moretrouble
LoanSafe Member
foreclosure is a claim and barred by the post-chapter 7 discharge injunction:
Bagels at a Bar mitzvah Part II
- Thread starter isisis
- Start date
moretrouble
LoanSafe Member
Shellpoint sent me a letter claiming they hold a lien on my property. I just sent a dispute letter.
moretrouble
LoanSafe Member
Went back and checked the sheriff's sale results of a few appellate cases that I studied. My findings:
1- Most of them sold.
2- a couple settled.
3- a couple left alone
4- No difference between pro se and attorney-represented.
I contacted 4 attys, sent them a brief of my case. Nobody answered. Guess have to do it myself. Still waiting for a new writ. Maybe the status quo is best. 13 and half years.
1- Most of them sold.
2- a couple settled.
3- a couple left alone
4- No difference between pro se and attorney-represented.
I contacted 4 attys, sent them a brief of my case. Nobody answered. Guess have to do it myself. Still waiting for a new writ. Maybe the status quo is best. 13 and half years.
Survivor_IN
LoanSafe Member
Status quo is best. 
moretrouble
LoanSafe Member
A week ago, I sent a three-page summary to an attorney who I consulted with before I filed my petition to the state S C. Then, We spent about an hour talking and I paid him$325/hr. This time, I asked him to go over the material first then give me a time to discuss. He never responded. My guess he doesn’t want to read, just want to chit chat and charge for his time.
Also a couple weeks ago, I attended a Zoom meeting organised by the APON Facebook hosted by attorney Jan Van Eck, who is regular commentator on the living lies.com blog. He spent about 3 hours talking about legal issues in judicial foreclosures. There were about 20 attendees. Afterwards, I sent him y summary and he immediately recognised that was not Bank of New York suing me, but it was Ocwen been jerking m around. First attorney out of the dozen I talked who agrees with me. The only one who knows his stuff. The trouble is he is involving in some big cases and has ..no time to go on to the details of my case. He said later.
Finally, I also found out that the GSEs like Freddie Mac also securitises billions of dollars of mortgages and their servicers are NewRez and it’s subsidiary Shellpoint . The politicians and the fraudsters, They all in bed together . Would not be surprised if they are on each other companies boards. That’s why they blatantly commit frauds to steal. I think the only way to make them leave you alone is to make them realise that it costs them more to foreclose on you. My fellow pro se who sued them in the Federal court, the case only went to SummAry Judgment stage, attorney fees were over 55K. Image how much legal cost would be if the case goes to appeal court and beyond.
Also a couple weeks ago, I attended a Zoom meeting organised by the APON Facebook hosted by attorney Jan Van Eck, who is regular commentator on the living lies.com blog. He spent about 3 hours talking about legal issues in judicial foreclosures. There were about 20 attendees. Afterwards, I sent him y summary and he immediately recognised that was not Bank of New York suing me, but it was Ocwen been jerking m around. First attorney out of the dozen I talked who agrees with me. The only one who knows his stuff. The trouble is he is involving in some big cases and has ..no time to go on to the details of my case. He said later.
Finally, I also found out that the GSEs like Freddie Mac also securitises billions of dollars of mortgages and their servicers are NewRez and it’s subsidiary Shellpoint . The politicians and the fraudsters, They all in bed together . Would not be surprised if they are on each other companies boards. That’s why they blatantly commit frauds to steal. I think the only way to make them leave you alone is to make them realise that it costs them more to foreclose on you. My fellow pro se who sued them in the Federal court, the case only went to SummAry Judgment stage, attorney fees were over 55K. Image how much legal cost would be if the case goes to appeal court and beyond.
Survivor_IN
LoanSafe Member
I'm having after thoughts and revelations here... It occurred to me that some updates may have been the result of deposition taking. I'm starting to think that depositions in these types of cases really do harm the opposition. (Even though they think they are trying to scare you.)
Survivor_IN
LoanSafe Member
Interesting. Are you trying to get a question certified? You go Mo!
moretrouble
LoanSafe Member
I've read a few opinions from Federal courts, I think I have a good case, the question is to file or not to file, have till July 20, 2023 to decide. FYI
kraftykrab
LoanSafe Member
So, are you saying that your attorney, whom you have retained for this case, has just ghosted you? If he has taken you on as a client, and has not informed you that he is withdrawing as your attorney, that could be worth a bar complaint.
kraftykrab
LoanSafe Member
Try researching ' Anticipatory Repudiation'. If one party says or does something that leads the other party to reasonably believe that continued performance is not reasonably possible, for example, then you may have a claim for anticipatory repudiation. For example, if you make payments in good faith, and the note has not been accelerated, but the lender refuses to apply those payments, you can argue that their action of refusing payments makes it "not reasonably possible" for you to hold up your end of the agreement.
Important--generally speaking, it's not required that you show it was rendered IMPOSSIBLE for you to continue performing--you need only to show that a reasonable person would conclude that continued performance would be pointless due to the other party's refusal to perform under their own agreement. In the case of reversing payment back to the borrower, they have indeed made it impossible for you to perform your obligation of paying the loan. Again, this would not apply if acceleration had taken place. They are not under obligation to accept individual payments if they have accelerated the balance.
If you choose to contend that they breached the contract, U.C.C. § 2-711 spells out general remedies for a buyer if the seller breaches the agreement.
moretrouble
LoanSafe Member
Hello Krafty,
Long time no hear. Hope you're doing well. Some of us are still here. For now, I think I've read enough cases and laws to be able whip out a challenge to a new writ, a tort suit in the state court, and a federal suit in a couple weeks. Obviously, I don't want to overpay my mortgage payments by spending too much time on legal issues concerning the purported foreclosure. I've decided against initiate the federal suit on my own because lack of impending injury (house is not being sold) which will affect the federal judge's opinion. Judge would likely says "Your damage by spending hours and costs are being compensated by non-payment". It would be different if the banks are trying to steal the house by using fake note and grossly-inflated allegedly-owed amount and I were just trying to fight back. I can still contribute to fighting the crooks by monitoring court cases and informing homeowners of potential fraud.
In conclusion, status quo is best.
moretrouble
LoanSafe Member
Update on the tort case. Default Order granted. If you have proof of faked note or witness lying on the stand, filing a new tort case is the way to go. Make sure demand a jury trial according to law, take the decision out of the hands of the corrupt judges.
moretrouble
LoanSafe Member
Seventh Amendment
Seventh Amendment Explained
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Seventh Amendment Explained
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
moretrouble
LoanSafe Member
I and maybe all of us been focus on the wrong approach, playing defense instead of offense. We ‘ve been busy on foreclosure defense instead of suing the banks’ attorneys and witnesses for frauds. The key to winning is having proofs of their perjuries in court under oaths. Let them sell the house, just add the loss to the claim plus triple the damages.
Survivor_IN
LoanSafe Member
I couldn't agree more. It's been a learning experience to say the least! You can't win by doing nothing more than responding to these foreclosure actions. One really needs to become proactive and lead to a resolution. Limbo is not winning. (although at one point it felt like it)
moretrouble
LoanSafe Member
Update on the tort case. The crooks and their attys file a MOD based on res judicata and collateral estoppel as expected like in many other cases . Basically, they claimed :"We have already bribed a corrupt judge to ignore our fake note and believe in the lies of our attorney and witnesses to grant us a foreclosure judgement, so the deal is done, we are allowed to steal.". Maybe state law allows the crooks to fabricate a note and lie to steal people's homes but not Federal law. That's why we still have Federal courts.
Survivor_IN
LoanSafe Member
My understanding is a new claim that is different than an original claim must be filed to overcome res judicata and collateral estoppel in federal court on a state court action. I know your abbreviating the refs given but I do like to read their attempts. I believe it is more a civil rights action where the courts do not allow any arguments opposing certain "people." Just an FYI I did knock out a couple of judges this past year. We shall see what develops.
isisis
LoanSafe Member
I don't know if anyone remembers back to the OJ jury verdict when he was found not guilty. On SNL's weekend update Norm MacDonald said, "It's official folks, murder is now legal in the state of California." That's kind of how I'm feeling.
My claim for IIED didn't reach the high bar of "outrageous". So its official, torture is now legal in the state of California. If you're a bank that is.
Apparently it's acceptable to induce default and wrongly place a borrower in foreclosure and then use cruel and unusual tactics, i.e., repeated mock executions in order to wear the borrower down in an attempt to collect money that isn't owed. Such is the essential nature of a financial institution's unalienable right to extract every possible cent out of a homeowner regardless of the harm they inflict.
We think of attorneys and judges as being intelligent but what they are is proficient at memorizing a vast catalog of rules. Because this formidable undertaking takes up a lot of bandwidth they are often at a loss when it comes to weaving those rules and the circumstances and individuals involved into the fabric that becomes justice. They struggle with complex or compound problems that involve integrating various legal issues and eschew original thought.
My judge was grappling with the novel concept that a creditor could breach a loan contract and thereupon conceivably lose some contract benefits. He was finding it undeniable but when I challenged foreclosure sales the bandwidth issue emerged. Challenging that sacred right to step in and seize the delinquent borrower's property was more than he could fathom.
He apparently failed to recognize that I wasn't challenging the use of foreclosure auctions but their abuse. When a borrower is not in default and the threatened sale is used as a means of inflicting emotional injury for the purpose of extracting money that's not owed, that sounds pretty outrageous to me. Then again I'm a little biased.
Where else is it legal or acceptable to abuse a position of discretion and deliberately cause emotional harm for profit?
It is outrageous conduct that exceeds all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community. Because it goes against the things we collectively value as a society.
Somehow, someday we've got to turn this around. Banks are not entitled to injure people and yet they do it all the time. I think this is one of those problems, oppressions - not unlike racism - that we've grown so used to as a society that we've become blind to it. It's come to seem like one of those inevitable issues in life like death and taxes that we have no choice but to accept. Meanwhile it's difficult AF to fight.
My claim for IIED didn't reach the high bar of "outrageous". So its official, torture is now legal in the state of California. If you're a bank that is.
Apparently it's acceptable to induce default and wrongly place a borrower in foreclosure and then use cruel and unusual tactics, i.e., repeated mock executions in order to wear the borrower down in an attempt to collect money that isn't owed. Such is the essential nature of a financial institution's unalienable right to extract every possible cent out of a homeowner regardless of the harm they inflict.
We think of attorneys and judges as being intelligent but what they are is proficient at memorizing a vast catalog of rules. Because this formidable undertaking takes up a lot of bandwidth they are often at a loss when it comes to weaving those rules and the circumstances and individuals involved into the fabric that becomes justice. They struggle with complex or compound problems that involve integrating various legal issues and eschew original thought.
My judge was grappling with the novel concept that a creditor could breach a loan contract and thereupon conceivably lose some contract benefits. He was finding it undeniable but when I challenged foreclosure sales the bandwidth issue emerged. Challenging that sacred right to step in and seize the delinquent borrower's property was more than he could fathom.
He apparently failed to recognize that I wasn't challenging the use of foreclosure auctions but their abuse. When a borrower is not in default and the threatened sale is used as a means of inflicting emotional injury for the purpose of extracting money that's not owed, that sounds pretty outrageous to me. Then again I'm a little biased.
Where else is it legal or acceptable to abuse a position of discretion and deliberately cause emotional harm for profit?
It is outrageous conduct that exceeds all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community. Because it goes against the things we collectively value as a society.
Somehow, someday we've got to turn this around. Banks are not entitled to injure people and yet they do it all the time. I think this is one of those problems, oppressions - not unlike racism - that we've grown so used to as a society that we've become blind to it. It's come to seem like one of those inevitable issues in life like death and taxes that we have no choice but to accept. Meanwhile it's difficult AF to fight.
isisis
LoanSafe Member
Saturday I get an email from my attorney who'd just heard from the opposition's attorney who said they were planning to sell my house Monday. Yep, that's what he said. Talk about a sucker punch.
Problem with this was they lack a enforceable contract. When they induced default that material failure to perform deprived me of a substantial portion of the reasonably expected benefit. Their refusal to cure was a failure of consideration because their performance was a essential part of the consideration for which I bargained. Of course that's a matter of contract interpretation but still.
Curiously, this it was the subject of a dispute of debt letter that they'd received just two days earlier. I'd pointed out there are mutual obligations in a loan contract and my duty to make payments was constructively conditioned on their cooperation. Bofa's hindrance had operated as the non-occurrence of the condition and thus payments didn't accrue. I cited the Restatement, Williston, Farnsworth and the California Supreme Court who'd ruled that prevention excuses performance.
Their claim to be preparing to foreclose appears to be their response with the subtext: "The law is academic and irrelevant. We're bigger than you. Welcome to the jungle."
Brilliant in a way as it scared the bejesus out of me and weakening your enemies is an integral part of warfare. If it's not intimidating enough with trillion to one odds, it ups the ante even further if the other side thinks the rules are optional. At the same time it put them as no risk, it wasn't even illegal!
But it was also telling because the timing coincided with 90 days having passed since the NOD and this gave them the right file a notice of sale. County records was one of the first things I checked after hearing the news. There was no notice of sale recorded. As of Tuesday there is still no NOS recorded.
This is weird.
Problem with this was they lack a enforceable contract. When they induced default that material failure to perform deprived me of a substantial portion of the reasonably expected benefit. Their refusal to cure was a failure of consideration because their performance was a essential part of the consideration for which I bargained. Of course that's a matter of contract interpretation but still.
Curiously, this it was the subject of a dispute of debt letter that they'd received just two days earlier. I'd pointed out there are mutual obligations in a loan contract and my duty to make payments was constructively conditioned on their cooperation. Bofa's hindrance had operated as the non-occurrence of the condition and thus payments didn't accrue. I cited the Restatement, Williston, Farnsworth and the California Supreme Court who'd ruled that prevention excuses performance.
Their claim to be preparing to foreclose appears to be their response with the subtext: "The law is academic and irrelevant. We're bigger than you. Welcome to the jungle."
Brilliant in a way as it scared the bejesus out of me and weakening your enemies is an integral part of warfare. If it's not intimidating enough with trillion to one odds, it ups the ante even further if the other side thinks the rules are optional. At the same time it put them as no risk, it wasn't even illegal!
But it was also telling because the timing coincided with 90 days having passed since the NOD and this gave them the right file a notice of sale. County records was one of the first things I checked after hearing the news. There was no notice of sale recorded. As of Tuesday there is still no NOS recorded.
This is weird.
isisis
LoanSafe Member
As for staying in the home providing compensation, not even. We are not renters or tenants. We made a down payment, paid taxes and insurance, provided maintance on the property as an investment.The benefit for which we bargained was title. The money you spent fighting foreclosure was intended to pay down the debt towards that end. Their actions forced you to divert that money into preventing them from wrongfully taking your property thereby frustrating the purpose of the contract.
I second your comments about Krafty. His input is always appreciated.