Law Books

MSFraud.org Mortgage Servicing Fraud Forum
Register  |   |   |  Calendar
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next
Ann

Registered:
Posts: 148
Reply with quote  #1 

Banks Steal Homes, and I have PROOF

The name “Danielle Sterling” may not mean much to you. Frankly, it shouldn’t. Danielle Sterling was a receptionist for American Home Mortgage until 2005, when she was promoted to a “Collateral Reviewer,” a position she held until 2007, when American Home Mortgage went out of business. I don’t want to call her a “nobody,” but Danielle Sterling was just one step up from a receptionist at a mortgage company that’s been out of business for five years … clearly she was a bit player in the mortgage industry. So why am I talking about her?

Well, I defend foreclosure cases. In that role, I look closely at every promissory note and every indorsement on those notes that come across my desk. I’ve encountered the name “Danielle Sterling” a fair number of times as an indorser on Notes. Frankly, I didn’t think much of it at the time – it was just a scribbled signature on a Note. However, when I came to learn she was just one step up from a receptionist, and she hasn’t been in the industry since 2007, it made me wonder … “why is Danielle Sterling signing so many indorsements on promissory notes, transferring millions of dollars?” If you ran a business, can you imagine giving low-level staff members the authority to transfer millions of dollars in commercial paper with a swipe of the pen? What in the name of Wells Fargo is going on here?

With the help of my friend Matt Weidner, it seems I have an answer. According to this Affidavit, Danielle Sterling did not endorse a promissory note entered by Daniel and Christine Hunk. Ms. Sterling is very unequivocal about this – she never endorsed the Note. Yet the Note has an endorsement bearing her signature.

Let’s say that again …

Danielle Sterling did not endorse the Note, but the Note has an endorsement with her signature.

I may not be a rocket scientist, but it doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to figure out what happened here. A bank (apparently Citimortgage, since it was the plaintiff) wanted to foreclose on the Note and Mortgage entered by Daniel and Christine Hunk, but needed an endorsement from American Home Mortgage. But American Home Mortgage was out of business. So Citimortgage took the endorsement stamp that had been used by Danielle Sterling (from when she worked at American Home Mortgage), stamped it on the Note, and forged her signature.

What’s the result? If you look at the endorsement, everything looks normal. It looks like the endorsements we all see on tens of thousands of notes in foreclosure cases throughout Florida. But there’s the rub …

the endorsement looks normal, but it’s a forgery.

For anyone who thinks this is “no big deal” or merely “sloppy paperwork, bear this in mind. Foreclosure cases turn on endorsements like this. Having a Note, endorsed in blank (or specially indorsed to the plaintiff) is almost always what a foreclosure plaintiff asserts as its standing to foreclose. In other words, endorsements like this are what gives the bank the right to foreclose on a homeowner. With an endorsement, the bank is probably going to win (and foreclose). Without it, they’re probably going to lose. Hence, if these endorsements are forged, as this one clearly seems to be, then banks are, quite literally, stealing homes that don’t belong to them.

Everyone needs to take a moment and reflect on the magnitude of this situation. As you do, bear in mind – most judges I know accept an original Note with an endorsement as gospel. If homeowners and foreclosure defense attorneys have a legitimate reason to question the authenticity of the endorsements that appear on Notes in foreclosure cases – as we clearly do in light of this affidavit – then where does that leave us? In my view, courts cannot take an endorsement at face value. They just can’t. There’s a legitimate reason to question the veracity of every endorsement, not just by Danielle Sterling, but every endorsement. After all, if we’ve proven Danielle Sterline endorsements are forged, do you really think that’s the only one? I sure don’t.

And what about the legislature? How on earth can anyone – ANYONE – justify new legislation to “push through” foreclosure cases quicker in light of evidence like this? Ahhh, I forgot. Florida is full of deadbeat homeowners, and even though we’re experiencing the biggest fraud in the history of mankind, we all need to sweep it under the rug to improve the economy. Because throwing homeowners on the streets for the benefit of banks that committed widespread fraud will help. Right.

If this isn’t a wake-up call for all of America, then nothing is. Foreclosures are littered with fraud … billions of dollars in wealth are changing hands in fraudulent ways … does anyone care?

Can you imagine if I posted on this blog some sort of proof that I had endorsed a check payable to Bank of America over to myself, then cashed it? I’d be in jail tomorrow and news stories would run about how a foreclosure defense attorney was arrested for theft. But when a bank does it, nobody cares.

By the way, compare Danielle Sterling’s signature on the affidavit to the signature on the endorsement. The two signatures aren’t even close. Frankly, that’s offensive. I mean, if you’re going to forge something, at least forge it well. Here, the banks were so callous about their fraud they didn’t even try to make it a good forgery – they just scribbled something on an endorsement and use that forged endorsement as a basis for standing. And like I said in the beginning of this post, I have many cases with endorsements by Danielle Sterling.

But the issue here isn’t Danielle Sterling. The issue here is that it’s time for everyone to stop treating an original note with an endorsement as gospel. Clearly, endorsement fraud is pervasive in the foreclosure industry, and it’s about time we all put a stop to it.

Mark Stopa

http://www.stayinmyhome.com

0
George Burns
Reply with quote  #2 
I am re-reading article for the 5th time and I still cannot see his point, nor can I see the fraud that has raised his ire.

It is irrelevant what her job title was, it is her duties that matter.
It is irrelevant that she was previously the receptionist
It is irrelevant that American Home went out of business in 2007 since the indorsements were done before.
It is irrelevant that she does not know Oaks or Junk or anyone else. There is no way to personally know either the borrowers, the employees at the lender not the employees at any servicer.
It is not necessarily fraud to use someone else's rubber stamp. If that was the case then a large number of checks that get a rubber stamp indorsement every day before being deposited would also be fraudulent.
It is not necessarily fraud to sign for someone else. Executives of many companies have people do this for them everyday.
Her affidavit is rather incomplete and does not address if she was aware that the rubber stamp was used nor if it was the standard practice. She also did not address whether or not anyone was allowed to sign for her.

Attacking her title, the use of a rubber stamp and her statement that she did not personally sign the documents will probaly not get anywhere. The fraud lies elsewhere.

However, I will read again, just in case I missed his point.
0
Ann

Registered:
Posts: 148
Reply with quote  #3 

I think that if it can be proved the signature/rubber stamp is fraudulent, It's Fraud upon the Court. If some one use my signature stamp without my approval, it's fraud. The case then could be dismissed with prejudice with serious sanction to the Bank.

 

I would take a closer look at the endorsement, check if the signature is from a Real, valid person and if he/she did work at the Bank on the endorsement at the endorsement time. So many frauds on foreclosure documents these days.

0
Unregistered
Reply with quote  #4 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann

I think that if it can be proved the signature/rubber stamp is fraudulent, It's Fraud upon the Court. If some one use my signature stamp without my approval, it's fraud. The case then could be dismissed with prejudice with serious sanction to the Bank.

 

I would take a closer look at the endorsement, check if the signature is from a Real, valid person and if he/she did work at the Bank on the endorsement at the endorsement time. So many frauds on foreclosure documents these days.


§ 3-405. EMPLOYER'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR FRAUDULENT INDORSEMENT BY EMPLOYEE.

  • (a) In this section:
    • (1) "Employee" includes an independent contractor and employee of an independent contractor retained by the employer.
    • (2) "Fraudulent indorsement" means (i) in the case of an instrument payable to the employer, a forged indorsement purporting to be that of the employer, or (ii) in the case of an instrument with respect to which the employer is the issuer, a forged indorsement purporting to be that of the person identified as payee.
    • (3) "Responsibility" with respect to instruments means authority (i) to sign or indorse instruments on behalf of the employer, (ii) to process instruments received by the employer for bookkeeping purposes, for deposit to an account, or for other disposition, (iii) to prepare or process instruments for issue in the name of the employer, (iv) to supply information determining the names or addresses of payees of instruments to be issued in the name of the employer, (v) to control the disposition of instruments to be issued in the name of the employer, or (vi) to act otherwise with respect to instruments in a responsible capacity. "Responsibility" does not include authority that merely allows an employee to have access to instruments or blank or incomplete instrument forms that are being stored or transported or are part of incoming or outgoing mail, or similar access.
  • (b) For the purpose of determining the rights and liabilities of a person who, in good faith, pays an instrument or takes it for value or for collection, if an employer entrusted an employee with responsibility with respect to the instrument and the employee or a person acting in concert with the employee makes a fraudulent indorsement of the instrument, the indorsement is effective as the indorsement of the person to whom the instrument is payable if it is made in the name of that person. If the person paying the instrument or taking it for value or for collection fails to exercise ordinary care in paying or taking the instrument and that failure substantially contributes to loss resulting from the fraud, the person bearing the loss may recover from the person failing to exercise ordinary care to the extent the failure to exercise ordinary care contributed to the loss.
  • (c) Under subsection (b), an indorsement is made in the name of the person to whom an instrument is payable if (i) it is made in a name substantially similar to the name of that person or (ii) the instrument, whether or not indorsed, is deposited in a depositary bank to an account in a name substantially similar to the name of that person.
0
Unregistered
Reply with quote  #5 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann

I think that if it can be proved the signature/rubber stamp is fraudulent, It's Fraud upon the Court. If some one use my signature stamp without my approval, it's fraud. The case then could be dismissed with prejudice with serious sanction to the Bank.

 

I would take a closer look at the endorsement, check if the signature is from a Real, valid person and if he/she did work at the Bank on the endorsement at the endorsement time. So many frauds on foreclosure documents these days.


You would be incorrect.  Just because there is fraud, forgery, ect... does not make it fraud upon the court.  Read the cases for your jurisdiction.  

If I purchase a note endorsed in blank from the bank, you default, I file a foreclosure, how did I commit fraud upon the court???

Combine this scenario with my post above from the UCC that clearly shows I have a valid endorsement and I don't see much of an argument at all.


0
Ann

Registered:
Posts: 148
Reply with quote  #6 

The mortgage is sign on the note with Bank  A. The mortgage is in default. The B  Bank files the foreclosure with an endorsement from  Bank A to  Bank B. The endorsement is signed by a person C who was no longer employed with neither Banks  on the date of the endorsement.

 

Then is the endorsement is a forged, fabricated document ? The B bank brings a lawsuit to the Court using a fabricated fraudulent document. Would that be Plaintiff commit Fraud upon the Court ?

 

What is the Sanction for Fraud upon the Court ? Does the fabricated endorsement  with a forged signature negates the Plaintiff Standing to sue ? Remember, the loan was signed with Bank A not with Plaintiff B.

0
Ann

Registered:
Posts: 148
Reply with quote  #7 

What is the recourse for a Defendant if Plaintiff sues the Defendant using a forged documents i.e forged signature on an indorsement ?

0
George Burns
Reply with quote  #8 
Ann

You cannot just change the facts stated in the article by Stopa.

Danielle Sterling WAS employed at the time of indorsement. Mr Stopa clearly said so and so does the Affidavit.

Nothing says that she did not authorize the use of her stamp and signature. She could have stated that in her Affidavit but she did not for reasons unknown.

It is not stated anywhere that her employer did not authorize  another employee to apply her rubber stamp etc.

No one swore or averred under oath that the submitted document was authentic so How do you get fraud on the court to be committed?

You need to check your definitions of legal terms before you start throwing them around.
0
George Burns
Reply with quote  #9 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann

What is the recourse for a Defendant if Plaintiff sues the Defendant using a forged documents i.e forged signature on an indorsement ?

The Defendant has to first prove that the signature was forged.

BUT, bear in mind that signing someone's name does not mean that it is forged.

Unauthorized is not the same as forged.

Then there is the issue of relevance. A forged or an unauthorized signature on an indorsement does not mean that the owner or holder or agent does not have standing to foreclose.
0
Unregistered
Reply with quote  #10 
I think you have two issues here.

First is the stamp, which may come down to as a property issue. Who was the rightful owner of the stamp, her or the company? If the stamp was owned by the company in performing the business of the company then there is no issue. If it was her stamp, then you may have an issue. I don't think the stamp is really relevant.

Second is the signature. The article states "and forged her signature" That is a more serious issue. To me, a contract is an agreement by two or more parties to exchange a good or service. The terms of which are secured by the signature. If someone else is signing her name and binding them to some form of an agreement without her knowledge and without the power to do so you have problems.
0
George Burns
Reply with quote  #11 
That is the point.

The forging is on a document between the 2 lenders and binds the servicers. It tranfers servicing  or ownership or whatever between the 2 "lenders". It has nothing to do with the homeowner.
0
Unregistered
Reply with quote  #12 
Which of course, means she could argue that Bank B has no standing to bring suit only Bank A does. What it does do, and the homeowner may be able to seek damages for, is that it clouds the title and could prevent the homeowner from selling the property in the future. Also, bank A could come back to the homeowner in 30 years and claim title; say that the transfer was a fraud produce the originial note which bank B never had any interest in.  If Bank B 30 years from now no longer exists, the homeowner is screwed.

It makes you want to get rent a house or an apartment.
0
Ann

Registered:
Posts: 148
Reply with quote  #13 

BOMBSHELL, THE COUNTRYWIDE DOUBLE STAMP SHOWS THE PROBLEM WITH ROBO ENDORSEMENTS!

http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2012/03/bombshell-the-countrywide-double-stamp-shows-the-problem-with-robo-endorsements/
Another in the continuing series on how a Thief Can Steal Your Home.

All across this country, the garbage Countrywide loans are being foreclosed on and Americans thrown into the street, many times based on nothing more than a simple endorsement. To be valid an endorsement must actually be authorized and valid. But far too often, the signatures and purported endorsements are not even challenged…

AND IMPORTANTLY, THE BANKS ARE ARGUING THAT THEY NO PARTY HAS A RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF ENDORSEMENTS!

The argument presented by the banks is that the endorsements do not matter, and that no one can challenge these signatures. By extension, this argument suggests that not even judges could question signatures when presented with obvious forgeries.

The alleged endorsements were highlighted to me by my friend David at Case Clarity

Look closely, it looks like two endorsements, two signatures, correct? Well, no, they’re not actually signatures at all….the “signatures” are just ink stamps. But that’s not what’s most interesting.

At first blush it looks like two separate stamps, but when you compare this stamp to many of the other stamps, they “both” line up perfectly and exactly. Which suggests that the figure above is really made by one singular stamp made to look like two stamps. Now did Meder stamp this? Did Sjolander stamp this? And if neither stamped it, did either stamp it?

Oh, but right, we’re not even allowed to make such inquiry correct?

0
Texas
Reply with quote  #14 
Ann
I do not see where it makes any difference how the stamps got onto the tangible note.
Whether the stamp impression were made by two single stamps or or one dual stamp in opinion makes no difference.

Will not address the signatures.

As for the Case Clarity site, I personal would not go near them.


0
Ann

Registered:
Posts: 148
Reply with quote  #15 
George, I see your points. Here is an attorney view on different trial procedures related to the Notes, indorsement.

Preparing for Trial in a Foreclosure Case

I have a trial tomorrow in a foreclosure case. It’s in Lee County, of course – the county where the judges prosecute cases by setting trials sua sponte. Right now, I’m earnestly preparing for trial, but I thought I’d take a break to discuss the two issues are paramount in virtually every foreclosure case/trial. Depending on the facts of a particular case, there may be other issues, of course, but these two issues are critical to a Plaintiff’s ability to win at trial and should, in my view, be vigorously defended in virtually every case:

1. Introducing the Note into evidence.

2. Proving the homeowner’s default in payments and the amount owed.

Re. the former, we all know the Plaintiff must introduce the original Note into evidence, failing which a foreclosure judgment cannot lawfully be entered. The fact that a Note is “self-authenticating” makes this seem like a low hurdle – the Plaintiff’s attorney simply needs to hand the original Note to the judge and it will be admitted into evidence. Fortunately for homeowners, it’s not that simple.

Under Fla. Stat. 673.3081, if a homeowner denies the authenticity of a Note or the signatures thereon in the pleadings, the Plaintiff must authenticate the Note, and its signatures, at trial. There is still a presumption the Note and all signatures are authentic, but by contesting authentication, a homeowner can force the bank to authenticate the Note at trial. This may be harder than you think. For instance, if I challenge the authenticity of a blank indorsement, the Plaintiff must put on testimony from someone who can swear, under oath, that he/she saw the indorsement executed or that he/she recognizes the signature and it is authentic. Similarly, if I challenge the authenticity of the Note, the Plaintiff must present a witness who can testify he/she saw the homeowner sign the Note or who recognizes the homeowner’s signature based on other documents. The way that Notes change hands between banks, neither of these things would be very easy, and I doubt the Plaintiffs’ lawyers will be prepared to deal with these evidentiary issues. In other words, it’s quite possibly that if the homeowner preserves these evidentiary objections at trial, the Plaintiff’s lawyers won’t be prepared for them and won’t even have the requisite witness(es) at trial to testify.

Re. the second issue, testimony at trial must generally be based on personal knowledge. That means the Plaintiff must testify to events he/she has seen with his/her eyes or heard with his/her ears. This is virtually impossible to do with regard to proving a homeowner did not pay a mortgage payment or proving the amount owed, so the Plaintiff invariably must rely on documents to prove these facts. This is permissible, but only if the Plaintiff can introduce these documents under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.

Again, this is harder than you think. The Plaintiff must show: (1) the documents are a memorandum, report, record, or data compilation; (2) made at or near the time of the event; (3) by or from information transmitted by a person with knowledge; (4) kept in the course of regularly conducted business activity; and (5) that it was the regular practice of that business to make such a record. All five elements must be satisfied or the documents cannot be used as evidence at trial.

I’m not trying to teach anyone how to practice law. Rather, my point is that there are virtually always things that can be done to make it difficult for a bank to prevail in a foreclosure case; these are just two examples. So don’t give up – keep fighting foreclosure!

Mark Stopa Esq.

http://www.stayinmyhome.com

0
Ann

Registered:
Posts: 148
Reply with quote  #16 
See some comments on the post at
http://www.stayinmyhome.com/blog/2011/05/preparing-for-trial-in-a-foreclosure-case/

Also see this post
http://www.stayinmyhome.com/blog/2012/01/setting-a-foreclosure-case-for-trial/

Anyone who has experience on foreclosure trial is welcome to share his/her experience /view on hearing and trial matter. Especially on the subject Notes, mortgages, indorsement and allongement
0
Ann

Registered:
Posts: 148
Reply with quote  #17 

It would be nice if successful Pro Se mentioned in Unregistered Post can give out their case numbers so other Pro Se and I can learn from them .

 

Talk is cheap !!!

 

 

0
Texas
Reply with quote  #18 
Well and safely said:

The time to be posting exemplary successes in individual cases not subject to published appellate decisions is when the limitations period has run!

0
Ann

Registered:
Posts: 148
Reply with quote  #19 

Legal pleadings and court dockets are public.  Anyone can see them at the court house, including Bank lawyers. Anyone can crow on their non existent

victory on the Internet without proving proof. Appeal Court publish their Opinion immediately after the Hearing.

 

I have the feeling that some people for unknown reason try to spread negativity and incorrectness in this forum.  Including incorrectly critize REAL attorney opinions on legal matters. Jealousy perhaps ? Or do they work for the Bank  ?

 

Readers is advised to be careful taking internet advices/opinions from unknown posters. Consult competent lawyers before taking any legal steps.

I post comments from real lawyers so people can give it a thought . They tell you a view of boots on the ground.

 

It is well known that unless a person possesses high legal knowlege, fighting foreclosure lawsuit Pro Se is dangerous and risking losing their home. Hiring a lawyer is not a guarantee to win a free home either. However, fight it Pro Se is still better than doing nothing at all and could buy some additional time to be in the house or obtain loan modification or other settlement.

 

However, Pro Se should try to hire a lawyer when Bank files Motion for Summary Judgment. Losing this Motion could result in the sale of your house. The SMJ hearing is similar to a Bench trial, the SJ Judgment is difficult to reverse. Filing BK or Appeal could buy some time. Those in states with Deficiency Judgment should consult a BK lawyer or the Bank will go after their other assets and income later.

 

Fighting foreclosure lawsuit Pro Se is similar to go to war with a stick while the enemy owns machine gun.  The Bank lawyers often steamroll, crushing the Pro Se at Hearing and bring out tricky strategies to corner the Pro  Se so Bank can win.  Sometimes Judges don't bother to read the Pro Se pleading no matter how good it is. It helps to go to Court House in your jurisdiction , look at winning cases to learn how REAL winners do it. Read real pleadings to note good case law in your own state. Go watch Court hearings to prepare for your own hearing. It will not be easy. Remember to file pleadings and other legal documents on time or you could be considered forfeiting your rights. Object to the court or file Motion to Strike if the Bank lawyers says/files something incorrect or  fraudulent documents.

 

For Florida, there are a lot of info to do research at http://www.scribd.com/winstons2311 and click on Collection. The website http://www.foreclosureprose.com also have some helpful info on Pro Se strategies.

Remember, first attorney consultation is usually free. Take your case  to see few attorneys and ask them what your options are. 

 

Best wishes to you all

0
Ann

Registered:
Posts: 148
Reply with quote  #20 
Again, court hearings, lawsuit pleadings and file documents are PUBLIC, available to everyone.

 If a person wishes to keep his case in secret, he should not go on the forum and CROWS his success without provide proof. Those who CROWS on possible non existent success from other people should as well provide proof. Most of the Pro Se cases I saw in the Court House either lost their house at Bank Motion for Summary Jugdment or trial, filed Bankruptcy . get a dismissal without prejudice or negotiated a setllement with the Bank. Some kind of WINNING.  Some smart Pro Se hired lawyers to go to MSJ hearing and escaped the Judgment, end up with some kind of non disclosed settlement/loan mod. Few cases  got dismissed with prejudice.

People can gets better settlements with good lawyers. Why would Bank settle if they can win the Summary Judgment and get the house for free ?
They only settle if they are facing a good opponent and they know that it would be very difficult for them to win the Summary Judgment.

Of course the key here is get a good lawyer. How to hire a good lawyer for foreclosure defense ? It could be an Interesting subject for another thread.

Here is another view on Lawyering from Mark Stopa Esq.

GOOD LAWYERING, BAD LAWYERING AND BASIC FAIRNESS

I had a hearing yesterday and the Court was running a little late, so I had the opportunity to observe hearings in other cases. Geez, what a fiasco. The defendant/homeowner in the hearing before mine was pacing the halls, visibly upset. I’m friendly with the JA, so I inquired what was happening. She told me her attorney decided not to attend the hearing. Not that he got a flat tire on the way to court, not that he was moving to withdraw, and not that his staff inadvertently didn’t calendar the hearing … he just decided not to attend. Worse yet, it was a summary judgment hearing.

This is just absolutely inexcusable. Appalling. An embarrassment to the profession. A summary judgment hearing is the most important hearing in a foreclosure case. For the homeowner’s attorney simply not to attend – to choose not to attend – is disgraceful. I think the homeowner said it best when she muttered under her breath “I guess having the best lawyer possible really does matter.” Or perhaps Judge Rondolino summed it up best when he called this lawyer at the start of the hearing and said something to the effect of “I have your appearance as counsel in the file, you haven’t moved to withdraw … what do you expect me to do here? Rule in your client’s favor just to protect you from your own malpractice?”

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the basic problem with many foreclosure defense attorneys. A lot of them don’t know how to defend cases, don’t care, or both … they just file papers just to collect a fee, then when they lose tell the client “well, you were going to lose anyway.” My clients realize I may lose their case, but they know (at least I hope they know) they won’t lose without a knock-down, drag-out fight.

The bad lawyering is hardly limited to the defense side of foreclosure cases, but I’m not about to complain there. I have no aversion whatsoever to running roughshod over newbie attorneys who have no idea how to handle a contested foreclosure case.

Is there any good lawyering out there? Well, I had a client today say that she was referred to Stopa Law Firm by her bank. Apparently, GMAC told her my firm is “the best in the business” at defending foreclosure cases. A referral from the opposing bank – weird, but that one made my day. I don’t want this to be a brag-fest, though, so enough about me. Instead, I’ll do something rare – I’ll throw a compliment to an opposing attorney.

I’ve been litigating a case against Attorney Gary Gassel out of Sarasota. He’s pushed the case aggressively and competently (certainly compared to most foreclosure lawyers I see). However, my client was just diagnosed with Stage 4 lung cancer and is not expected to live much longer. So I filed an Emergency Motion to continue the summary judgment hearing, arguing the rather obvious unfairness of foreclosing a homeowner on his death-bed and the impropriety of letting a case proceed when my client is incapable of participating in his own defense.

To my surprise and pleasure, Mr. Gassel cancelled the hearing. I was expecting some sort of “my client won’t approve” or “I can’t reach my client for approval” excuse (and that I’d feel compelled to talk to my friend Shannon Behnken at the Tampa Tribune about how U.S. Bank wanted to foreclose on a homeowner with Stage 4 lung cancer) but nope – this lawyer did the right thing, acknowledging the hearing should be cancelled. That’s good lawyering.

With so much frustration and outrage in this industry, it made my day to see some basic fairness in a foreclosure case. Now, if everyone could exhibit the same compassion to all homeowners all of the time …

Mark Stopa Esq.

http://www.stayinmyhome.com


0
Ann

Registered:
Posts: 148
Reply with quote  #21 
Another winning hearing transcript related to Notes, Endorsement etc.
Thank you Matt Weidner Esq. for this post.

WOW! A FORECLOSURE BATTLE BEFORE A JUDGE THAT REALLY “GETS IT”

http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2012/03/wow-a-foreclosure-battle-before-a-judge-that-really-gets-it/

 

The general public just has no idea how difficult the job our elected circuit court judges have. Specific to this foreclosure crisis, the banks have exponentially increased the case loads our judges are expected to hear, while at the same time the Florida Legislature has effectively cut their salaries, reduced their staff and reduced the pay for the staff that remain. The working conditions and the working environment for these public servants is demanding and difficult.

Most times the disputes and arguments heard by these judges are weighty and significant. By and large the people that are arguing in front of them are very intelligent, very prepared. These attorneys are also usually supported by competent and organized support staff, paralegals and assistants. They have a team of support players and resources to support the effort.

Our judges on the other hand largely head into battle each day alone and not properly supported. For hours on end, they and their staff are forced to sort through the roughly 368,000 foreclosure filings that are a mess of contradictions and confusion. Then, in the middle of all this, they stop work on all these cases to preside over a two week long, gut wrenching trial where a young family lost an infant in a medical malpractice case. For two weeks, the judge alternates between hearing devastating emotional testimony then days of technical, complex medical testimony. And then it’s right back int the foreclosure quagmire. A disturbing parade of hard luck stories, job loss, divorce, misery.

As a judge you undoubtedly feel moved at times by the gut wrenching stories. As a member of the community, you are not immune to the very difficult economic circumstances ripping across this country. Aside from what you see in your courtroom, you suffer the same economic uncertainty as everyone else. As a judge you know family members, friends, co workers who are suffering the same very real tragedies that hear about for eight hours a day, every single day. But even if a homeowner or a good defense attorney presents compelling evidence and testimony, you are handcuffed and boxed in by appellate court decisions that force your hand in so many areas. Wearing the robe means you’re a judge first and foremost, your duty is to the law and as conflicting as it must be sometimes, you must serve her before the heartaches you see pouring out before you.

And you are provided no room for error, especially the reversible kind. Just think about it, how would you like to have every single word out of your mouth reduced down to writing? And how would you like to have every single word and every single decision you make picked apart by a team of extraordinarily intelligent and extremely gifted superiors who not only probably have many more years of experience then you do, but also have the benefit of lots of time and a whole lot of dedicated support staff, bright young lawyers and teams of judicial assistants that can ponder and second guess for months over a decision that you made late in the day in an instant? Every single word you speak, every word you write, subject to intensive critical review. Not just the final, formal decision at the end of the trial, but every decision, every fork in the road, every thought in your brain along the way. Examined under a microscope. Picked apart and attacked. Publicly. For all the world to see and read about. Forever.

Given all of this, how would you like to walk into a highly charged and very difficult environment every single day and listen to people arguing and battling bitterly?

Now as you think about all that, I want you to slip on the black robe, enter the courtroom and get prepared to do this job. The transcript that follows provides just a brief perspective on the difficult job our judges do. The fact of the matter is many of the issues our trial courts are facing are new and novel, complex and confounding. There are oftentimes no definitive guideposts or opinions you can rely upon for the answers. Listen as this judge drills down into a 30 year practicing lawyer, demanding out of him answers and details, no vagueness or generality. Listen to this judge’s command of the facts and the law and consider that while the lawyers in front of him may have only a few hundred cases, this judge is responsible for many thousands of cases. This is a great example that shows why our judges are deserving of so much respect……

Nuckols+transcript-smaller


0
Ann

Registered:
Posts: 148
Reply with quote  #22 
Another peek at inside the Court room during a foreclosure hearing.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/83703363/Nuckols-Transcript-Smaller1
0
Ann

Registered:
Posts: 148
Reply with quote  #23 

Smart shoppers check out several stores. Smart researchers visits different forums/websites to check out different info and opinions.

 

 

0
Ann

Registered:
Posts: 148
Reply with quote  #24 

If you want to see cases ,  all you have to do is go to the Court house and read them.

 

 

 

 

 

0
Amicusman

Registered:
Posts: 14
Reply with quote  #25 
I don't appreciate being abused, when all I'm trying to do is educate. It's striking that how showing a methodology that works time & time again would be a threat to anyone. Legal illiteracy is so rampant, and the abusive comments are just proof.
0
Ann

Registered:
Posts: 148
Reply with quote  #26 

I agree. Ice Legal is one of the premier foreclosure defense firm . They have made public many robot signors deposition and Hearing transcripts which are very helpful to foreclosure defenders.

0
Ann

Registered:
Posts: 148
Reply with quote  #27 
I went to this website as per the link on Amicusman's post:
http://neighbors.denverpost.com/viewtopic.php?f=215&t=123490692 , the website link was under Amicusman email and get the phone number from this website 
http://www.mortgagefraudexaminers.com/

I called the Mortgage Fraud Examiner . They want $2 000 for a full mortgage analysis report. Customer then would have to look for a attorney to fight the bank using the reports. They says their report may help to get a loan mod, a free home perhaps but they do not guarantee anything. So folks , pay $2000 upfront and good luck !!!


0
HungarianProse

Registered:
Posts: 34
Reply with quote  #28 

[ps re Ann ~ one question for you - of all the questions that you have raised on this forum plez just reference one post authored by Ann that 'helped'?

John, i read tons of legal work regarding foreclosures, motions, opinions of appellate courts, federal courts etc...i enjoy it. I try to lean everyday from many different sources. Some makes sense, some don't. I do not believe that forensic audit is really helps, at least not at the state level. Most circuit court judges have no clue how the stuff works. The fact is there is not one formula, defense or theory that works all the time. What really helps us is the fact that most foreclosure mills do make lots of mistakes and they do come to court unprepared. I was asked for a copy of my motion 5 minutes before the hearing by the plaintiff's counsel several times. Too funny! But we have just a lots of stuff to overcome. You know the sentiment: " you borrowed the money...."

0
Ann

Registered:
Posts: 148
Reply with quote  #29 
Quote Amicusman,
"Lastly, I know Troy Doucet VERY well, but TILA/RESPA audits are basically useless!"
 
Reply:
Here is one case that the attorney filed a counter claim with Respa and Tila violations . The Bank settled the case . 
 
 
Disclaimer : I am only a simple. humble Homeowner. I do not work for any attorneys or legal firm or financial related firms. I just share the info on this forum and I do not endorse them. Use them at your own risk.  I do not give legal advice and no one should consider my posts as legal advices . Consult an attorney before trying any internet info.

0
Ann

Registered:
Posts: 148
Reply with quote  #30 

For those who bad mouth Matt Weidner Esq. Shame on you to attack a consumer attorney who has the guts to stand up to the Banks and fight for the Homeowners !!!

Matt Weidner is one of the consumer attorneys who are fighting hard since 3 years against the Bank effort to turn Florida to Non Judicial Foreclosure State. I went to Rally in Tallahasse twice and saw how hard he is fighting for the distress Homeowners. I am afraid the Florida Homeowners may lost this year . The horrible Frausclosure Act could passed this year.

Check out this video
http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2012/02/a-new-video-on-thursdays-rally-in-tally-and-the-unfair-foreclosure-bill/

http://4closurefraud.org/2010/04/22/rally-in-tally-update-from-matt-weidner/
0
Ann

Registered:
Posts: 148
Reply with quote  #31 
Video on Rally in Talalahassee in Feb 2012 against the (Un)Fairforeclosure Act

http://4closurefraud.org/2012/02/17/video-of-our-2012-rally-in-tally-kick-off-with-maia-shaffer-of-the-mortgage-justice-group-florida-state-rep-darren-soto-and-attorney-matt-weidner/
0
Amicusman

Registered:
Posts: 14
Reply with quote  #32 
Actually Ann, you are showing that you're a legal illiterate as well. 

There is no way the bank settled because of the TILA/ affirmative defense argument made. Why? A TILA violation DOES NOT "void the mortgage and note!" 

So, it wan't because of this attorney's misguided answer and affirmative answer.
0
Ann

Registered:
Posts: 148
Reply with quote  #33 
Amicus,
The case you mentionedwas dismissed WITH PREJUDICE and a non disclosed settlement was made. No need for expensive useless internet website report.

Case closed.
0
John Lewis
Reply with quote  #34 

?4 Amicusman: What State is:

1. Lex Consultling LLc, and/or
2. Mortgage Fraud Examiners
registered in?

also, what relationship does either above share with

3. 'www.realestaterama.com'?

4. Alison Bradfrod?

5. William Fowler?

6. 'ILP'?

lastly

7. to ' Americans United For Justice'?

just asking?

0
Amicusman

Registered:
Posts: 14
Reply with quote  #35 
And who are you John Lewis that I would need to answer your question? 

Please identify yourself. The Nitwit who calls himself has failed to do so. Are you of the same ilk?
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

Law Books