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
There are claims that if only you can get the judge to turn your case into an evidentiary hearing, which gives you the right of discovery and depositions...... that the banks will fold, ask for a dismissal or just plain not show up.True?
They claim that the banks have more to lose by exposure of their dirty tricks than the value of one house.
Or is this urban legend?

Quote 0 0
Moose
svt wrote:
There are claims that if only you can get the judge to turn your case into an evidentiary hearing, which gives you the right of discovery and depositions...... that the banks will fold, ask for a dismissal or just plain not show up.True?
They claim that the banks have more to lose by exposure of their dirty tricks than the value of one house.
Or is this urban legend?



As with all things legal this isn't legal advice, but most cases have evidentiary hearings as they progress through the discovery process per the court rules.  Typically, hearings are asked for when a party wants the other side to produce something and the other party refuses (objects). Some courts require counsel for the parties to closely coordinate during discovery.

Some servicers will push all the way no matter what, depending on the case and the outcome. If they believe they will have a ruling that might cause problems in a large number of similar cases, they may even allow a default judgment on some procedural error rather than have evidence of wrongdoing wind up being pointed to by the court in a ruling against them.

Most of those situations will settle before trial begins.

Moose


Quote 0 0
Bill
That's the garbage posted on Mr. Garfield's site. 

Quote 0 0
Well that's exactly it. It is claimed on several sites but is it true?

My impression is that most judges are preconditioned to rule against defendants who claim fraud, or standing, or quiet title, or motions to dismiss. They think these are just delaying tactics used by scumbags who want a free house. So they are willing to look the other way and bend the rules for the benefit of expediency.

So if the strategy becomes NOT to try to convince the judge in one fell swoop with multiple accusations, but just to create enough doubt to force discovery. I think most reasonable judges might go for that.

Then if the plaintiff bank finds out that you are going to expose robo signing and fraud committed by their attorneys, and discover evidence that their document custodians are incompetent or that the other people in the chain of title might be identified, and in Florida that the persons who verified the information might be sued and reprimanded by the bar,they will be much more willing to settle on your terms.
You do not have to openly show these to the judge, the opposing counsel will see what you are about to expose.
Or is this just theoretical talk that doesn't work in real life?



Quote 0 0
Moose
svt wrote:
Well that's exactly it. It is claimed on several sites but is it true?

My impression is that most judges are preconditioned to rule against defendants who claim fraud, or standing, or quiet title, or motions to dismiss. They think these are just delaying tactics used by scumbags who want a free house. So they are willing to look the other way and bend the rules for the benefit of expediency.


That has been the case for a number of years in many jurisdictions. It has been widely exposed and there are a growing number of law firms who have been able to effectively thwart those kinds of events.

svt wrote:
So if the strategy becomes NOT to try to convince the judge in one fell swoop with multiple accusations, but just to create enough doubt to force discovery. I think most reasonable judges might go for that.


You should study more about the discovery process, particularly the rules in the court you're considering. One thing I can say (and this isn't legal advice), judges don't like surprises and they don't like objections that they have to rule on that might be grounds for a later appeal. For that reason, the rules usually include details on how the discovery process proceeds.  They want to see three types of evidence - the Plaintiff's version, the Defendant's version AND what is known as stipulated evidence - where both sides stipulate to the validity/efficacy/truth of that evidence.

svt wrote:
Then if the plaintiff bank finds out that you are going to expose robo signing and fraud committed by their attorneys, and discover evidence that their document custodians are incompetent or that the other people in the chain of title might be identified, and in Florida that the persons who verified the information might be sued and reprimanded by the bar,they will be much more willing to settle on your terms.


Maybe. They may not be willing to settle if they know you can't afford to keep paying your attorney.

svt wrote:
You do not have to openly show these to the judge, the opposing counsel will see what you are about to expose.


Again, this is not legal advice, but there can be a problem introducing "evidence" that you haven't raised in your claims or counter-claims. To get some evidence admitted you may have to ask the court for leave to file an amended complaint or counterclaim. You cannot guarantee that the Judge won't be asked to conduct a hearing to rule on the relevance or admissability.

svt wrote:
Or is this just theoretical talk that doesn't work in real life?


It is purely theoretical unless and until the specific matters are run through the legal process. There are pitfalls in assuming a strategy will or won't work.

Moose

Quote 0 0
Bill
 I'm not an attorney and this isn't legal advice.
Quote:

My impression is that most judges are preconditioned to rule against defendants who claim fraud, or standing, or quiet title, or motions to dismiss. They think these are just delaying tactics used by scumbags who want a free house. So they are willing to look the other way and bend the rules for the benefit of expediency

I think this use to be the case a few years ago, but with the efforts of sharp attorneys this is no longer the case.  We see new cases every day with positive decisions in favor of the homeowner.  The road to success is a very well researched, written, and argued case based on case law.  If you decide to deviate from this and try to argue "theories" your success rate will be very low.  Pro Se litigants like to claim things like fraud, but have no admissible evidence to prove fraud.  Proving fraud is very difficult.  Because a robo-signer signed documents in your case is not going make these documents invalid or fraudulent.  You would have to PROVE these documents were not properly executed and most likely need a deposition of the alleged robo-signer.  Not something most Pro Se litigants will be able to do.  You must know and follow the rules.

Quote:
So if the strategy becomes NOT to try to convince the judge in one fell swoop with multiple accusations, but just to create enough doubt to force discovery. I think most reasonable judges might go for that
.

Your accusations are not going to do much, and most likely not even going to delay a foreclosure.  You must research the statutes and case law in your jurisdictions.  You are going to have to clearly show the deficiencies in the Plaintiff's case with admissible evidence and through discovery. 

If you read the local rules in your jurisdiction they will describe and explain how discovery is used and it's scope.  In some jurisdictions you may serve discovery DAYS after a complaint is filed.   Your failure to serve discovery and follow the rules because you are "waiting" for an evidentiary hearing or for the judge to "force" discovery can very easily end up with a WAIVER of this right.  You must know and follow the rules.

Quote:
Then if the plaintiff bank finds out that you are going to expose robo signing and fraud committed by their attorneys, and discover evidence that their document custodians are incompetent or that the other people in the chain of title might be identified, and in Florida that the persons who verified the information might be sued and reprimanded by the bar,they will be much more willing to settle on your terms.
You do not have to openly show these to the judge, the opposing counsel will see what you are about to expose.


To me this is a theory.  Every case is different, you never really know what the Plaintiff's response will be when faced with adversity.  I have only seen a handful of cases that were decided in a fashion that would barr the Plaintiff from pursuing foreclosure in some way.  Your assertions of fraud, robo-signing, an incompetent document custodian, ect.. are going to be VERY difficult to prove.  What you know and what you can prove are very different things.   The effects of what you can PROVE and is accepted by the courts can vary also.  It could just be a hiccup on the way to foreclosure. 

If exposing deficiencies and fraud pushed the Plaintiff every time into a settlement agreement, we would not have any cases that SHOW the deficiencies and fraud.  They would all be settled out of court. 
Quote 0 0
It is easy for anybody to claim something will work or won't work.
I am interested in facts. Has it ever worked?

This conversation is deteriorating into giving me opinions and advice on studying rules of deposition and whether this is a good idea or not.
I wasn't so much trying to get opinions as I was trying to get facts.

For instance, there are several cases available online where attorneys got depositions from robosigners and people involved in this creation of documents scam and every time these depositions prove fraud..

Does anybody know for a fact if after getting such depositions against them, any of the banks successfully completed those foreclosures, or were all or any of them settled or dismissed?

I know that incompetent attorneys and pro se litigants get overruled every day if they make weak claims of fraud.

Obviously the cases that got settled out of court are not available to look up, so my only hope is that amongst the readers of this blog, there might be people that have first hand knowledge of cases  where a competent attorney either finished a good deposition on robosigners, or had the banks settle with defendants when they found out that they were going to be exposed.
Anybody out there know of any cases for sure?

Quote 0 0
Bill
Quote:

This conversation is deteriorating into giving me opinions and advice on studying rules of deposition and whether this is a good idea or not.



You got the responses you did because your post showed a misunderstanding of the system and how it works::
Quote:
There are claims that if only you can get the judge to turn your case into an evidentiary hearing, which gives you the right of discovery and depositions


Quote:

Does anybody know for a fact if after getting such depositions against them, any of the banks successfully completed those foreclosures, or were all or any of them settled or dismissed?



I'm not sure if anyone has the time to prove a failure.  This would require you to read through all the foreclosures in a jurisdiction, read all the pleadings,  depositions, and evidence to find a case of little value.  It would be a completely silly thing to do.  I would be far more interested in finding a case where the defendant WON at a hearing that supported my case.

But to answer your question.  I would bet if you had the time to waste and did research this in places like FL and NY you would find cases that a deposition was done and the case was decided for the Plaintiff.  It wouldn't seem strange at all or uncommon.  The law is always evolving and new decisions are made every day.  What is accepted by one judge may not be accepted by another.     
Quote 0 0
Bill
Here is a case where it did work.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/HarpsterCase.pdf
Quote 0 0
I'm still going back and forth regarding federal court versus state superior court.

But one question, my affidavits were executed by Jeffrey Stephan and notarized by the robo notary.    Stephan's depositions are all over the internet... is that admissible or do I have to reinvent the wheel and have him deposed again?




Quote 0 0
pet rock
Unfortunately, depositions posted on the internet are not considered to be admissible evidence relevant to the case at hand. Simply, think about it in terms of foundation and sworn authenticity of the transcript.

From a pet rock . . .

Quote 0 0

I saw in court files sometimes  attorneys file  Judicial Notice to Robot Signers depos ,News articles , Congress Hearing transcripts etc and then use them in pleadings and oral arguments. It sure helps .

Quote 0 0
You can also included in your pleadings Appeal Courts Opinions related to your case. Here is a Court Opinion with mention of Stephan Jeffrey Robot Signers. The Summary Judgment was reversed.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/60533823/NC-MSJ-Reversed-Robot-Signer-Affidavit-Unvalid-Gilbert-NC-2011-w?in_collection=3011893
Quote 0 0
That's good news Ann !!!!   

Thanks
Quote 0 0
The is a representative Florida Case that is moving to the Florida Supreme Court questioning a Plaintiff's (ie:BANK's) right to drop a foreclosure case before fraudlent evidence is found in discovery and risk judicial sanctions.

They would be then free to file again with a new judge and new required and updated "evidence" and perhaps a even new plaintiff

http://www.scribd.com/doc/48192621/Pino-v-BONY-pdf

Enrique Nieves III esq is bring the case to the Florida Supreme Court
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Quote:
svt said:

Anybody out there know of any cases for sure?

The handful of cases where a borrower ended up with a known verdict of dismissal are often celebratedThese are very few.

I am NOT aware of a single one of these which involved the celebrated depositions readily found on the Internet.

By contrast, I am personally aware of a few instances where a foreclosure defendant obtained a settlement which they found to be acceptable and/or advantageous.  I am NOT aware of the precise terms of ANY of these cases, as in each instance there was a non-disclosure agreement which was honored by the defendant.

Generally, when the plaintiff is settling the case due to awkward and embarassing admissions in depositions, a settlement would preceed any presentation of the deposition transcript in a court proceeding.  And the settlement would include a non-disclosure of the discovery.

From this, one can reasonably surmise that the release of some of the depositions by attorneys was usually a tactic that arose when no settlement was reached.  Once the deposition is put out in the public domain, whether by filing the deposition in support of the case or by publication, any leverage associated with concealment of the deposition is lost.

One would therefore NOT expect these cases to settle on terms particularly favorable to the borrower.  Rather, they would more often go to trial, UNLESS voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.

Although I have not endeavored to check each case for which depostions are floating around, I believe that in most cases, the defendant either (a) benefited from a voluntary dismissal, (b) obtained a dismissal without prejudice due to lack of standing, (c) or still LOST on the merits.

While I think that there are quite a few cases which have been settled on terms the borrower found somewhat advantageous, the number of decisions in which the borrower obtained a final order of dismissal, with prejudice, within the past year can probably be counted on two hands (less than TEN).  And I am not aware that effective depositions of robo-signers figured in more than a couple of these.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...