Bagels at a Bar mitzvah Part II

C

cookiemom

LoanSafe Member
Recent statement from Shellpoint shows FC cost attorney cost and title cost? Each month $330 for title? What is that...17416461717806873374439244961988.jpg
 
M

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Been busy. Filed my appellate brief in my foreclosure case last week. My judgment was in Nov 2018. Proof that you can still fight after the judgment by challenging the execution when they try to enforce (sell) your house. The court of appeals denied the banks' motion to dismiss my appeal in my tort case. Playing defense and offense at the same time. Overall , looking good.
 

Attachments

S

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
moretrouble said:
Been busy. Filed my appellate brief in my foreclosure case last week. My judgment was in Nov 2018. Proof that you can still fight after the judgment by challenging the execution when they try to enforce (sell) your house. The court of appeals denied the banks' motion to dismiss my appeal in my tort case. Playing defense and offense at the same time. Overall , looking good.
Click to expand...
can't wait to read!
I ran across something that I was wondering if it means anything... I did notice Cookie was looking into NY trust connection and was not sure if she had specifics other than trusts are governed by NY law. I did notice that most POAs (power of attorney from trust to servicer) contain the language that the POA is governed by NY law. Par course. What I found even more interesting is a seemingly innocuous change in the language, describing the trustee as "acting on behalf of "the "holders." A later version, from a different post apocalyptic death of the original servicer, changes this language to "acting on behalf' of "certificate holders." Seems a bit sus given that maybe this is an admission that the trustee is obfuscating the holder language because they aren't (the owner nor) holder. Odd. Maybe they don't want to admit that they are not the holder in those courthouse filings? ooops? The first POA says this isn't necessarily so - that the trust only works on behalf of the owners and holders.
 
C

cookiemom

LoanSafe Member
Survivor_IN said:
can't wait to read!
I ran across something that I was wondering if it means anything... I did notice Cookie was looking into NY trust connection and was not sure if she had specifics other than trusts are governed by NY law. I did notice that most POAs (power of attorney from trust to servicer) contain the language that the POA is governed by NY law. Par course. What I found even more interesting is a seemingly innocuous change in the language, describing the trustee as "acting on behalf of "the "holders." A later version, from a different post apocalyptic death of the original servicer, changes this language to "acting on behalf' of "certificate holders." Seems a bit sus given that maybe this is an admission that the trustee is obfuscating the holder language because they aren't (the owner nor) holder. Odd. Maybe they don't want to admit that they are not the holder in those courthouse filings? ooops? The first POA says this isn't necessarily so - that the trust only works on behalf of the owners and holders.
Click to expand...
Yes...been trying to sort out that piece of the puzzle amd find a lawyer that understands it
 
C

cookiemom

LoanSafe Member
Survivor_IN said:
can't wait to read!
I ran across something that I was wondering if it means anything... I did notice Cookie was looking into NY trust connection and was not sure if she had specifics other than trusts are governed by NY law. I did notice that most POAs (power of attorney from trust to servicer) contain the language that the POA is governed by NY law. Par course. What I found even more interesting is a seemingly innocuous change in the language, describing the trustee as "acting on behalf of "the "holders." A later version, from a different post apocalyptic death of the original servicer, changes this language to "acting on behalf' of "certificate holders." Seems a bit sus given that maybe this is an admission that the trustee is obfuscating the holder language because they aren't (the owner nor) holder. Odd. Maybe they don't want to admit that they are not the holder in those courthouse filings? ooops? The first POA says this isn't necessarily so - that the trust only works on behalf of the owners and holders.
Click to expand...
I actually have the michigan case that used this theory that NY law governs the PSA. I'll PM it to you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top