Bagels at a Bar mitzvah Part II

M

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
cookiemom said:
Just seems crazy, like they are just repeating what they previously initiated in 2021. My attorney responded to them
Click to expand...
Every time the collection right is sold to a new buyer, the new buyer will retry to collect on the debt: like filing a new foreclosure case, new NOD, etc...). In my experience, it happens every time I have a title charge (reflecting a title change) on my monthly statement. Like New Residential (Rithm Corp now) just bought a bunch of charged-off loans (2 cents on the dollar) from Ditech and trying to collect on those loans. That's how these crooks make money, not by investing in anything worthwhile. A lot of homeownwers settled for 60 cents on the dollar and thought they had a good deal!!!
 
OneHugeMess

OneHugeMess

LoanSafe Member
Survivor_IN said:
Doubtful you will find one as most attorneys do not want to take on the banks. This is why there are so many pro se against the banks. I am not sure what the appeal was for and its relevance. It is odd that they are asking for you to pay the debt or they will start the foreclosure if you were allegedly already in foreclosure. I'm not familiar with California law and am not an attorney either. I'm not sure about the new trustee but that might indicate that Mr. Cooper has/had no standing to continue. I don't know but they may be interested in restarting the clock on the statute of limitations. I'm suspicous that they want or need to send a new "notice of default." Currently it is either 3 or 6 months before they can file foreclosure. Check on it under CFPB.
Click to expand...
It's not what you think, oddly enough. CA Law is completely bizarre. When a lender wants to foreclose, they hire a "trustee" company which is an independent third party that looks at the situation, issues a formal notice of default, and then after the NOD is not cured, files a Notice of Trustee Sale. CA is a mixed Judicial, and Non-Judicial State, and universally speaking, almost every mortgage foreclosure is done non-judicial.

The independent trustee is not an entity like the Bank of New York Mellon or US Bank, as many of us know, as the trustee for our Mortgage Trust.

In order to set aside the sale, you have to file a lawsuit against the original lender, or servicer of the loan and then hope the judge issues a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) on the sale.

Your other option is to file bankruptcy, wait out the lift from the automatic stay, and then have your spouse do the same. That usually only gets you a year though.

Unlike NY, and a few other states, CA has NOT decided to enact a statute or law involving the statute of limitations on foreclosure actions. There are literally thousands of people getting foreclosed on right now, for second mortgages and in-famous "no equity" swimming pool loans that haven't been paid in over a decade or more.

I really don't know what the answer is for Razmik. I know of no competent attornies in CA. Isisis is the only expert that I know of, in that state.
 
OneHugeMess

OneHugeMess

LoanSafe Member
By the way, for anyone who has had the daylights scared out of them by Auction.com. I happen to know a situation involving a woman who literally was able to save her home by getting her son to refinance the house into his name.

The closing on that was May 5th. The Servicer (SPS) has already released the lien and sent her satisfaction, but according to Auction.com, the home is scheduled for Auction in early July. What a load of $hit!
 
isisis

isisis

LoanSafe Member
They recorded a notice of sale about a month ago. In the meantime the Court had turned my case over to mediation. My attorney, asleep at the wheel, hadn't bothered to mention to the judge that the defendants had scheduled a sale. So last week was TRO time and once again I had to go through one of those hairy, white-knuckle, last minute, mock execution style foreclosure sales. But the bad guys have honed their game. Now they don't even bother to cancel the sale, they just wait until the clock turns a minute or two past the sale time and reschedule by moving the date up a couple months. Mean mothers, huh?

But the last minute TRO was my attorney's fault too and at the same time he sent me a massive bill!!?

Unlike my brilliant friends here, there's no way I can navigate the court system alone so I'm working on a half dozen outside the envelope ideas as well as the more moderate concepts of Chapter 13 disputing the proof of claim or mediation. Problem with the latter is it would be nauseating to have to pay interest on money I don't owe while they benefit from their own wrongdoing. Guess I could always sue for unjust enrichment after the fact.
 
M

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
The crooks scheduled a sheriff’s sale on my property on 8/15/23. Planning to submit a Motion for a New Trial next week. Based on Golik v. CBS. Them maybe a challenge to the writ, and a complaint at the Federal level. Befor I was contemplating whether I should file a suit on my own before the sol in September, by scheduling the sale they have made my decision easy.
 
K

kraftykrab

LoanSafe Member
That thought you have when your opponent files MSJ against you using an affidavit from the servicer's employee....and it turns out the affiant doesnt even work for the servicer.....pretty arrogant of these folks to still be pulling the same exact LPS style scams after all this time. Lying on a sworn affidavit, not a good idea. Apparently, affiant works for a different company and is embedded at the servicer's office. Remember those?Servicer SPOC person admitted to me that they cannot find this person in their employee email directory, even had their supervisor look through different lists. Oh, and it doesnt help that affiant on their own linkedin page states they work for the other company too lol....
 
M

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Thanks Krafty for the notice. Judging by the number of views, people who viewed my motion already know who I am and I have nothing to hide, plus I don't know how to delete a posted attachment.
Anyway, my opponent had to reveal its identify per ORS 18.918. Just as we suspected all along: It's New Residential (now Rithm Corp.), a crooked mREIT buyer, exercising the call rights to foreclose, been successfully stolen more than 4 billions form the homeowenrs. I used to trade its stock back in 2016 so I know all about its strategy. I will file a challenge to writ next week, and schedule a hearing.
Any attorney or national law firms knowledgeable in securitization, debt collection, RICO, class action please contact me. My contact info can be obtained by the case file (number is in the motion attachment).
 

Attachments

S

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
moretrouble said:
Filed this morning. It's public record so I can post here.
Click to expand...
"Plaintiff's counsel deliberately withheld documents and with an intent to deceive"
This is where you argue/request or obtain sanctions that any argument or statement from plaintiff regarding such documents - withheld/missing from the discovery request - must be refused by the court and negatively inferred as to motive. And, that your argument on these documents is assumed to be true.

Also, I would really harp on exhibit C and D because of the 200k difference. Looks like they can't prove the debt. If you have another witness or affidavit or anything to certify exh C, (was this biz record from discovery, their affiant, or securitization record?) then use it to make sure it gets adequate consideration. To me, that's glaring. Also, in my State, if a party collects excessive interest, not due under contract, then they lose the right to collect interest on the note. Ha. This is usually a given under HAMP modifications that are delayed in favor of the high interest predatory loan and original terms.

It does look like they should have to give you a new trial from my unqualified but somewhat understanding point of view of law. You may have an errant edit error of neglecting an "alleged" so don't let plaintiff use any minor error as an admission. I know what you are saying but sometimes they will try to twist just for sake of argument.

Let us know what happens. Meanwhile, you might have to have your injunction ready to file if this doesn't get ruled on. Good luck. It looks like you are doing great.
 
S

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
FDCPA within a lawsuit... each occuring action has it's own limitations, when the debt collector replaced it's original affiant with a new affiant where the affiant's affirmation of ownership was deemed hearsay, presents a new violation. However, the 9th circuit ct did not go to the merits of the violation and say each violation is independent and based on individual case factors.
www.jdsupra.com

Ninth Circuit Clarifies When One-Year FDCPA Statute of Limitations Begins To Run | JD Supra

A recent Ninth Circuit decision confirmed that the one-year statute of limitations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) begins to run...
www.jdsupra.com www.jdsupra.com
 
K

kraftykrab

LoanSafe Member
Survivor_IN said:
FDCPA within a lawsuit... each occuring action has it's own limitations, when the debt collector replaced it's original affiant with a new affiant where the affiant's affirmation of ownership was deemed hearsay, presents a new violation. However, the 9th circuit ct did not go to the merits of the violation and say each violation is independent and based on individual case factors.
www.jdsupra.com

Ninth Circuit Clarifies When One-Year FDCPA Statute of Limitations Begins To Run | JD Supra

A recent Ninth Circuit decision confirmed that the one-year statute of limitations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) begins to run...
www.jdsupra.com www.jdsupra.com
Click to expand...
But the thing about FDCPA is that the violations are not cumulative--meaning, whether they violate once or 100 times, the statutory penalty is the same. The only difference is when you have actual damages as a result of their violations.

FDCPA carries a maximum of $1,000 in statutory damages no matter how many times they violate it.

I always thought that FDCPA works better when paired with other laws. Example, I took a phone call today from a certain "we are a debt collector" party. Now, they already know they have no business even calling me, much less calling me using a computer dialer....I made sure to inform them weeks ago that they do not have my consent to use those, and to the extent that they ever believed that they did have my consent, it is hereby revoked. Today marked the third call I've received from them using a dialer since I revoked all consent. This is a violation of the TCPA, another federal law. The jean-ious on the other end of the phone was a complete tool....the moment my info popped up on his screen, he apologized for calling and stated that he can now see they had no reason to call. That's when I asked him why they are still using autodailers to call me. His response:

"Oh my god, are you OK? Are you gonna live? You poor thing!!"

Completely uncalled for and in itself a violation of FDCPA.

Pairing FDCPA with other laws that have been violated can make your efforts more worth your time. TCPA carries a PER VIOLATION penalty of up to $500 per incident--with treble damages for willful violations. So, rather than just up to the $1K for FDCPA, I am now looking at, as of now, no less than 3 TCPA violations. And Mr. Wizard's conduct today indicates an intent to violate my rights without concern.
 
M

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Good and bad news today. Checked the county sheriff’s sales, my sale date was delayed approx. 3 months till Nov 8 so depending on the results of my hearing I’ll have more time to work on my Federal. I checked the on-line version of my motion, all facts about their lies were redacted. WTF why are you hiding them, are you working for the crooks? Not the people? Take a look at rithm website. They are buying all the servicers and distressed debt buyers for pennies on the upb, then go for the full amount. Making billions for produce nothing of value.
 
S

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
Interesting development. This is called playing "kick the can." Also notable that attorneys must withdraw erroneous arguments and evidence or be held liable for fraud upon the court. I wonder who requested the 3 month extension.
 
S

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
kraftykrab said:
Pairing FDCPA with other laws that have been violated can make your efforts more worth your time. TCPA carries a PER VIOLATION penalty of up to $500 per incident--with treble damages for willful violations. So, rather than just up to the $1K for FDCPA, I am now looking at, as of now, no less than 3 TCPA violations. And Mr. Wizard's conduct today indicates an intent to violate my rights without concern.
Click to expand...
Exactly. There is no concern. FDCPA is not worth the paper it is written on. I was counting around 3 per year during litigation. Hardly worth the time or money to amend ad nauseum. It might be more fruitful to make a blanket claim in an answer to foreclosure of Lender/Servicer's violation of State and Federal law to include FDCPA among other things.

The most interesting thing I noticed in this ruling was that it referenced an affiant's lack of knowledge as a potential for FDCPA violation in the context of a Lender's claims.
 
K

kraftykrab

LoanSafe Member
Survivor_IN said:
Exactly. There is no concern. FDCPA is not worth the paper it is written on. I was counting around 3 per year during litigation. Hardly worth the time or money to amend ad nauseum. It might be more fruitful to make a blanket claim in an answer to foreclosure of Lender/Servicer's violation of State and Federal law to include FDCPA among other things.

The most interesting thing I noticed in this ruling was that it referenced an affiant's lack of knowledge as a potential for FDCPA violation in the context of a Lender's claims.
Click to expand...
yeah, saw that one too. Dealing with an affiant over here that absolutely doesnt pass the smell test. Claims he has personal knowledge of a specific document, it's a payment history. He claims that his employer--a servicer--created and compiled the raw data in that document, and until they put it through their accuracy checks it is not to be relied upon externally.

One small problem....the document he claims his company created--the data they claim they compiled......the document literally has HSBC letterhead at the top and a creation date from 2013.

For reference, this servicer showed up on the scene in the middle of 2021. Stop me, anyone, when you notice something's a little off.....lol....he called it an auto-generated pay history from his company's work in compiling raw data from the prior servicer....which also was not HSBC....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top