Bagels at a Bar Mitzvah

Speedy

LoanSafe Member
Jul 12, 2017
22
1
3
47
Rushmore fraudsters, Wanda Kinser
RLMS these 2 (Christina DeLuna, Rose Lara) filed a rescission of assignment of security deed, then they reassign to there dummy co. the rest signed as VP's and Assistants.., Laurent Lopez, Cassandra Acosta, Nareisha Edmonds, Quateadra Smith, Melinda craft, Jason Knapp, alekhya farwig. anyone look familiar?
 

Speedy

LoanSafe Member
Jul 12, 2017
22
1
3
47
Speedy,

I have a lis pendis filed I the county and I'm in litigation. I'm well aware of the statute of frauds in fact it's my favorite statute. Unfortunately it will do me no good in this backward state of California where no authority or proof of ownership is required to violate property rights and foreclose. Well established law - before the advent of all this foolish - demonstrated that the party attempting to enforce my contract by foreclose lacked the authority to do so
as the assignment of my purported Deed of Trust indicates that MERS executed the assignment in its individual capacity, judicially noticeable documents demonstrate that the Assignment of the Deed of Trust is void. Suarez v. Bank of New York Mellon, Cal. Sup. 12-560082 (2013) paraphrased; Mcnear v. Petroleum Export Corp. (1929) 208 Cal. 162. Contract signed by an individual not purporting to sign as agent for the principle did not satisfy Civil Code § 1624 and was void.;
Fisher v. Salmon (1851) 1 Cal. 414. Contract signed by an individual in “his own name” is a nullity as against the principle.; Corbin, Contracts note 9, § 279 at 21; 3 Williston, Contracts, note 9 § 527 at 709, non compliance with Statutory requirements results in the unenforceability of the contract due to Statute of Frauds".

Despite this well established law I had to get creative and instead rely on other well established law that hadn't yet been rendered ineffective by foreclose courts.
Wow! that's crazy.. I am focusing on article 9. I just realize I have a Non-recourse loan..I hope that helps because it says the "borrower" is not responsible for the "debt." I'm in the superior stage. Hang in there and keep researching..
 

OneHugeMess

LoanSafe Member
May 30, 2016
40
4
8
25
Curious question for @isisis & wanda robo. Do either of you know if there have been any more decisions regarding Statue of Limitations in foreclosure cases, specifically after the Bartram decision in FL? I'm incredibly curious. I know it was being appealed, but my searches on Google hasn't really turned up anything.

By the way, I signed your Petition @ wanda robo when it was in the 700's... glad to see it's almost up to 3,000!
 

wanda robo

LoanSafe Member
Sep 29, 2012
2,896
365
83
NJ
Curious question for @isisis & wanda robo. Do either of you know if there have been any more decisions regarding Statue of Limitations in foreclosure cases, specifically after the Bartram decision in FL? I'm incredibly curious. I know it was being appealed, but my searches on Google hasn't really turned up anything.

By the way, I signed your Petition @ wanda robo when it was in the 700's... glad to see it's almost up to 3,000!
Thank You!

Here's a case about the SOL from the 5th DCA. You can even listen to the archived Oral Argument.
http://www.5dca.org/Opinions/Opin2018/010818/5D16-3628.op.pdf
 

wanda robo

LoanSafe Member
Sep 29, 2012
2,896
365
83
NJ
Rushmore fraudsters, Wanda Kinser


RLMS these 2 (Christina DeLuna, Rose Lara) filed a rescission of assignment of security deed, then they reassign to there dummy co. the rest signed as VP's and Assistants.., Laurent Lopez, Cassandra Acosta, Nareisha Edmonds, Quateadra Smith, Melinda craft, Jason Knapp, alekhya farwig. anyone look familiar?

None of these people work for Rushmore. It appears the majority of them-Kinsler, Edmonds, Smith, all worked for JP Morgan Chase in their Monroe, La. document fabrication department...

Farwig may be affliated with Wells Fargo-they have a doc fabrication dept in Minnealopis Mn.
 

kraftykrab

LoanSafe Member
Jan 27, 2014
851
100
43
Curious question for @isisis & wanda robo. Do either of you know if there have been any more decisions regarding Statue of Limitations in foreclosure cases, specifically after the Bartram decision in FL? I'm incredibly curious. I know it was being appealed, but my searches on Google hasn't really turned up anything.

By the way, I signed your Petition @ wanda robo when it was in the 700's... glad to see it's almost up to 3,000!
Are you asking specifically for Florida, or other states as well?

In Louisiana, there are two circumstances for this. First, if acceleration did NOT occur, then only those payments which came due more than 5 years prior to the suit being filed are outside the SOL. However, that's for all promissory notes, not just foreclosure cases. In a foreclosure case, it's a prerequisite that acceleration must have occurred before they can sue to foreclose. So, when acceleration has occurred, they have 5 years from the date of acceleration to sue, or else the whole thing is SOL, and so are they, lol. Case law here in LA bears that out. There are cases here as recent as 2017, and going back at least to the 1980s, where the higher courts have ruled against the foreclosing party when they waited too long to file suit after acceleration.


Interestingly enough, I'm using that 5 year prescription law in my appeal, but for a different reason. They are required in LA to publish notice of the loss of the note before they can sue to foreclose. The law here states "within a reasonable time", but does not define what that reasonable time is. The closest case law example I can find is the appeals court ruling in favor of a lender that waited just over 1 year after the note was discovered to be lost to publish---the court ruled that the 13 months or so was still within a reasonable time.

In my case, they knew it was lost in 2012....but waited more than 5 years to advertise the loss. My argument is that since the courts cannot ignore the plain wording of the law, and the law specifies "within a reasonable time", that there must be a determination as to whether or not more than 5 years is "reasonable". The one and only law we have here regarding time frames for promissory note actions is the law that says the action is past the SOL if it's more than 5 years between acceleration and filing.....so, if more than 5 years is not reasonable in that instance, how can it be reasonable in this one?
 

PatZZ

LoanSafe Member
Jan 30, 2011
1,791
128
63
Nearby
Are you asking specifically for Florida, or other states as well?

In Louisiana, there are two circumstances for this. First, if acceleration did NOT occur, then only those payments which came due more than 5 years prior to the suit being filed are outside the SOL. However, that's for all promissory notes, not just foreclosure cases. In a foreclosure case, it's a prerequisite that acceleration must have occurred before they can sue to foreclose. So, when acceleration has occurred, they have 5 years from the date of acceleration to sue, or else the whole thing is SOL, and so are they, lol. Case law here in LA bears that out. There are cases here as recent as 2017, and going back at least to the 1980s, where the higher courts have ruled against the foreclosing party when they waited too long to file suit after acceleration.


Interestingly enough, I'm using that 5 year prescription law in my appeal, but for a different reason. They are required in LA to publish notice of the loss of the note before they can sue to foreclose. The law here states "within a reasonable time", but does not define what that reasonable time is. The closest case law example I can find is the appeals court ruling in favor of a lender that waited just over 1 year after the note was discovered to be lost to publish---the court ruled that the 13 months or so was still within a reasonable time.

In my case, they knew it was lost in 2012....but waited more than 5 years to advertise the loss. My argument is that since the courts cannot ignore the plain wording of the law, and the law specifies "within a reasonable time", that there must be a determination as to whether or not more than 5 years is "reasonable". The one and only law we have here regarding time frames for promissory note actions is the law that says the action is past the SOL if it's more than 5 years between acceleration and filing.....so, if more than 5 years is not reasonable in that instance, how can it be reasonable in this one?
In NJ, the courts have become legislators and decided that acceleration is meaningless. They can basically foreclose forever. And when a case has been filed and dismissed, the court is legislatively claiming that a dismissal automatically decelerates. And if the lender accelerated and never foreclosed, then it can simply send a letter of deceleration. Again, this is legislating from the bench.

FL has said the same thing in both VELDEN and MANYOMA.

For anyone with an FHA loan, you can fight back with the HUD regulations. At 24 CFR 201.50(c), it states:

"Reinstatement of the loan. The lender may rescind the acceleration of maturity after full payment is due and reinstate the loan ONLY IF the borrower brings the loan current, executes a modification agreement, or agrees to an acceptable repayment plan."

There's room in this terminology for the lender to argue it doesn't apply, but it would be a tough argument. I fully plan to attack it head on. Nothing in any borrower's note calls for deceleration.

@OneHugeMess - You can find all the case files you want by searching "Google Scholar." If you're not in FL, you need to know what's happening in your state. NY dismisses for the SOL all the time if the loan was accelerated and the time has passed.
.
 

Speedy

LoanSafe Member
Jul 12, 2017
22
1
3
47
None of these people work for Rushmore. It appears the majority of them-Kinsler, Edmonds, Smith, all worked for JP Morgan Chase in their Monroe, La. document fabrication department...

Farwig may be affliated with Wells Fargo-they have a doc fabrication dept in Minnealopis Mn.
Wow! well I have a fee simple title so I am going to use it to my advantage for them claiming to have rights to foreclose..all they do is buy NPL's and harass consumers.
 

Speedy

LoanSafe Member
Jul 12, 2017
22
1
3
47
Good Day Everyone,
I found a case that defends the "Tenant at sufferance" dispossession eviction. It was in Georgia, but maybe you can find similar cases to mirror your defense. Carruth v. Carruth court of appeals (1948).
 

PatZZ

LoanSafe Member
Jan 30, 2011
1,791
128
63
Nearby
@wanda or all who might be interested

Saw a case last night where a borrower (with counsel) sued the foreclosure mill (debt collector) for violation of FDCPA for filing a foreclosure complaint when the mill knew it had no right due to the lender's violation of 24 CFR 203.604. There were a couple other claims in the case, BUT THEY SETTLED. And, it was a class action.

My computer rebooted on its own overnight and I lost the page. As soon as I find it, I'll post the link. Now that is an interesting twist.

Unfair Practices
§ 1692 f Any unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect the alleged debt
§ 1692 f(1) Attempt to collect any amount not authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law
.
 
Likes: CAbooboo

wanda robo

LoanSafe Member
Sep 29, 2012
2,896
365
83
NJ
@wanda or all who might be interested

Saw a case last night where a borrower (with counsel) sued the foreclosure mill (debt collector) for violation of FDCPA for filing a foreclosure complaint when the mill knew it had no right due to the lender's violation of 24 CFR 203.604. There were a couple other claims in the case, BUT THEY SETTLED. And, it was a class action.

My computer rebooted on its own overnight and I lost the page. As soon as I find it, I'll post the link. Now that is an interesting twist.

Unfair Practices
§ 1692 f Any unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect the alleged debt
§ 1692 f(1) Attempt to collect any amount not authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law
.
I'd be very interested in studying this case. Let me know if you find it.

In my case, they tried to collect MIP charges that HUD disallowed in the FHA claim. In your opinion, wouldn't that be "amounts not authorized by the agreement"? As you well know, there are timeframes to be met in order to be entitled to fees, charges, interest, etc., on a FHA mortgage. If HUD declares the entity isn't entitled to recoup these fees in the claim, how can a junk debt collector be entitle to these fess? Just sayin.......
 

kraftykrab

LoanSafe Member
Jan 27, 2014
851
100
43
I'd be very interested in studying this case. Let me know if you find it.

In my case, they tried to collect MIP charges that HUD disallowed in the FHA claim. In your opinion, wouldn't that be "amounts not authorized by the agreement"? As you well know, there are timeframes to be met in order to be entitled to fees, charges, interest, etc., on a FHA mortgage. If HUD declares the entity isn't entitled to recoup these fees in the claim, how can a junk debt collector be entitle to these fess? Just sayin.......
I'd agree with you that any amounts not permitted by the original creditor cannot be permitted to the JDB. I would say that most of us, if not all, probably have a similar situation. In my case, after acceleration occurred, they kept adding a new monthly payment to the past due balance every month, and have continued to do so to this day. Here's the thing---once acceleration happens, there are no more monthly payments due, and they can only add the interest. But sure enough, they added a full payment--principal and interest--to the delinquent balance each and every month. So, in my case, for example, that first 12 months after acceleration, they SHOULD have added a total of $4,752.05 to the outstanding principal balance that they were claiming as owed. Instead, they added more than $6,300 to the balance because of how their accounting is. We ALL have probably been charged amounts not due under the original agreement.....problem is, for most of us, proving it.

Also, I'm not sure how much weight an FDCPA suit on its own would carry...unless you can show a ton of actual damages. Obviously, loss of your home, plus any amounts you were required to pay as a result of losing your home, such as security deposits and rent for where you were forced to move to, all moving costs, etc. But you need more than just to show that they claimed you owed amounts that they were not entitled to for that to work, IMHO. You would need to show that they had no legal right to foreclose at all, and THAT FDCPA violation--intentional misrepresentation of amount, character or status of a debt etc, caused you to incur all those other expenses. Keep in mind as well that FDCPA carries only a 1 year SOL for you to file. I would think that FDCPA in conjunction with other federal laws like FCRA and TCPA would carry a lot more teeth in a case such as ours.
 

CAbooboo

LoanSafe Member
Jan 22, 2017
31
1
8
54
I'd agree with you that any amounts not permitted by the original creditor cannot be permitted to the JDB. I would say that most of us, if not all, probably have a similar situation. In my case, after acceleration occurred, they kept adding a new monthly payment to the past due balance every month, and have continued to do so to this day. Here's the thing---once acceleration happens, there are no more monthly payments due, and they can only add the interest. But sure enough, they added a full payment--principal and interest--to the delinquent balance each and every month. So, in my case, for example, that first 12 months after acceleration, they SHOULD have added a total of $4,752.05 to the outstanding principal balance that they were claiming as owed. Instead, they added more than $6,300 to the balance because of how their accounting is. We ALL have probably been charged amounts not due under the original agreement.....problem is, for most of us, proving it.

Also, I'm not sure how much weight an FDCPA suit on its own would carry...unless you can show a ton of actual damages. Obviously, loss of your home, plus any amounts you were required to pay as a result of losing your home, such as security deposits and rent for where you were forced to move to, all moving costs, etc. But you need more than just to show that they claimed you owed amounts that they were not entitled to for that to work, IMHO. You would need to show that they had no legal right to foreclose at all, and THAT FDCPA violation--intentional misrepresentation of amount, character or status of a debt etc, caused you to incur all those other expenses. Keep in mind as well that FDCPA carries only a 1 year SOL for you to file. I would think that FDCPA in conjunction with other federal laws like FCRA and TCPA would carry a lot more teeth in a case such as ours.
Krafty
Would you be so kind to clarify for me ...
When does the clock start ticking for the FDCPA 1 yr SOL? Thank u!
 

wanda robo

LoanSafe Member
Sep 29, 2012
2,896
365
83
NJ
You guys aren't going to believe this. I got a letter from The White House thanking me for telling my story & they said they were going to forward it to the proper Federal authorities. LMAO, the proper Federal Authorities already have my evidence. I wonder if they'll get sick of me? LMAO
 

kraftykrab

LoanSafe Member
Jan 27, 2014
851
100
43
Krafty
Would you be so kind to clarify for me ...
When does the clock start ticking for the FDCPA 1 yr SOL? Thank u!
15 U.S. Code § 1692k - Civil liability

Under that section, you find this:

"(d) Jurisdiction
An action to enforce any liability created by this subchapter may be brought in any appropriate United States district court without regard to the amount in controversy, or in any other court of competent jurisdiction, within one year from the date on which the violation occurs."

It's one year from the date the violation actually happens, not one year from the date you discover it.
 
Likes: CAbooboo

wanda robo

LoanSafe Member
Sep 29, 2012
2,896
365
83
NJ
15 U.S. Code § 1692k - Civil liability

Under that section, you find this:

"(d) Jurisdiction
An action to enforce any liability created by this subchapter may be brought in any appropriate United States district court without regard to the amount in controversy, or in any other court of competent jurisdiction, within one year from the date on which the violation occurs."

It's one year from the date the violation actually happens, not one year from the date you discover it.

Let's agree to disagree.

https://www.insidearm.com/news/00042772-court-rules-fdcpa-statute-limitations-beg/
 
Likes: CAbooboo

PatZZ

LoanSafe Member
Jan 30, 2011
1,791
128
63
Nearby
You guys aren't going to believe this. I got a letter from The White House thanking me for telling my story & they said they were going to forward it to the proper Federal authorities. LMAO, the proper Federal Authorities already have my evidence. I wonder if they'll get sick of me? LMAO
Yeah right. Who are those authorities? Forward it to the proper authorities, and then ...... ??? Of course, we don't care if they get sick of us.

I agree that attempting to collect disallowed charges would be a violation.

As to the FDCPA and the SOL, keep in mind that the Supreme Court opined that the FDCPA also applies to litigation. So, any disallowed action or behavior engaged in during litigation by the mill could be a new claim and the start of a new SOL for that claim. That includes anything written in both complaints and pleadings.
.
.
 

PatZZ

LoanSafe Member
Jan 30, 2011
1,791
128
63
Nearby