Bagels at a Bar Mitzvah

just_me

LoanSafe Member
Sep 14, 2015
604
51
28
Let us not forget

SOMETIMES HOMEOWNERS WIN!

Fremont Investment loans DO have a recurring theme of No Note and No Endorsements. Standing at inception matters. Here is a NY foreclosure case that languished a full 5 years with no activity. One would think more Judges would be apprehensive about allowing these cases. Mine, was in fact dismissed for housekeeping rules but Deutsche Bank managed to revive it twice claiming it didn't get notice. In NY, one makes a 90 day request, then if no answer, the case can be deemed abandoned and dismissed on proper motion. After receiving notice, the bank said "bring it on!" and LOST due to standing! :p


“A plaintiff establishes its standing in a mortgage foreclosure action by demonstrating that, when the action was commenced, it was either the holder or assignee of the underlying note” (Dyer Trust 2012-1 v Global World Realty, Inc., 140 AD3d 827, 828; see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355, 360-362; Flagstar Bank, FSB v Mendoza, 139 AD3d 898, 899). “Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation, and the mortgage passes with the debt as an inseparable incident” (Dyer Trust 2012-1 v Global World Realty, Inc., 140 AD3d at 828; see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d at 361-362; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 754). The plaintiff may establish that it was the holder of the note at the time the action was commenced by submitting proof that a copy of the note, including an allonge containing an endorsement in blank, was among the various exhibits annexed to the complaint (see UCC 1-201[21]; Bank of Am., N.A. v Tobin, 168 AD3d 661; CitiMortgage, Inc. v McKenzie, 161 AD3d 1040, 1041).

In support of its cross motion, the plaintiff failed to meet its prima facie burden of establishing that it had standing to commence this action."
 

wanda robo

LoanSafe Member
Sep 29, 2012
3,916
625
113
NJ
Let us not forget

SOMETIMES HOMEOWNERS WIN!

Fremont Investment loans DO have a recurring theme of No Note and No Endorsements. Standing at inception matters. Here is a NY foreclosure case that languished a full 5 years with no activity. One would think more Judges would be apprehensive about allowing these cases. Mine, was in fact dismissed for housekeeping rules but Deutsche Bank managed to revive it twice claiming it didn't get notice. In NY, one makes a 90 day request, then if no answer, the case can be deemed abandoned and dismissed on proper motion. After receiving notice, the bank said "bring it on!" and LOST due to standing! :p


“A plaintiff establishes its standing in a mortgage foreclosure action by demonstrating that, when the action was commenced, it was either the holder or assignee of the underlying note” (Dyer Trust 2012-1 v Global World Realty, Inc., 140 AD3d 827, 828; see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355, 360-362; Flagstar Bank, FSB v Mendoza, 139 AD3d 898, 899). “Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation, and the mortgage passes with the debt as an inseparable incident” (Dyer Trust 2012-1 v Global World Realty, Inc., 140 AD3d at 828; see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d at 361-362; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 754). The plaintiff may establish that it was the holder of the note at the time the action was commenced by submitting proof that a copy of the note, including an allonge containing an endorsement in blank, was among the various exhibits annexed to the complaint (see UCC 1-201[21]; Bank of Am., N.A. v Tobin, 168 AD3d 661; CitiMortgage, Inc. v McKenzie, 161 AD3d 1040, 1041).

In support of its cross motion, the plaintiff failed to meet its prima facie burden of establishing that it had standing to commence this action."
It's great, it really is, but it doesn't apply to you.....keep fighting my friend. God willing you will get there.

LMAO I've been playing "Scrabble Sprint" on my computer. It's supposed to boost my memory.My vocab is apparently limited. I spell words like "tort", "law" Courts", jury" when I'm sure other people see other words...
It is really quite fascinating.....
 

wanda robo

LoanSafe Member
Sep 29, 2012
3,916
625
113
NJ
God works when he wants to, and I guess when he doesn't we are left with our good sense.

Krafty said something so profound, so many pages ago. It really does end the same for all of us. Make the most of it! We will all die, and that's sad, but what we do on Earth can and does make a
differnce.
 

NJ16

LoanSafe Member
Aug 25, 2017
41
6
8
99
Let us not forget

SOMETIMES HOMEOWNERS WIN!

Fremont Investment loans DO have a recurring theme of No Note and No Endorsements. Standing at inception matters. Here is a NY foreclosure case that languished a full 5 years with no activity. One would think more Judges would be apprehensive about allowing these cases. Mine, was in fact dismissed for housekeeping rules but Deutsche Bank managed to revive it twice claiming it didn't get notice. In NY, one makes a 90 day request, then if no answer, the case can be deemed abandoned and dismissed on proper motion. After receiving notice, the bank said "bring it on!" and LOST due to standing! :p


“A plaintiff establishes its standing in a mortgage foreclosure action by demonstrating that, when the action was commenced, it was either the holder or assignee of the underlying note” (Dyer Trust 2012-1 v Global World Realty, Inc., 140 AD3d 827, 828; see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355, 360-362; Flagstar Bank, FSB v Mendoza, 139 AD3d 898, 899). “Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation, and the mortgage passes with the debt as an inseparable incident” (Dyer Trust 2012-1 v Global World Realty, Inc., 140 AD3d at 828; see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d at 361-362; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 754). The plaintiff may establish that it was the holder of the note at the time the action was commenced by submitting proof that a copy of the note, including an allonge containing an endorsement in blank, was among the various exhibits annexed to the complaint (see UCC 1-201[21]; Bank of Am., N.A. v Tobin, 168 AD3d 661; CitiMortgage, Inc. v McKenzie, 161 AD3d 1040, 1041).

In support of its cross motion, the plaintiff failed to meet its prima facie burden of establishing that it had standing to commence this action."

I just love it when I hear about a home owner kicking the crap out of these criminal banks and mills.
 

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Jun 22, 2010
1,745
235
63
North bay

How much of that comes from illegal foreclosures?
Good old Brian, if only his scruples were commensurate with his wealth. Brian told his mortgage banking underlings to tell millions of people including me, "Hey, don't make your payments. No, really don't make them. Everything will be fine. If you don't make payments then I'll give you better loan terms. Honest. Remember, we're here to help."

Some of that $25 million dollar paycheck is the income from the homes taken from families by using that ruse. There must be a particularly toasty place in hell for those who leave so many people homeless.

He's also the reason I got to sit there biting my fingernails as time past and my house was still on the sale schedule two days ago. Finally when I'm half out the door on my way to the auction site at about 35 minutes till the sale I checked the site one last time and it had been cancelled.
 

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Nov 14, 2009
1,434
240
63
I am thinking about posting a link to my brief on the internet so investors who got cheated can sue the crab out of Ocwen and BOfA.
 

Annie Mac

LoanSafe Member
Aug 19, 2011
579
72
28
Oregon
Yes, at the end of the game, the King and the Knights and the Castle and the Pawns all go back into the same box. There are many ways to prevail, and when we all began, our definition of prevailing was proving the fraud which had been committed and being able to stay in our homes. We have all given some of the richest years of our life to this cause, with mixed results. Instead of enjoying the stability of our labors, we are having to redefend our roofs over and over again, as families grow up, elders die, jobs shift, and losses compound. Month by month though, the courts are not the same as they were a decade ago. The laws are not the same. It is challenging to be forced out of one's home late in life...maybe we are being blessed to see truths and know how low things can go and how twisted justice has become so we are awake to what comes next. What we have left is our briefs, our truths, our story. Write it, speak it, post it...TexWilly is doing this, Moretrouble is revealing it, Wandarobo is ranting it....where is the film maker in our bunch? Irregardless of what the outcome is, I will be revealing the story my way. Possibly the last to hear the truth will be the judges, but in time, everyone will have grasped the truth of what occurred, and it aint gonna be a pretty story. Still, we have to tell it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DRB

just_me

LoanSafe Member
Sep 14, 2015
604
51
28
MT, I did see a glimpse of info (independent of yours) that lead me to believe Ocwen had actually purchased the debt while foreclosing in the name of the trustee. (or Mers) Its as if hiding ownership is hiding liability for foreclosing without notes. Oddly, I've never seen Ocwen as a Master Servicer, only a sub servicer, an addendum to the file post securitization. But I do believe Owen is a debt collector and is buying debts for pennies on the dollar. Almost as if their only goal is to collect 10k in various costs and legal fees through foreclosure 'cause they only paid a dollar for it... Its not their only scheme. Occasionally they get caught... by people that can match them on legal costs. I'm gonna have to review some of those recent ones. I'm behind on reading material. Yes, I've seen duplicitous accounting and more than one set of books and the place holder accounting is actually a red flag for money laundering fyi. There are many depositories online if you want to be searchable or able to point to a link when someone asks. However, you might want to consider what is left to recover if others, such as institutional investors, beat you to it.
 

just_me

LoanSafe Member
Sep 14, 2015
604
51
28
Wanda, Judge signed Lender's proposed request to set hearing to request a reschedule hearing on that day. (absent saying so) She just wanted me to not be heard on the record. I don't consider motion hour a hearing but apparently she ruled in their favor for scheduling a hearing without setting a hearing date to request a hearing on rescheduling a hearing cause she heard it that day.

Nothing to see here. Move along now. o_O
 

just_me

LoanSafe Member
Sep 14, 2015
604
51
28
Finally when I'm half out the door on my way to the auction site at about 35 minutes till the sale I checked the site one last time and it had been cancelled.
They know what they are doing. This is intentional! Somehow courts don't believe its harmful if you don't spend money on it or lose money on it. We need a new definition of abuse, independent of money. Legal abuse and outstanding threats is same as mental abuse if you ask me. They are banking on people walking away or making bad deals just to reduce the anxiety of it. Stay strong.
 

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Nov 14, 2009
1,434
240
63
MT, I did see a glimpse of info (independent of yours) that lead me to believe Ocwen had actually purchased the debt while foreclosing in the name of the trustee. (or Mers) Its as if hiding ownership is hiding liability for foreclosing without notes. Oddly, I've never seen Ocwen as a Master Servicer, only a sub servicer, an addendum to the file post securitization. But I do believe Owen is a debt collector and is buying debts for pennies on the dollar. Almost as if their only goal is to collect 10k in various costs and legal fees through foreclosure 'cause they only paid a dollar for it... Its not their only scheme. Occasionally they get caught... by people that can match them on legal costs. I'm gonna have to review some of those recent ones. I'm behind on reading material. Yes, I've seen duplicitous accounting and more than one set of books and the place holder accounting is actually a red flag for money laundering fyi. There are many depositories online if you want to be searchable or able to point to a link when someone asks. However, you might want to consider what is left to recover if others, such as institutional investors, beat you to it.
Ocwen bought REsCap servicing platform in 2013 as part of REsCap bankruptcy as documented in its 10Ks sec.gov .it’s the beneficial interest of the sale of my house if it ever happens. But it does not want to expose the servicing fraud that’s why it is using the name BNYM to foreclose. I ‘ve already contacted the investors’ counsel to notice them of Ocwen’S fraud. They should have hired better employee’s and attorneys. Should have never sued me because the most they gain is my house but could lose (or already) lost millions of dollars I market cap. Very bad business decision. Stock went from $4.50 to when I started my campaign to $1.50 now. I may sue them in Federal Court and post my case on the internet to advice all interested investors who got cheated. Stil waiting for their response brief. I am having fun.
 

wanda robo

LoanSafe Member
Sep 29, 2012
3,916
625
113
NJ
Wanda, Judge signed Lender's proposed request to set hearing to request a reschedule hearing on that day. (absent saying so) She just wanted me to not be heard on the record. I don't consider motion hour a hearing but apparently she ruled in their favor for scheduling a hearing without setting a hearing date to request a hearing on rescheduling a hearing cause she heard it that day.

Nothing to see here. Move along now. o_O
I think you got it wrong, darlin. I think the judge didn't want to be heard making a dumb ruling on the record.
;)
 

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Jun 22, 2010
1,745
235
63
North bay
They know what they are doing. This is intentional! Somehow courts don't believe its harmful if you don't spend money on it or lose money on it. We need a new definition of abuse, independent of money. Legal abuse and outstanding threats is same as mental abuse if you ask me. They are banking on people walking away or making bad deals just to reduce the anxiety of it. Stay strong.
Actually they were violating various sections of the FDCPA. They were misrepresenting the amount and legal status of the debt in violation of 15 USC 1692e (A). The scheduled sale was a threat to take action that cannot legally be taken in violation of 15 USC 1692e (B) 5. It was an unconscionable and unfair means to collect a debt prohibited by 15 USC 1692f and the amount they are claiming due is not expressly authorized by the DOT which does not allow the imposition of foreclosure fees and charges in the absence of default by the borrower.

They were threatening to take nonjudicial action to effect dispossession of property when there is no present right to possession of the property claimed as collateral through an enforceable security interest in violation of 15 USC 1692f (6)(A). The right to enforce derives from the terms of the security instrument to which they are in contractual default.

And the "natural consequences of their conduct was to harass, oppress and abuse in connection with the collection of a debt" which is prohibited by the FDCPA.
 

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Nov 14, 2009
1,434
240
63
Actually they were violating various sections of the FDCPA. They were misrepresenting the amount and legal status of the debt in violation of 15 USC 1692e (A). The scheduled sale was a threat to take action that cannot legally be taken in violation of 15 USC 1692e (B) 5. It was an unconscionable and unfair means to collect a debt prohibited by 15 USC 1692f and the amount they are claiming due is not expressly authorized by the DOT which does not allow the imposition of foreclosure fees and charges in the absence of default by the borrower.

They were threatening to take nonjudicial action to effect dispossession of property when there is no present right to possession of the property claimed as collateral through an enforceable security interest in violation of 15 USC 1692f (6)(A). The right to enforce derives from the terms of the security instrument to which they are in contractual default.

And the "natural consequences of their conduct was to harass, oppress and abuse in connection with the collection of a debt" which is prohibited by the FDCPA.
There you go, Isisis. You are talking the language that the Court May listen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: just_me

Annie Mac

LoanSafe Member
Aug 19, 2011
579
72
28
Oregon
I have been plowing through five different investigative report and appellate cases, each averaging 300-600 pages, each related to the securitization of my "loan." Even though I experienced all the events, the assaults which are mentioned in these postings which were abusive events at the time, it is equally hard to read of them written from the tone of distance. It bowls me all over again, just reading what happened to me, my loan, to you, your loan, over and over again. There are no innocents at any arena of the banking industry; they knew full well what was happening and they backed each other in this, covering for one another, staying silent, continuing to perpetuate it even when it was no longer covered up. Then those who were silent, those who continued the shuttling of names and papers and numbers into pockets and hidden caves, magnified the damages again and again. If I try to imagine what it would feel like to read this from the viewpoint of someone who had no personal experience of it, it would be staggering. In time, the history of this time period will allow the truth to be revealed. It cannot help but completely shift the entire way economy, money, and property ownership occurs in the US. Don't stop talking and don't stop tellng our story.
 

wanda robo

LoanSafe Member
Sep 29, 2012
3,916
625
113
NJ
I have been plowing through five different investigative report and appellate cases, each averaging 300-600 pages, each related to the securitization of my "loan." Even though I experienced all the events, the assaults which are mentioned in these postings which were abusive events at the time, it is equally hard to read of them written from the tone of distance. It bowls me all over again, just reading what happened to me, my loan, to you, your loan, over and over again. There are no innocents at any arena of the banking industry; they knew full well what was happening and they backed each other in this, covering for one another, staying silent, continuing to perpetuate it even when it was no longer covered up. Then those who were silent, those who continued the shuttling of names and papers and numbers into pockets and hidden caves, magnified the damages again and again. If I try to imagine what it would feel like to read this from the viewpoint of someone who had no personal experience of it, it would be staggering. In time, the history of this time period will allow the truth to be revealed. It cannot help but completely shift the entire way economy, money, and property ownership occurs in the US. Don't stop talking and don't stop tellng our story.
Cheers To Bagels, my friend? I'm all in. Each of us experienced different facets of the Hell that was created and we stood together. Banded together, even though we're all different & in different circumstances. Even though you have to study sometimes, to understand another's plight.

It's been worth it to me. I've gained friends all over the country. Makes me very sad that I haven't met any of you and have only spoken to a handful...

I think if we keep it up, one of us maybe a candidate in the future. Wouldn't it be wonderful, one of US running and all we'd have to do is convince everyone to vote "For The Honest" candidate? Not a bad idea, annie. We've saved it all for posterity.

If only.....
 

wanda robo

LoanSafe Member
Sep 29, 2012
3,916
625
113
NJ
So, I've been playing "Scrabble Sprint" online as I wait for the judges ruling. It's supposed to boost your memory. I'm freaking my self out.

The words I spell aren't normal & they're increasing. Where some people would see jar in the scrambled letters, I see jury. I see law when you might see awl. I see courts when someone sees curt. I see pleas when someone sees please.

Talk about a one tract mind.....anyway I enjoy it. WAKE UP WANDA time to go to work & handle reality. Play some scrabble, check the Federal Register, read "bagels" & your email & go to work!


;)
 

wanda robo

LoanSafe Member
Sep 29, 2012
3,916
625
113
NJ
While I'm on a roll, why not just go with it? I'm tired of proving I'm not a robot, watching Hearings about AI in the "private sector" but having to prove I'm not a robot on State & Federal sights.

Maybe OHM will comment about this.
 

just_me

LoanSafe Member
Sep 14, 2015
604
51
28
I'm beginning to think this Judge knows they (the court and the FC mill) are violating FDCPA and bankruptcy law, especially with the Master Commissioner's misinterpretations of contract law the last time I went to a hearing there.

So what do you do with that? FDCPA, BK violation, Judicial or Bar complaint? Make the complaint independent of the FC case in federal court? Also, does it help or do you ignore it and keep responding no matter how many times it requires you to beat your head against the wall building the record for appeal? I find these events to be so consistent that moving to resolve each one has little appeal and is more of a distraction. Is it time to make a stink while the fire is hot?