Bagels at a Bar mitzvah Part II

M

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
The evidence from my Bloomberg collateral data proves that there is no default on my original debt, loan number xxxx. The loan has been and still being paid down by excess cash flow and/or servicing advances which is required by servicing contract.
There is a manufactured default of the collection account yyyy; however, there is no money, property, or other consideration relived by me from that collection account (Margolis v. Nazareth). The original balance of the collection account yyyy purportedly started with the repurchased loan from the trust. However, there was no repurchase, just an accounting entry.
This is a collusion among the mREIT investor (NewReZ), the master servicer (Ocwen), the subservicer (Bank of A), and the law firm to profit from charged-off subprime loans.
Fraud and collusion, a receipt for the bankruptcy court.
Just need to find a class-action attorneys who understand.
 
M

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Attached is the monthly statement to certificate holders of HSBC 2006-4 trust when they closed. The master servicer repurchased all the loans, closed out the trust, basically owned all the remaining loans, paying or not paying. Notice the class R owner (HSBC) made a bundle by paying off the certificate holders and took the class R distribution and still own the loans. That's how these guys make money.
 

Attachments

isisis

isisis

LoanSafe Member
More Trouble searched Bloomberg for my loan to no avail so it looks like CWABS 2006 SD2 was subject to a cleanup call. I know it was on Bloomberg previously because OHM looked it up for me a few years ago.

»»» BTW, Thank you More Trouble and One Huge Mess for being so generous with your time and helping me out! »»»

Anyway, a cleanup call is when they get down to 10% of the original total aggregate base and the issuer repurchases the remaining loans. They probably unload them pretty quick after that to some debt buyer for cheap so my loan is a needle in a haystack but for now that's somewhat moot because what matters is who is claiming the authority to act on behalf of a non existent entity and trying to sell my house?

The former trust can't be accurately characterized as Countrywide Asset-Backed Notes Trust 2006 Sd2 because the REMIC by that name is no more.

I needed confirmation. Cwabs Inc is incorporated in Delaware. On their Secretary of State website there would be information. I found my trust listed but they wanted ten bucks before they'd tell me what their status was. The status report came back as "in good standing". Hmmmm, that's weird, then I noticed the status date was the same date as their formation date.

I'm befuddled.
 
S

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
Isisis,
Couldn't you send a subpoena to the entity's registered agent requesting the information you need? Closing date or all filing reports with DE SOS? The Master Trust looks interesting. I would want that. Sound like a similar doc to a PSA.
 
M

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Been busy preparing my chapter 13 filing. Talked to 5 bk attorneys. Two would not touch my case. Two I would NOT let them touch my case because they may screw it up, one knowledgeable but too busy to take on my case. It would cost a little over $6K to file with $3K due at the beginning. I spent approx. 20 hours so my rate is $150/hour. Based on my experience of talking to these guys and studying their cases. They only take on cases that easy to win and can make easy money. Cases like ours (14+ years of non-payment) they are not interested. So we are back on our own.
Anyway, can not find any loan schedules for HSBC, trusts closed years ago.
Completing chapter 13 forms was surprisingly easy, a lot easier than writing a complaint. Also in the chapter 13 plan, you can just check box the "avoid judicial lien" instead of filing a motion for new trial in the state court.
I love bankruptcy court.
 
K

kraftykrab

LoanSafe Member
moretrouble said:
Been busy preparing my chapter 13 filing. Talked to 5 bk attorneys. Two would not touch my case. Two I would NOT let them touch my case because they may screw it up, one knowledgeable but too busy to take on my case. It would cost a little over $6K to file with $3K due at the beginning. I spent approx. 20 hours so my rate is $150/hour. Based on my experience of talking to these guys and studying their cases. They only take on cases that easy to win and can make easy money. Cases like ours (14+ years of non-payment) they are not interested. So we are back on our own.
Anyway, can not find any loan schedules for HSBC, trusts closed years ago.
Completing chapter 13 forms was surprisingly easy, a lot easier than writing a complaint. Also in the chapter 13 plan, you can just check box the "avoid judicial lien" instead of filing a motion for new trial in the state court.
I love bankruptcy court.
Click to expand...
Not surprising about the schedules being MIA, I was told years ago that it was put into one of those HSBC trusts the year it was written. But I never could find anything about loan schedules, thanks for even looking, I appreciate it.

Attorneys are an interesting bunch. I spoke to a bunch of them locally. All but one said their one and only thing they do is file bk, to buy you time, so you could save up the money you're not paying in mortgage payments, so when the time comes you have a bit of $$$ to afford to move out. Seriously, that was their one and only option. Thanks but no thanks. Oh, and they neglect to mention in their speech that the retainer you'll be paying them is where all that money will go that you're supposed to be saving up to pay for the cost of moving out, etc.

The one that was different, now this was a fun visit. I went for consultation with the ONLY firm in the area that advertises that it takes on mortgage fraud and foreclosure fraud cases. I laid out what I had at the time. The attorney listened to me, then looked over the documentation I had with me. And then said, "you absolutely have evidence that they have done you wrong....the plaintiff and the judge too. But if we represent you, we wont pursue these arguments, because we have to contend with that law firm and be in front of those judges for our other clients, and if we fight these issues out for you now, we'll never win another case in that court for any of our future clients." This was also the firm that advised me not to pursue recusal of the judge that was having private conversations with the other party's lawyer about my case. They said if I pursued that judge's recusal, it's gonna cost me. They said that the judges there all have each other's back and recusing one means no matter which other judge got the case, they would make sure we lost, and they would do it quickly.

That was 8 years ago.

When an attorney tries to tell you that you should not take your case personally, it's time to look for another attorney. Remember this. To them, this is just another case. To you, it's your home. Respond accordingly, lol.
 
isisis

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Survivor_IN said:
Isisis,
Couldn't you send a subpoena to the entity's registered agent requesting the information you need? Closing date or all filing reports with DE SOS? The Master Trust looks interesting. I would want that. Sound like a similar doc to a PSA.
Click to expand...
The registered agent is Wilmington Trust who's actually the owner or originator of my trust, thick as thieves with Bony and all usual suspects. They're unlikely to be forthcoming with me. For now I'll work on the SOS and see why they didn't provide the current status.
 
S

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
The one thing I learned early on trying to find legal counsel, is nobody, I mean NOBODY, sues a Judge. Or another attorney. This was outlined to me be a friend of the family attorney who was gracious enough to tell me why he couldn't represent me. You are 100 percent right Krafty. It's a rare bird that will tell you the truth. It creates a conflict of interest against the judge and the attorney in that they can not take certain cases later or cases before this particular judge. This goes for the banks too. They will lose income. Or at least that's their concern. Ya gotta go out of State. Of course, this is not much better.
 
S

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
When it comes to Judges and other forces,
you have to think real hard about "the devil you know" versus "the devil you don't know." Sometimes it's best to do nothing but cover your tracks on any bad rulings for a later appeal. Sometimes you have to remove the bad apple. I did get lucky recusing the party that kept giving the banks ex parte advise. I'm still waiting for a ruling. Just recently wrapped up.
 
M

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Filed my chapter 13 petition today. Meeting of creditors end of. November with hearing on plan confirmation end of December. Expect an objection to my initial plan because I did not propose any payment to the banks except $1500 to trustee in lieu of rent. It will be interesting how the case turns out. Keeping them at bay for now.
Judges also want to keep you “in the system “, paying your fake mortgage and tax like everybody else so they can benefit from the system. The only way we can can win is to make it expensive for them. Comes down to cost v. Benefit.
By the way, talked to a knowledgeable attorney about the civil complaint. He wants 20K for a retainer, plus 40K if go to trial.
 
M

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
My bk case is live on PACER. I listed 2 secured claims on my property, one from the trust (still being paid down) balance 0f 170K, one from the fake collection account balance of 680K with motion to void this lien. Now we can go to hearing and argue.
 
J

Javagold

LoanSafe Member
moretrouble said:
My bk case is live on PACER. I listed 2 secured claims on my property, one from the trust (still being paid down) balance 0f 170K, one from the fake collection account balance of 680K with motion to void this lien. Now we can go to hearing and argue.
Click to expand...
Awesome. Still it’s a disgrace that No BK attorney will do this.
 
S

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
https://www.druganddevicelawblog.com/2020/07/in-defense-of-the-wrongful-acts-doctrine.html
The wrongful conduct doctrine...

Per Restatement of Torts (3rd?)
“[T]he wrongful-conduct rule [is] rooted in the public policy that courts should not lend their aid to a plaintiff who founded his cause of action on his own illegal conduct. If courts chose to regularly give their aid under such circumstances, several unacceptable consequences would result. First, by making relief potentially available for wrongdoers, courts in effect would condone and encourage illegal conduct. Second, some wrongdoers would be able to receive a profit or compensation as a result of their illegal acts. Third, and related to the two previously mentioned results, the public would view the legal system as a mockery of justice.”

And also...
"This court has recognized the common-law maxims that no one shall be permitted to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his own wrong, or to found any claim upon his own iniquity, or to acquire property by his own crime. These maxims are dictated by public policy, [and] have their foundation in universal law administered in all civilized countries. . . . [W]e have never considered whether such principles apply to negligence actions generally. . . . Many of our sister states, however, have extended these principles to tort actions. The generally articulated common-law “wrongful conduct” rule in these jurisdictions provides that a plaintiff cannot maintain a tort action for injuries that are sustained as the direct result of his or her knowing and intentional participation in a criminal act."

The NEW proposal here is a discussion of negligence and proportion or allocation of contributory negligence. This argument for tort recovery appears to desire an exemption for "wrongs" resulting from non-criminal actions but still, according to the article, this has led some states to excuse a plaintiff's own negligence from the wrongful conduct and allow a tort to proceed (by virtue of not being "criminal.") So the party is liable for contribution (and offsets) but can maintain the tort.

Mind you, this article discussion relates to drug abuse and drug crimes. Oddly, courts have approved drug settlements against the manufacturer's known distribution and promotion of addictive drugs for profit. (See Oxycontin Settlement)

In my personal opinion, this can relate to the "first breach of contract" doctrine and as well an action in contract that is de facto, a criminal action such as laws against usury (excessive interest) and recent laws developed by CFPB on mortgage lending and servicing abuse, for example, not applying payments in order to create a payment default for foreclosure.

This is similar concept to unclean hands doctrine. I think it's important to identify the wrongful conduct in sections in an argument or defense, such as breach of contract, contractual interference, violation of state law, etc. At minimum, itemize or group these as affirmative defenses in your response to a foreclosure complaint or similar action.

I have actually quoted some of these maxims and black's law in my arguments where applicable.
 
S

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
Here's a little more on the concept...
(subsequently appealed to the State's Supreme Court, for which, in absence of limited precedence, one can use such citations in a different State or to support claims and arguments)

znclaw.com

Connecticut Protects Homeowners in Foreclosure Actions - ZNC Law

The Connecticut Supreme Court expanded homeowners’ rights in foreclosure actions by allowing special defenses and counterclaims.
znclaw.com

In U.S. Bank National Association v. Blowers, the Court acknowledged that where the mortgagee engaged in wrongful conduct substantially increasing the mortgagor’s overall debt and frustrating the mortgagor’s ability to cure a default, the defenses and counterclaims were legally connected to the “enforcement” of the original note and mortgage. As a result, the defenses and counterclaims were sufficient to survive a Motion to Strike and/or Motion for Summary Judgment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top