Mortgage Servicing Fraud
occurs post loan origination when mortgage servicers use false statements and book-keeping entries, fabricated assignments, forged signatures and utter counterfeit intangible Notes to take a homeowner's property and equity.
Articles |The FORUM |Law Library |Videos | Fraudsters & Co. |File Complaints |How they STEAL |Search MSFraud |Contact Us
Repair Your Credit
MSF Admin
From our email:

Subject: Urgent: Robo signer issues MA recorder of deeds

To all:

I had a conversation with Kevin Harvey from the recorder of Deeds office in Salem Massachusetts today. As you may be aware, John O'Brien, the Registrar of Deeds made a big announcement the other day regarding flawed and slandered titles to at least 31,000 properties in Massachusetts alone.

Their office will supply anyone in the Country with a sworn affidavit regarding any robo-signer that may have appeared on their mortgage documents and land recordings. They will only provide an affidavit to the approved Robo-signers on their web-site salemdeeds.com

Please visit the site first before calling or emailing Kevin.

This could be quite valuable to you or someone you know that is in or facing foreclosure.

The infamous Linda Green is of course one of the most notorious of those signers. Jump on this while you can get it.

Kevin and O'Brien are also deeply concerned about a possible AG settlement. This would be devastating if enacted.


Kevin may be reached at:

khsalemdeeds@gmail.com

Phone: 978.542.1724

Please circulate.


Michael S
Quote 0 0
Find a Lawyer - LegalMatch
Bill
It will be interesting how the court views these affidavits.  

We have discussed in several threads that just because someone is a "robo-signer" does NOT invalidate a document they signed.  A homeowner would need to show these deficiencies in the documents in their case.  This would usually be done by deposing the "robo-signer".  An entity also has the opportunity to ratify an assignment improperly executed giving it some validity.  I ultimately think these problems that  homeowners face when alleging the misdeeds of a "robo-signer" will minimize the significance of these affidavits.
Quote 0 0
John Lewis
Here is a scenario:

The mere fact the Nikki Cureton is a known robo-signer means very little by itself.  It does appear to be her signature.  It would be better if I could compare it to other samples of her signature and say it was not hers.  However, like I said the other day, you have to build up your case like a pyramid.  My Assignment of Mortgage shows on its face that it was prepared by David Stern after the lawsuit was filed against me.  The effective date of the AOM is in December, 2008, which is impossible because the US Bank trust that is suing me had a cut off date in 2006.  Furthermore, if the 2008 assignment date was correct, that would mean my loan was transferred into the trust while it was in default, which creates another issue.  My assignment shows consideration was paid to MERS for the assignment, which is also false.  Add all of these things up, and you have an AOM that was prepared by plaintiff's counsel for the purpose of perpetrating a fraud on the court by making it look like a real assignment.

Quote 0 0
Angelo

And their responce will be that the assignment of the mortgage doesn't really matter because the mortgage follows the note.  They are going to claim that the AOM was to memorialize a prior occurrence.

Quote 0 0
Karen

Mr. Roper has pointed out that the nature of what is being robo-signed is of particular importance.  Robo-signing an affidavit can give rise to more problems for the plaintiff that robo-signing assignments.

 

Of course, the Register of Deeds is talking about robo-signed assignments.  But in some cases, especially older cases, the same person has robo-signed both the assignment and the affidavit.

 

I think that these affidavits would be especially helpful in creating questions about the credibility and reliability of robo-signers signing affidavits. 

 

I guess those of us not in Massachusetts will have to pour through Massachusetts case records to find affidavits for the right signer so that we can get certified copies.  I doubt that the Register of Deeds is going to be doing these affidavits for borrowers nationally.

Quote 0 0
Bill
John Lewis wrote:
Here is a scenario:

The mere fact the Nikki Cureton is a known robo-signer means very little by itself.  It does appear to be her signature.  It would be better if I could compare it to other samples of her signature and say it was not hers.  However, like I said the other day, you have to build up your case like a pyramid.  My Assignment of Mortgage shows on its face that it was prepared by David Stern after the lawsuit was filed against me.  The effective date of the AOM is in December, 2008, which is impossible because the US Bank trust that is suing me had a cut off date in 2006.  Furthermore, if the 2008 assignment date was correct, that would mean my loan was transferred into the trust while it was in default, which creates another issue.  My assignment shows consideration was paid to MERS for the assignment, which is also false.  Add all of these things up, and you have an AOM that was prepared by plaintiff's counsel for the purpose of perpetrating a fraud on the court by making it look like a real assignment.


You posted some interesting problems.  It is very difficult to prove fraud on the court.  Just because something was filed that is NOT correct does not amount to fraud upon the court.  U.S. Bank v. Harpster is a good example of fraud upon the court.  It is very EASY to discount the value of the assignment and dismiss it as a paperwork mistake or just a memorization of a prior transfer.  

In the case where Stern did the assignment post commencement I'd really be taking my time reading the assignment.  The language often includes:

Quote:
together with the note and each and every other obligation described in said mortgage and Ihe money due and to become due thereon

If you got the Plaintiff to embrace the assignment rather than attack the assignment, this would seem to show that the Plaintiff received the note AFTER COMMENCEMENT.  This is even more problematic when an unendorsed copy of the note or a lost note affidavit is attached to the complaint.  

We all know that most MERS assignments are fraudulent in some way, but you also have to consider this MAY benefit the homeowner in some way.  You have to fight the knee jerk reaction to run into court with a hand full of papers trying to show this fraud if the document SUPPORTS your arguments.
Quote 0 0
John Lewis

Karen: "I guess those of us not in Massachusetts will have to pour through Massachusetts case records to find affidavits for the right signer so that we can get certified copies. I doubt that the Register of Deeds is going to be doing these affidavits for borrowers nationally."
 
A telephone call was made to:

Kevin may be reached at:

khsalemdeeds@gmail.com

Phone: 978.542.1724

a request for "Nikki Cureton"  was made and they will be forwarding a certified affidavit of her activies in MA.

also thanks to Angelo and Bill for their input..jl

Quote 0 0
John Lewis
Bill asked:

1."....did the assignment post commencement ..." and
2. "...
together with the note and each and every other obligation described in said mortgage and Ihe money due and to become due thereon"
 
Answer is Yes and Yes.
Quote 0 0
Bill
John Lewis wrote:
Bill asked:

1."....did the assignment post commencement ..." and
2. "...
together with the note and each and every other obligation described in said mortgage and Ihe money due and to become due thereon"
 
Answer is Yes and Yes.

That is pretty standard language for Stern.  The problem with this is that most jurisdictions have a line of cases that prohibit parlor evidence and extrinsic evidence to explain or contradict a written instrument.  Only where there is ambiguity can the court then look to extrinsic evidence to find the intent.  This instrument CLEARLY shows that the Mortgage AND THE NOTE were assigned to the Plaintiff AFTER COMMENCEMENT.  The Plaintiff should not be allowed to use parlor evidence to "explain away" the assignment.  

Quote:
Regardless of the intention of the plaintiff-settlor now, the disposition of any excess dividends over the agreed amount per year to be paid defendant is clearly set forth in the above quoted documents. In 875*875 the absence of fraud; accident or mistake, the general rule is that oral evidence is not admissible to contradict or vary the terms of a written instrument. Hoopes v. Crane, 56 Fla. 395, 47 So. 992; Peplax Medicine Co. v. Tampa Drug Co., 88 Fla. 473, 102 So. 632; Florida Moss Products Co. v. City of Leesburg, 93 Fla. 656, 112 So. 572, 32 C.J.S. Evidence § 852

Quote:
 However, unless the trust instrument is ambiguous the intent of the settlor must be ascertained from that which lies within the four corners of the instrument itself, and no extrinsic evidence of the settlor's intent is admissible. See Travis v. Ashton, 156 Fla. 529, 23 So.2d 725 (1945); Pentland v. Pentland, 113 So.2d 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)

Quote:
A separation agreement is a contract subject to interpretation like any other contract. Bingemann v. Bingemann, 551 So.2d 1228, 1231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), rev. denied, 560 So.2d 232 (Fla. 1990).

Where the terms are unambiguous, the parties' intent must be discerned from the four corners of the document. Robert C. Roy Agency, Inc. v. Sun First Nat'l Bank, 468 So.2d 399, 405 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 480 So.2d 1295 (Fla. 1985). "[W]here a contract is clear and unambiguous in its terms the court may not give those terms any meaning beyond that expressed." Biltmore Sys., Inc. v. Mai Kai, Inc., 413 So.2d 458 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). In the absence of ambiguity, the language itself is the best evidence of the parties' intent and its plain meaning controls. Acceleration Nat'l Serv. Corp. v. Brickell Fin. Servs. Motor Club, Inc., 541 So.2d 738 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 548 So.2d 662 (Fla. 1989).

IF the Plaintiff disagrees with the plain written terms of the assignment, then there clearly is a dispute and this should preclude summary judgment.  


Quote:
If the terms of a written instrument are in dispute and are reasonably susceptible to two different interpretations, then an issue of fact is presented as to the parties' intent; such an issue of fact cannot be properly resolved by a summary judgment. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Steve Hull Chevrolet, Inc., 513 So.2d 218 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Gulf stream Bank, N.A. v. Barnett Bank of South Florida, N.A., 438 So.2d 67 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), and Griffin Builders Supply, Inc. v. Jones, 384 So.2d 265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). It is not apparent from the four corners of the release what "claims" the parties intended to release. For example, it is not apparent whether the modifying language "presently existing" bars a cause of action relating to a defect in existence at the time of execution of the release, but unknown to the parties; or rather, whether that modifying language limits the release to causes of action fully accrued at the time of execution. Furthermore, there is a question as to when the instant cause of action accrued. Compare, Carlon v. Levitz Furniture Corp., 374 So.2d 1156 (Fla. 3d DCA 

Quote:
On the other hand, "[w]hen a contract is ambiguous and the parties suggest different interpretations, the issue of the proper interpretation is an issue of fact requiring the submission of evidence extrinsic to the contract bearing upon the intent of the parties." Bacardi v. Bacardi, 386 So.2d 1201, 1203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). When there are two reasonable interpretations, summary judgment is inappropriate because there is a genuine issue of material fact. Gulfstream Bank, N.A. v. Barnett Bank of South Florida, N.A., 438 So.2d 67 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Quayside Assocs., Inc. v. Harbour Club Villas Condominium Ass'n, Inc., 419 So.2d 678, 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) ("[w]here ... the terms of a written instrument are disputed and reasonably susceptible to more than one construction, an issue of fact is presented which cannot properly be resolved by summary judgment.").

Appellees allege that the contract is clear and has only one true meaning, and that the court would have to violate the intent of the contract to create an ambiguity. We disagree. There was more than one reasonable interpretation of the agreement here, as we have indicated. The court erred in resolving this issue by summary judgment. See Royal Am. Realty v. Bank of Palm Beach & Trust Co., 215 So.2d 336 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968) (where language appears unambiguous but is susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation, language is rendered ambiguous).

In my jurisdiction there is a CLEAR four corners rule.  It seems in FL you would need to research this argument more, I'm just suggesting a potential argument.

The point is that rather than ATTACK this assignment, you may be far better off having them embrace this document, then use it to allow them to hang themselves.  The simple, clear, language does not seem ambiguous.  

YOU HAVE A NOTARIZED WRITTEN INSTRUMENT THAT SAYS THE PLAINTIFF GOT THE NOTE AFTER THEY FILED THE COMPLAINT AND LACKS STANDING.  

Please make sure you do further research and read the cases.  I have only researched the specific cases in my jurisdiction.  

I'm not an attorney, this isn't legal advice. 
Quote 0 0
Ms Brenda

The lightbulb came on for me after reading the many forums concerning the fraudclosure scandals.  The key is this:  Fight the fraudulent affidavits with a passion.  Get the fraudsters by fighting for the affidavits not to be submitted into the record.  Yes, they are know robosigners, and the paperwork is phoony, but the robosigners dont count on us knowing that they must provide  extrinsic evidence to go along with their claim that is stated in the affidavit. For example, if the affidavit states they control the books and records of said company, where are the books and records to support your claim?  In addition, they are merely employees and custodians of the company and not officers of the company with property to execute said claims.  I will look for the website I found this valuable info on and submit another reply.  Remember if its not allowed in the record, they have nothing to fight with. Hope this helps

Quote 0 0
ka

Quote:
That is pretty standard language for Stern.  The problem with this is that most jurisdictions have a line of cases that prohibit parlor evidence and extrinsic evidence to explain or contradict a written instrument.  Only where there is ambiguity can the court then look to extrinsic evidence to find the intent.  This instrument CLEARLY shows that the Mortgage AND THE NOTE were assigned to the Plaintiff AFTER COMMENCEMENT.  The Plaintiff should not be allowed to use parlor evidence to "explain away" the assignment. 

 

I think the word you are looking for is "parole evidence" and you seem to be thinking of the parole evidence rule.

 

PAROL. More properly parole. A French word, which means literally, word or speech.  It is used to distinguish contracts which are made verbally or in writing not under seal, which are called, parol. contracts, from those which are under seal which bear the name of deeds or specialties (q. v.) 1 Chit. Contr. 1; 7 Term. R. 3 0 351, n.; 3 Johns. Cas. 60; 1 Chit. Pl. 88. It is proper to remark that when a contract is made under seal, and afterwards it is modified verbally, it becomes wholly a parol contract. 2 Watts, 451; 9 Pick. 298; 13 Wend. 71.

 

2. Pleadings are frequently denominated the parol. In some instances the term parol is used to denote the entire pleadings in a cause as when in an action brought against an infant heir, on an obligation of his ancestors, he prays that the parol may demur, i. e., the pleadings may be stayed, till he shall attain full age. 3 Bl. Com. 300; 4 East, 485 1 Hoffm. R. 178. See a form of a plea in abatement, praying that the parol may demur, in 1 Wentw. Pl. 43; and 2 Chit. Pl. 520. But a devisee cannot pray the parol to demur. 4 East, 485.

 

3. Parol evidence is evidence verbally delivered by a witness. As to the cases when such evidence will be received or rejected, vide Stark, Ev. pt. 4, p. 995 to 1055; 1 Phil. Ev. 466, c. 10, s. 1; Sugd. Vend. 97.

 

See:  http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_p.htm

Quote 0 0
ka

Quote:
The point is that rather than ATTACK this assignment, you may be far better off having them embrace this document, then use it to allow them to hang themselves.   The simple, clear, language does not seem ambiguous. 

 

Mr. Roper has taught us that when the assignment forgery is post commencement, it is better to both embrace the assignment and force the plaintiff to wrap their arms around the assignment, although a defendant should embrace the assignment to the extent possible at arms length, as by accepting the assignment in the alternative.

 

By contrast, when the assignment is pre-commencement, it may be better to attack the assignment, though one wants to do this as late in a proceeding as possible so that any corrective or replacement assignment is clearly tardy.

 

Usually, as soon as the defendant attacks the assignment, the plaintiff will begin to back away from it.

 

One reason to embrace an assignment only in the alternative, is that the embrace of the assignment can be a very potent means of obtaining a dismissal for lack of standing.  But upon re-filing, the same assignment seems to now be pre-commencement (as to the second refiled action).

 

The defendant wants to be in a position to pivot and now argue that the assignment is actually a forgery, defective, conveys nothing, etc.  This can be difficult to do if the defendant takes a firm position (not in the alternative) in relying upon the forgery to obtain a dismissal.

Quote 0 0
ka

Quote:
The lightbulb came on for me after reading the many forums concerning the fraudclosure scandals.  The key is this:  Fight the fraudulent affidavits with a passion.  Get the fraudsters by fighting for the affidavits not to be submitted into the record.  Yes, they are know robosigners, and the paperwork is phoony, but the robosigners dont count on us knowing that they must provide  extrinsic evidence to go along with their claim that is stated in the affidavit. For example, if the affidavit states they control the books and records of said company, where are the books and records to support your claim?  In addition, they are merely employees and custodians of the company and not officers of the company with property to execute said claims.  I will look for the website I found this valuable info on and submit another reply.  Remember if its not allowed in the record, they have nothing to fight with. Hope this helps

 

This is NOT uniformly the best strategy!

 

When the assignment is post-commencement, usually it is better for the assignment to come into evidence and then to use this post-commencement assignment as evidence against the plaintiff to obtain a dismissal due to lack of standing.  This is particularly effective when (a) the plaintiff also filed a note lacking an indorsement as an exhibit to its complaint, and (b) the assignment itself purports to assign both the note and the mortgage.

 

See my prior post above and Mr. Roper's threads on this topic.

Quote 0 0
Bill
ka wrote:

Quote:
That is pretty standard language for Stern.  The problem with this is that most jurisdictions have a line of cases that prohibit parlor evidence and extrinsic evidence to explain or contradict a written instrument.  Only where there is ambiguity can the court then look to extrinsic evidence to find the intent.  This instrument CLEARLY shows that the Mortgage AND THE NOTE were assigned to the Plaintiff AFTER COMMENCEMENT.  The Plaintiff should not be allowed to use parlor evidence to "explain away" the assignment. 

 

I think the word you are looking for is "parole evidence" and you seem to be thinking of the parole evidence rule.

 

PAROL. More properly parole. A French word, which means literally, word or speech.  It is used to distinguish contracts which are made verbally or in writing not under seal, which are called, parol. contracts, from those which are under seal which bear the name of deeds or specialties (q. v.) 1 Chit. Contr. 1; 7 Term. R. 3 0 351, n.; 3 Johns. Cas. 60; 1 Chit. Pl. 88. It is proper to remark that when a contract is made under seal, and afterwards it is modified verbally, it becomes wholly a parol contract. 2 Watts, 451; 9 Pick. 298; 13 Wend. 71.

 

2. Pleadings are frequently denominated the parol. In some instances the term parol is used to denote the entire pleadings in a cause as when in an action brought against an infant heir, on an obligation of his ancestors, he prays that the parol may demur, i. e., the pleadings may be stayed, till he shall attain full age. 3 Bl. Com. 300; 4 East, 485 1 Hoffm. R. 178. See a form of a plea in abatement, praying that the parol may demur, in 1 Wentw. Pl. 43; and 2 Chit. Pl. 520. But a devisee cannot pray the parol to demur. 4 East, 485.

 

3. Parol evidence is evidence verbally delivered by a witness. As to the cases when such evidence will be received or rejected, vide Stark, Ev. pt. 4, p. 995 to 1055; 1 Phil. Ev. 466, c. 10, s. 1; Sugd. Vend. 97.

 

See:  http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_p.htm


Yes, thank you ka for the correction.  The correct term is Parole.
Quote 0 0
ka

Bill,

 

Emerald Pointe Prop. Owners' Ass'n v. Commercial Constr. Indus. is a Florida case touching upon parole evidence and the four corners rule:

 

Emerald Pointe Prop. Owners' Ass'n v. Commercial Constr. Indus., No. 4D06-3767, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 5521, 978 So. 2d 873, 33 Fla. L. Weekly D 1027 (Fla. 4th Dist. 2008)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15386682335253150

 

Perhaps some of our Florida Forum participants will find this case and the case cited therein to be instructive in this regard.

 

Quote 0 0
John Lewis
You guys and gals r just freaken fantastic .....  this is the reason that this site is the best and must remain......


Quote 0 0
Bill
ka wrote:

Bill,

 

Emerald Pointe Prop. Owners' Ass'n v. Commercial Constr. Indus. is a Florida case touching upon parole evidence and the four corners rule:

 

Emerald Pointe Prop. Owners' Ass'n v. Commercial Constr. Indus., No. 4D06-3767, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 5521, 978 So. 2d 873, 33 Fla. L. Weekly D 1027 (Fla. 4th Dist. 2008)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15386682335253150

 

Perhaps some of our Florida Forum participants will find this case and the case cited therein to be instructive in this regard.

 


Very nice case..

As ka posted, you need to be VERY DELIBERATE with your position and arguments.

Quote:

Mr. Roper has taught us that when the assignment forgery is post commencement, it is better to both embrace the assignment and force the plaintiff to wrap their arms around the assignment, although a defendant should embrace the assignment to the extent possible at arms length, as by accepting the assignment in the alternative.

 

By contrast, when the assignment is pre-commencement, it may be better to attack the assignment, though one wants to do this as late in a proceeding as possible so that any corrective or replacement assignment is clearly tardy.

 

Usually, as soon as the defendant attacks the assignment, the plaintiff will begin to back away from it.

 

One reason to embrace an assignment only in the alternative, is that the embrace of the assignment can be a very potent means of obtaining a dismissal for lack of standing.  But upon re-filing, the same assignment seems to now be pre-commencement (as to the second refiled action).

 

The defendant wants to be in a position to pivot and now argue that the assignment is actually a forgery, defective, conveys nothing, etc.  This can be difficult to do if the defendant takes a firm position (not in the alternative) in relying upon the forgery to obtain a dismissal.


Because the Plaintiff (servicer) likes to be very vague in their pleadings and positions, if you make well though out, written pleadings/motions, you can have them chasing their tails over and over.  

If you obtain a dismissal for lack of standing using this argument PROPERLY (in the alternative), while upon refiling the assignment date would be pre-commencement, it shouldn't take much to show that the assignment was fraudulent/void/without effect. 

 This again raises the question of WHEN the Plaintiff became the "note holder" and if they have the mortgage.  Problems like a defunct lender, note attached to the complaint without an endorsement, or a lost note affidavit would seem to add more complexity to the Plaintiff's proof problem the second time around.  

These arguments WILL NOT ultimately win a "free house" for a homeowner.  It will merely delay the foreclosure (potentially for a considerable time).  The ultimate "goal" would be for the homeowner to get the Plaintiff so twisted that they flail around and use perjury and fraudulent documents in an attempt to prove standing or just lose interest and let the case languish for an extended period.   
Quote 0 0
John Lewis

Harold VINEBERG and Peter DeMet, Appellants,
v.
BRUNSWICK CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 24028.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

March 4, 1968.

Rehearing Denied April 4, 1968.

This [Florida] court has recognized and applied the Florida parol evidence rule in the following form:

"The so-called 'parol evidence rule' forbids any addition to or contradiction of the terms of a written instrument by testimony purporting to show that, at or before the signing of the document, further or different terms were orally agreed upon by the parties; provided, always, that the written instrument appears on its face to express an agreement complete in all essential terms. This is not a mere rule of evidence. It is a rule of substantive law." Jones, Commentaries on Evidence, Vol. 3, p. 2695, ? 1482. Ramey v. Koons, 5 Cir. 1956, 230 F.2d 802, at 804.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14368897606523851997&q=harold+vineberg+v+brunswick+corporation&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10

Quote 0 0
Bill
John Lewis wrote:

Harold VINEBERG and Peter DeMet, Appellants,
v.
BRUNSWICK CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 24028.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

March 4, 1968.

Rehearing Denied April 4, 1968.

This [Florida] court has recognized and applied the Florida parol evidence rule in the following form:

"The so-called 'parol evidence rule' forbids any addition to or contradiction of the terms of a written instrument by testimony purporting to show that, at or before the signing of the document, further or different terms were orally agreed upon by the parties; provided, always, that the written instrument appears on its face to express an agreement complete in all essential terms. This is not a mere rule of evidence. It is a rule of substantive law." Jones, Commentaries on Evidence, Vol. 3, p. 2695, ? 1482. Ramey v. Koons, 5 Cir. 1956, 230 F.2d 802, at 804.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14368897606523851997&q=harold+vineberg+v+brunswick+corporation&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10


Very nice example.  As I posted you will find a line of cases like this in most jurisdictions.  

Quote:
"The so-called 'parol evidence rule' forbids any addition to or contradiction of the terms of a written instrument

This presents quite a problem for the Plaintiff.  They are NOT allowed to "contradict" the assignment.  If it clearly transfers the note WITH the mortgage on a certain date after commencement this would seem to be prima facie evidence of a lack of standing at commencement. 
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...

Add a Website Forum to your website.

Repair Your Credit
Improve. Monitor. Protect.
Save $50 off Credit Repair Service - Applies to first-work fee for each spouse sign-up.
Need a Lawyer? LegalMatch allows you to present your case, and respond only to lawyers who want to help you. It's Free & Confidential.