Bagels at a Bar Mitzvah

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Jun 22, 2010
1,767
243
63
North bay
I just read this thread, I wish I had done so sooner. The first thing came to mind was the lady driving the Mercedes, was she a "Hot" LOL And thank you isisis I think I can use some of your ideas from this thread , if I get a chance to use them.
Hi Hotwelder3,

It may not be to late if you want to fight for your home. Check this out from just a month ago.

Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans, LP, [Ms. 2100245, Dec. 16, 2011] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2011). In Sturdivant, BAC Home Loans, LP (“BACâ€), initiated foreclosure proceedings on the mortgage encumbering Bessie T. Sturdivant’s house before the mortgage had been assigned to BAC. BAC then held a foreclosure sale at which it purchased Sturdivant’shouse, and the auctioneer executed a foreclosure deed purporting to convey title to Sturdivant’s house to BAC. BAC was assigned the mortgage the same day as the foreclosure sale. Thereafter, BAC brought an ejectment action against Sturdivant, claiming that it owned title to her house by virtue of the foreclosure deed. After the trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of BAC, Sturdivant appealed to the supreme court, which transferred her appeal to this court. We held that BAC lacked authority to foreclose the mortgage because it had not been assigned the mortgage before it initiated foreclosure proceedings and that, therefore, the foreclosure and the foreclosure deed were invalid. We further held that, because the foreclosure and the foreclosure deed were invalid, BAC did not acquire legal title to Sturdivant’s house through the foreclosure deed and thus BAC did not own an interest in the house when it commenced its ejectment action. We further held that, because BAC did not own any interest in Sturdivant’s house when it commenced its ejectment action, BAC did not have standing to bring that action and, consequently, the trial court never acquired subject-matter jurisdiction over the ejectment action. Because BAC did not have standing to bring its ejectment action and the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the ejectment action, we held that the judgment of the trial court was void, and we vacated that judgment. Moreover, because a void judgment will not support an appeal, we dismissed the appeal.
 

Tarin Myhairout

LoanSafe Member
Oct 31, 2011
320
3
0
Twin Cities, MN
But are THEY listening?

ISISIS:

Thanks for the reminder - it helps. And that was a great letter!

Last night I had to choke back a scream to learn that one of the featured speakers at the Grand Poobah Financial Summit in Davos was: wait for it..wait for it...... Brian Moynihan! He told the Eurozone movers and shakers how to get their financial houses in order, while his own fiefdom is crumbling around him. And he had the nerve to chide them for their excesses! (I LOVE BBC for the alternate view of Amerika it provides...)

I suppose those people are too polite to guffaw in his face, but the part of the speech I heard was him talking about being responsive to client concerns, how they have learned so much about the importance of customer service and other blatant lies. (Anybody tried lately to enforce the Countrywide Stipulation?) Oh, wait. He probably wasn't referring to the little people on the street, but rather those institutional investors, the big money folks, the not-you and me ones)

I probably really won't throw in the towel as long as I have a pulse; but it is damned frustrating to hear about ever more blatant foreclosure abuses. How many of the 20 percent of available properties on the market that are foreclosures were fraudulent, abusive and/or unnecessary? ( a normal percentage is 5 percent!!) What evil forces came to control that disregards the pain inflicted on the citizens of this country, the evisceration of communities and the destruction of families; all in favor of protecting the 'investors'?

I never thought I would see the day in America that centenarians would be evicted from homes upon which they had paid for 50 years; or fraudulent foreclosure practices nation-wide would be swept under the rug in favor of a quick 'resolution'; or Jeffrey would have his home stolen from him after performing according their terms of the new contract; and and and.

Learning about the secret settlements that Banksters of Amerika are imposing on their victims is just too much more of the same. And yet... We are all motivated by self-interest. If it were presented to me, what would I do? If my own nightmare could be over? I don't honestly know. I would like to think I would tell them to take their secret agreement and fold it until is was all sharp corners and perform a complicated proctological procedure with it - but I don't know if I would.

Sorry for this rant - but I am bewildered.

I have learned way, way more about this stuff than I ever wanted to know. And now that I know, I can't un-know. It is just a question of what to do with this unwanted knowledge.

Regards,

Tarin
 

morgane_edison

LoanSafe Member
Jan 19, 2012
62
1
0
Tarin,

Thank you for venting. From my perspective, when one of us vents, we all vent and vicariously realize the emotional benefit.

I am no longer the same person as before I began this quest to prepare for defense of my home. I cannot get the thoughts out of my head. I comment on articles, send letters to senators, AGs, and our president, and tell my friends the depth and breadth of the fraud and cover-up that we in this community know to be painfully true. We have a chance to be heard, but only when more of us realize that this is not just about people who have been foreclosed or who are facing foreclosure. It is about the loss of net wealth of a nation of individuals into the pockets of a few, sanctioned by our elected and appointed government officials. Somehow we must educate the public that we have all been victimized and shift the focus away from the general perception that this is just about people who haven't been paying their mortgage and therefore deserve what they get.

Dylan Ratigan ran a great piece yesterday as he interviewed DE AG Beau Biden and analyst Jack McCabe (it is available for viewing on the MSNBC website).

We have to change our message so others realize that we are all victims, that we must stand together against this monster.

Best of luck to us all. No giving up. There is a way!
 
  • Like
Reactions: tadias13

hotwelder3

LoanSafe Member
Jul 29, 2011
12
0
0
In looking over all my paperwork I found that The Notice of default was Recorded on 7/01/2011 by Recontrust but the substitution of trustee naming Recontrust didn't get recorded untill 7/06/2011 That should void the NOD and sale should it not? My only concern is if I will be able to bring that up at the Unlawful Detainer hearing.
 

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Jun 22, 2010
1,767
243
63
North bay
Look on the Assignment of Trust, left hand side half way down where it says DATED and what's it say? They probably backdated it to the day before the filing of the NOD. Even so they're not supposed to get away with that because it wasn't executed until notarized and then filed. The Ohlendorf case I cited a few posts back speaks to backdated assignments though it doesn't speak as loudly as I'd prefer in saying "recipient of backdated assignment may not have had authority to record Notice of Default".
Now add to that the fact it wasn't a valid document anyway if it was signed by people with no knowledge of what they were signing.
Further up on the same document where it names who all beneficial interest was transferred to you'll probably find something like Bank of New York for the benefit of the noteholders CWABS 2005 and that can open up a whole other can of worms for them because it couldn't be transferred if your loan was in default among other reasons.
 

freedomwon

LoanSafe Member
Oct 30, 2010
2,794
23
38
California
In looking over all my paperwork I found that The Notice of default was Recorded on 7/01/2011 by Recontrust but the substitution of trustee naming Recontrust didn't get recorded untill 7/06/2011 That should void the NOD and sale should it not? My only concern is if I will be able to bring that up at the Unlawful Detainer hearing.
Exact same thing happened in my situation. What you need to do is look at your original deed of trust & see who the trustee listed on there is. It's possible they may have been the original trustee. If not, you've got a bone to pick!
 

morgane_edison

LoanSafe Member
Jan 19, 2012
62
1
0
Isisis,

You said "...that can open up a whole other can of worms for them because it couldn't be transferred if your loan was in default among other reasons."

Are you saying that if a mortgage is in default (as evidenced by a notice of acceleration sent from the servicer), that it is not legal for the mortgage to be transferred and/or assigned?

Thanks
 

freedomwon

LoanSafe Member
Oct 30, 2010
2,794
23
38
California
Isisis,

You said "...that can open up a whole other can of worms for them because it couldn't be transferred if your loan was in default among other reasons."

Are you saying that if a mortgage is in default (as evidenced by a notice of acceleration sent from the servicer), that it is not legal for the mortgage to be transferred and/or assigned?

Thanks
Hi Morgane, what isisis is talking about is a loan that was sold into a loan trust shortly after origination, but never really make it into the trust. Then, the bank (to cover their tracks) puts the loan into the trust AFTER the trust has already closed.

As an example, my loan was supposed to be put into a loan trust in the beginning of 2007 (but it never made it there) due to FRAUD on the part of countrywide. They had approx 90 days to put it in that trust but never did. THEY DECEIVED THE INVESTORS! Fast forward 4 or 5 years later, the loan has gone into default & BofA suddenly puts this defaulted loan into the trust! That's a big NO NO. Why, would they do this, you ask? They need to cover their tracks for 1 thing & for another so they can collect the insurance on the defaulted loan. Even if the loan had no PMI, make no mistake, these lenders took out private insurance on these loans.

The loan trust is governed by what's called a PSA=pooling service agreement. This agreement exists between the loan servicer & the investor on the loan. The PSA has very strict guidelines on what the loan servicer can & can not do. What most homeowners don't know is that a lot of the PSA's do not allow for modifications to the loans. This is a BIG reason why a lot of loans DO NOT get modified. The loan servicer, however, will never admit to this.

I can not tell you how many times I specifically asked BofA (my loan servicer) DO YOU HAVE PERMISSION FROM THE INVESTOR (BONY) to modify my loan? I got the same standard answer every time I asked which was "You'll have to submit or resubmit your documents & see if you qualify". This is a classic example of how the CSR's are kept in the dark & secluded from important information.

I'm sure when isisis logs on today he will have more to add! Didn't want to keep you waiting for an answer.
 

morgane_edison

LoanSafe Member
Jan 19, 2012
62
1
0
Hi Freedomwon,

Thanks for your reply. I understand a little about back-dating and the more egregious form of fraud to which you and others have been subjected. I might have parsed his comment too much. Do you know if a mortgage can legally be assigned after default?

In my research since posting, I was able to find two decisions by Kings County, NY Judge Schack. In HSBC Bank v. Valentin, 21 Misc. 3d 1124(A), Judge Schack wrote:

Further, according to plaintiff’s application, the default of defendants Valentin and Ruiz began with the nonpayment of principal and interest due on January 1, 2007. Yet, four months later, plaintiff HSBC was willing to take an assignment of the instant nonperforming loan. The Court wonders why HSBC would purchase a nonperforming loan, four months in arrears?


In Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Harris Index No. 39192/2007 (05 FEB 2008) he wrote:

Further, the Court requires an explanation from an officer of plaintiff DEUTSCHE BANK as to why, in the middle of our national sub-prime mortgage financial crisis, DEUTSCHE BANK would purchase a non-performing loan from INDYMAC.

In these cases two cases, I have not found the assumed motivation to be back dating, but rather something unknown or unstated. Judge Schack does not seem to say the actions were not legal, although he infers some form of fraud. He seems truly puzzled. If he is puzzled, I am puzzled too! What is the bank's motivation? I had always assumed it had something to do with getting ducks in a row in preparation for a foreclosure.

I appreciate anyone's feedback.
 

freedomwon

LoanSafe Member
Oct 30, 2010
2,794
23
38
California
Morgane -
Do you know if a mortgage can legally be assigned after default?
I have not been able to find any law that prevents them from doing so. IMHO, The motivation is to have a paper trail that gives them the ability to collect on the insurance. I would encourage you to start on thread on this subject Monday morning. This is a great topic.
 

freedomwon

LoanSafe Member
Oct 30, 2010
2,794
23
38
California
Thanks Morgane - That was a very good case. isisis, it's definitely worth a read. I've read it before, but as we all know, it's very easy to get going in 10 different directions on this stuff.
 

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Jun 22, 2010
1,767
243
63
North bay
My apologies for being MIA all of a sudden. I received some flyers in the mail from various trustee delay services referencing my upcoming sale date, Monday, Feb 6[SUP]th[/SUP] and had a round of the paralysis that many of you may be familiar with. It took me a couple of days and a very stiff drink to find the nerve to pull up Recontrust's website to confirm the info. I guess I was hoping too that meanwhile the letter from a few posts back would be processed by Recontrust's legal team with the desired results.

I scrolled through the homes for sale on that date and then took my first really deep breath in days when it wasn't listed. In fact, it wasn’t listed in February at all so I searched by TS# and found it at the end of March. WHEW!

Hard to say whether the Recontrust letter brought about the reprieve since we’re not filled in on how things work on their end. It could be given the timing or it could be another one of those…coincidences.

I’m kind of leaning toward the Validation of Debt letter I sent borrowed from Freedomwon.
When BAC went to Bofa my understanding is that they became a debt collector at that time as opposed to a servicer and a debt collector. The distinction is complicated, reading the FTC’s website it sounded circuitous enough that it wouldn’t have surprised me to see “except on Tuesdays†or “applicable only to those whose names begin with a consonantâ€. Nonetheless, my take on it is Countrywide borrowers are being serviced by a debt collector subject to the FDCPA in such a way that there could be punitive actions for its violation. Additionally - I could be wrong – but while there is a dispute of debt that hasn’t been responded to foreclosing could put them in an awkward position.

California courts have recognized punitive damages for blatant violations of the Act. See Rubin v. Account Control Technology, 865 F. Supp. 1443 (D. Nev. 1994). Also Fausto v. Credigy Services Corp, 598 F. Supp 2d, 1049 (N.D. Cal. 2009). Following a jury trial, the verdict consisted of $100,000 in actual damages and $400,000 in punitive damages.

At the same time NOT responding to a Dispute of debt letter – would that become an admission?
 

Annie Mac

LoanSafe Member
Aug 19, 2011
579
72
28
Oregon
I am in a similar place Isisis, though have not received a NOD or sale date as you have. I believe Chase has been nothing more than a debt collector all along. On record, the Lender and Beneficiary are Washington Mutual. At the time Chase took over, I had just retrieved my loan from Washington Mutual foreclosing and was in Loan Modification in September of 2008..so was it still listed in default at that time? If so, when a loan changes hands and is in default, the new servicer is automatically a debt collector, not a new lender or servicer. In addition, when I read the Senate Overview Committe report and realize the shenanigans which occured in the battle between the OTS and the FDIC, it is no wonder there appears to be no note. As a debt collector, there can be no trial payment plans, no modifications; thus three and a half years later, nothing has changed. I will be awaiting to hear how your Validation of Debt letter is responded to or not. Best of luck.
 

fightforit

LoanSafe Member
Aug 31, 2010
247
2
18
A Must Read for info is Marie Mcdonnells amicus brief in EATON V FANNIE MA.

The much awaited bending decision on the Eaton case with the Ma. Supreme Court will affect our fight as much as Ibanez if not more.

Marie is a forensic analyst and her brief really spells everything out.
I hope it is of use to someone here.
 

fightforit

LoanSafe Member
Aug 31, 2010
247
2
18
At the same time NOT responding to a Dispute of debt letter – would that become an admission?


That is my question also.
My foreclosure has been put on hold since they received my debt validation letter. I worded mine a bit differently.
I demanded to personally inspect my wet ink note within 30 days . No alonges or copies.
 

Annie Mac

LoanSafe Member
Aug 19, 2011
579
72
28
Oregon
From my notes:

"If you are in default at the time they take over your loan, they are not your servicer, but a debt collector."

Unfortunately, I didn't write down the source. This means as a debt collector, they are governed by a different set of regulations than lenders are.
 

Tarin Myhairout

LoanSafe Member
Oct 31, 2011
320
3
0
Twin Cities, MN
Hi isisis:

So good to hear from you again- and with your typical tragicomic analysis. Mazeltov on your good news!
had a round of the paralysis that many of you may be familiar with. It took me a couple of days and a very stiff drink to find the nerve to pull up Recontrust's website to confirm the info
I'm so glad you took the time to mention the 'paralysis' that accompanies this effort. I think it is caused by a combination of the uncertainty, the fear of certainty, not enough information, too much information, no clear way to evaluate the quality of the information, good advice, bad advice, scammers, well-meaning but misinformed people, the lack of a road map, and the utter mystery of how/why/when decisions are made on the other side(s)! To complicate everything, it seems impossible to know what, if any effect our actions are having on the whole thing!

I am reminded of the sketch of a perspiring goldfish desperately swimming in circles inside the carafe of a blender, with a disembodied finger stealthily moving toward the "on" switch.

I have always been the person who wants to know, so I can make my plan. Now, not so much. I don't log in. The letter sits unopened. Sometimes I can't even bring myself to deal with other, unrelated things; and that worries me most of all. I used to be able to concentrate on other things to keep my mind otherwise occupied, now I have almost no energy to devote to anything. I just feel too used up. I think this is called battle fatigue.

There is a weird kind of comfort in the suspension of reality that comes with not knowing! It is completely irrational, I know; but while I exist in that cloud of all possibilities; a miracle could happen, right? The Banksters get a conscience, or an earthquake halts all foreclosures, or sunspots disrupt communications and they lose all records of foreclosure processes, or real justice takes over and I am off the list, or a kind relative wins the lottery and steps in, or, or, or. . Once I go to that website or open the letter, I will have to deal with the reality of what is there. Each piece of good news, or even neutral news simply starts this crazy-making cycle all over again.

I'm not proud of my irrational responses and lack of coping skills; but thanks for confirming that I'm not the only one!

Fondly,

Tarin
 

freedomwon

LoanSafe Member
Oct 30, 2010
2,794
23
38
California
At the same time NOT responding to a Dispute of debt letter – would that become an admission?
Hi isisis - I'm not sure if it will be considered an admission or not. When I sent my dispute letter I included verbage at the very bottom that says: If you are unwilling or unable to provide proof and validation of the debt as we have requested within 30 days, then you admit that the loan has been paid in full, and the debt has been discharged and nothing is owed on this loan. This letter acts as a self executing confession that you are acting out of good faith and willingly providing false and misrepresentation under 15 USC 1692e.

In the event of a future litigation, this letter will be used as an admission to the above facts.

The only effect I have personally experienced as a result of the letter is my credit score suddenly rose from 529 to 639 within 60 days after I had sent the dispute letter & has remained there ever since. It is quite possible that even today BofA has not provided Recontrust with sale instructions, hence, the date keeps getting postponed. Of course, I'd like to think it's my letters that are stopping them, but who really knows? Maybe my sale date would have kept getting postponed for reasons that have nothing to do with my letters.