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
GW Show full post »
GW

Well, I will be back... and will pull the case dockets here, where the Judge ordered the Pltf to amend w/o predujice given a time frame. So thank you so much for your words of encourgement.  A case cannot go to FJS w/o a  verified complaint. "A VERIFIED COMPLAINT"   Please read up, on what a verified complaint is!  You would think from Feb 11, 2010 that all atty's would know this by now! 

GW
Quote 0 0
Walt

Well, I am headed to bed.  GW seems not to be able to correctly read or comprehend statutes, rules or court cases, none of which support his arguments.

 

GW has also indicated that instead of filing a proper opposition to the motion for summary judgment that instead a motion to strike the MSJ was filed.  That is going to be dead on arrival and GW will have assured the destruction of his "friend's" case.

 

GW could have encouraged his friend to browse the Forum and actually develop a viable and robust defense.  Instead, GW is now a self-proclaimed "expert" who has arrived at the Forum to teach us about foreclosure defense rather than to learn.  Neither do I detect even a trace of realization or recognition that he is making specious arguments, rather he clings to this nonsense as if it is some Gospel.  Basically, GW has come to believe his own bulls**t.  Like Paul, I have no further interest or patience for it other than to make sure that appropriate cautions appear within this thread so that no one else is foolish enough to make these silly arguments!

Quote 0 0
GW
GW seems to be way off in some imaginary wingnut land where his imagined defenses are going to rescue to poor sole who was foolhardy enough to trust GW's judgment.
 
"Mortgage foreclosure action filed after Feb 11,2010 must be Verified,"  for those not foolhardy LARGE PRINT: VERIFIED
GW
Quote 0 0
GW

I am here to learn, but seems as if I am playing soccer and being kick to the bench for time out.

GW
Quote 0 0
Sid

Quote:
Well, I will be back... and will pull the case dockets here, where the Judge ordered the Pltf to amend w/o predujice given a time frame. So thank you so much for your words of encourgement. A case cannot go to FJS w/o a verified complaint. "A VERIFIED COMPLAINT" Please read up, on what a verified complaint is! You would think from Feb 11, 2010 that all atty's would know this by now! 

 

You are in for a very rude awakening.  Since you lack the patience to actually read and understand either the Florida Statutes OR the Rules, you are absolutely certain to LOSE.

 

I previously posted Fla. Stat. 92.525 and had hoped that you would read it and appreciate what it says.

 

Read it again (if you ever bothered to do so at all). 

 

There are two statutory methods for verification expressly set forth within the statute:

 

(a) Under oath or affirmation taken or administered before an officer authorized under s. 92.50 to administer oaths; or

(b) By the signing of the written declaration prescribed in subsection (2).

That appearing within (a) involves an oath or affirmation administered before an officer, etc.  This is how a typical affidavit is made.

 

The second method under (b) also allows, but for verification by a declaration on the instrument.  When the method shown in (b) is used, the declaration is supposed to appear on the instrument as further discussed in subsection (2).

 

But the method shown in (a) does not contain this same restriction.  Taken together with Rule 1.110, it seems pretty clear that correcting a lack of verification by a separate affidavit is probably permissible under both the statute and the Rules.

 

Of course, a trial judge has a lot of discretion.  But if GW thinks he is going to waltz into a Florida courtroom where he is going to represent his friend in violation of the law and persuade a judge to disregard a corrective affidavit as well as disregarding the rules pertaining to summary judgment and then is going to spring his surprise additional defenses in rebuttal, then all I can say is that I hope the judge orders GW LOCKED UP for UPL, because he is clearly harming others through his reckless behavior.

 

There is little doubt that a judge would have the discretion to grant a summary judgment on these arguments and most probably would.  A judge probably also has the discretion to hold that the correcting affidavit is still insufficient and would probably be sustained on appeal if the judge simply ordered the plaintiff to file an amended petition.  One thing that absolutely will NOT happen in this case is the dismissal of the case on this argument. 

Quote 0 0
Unregistered4

Quote:
"Mortgage foreclosure action filed after Feb 11,2010 must be Verified," for those not foolhardy LARGE PRINT: VERIFIED
 

 

Rather clearly the statute says that the verification can be by a separate affidavit!

Quote 0 0
Amy

It is dismaying that GW doesn't have a single case that supports his position and seems unable to counter any of the arguments made here at the Forum by others.  A common sense reading of the statute and the rules would seem to indicate that if the plaintiff or attorney swears to the truth of the complaint that the verification requirement has been met.  I wouldn't want to bet my house upon the unsupported arguments of a person such as GW who cannot even seem to spell 20% of the words in each post.  Maybe not as bad as Maher Soliman at spelling, but who would ever trust this person?

Quote 0 0
GW

Understandable that a dismissal of the case is not going to happen. I understand that a correcting affidavit is still insuffieint and would be sustained on appeal.. the outcome that "amend the petition" would be acceptable, as then ans and affirmative defense can be raised again with discovery. 

GW
Quote 0 0
Sam

Quote:
"A VERIFIED COMPLAINT" Please read up, on what a verified complaint is! You would think from Feb 11, 2010 that all atty's would know this by now!

Attorneys know how to read and understand the law.  You clearly do not.

Quote 0 0
Unregistered4

Quote:
Understandable that a dismissal of the case is not going to happen. I understand that a correcting affidavit is still insuffieint and would be sustained on appeal.. the outcome that "amend the petition" would be acceptable, as then ans and affirmative defense can be raised again with discovery.
 

Your arguments have been shown to be erroneous, but you seem to be in denial.

 

A correcting affidavit would probably be found to be sufficient in about 95% of the courts and would probably be sustained on appeal in most appellate courts, particularly given Floida's express statute showing the requisites of a verification.  That you would bet someone else's house on such ridiculous arguments makes it clear that you are a person of exceptionally poor judgment.

 

You are also an unworthy friend.  I would recommend that Forum participants ignore any further posts by you and instead concentrate on assuring that no one be taken in by your absurd arguments.  I think that this thread pretty clearly shows that you have no valid argument and no credibility whatsoever.

 

 

Quote 0 0
ej

Quote:
. . . as then ans and affirmative defense can be raised again with discovery.

 

You must be on drugs if you think that any Florida judge is going to reopen discovery after allowing an amendment to the complaint.

Quote 0 0
GW

(2)  A written declaration means the following statement: “Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing [document] and that the facts stated in it are true,” followed by the signature of the person making the declaration, except when a verification on information or belief is permitted by law, in which case the words “to the best of my knowledge and belief” may be added. The written declaration shall be printed or typed at the end of or immediately below the document being verified and above the signature of the person making the declaration.


Here ya Go:  At the "end of or immediately below the document"... meaning on the COMPLAINT... .not a separate page.
GW
Quote 0 0
Brian
GW wrote:

I wonder if anyone has used that Rule and won a dismissal for a foreclosure. On the other hand if "your" foreclosure lay dormant.. why would you want to "POKE" the Plaintiff in fiiing pleadings to expedite the case? (when these pleadings can be filed at a later date), you take the time given to you....btw it is not my case.


My case was dismissed for lack of prosecution and I did not even contest the case.  The courts normally send out a notice to each party at the 10-month mark, alerting the parties to the lawsuit to the fact that the case will be dismissed in the next two months if there is no further activity during this time.  The plaintiff in my case actually filed the motion for dismissal after about 12/13 months.  There are many cases such as mine that are routinely dismissed due to lack of prosecution in Florida.  Remember, the filing fee in Foreclosure cases are around $1,400 and the courts love to get these fees.  Given the share volume of cases in Florida, a large number of cases falls through the crack or slowed by trial modifications.

I had another non-foreclosure case that was also dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Quote 0 0
Unregistered4

Quote:
(2) A written declaration means the following statement: “Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing [document] and that the facts stated in it are true,” followed by the signature of the person making the declaration, except when a verification on information or belief is permitted by law, in which case the words “to the best of my knowledge and belief” may be added. The written declaration shall be printed or typed at the end of or immediately below the document being verified and above the signature of the person making the declaration.

 

Here ya Go: At the "end of or immediately below the document"... meaning on the COMPLAINT... .not a separate page.

   

 

You have a very serious reading comprehension problem.  Sid already addressed your misreading of this section. 

 

Quote:

There are two statutory methods for verification expressly set forth within Florida law:

(a) Under oath or affirmation taken or administered before an officer authorized under s. 92.50 to administer oaths; or

 

(b) By the signing of the written declaration prescribed in subsection (2).

That appearing within (a) involves an oath or affirmation administered before an officer, etc. This is how a typical affidavit is made.

 

The second method under (b) also allows, but for verification by a declaration on the instrument. When the method shown in (b) is used, the declaration is supposed to appear on the instrument as further discussed in subsection (2).

 

But the method shown in (a) does not contain this same restriction. Taken together with Rule 1.110, it seems pretty clear that correcting a lack of verification by a separate affidavit is probably permissible under both the statute and the Rules.

  

 

You seem to be a total idiot!  It is really baffling why anyone would be so foolish as to entrust the defense of their home to a person such as you!

Quote 0 0
kit

Quote:
Here ya Go: At the "end of or immediately below the document"... meaning on the COMPLAINT... .not a separate page.

 

I wonder if gw even graduated high school.  The language couldn't be much plainer.

Quote 0 0
George Burns
GW

You keep saying that in your research you found this basis for your claim that the verification needs to be on the same page, but although we keep asking you where it is that you read or saw that, you will not give a proper cite.

I do not know how anyone here can give you any insight if you keep  quoting something unknown. Here is a link to the Fl. Rules, see 1.110(b):

http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBResources.nsf/0/10C69DF6FF15185085256B29004BF823/$FILE/Civil.pdf
Quote 0 0
GW

 Fl R 1.110(b)

"When filing an action for foreclosure of a mortgage on residential real property the complaint shall be verified. When verification of a document is required, the document filed shall "include" an oath, affirmation, or the following statement..."

Where does it say that the oath or affirmation can be filed on a separate  document?

Did I say same page? I meant same document i.e complaint. 
GW
Quote 0 0
GW

http://4closurefraud.org/2011/01/29/case-dismissed-without-leave-to-amend-fl-rule-1-110b-verification-of-mortgage-foreclosure-complaint/

GW
Quote 0 0
George Burns

You keep waffling between "page" and "document".

Quote 0 0
Walt

  

 

So what you are now basically telling us that you want to bet your friend's house on the chance that the judge in your friend's case is of a similar disposition to a single trial court judge in Indian River County, Florida, who seems to have dismissed a single complaint without prejudice in a single case in January 2011.

 

The dismissal without prejudice is then championed by incompetent Florida attorney Mark Stopa within a post at the 4closurefraud web site.  This seems to be the extent of your legal research on the topic.

 

You need to wake up and smell the coffee, amigo! 

 

An unpublished decision of a Florida Circuit Court Judge within any case is not binding on any other Florida Court and isn't even binding on the same judge in other cases within his own court.

 

Bear in mind that most judges do not even write their own orders, but rather rely upon the attorney of prevailing party to write the order, consistent with the judge's holding.   What is clear from the order is that there were other issues with a separate verification which seemed to qualify the verification and which were suggestive that the person making the verification might not have actually even read the documents being verified.

 

Fla. Stat. 92.525 which is mentioned in your earlier posts and which seems to expressly allow a separate verification when the document is sworn before a notary (rather than using the less rigorous verification language) is not mentioned within the decision at all.

 

It would be unlikely that any plaintiff would appeal such a dismissal without prejudice, because appealing would take longer and cost more than simply refiling a new verified complaint in the case.

 

So what we have here is a case where an intellectually lazy person (GW) with exceptionally poor reading comprehension skills and judgment has seized upon the deceptive and misleading post of a single incompetent attorney (Mark Stopa) who champions and mischaracterizes the holding of a single judge in a sleepy county who signed one order (probably prepared by the defendant's lawyer) when the judge got aggravated about a pattern of non-compliance.  GW hasn't done any wider reading or research because reading and research is a chore, but since he read this misleading post more than a year ago, he has felt totally comfortable in his new-found expertise in foreclosure defense.  In fact, GW is so brilliant that he now both peddles his services to distressed borrowers and visits this site to teach us about foreclosure defense! 

 

Thanks for wasting everyone's time, GW!  

Quote 0 0
t
I am going to wade into this morass, slightly distinguishing my views from those who were posting on the subject last night.

While I generally believe that Paul's and Sid's posts were on the mark, I see a couple of nuances that are worthy of mention.

While I believe that GW is as others say "delusional" about his defensive strategy, I also think that some of the issues pertaining to verification in Florida affect so many Florida borrowers that the topic deserves to be discussed a little further.

(I also think that this topic probably deserves its own thread with a much more informative subject.)

First, I agree with Paul, Sid and others that the spirit of the verification requirement is for there to be a sworn representation to the court as to the validity of the allegations in a foreclosure complaint.   I also agree that the Florida statute cited seems to contemplate sworn verifications before a notary without the express indication that the verification is to appear on the same page, etc.

I also think that Paul, Sid and others are on the right track in pointing to Florida's equivalent of Rule 1 (Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110) as giving courts latitude to interpret the rules to do substantial justice.

I think that this is all very mainstream and mostly irrefutable.

On the other hand, I also think that the wording and intention of the Rule itself is for the verification to appear upon or to at least accompany the complaint.  I also think that the intention was that the person signing the complaint make the verification, though this is unstated in the Rule.

This having been said, I still think that Rule 1.110 is going to allow a plaintiff to get over on an originally deficient complaint as long as the correcting mechanism substantially conforms to the spirit of the rule.  As discussed later, the issue may also be waived by a defendant.

To this end, I believe that the identity of the person making the verification is important and the precise language of the belated verification is important, too.

Let me present several examples.

First, suppose that attorney A signs a Florida foreclosure complaint on behalf of XYZ Bank, suing D, but neglecting to include the required verification.  Further suppose that this defect is identified by a defendant and that the plaintiff's attorney A then immediately seeks to correct this defect by filing an affidavit verifying the complaint.  Let us further suppose that the affidavit is properly sworn before a notary, contains the requisite language and unequivocally verifies that A knows the allegations to be true.  Finally let us suppose that A, the signer of the complaint is the affiant.

In this instance, it seems to me to be likely that most courts would find that this verification would be in substantial compliance with the statute and the Rule.  I cannot prove this by citing any Florida court cases, but this seems to me to be a common sense result.

Next, let us suppose that that attorney A signs a Florida foreclosure complaint on behalf of XYZ Bank, suing D, including a separate verification signed by B within the complaint.  This verification seems to otherwise comply with the Rule and the statute, but is made by B rather than attorney A.

This also seems to me to be compliant even though the Rule probably intended that the signer also make the verification.

Third, let us suppose that attorney A signs a Florida foreclosure complaint on behalf of XYZ Bank, suing D, but neglecting to include the required verification. Further suppose that this defect is identified by a defendant and that the plaintiff's attorney A corrects this defect by filing an affidavit from B verifying the complaint. Let us further suppose that the affidavit is properly sworn before a notary, contains the requisite language and unequivocally verifies that B knows the allegations within the complaint to be true.  However, the complaint is not attached as an exhibit to the affidavit and the language of the affidavit is somewhat general as to the particular complaint which the affiant is seeking to verify.

This seems to me to begin to drift into at least a gray area.  That is, the Rule clearly seems to contemplate a verification of the complaint upon filing and implicitly probably intends that the person signing the complaint also sign the verification, but the Rule doesn't seem to expressly require this.  If another different person signed the verification within the complaint, this is still probably enough, as discussed above.  Having another different person sign the verification later might not be enough.  If the belated affiant at least attached the complaint as an exhibit, and expressly represented that the affiant had read the complaint and knew the allegations to be true, this might be enough.  Even then, a judge might want a little more, such as a representation that the affiant had read the complaint before it was filed and knew the allegations to be true.  If the affiant fails to expressly and convincingly show that the affiant read the complaint, fails to identify the complaint with specificity or is otherwise vague or equivocal about the verification, I could easily see how this might cause some doubt or misgivings.

Fourth, let us suppose that attorney A signs a Florida foreclosure complaint on behalf of XYZ Bank, suing D, but neglecting to include the required verification. Further suppose that this defect is identified by a defendant.  The law firm for which A worked later implodes and the foreclosure suit against D is then reassigned to another different firm.  Attorney C from the new firm makes an appearance and upon discovery that the verification is missing seeks to correct this by furnishing an affidavit from C as to the allegations within the original complaint.  Let us further suppose that the affidavit is properly sworn before a notary, contains the requisite language and unequivocally verifies that C knows the allegations within the complaint to be true.

Here, I can see the possibility that a court might find that an attorney taking over a case cannot affirm that the original attorney knew the allegations to be true!  It might not be enough that the later attorney has filed an affidavit which is otherwise compliant.  But in this instance, it would seem that the new law firm could still seek to amend its complaint by filing a new complaint containing the correct verification.

My overall point is that the court's decision might turn on a variety of factual nuances.

Separately, I believe that some judges might find that even where a defendant identified the failure to verify within an answer, that if the defendant failed to move to dismiss or strike the complaint that the defendant might have waived this issue.

There is one other dimension that seems to me to be missing from the discussion as to the implicit intention of the Rule.

Verification of the complaint is probably most critical in the instance that a defendant fails to answer and the plaintiff then moves for default judgment.

In many jurisdictions a plaintiff can obtain a default judgment on an unverified complaint when it is shown that the defendant has failed to answer.  Historically, most foreclosure actions were unopposed.  Imposition of the verification requirement is probably most important in respect of these unopposed cases.

By contrast, where a defendant has answered, a summary judgment is going to be determined based upon summary judgment evidence which would usually include an affidavit of merit by the plaintiff.  This affidavit of merit would then be sworn proof as to the essential allegations of the complaint.  The verification is NOT summary judgment evidence.  The verification, while required, really adds nothing to the summary judgment determination.

The affidavit of merit wither proves up the case or it doesn't.

For this reason, I think most courts would rely upon Rule 1.110 and find that a belated affidavit verifying the complaint would be enough and might even hold that if the defendant hadn't brought the defect to the court's attention and scheduled a hearing on this issue that the verification was waived.

It is really hard to see how a defendant can argue that the defendant was prejudiced in respect of a failure to verify when the defendant has answered.

Separately, I agree with those expressing alarm and dismay that GW is somehow "assisting" someone with this vacuous defense.  GW needs to back away from this amateur practice of law and encourage his "friend" to get legal assistance from someone able to understand how courts analyze and view problems such as this one.  GW clearly doesn't understand even one iota about how the law actually works.

Quote 0 0
John Lewis

hope this helps: Florida case(s) under Appeal -- i beleive Stentz is 05/16/12

 

thread "Under what circumstances can an agent bind a principal"

 

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/Under-what-circumstances-can-an-agent-bind-a-principal-5711755

 

****

Update:

The "Initial Brief of Appellant, Bac..." on Appeal relates only to the issue of "Verifying the foreclosure Complaint on 'Knowledge and Belief'.

Note: under B. of the trial courts order, in part item 7:

"...The verification cannot be signed by the attorney of record but must be signed by a duly authorized corporate representative officer for the Plaintiff, BAC Home....."

I think in Florida this is the case to watch re Mark Stopa's "Plaintiff as Servicer? I Think Not."

*********

Quote:
The "Initial Brief of Appellant, Bac..." on Appeal relates only to the issue of "Verifying the foreclosure Complaint on 'Knowledge and Belief'.

Note: under B. of the trial courts order, in part item 7:

"...The verification cannot be signed by the attorney of record but must be signed by a duly authorized corporate representative officer for the Plaintiff, BAC Home....."

*************

Can you please post the Brief or a link to the Brief? Alternatively, can you e-mail the Brief to some Forum participant who has a Scribd or other document repository and ask them to post the Brief?

In my view, it is instructive to see this sort of document, even that prepared by adversaries (foreclosure mills), so we can better know the arguments they are making.

 

 

****

Quote 0 0
Walt

John Lewis -

 

Thanks for posting the two appellate briefs in BAC v Stentz!  The pleadings from the underlying case are also interesting and informative.

 

I read t's thoughtful post and each of the briefs in Stentz.

 

I believe that Stentz has a very good chance on appeal, but not because of the merits of the verification argument.  To the contrary, I beleive that BAC has the winning argument on verification.

 

Like it or not, the Florida Supreme Court gave plaintiff's the express authority to verify foreclosure complaints on information and belief.  This seems to me to reflect that the Florida Supreme Court want to give the appearance that it was addressing the robo-signing issue, while giving plaintiffs a green light to continue lying.

 

While I think that it would be better if the language of the rule were amended to require that the verification be on personal knowledge, that is not what the rule says.  BAC's brief is quite persuasive on this point and is precisely what Sid and Paul argued last night (with or without the benefit of these briefs, which I am tonight reading for the first time).

 

But I still believe that Stentz has the better argument on appeal, but not as to verification.  I believe that the argument presented by the talented folks at Ice Legal that BAC cannot request an order and then argue that it was error for the court to grant this request is dead on correct.

 

I am a little perplexed about what BAC's attorney thought they were accomplishing.  In most places, an order of dismissal is an appealable final order, whether the order is with or without prejudice.

 

While I think that BAC was right on the law as to the verification issue, requesting that a court enter an order order of dismissal with prejudice, when the court was inclined to dismiss without prejudice seems to me to be legal suicide.

 

Typically, an appellant must complain to the appellate court as to issues raised and preserved in the trial court and complained of on appeal.  Here, BAC has requested an order of dismissal and now wants that order set aside.

 

From what I garner from the two briefs in Stentz, the Circuit Court (trial court) found the original complaint to be deficient in respect of the verification and ordered the plaintiff to amend its pleadings within a particular time frame.

 

This the plaintiff failed to do.  Instead, the plaintiff waited until well after the deadline and then filed an amended pleading out of time without obtaining the court's permission.  Accordingly, the argument presented by Appellee's attorney Enrique Nieves of Ice Legal seems to be a somewhat compelling one.  The court ordered BAC to file an amended complaint.  It failed to do so in a timely way, violating the court's implicit scheduling order.

 

All of the arguments by BAC then seem somewhat academic.  The amended complaint was not timely filed.  BAC has conceded that it erred in other ways beyond those noted as to the verification.  This would seem to be a valid reason for the court to dismiss the complaint without prejudice as the court desired to do.  Instead, the court entered an order dismissing with prejudice at BAC's request.

 

So I would think that the court was well within its discretion to dismiss the BAC complaint.  That this dismissal was with prejudice was at BAC's request over the objection of the defendant, so BAC can hardly now complain.

 

I think that Stentz still can win without respect to the merits of the verification issue.  That GW thinks the verification issue affords some robust defense reflects only that GW is delusional.  Of course, the plaintiff in GW's could make the same mistake made by BAC, but by now one would expect that the servicers ought to know not to make this mistake again.

 

Nothing about the order in Stentz offer the slightest of hope that other trial courts will follow the direction taken by the court in the Stentz case.  The Rule is reasonably clear at least as it respects the issue of a verification on information and belief.

Quote 0 0
GW

One would think that issues of verifications at this date, almost 2 years after the order was initiated, compliance would be near 100%.                          In no way, have I entertained this error on verification as a robust defense for dismissal.  Clearly, the Judge has discretion to order the complaint be amended, and then proceed to Final Summary Judgment. 

The above posts are very informative; and, if I have gained any knowledge from this forum it is only some minuscule insight into case law, statutes, and arguments that you have shared. It definitely is worthy of conversation at a dinner table.  

Please don't try to run away others by suggesting they are delusional for seeking knowledge on subjects clearly are out of their area of expertise. 

 

GW
Quote 0 0
Walt

Quote:
One would think that issues of verifications at this date, almost 2 years after the order was initiated, compliance would be near 100%.  In no way, have I entertained this error on verification as a robust defense for dismissal. Clearly, the Judge has discretion to order the complaint be amended, and then proceed to Final Summary Judgment.
 

 

Compliance probably is near 100% in newly filed actions.  The case you describe was filed near the date the new rule was enacted.

 

Your friend has probably waived any defense associated by non-verification by failing to seek a timely court ruling on this issue! 

 

Your friend benefited from continued occupancy of the property during the dormancy of the case and was hardly harmed by non-verification.

 

There exist a number of viable foreclosure defenses which have been discussed and explained by Mr. Roper and others in threads dating back five to six years.  Others here at the Forum have used these arguments to successfully defend their homes.

 

Forum seniors are rightfully alarmed that you appear at the Forum and begin championing a vacuous defense that is unlikely to prove effective and which, if relied upon, is probably going to result in the loss of the property.  When you were shown the error of the argument, you continued to post additional nonsense which seems to show that you are in denial about the facts and the law.  Many are outraged that your irresponsible behavior will cost your friend their home.  You seem to be oblivious to the harm you are causing.

 

Forum seniors do not want your ignorance to cost another person their home!

Quote 0 0
GW
You are quite right in your assumptions that; the homeower has benefited from continued occupany, they may have waived any defense by non-verification, and etc etc.
I came here seeking information and the forum seniors have clearly outlined all.  I do have a clear understanding of the consequences of this homeowner not seeking an attorney, if in fact, they entertained that thought at all, it may be too late.  That was and still is their decison to make.
I do disagree with you saying, it is my irresponsible behavior, as anyone can read the thread in entirety along with your responses and understand that I have no knowledge of any law.  The only irresponsible person is the homeowner.  
I have not given any advise nor would I advise anyone. And if I was asked, my response would be; Unless you are familar with Statutes, Rules of Civil Proceedure, Case Law, and have studied the defense of numerous foreclosure cases - Find a Defense Foreclosure Attorney if you want to save your home! 
  
GW
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...