moretrouble
LoanSafe Member
Ocwen stock is dropping a rock. Maybe somebody at CFPB is reading my letter.
Bagels at a Bar mitzvah Part II
- Thread starter isisis
- Start date
Survivor_IN
LoanSafe Member
moretrouble
LoanSafe Member
My letter was In post #8. They already spent at least $100K for the 4 attorneys trying to foreclose on my cheap 400K house. That was not too wise trying to get 400K risking million dollar loss of market cap. Wait till I file a complaint in the Federal court exposing the scam , wonder what would that do to the stock?
isisis
LoanSafe Member
I'm in federal court now and the usual suspects have scheduled a deposition. Along with the legal issues at hand I suppose this is a matter of psychological warfare. They're sizing me up to see how good the case is, whether I'd be a credible witness and looking for weakness to exploit. Some things I've read suggest saying as little as possible, being non combative and likable but then again if I wanted to be congenial and agreeable I wouldn't have taken these guys to federal court with allegations of oppressive unlawful conduct. So I'm tempted to use the opportunity to plead my case and am likely to find that irresistible but wondering if restraint is more advisable.
Complicating matters even further is having to search through my closet you see if I have any grown up clothes. Looking back this may not have been the best time to dye my hair purple. Also need to take out the nose ring and make sure my various tattoos are well hidden. Just kidding....sort of.
Complicating matters even further is having to search through my closet you see if I have any grown up clothes. Looking back this may not have been the best time to dye my hair purple. Also need to take out the nose ring and make sure my various tattoos are well hidden. Just kidding....sort of.
moretrouble
LoanSafe Member
Good luck , Isisis. If you're pro se don't expect to win. A pro se can not prevail because a pro se win would deem the law education acquired by the opposing attorneys (and the judge ) worthless, waste of time (and careers); as opposed we learn from the internet. You need to create enough trouble and incur enough costs for them so they will leave you alone. The advantage a pro se has is you can litigate all the way to the U. S Supreme Court with minimal legal fee. My motions, responses were about 300-page longs gave them plenty of time to read. Those attorneys probably loved me because of the fees they could charge. I look at this as exercise of the brain, staying away from dementia.
moretrouble
LoanSafe Member
In my case, the Court of Appeals were faced with 3 decisions:
1). Reversed with or w/o opinion.
2). Affirmed with opinion, and
3). Affirmed w/o opinion.
Number 1 is a no-no because the unwritten rule: pro se can not prevail. Number 2 is also a no-no because the whole world would be looking at the case laughing and wonder what is wrong with these judges? That leaves the only choice number 3. Being laughed at by one guy is much better than being laughed at by the whole world....So when you understand why they did what they did, everything becomes easy.
1). Reversed with or w/o opinion.
2). Affirmed with opinion, and
3). Affirmed w/o opinion.
Number 1 is a no-no because the unwritten rule: pro se can not prevail. Number 2 is also a no-no because the whole world would be looking at the case laughing and wonder what is wrong with these judges? That leaves the only choice number 3. Being laughed at by one guy is much better than being laughed at by the whole world....So when you understand why they did what they did, everything becomes easy.
Survivor_IN
LoanSafe Member
Hi Isisis.
Interesting developments ya got there. Did you do interrog's and RPDs first? I'm investigating further cause of action as separate matter and heading down that road. I really don't have much to give where other people exclusively hold the files. I think it always good to respond in kind and take advantage of discovery opportunities. Isis, you could have a heyday deposing those people!
In general, I think sometimes lawyers "depose" for the sake of saying they deposed. It's an upcharge for the client. I've done it some time ago. The want the full hour even if they only have 3 questions. Sometimes it's a trick to get you to feel comfortable or - the opposite - in order to make an admission they need. Just don't fall for that one and be consistent with your position and the facts. You will do fine. Zoom is an option nowadays too. Just pull the hair back and take out the nose ring first. lol
Survivor_IN
LoanSafe Member
Of course they're not going to write it down!!! Never document the crime. This is called the "golden rule."
isisis
LoanSafe Member
Deposition survived, went pretty well actually. It looks like the second time around in litigation they take you more seriously and upgrade you to a higher life form of attorney. This time there were no blank dear-in-the- headlights stares at the concept of a bilateral contract that was breached by the bank. In fact this guy was decidedly human, affable with a ready smile though I kept expecting him at any moment to peal off his human mask to reveal the creature within like in the movies.
It was of course somewhat frustrating as is the nature of depositions because it's a fishing expedition not a dialogue. His questions provided room to demonstrate how I'd been injured by their actions but not the opportunity to point out the legal consequences of breaching a contract. The loss they'd suffered by the lack of payments could have avoided had they complied with their own obligations under the contract and it would be inequitable to expect me to compensate them.
Still it was generally genial but grueling with some occasional drama like when the topic of the monthly scheduled sales allowed me to point out how barbaric and unlawful a practice it was to subject a borrower to a monthly mock execution.
I was glad I took the time to put on the appearance of a being responsible grown up when I walked in and realized it would be video taped. Yikes!
It was of course somewhat frustrating as is the nature of depositions because it's a fishing expedition not a dialogue. His questions provided room to demonstrate how I'd been injured by their actions but not the opportunity to point out the legal consequences of breaching a contract. The loss they'd suffered by the lack of payments could have avoided had they complied with their own obligations under the contract and it would be inequitable to expect me to compensate them.
Still it was generally genial but grueling with some occasional drama like when the topic of the monthly scheduled sales allowed me to point out how barbaric and unlawful a practice it was to subject a borrower to a monthly mock execution.
I was glad I took the time to put on the appearance of a being responsible grown up when I walked in and realized it would be video taped. Yikes!
moretrouble
LoanSafe Member
Interesting post from livinglies:
That would explain why I search on-line my foreclosure record shows the amount of default is 6,8 million dollars , more than 25 times the house was worth in 2012 (approx. 250K).
That would explain why I search on-line my foreclosure record shows the amount of default is 6,8 million dollars , more than 25 times the house was worth in 2012 (approx. 250K).
isisis
LoanSafe Member
Things are getting hairy. We had a settlement conference and Defendants offered a settlement - all smooth like they were offering me a deal. It was only slightly less onerous than the one in 2018. I suggested a more fitting repository for their settlement. Wasn't a picnic.
The mediator, generally a likable, hard-working fellow commented that in cases he's seen on the internet and that they always lose. That one rankled a bit. It was ok though because in this situation getting peeved is good because it makes me dig my heels in. It seems like in the final analysis the law flies out the window and it comes down to a matter of will.
The folks in the Ukraine provide a example of how free people stand up to injustice that should inspire us all.
Oh, and I've got a plan....
The mediator, generally a likable, hard-working fellow commented that in cases he's seen on the internet and that they always lose. That one rankled a bit. It was ok though because in this situation getting peeved is good because it makes me dig my heels in. It seems like in the final analysis the law flies out the window and it comes down to a matter of will.
The folks in the Ukraine provide a example of how free people stand up to injustice that should inspire us all.
Oh, and I've got a plan....
moretrouble
LoanSafe Member
Your settlement conf. reminds me of my own court-mandated mediation meeting. Before going in, I knew it was going to be a waste of my time but they (BOfA and Ocwen) convinced the judge let them tried the last time to suck me up into some kind of agreement to refute all my claims for a measly sum of 10K. I also knew that if I had accepted the offer they would have laughed at me saying "What a dummy MF". Inflation , we are paying for the banks' bailout.
Still in the house after 12 and a half years.
Still in the house after 12 and a half years.
Since you are still in the house, what did you end up landing on for terms?
moretrouble
LoanSafe Member
There is no term or agreement. I'll stay till the sheriff kicks me out.
OneHugeMess
LoanSafe Member
I want to say this out loud. For anyone reading this post, or thinking of challenging your foreclosure. Unless you are just attempting to stall time, and literally have zero desire to keep your home, I advise everyone to attempt to workout a Loan Modification of any kind, or to consider a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy if the modification fails.
But you should only get a Chapter 13, *IF* you have received actual financial counseling, and can afford a purposed plan payment. DO NOT JUST TAKE THE ADVICE OF A BANKRICPTY ATTORNEY, WHICH *RARELY* HAS YOUR BEST INTEREST AT HEART.
As time rolls and goes on, many people who have lost their homes, or walked away, have immense regret. Almost all of them are paying more in rent now, than they ever were on their crappy subprime mortgages. And further more, the loan mods, while sometimes crappy, would have eventually landed them to upside, in 2020, and on.
The Banks, have learned a lot since 2007. They no longer file cases in the name of MERS Inc, or lose promissory notes. Judges are far less sympathetic towards defendants, and housing, housing is a whole other world.
The entry into homeownership, even starter homes, is unprecedented. It's also becoming quickly out of reach, for most people. Beginner Condo's which once sold for $300,000, back in 2018, now regularly fetch well in excess of $575,000.
I just think... considering the facts, most people are far better off getting a loan mod, and paying a bank, and slowly, but surely, building equity, and having a secure, fixed payment. Despite what others say, this insane housing market will slow, but will not burst. And rental prices... well, a lot of people are going to suffer a slow death of a 1,000 cuts.
But you should only get a Chapter 13, *IF* you have received actual financial counseling, and can afford a purposed plan payment. DO NOT JUST TAKE THE ADVICE OF A BANKRICPTY ATTORNEY, WHICH *RARELY* HAS YOUR BEST INTEREST AT HEART.
As time rolls and goes on, many people who have lost their homes, or walked away, have immense regret. Almost all of them are paying more in rent now, than they ever were on their crappy subprime mortgages. And further more, the loan mods, while sometimes crappy, would have eventually landed them to upside, in 2020, and on.
The Banks, have learned a lot since 2007. They no longer file cases in the name of MERS Inc, or lose promissory notes. Judges are far less sympathetic towards defendants, and housing, housing is a whole other world.
The entry into homeownership, even starter homes, is unprecedented. It's also becoming quickly out of reach, for most people. Beginner Condo's which once sold for $300,000, back in 2018, now regularly fetch well in excess of $575,000.
I just think... considering the facts, most people are far better off getting a loan mod, and paying a bank, and slowly, but surely, building equity, and having a secure, fixed payment. Despite what others say, this insane housing market will slow, but will not burst. And rental prices... well, a lot of people are going to suffer a slow death of a 1,000 cuts.
isisis
LoanSafe Member
The culpable intent is fairly obvious a few years into a loan when the majority of the money borrowed has been repaid while the security has greatly appreciated. The servicer's better interests would be served by the borrower's default, a fact that can't have escaped them.
In some ways you can't blame the banks. They've never claimed to be moral arbitrators; they are in business to make money. Society doesn't function by rewarding virtue but by punishing wrongdoing. In the absence of consequences it would be possible to mistake that for sanction. The incentive and ease of accomplishment are factors as well. Misinformation relayed and relied upon by the borrower can make an extraordinary difference in the return on the investment; the difference between four figures monthly and six figures within year could prove irresistible.
It may occur to a servicer that it's wrong to mislead borrowers to their misfortune, it may even occur to them that they would be breaching the loan contract but that's a unlikely deterrent as a homeowner is unlikely to know their rights, even less likely to have the wherewithal to try to enforce them and in the unlikely event they are successful in court the servicer may simply offer the exhausted homeowner a settlement that increases the debt. This is the best our justice system can provide ordinary citizens who've been the victim of corporate greed. More commonly former homeowners are left to swing in the wind.
Everyone, the government, the courts and homeowners alike are in awe of the banks. They walk on water and are immune to the law. We are not yet anywhere near a classless society while the rich and powerful are still allowed to feed off the rest of us.
In some ways you can't blame the banks. They've never claimed to be moral arbitrators; they are in business to make money. Society doesn't function by rewarding virtue but by punishing wrongdoing. In the absence of consequences it would be possible to mistake that for sanction. The incentive and ease of accomplishment are factors as well. Misinformation relayed and relied upon by the borrower can make an extraordinary difference in the return on the investment; the difference between four figures monthly and six figures within year could prove irresistible.
It may occur to a servicer that it's wrong to mislead borrowers to their misfortune, it may even occur to them that they would be breaching the loan contract but that's a unlikely deterrent as a homeowner is unlikely to know their rights, even less likely to have the wherewithal to try to enforce them and in the unlikely event they are successful in court the servicer may simply offer the exhausted homeowner a settlement that increases the debt. This is the best our justice system can provide ordinary citizens who've been the victim of corporate greed. More commonly former homeowners are left to swing in the wind.
Everyone, the government, the courts and homeowners alike are in awe of the banks. They walk on water and are immune to the law. We are not yet anywhere near a classless society while the rich and powerful are still allowed to feed off the rest of us.
Agree, but at the same time we have rights as well. I am just not going to agree to a modification (that is terrible terms) without them showing justification of the amount due. I have asked repeatedly, and I have been thrown 6 different totals, I want/I'm entitled to these details. When asked over the phone they reply "well let's start off with finding what your payoff of the 1st is"? No, that's not what I'm asking, if if they can function separately from the 1st to their benefit then we are going to start there. What is my total due and how did you arrive at that number. Via mail, I can find 6 different amounts they stated. The payment ledger shows a $42k balance...so show me how the additional $60k is factored in!
isisis
LoanSafe Member
There's a handful of us on this thread still in our homes twelve years now. More Trouble, Annie Mac, Krafty, Survivor, me who else? I think all of us got to this point in different ways, perseverance being the most obvious. Something my attorney said in settlement suggested something else He said they aren't used to being up against someone like me. Not certain what he meant but I speculate it's something we all have in common. When a homeowner makes cogent arguments and doesn't treat the bank with reverence but with the same consideration they'd show any human this throws them off balance. They become disoriented at the thought of something greater than themselves in the dominance hierarchy, the law for instance....
It's certainly not a hard and fast rule because many of us have lost our homes but at least so far a good percentage have held them off. Possibly there's people in risk analysis who're taking into consideration the potential greater liability of a completed wrongful foreclosure.
BTW, we may be able to claim the costs of preventing a wrongful foreclosure resulting in irreparable loss as mitigating damages and therefore recoverable.
moretrouble
LoanSafe Member
Sub-prime mortgages were a scheme used by people who are not smart enough to get rich by inventing/innovating or doing something useful for society or by helping people but smart enough to wheel and deal (mostly in financial sector).
As I detailed in my court documents, the originators (i.e. Ameriquest, New Century, Countrywide)committed predatory lending to generate as much asset as possible to sell to the sponsors (Residential Funding GMAC). The sponsors sold the loans into multiple trusts collecting many times the original loans (that's why my reported default amount was 2 point six mills on a balance of 250K, 104 times, the amount that they write off on their taxes). When the financial crisis hit mostly because the house price were inflated to fatten profits, the sponsors/master-servicers liquidated the defaulted loans from the trusts (and take control and became the owners) after 90 days conforming to most Pooling and Servicing Agreements. That's why servicers required you not to pay for 90 days so the control go to them. The sponsors could not pay multiple mortgage bond holders of multiple trusts so they went bankrupt, here comes the successors: Bank of America, U. S. Bank, Nation Star, Owen, PHH.... the successors bought the servicing right out -of bankuptcy fo pennies on the dollar (on my 50K HELOC: GreenTree paid $700 for the right to collect on my 50K balance, 1.4 cents on the dollar, later New Residential paid 2 percent of that 1.4 cents for the same right to collect on my same 50K balance). So you can see why buying and collecting on distressed-mortgages is so profitable. You can make thousand percent on your investment. All the data were reported in their financial documents sec.gov.
Because there are liens on the mortgages so the debt-buyers can fabricate documents and enforce them and steal your houses based on the laws that they change by greasing the legislators (lobbying and campaign contributions). They hire low-level employees to create notes and assignments and alongues to make the docs look legitimate and hire third-tiered attorneys to misrepresent in courts using the trust names. They blatantly ignore the laws because they know the judges will willingly to be fooled by the fake documents and lack the courage to hold them responsible for their crimes.
OHM is right in saying the house prices will continue, mostly because the main purpose of the Fed is to enrich its master, the banks. Until now, all the money printing (3 trillions to bail out the banks) finally shows up in inflation that everybody is paying threatening the incumbents , they are starting to get serious. OHM is also right in suggesting that you should get a mod because it is difficult to fight the fraudsters. Fighting the fraudsters will take a lot of time, effort and money. They know it too. Paying an attorney for foreclosure defense could cost you more than your house payments while doing it yourself takes time/effort to research and learn the laws.
Also there are homeowners who lost in trial courts then appeal courts but still in the house.
Just want to point out the facts so everybody can make his/her own decision.
As I detailed in my court documents, the originators (i.e. Ameriquest, New Century, Countrywide)committed predatory lending to generate as much asset as possible to sell to the sponsors (Residential Funding GMAC). The sponsors sold the loans into multiple trusts collecting many times the original loans (that's why my reported default amount was 2 point six mills on a balance of 250K, 104 times, the amount that they write off on their taxes). When the financial crisis hit mostly because the house price were inflated to fatten profits, the sponsors/master-servicers liquidated the defaulted loans from the trusts (and take control and became the owners) after 90 days conforming to most Pooling and Servicing Agreements. That's why servicers required you not to pay for 90 days so the control go to them. The sponsors could not pay multiple mortgage bond holders of multiple trusts so they went bankrupt, here comes the successors: Bank of America, U. S. Bank, Nation Star, Owen, PHH.... the successors bought the servicing right out -of bankuptcy fo pennies on the dollar (on my 50K HELOC: GreenTree paid $700 for the right to collect on my 50K balance, 1.4 cents on the dollar, later New Residential paid 2 percent of that 1.4 cents for the same right to collect on my same 50K balance). So you can see why buying and collecting on distressed-mortgages is so profitable. You can make thousand percent on your investment. All the data were reported in their financial documents sec.gov.
Because there are liens on the mortgages so the debt-buyers can fabricate documents and enforce them and steal your houses based on the laws that they change by greasing the legislators (lobbying and campaign contributions). They hire low-level employees to create notes and assignments and alongues to make the docs look legitimate and hire third-tiered attorneys to misrepresent in courts using the trust names. They blatantly ignore the laws because they know the judges will willingly to be fooled by the fake documents and lack the courage to hold them responsible for their crimes.
OHM is right in saying the house prices will continue, mostly because the main purpose of the Fed is to enrich its master, the banks. Until now, all the money printing (3 trillions to bail out the banks) finally shows up in inflation that everybody is paying threatening the incumbents , they are starting to get serious. OHM is also right in suggesting that you should get a mod because it is difficult to fight the fraudsters. Fighting the fraudsters will take a lot of time, effort and money. They know it too. Paying an attorney for foreclosure defense could cost you more than your house payments while doing it yourself takes time/effort to research and learn the laws.
Also there are homeowners who lost in trial courts then appeal courts but still in the house.
Just want to point out the facts so everybody can make his/her own decision.
kraftykrab
LoanSafe Member
There's only one situation in which you should EVER get a mod....and that's if you are confident that the party claiming to have the right to enforce any note you are involved with actually does have that right....AT NO OTHER TIME should you sign any loan mod....PERIOD.
A loan mod creates a new loan. It creates a new indebtedness. It is you signing to the effect that you agree that you owe THAT party THAT money. A loan mod has other side effects as well--it could very well negate your disputes because it is you agreeing to what they claim. If you dispute owing that party the money, and you sign a loan mod agreeing that you are to pay that money to that party, your dispute just went down the drain, and it WILL be used against you in court...count on it.
Meanwhile, a party that could very well--and in many cases, is--a stranger to the transaction is now claiming the balance on their books as an asset. No thanks. See, that's NOT going to save your home for you if an actual party in interest shows up and claims that you owe THEM for the loan. And it has happened. In many states, they are supposed to allow for protection against someone else coming forward claiming to be the proper party, especially in cases where the "note was lost". This is something I brought up in my own case and the judge ignored it even though I cited the statute in our laws that requires it.
Generally, some of what was posted here may be right, but I generally cannot agree overall. Sooner or later, something will have to give. Push and shove are going to meet on the same corner. We all know that not everyone loses this fight, but thanks to things like NDAs in settlements, we're not going to hear about most of those. At the end of the day, yes, it is exhausting. Yes, we all want the fight to be over. But while I cannot guarantee you your outcome if you fight, I CAN guarantee you that they win if we don't fight. Would you rather be guaranteed to lose? Or would you rather at least take a shot at fighting for what's right? The first case against me was filed 11 years and 5 months ago, very much in bad faith. The second one was filed more than 8 years ago. If I had agreed to a mod, it would have been the Caliber Home Loans special--5 years deferred interest followed by a surprise lump sum due immediately afterward. Not a single thing about their offer was good for anyone--except them. They admitted not being the correct party, and yet, they wanted to profit off of their own mistakes and lies. Nope. For those of you who don't know about the Caliber predatory disaster that was their "loan mod offer", google it sometime with the bowl of popcorn ready. And remember too, folks, the supposed trustee even admitted to me in writing that they had no involvement or authority regarding the property address in question...how can you be a trustee if you have no involvement, no authority, and you admit that you cannot even tell if a given loan is delinquent or not? Isn't a trustee by law supposed to be involved and have that authority?
Side note, I'd love to know who "bobwoods" is on this forum. Joined April 4, immediately started following me, and then has not been here ever since. No, that's not suspicious at all. No comments or posts made. Just joined, followed me, and left. Since you can set up email alerts when someone posts that you're following, they don't appear to have any reason to come here unless I post. So, I guess we'll see what "Bob" does next....or is it Ashley? Time will tell, I suppose.
A loan mod creates a new loan. It creates a new indebtedness. It is you signing to the effect that you agree that you owe THAT party THAT money. A loan mod has other side effects as well--it could very well negate your disputes because it is you agreeing to what they claim. If you dispute owing that party the money, and you sign a loan mod agreeing that you are to pay that money to that party, your dispute just went down the drain, and it WILL be used against you in court...count on it.
Meanwhile, a party that could very well--and in many cases, is--a stranger to the transaction is now claiming the balance on their books as an asset. No thanks. See, that's NOT going to save your home for you if an actual party in interest shows up and claims that you owe THEM for the loan. And it has happened. In many states, they are supposed to allow for protection against someone else coming forward claiming to be the proper party, especially in cases where the "note was lost". This is something I brought up in my own case and the judge ignored it even though I cited the statute in our laws that requires it.
Generally, some of what was posted here may be right, but I generally cannot agree overall. Sooner or later, something will have to give. Push and shove are going to meet on the same corner. We all know that not everyone loses this fight, but thanks to things like NDAs in settlements, we're not going to hear about most of those. At the end of the day, yes, it is exhausting. Yes, we all want the fight to be over. But while I cannot guarantee you your outcome if you fight, I CAN guarantee you that they win if we don't fight. Would you rather be guaranteed to lose? Or would you rather at least take a shot at fighting for what's right? The first case against me was filed 11 years and 5 months ago, very much in bad faith. The second one was filed more than 8 years ago. If I had agreed to a mod, it would have been the Caliber Home Loans special--5 years deferred interest followed by a surprise lump sum due immediately afterward. Not a single thing about their offer was good for anyone--except them. They admitted not being the correct party, and yet, they wanted to profit off of their own mistakes and lies. Nope. For those of you who don't know about the Caliber predatory disaster that was their "loan mod offer", google it sometime with the bowl of popcorn ready. And remember too, folks, the supposed trustee even admitted to me in writing that they had no involvement or authority regarding the property address in question...how can you be a trustee if you have no involvement, no authority, and you admit that you cannot even tell if a given loan is delinquent or not? Isn't a trustee by law supposed to be involved and have that authority?
Side note, I'd love to know who "bobwoods" is on this forum. Joined April 4, immediately started following me, and then has not been here ever since. No, that's not suspicious at all. No comments or posts made. Just joined, followed me, and left. Since you can set up email alerts when someone posts that you're following, they don't appear to have any reason to come here unless I post. So, I guess we'll see what "Bob" does next....or is it Ashley? Time will tell, I suppose.