Bagels at a Bar Mitzvah

just_me

LoanSafe Member
Sep 14, 2015
623
57
28
OHM - We should make sure people don't bankrupt too. I certainly don't want to start this out in bankruptcy over monthly bills.
 

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Jun 22, 2010
1,767
243
63
North bay
Wanda, I no longer maintain anything less than 3 broken printers. Yes, they all still scan! :D One is officially a cat bed on top of my dining room buffet under the window. It was an easy conversion with a bath rug to cover. (washable too!)

I learned my lesson, I scheduled the ink jet to turn itself on and off DAILY. Without that little puff of air on startup... ink dries up inside the jets and it's BYE BYE PRINTER AND THAT LAST ROUND OF INK CARTRIDGES!
Re printers: the census of general wisdom is that printers are the scourge of modern-day technological existence. A pestilence to be included in a class with viruses, plagues, locusts and elevator music, i.e., those things that exist to bedevil the human race and test our collective patience. They've sent many to the point of meltdown. Still you have to give a reluctant hat tip to the marketing wizards that recognized the profit potential in ink jet cartridges. Take a product that costs less than a penny - few drops of ink in plastic and sell it for twenty bucks! A brilliant if evil concept. Think of the inkjet barons now locked down like the rest of us in isolation albeit in mansions paid for at the expense of our sanity and ink spattered clothing.
 

Annie Mac

LoanSafe Member
Aug 19, 2011
579
72
28
Oregon
A Lottery of Our Own......not sure what we're betting. But wagers on how long we are going to have to wait for court time now....hearing postponed until May, no June, perhaps August, but wait, September might be more of a sure thing. What are the rest of you hearing on hearings?
 

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Jun 22, 2010
1,767
243
63
North bay
I was thinking, maybe this isn't a plot by the Chinese to take over the world. Maybe it's not even a plot by the democrats who just happened to get every other county to conspire along with them just to spoil Trump's re-election campaign. Maybe instead the planet has some kind of intelligent design that kicks in when humans get out of hand, a mechanism that lets loose a germ of some sort to cure us of our rowdy ways or at least thin out the herd before we do too much damage. If this keeps up Greta Thunberg will be out of work. Hey Greta, in the future watch out what you wish for.
 

just_me

LoanSafe Member
Sep 14, 2015
623
57
28
It's either God or Mother Nature telling us to slow down! Have you seen the reports? Pollution dropping proportionately.
 

just_me

LoanSafe Member
Sep 14, 2015
623
57
28
A Lottery of Our Own......not sure what we're betting. But wagers on how long we are going to have to wait for court time now....hearing postponed until May, no June, perhaps August, but wait, September might be more of a sure thing. What are the rest of you hearing on hearings?
AnnieMac this could rotate out in ongoing fashion. I'm disappointed because I have my evidence and I'm ready to shut the door on these people. SO angry that this lasted this THIS long. I've just discovered my mortgage broker had pre-determined my cough, "new" address for taxes without asking me. Years later I have an address mismatch. Burns me every time I see remnants of those frauds.
 

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Jun 22, 2010
1,767
243
63
North bay
Life is too short to spend twenty seconds over and over singing Happy Birthday. I'd like to suggest an alternative and more lively musical choice.

Monty Python's Lumberjack song.
Twenty seconds takes you through,

BARBER:
I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay.
I sleep all night and I work all day.

MOUNTIES:
He's a lumberjack, and he's okay.
He sleeps all night and he works all day.

BARBER:
I cut down trees. I eat my lunch.
I go to the lavatory.
On Wednesdays I go shoppin'
And have buttered scones for tea.


Humor is an antidote to tedium and terror.
 

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Jun 22, 2010
1,767
243
63
North bay
More Trouble,

I'm reading your appeal and again it's forcefully written. Also read the Respondent's brief.

The Respondents claim that you can't appeal because you lack a substantial right and there's a technical meaning there which you address with on point case law. They're asserting the malfeasance is superfluous and without relevance because when your payments ceased so did your rights and their obligations. There's the familiar subtext that as a defaulting homeowner your contractual rights end and the bank's contractual obligations are discharged due to non payment. But that's not what the terms of the loan contract provide or even contract law in general.

Until not too long ago a material breach could result in the loss of contractual rights. In the first Restatement of Contracts you breach and you're history. Then in 1979 Restatement (second) of Contracts was promulgated by the ALI and a significant change took place that's reflected in the terms of the mortgage loan contract.

It was the concept of cure in Restatement §§ 237, 238. Previously a material breach allowed a party to terminate a contract but now unless a contract states otherwise there are cure rights which preserve the breaching party's rights under the contract by precluding the injured party from cancelling the contract without the opportunity to cure. Thus it affords the breaching party a second chance at contract performance while extending contractual rights until they can no longer occur.

Your right to cure is a substantial legal right. In your DOT there's probably some language also providing the right to "assert the non existence of default or any other defense to foreclosure", a very substantial legal right indeed.

Your argument essentially is that cure is not possible because the respondents are not the PETE or;

Cure is not necessary because the misconduct by the Plaintiffs caused you prejudice sufficient to offset the cure amount or;

Cure is inaccurate because third party payments have been applied reducing your loan balance thus their cure amount is in excess of the amount owed, a breach of the DOT and a violation of the FDCPA as overcharging is an attempt to collect money and consequently actionable under section 1692f(1).

Anyway, all of that was intended to demonstrate that you have a substantial legal right and a just claim to appeal the order or at least as I see it.

I haven't found the [] but will look again.
 

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Nov 14, 2009
1,451
246
63
More Trouble,

I'm reading your appeal and again it's forcefully written. Also read the Respondent's brief.

The Respondents claim that you can't appeal because you lack a substantial right and there's a technical meaning there which you address with on point case law. They're asserting the malfeasance is superfluous and without relevance because when your payments ceased so did your rights and their obligations. There's the familiar subtext that as a defaulting homeowner your contractual rights end and the bank's contractual obligations are discharged due to non payment. But that's not what the terms of the loan contract provide or even contract law in general.

Until not too long ago a material breach could result in the loss of contractual rights. In the first Restatement of Contracts you breach and you're history. Then in 1979 Restatement (second) of Contracts was promulgated by the ALI and a significant change took place that's reflected in the terms of the mortgage loan contract.

It was the concept of cure in Restatement §§ 237, 238. Previously a material breach allowed a party to terminate a contract but now unless a contract states otherwise there are cure rights which preserve the breaching party's rights under the contract by precluding the injured party from cancelling the contract without the opportunity to cure. Thus it affords the breaching party a second chance at contract performance while extending contractual rights until they can no longer occur.

Your right to cure is a substantial legal right. In your DOT there's probably some language also providing the right to "assert the non existence of default or any other defense to foreclosure", a very substantial legal right indeed.

Your argument essentially is that cure is not possible because the respondents are not the PETE or;

Cure is not necessary because the misconduct by the Plaintiffs caused you prejudice sufficient to offset the cure amount or;

Cure is inaccurate because third party payments have been applied reducing your loan balance thus their cure amount is in excess of the amount owed, a breach of the DOT and a violation of the FDCPA as overcharging is an attempt to collect money and consequently actionable under section 1692f(1).

Anyway, all of that was intended to demonstrate that you have a substantial legal right and a just claim to appeal the order or at least as I see it.

I haven't found the [] but will look again.
Thanks for the time reading and your input. the [] is on page 5 starts "It is despicable a..... measly sum" I am afraid it is too strong? Wanda did not think so. With all the stuff of what's happening with the virus, I am not too worry about the servicers and mREIT companies. Ocwen stock is at 45 cents/share NRZ is at $4.40 (from $17 a couple months ago) they'll probably go bankrupt, can not fulfill their sevicing advances and taxes, won't be able to pay legal fees to foreclose on us. Too bad!!!!!
Also I plan on litigate forever and bleed them to bk with the help off other attorneys from investors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elle

just_me

LoanSafe Member
Sep 14, 2015
623
57
28
Did anyone else notice that the CFPB's lawsuit against Ocwen is now styled against PHH? I think maybe I'll just asterick* this with a foot note in my arguments. Ocwen is THE bad actor. Changing names or selling, merging and what not, does not change this fact!

Editing to add one important fact - Discovery channels changed. One needs to sluethe it out to find the transfers of custody on these docs! Notably subpoenas being ignored due to "misdirection." Custodians now somewhere in Florida under different party according to my research. Will let you know how this next round goes. It's a familiar shell game. :rolleyes:
 

wanda robo

LoanSafe Member
Sep 29, 2012
3,931
633
113
NJ
I don't know if any of you guys are experiencing this, so I thought I'd share. I work for a small business & do business with other small businesses. Somehow, they think the government is going to come to the rescue quickly. LMAO. They think you apply for a small business loan, it will be miraculously approved & get money in your hands within a week. It's quite obvious that they've never dealt with the government or applied for a HAMP mod....
 

just_me

LoanSafe Member
Sep 14, 2015
623
57
28
Wanda, I've seen evidence of "red-lining" through social media complaints. Naturally, BOA got lots of complaints. Seems they want to bundle old loans into new ones or they reject you if you don't have a business credit card with them. What else do you expect? Best to avoid all these major banks. Credit Unions are the way to go. WE KNOW THAT! Of course, small biz at the end of the line in this grab bag with Mnuchin and his preferential treatments. (please make complaints where you see it)
Just realize, it's SLOW PAY not NO PAY ... keep on trucking!

Also....
 

Attachments

  • Like
Reactions: isisis

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Nov 14, 2009
1,451
246
63
Any body here sweating any tears for the servicers. Karma, you reap what you sow. Ocwen may not have money to pay legal fees. From $66/share to 31 cents. CEO still draws 2.7 millions in salary.

 

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Jun 22, 2010
1,767
243
63
North bay
More Trouble

If you're wondering about your request for the order be published either affirmed or reversed I certainly agree. The fact that the Plaintiffs DON'T want it published speaks for itself. The benefit of the information becoming available knowledge would outweigh a published opinion affirmed particularly given the likelihood that this court will follow the previous one by not directly addressing the multiple issues involved. They're unlikely to want to delve into the shady dealings and complexities of securitization so there's little chance it would create bad case law for others on specific issues.

Then again on the off chance you have an honourable judge it could work out to your advantage and others if it gets published.

Also it's not up to that court whether it's published or not, is it? In California a published opinion don't work that way, the Supreme Court makes the determination while attorneys "vote".
 

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Nov 14, 2009
1,451
246
63
Isisis,
Thanks for chiming in. I made a few changes and the reply is ready to file. I'll sleep on it for a few days and if I feel good for a couple days then I 'll know it's ready. I am getting for the next phase by reading "how to file a petition for review with the Supreme Court". Your contract argument does not apply to my case. I have no contract with BOfA, BONY or Ocwen. The note and all assignmens , indorsements were forgery and invalid.
The trial court already surprised me the fact that she was willing to put the court's reputation to bail out the bank and its attorneys. I am thinking about putting something like this in the reply:"Def/App prays this Court to save the courts from becoming the laughing stock of the nation by allowing the fraudsters stealing from the constituents who elected and compensate judicial officers of the courts". Should I?
Hard copies of 10 exhibits were returned after the trial without notice, before the judge issue order for foreclosure. At the time, I did not pay attention but now I realize the judge wanted to exclude the exhibits as evidence and just ruled on the fake note and the BOfA witness' false testimony, (no document is available for review by Appellate Court). Luckily, the exhibit I needed the most was attached to my response to MSJ, available electronically. I did my homework by reading the latest Appellate opinions about inadmissible hearsays for testimonies. A few pro ses lost because they did not spend the time even though the opinions were available.
Surely, the Appl judges know about fraud on the court and misrepresentation , regardless of securitization issues, whether they rule correctly is another question. I was surprised by the trial court's ruling so I am preparing for the worst. I explained servicing fraud to emphasize the point that the case is not about homeowners' not paying, it is about how debt collectors ripping off everybody. I want to find out how far up the banks buy, trial courts, Appellate courts, or even Supreme Court? I the courts want to become the laughing stock of the nation it is fine with me. The house is not worth whatever time I got left. Not only the banksters, law firms and attorneys are disgrace to legal profession so is the judge. Citizens are laughing at their courts. SAD!!! Selling principle for a few bucks. Just have to do the right thing.
 

wanda robo

LoanSafe Member
Sep 29, 2012
3,931
633
113
NJ

I'm so burnt out from this crap. Deja Vu & nobody cares. Will I listen to years of Hearings & inquiries, this time? Hell no.

Let's roll out "Phase Whatever", when we haven't even given anyone relief.

God give me strength. I hope everyone is healthy & stays that way. One of my friends/co-workers got tested today. I'm sure he is positive & he has MANY underlying health conditions and quite frankly, I pray he makes it.
 

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Nov 14, 2009
1,451
246
63

These distressed debt buyers, bought homes at deep-deep discount since 2009, forging paperwork to illegally foreclose for profit, paid themselves millions of dollars in salary and dividends, now claim they deserve bail-out on behalf of pensioners who are holding their stocks. Bunch of crooks.
 

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Jun 22, 2010
1,767
243
63
North bay
Isisis,
Thanks for chiming in. I made a few changes and the reply is ready to file. I'll sleep on it for a few days and if I feel good for a couple days then I 'll know it's ready. I am getting for the next phase by reading "how to file a petition for review with the Supreme Court". Your contract argument does not apply to my case. I have no contract with BOfA, BONY or Ocwen. The note and all assignmens , indorsements were forgery and invalid.
The trial court already surprised me the fact that she was willing to put the court's reputation to bail out the bank and its attorneys. I am thinking about putting something like this in the reply:"Def/App prays this Court to save the courts from becoming the laughing stock of the nation by allowing the fraudsters stealing from the constituents who elected and compensate judicial officers of the courts". Should I?
Hard copies of 10 exhibits were returned after the trial without notice, before the judge issue order for foreclosure. At the time, I did not pay attention but now I realize the judge wanted to exclude the exhibits as evidence and just ruled on the fake note and the BOfA witness' false testimony, (no document is available for review by Appellate Court). Luckily, the exhibit I needed the most was attached to my response to MSJ, available electronically. I did my homework by reading the latest Appellate opinions about inadmissible hearsays for testimonies. A few pro ses lost because they did not spend the time even though the opinions were available.
Surely, the Appl judges know about fraud on the court and misrepresentation , regardless of securitization issues, whether they rule correctly is another question. I was surprised by the trial court's ruling so I am preparing for the worst. I explained servicing fraud to emphasize the point that the case is not about homeowners' not paying, it is about how debt collectors ripping off everybody. I want to find out how far up the banks buy, trial courts, Appellate courts, or even Supreme Court? I the courts want to become the laughing stock of the nation it is fine with me. The house is not worth whatever time I got left. Not only the banksters, law firms and attorneys are disgrace to legal profession so is the judge. Citizens are laughing at their courts. SAD!!! Selling principle for a few bucks. Just have to do the right thing.
You're right, there's no contractual relationship between the borrower and the servicer but we agreed that a third party would service the loan. Even if we hadn't they had the right to have an agent act on their behalf so when a servicer tries to foreclose they're doing so as an agent with the authority to act for the alleged note holder.

Look at that in the context of the elements of a breach of contract which requires:

1. A contract.
2. A breach.
3. Performance or excuse for non performance.
4. Damages.

Your position as I see it is that there was once a contract and you defaulted but the actors are not agents for the person entitled to enforce and are consequently not entitled to your payments and thus have suffered no prejudice. Your excuse for non performance is that paying someone other than the PETE would not cure your default. They've not been damaged by the lack of payment to which they had no contractual right.

It's like quasi contract where they're trying to become unjustly enriched.

I was just put out by the bank's reply to your appeal, playing the Court with the deadbeat subtext, "this defaulting homeowner has no rights and isn't entitled to justice". Too many courts swallow this fiction whole. Even so as the California Supreme Court ruled in Yvanova,

“The borrower owes money not to the world at large but to a particular person or institution, and only the person or institution entitled to payment may enforce the debt by foreclosing on the security."

I share your frustration with courts looking they other way in the face of blatant fraud but they seem to be unable to get past the issue of default.
 

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Nov 14, 2009
1,451
246
63
You're right, there's no contractual relationship between the borrower and the servicer but we agreed that a third party would service the loan. Even if we hadn't they had the right to have an agent act on their behalf so when a servicer tries to foreclose they're doing so as an agent with the authority to act for the alleged note holder.

Look at that in the context of the elements of a breach of contract which requires:

1. A contract.
2. A breach.
3. Performance or excuse for non performance.
4. Damages.

Your position as I see it is that there was once a contract and you defaulted but the actors are not agents for the person entitled to enforce and are consequently not entitled to your payments and thus have suffered no prejudice. Your excuse for non performance is that paying someone other than the PETE would not cure your default. They've not been damaged by the lack of payment to which they had no contractual right.

It's like quasi contract where they're trying to become unjustly enriched.

I was just put out by the bank's reply to your appeal, playing the Court with the deadbeat subtext, "this defaulting homeowner has no rights and isn't entitled to justice". Too many courts swallow this fiction whole. Even so as the California Supreme Court ruled in Yvanova,

“The borrower owes money not to the world at large but to a particular person or institution, and only the person or institution entitled to payment may enforce the debt by foreclosing on the security."

I share your frustration with courts looking they other way in the face of blatant fraud but they seem to be unable to get past the issue of default.
To them I say: They are "missing the forest for the tree". First of all, I did not pay ransom to the servicer/debt-collector but I've already paid with the value of my time. Secondly, in my case, focusing on the $450K mortgage (the tree) while ignoring the servicing fraud (the forest) costing investors, tax payers billions of dollars in damage. My duty is to make this fact known by exposing these frauds to everybody.