Bagels at a Bar mitzvah Part II

[Survivor_IN]

Their claim to be preparing to foreclose appears to be their response with the subtext:
"Welcome to the jungle."

No this is not weird. It's familiar and it's repetitive. Expect it.

You forget... we already know this song and dance and it's since before they got their law license in 2012.
Swing your hips, tap those feet, pivot the circle and hand dance towards the sky #BeStrong

 

[Survivor_IN]

Isisis,
You know you've got several options.
I did find something interesting going through the searches. No, really nothing new. Just interesting. One of the old "fight the banks" was to implement the lawsuit in the non-judicial states. With this, you file the lis pendens of the case so you have publically noticed others. This way, whoever purchases the property has notice of the litigation on the property by the current homeowner and they are purchasing subject to existing claims. (they have LEGAL notice on it) The theory is this gives you rights post sale and you can continue litigation without being subject to an eviction and a potential invalid sale attempt. (You already have the case in the form of your response and return volly affirmative claims. Use what you have.)
Also, something I don't think anyone has ever mentioned with these ballooning debts is these notes tend to only secure x amount of the debt. For example if the note only secures 150%, then why couldn't you settle the alleged debt for that amount? Wouldn't it be unfair and inequitable for the lender to be able to take the property and benefit for more than they are entitled? I would think this gives folks new arguments on all that ballooned debt.
I know you will figure this out. Heck, at this point, if need be, I could even do a second bankruptcy to stop a sale because that's how long this has been going on.

 

[moretrouble]

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.

According to the opinion of the trial court on my motion for relief of judgement, the subsequent affirmation by the Court of Appeals, and the denial of my petition by the state SC, it’s perfectly legal in Oregon to forge a note, use misrepresentation and fraud on the court to attempt to steal a house as long as the evidence was not discovered in time before the trial. What’s a joke. How can these judges collecting salaries and pensions from us but rule for the crooks. Don’t they have any shame looking themselves in the mirrors. I would not hesitate to judicial notice all my state filings in the Federal court so we all can have a good laugh.

 

[moretrouble]

I sent this a couple weeks ago. Also, the way they adjudicate debt collection cases disguised as foreclosures, the state court should change its name from O. Judicial Department to O. Collection Department and the M. County Circuit Court to M. County Circus Court.

 

[cookiemom]

Here we go again. Another NOI! Nothing transpired from the first one back in November 2021

 

[Survivor_IN]

oooh nice! (not) WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE!
did they "de-escalate" or withdraw their first court attempt?
I'm not sure they can do this but it sounds interesting because this was done in the past in Florida and allowed until it failed. I forget is this the first or second? You still have SOL from the date you stop paying (or the date they began rejecting payments and sought to accelerate the loan) And to complicate things, if you've declared bankruptcy in there somewhere, then they can't legally collect the amount that is not secured from this time period. (you don't have to answer this) It gets complicated but I guarantee this is a recipe for collecting higher amounts than due. In some states, this will cause a loss of the right to collect interest so this is worth checking the math and the interest sought against any alleged modification. Plus, the first NOI was during the pandemic and that may have unresolved collection issues as well. However, FDCPA claims don't always pan out unless sought after legally within one year even though claims are ongoing.

 

[cookiemom]

2006 2nd - helco
2008 Included Bankruptcy although, i kept the home. chap. 7 and 2nd was only partially unsecured.
Went through hardship, almost lost home entirely - approved for loan mod through HAMP (only on first)
HAMP has matured and I have continued to pay at the final scheduled interest rate.
NOI 11/2021
Followed by countless mail
Had lawyer respond a few times
Communication when dark 4/13/22

Only issue with SOL is when it is considered accelerated. Is it when I first was late because I have never made a payment toward the 2nd dating back to 2006. Is it when I claimed BK7 in 2008? Or is it when the Loan Mod was approved for the first in 2010 (and they failed to offer the HAMP 2 program since my 1st was in one)
SOL is 15 years after the mortgage becomes due or within 15 years after the last payment was made on the mortgage.

 

[Survivor_IN]

It would be 15 years after the last payment was made. I would argue SOL, FDCPA, standing (prove you have note), and lack of good faith and fair dealing in any response to a foreclosure filing. (I would also pay hourly as now we know how these things go, they are just harrassing with threats they can't take.) They had the opportunity to modify per HAMP at the same time as the first and DID NOT. This was out of your control and demonstrates bad faith. I would send a cease and desist letter and inform them they will be liable for legal fees if they pursue further collections. Just my thoughts maybe others have different ideas.

 

[Survivor_IN]

Something I have not seen argued is the ability for the lender to extinguish the second loan under HAMP 2MP where the first mod took up all available income or the property was underwater. I think it was a bit fraudulently avoidance of program in a coercive control sorta way in that these options were ignored in favor of retaining zombie debt cause this harms ability for owner to create equity or refinance the first.

 

[isisis]

The CFPB recently did a settlement for $24 million against Portfolio Recovery. The consent order is a interesting read.

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/enforcement/actions/portfolio-recovery-associates-llc/

It provides helpful, copy and pastable federal statutes and CFPB verbiage such as "unsubstantiated debt", what a delightful phrase!

It appears to indicate that a debt collector is required to actually verify the debt or debt amount. This is news to me as I thought they only needed to send a quick boilerplate recitation of the amount and original creditor in response to a dispute. This suggests that an effort is required to determine whether or not the amount claimed due is accurate. It even appears to indicate that in the absence of verification it's unlawful to collect said debt.

I was slightly impressed at first until I recognized that $24 million is peanuts in the world of debt collection and the peanuts are split down the middle meaning the consumers get $12 million.
It didn't mention the number of affected consumers but let's say a ballpark of 80,000 so they'll each get a whopping $150. Portfolio Recovery rakes in $1.3 billion a year making the $24 million settlement less than 2%. And it's a one time thing in response to years of malfeasance and legal violations so it comes to less than 1%. Just the price of doing business, not exactly a deterrent.

CFPB, I don't want to discourage you, you're headed in the right direction but don't forget we can do math.

 

[cookiemom]

It would be 15 years after the last payment was made. I would argue SOL, FDCPA, standing (prove you have note), and lack of good faith and fair dealing in any response to a foreclosure filing. (I would also pay hourly as now we know how these things go, they are just harrassing with threats they can't take.) They had the opportunity to modify per HAMP at the same time as the first and DID NOT. This was out of your control and demonstrates bad faith. I would send a cease and desist letter and inform them they will be liable for legal fees if they pursue further collections. Just my thoughts maybe others have different ideas.

They have sent me copies of my original loan papers (assuming obtained through mers)

 

[cookiemom]

Something I have not seen argued is the ability for the lender to extinguish the second loan under HAMP 2MP where the first mod took up all available income or the property was underwater. I think it was a bit fraudulently avoidance of program in a coercive control sorta way in that these options were ignored in favor of retaining zombie debt cause this harms ability for owner to create equity or refinance the first.

Actually...there were many seconds they considered satisfied if a payoff was provided of $2k from settlements

 

[cookiemom]

I have requested a pay history is to see if the lender received a $1,000 pmt pursuant to the 2mp 2nd mortgage program. To determine if the missing pay history portion is w/in a year or so the 1st mortgage mod, perhaps they are attempting to keep me from finding out about the $1,000 pmt. I think - they should have either paid the $1,000 and permanently satisfied the 2nd mortgage, or offered the mod on the 2nd.

 

[kraftykrab]

The CFPB recently did a settlement for $24 million against Portfolio Recovery. The consent order is a interesting read.

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/enforcement/actions/portfolio-recovery-associates-llc/

It provides helpful, copy and pastable federal statutes and CFPB verbiage such as "unsubstantiated debt", what a delightful phrase!

It appears to indicate that a debt collector is required to actually verify the debt or debt amount. This is news to me as I thought they only needed to send a quick boilerplate recitation of the amount and original creditor in response to a dispute. This suggests that an effort is required to determine whether or not the amount claimed due is accurate. It even appears to indicate that in the absence of verification it's unlawful to collect said debt.

I was slightly impressed at first until I recognized that $24 million is peanuts in the world of debt collection and the peanuts are split down the middle meaning the consumers get $12 million.
It didn't mention the number of affected consumers but let's say a ballpark of 80,000 so they'll each get a whopping $150. Portfolio Recovery rakes in $1.3 billion a year making the $24 million settlement less than 2%. And it's a one time thing in response to years of malfeasance and legal violations so it comes to less than 1%. Just the price of doing business, not exactly a deterrent.

CFPB, I don't want to discourage you, you're headed in the right direction but don't forget we can do math.

I hope this brings some traction, but I am doubtful because many courts have ruled that foreclosure is enforcing a security interest, not collecting a debt. So debt collection rulings do not always apply as we'd hope or expect.

 

[moretrouble]

Lawyers win big in $787.5 million Fox defamation case

The $787.5 million settlement that ended Dominion Voting Systems' defamation lawsuit against Fox Corp also marks the end of a lucrative, two-year legal battle for the sprawling teams of highly-paid lawyers on both sides. Dominion said Fox News broadcast false claims that the company’s voting...

finance.yahoo.com

Real competent lawyers, not like the foreclosure lawyers we have to deal with.

 

[moretrouble]

BOfA filed a new writ. Let's the game begin.

 

[moretrouble]

Thank you for your support (likes) guys. I email the opposing atty this morning.

 

[moretrouble]

The dummy just extended the SOL on my claim 9 months by filing the new writ.

 

[kraftykrab]

Thank you for your support (likes) guys. I email the opposing atty this morning.

So, they basically made their bed and now they have to lie in it....interesting.

Same is true of several more recent pending cases where the pretenders say one thing in discovery but then try to get around to something else before the court. Too much nonsense. Also, lots of contradictory claims going on in recent cases too...like how an employee from ABC Pretenders says ________, but then another employee from the same company states a completely different set of "facts". New servicer in mine, they claim to service for a trust, but then they sent me paperwork listing themselves as the mortgagee....you cannot have it both ways. A servicer is not the mortgagee unless they are servicing for themselves.

 

[kraftykrab]

I sent this a couple weeks ago. Also, the way they adjudicate debt collection cases disguised as foreclosures, the state court should change its name from O. Judicial Department to O. Collection Department and the M. County Circuit Court to M. County Circus Court.

Unfortunately, Hillary would not have been any better for us--in fact, she probably would have been worse. She was actually in bed with the banks. After leaving the SoS office, here are some of the companies that paid her big money for speeches--and she won't reveal what was in those speeches:

Goldman Sachs
Bank of America
Morgan Stanley
Deutsche Bank
Apollo Management Holdings, a private investment firm that specializes in nonperforming loan acquisition
Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, another investment firm
Fidelity Investments
Sanford Bernstein & Co.
ITAU BBA, a foreign bank
UBS Wealth Management
Golden Trees Asset Management


She made just under $10 MILLION for these speeches--and this was just within 2013.

Hillary's 2016 campaign received $117.3 million from the financial sector--literally three times what Trump received from same. And, in the 2020 election cycle, the following banks gave most of their contributions to democrat candidates:

Wells Fargo
JP Morgan Chase
Citigroup
US Bankcorp
Bank of America


All familiar names to those of us in this fight. We cannot expect any assistance from the higher levels of government because they are the ones that enabled this mess to start with, on both sides.