About Me 0087: foreclosure defense

14 Responses to “The Foreclosure Zoo”

Basilisc Says:

November 5th, 2010 at 6:32 am

How about this: if a partner (or associate) at a law firm is found to have represented a plaintiff in a foreclosure case in which a fraudulent affidavit has been filed (about the service, or any other aspect), then EVERY PARTNER in that firm is disbarred from practicing in the state. Regardless of who’s at fault.

I’m not a lawyer, but I think that should end the problem.

Winston Says:

November 5th, 2010 at 6:42 am

Would not this practice render the case null-and-void? Or could the plaintiff re-file for foreclosure?

Petey Wheatstraw Says:

November 5th, 2010 at 7:38 am

In light of all of the evidence of the industrial nature and mind boggling level of criminality in the foreclosure/securitization processes, along with little or no action by those charged with upholding the laws pertaining to such criminality (but apparently having plenty of time and resources to go after less serious crimes committed by individuals outside this industry), it would seem that selective enforcement of our laws is a matter of official policy.

There are many ways to skin this cat, but TPTB do not want the cat skinned. The contract between the people and the government has no requirement for specific performance, and, lacking that, there is no way to compel the authorities to uphold the law.

The People should acknowledge the fact that criminality in high places is systemic, and without a coordinated effort to force the issue, these violations of the law and the processes for bringing those responsible to justice, justice will not be served — regardless of how easy and beneficial doing so would be.

We are just becoming aware that we must fight back. Unfortunately we come to this realization as we pick ourselves up off the ground after having been knocked unconscious and robbed. We are trying to defend ourselves after the fact.

Petey Wheatstraw Says:

November 5th, 2010 at 7:48 am

Basilisc:

Only the Bar Associations (the corporation(s) that has (have) captured the Judiciary branch of our government) can disbar an attorney. If you think that might happen on a scale that would have a measurable effect on attorneys engaging in these violations of law and/or procedural rules of the courts, you might not understand the true level or nature of the corruption in and of our system.

Julia Chestnut Says:

November 5th, 2010 at 9:18 am

Guys, what it does is deprive the court of jurisdiction over the defendant. If they were never properly served, the whole case is thrown out and starts over again. Sometimes, if there was no prejudice to the defendant (I’m having a hard time figuring out how there would be no prejudice here, because lots of timelines are involved that trigger off of every move in a default and foreclosure), sometimes the case can proceed. Often if the defendant has actual knowledge of the suit, even if they weren’t properly served, the court will take that into account.

I am interested to see how Florida law treats the question of the holder in due course: this might be one of the few things that would wrest a house back from a buyer who purchased it at the courthouse steps. If the court never acquired jurisdiction of the defendant, the order permitting sale was improper. The bank in effect stole the house, and sold it. Normally, a holder in due course of collateral has huge rights. This just might be a fly in the ointment of how these things normally work. My bet is that the case law dates from the depression era, back before the rise of the vampires. This could get very interesting.

But there are two things that make courts really, really pissy: one is being openly lied to under oath – perjury – and that is what filing a patently false affidavit is. The second is having their jurisdiction invoked improperly and having things drag on or have to get redone because of it. Well there is a third that is probably not involved here, and that is being reversed. Believe me, if anything will stir an honest, but lazy or indifferent, judge to action, it is having the court played for a fool. This could be very, very interesting to watch.

As to the comments about the physical appearance of the defendant, I can’t believe the servers were too lazy to get up on facebook and find out what the defendant looks like. Sheesh.

beaufou Says:

November 5th, 2010 at 9:31 am

What Petey said.

TakBak04 Says:

November 5th, 2010 at 9:53 am

50-State Foreclosure Probe Loses Several Influential Voices after Midterm Elections/ HT Rob

Iowa Attorney General Thomas Miller, the point man on the 50-state investigation into the foreclosure mess, won reelection this week. But a number of the other 13 attorneys generals on the inquiry’s executive committee will leave in the coming months.

In Ohio, Attorney General Richard Cordray — a Democrat who was the first to sue a major lender over the foreclosure problems — lost to Republican Mike DeWine. “A campaign website for Mr. DeWine lists job creation and opposing the health-care plan as his top priorities and makes no obvious mention of the foreclosure scandal, the multistate investigation or Mr. Cordray’s lawsuit against GMAC,” noted the Wall Street Journal. On Wednesday, DeWine declined to comment on the foreclosure issue, saying that the office will “evaluate each piece of existing litigation.”

Another key official with experience dealing with mortgage companies — Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard (D) — lost the race for governor. Goddard took the lead in negotiating a settlement, announced in October, with Wells Fargo. The lender, which was facing allegations of deceptive marketing, agreed to spend an estimated $772 million modifying loans for borrowers across the country.

Republican Tom Horne beat Democrat Felecia Rotellini to win Goddard’s former job late Wednesday, ending the Democrats’ 12-year-hold on the office.

Florida’s Bill McCollum, also influential in the investigation, will be leaving at the end of this year, having lost in the GOP’s gubernatorial primary. McCollum has been spearheading a probe into four “foreclosure mill” law firms. Republican Pam Bondi, a former state prosecutor, will take over as the new AG.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/political-economy/2010...

The loss of Ohio’s AG Cordray is a big hit to stopping fraud by banksters. Florida’s McCollum is devastating also.

Mannwich Says:

November 5th, 2010 at 9:59 am

But this was all just a big mistake, BR. In fact, the whole crisis was. Now it’s over, so let’s move on, but get those deadbeats out of their homes first.

Lugnut Says:

November 5th, 2010 at 10:05 am

“My personal favorite are the people served in Florida whose passports prove they were in Europe at the time. ”

Also amusing from the standpoint that folks being served a foreclosure notice can afford a trip to Europe. Irony abounds.

Petey Wheatstraw Says:

November 5th, 2010 at 10:17 am

Years ago. a friend who had recently been admitted to the Bar would occasionally ask me to act as a process server for him (he would accompany me, but stay in the car, down the street. He didn’t like confrontation, and thought it unlikely that the person being served would get cocky with me). In Virginia, if I remember correctly, here’s what was required for proper service:

1. Knock on the door — repeatedly and loudly (as a cop would) — giving a reasonable amount of time for the knock to be answered.

2. If the knock was answered, I was to ask: Are you James Doe? If the answer was yes, I’d serve the docs. If the answer was no, I was to ask, “do you live here, and are you over 18 years old?” If the answer was yes, I was to hand that person the docs, and ask that they be given to the person being served. if the answer was no, or if no one had answered the door, i was to tape the docs to the door (on all four sides, and with removable tape).

3. I would then sign and date the affidavit of service.

That’s how it’s done in VA.

Petey Wheatstraw Says:

November 5th, 2010 at 10:20 am

Jeez. I should really start proofing my comments before hitting the submit button.

Marc P Says:

November 5th, 2010 at 3:23 pm

@Julia Chestnut:

This is a great point. I clerked for a trial court judge. I tell people the judges are like sleeping bears. Under the weight of their crushing workloads, often they appear to be distracted, board, asleep, or all three. But generally, judges are quite bright and have been put on the bench for good reasons. Once awakened from slumber, watch out.

Judges have to rely on the attorneys to provide accurate information. Judges are well aware that attorneys represent their clients and are not likely to present evidence that is not in their client’s best interest. That is why the system is designed to have both parties represented. Law is the only profession where there is a highly paid professional whose sole job is to point out all your lapses.

In many states the foreclosure process is designed to have minimal court intervention. The lenders are expected to follow a rigid set of rules regarding notice and timelines but often judges never have to get involved. The statutes are set up so that the borrower can object at any time and bring the matter in front of the judge for correction. However, judges are well aware that lenders have money and borrowers do not. Due to this, the judges are more reliant than usual on the veracity and completeness of the information provided by the lender’s attorney. A lender’s attorney who abuses that trust is asking for trouble.

My suggestion is to get some popcorn, crack open a beer, and sit back. This is going to be a good show.

Marc P Says:

November 5th, 2010 at 3:25 pm

Judges are board? Duh. Bored. Sorry.

Florida’s “Too Big for Fraud” Court System | The Big Picture Says:

November 11th, 2010 at 7:21 am

The Foreclosure Zoo (November 5th,

You must be logged in to post a comment.

I am torn between my sympathy for those who are about to lose their homes through foreclosure and the injury I see to the rule of rule and the economy itself in the way foreclosure proceedings are being challenged and processed. People are angry with the banks and for good reason, but it is important to distinguish the granting of mortgages from what was done with them once granted. The banks may have been complicit in approving bad loans, but the borrowers must accept some responsibility.

In all fairness, besides discovering that they could not meet the payments, defaults have occurred for a number of other reasons: the value of real estate has dropped; homeowners have lost their jobs or their income has been reduced; balloon payments could not be met; or other unanticipated circumstances have occurred. I watch with some misgivings the army of lawyers lining up to defend foreclosure proceedings, some by taking large fees or second mortgages on the very houses being foreclosed. (NY Times 11/62010 -Taking on a Second Mortgage to Pay the Foreclosure Lawyer)

The media is full of revelations about the robo-signing of documents supporting foreclosures, and the practice is subject to numerous investigations and hearings. I have watched the video-taped depositions of bank employees admitting to verifying defaults with absolutely no personal knowledge of the facts. Of course, sworn testimony before a court must be truthful, but we have to be careful in deciding what renders it untruthful. It would be virtually impossible in any bank (even in those in which the mortgage remained with the issuing bank) for one person to know how much was loaned and precisely when and how much was paid on account. In this day and age, all of that information comes via computer printouts -- not personal knowledge. So verifying that a mortgage is in default and the amount due is never based upon personal knowledge, but rather a search of the records and reliance on those records kept in the ordinary course of business.

Foreclosure proceedings are not criminal in nature, in which a defendant can sit back, do nothing, and require the government to prove its case. These are civil proceedings and the borrowers and hopefully their lawyers know whether or not the mortgage is in default. To oppose the foreclosure, when both the borrower and lawyer know the mortgage is in substantial default, to my mind borders on the unethical. If indeed there are valid defenses to foreclosure -- mortgages not in default, wrong property designated, etc. instances which I suspect are very rare, they should be pursued with diligence.

On the other hand, the holder of the mortgage must prove ownership, and that information is solely in the hands of the banks and their assignees. That is not information a borrower would have, and the borrower (defendant) has an absolute right to know that a suit for foreclosure is being conducted by the current holder of the mortgage. That is a defense made in good faith and worthy of pursuit. I have reservations about the good faith of challenging the existence of a default with full knowledge that it exists, but none about insisting on proof of current ownership and the right to foreclose.

Despite my sympathy for all those who may lose or have lost their homes, I am concerned with the stability of contracts, the rule of law, if they are abandoned at this fragile time in our economy. Any and all assistance possible, such as modifications, should be afforded borrowers so that they can remain in their homes, but failing that, our legal system and, in turn, our economy, cannot be jeopardized by excusing persons from performing under their written agreements when they know that they are in default. The person who buys a TV on time, but is aware that she or he is in default, should not be able to keep the TV and not make any further payments just because evidence of the debt and default comes from a computer rather than personal knowledge.

Even defending foreclosure proceedings for the purpose of delay might seem like a laudable and noble goal, but the reality is that by doing so we are not retaliating against those mean banks that got us into this, but the shareholders, some of whom are homeowners themselves, who invested in these gift-wrapped mortgage packages only to find when opened -- that they were worthless junk. Let us do everything we can to aid those in danger of losing their homes through foreclosure, but let us not sacrifice the rule of law and the sanctity of contracts in the process.

eric seiger do

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

foreclosure defense

14 Responses to “The Foreclosure Zoo”

Leave a Reply

No comments:

Post a Comment