supreme Court.
 
S

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
isisis said:
Recently received a notice of sale. Now my attorney who should be going ex parte for a TRO has mysteriously vanished. Gulp. This is precisely why it's essential to have a plan B, C and D firmly in place at all times.

I'm preparing complaints to the CFPB and California's version the DFPI. Then might as well include the Attorney General and even the DA since the NOS revived my FDCPA claim. Both are supposed to be able to enforce debt collection rules under their general law enforcement authority not that they will but making noise is good. Also some of this kinda qualifies as criminal. After all threatening to do something they can't legally do that would cause irreparable harm while demanding I give them money I don't owe is extortion, no attempted extortion.

And of course filing a Chapter 13 as a last resort, maybe naming them as an unsecured creditor since they've materially breached the contract or else secured but only with regard to the debt amount and not the intervening payments.

Sorry for having gone awol here. Needed some time to remember that life isn't just about mortgage law........
Click to expand...
Hello Isisis,
This does not sound pleasant. Ugh. It's been a week now, has your attorney resurfaced? It would be a shame to have to switch to pro se to ensure there is a TRO. I hope you have your complaints filed and cc'd to all the additional parties. Maybe this will cause them to withdraw the sale date.

I'm so sorry that you are still dealing with monthly or near monthly mock executions. If anything, if they DO proceed to sale, you have ACTUAL damages for recovery in tort. Its been awhile since I've reviewed California and DOT sales, but... I certainly hope you don't have to deal with that!

SCOUNDRALS & SCALLYWAGGERS! ALL OF THEM!
 
M

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Joined the "American Property Owners Network" Facebook group a while ago, 2400 members, some useful info. Thru the contacts, a fellow Oregonian contacted me for help. His case started in 2013, court issued foreclosure judgment, sheriff's sold house in 2019. SPS on behalf of Deutcsh Bank is trying to evict him; recently got proof of the document and loan fraud, filed an motion for relief of judgment, judge denied without any explanation. I am helping him with filing an appeal. Just to proof the point that even after the sheriff's sale, the fight still can be won, don't give up.
Also I am considering to go on offense, filing an "unlawful debt collection" case against Shellpoint and NewRez. This is separate from my other case. Will keep you guys posted.
 
M

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Also you should not refinance your uncollectable HELOCS. Some poster in this forum (maybe working for the debt buyers) suggests refinancing your charged-off HELOCS is good idea, may even get good rates and discount on the principle. NewRez bought debts from Ditech for 2 pennies on the dollar (paid 1.2B for 62B UPB, search NewRez acquire Ditech news), now they are (through Shellpoint, NewRez bought Shellpoint too) giving you a good deal at 70 cents on the dollar on your loan, Hell no, take me to court. As results of us fighting for the past few years and exposing the collection fraud , I notice the new unlawful debt collection statute ( ORS 646.639 Unlawful collection practices ) has been strengthened considerably. I was surprised by the new collection requirements required by the debt buyers have higher obstacles now, especially plaintiff has to proof damage in Federal court.
 
isisis

isisis

LoanSafe Member
They fooled me. The handful of familiar, ubiquitous, oversized envelopes in my mailbox with the usual suspects return address had to be a notice of sale, right? So I chose not dignify them with a close perusal. When I needed the exact date and began examining it was instead a notice of default to my surprise. Hmmmmm. Why do it again? A NOD is good until the end of time unless resinded. Once again my old buddies, Cwabs 2006 SD2 are the alleged beneficiaries.

Thing is it's unlikely that the trust still exists. There were far too many foreclosures for the small loan pool not to have fallen below the 10% (or is it 15%) level so there had to have been a clean up call by now. I surfed BONY investors website (GTC) to no avail, couldn't find CWABS 2006 SD2. It's probably there, it's never been easy to find, still I couldn't find it.

My guess is that it's been called and that would mean the notice of default is invalid. A mere procedural error - if you ignore the whole chain of title issue - that can be corrected but one more thing to add to the inexhaustible list of statutory and common law transgressions on the part of the forces of evil and sadly one more thing they're likely to get away with.

Hey, More Trouble. How'd you find out your trust had been called?
 
M

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
From what I 've read, they keep filing to extend the SOL. I may have a new weapon, Bankruptcy Code:
www.law.cornell.edu

11 U.S. Code § 549 - Postpetition transactions

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu
Because I filed and received a discharge on a Chapter 7 in 2005, any post-petition "transfer" maybe invalid. That's why BOfA never filed a Proof of Claim in my subsequent Chapter 13 in 2010 and they let the Writ expired after spending $2500 atty fees (studying my case, I guess). Even if they do follow thru, the trust in the Chapter 13 case is not the same that is on the judgement. Big dilemma for them crooks.
I 've been following last paid publicly traded-bonds in my trusts by checking of bond funds' hodlings and can estimate when they would be paid off, and can estimate when the trust is called. Best you can write the admisnitrator, or request for production (followed by motion to compel), or Subpoena. But don't think the call affect the foreclosure unless you can claim misrepresentation.
It's getting more exciting by the day.
 
S

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
moretrouble said:
From what I 've read, they keep filing to extend the SOL. I may have a new weapon, Bankruptcy Code:
www.law.cornell.edu

11 U.S. Code § 549 - Postpetition transactions

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu
Because I filed and received a discharge on a Chapter 7 in 2005, any post-petition "transfer" maybe invalid.
Click to expand...
Ok, this is interesting MT. Are you saying that selling or transferring the loan out of the trust may violate bankruptcy code? I'm assuming you are referring to attempts to collect what has been discharged. Quite frankly my servicer has never made this adjustment and continues to itemize future interest and payments due from an existing past balance but with a disclaimer that such is for "informational purposes in the event of bankruptcy "(on the rare event of a statement). So far they haven't budged a nickle on the lawsuit and is now inflated 50-100k over what it was originally.

Isisis, I'm thinking that a new NOD has to be based on a NEW event. I believe you are wrong on the NOD being good forever. I originally had same thought but discovered otherwise. I received one from DB once and it was very official letter threatening foreclosure if I didn't pay an inflated amount to include attorney fees of 3500 bucks. Yet they never filed the foreclosure case in court. (judicial here) It was an idle threat. When they did file the foreclosure case some years later and after a HAMP mod, they sent a new NOD (different date) immediately prior to filing foreclosure in court. In other words, past NOD can be cured, requiring new NOD for new default.

Given everything that has gone on in your case over... well.. YEARS... If memory serves me right... I believe they may be running some sort of hail Mary pass by accepting your former negotiated modification instead of ignoring it. So now, given they had ignored, rejected and denied existence of prior negotiated mod, they are doing an "about face" in order to use such mod to revive a "proper" amended action in the system. If this is the case, you would have a separate and distinct default date from the original.

This is interesting. You may have new arguments for breach of contract (and punitive damages) if my speculation is correct.
 
S

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
moretrouble said:
For your reading pleasure. Notice the attorney's fees.
Click to expand...
lol what a flip on the lender with that quiet title to HOA. hahaha. On the fees, would be nice if one could just claim same amount as opponent counsel in a self represented case. I've never seen pro se awarded any amount for their time in court. You would think they could do the load star system or something. Also, I have not seen costs collected in legal aid matters either because these services are free to the person who qualifies for assistance, hence no charges to collect. Somehow , these lenders need to contribute back to the system for tying up legal aid when they do things like withdraw or refile their case.
 
M

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
I hired an attorney to defend my 2nd non-judicial foreclosure because I was working and did not have a lot of time. He spent a couple hours looking up securitization report plus a few hours writing the complaint. It cost me $6,000. Imagine what hours they would have charged me with the data of discovery I have right now, in the hundreds of thousand of dollars. I may have to explain to them what the frauds have been committed. You could also be hit with attorney’ fees of the other side if you lose. Just a reminder of what could happen. In my case, I am judgment proof so no worries. If they win they already own the lien on the house. If they lose, they could be exposed to securities law suits from other investors. Benefits outweigh the costs.
 
M

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
"
16CV41437 | Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, U.S. Bank National Association, not in its individual capacity but solely as vs William C. Dysinger, Janice R. Dysinger, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., First Horizon Home Loan Corporation, Columbia Collection Service Inc.et al."
This case started 3 months after my case, homeowner represented by a local atty and Jeff Barnes. We both ended up with the same results, appeal affirmed, denied by SC. However, I am in much better shape right now: no writ pending. Stealing procedure is 1/ The crooked atty files a writ; about a month later, send a letter to the sheriff order to levy and sell the property; about another month the sheriff file a notice of levy with the court; a couple months later sheriff posts sale 150 days out; if you do nothing: SOLD; much harder to reclaim.
My point is performing your own cost/benefit analysis. No difference in result pro se or hiring an atty. In Copper, the original amount in dispute was $16,000, the atty fees were $95,000 and going up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top