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
MSF Admin

Dueling Dozers: Robert's Story

Posted on Tue Jun 28th 2011, 5:37am UTC

Robert Somerton
Meet Robert Somerton- a volunteer firefighter in Lake County, California. He just received a notice from Bank of America that the foreclosure process on his home was to be "accelerated." Robert decided that instead of giving Bank of America the satisfaction of dumping another home on the market, he would demolish it before the bank sends the sheriff to kick out his family.

Just a few nights ago, Robert posted the entire contents of his $350,000 estate under "Free Stuff" on Craigslist. He intends to donate everything of value in his home before he films "Dueling Dozers" demolishing the house built by his father's hands in 1990, all the way down to the concrete foundation. And he plans to post video footage to YouTube.

Some folks would suggest that Robert's action is criminal property damage. But Robert would say the scheme he was lured into was a criminal act, and justice has to be served by the citizen if it won't be served by the system.

Robert recently had to close his business, meaning that he wouldn't be able to pay the mortgage at its current rate. BofA told him they had a program that could help him refinance, ironically called the "Hope" program. Its a sinister scheme that requires homeowners to be three months behind on payment and default on their loan before they can qualify for refinancing. The bank also keeps a close eye on your income. Robert remembers having to show them his pay stubs from work.

But once his income fell to a certain point, Robert was disqualified from any loan modification from Bank of America, who sent him mail saying they were accelerating the foreclosure process. Its a scheme that victimizes homeowners across the country, where banks work to dump as many homes onto the market as they can, all in the name of more profit.

So now, Robert is fighting back with bold, direct action. His Craiglist posting was taken down just minutes after it was posted, but here's the full text-

---------------- 
My wife and I recently received from Bank of America a "NOTICE OF INTENT TO ACCELERATE" and "Options to Avoid Foreclosure".

We've been advised by our legal representative Danial B. Beck of Santa Rosa that we are out of legal options/remedies to Bank of America taking our beautiful hand built home of 15 years. Won't go into great depth or detail here, suffice to say we've been through the Bank of America Hope/Harp/Hamp wringer and hung out to dry.

So unless some kind sole comes up with the 24k we are now behind on our mortgage payments, we will most certainly, within the next few months lose our home to the Banksters of America.

We have decided that when/if it comes to that we'll offer our home (bank once appraised at $350k, zillow now shows at $133k!) and anything, anyone cares to remove from it, including some very nice expensive doors/windows, kitchen and bath fixtures, appliances and all it's contents to anyone how can use them.

We've also decided that rather than allow BofA the satisfaction of taking our home intact, once everything of value is striped from it, with DUELING DOZERS we'll take it down to the concrete slab my father built it on back in the early 1990s. Leaving nothing but a pile of debris in the driveway for BofA to foreclose on, like an episode of Extreme Makeover Home Edition with no plan to rebuild!

Wish us luck, look for the full demolition video on YouTube under the heading " CA homeowners response to Bank of America foreclosure". We plan on shooting it from at least three fixed angles with additional cams mounted inside each DOZER for full effect.

A word to the wise, we are hostile to any "BofA representative" coming on our property as long as we still own it, violators will be dealt with accordingly.

Media outlets interested in covering the day of the demolition can contact me directly. Robert Somerton 707-245-7541

Anyone who'd like to drive by for a preview/meet the owners, view the home/contents, make an offer on the contents prior to the demolition, our address is.

11784 Gifford Springs Rd. 
Cobb, CA 95426

This is NOT a short sale as we'll not do Bank of America that favor!!! 

____________________________________/

Is Robert not aware of the FACT that Bank of America does NOT own loans???

Quote 0 0
Bill

He needs find a website that will host a live link.

Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
While some may find this entertaining, I cannot imagine that this demolition will ever actually take place.  If one announces such an event with great fanfare and with very much lead time, it seems inconceivable that the purported mortgage investor wouldn't be able to obtain a restraining order and injunction.

Of course, that DOES present a rather interesting and possibly vexing problem for the purported mortgage investor which has been cutting corners in respect of assignments, etc.

How will the purported mortgage investor demonstrate standing to bring the action to restrain the demolition?

Given California's posture in respect of looking the other way as to all manner of mischief in non-judicial foreclosure sales, the purported mortgage investor rarely has to go to court except for ejectment in respect of the abbreviated sale process.

On the other hand, if the BOA files suit and obtains a restraining order, it seems likely that they would succeed in running out the clock on any motion to dismiss and will probably get non-judicial sale scheduled.

The story certainly does speak to the anger that has been engendered by the rampant criminality by the servicers and foreclosure mills!
Quote 0 0
Speaking here as the owner of said property we seriously doubt that a judge would grant a restraining order given the current situation surrounding the banking/lending industry. 

Bank Of America CEO Brian Moynihan was just subpoenaed by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman who is not backing off a civil fraud probe into whether Bank of America deliberately misled shareholders about the massive losses on Merrill Lynch's books before its 2008 purchase of the investment bank. 

  

We've heard from someone supposedly from the office of BofA CEO Brian Moyniha(818 Woodland, Ca. area code), asking us what we'd like to see happen. We've asked for a principal reduction of the 24k we now owe BofA and to be allowed to return to making our regular monthly payments, nothing more, nothing less.  


Any judge hearing our case would have to grant an immediate foreclosure be allowed and that we be removed from our home by force. We've been guaranteed live TV cameras will be broadcasting should that day come to pass as WE WON'T BACK DOWN!!!


Link to the Craigslist posting that sparked all of this:  http://sfbay.craigslist.org/nby/pol/2463805199.html
Quote 0 0
Bill
Robert Somerton wrote:
Speaking here as the owner of said property we seriously doubt that a judge would grant a restraining order given the current situation surrounding the banking/lending industry. 

Bank Of America CEO Brian Moynihan was just subpoenaed by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman who is not backing off a civil fraud probe into whether Bank of America deliberately misled shareholders about the massive losses on Merrill Lynch's books before its 2008 purchase of the investment bank. 

  

We've heard from someone supposedly from the office of BofA CEO Brian Moyniha(818 Woodland, Ca. area code), asking us what we'd like to see happen. We've asked for a principal reduction of the 24k we now owe BofA and to be allowed to return to making our regular monthly payments, nothing more, nothing less.  


Any judge hearing our case would have to grant an immediate foreclosure be allowed and that we be removed from our home by force. We've been guaranteed live TV cameras will be broadcasting should that day come to pass as WE WON'T BACK DOWN!!!


Link to the Craigslist posting that sparked all of this:  http://sfbay.craigslist.org/nby/pol/2463805199.html


Thousands of homeowners are in the same situation as you and feel the same frustration.  I hope you keep fighting and wish you the best of luck.
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Robert:

If you seriously doubt that a California judge would restrain or enjoin your suggested destruction of the property then you are certainly very naive and poorly informed!  The fact of various frauds occuring elsewhere and investigations into such frauds is likely to be totally irrelevant to the analysis of the court.

While I understand both your frustration and your anger, your belief that the Lender, purported mortgage investor and/or servicer is without legal recourse to intercede seems to reflect that you have neither studied nor understand the problems or your respective rights.

I would encourage you to take out and very carefully read the language appearing within Sections 7 and 9 of your deed of trust granted to the Lender.  Your deed of trust, like those of most Californians, is most likely on Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac Uniform Instrument Form 3005, last revised in January 2001.  See:

http://www.freddiemac.com/uniform/unifsecurity.html


The only likely deviations to the form shown are those expressly authorized by both Fannie and Freddie, such as those discussed on this Freddie page:

http://www.freddiemac.com/uniform/unifchanges.html


A change to include mention of MERS and identification or MERS as the mortgagee and beneficiary is the most common alteration.  Additional riders to the mortgage in the case of adjustable rates, a balloon payment, and characterization of the property as a condomenium or other similar Planned Unit Development (PUD) are the other most common deviations.

Section 7 discusses "Preservation, Maintenance and Protection of the Property".  Section 9 discusses "Protection of Lender's Interest in the Property and Rights Under this Security Instrument".

These provisions of the deed of trust would seem to give the Lender some rights to the protection and preservation of the property even without actually taking title through judicial sale.  In fact, as further discussed below, the trustee is already holder of the legal title to the property.

It seems to me quite likely that the Lender is going to be able to persuade a judge that this standard deed of trust language would entitle the Lender to a court order restraining or enjoining the destruction of the property, particularly if you can be proven to be threatening to do just that and thereby harming the Lender's security interest in the property.

In a deed of trust state, such as California, you also need to take care to understand and appreciate that the fundamental character of the deed of trust is the conveyance in trust of the property to the trustee during the pendency of the loan:
For this purpose, Borrower irrevocably grants and conveys to Trustee,
in trust, with power of sale, the following described property located
in the _________________________________ of ______________________________:
        [Type of Recording Jurisdiction]  [Name of Recording Jurisdiction]
Usually, this language is going to mean that the trustee holds legal title to the property, while the borrower holds only an equitable title and right to possess the property, subject to the covenants of the note and deed of trust. 

*

It is unclear to me what California criminal statutes could be affected by the destruction of the property as discussed.  But I would encourage you to at least get a look at the California statutes on vandalism.  And note that there are also often criminal statutes which make it a much more serious crime to destroy property in the commission of a crime.

The former are likely to implicate the injury, damage or destruction of another person's property.  Whether these contemplate or could be found to contemplate the destruction of property you have vested in the person of the trustee by your grant of the deed of trust is unclear to me.  If the trustee is found to own the property in trust, it seems to me that you and any persons you employ to destroy the property might be criminally charged.

The latter laws would be the sort of statutes that would be used to compound the penalties when there is damage to private property which occurs during the commission of a crime, like those high speed chases we see in Hollywood movies where damage to vehicles, fixtures, businesses and real property are epic.  Such a statute might grade a crime by the dollar value of the damage and push a crime into a class of much more serious felonies, so that a person who causes a single serious accident, injury or death resisting arrest or criminally fleeing the scene of an accident can be charged with a serious felony.

In this way, if it was found that you had violated some minor ordinance, such as construction or demolishion without a permit, might be graded as a serious felony if the damage was significant.

In many states, there are express laws about the removal, concealment and/or destruction of property securing credit transactions, though these more often contemplate a secured lien on movable property such as an auto, boat or the like. 

Bear in mind that communications  from BAC or its agents are very likely intended to get you to make statements that can be used against you in subsequent court proceedings.  If they read in the news that you might damage your property, this is probably largely inadmissible hearsay (though even this would likely get into the record if you failed to appear and object).  If YOU TELL THEM that you intend to damage your property, this is probably going to be the foundation of an affidavit that they present to a court to restrain or enjoin such damage.

If you fail to appear at a hearing at which a restraining order or injunction is sought, they will almost surely obtain the requested order.  If you appear in person and are asked and admit under oath that you intend to damage the property, it seems inconceivable to me that they would not get the order.

I recognize that there are brave people who take dramatic steps in civil disobedience to demonstrate the depth of their feelings and commitment to a cause.  Some of these people, like Mahatma Gandhi, have advocated non-violent civil disobedience.  Others, believe that some violence, to include destruction of private property is legitimate.  And still others engage in terrorism or mass destruction in hopes of bring attention to their cause or beliefs.  The public is generally more supportive of the former than the latter.

Those who share your frustration can easily cheer your resistance, but they will mostly not have to bear the consequences of your actions.

To the extent that you proceed with this plan, I would think it best if you understand the consequences, both civil and possibly criminal of both the threat to destroy the property, and the actual actions to accomplish that end.

Please understand that I am NOT an attorney and CANNOT GIVE YOU LEGAL ADVICE. I realize that you are angry and frustrated. I understand your distress. I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO SPEAK WITH BOTH A GOOD CIVIL LAWYER AND A CRIMINAL LAWYER BEFORE UNDERTAKING THE ACTIONS SUGGESTED IN THIS POST.
 
You have unquestionably dramatized your plight and captured the attention and imagination of others.  And I pray that this ends well for you!

Quote 0 0
Here is the headline
Here is the headline that will result from this misguided act:

Police shoot and kill man attempting to bulldoze home.

The police will respond to this event, in force.  He will be told to stop and failing to do so, one or more law enforcement officers will feel 'threatened' and use deadly force.

While the homeowner may by thought be some as a hero for standing up to the bad ol' bank (including me), this type of destruction is so far out of the mainstream that when the police do what they have to do, no one will shed a tear except his now fatherless family.



Quote 0 0
Nobody
Here is the headline stated: "The police will respond to this event, in force.  He will be told to stop and failing to do so, one or more law enforcement officers will feel 'threatened' and use deadly force."

Question arise:
Why would the police respond in force? Civil matter.
Why would an officer of the law step in front of a bulldozer? Law enforcement is not that stupid and not grounds to allow the use of deadly force.

Sounds as this post was to be bank whack a mole intimidation.


Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
While I have little doubt that the criminal enterprises masquerading as mortgage servicers and foreclosure mill law firms could rally some law enforcement attendance at such an event, I think that it is far more likely that a single attorney with a couple of private security thugs can show up at the site without ANY law enforcement and, upon advising the operators of the bulldozers that he represents the owner of the legal title to the property (the trustee) and a caution to the dozer operators that (a) they are trespassing, (b) the trustee has not authorized the destruction, (c) that any damage to the property will result in criminal prosecution of the dozer operators, and (d) that the owner/operator of the dozers will be held financially responsible for the damage, it seems unlikely that any sober, sane or sensible dozer operator would proceed.

If a trustee is present and orders the dozer operator to desist in damage to the property and the dozer operator were to proceed, I think that the police would be called and that upon a private criminal complaint by the trustee that the matter would be treated as a criminal matter.

Without research as to actual California statutes, I would suspect that any substantial intentional damage to the property is probably going to turn out to be a jail felony.

The dozer operators are going to be far less eager to go to jail to help Mr. Robert Somerton make his point.

If someone on the site were to brandish a firearm, I could easily see the situation escalating with a police response.  And police will almost always respond in force is someone is brandishing a firearm.

However, I think it unlikely that the matter will ever reach the sort of violent outcome predicted by "Here is the headline".  To the contrary, I think that BAC will probably continue collecting evidence by low key communications with Mr. Somerton (who will think that he has gotten their attention) and that the bank will proceed to file an application for a restraining order and injunction whenever they think that they have sufficient evidence to obtain the desired result.

Even those things that Mr. Somerton thinks he is cleverly doing in advance of a demolition will be monitored and used against him.  That is, even removal of permanent fixtures and appliances from the property can and will be used against him as evidence in a legal proceeding.

Moreover, if he is not actually residing in the property and has removed his personal property in advance of a demolition, the bank will treat the property as having been abandoned and will move in, change the locks and seize the property.  This would inherently change the way the matter would be treated should Mr. Somerton then return with others to undertake a destruction of the property.

That is, if Mr. Somerton wants to continue to reside in the property, keeping his personal property there, then he will have some rights as an occupant in possession.  But if he removes his property and abandons the property even for a little while, he may return to discover that he is no longer the occupant in possession.

If a trustee or an agent of the trustee is occupying the property upon Mr. Somerton's return, then Mr. Somerton and his dozer crew could possibly be arrested as treaspassers merely for setting foot on the property.  And a trustee might even be permitted to use deadly force if already on the property and threatened.

The entire proposition appears to me to be so poorly thought out that it barely warrants attention except as an indication of Mr. Somerton's outrage.  Those who  are cheering this course of action are letting their emotions get in the way of both common sense and Mr. Somerton's best interests.  I see very little advantage to Mr. Somerton in both being homeless and in having a criminal record.
Quote 0 0
The real people and real story...are linked below

http://ohiofraudclosure.blogspot.com/2011/07/not-just-another-foreclosure-story.html

The only story...or part of the story...the press wanted "out there" is that they are "Crazy people" and will act crazy. As always, William A Roper Jr. is correct in his comments... I shared Mr. Roper's information with them and I can assure you... they are very human...and not crazy. They are very emotional at this time (Human) and a down to earth couple. They just cannot stand another minute of being abused and mistreated by the Bank of America(?)...and July 20th is approaching. 
Help out here folks...You can make a difference...one family at a time
Happy 4th to all
OHIO FRAUDclosure
Quote 0 0
WintyrBourne
"Why would an officer of the law step in front of a bulldozer? Law enforcement is not that stupid and not grounds to allow the use of deadly force."
 
You haven't had much experience with law enforcers have you?
Quote 0 0
Mr. Roper,
Thanks for the very insightful posting, have read through it now several times and understand the situation much better now because of your input. Thanks again, Robert Somerton 

Below are a few links updating our battle with Bank of America.

William A. Roper, Jr. wrote:
Robert:

If you seriously doubt that a California judge would restrain or enjoin your suggested destruction of the property then you are certainly very naive and poorly informed!  The fact of various frauds occuring elsewhere and investigations into such frauds is likely to be totally irrelevant to the analysis of the court.

While I understand both your frustration and your anger, your belief that the Lender, purported mortgage investor and/or servicer is without legal recourse to intercede seems to reflect that you have neither studied nor understand the problems or your respective rights.

I would encourage you to take out and very carefully read the language appearing within Sections 7 and 9 of your deed of trust granted to the Lender.  Your deed of trust, like those of most Californians, is most likely on Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac Uniform Instrument Form 3005, last revised in January 2001.  See:

http://www.freddiemac.com/uniform/unifsecurity.html


The only likely deviations to the form shown are those expressly authorized by both Fannie and Freddie, such as those discussed on this Freddie page:

http://www.freddiemac.com/uniform/unifchanges.html


A change to include mention of MERS and identification or MERS as the mortgagee and beneficiary is the most common alteration.  Additional riders to the mortgage in the case of adjustable rates, a balloon payment, and characterization of the property as a condomenium or other similar Planned Unit Development (PUD) are the other most common deviations.

Section 7 discusses "Preservation, Maintenance and Protection of the Property".  Section 9 discusses "Protection of Lender's Interest in the Property and Rights Under this Security Instrument".

These provisions of the deed of trust would seem to give the Lender some rights to the protection and preservation of the property even without actually taking title through judicial sale.  In fact, as further discussed below, the trustee is already holder of the legal title to the property.

It seems to me quite likely that the Lender is going to be able to persuade a judge that this standard deed of trust language would entitle the Lender to a court order restraining or enjoining the destruction of the property, particularly if you can be proven to be threatening to do just that and thereby harming the Lender's security interest in the property.

In a deed of trust state, such as California, you also need to take care to understand and appreciate that the fundamental character of the deed of trust is the conveyance in trust of the property to the trustee during the pendency of the loan:
For this purpose, Borrower irrevocably grants and conveys to Trustee,
in trust, with power of sale, the following described property located
in the _________________________________ of ______________________________:
        [Type of Recording Jurisdiction]  [Name of Recording Jurisdiction]
Usually, this language is going to mean that the trustee holds legal title to the property, while the borrower holds only an equitable title and right to possess the property, subject to the covenants of the note and deed of trust. 

*

It is unclear to me what California criminal statutes could be affected by the destruction of the property as discussed.  But I would encourage you to at least get a look at the California statutes on vandalism.  And note that there are also often criminal statutes which make it a much more serious crime to destroy property in the commission of a crime.

The former are likely to implicate the injury, damage or destruction of another person's property.  Whether these contemplate or could be found to contemplate the destruction of property you have vested in the person of the trustee by your grant of the deed of trust is unclear to me.  If the trustee is found to own the property in trust, it seems to me that you and any persons you employ to destroy the property might be criminally charged.

The latter laws would be the sort of statutes that would be used to compound the penalties when there is damage to private property which occurs during the commission of a crime, like those high speed chases we see in Hollywood movies where damage to vehicles, fixtures, businesses and real property are epic.  Such a statute might grade a crime by the dollar value of the damage and push a crime into a class of much more serious felonies, so that a person who causes a single serious accident, injury or death resisting arrest or criminally fleeing the scene of an accident can be charged with a serious felony.

In this way, if it was found that you had violated some minor ordinance, such as construction or demolishion without a permit, might be graded as a serious felony if the damage was significant.

In many states, there are express laws about the removal, concealment and/or destruction of property securing credit transactions, though these more often contemplate a secured lien on movable property such as an auto, boat or the like. 

Bear in mind that communications  from BAC or its agents are very likely intended to get you to make statements that can be used against you in subsequent court proceedings.  If they read in the news that you might damage your property, this is probably largely inadmissible hearsay (though even this would likely get into the record if you failed to appear and object).  If YOU TELL THEM that you intend to damage your property, this is probably going to be the foundation of an affidavit that they present to a court to restrain or enjoin such damage.

If you fail to appear at a hearing at which a restraining order or injunction is sought, they will almost surely obtain the requested order.  If you appear in person and are asked and admit under oath that you intend to damage the property, it seems inconceivable to me that they would not get the order.

I recognize that there are brave people who take dramatic steps in civil disobedience to demonstrate the depth of their feelings and commitment to a cause.  Some of these people, like Mahatma Gandhi, have advocated non-violent civil disobedience.  Others, believe that some violence, to include destruction of private property is legitimate.  And still others engage in terrorism or mass destruction in hopes of bring attention to their cause or beliefs.  The public is generally more supportive of the former than the latter.

Those who share your frustration can easily cheer your resistance, but they will mostly not have to bear the consequences of your actions.

To the extent that you proceed with this plan, I would think it best if you understand the consequences, both civil and possibly criminal of both the threat to destroy the property, and the actual actions to accomplish that end.

Please understand that I am NOT an attorney and CANNOT GIVE YOU LEGAL ADVICE. I realize that you are angry and frustrated. I understand your distress. I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO SPEAK WITH BOTH A GOOD CIVIL LAWYER AND A CRIMINAL LAWYER BEFORE UNDERTAKING THE ACTIONS SUGGESTED IN THIS POST.
 
You have unquestionably dramatized your plight and captured the attention and imagination of others.  And I pray that this ends well for you!

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...