Bagels at a Bar Mitzvah

isisis

LoanSafe Member
They changed servicers on me too....once they realized they might have screwed up. They could be relying on the perceived lack of liability for successor servicer and playing hot potato.

That kind of pissed me off for awhile and I kept thinking there had to be a corollary in civil law for the criminal prohibition of not selling stolen goods. Took awhile to find it but here's an example in California case law:

Each participant in the wrongful act is responsible as a joint tortfeasor for all damages ensuing from the wrong. ..."
Duff v. Engelberg, 237 Cal. App. 2d 505, 47 Cal. Rptr. 114 (Ct. App. 1965).
 

isisis

LoanSafe Member
The reason I'm feeling slightly optimistic in litigation this time around is that the other side pulled some really braindead maneuvers, the kind of decisions you make when you're greedy and assume the law doesn't apply to you. They forgot that in order to foreclose the other party has to be in default and non-payment and default are not synonymous. They've become so confident in using the contract as a weapon and a means to profit that they've forgotten how contacts work and think they're a one-way street. That's their Achilles heel.

The lack of contractual authority to enforce is a protection but because it's not sufficiently powerful in the face of greed that's where the FDCPA comes in. Contract remedies are generally somewhat benign; because a breach isn't a wrong per se they're not intended to be a deterrent. But a strict liability tort remedy including punitive can pack a punch.

I'm hopeful because of their recklessness and also in a better position from the additional opportunity to study the intricacies of contract and consumer law. At the same time I'm nauseous at the thought of playing courtroom Russian roulette again and let's face it eleven years of non-payment will create no inconsiderable prejudice in the mind of any court but I'm betting on legal doctrines to overcome that. Well, that and common sense. If a mortgage company intentionally prevents payments with a series of fraudulent actions they've induced default and prevented performance as an investment. Greed is a byproduct of a system where the stronger party has every incentive to use their superior power to increase their profit by taking advantage. When their investment is secured by real estate worth far more than the debt and the prospect of liability is unlikely it's a open playing field for injustice. They need to be called on that.

So, yeah it's scary. But it's also more personal now. These guys are trying to bring me down and they've shown their willingness to break the law in the process. That arrogance makes me angry. In the past year they scheduled something like eight foreclosure sales only to cancel at the last minute, the mock execution. They've been using it as an intimidation tactic to wear me down as if repeated harassment in the collection of a debt wasn't a violation of federal law. I want the court to see just how corrupt these bounty hunters are.
 

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
Yes, it's that time again. I too am tired of shennanigans and abuse of process. I started feeling the anxiety halfway through March cause I knew the banks would be ready and the motions volly started promptly.

I got another amended MSJ which is eerily suspicious. The one from 2019 was never ruled on. It's obviously contested but why on earth would a court allow this without dismissing the prior MSJ? It does appear the attorneys for the robo-mill are avoiding servicing and making misrepresentations to the court with their service sheets. It's as if they have determined it is merely "a piece of paper necessary for litigation" and they include it as part of the whole without regard to their signed affirmation that what is written is true. I do believe this is considered false swearing and worthy of a bar complaint. I also noticed they tried to cure their first attorney-written military affidavit errors and hearsay. (also false swearing)

The mill spent the whole of COVID having the case reviewed multiple by attorneys (who they are now including in the "notice/service sheet.") I think they decided to do the "don't ask just do" and submitted a "fresh" MSJ as soon as they saw courts opening. You know, elbowing back to the forefront of the docket.

It seems that so much foreclosure practice involves deceptive means to achieve an end. Opposing counsel has now completed two (behind the scenes) rubber stamped "amendments" without providing notice or an opportunity to object and argue as they AVOIDED service and did not mail or used a false address.

The uploading of false and unverified information attached to my name and identity really, really pisses me off. (Yo, I'm not getting critical legal filings.) This is a continuation of the initial identity theft and fortunately, they are leaving an independent trail in spite of refusal to cooperate in discovery.

They really did shoot themselves in the foot as they actually taunted me, in this response, when they referred to discoveryof title reports and liens included in the FC was not necessary, amongst other things attempting to override my defenses and claims. The courts must have been updating online databases during COVID and I finally discovered what they were hiding. I'm with Krafty on getting repeated obstruction of certain materials in discovery. I can't complete my case without verifications and they know it.
 

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
Hey, guys, one more thing for now....there was a case, I think in FL some years ago, where a foreclosure attorney got sanctioned over $100K by the court. He claimed throughout the action that he was there representing his client US Bank Trust. As it turns out, US Bank Trust was never his client, and he had misled the court and the borrowers all along. At the end of the case, the judge ruled in favor of the homeowners, and ordered USBT to pay their legal expenses. That's when the FC atty decided to inform the court that US Bank was never his client, that he actually represented the servicer instead. The court made that attorney pay the $100K. Anyone remember the case? Want to review it again.
Sounds like David Stern... In this case below, the attorney was fined $500 over discovery sanction and the sanctions included dismissal of the foreclosure case. Read the footnotes for details. This is the banks appeal and they did get it reversed. The reasoning is interesting because they considered that the delays did not prejudice them. Whethor or not you are prejudiced by a lack of discovery matters in deciding to sanction. So how it harms you will matter when it comes to sanctions. But, oh how odd, here they are fighting over something like 8 days and my discovery has been obstructed for months and months.
US BANK V. WHYTE, ET AL. :: 2014 :: Florida Third District Court of Appeal Decisions :: Florida Case Law :: Florida Law :: US Law :: Justia
 

kraftykrab

LoanSafe Member
Sounds like David Stern... In this case below, the attorney was fined $500 over discovery sanction and the sanctions included dismissal of the foreclosure case. Read the footnotes for details. This is the banks appeal and they did get it reversed. The reasoning is interesting because they considered that the delays did not prejudice them. Whethor or not you are prejudiced by a lack of discovery matters in deciding to sanction. So how it harms you will matter when it comes to sanctions. But, oh how odd, here they are fighting over something like 8 days and my discovery has been obstructed for months and months.
US BANK V. WHYTE, ET AL. :: 2014 :: Florida Third District Court of Appeal Decisions :: Florida Case Law :: Florida Law :: US Law :: Justia
Appreciate you all looking out for me on this, but I still cannot find the case in question. Here's the only thing I can find on it now:


"The problem is how the Bank can tell the court the truth without getting thrown in jail. Some years back U.S. Bank was ordered to pay $100,000 in sanctions after the attorney admitted he had no contact with U.S. Bank and that he could find no retainer or other correspondence indicating that U.S. bank had hired him or his firm. He was just following the orders of the “servicer” whose authority was claimed from a trust that didn’t exist with “investors” who in fact had no right, title or interest to the debt, note or mortgage. "

This is also on livinglies, but I cannot find any reference to the actual identity of the case anywhere.

I have seen a lot of things online that mention US Bank Trust as doing this in a lot of cases but I cannot find any.
 

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Appreciate you all looking out for me on this, but I still cannot find the case in question. Here's the only thing I can find on it now:


"The problem is how the Bank can tell the court the truth without getting thrown in jail. Some years back U.S. Bank was ordered to pay $100,000 in sanctions after the attorney admitted he had no contact with U.S. Bank and that he could find no retainer or other correspondence indicating that U.S. bank had hired him or his firm. He was just following the orders of the “servicer” whose authority was claimed from a trust that didn’t exist with “investors” who in fact had no right, title or interest to the debt, note or mortgage. "

This is also on livinglies, but I cannot find any reference to the actual identity of the case anywhere.

I have seen a lot of things online that mention US Bank Trust as doing this in a lot of cases but I cannot find any.
It’s so true. The facts in the fraud stoppers.org link were evidenced in my court case. We have to keep fighting but based on my experience do not expect too much from the state court. Even if after they get the judgement they have to enforce it by eviction. Assuming they succeed we still have wrongful foreclosure claim. Maybe we ‘ll wear them out.
 

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
The house was worth 109k in the above case. Maybe they considered included as a sanction? Idk. Some info is not accessible online anymore. I've been through 3 computers since this all started too. I had an old one from FL that I was trying to find too. Maybe try using the "wayback machine" to search? (Search engine on things that have been removed)
 

kraftykrab

LoanSafe Member
For you, Krafty
Wow, return of equity of 53%, only in the foreclosure business. Normal return in other businesses is around 10%
Now that's interesting...

Lone Star Funds has gotten significantly better than 20% return on every single one of its funds....which is basically unheard of. They have never had a loss on their funds, and have always been rather steady profits.
 

kraftykrab

LoanSafe Member
For you, Krafty
Wow, return of equity of 53%, only in the foreclosure business. Normal return in other businesses is around 10%
I'll do you one better....Caliber Home Loans is going public. As of 1/2021, they filed an S-1/A, an amended S-1 form with the SEC, stating that there will be an initial offering of public stock. So, you too can invest in the company that has robbed and ripped off thousands!!
 

arrgy

LoanSafe Member
I had my MSJ, which was continued for a week. I think they were all honestly surprised. My loan was sold through the DASP program. My argument (which the Plaintiff's evidence clearly shows) was that the old plaintiff in an older foreclosure case sent the loan to the program through HUD while still in loss mitigation. I stated this violated the terms of the note and mortgage, and violated Federal Law, the Rules and Regs of HUD and even state law. I stated that the old servicer obviously lied to me and to the court, because they told the court that the loan was sold to someone else, which isn't truth, it was sent to HUD, not only that, they assigned the note to HUD in June 2016, and tried to certify with the court that loss mitigation was exhausted in October 2016, the claim date on the assignment from HUD to the old servicer is also June 2016. So the old servicer got paid and got rid of the note and then tried to say 4 months later loss mitigation was done and we sold the note. So there is an order from the court from a foreclosure 5 years ago that is inaccurate. At one point the judge, a nice guy so far, asked what did this have to do with this current case, and I told him because it breaks the chain of the title, or clouds it, state law is clear: a transfer of land through deception is void.
Plaintiff argued that the old foreclosure case was dismissed as a result of me signing a modification, and that they were not the current plaintiffs. He stated that I might have some damages coming to me from the old plaintiff but how are they responsible. My response was that the plaintiffs apparent ownership of the note was a result of buying the note from HUD, a note that violated several laws and was done through deception. YOU (the plaintiff) or even BOTH of us have a claim now against HUD and the old note holder, but there is no way this can't be decided without further discovery and trial. I stated to the judge, that I intend to bring the old note holder into this and enjoin him to find out what exactly happened. The assignment of mortgage in my county's deed book was done a year after I signed this modification, which I thought was still an FHA loan. I paid for the premiums, etc. not even the court knew who owned the note because the order from the court states that the note was transferred to "someone else." Had I known this, I would have challenged it and not signed the modification, but that is besides the point.
So we are all to meet again in a week. I guess that might be a good sign.
 

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Latest in the news:


In the article:
"Average foreclosure timeline increases 8 percent in first quarter 2021
Properties foreclosed in the first quarter of 2021 had been in the foreclosure process an average of 930 days, up 8 percent from an average 857 days for properties foreclosed in the fourth quarter of 2020 and up 38 percent from an average of 673 days for properties foreclosed in the first quarter of 2020. "
If you fight and know how to, it could be 4500 days and going like some of us here. :). I still remember one of my colleagues whom I recommended to challenge the foreclosure from Chase back in 2010 but she decided not to because of the hit to credit scores, came back 3 years later and told me she wished she had listened to me.
 

arrgy

LoanSafe Member
Wow. The plaintiff filed something so dumb before my hearing, I can't believe it. An affidavit stating that my current mortgage is NOT currently FHA insured, etc. As evidence, they printed off a copy of my mortgage off the internet and someone rubber stamped REDACTED on it, and blacked out the FHA number. How dumb.
Now I have to file a Motion in Limine to get this statement excluded, they will have to respond. If they fight it, they will have to describe how it converted from FHA to non-FHA through DASP, which proves my case..that my loan was put in the DASP pool without loss mitigation being completed, and thus the old owner broke Federal Law and lied to the court, and the chain of title is broken, therefore they have no standing since you can't transfer anything in equity as a result of deception or breaking federal law. If they fight it and I win (and the loan is somehow still FHA??) then wow all the issues about servicing that goes on around that.
 

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Wow. The plaintiff filed something so dumb before my hearing, I can't believe it. An affidavit stating that my current mortgage is NOT currently FHA insured, etc. As evidence, they printed off a copy of my mortgage off the internet and someone rubber stamped REDACTED on it, and blacked out the FHA number. How dumb.
Now I have to file a Motion in Limine to get this statement excluded, they will have to respond. If they fight it, they will have to describe how it converted from FHA to non-FHA through DASP, which proves my case..that my loan was put in the DASP pool without loss mitigation being completed, and thus the old owner broke Federal Law and lied to the court, and the chain of title is broken, therefore they have no standing since you can't transfer anything in equity as a result of deception or breaking federal law. If they fight it and I win (and the loan is somehow still FHA??) then wow all the issues about servicing that goes on around that.
These guys are arrogant. Expect them to do dumb things and - unfortunately -to get away with it all too often. But call them on it anyway.
 

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Wow. The plaintiff filed something so dumb before my hearing, I can't believe it. An affidavit stating that my current mortgage is NOT currently FHA insured, etc. As evidence, they printed off a copy of my mortgage off the internet and someone rubber stamped REDACTED on it, and blacked out the FHA number. How dumb.
Now I have to file a Motion in Limine to get this statement excluded, they will have to respond. If they fight it, they will have to describe how it converted from FHA to non-FHA through DASP, which proves my case..that my loan was put in the DASP pool without loss mitigation being completed, and thus the old owner broke Federal Law and lied to the court, and the chain of title is broken, therefore they have no standing since you can't transfer anything in equity as a result of deception or breaking federal law. If they fight it and I win (and the loan is somehow still FHA??) then wow all the issues about servicing that goes on around that.
I am not surprised. Wanda told me before my case started I did not believe the court system was that bad. In my case, Bank of America printed my note, applied indorsement, submitted to the court as evidence to foreclose in the name of Bank of New York which can not be the owner due to securities fraud issues . Somehow the judge found the note looked authentic and award them the judgement of foreclosure. Get used dealing with a bunch of coward judges for some reasons do not stand up to the banks and their attorneys, and a corrupt state court system (don't know about the Federal court system yet). I am waiting for them to enforce the judgement to sue them in the Federal court to find out if the Fed court is the same as the state court. Don't want the house anyway.
 

arrgy

LoanSafe Member
In my case, there is no evidence to make up. All the evidence has been sitting in the court records and county deeds records for years. They copied it and used it in their MSJ. All I did was turn to a page in their 50 page motion and say to the judge. "See this date that the Plaintiff supplied as evidence? This date doesn't match or come close to matching this date on this other page that was submitted."
What was hysterical was we were doing the Zoom motion meeting, and I was sitting there watching all the people on my monitor. And the plantiff attorney did his 5 minute Summary Judgment speech, going as fast as he could, then when it came to me and I pointed out the glaring problem of "Hey you put a loan in the DASP pool that the court certified was still in loss mitigation AND you lied to the court about it AND you sent it to HUD anyway." The other lawyer immediately jumped on his computer and started typing something, the judge got this puzzled look on his face and then looked up as I was pointing out evidence, and he had this oh shit look as well.
But my strategy is to have them prove my case. I will submit a motion to strike, and word it so that they have to tell the court the exact date and reason why the FHA stuff doesn't apply anymore. I just keep using their own evidence against them.
 

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
Wow! You did GREAT!!
Yes. They do tend to pound in a certain amount of "paper proofs." Even contradictory paper. These foreclosure counsels seek the "assumption that it is true" as "proof." It doesn't work that way UNLESS they believe the party in charge (Judge or otherwise) just wants to rubberstamp the docs and complete the processing. Good to have a real hearing and opportunity to argue the evidence. It's very hard to get a fair hearing. Sounds like you have a plan.

In my case, there is no evidence to make up. All the evidence has been sitting in the court records and county deeds records for years. They copied it and used it in their MSJ. All I did was turn to a page in their 50 page motion and say to the judge. "See this date that the Plaintiff supplied as evidence? This date doesn't match or come close to matching this date on this other page that was submitted."
What was hysterical was we were doing the Zoom motion meeting, and I was sitting there watching all the people on my monitor. And the plantiff attorney did his 5 minute Summary Judgment speech, going as fast as he could, then when it came to me and I pointed out the glaring problem of "Hey you put a loan in the DASP pool that the court certified was still in loss mitigation AND you lied to the court about it AND you sent it to HUD anyway." The other lawyer immediately jumped on his computer and started typing something, the judge got this puzzled look on his face and then looked up as I was pointing out evidence, and he had this oh shit look as well.
But my strategy is to have them prove my case. I will submit a motion to strike, and word it so that they have to tell the court the exact date and reason why the FHA stuff doesn't apply anymore. I just keep using their own evidence against them.
 

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
As far as old cases and filings, I believe there is a certain amount of estoppel where a party is preventing from contradicting itself, relitigating an old case, or altering facts. The fact that certain items were hidden and only discovered later (because someone made a material misrepresentation) are in your favor where Plaintiff has lied to the court. This tends to show intent. Transferring servicing (or the note) does tend to wash things for them.
 
Top