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
Cindy
I don't live in Calif., but I read this decision and felt as if I had won something too!


http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2011/07/11/demucha-v-wells-fargo-california-appeals-court-reverses-remands-%E2%80%9Cquiet-title-fraud-misrepresentation-slander-of-credit%E2%80%9D/
Quote 0 0
Bob

I would love to hear Mr. Roper opinion on this decision. I believe Mike H. may have an "in your face" post coming to Mr. Roper.

Quote 0 0
Jay_Son
Just in case you misread it, no one "won" anything here.  The trial court erroneously dismissed the plaintiff/homeowner's complaint.  The appellate court reversed, stating that 3 of the 5 causes of action were properly alleged in the complaint. 
The plaintiff/homeowners still have to prove their allegations at trial.  From the posts I've read, Mr. Roper argues that taking the offense (i.e., acting as plaintiff rather than defendant) puts the burden on you to prove your allegations, which is much harder than challenging  fraudulent/insufficient/conflicting evidence as a defendant, where you don't have a burden of proof.

Now, in a non-judicial state such as CA, a homeowner may not have much of a choice (outside of bankruptcy) to challenge a foreclosing entity.  As Texas is also such a state, see, e.g., Shepard v. Boone, 99 S.W.3d 263, 266 (Tex. App. Eastland 2003, no pet.).  Here, the plaintiff/ex-homeowner brought suit for wrongful foreclosure, claiming that the foreclosing bank was not the owner/holder of the note.  The trial court granted partial summary judgment, declaring the foreclosure sale void even against the subsequent purchaser, and was upheld by the appellate court.  As in most states, an assignment of the mortgage alone does not transfer the note, but in response to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the defendant relied solely on the written assignment of mortgage as evidence in their motion opposing summary judgment.  Id., at 266.  Its important to note that in this Texas case, as in many others, it was likely the incompetence of the bank's attorneys that lost them the case, rather than losing as a matter of law or fact. 
Quote 0 0
Cindy
The way I see it, a reversal and remand IS a win. At least, it was not the end of the line.
Quote 0 0
Angelo

Cindy, It's far from a win.  Its just a do-over! 

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...