Bagels at a Bar Mitzvah

PatZZ

LoanSafe Member
New update....this is too funny....

So, recently, I filed a motion for leave of court so I could amend my answer, and also to file a new counter claim against the supposed new plaintiff. The motion was granted a couple weeks ago. Today, I get a lovely surprise in the mail....knowing that I moved for leave of court, and that it was granted so I could update my answer and claims.....these idiots filed a MSJ. This just keeps getting better and better!

There's a law in my state that says whenever a lawsuit is based on a promissory note that's been lost, there MUST be a reasonable effort taken to recover the note. There MUST be a published announcement in a local newspaper, and it MUST all be done, according to the law itself, "within a reasonable time". So here's how it went down....

1--I received a "lost note affidavit" years ago from the so-called plaintiff....it's dated from mid 2012. This means the note was discovered to be missing back then. I received this LNA in mid-2014.

2--I received a SECOND LNA back early last year. This one is identical to the first, but dated at the end of 2012. Even has the same person signing as "vice president", but with a different notary than the first.

3--I received the THIRD LNA today in the mail with their MSJ. It's completely different, from a different signer. Signer is an employee of Caliber, the so-called servicer. This signer speaks as though she has authority to speak for US Bank Trust, LSF8, AND HSBC, the supposed original lender. She makes no mention at all of how she has any knowledge or authority to speak for all these different entities...but the best part, she tosses in a vague paragraph at the very end of her affidavit. This vague paragraph is the small section that basically says "the note's been lost. It cannot be located. HSBC did perform a diligent search and cannot find it. HSBC had it in their possession when it became lost, and HSBC was entitled to enforce it at that time. They did not lose it through transfer or sale."

Seems to me, she's speaking all kinds of nonsense that she does not establish that she has any authority or ability to speak on. But that's not all. They just published the lost note last month. They were aware for more than FIVE YEARS that the note was lost.....and in order to satisfy the requirement of a law that says it MUST be published "within a reasonable time", they decide to publish it NOW. What on earth can possibly "reasonable" about learning that a note is lost, then waiting more than five years to finally publish its loss???? These guys are betting on the thought that I do not know the law or the requirements. I have case law that shows lawsuits being thrown in the garbage because the plaintiff did not follow this law....more to come....
 
New update....this is too funny....

So, recently, I filed a motion for leave of court so I could amend my answer, and also to file a new counter claim against the supposed new plaintiff. The motion was granted a couple weeks ago. Today, I get a lovely surprise in the mail....knowing that I moved for leave of court, and that it was granted so I could update my answer and claims.....these idiots filed a MSJ. This just keeps getting better and better!

There's a law in my state that says whenever a lawsuit is based on a promissory note that's been lost, there MUST be a reasonable effort taken to recover the note. There MUST be a published announcement in a local newspaper, and it MUST all be done, according to the law itself, "within a reasonable time". So here's how it went down....

1--I received a "lost note affidavit" years ago from the so-called plaintiff....it's dated from mid 2012. This means the note was discovered to be missing back then. I received this LNA in mid-2014.

2--I received a SECOND LNA back early last year. This one is identical to the first, but dated at the end of 2012. Even has the same person signing as "vice president", but with a different notary than the first.

3--I received the THIRD LNA today in the mail with their MSJ. It's completely different, from a different signer. Signer is an employee of Caliber, the so-called servicer. This signer speaks as though she has authority to speak for US Bank Trust, LSF8, AND HSBC, the supposed original lender. She makes no mention at all of how she has any knowledge or authority to speak for all these different entities...but the best part, she tosses in a vague paragraph at the very end of her affidavit. This vague paragraph is the small section that basically says "the note's been lost. It cannot be located. HSBC did perform a diligent search and cannot find it. HSBC had it in their possession when it became lost, and HSBC was entitled to enforce it at that time. They did not lose it through transfer or sale."

Seems to me, she's speaking all kinds of nonsense that she does not establish that she has any authority or ability to speak on. But that's not all. They just published the lost note last month. They were aware for more than FIVE YEARS that the note was lost.....and in order to satisfy the requirement of a law that says it MUST be published "within a reasonable time", they decide to publish it NOW. What on earth can possibly "reasonable" about learning that a note is lost, then waiting more than five years to finally publish its loss???? These guys are betting on the thought that I do not know the law or the requirements. I have case law that shows lawsuits being thrown in the garbage because the plaintiff did not follow this law....more to come....

Seems to me that the affidavit is based on hearsay. The only entity that can say it had the right to enforce the Note at the time it was lost is HSBC and the only entity that could publish it lost the Note, again, is HSBC.
That, coupled with the fact that it was HSBC who pushed you into default (because they were too preoccupied with laundering money) gives you a very strong case.
 
Seems to me that the affidavit is based on hearsay. The only entity that can say it had the right to enforce the Note at the time it was lost is HSBC and the only entity that could publish it lost the Note, again, is HSBC.
That, coupled with the fact that it was HSBC who pushed you into default (because they were too preoccupied with laundering money) gives you a very strong case.
The affidavit says that the lady who made it has been working at Caliber for "4.75 years". Prior to that, she worked at the San Diego Zoo....I found her online. So, she was not even at Caliber, or even in the mortgage industry, when the note was lost....so I would LOVE to know how she has any business speaking on the topic like this. Oh, and here's something else....I just sent for a copy of a lien document from San Diego County that involves my original robosigner--something for him in his own life, not something from Caliber. Should be here by the end of the week, since I could not view it online. We will see who's really been signing these things...and who has not. Well, we already know that at least 2 dozen different people have been signing as this one guy, but now it's time to find out if he's actually been signing any of these or not.
 

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Since I began this thread over six years ago I've discussed and considered foreclosure in a somewhat abstract manner. Well, as detached as you can get faced with the white knuckle prospect of foreclosure sales scheduled just hours away and trusting to the strength of the law prevailing over avarice - something that can get pretty sketchy in a non judicial state where foreclosure is a "self help" remedy. However, my former abstraction's a thing of the past as the visceral reality has hit ground zero and become up close and personal.

Our friend was evicted recently from her home of sixteen years. A single woman with a kind heart she has five dogs she'd taken in from rescue shelters. Now that she's homeless she's having to give them up. Those of you without pets should know that this would feel like selling your children into slavery or having to say goodbye forever without explanation to your most loyal friends who sustained you through the toughest times. Unthinkable, heartbreaking and not an uncommon side effect of the mortgage fiasco where countless families have been forced out of their homes because banks are unwilling to provide affordable loan terms and will circumvent every means provided to prevent foreclosures out of pure lawbreaking greed.

This is an abuse of power. They are in a position of complete control and the imbalance of economics and legal knowledge and expertise place the homeowner at considerable risk. In our friend's situation she qualified for TARP funds under two different programs that could have saved her home. The aforementioned circumvention took place. The foreclosing entity or their agents committed felonies of various sorts in the process of foreclosing, a fact well-known to government agencies and seemingly condoned by their non action.

If the government is powerless against the unfair business practices by the banks then everyone is screwed, everyone is at risk. Even people with low interest rate loans and high paying jobs all because of the nature of the mortgage loan contract. Abuse is inevitable in a contract where one party's investment is always at risk while the other party benefits from default and the risk and benefit proportionally increase over time. Consider our friend's situation where loan payments were made for fifteen years. At that point in time the entire loan amount financed was recovered by the lender with some interest as well. In a normal real estate market the value of the collateral will have increased considerably and is significantly greater than the continued performance under the contract. There is no incentive whatsoever to accommodate a borrower who may have fallen behind and in fact inducing default is to their advantage.

The mortgage system needs reform. Public policy supports homeownership and if regulatory agencies are incapable of monitoring mortgage companies effectively the mortgage contract needs to be restructured. Actually even with effective oversight it should be restructured to comply with the principals of fair dealing.

Too complicated? Not really. Just make the remedy for default into something less carnivorous. Adjust the windfall/forfeiture ratio so that it's more in keeping with contract law principals by the return of the principal portion of payments made and perhaps an accommodation for expenses incurred during performance (taxes, insurance, maintenance). Make the remedy for breach less profitable.

Yeah, I know won't happen but there are other options out there too. Like how about we eat the rich? The one percent that's been getting richer feeding off the suffering of middle class. A wealth tax. Bernie is floating that even as we speak.

Hope this makes sense, I'm a bit steamed right now.
 
Since I began this thread over six years ago I've discussed and considered foreclosure in a somewhat abstract manner. Well, as detached as you can get faced with the white knuckle prospect of foreclosure sales scheduled just hours away and trusting to the strength of the law prevailing over avarice - something that can get pretty sketchy in a non judicial state where foreclosure is a "self help" remedy. However, my former abstraction's a thing of the past as the visceral reality has hit ground zero and become up close and personal.

Our friend was evicted recently from her home of sixteen years. A single woman with a kind heart she has five dogs she'd taken in from rescue shelters. Now that she's homeless she's having to give them up. Those of you without pets should know that this would feel like selling your children into slavery or having to say goodbye forever without explanation to your most loyal friends who sustained you through the toughest times. Unthinkable, heartbreaking and not an uncommon side effect of the mortgage fiasco where countless families have been forced out of their homes because banks are unwilling to provide affordable loan terms and will circumvent every means provided to prevent foreclosures out of pure lawbreaking greed.

This is an abuse of power. They are in a position of complete control and the imbalance of economics and legal knowledge and expertise place the homeowner at considerable risk. In our friend's situation she qualified for TARP funds under two different programs that could have saved her home. The aforementioned circumvention took place. The foreclosing entity or their agents committed felonies of various sorts in the process of foreclosing, a fact well-known to government agencies and seemingly condoned by their non action.

If the government is powerless against the unfair business practices by the banks then everyone is screwed, everyone is at risk. Even people with low interest rate loans and high paying jobs all because of the nature of the mortgage loan contract. Abuse is inevitable in a contract where one party's investment is always at risk while the other party benefits from default and the risk and benefit proportionally increase over time. Consider our friend's situation where loan payments were made for fifteen years. At that point in time the entire loan amount financed was recovered by the lender with some interest as well. In a normal real estate market the value of the collateral will have increased considerably and is significantly greater than the continued performance under the contract. There is no incentive whatsoever to accommodate a borrower who may have fallen behind and in fact inducing default is to their advantage.

The mortgage system needs reform. Public policy supports homeownership and if regulatory agencies are incapable of monitoring mortgage companies effectively the mortgage contract needs to be restructured. Actually even with effective oversight it should be restructured to comply with the principals of fair dealing.

Too complicated? Not really. Just make the remedy for default into something less carnivorous. Adjust the windfall/forfeiture ratio so that it's more in keeping with contract law principals by the return of the principal portion of payments made and perhaps an accommodation for expenses incurred during performance (taxes, insurance, maintenance). Make the remedy for breach less profitable.

Yeah, I know won't happen but there are other options out there too. Like how about we eat the rich? The one percent that's been getting richer feeding off the suffering of middle class. A wealth tax. Bernie is floating that even as we speak.

Hope this makes sense, I'm a bit steamed right now.


Cannibalism, that's an interesting thought...

It's pretty simplistic. They had a choice. Too Big To Fail wasn't just the banks. It also included the US government. They had to stick together. The middle class was expendable. Although I haven't read Mr Geithner's book, we were always meant to be "the foam on the runway". We were never meant to survive. It's why they're promoting civil unrest, to this day. They want us to wipe each other out, while all the while we don't notice the gap is widening.
Imagine my dismay when I recent read a report from the Investigator General of HUD. HUD lacked the authority to even pay Chase a claim (to prop them up) & sell my loan to a hedge fund. Over a hundred thousand US citizens sold down the road & left in the hands of hedge funds, thanks to the US gov't (of which we all pay taxes to).
https://www.hudoig.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017-KC-0006.pdf
 
Some of them Did Survive. Some of them have left those homes, some of us are still in the fray, afloat in a sea with fewer and fewer boats. Is it really about our homes? We have all had to put on the costume of letting go just to see how it feels, over and over again. By now, it is about something alot bigger than our homes. The appetite for legal linguo is gone, the hopes have a lower bar, when year after year the fraud keeps getting recreated with a new twist on it. How does one let go of being a warrior of truth after knowing what we all know? We cannot go back to normal, and possibly most of us never were normal anyway. We know now how this game board was rigged. Yet, we cannot let go of the ropes, because we have to see it to the finish line. By now, even the concept of finish line keeps shifting and being redefined. My goodness, we must be a real pain to those banks.
I keep wondering if one day, suddenly, the slate will just be wiped clean as it is, because it is just too cumbersome now to keep this up on their end, and there are bigger fish to commit fraud on. The efforts from the banksters are becoming more and more absurd in desperation. All of the means of rule jumping, document creation, robo-signing, paperwork errors, timing allusions, have not worked. Stay afloat, keep ahold of the ropes, speak our truths with carefully chosen words, and SURVIVE.
 
Some of them Did Survive. Some of them have left those homes, some of us are still in the fray, afloat in a sea with fewer and fewer boats. Is it really about our homes? We have all had to put on the costume of letting go just to see how it feels, over and over again. By now, it is about something alot bigger than our homes. The appetite for legal linguo is gone, the hopes have a lower bar, when year after year the fraud keeps getting recreated with a new twist on it. How does one let go of being a warrior of truth after knowing what we all know? We cannot go back to normal, and possibly most of us never were normal anyway. We know now how this game board was rigged. Yet, we cannot let go of the ropes, because we have to see it to the finish line. By now, even the concept of finish line keeps shifting and being redefined. My goodness, we must be a real pain to those banks.
I keep wondering if one day, suddenly, the slate will just be wiped clean as it is, because it is just too cumbersome now to keep this up on their end, and there are bigger fish to commit fraud on. The efforts from the banksters are becoming more and more absurd in desperation. All of the means of rule jumping, document creation, robo-signing, paperwork errors, timing allusions, have not worked. Stay afloat, keep ahold of the ropes, speak our truths with carefully chosen words, and SURVIVE.


I tried to send you that case I have but We Transfer said it was never downloaded. The deposition can be found online at Matt Weidner's website.

https://mattweidnerlaw.com/cynthia-riley-deposition-wamuchase-cynthia-riley-stamp/
 

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Aside from restructuring the contract or dining on the rich - metaphorically by means of taxation - another option would be to do what most of you and the homeowners in the case posted by Patzz are trying to do which in essence is to apply the same draconian remedy bilaterally through mutually. That at least is what it comes down to though it's not characterized as such.

Mutuality of contract, an essential ingredient in the creation of a legally enforceable contract, is the requirement that all rules must apply to all parties for the contract to be enforceable. If the other party has not adhered to the terms of the contract they lose their right to enforce the contract. The way the loan contract differs from general contract law is that there is a forfeiture clause - though once again it's not characterized that way. But the contract provides a remedy for default that may have the effect of placing the defaulting party in a far worse position than before contracting: forfeiture in a word while the aggrieved party may be placed in a far better position than status quo ante and enjoy a windfall. Contact law is none to keen on a forfeiture or damages of any sort. Equity doesn't just hate a forfeiture, it abhors it, doesn't like it one bit.
But they've just got to deal with it because of Freedom of Contact which in short says, "Ah, do what you want, contract away."

So if mutuality is applied to the loan contract that means we can also impose the draconian remedy. If they failed to do those things that they were legally obliged to do then they have defaulted. If they are given a notice to cure and fail to cure then they are subject to the same remedy that defaulting borrowers are: forfeiture.

Seems just to me but that's just me.

Good to hear you back in form, Annie Mac.
 
Filed my response to MSJ a couple days ago. This is my intro paragraph:
"
As a result of the Financial Crisis, everybody knows what “robo-signing” is. Robo-signing is applying somebody else’s signature on documents and/or signing documents without authority or verifying the facts to foreclose. From this case, we can add the term: “robo-filing”. Robo-filing is the mass filing of complaints without checking or intentionally misrepresenting the facts hoping to get defaults because the homeowners are either ignorant or un-informed. In the following paragraphs, Moretroulbe, the Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff will provide a plethora of genuine issues of material facts exist necessitating a trial to resolve the factual issues described below.
"
I am going to patent the term "robo-filing". Anyway this is public record. I want to respond early so the judge can read it before our hearing next week.
 
Onehugemess - don't mind if I call you OHM? - there's a certain non agency non registered private deal, CWABS 2006-sd2 that I've been searching for seven years now. I don't suppose you'd have access to any info on it? That would blow me away.
Isisis, I'm sorry about responding so late. Things have been absolutely insane for me the past few weeks! I know for a fact I have copies saved somewhere of the Countrywide "Scratch & Dent" transactions, which would cover that deal. I'll have to dig through some flash drives, but I have it saved somewhere, for sure. Give me some time, and I'll try to message you copies.

By the way; if you or someone has a mortgage in one of these transactions, something was VERY wrong with it and only discovered later during Quality Assurance. I've heard stories of "missing or unsigned notes"; missing credit reports or borrower information, and even title issues. Then there were a few that were reconstructed loans, from early payment defaults & modifications. These particular deals were assembled with loans that couldn't be sold to any investor because of huge problems, and the bonds were sold at HUGE discounts compared to par value. In some cases, 20/30% off the original funding balance.

Countrywide did issue a few subprime second-lien deals with the abbreviation "SD" though. Those deals consisted of the purchase money, piggyback mortgages from borrowers getting Zero-Down home loans. I think I have those as well, but I'm not entirely sure.

Use this link:
Can you get loan level info for RAAC 2005-RP3? Thanks.
I don't think I have RAAC 2005-RP3, on hand. I'll ask around though. I might have a way.
 
Isisis, I'm sorry about responding so late. Things have been absolutely insane for me the past few weeks! I know for a fact I have copies saved somewhere of the Countrywide "Scratch & Dent" transactions, which would cover that deal. I'll have to dig through some flash drives, but I have it saved somewhere, for sure. Give me some time, and I'll try to message you copies.

By the way; if you or someone has a mortgage in one of these transactions, something was VERY wrong with it and only discovered later during Quality Assurance. I've heard stories of "missing or unsigned notes"; missing credit reports or borrower information, and even title issues. Then there were a few that were reconstructed loans, from early payment defaults & modifications. These particular deals were assembled with loans that couldn't be sold to any investor because of huge problems, and the bonds were sold at HUGE discounts compared to par value. In some cases, 20/30% off the original funding balance.

Countrywide did issue a few subprime second-lien deals with the abbreviation "SD" though. Those deals consisted of the purchase money, piggyback mortgages from borrowers getting Zero-Down home loans. I think I have those as well, but I'm not entirely sure.


I don't think I have RAAC 2005-RP3, on hand. I'll ask around though. I might have a way.
Thanks anyway: I would be surprised if you do. Even my Plaintiff can not come up with it.
 
Consequently, in addition to facing the aggressive lawyer, the

misguided and naïve litigant is likely to encounter an opposing party who refuses

to play by the rules because it knows (1) the chances of being caught,

sanctioned, or challenged are relatively small and (2) the probability of prevailing

in the lawsuit is significantly greater if the rules are not observed. The

skilled lawyer, knowing that his opponent is not qualified, is thus encouraged to

engage in improper or unsound litigation tactics.


This is a must read for all of us.

http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1674&context=nlj
 
Consequently, in addition to facing the aggressive lawyer, the

misguided and naïve litigant is likely to encounter an opposing party who refuses

to play by the rules because it knows (1) the chances of being caught,

sanctioned, or challenged are relatively small and (2) the probability of prevailing

in the lawsuit is significantly greater if the rules are not observed. The

skilled lawyer, knowing that his opponent is not qualified, is thus encouraged to

engage in improper or unsound litigation tactics.


This is a must read for all of us.

http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1674&context=nlj
If they believe that. They'll be in for a surprise.
 
My counterclaim-defendant (BOfA) attorney filed a motion to continue the trial date 3 months (to find ways to weasel out of the mess). We had a hearing this morning. The judge denied the motion. Just as I expected, the foreclosure mill attorney was too ashamed to show up after reading my response to the MSJ.
 
Moretrouble, you have now dinged one of the heads of the three headed dragon...only two more heads to go! Stellar work.

Your efforts and time are a strong stand for the rest of us. There have been some discouraging events to folks here in recent months, so let this bring some hope to the rest to stand firm and not back down. Moretrouble uses "the proof is in the details" against them.
 
Thanks, Annie. Now they are scrambling asking the judge for an order to force me to a settlement conference. Have to read up on that. I would n't be surprised if they cancel the MSJ hearing. The guy did not show up because he was afraid he might be arrested. I've been in other MSJ hearing where the foreclosing attorneys know they can win they bullied the homeowners. Kind of feel good for all of us.