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
Chi Chi Show full post »
Boyd wrote:




Wake up and smell the coffee, chap! You can still save your home, but only by abandoning the idiotic and putting some real effort into exploring and mastering the winning arguments!


One more thing ! There are no "winning" arguments. There are some that seems to work better (in Florida) ( standing at inception, condition precedent) but nothing that the Plaintiff can't fix by amending or refiling. Your best hope is to get some kind of settlement.That is reality....

Even the most celebrated cases get settled for a few bucks..
Case in point :80         NOSA - NOTICE OF SALE                
Filing Date:         22-AUG-2012
Filing Party:         U S BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Disposition Amount:
Docket Text:         09/14/12 US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION V GUISEPPE SERVEDIO

This guy had his SJ overturned by the 4 DCA of Florida. Celebrated and often quoted case. Settled for 8 thousand dollar.
Quote 0 0
Hungarian Pro se
Hungarian Pro se wrote:


One more thing ! There are no "winning" arguments. There are some that seems to work better (in Florida) ( standing at inception, condition precedent) but nothing that the Plaintiff can't fix by amending or refiling. Your best hope is to get some kind of settlement.That is reality....

Even the most celebrated cases get settled for a few bucks..
Case in point :80         NOSA - NOTICE OF SALE                
Filing Date:         22-AUG-2012
Filing Party:         U S BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Disposition Amount:
Docket Text:         09/14/12 US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION V GUISEPPE SERVEDIO

This guy had his SJ overturned by the 4 DCA of Florida. Celebrated and often quoted case. Settled for 8 thousand dollar.


An other big case in Florida :The Glarum case was dismissed without prejudice by the Bank. Now they want their Note back from the Court. I bet they will refile.

175         NOVD - NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL         Book 025442 - Page 01070        
Filing Date:         06-SEP-2012
Filing Party:         LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Disposition Amount:
Docket Text:         WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
176         ORD - ORDER        

My point is, you can't win...maybe they will settle for a better deal, or the Bank will start fresh.
Quote 0 0
Bill
Hungarian Pro se wrote:
Hungarian Pro se wrote:


One more thing ! There are no \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"winning\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" arguments. There are some that seems to work better (in Florida) ( standing at inception, condition precedent) but nothing that the Plaintiff can\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t fix by amending or refiling. Your best hope is to get some kind of settlement.That is reality....

Even the most celebrated cases get settled for a few bucks..
Case in point :80         NOSA - NOTICE OF SALE                
Filing Date:         22-AUG-2012
Filing Party:         U S BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Disposition Amount:
Docket Text:         09/14/12 US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION V GUISEPPE SERVEDIO

This guy had his SJ overturned by the 4 DCA of Florida. Celebrated and often quoted case. Settled for 8 thousand dollar.


An other big case in Florida :The Glarum case was dismissed without prejudice by the Bank. Now they want their Note back from the Court. I bet they will refile.

175         NOVD - NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL         Book 025442 - Page 01070        
Filing Date:         06-SEP-2012
Filing Party:         LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Disposition Amount:
Docket Text:         WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
176         ORD - ORDER        

My point is, you can\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t win...maybe they will settle for a better deal, or the Bank will start fresh.


You sound like you already lost before making your arguments.

I totally disagree with you. While it is very true that you cannot win on the merits of a foreclosure (signed a note, signed a mortgage, received the money, purchased a house, defaulted on the payments) WAR spoon fed many arguments that WILL WIN. The case you posted Glarum is a perfect example.

While this decision to reverse is on a SJ, IF this same argument was made at a trial, the defendant would WIN the trial by excluding the testimony of the only witness present. The Plaintiff would be unable to prove all the necessary elements of their claim.

This would cause one of 2 things to happen.

1. They would have to voluntary dismiss.

2. They would lose the trial.

This has already happened in several FL foreclosure cases.

I further disagree with you because if you read WAR\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s posts (he spoon fed everyone again) by using EFFECTIVE discovery, you also have a chance to win.

A well focused discovery and well written motions to compel could require the Plaintiff to produce items THEY WILL REFUSE TO PRODUCE and answer questions which THEY WILL REFUSE TO ANSWER.

While you cannot receive attorney fees as a sanction, there is usually a line of cases that support a dismissal with prejudice for their failure to follow the courts orders.

A third reason I disagree with you is because if you make the correct evidentary arguments and use effective discovery, the Plaintiff is in a position to attempt to use fraud to prove it\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s case. See U.S. Bank v. Harpster FL

All of this takes a lot of work. There is no short cut or magic bullet to get you there. It usually not one argument by itself, but a combination of all the things above. In other words, you need to effectively litigate your case. Before he left, WAR gave you everything you need except the WILL TO FIGHT and the discipline to avoid the many unsupported arguments by swindlers like Mike H and websites like Living Lies.
Quote 0 0
Once again, we have "Bill" defaming me when he has no evidence
to back it up. None of my students has ever complained about me.
Also, defaming the people at "livinglies" is counter productive. I attended one of their seminars back in Nov. 2009
and the information I learned there has allowed me to teach over
300 students how to fight foreclosure, file bankruptcy and do
a quiet title.
Mr. Garfield was one of the first educators to explain "securitization" to the masses of pro se defendants.
Some of his points are that the so called "lender" on the
loan documents may not have been the "true lender". One must
follow the money trail to find out who the true lender was.
In many cases, the lien was never perfected because the "so called" lender on the Note & Mortgage was not the "true lender".
So the "obligation" exists, but it is unsecured. Therefore no
foreclosure should be possible. Also, this fact presents the
opportunity of doing a "Quiet title" to get the bogus lien removed from the Official Records.
Also if the obligation is unsecured, it should be possible to
get some or all of it "discharged" in Bankruptcy using the Homestead exemption. (Bankruptcy cram down)
One of my students, only today, survived a "motion to stike
his affirmative defenses" after previously surviving a "motion
for Summary Judgment" where he forgot to even appear! His "affidavit in opposition to Summary judgment" was so "on Point", that he won without even showing up! He used the arguments of Mr. Garfield as taught to him by me and he is still
in the game.
At first, he was incredulous that the "unlicensed lender" on
his loan documents, was not the "true lender", which was in fact
licensed. What had happened is that the true Note got securitized
and lost or destroyed. The mortgage was in the name of the servicer, a common practice. The servicer forged a note in its
name in order to give itself STANDING to foreclose. He was able
to prove that to the Judge, who was amazed by the revelation!
So to win, you must think outside the box!
Quote 0 0
Bill
Mike H wrote:
Once again, we have \\\"Bill\\\" defaming me when he has no evidence
to back it up. None of my students has ever complained about me.
Also, defaming the people at \\\"livinglies\\\" is counter productive. I attended one of their seminars back in Nov. 2009
and the information I learned there has allowed me to teach over
300 students how to fight foreclosure, file bankruptcy and do
a quiet title.
Mr. Garfield was one of the first educators to explain \\\"securitization\\\" to the masses of pro se defendants.
Some of his points are that the so called \\\"lender\\\" on the
loan documents may not have been the \\\"true lender\\\". One must
follow the money trail to find out who the true lender was.
In many cases, the lien was never perfected because the \\\"so called\\\" lender on the Note & Mortgage was not the \\\"true lender\\\".
So the \\\"obligation\\\" exists, but it is unsecured. Therefore no
foreclosure should be possible. Also, this fact presents the
opportunity of doing a \\\"Quiet title\\\" to get the bogus lien removed from the Official Records.
Also if the obligation is unsecured, it should be possible to
get some or all of it \\\"discharged\\\" in Bankruptcy using the Homestead exemption. (Bankruptcy cram down)
One of my students, only today, survived a \\\"motion to stike
his affirmative defenses\\\" after previously surviving a \\\"motion
for Summary Judgment\\\" where he forgot to even appear! His \\\"affidavit in opposition to Summary judgment\\\" was so \\\"on Point\\\", that he won without even showing up! He used the arguments of Mr. Garfield as taught to him by me and he is still
in the game.
At first, he was incredulous that the \\\"unlicensed lender\\\" on
his loan documents, was not the \\\"true lender\\\", which was in fact
licensed. What had happened is that the true Note got securitized
and lost or destroyed. The mortgage was in the name of the servicer, a common practice. The servicer forged a note in its
name in order to give itself STANDING to foreclose. He was able
to prove that to the Judge, who was amazed by the revelation!
So to win, you must think outside the box!


You certainly are lumped into categories with Garfield because you spew out the same unsupported theories. Where are all the cases where homeowners prevailed on a securitization argument? Where are are the cases that the homeowner prevailed on insurance paid the loan? We can go on and on about all the incorrect information posted on Living Lies that caused many, many, homeowners to lose their homes.

You post the same stuff here. Where are all the cases where the Death Gamble won? Where are all the cases that say a mortgage note is non-negotiable? We can also go on and on with all the INCORRECT legal theories you post with no FACTS or CASES to back it up. If you had a correct legal argument I\\\'m quite sure it would be argued. There are a few bright attorneys in the foreclosure arena (but many poor ones). Your constant assertions that you can\\\'t disclose these cases because your \\\"students\\\" are in current litigation doesn\\\'t hold water because it\\\'s all public records. There are MANY people that closely follow FL cases and attend SJ and trials. If someone made these arguments and prevailed it would quickly spread through the industry.

So when readers disagree with you because of your unsupported assertions, we do NOT need to prove a negative. You should be supporting your theories with cases which you never do (neither does Living Lies). It\\\'s always blah, blah, blah, but never a list of cases in ANY jurisdiction that shows you may be correct.
Quote 0 0
Bill
Unlike Mike H., I will support my contention that there are winning arguments if you follow WAR\\\'s suggestions to litigation.

Here is a case where the DEFENDANT filed for SJ and prevailed but there are many others (I just had this one at my finger tips).

BAC HOME VS JOHN WILLIAMS

05-2010-CA-052139

This is in Brevard County FL. The documents are available for viewing on their website here:

http://brevardclerk.us/

In this case which was not widely publicized, the Plaintiff failed to respond to admissions as required and by operation of law they were deemed admitted. The court REFUSED to allow them to withdraw these admissions.

If you run a tight ship, use effective discovery, put the work in /do the research, and avoid the wing-nut theories by swindlers like Mike H. you never know what will happen in the course of litigation.

You need to have the WILL TO FIGHT and never give up. The banks constantly make a large number of mistakes. You need to be able to recognize these mistakes and exploit them. There are ways to win.

Quote 0 0
Bill
Both Docs here: http://www.msfraud.org/LAW/Lounge/BAC-v-Williams_Dism-not-holder_9-12.pdf
Quote 0 0


Looks like the bank dismissed its own appeal.

Wondering if someone else will refile. Owner should file quiet title asap.

Quote 0 0
Boyd
Quote:
Looks like the bank dismissed its own appeal.

Wondering if someone else will refile. Owner should file quiet title asap.


Uh, NO! Your post shows that you still DO NOT GET IT and are still relying on wingnut arguments presented by debt elimination scam operators.

"Quiet title" is NEVER a part of a viable defensive strategy.

Prevailing in a lawsuit or getting past limitations may extinguish the remedy, but it almost NEVER extinguishes the debt. This is one of the central fallacies that underlies all of the debt elimination scams. The law simply doesn't work that way.

Like foreclosure, quiet title is an equitable action. If a borrower brings a quiet title action, then the mortgage investor / servicer gets to interpose the equitable defenses, and particularly the "he who seeks equity, must do equity" defense.

The lien will not be extinguished and the debt will not be extinguished without payment of the balance due, even after prevailing!

Mr. Roper explained this in a post several years ago and he was dead right about it.

This is still not all bad. The borrower gets to remain in the property without making further payments, enjoys use of the property and can probably even rent the property out or bequeath it to others. But selling or refinancing are problematic, because the lien will remain.

Filing a quiet title lawsuit is the very last thing that the prudent borrower should do! A borrower could get stuck with legal fees and costs and might even lose the property in an action he brings.

What the borrower wants to do in this situation is keep a very low profile and let the matter ripen. Res judicata is a pretty good bar. It gets even better when limitations under the note and laches under the mortgage can also be plead.

After time, the mortgage investor will write the balance off. And since it is not producing any revenue, at some point, the servicer also similarly writes off the servicing rights and even deletes the loan off their computer systems.

If the lender or servicer goes out of business or merges into another entity, the the data persistency is probably even shorter. Time not only ripens the limitations and laches defenses, but introduces new evidentiary problems.

Finally, after enough time, if the borrower were to bring an action, the servicer may have some difficulty defending a quiet title suit, as they would have difficulty locating the supporting paperwork.

If a borrower waits long enough, there is another payoff. There is case law in most places showing that after the maturity date of the recorded lien, the lien is presumed to be paid off, even absent a recorded release. So after thirty years, or the maturity date of the obligation, the borrower has a fairly clear title without ever having to litigate at all.

THE ENTIRE IDEA OF BORROWER'S FILING QUIET TITLE SUITS IS A PRETEXT FOR SELLING VARIOUS SWINDLES AND SCAMS. THERE IS NO VALID LEGAL BASIS FOR THIS AS A SERIOUS STRATEGY. AS SOON AS THIS CONVERSATION BEGINS, YOU MAY BE ASSURED THAT YOU ARE TALKING EITHER TO A SCAM OPERATOR OR AN IDIOT!
Quote 0 0
Boyd
Quote:
Ok...send me an email i send you my work, fair? Still i like to know how many hearings (foreclosure) you been to ?

Lecso1964@hotmail.com


I do not practice law in your state. Also, I have no interest whatsoever is giving you individualized instruction, since you are unwilling to read the posts here and help yourself.

Also, I am quite confident that you cannot afford me!
Quote 0 0
Boyd wrote:
Quote:
Ok...send me an email i send you my work, fair? Still i like to know how many hearings (foreclosure) you been to ?

Lecso1964@hotmail.com


I do not practice law in your state. Also, I have no interest whatsoever is giving you individualized instruction, since you are unwilling to read the posts here and help yourself.

Also, I am quite confident that you cannot afford me!


Lol..that is funny....i am sure you do worth a lots of monies..u are right, i can't afford you nor i want to !
Quote 0 0
To Boyd,
What is your take on the concept of "adverse possesion"?
Quote 0 0
Hank
Quote:
What is your take on the concept of "adverse possesion"?


While I cannot speak for Boyd, in general adverse possession laws vary widely throughout the United States. The statutes differ. The case law differs.

Your question is to be so broad as to be not answerable.

Are you asking Boyd to write a book on adverse possession so that you can peddle his work as part of your UPL and debt elimination scams?

Get real!

Here is a question for you:

What is your take on the concept of football? Include discussion of both offense and defense; all teams at various levels of play from primary and secondary school, college, semi-professional and professional, identifying all players, coaches and fans, as well as the scores and statistics by team and player for each and every game ever played.

Please be brief!
Quote 0 0
Texas
A touchdown is worth 6 points, extra point 1 or 2
Field Goal worth 3 points.

Adverse possession, 10 or 20 years in some states, the point spread varies by state.
Quote 0 0
Boyd has stated, "Quiet title is never a part of a viable defense strategy." I beg to differ with him.
When you see a situation where the "lender" named on the loan
documents, was probably not the "true" lender, but rather a bankruptcy remote "strawman" which was not licensed to make mortgage loans at the time the loan was made, then you have a
strong case for a Quiet Title action.
The objective of the QT is to remove a fraudulent lien from
the Official Records so that the "obligation" becomes unsecured.
At that point the obligation with the "true lender" can be "crammed down" either by negotiating or in Ch 7 or 13 BK.
The idea is that sometimes, the obligation as shown on the
"real Note" was "securitized" ie converted to a "security bond"
and sold on the secondary market. The name on the mortgage was
sometimes the first servicer, which never owned the obligation.
Unless you end up in foreclosure, you will never know the difference unless you are proactive and look into it.
When a person is on the verge of bankruptcy and "upside down"
on the mortgage, one should investigate doing a QT instead.
The benefits are that you won't "destroy" your credit over
night, when you are current on most of your other debts.
Without going into foreclosure, you will force the "pretender
lender" servicer to prove up their claim that you owe them money.
One of my students, faced with bankruptcy and foreclosure,not
to mention an IRS problem decided to go this route. He filed the
QT in May 2011 and its been ongoing ever since. It is scheduled
for trial in Dec. 2013, so that has given him lots of time to get
his financial house in order.
During this time, we "crammed down" his 85K second to 15K and got it paid off. He was able to pay off the IRS and get them off
his back. Now he's paying off most of his credit cards so his
credit is actually improving. He needed the "vacation" from mortgage payments to get all this done. DON'T MANY OF YOU NEED
A MORTGAGE VACATION SO YOU CAN GET YOUR LIFE IN ORDER?
A side benefit was we discovered two entities are claiming to
own the same "fraudulent Note" (which does not reflect the true
obligation to the true original lender). So he is enjoying many
benefits from doing a QT. The main problem is finding an attorney
who knows how to do one.You need to think outside the box!
Quote 0 0
f
Quote:
Boyd has stated, "Quiet title is never a part of a viable defense strategy." I beg to differ with him.
When you see a situation where the "lender" named on the loan
documents, was probably not the "true" lender, but rather a bankruptcy remote "strawman" which was not licensed to make mortgage loans at the time the loan was made, then you have a
strong case for a Quiet Title action.
The objective of the QT is to remove a fraudulent lien from
the Official Records so that the "obligation" becomes unsecured.
At that point the obligation with the "true lender" can be "crammed down" either by negotiating or in Ch 7 or 13 BK.
The idea is that sometimes, the obligation as shown on the
"real Note" was "securitized" ie converted to a "security bond"
and sold on the secondary market. The name on the mortgage was
sometimes the first servicer, which never owned the obligation.
Unless you end up in foreclosure, you will never know the difference unless you are proactive and look into it.
When a person is on the verge of bankruptcy and "upside down"
on the mortgage, one should investigate doing a QT instead.
The benefits are that you won't "destroy" your credit over
night, when you are current on most of your other debts.
Without going into foreclosure, you will force the "pretender
lender" servicer to prove up their claim that you owe them money.
One of my students, faced with bankruptcy and foreclosure,not
to mention an IRS problem decided to go this route. He filed the
QT in May 2011 and its been ongoing ever since. It is scheduled
for trial in Dec. 2013, so that has given him lots of time to get
his financial house in order.
During this time, we "crammed down" his 85K second to 15K and got it paid off. He was able to pay off the IRS and get them off
his back. Now he's paying off most of his credit cards so his
credit is actually improving. He needed the "vacation" from mortgage payments to get all this done. DON'T MANY OF YOU NEED
A MORTGAGE VACATION SO YOU CAN GET YOUR LIFE IN ORDER?
A side benefit was we discovered two entities are claiming to
own the same "fraudulent Note" (which does not reflect the true
obligation to the true original lender). So he is enjoying many
benefits from doing a QT. The main problem is finding an attorney
who knows how to do one.You need to think outside the box!


Let's be clear. No one has ever succeeded in erasing a mortgage lien anywhere in the United States and then getting the "unsecured debt" extinguished in bankruptcy in the way you describe.

You are simply describing what Boyd correctly identifies as the debt elimination scam myth that you and other's propagate to fleece distressed borrowers out of their last few dollars.

You are unable to identify a single case anywhere that this specious scheme has ever worked. Not a single case at the trial or appellate level anywhere.

YOU ARE A CON MAN AND A SWINDLER. ANYONE WHO BUYS INTO YOUR NONSENSE IS BEING VICTIMIZED.
Quote 0 0
Mr. "F" thinks my idea is no good. I'll bet he likes Roper's
"condition precedent" defense which goes like this, "Judge, they
didn't send me a 30 notice that I was in default so they can't
foreclose and I should get a "free house".
After the Judge stops laughing, he smacks his gavel and calls
the marshall to have the pro se removed.
But you can always take it to your local Court of Appeals, if
you have ten grand sitting around that you don't need.
As the cons on Wall Street used to say, "With so many gullible
sheeple around, it was like picking money off a tree."
Yeah, listen to "F" and his ilk, he'd be glad to help you OUT!
Quote 0 0
Douglas
Quote:
"Quiet title" is NEVER a part of a viable defensive strategy.

Prevailing in a lawsuit or getting past limitations may extinguish the remedy, but it almost NEVER extinguishes the debt. This is one of the central fallacies that underlies all of the debt elimination scams. The law simply doesn't work that way.

Like foreclosure, quiet title is an equitable action. If a borrower brings a quiet title action, then the mortgage investor / servicer gets to interpose the equitable defenses, and particularly the "he who seeks equity, must do equity" defense.

The lien will not be extinguished and the debt will not be extinguished without payment of the balance due, even after prevailing!

Mr. Roper explained this in a post several years ago and he was dead right about it.

This is still not all bad. The borrower gets to remain in the property without making further payments, enjoys use of the property and can probably even rent the property out or bequeath it to others. But selling or refinancing are problematic, because the lien will remain.

Filing a quiet title lawsuit is the very last thing that the prudent borrower should do! A borrower could get stuck with legal fees and costs and might even lose the property in an action he brings.

What the borrower wants to do in this situation is keep a very low profile and let the matter ripen. Res judicata is a pretty good bar. It gets even better when limitations under the note and laches under the mortgage can also be plead.

After time, the mortgage investor will write the balance off. And since it is not producing any revenue, at some point, the servicer also similarly writes off the servicing rights and even deletes the loan off their computer systems.

If the lender or servicer goes out of business or merges into another entity, the the data persistency is probably even shorter. Time not only ripens the limitations and laches defenses, but introduces new evidentiary problems.

Finally, after enough time, if the borrower were to bring an action, the servicer may have some difficulty defending a quiet title suit, as they would have difficulty locating the supporting paperwork.

If a borrower waits long enough, there is another payoff. There is case law in most places showing that after the maturity date of the recorded lien, the lien is presumed to be paid off, even absent a recorded release. So after thirty years, or the maturity date of the obligation, the borrower has a fairly clear title without ever having to litigate at all.

THE ENTIRE IDEA OF BORROWER'S FILING QUIET TITLE SUITS IS A PRETEXT FOR SELLING VARIOUS SWINDLES AND SCAMS. THERE IS NO VALID LEGAL BASIS FOR THIS AS A SERIOUS STRATEGY. AS SOON AS THIS CONVERSATION BEGINS, YOU MAY BE ASSURED THAT YOU ARE TALKING EITHER TO A SCAM OPERATOR OR AN IDIOT!


This post by Boyd is singularly important!

Boyd has hit the nail on the head. If someone is recommending a "Quiet Title" action, you can always be assured that this person is either a scam artist/swindler or the person has almost no understanding of law.

If you find a web site where "Quiet Title" is extolled as a solution for distressed borrowers, you can be equally assured that the site is at best operated by a complete idiot and at worst it is simply a marketing come-on for the debt elimination scam swindlers.

Boyd is also dead on that this was precisely what Mr. Roper was warning everybody about before he left the Forum in total disgust. I e-mail Mr. Roper and asked him about this and he confirmed it!
Quote 0 0
John
Quote:
Mr. "F" thinks my idea is no good. I'll bet he likes Roper's
"condition precedent" defense which goes like this, "Judge, they
didn't send me a 30 notice that I was in default so they can't
foreclose and I should get a "free house".
After the Judge stops laughing, he smacks his gavel and calls
the marshall to have the pro se removed.
But you can always take it to your local Court of Appeals, if
you have ten grand sitting around that you don't need.
As the cons on Wall Street used to say, "With so many gullible
sheeple around, it was like picking money off a tree."
Yeah, listen to "F" and his ilk, he'd be glad to help you OUT!


Contac M.Soliman for to win the free hous at cort!!!
registerclaims@live.com

Is expret witnes!!!

http://foreclosurealternative.wordpress.com/
Quote 0 0
Victim
M. Soliman tried to steal my money
Quote 0 0
f
Quote:
M. Soliman tried to steal my money


But of course he did! That is what he does for a living. As John aptly explained in another thread, he is an expert at fraud!

Not that he could possibly testify for a distressed borrower at trial. He is an expert at defrauding people and banks, which seems to be what he has done for most of his adult life! Just look at his online resume!!
Quote 0 0
Texas
I have no idea who "f" is but "f" is correct about lying scoundrels.
Quote 0 0
f
Anyone who is even remotely inclined to buy into the nonsense that a note might somehow become "unsecured" or that "Quiet Title" is a viable defensive strategy should carefully read the surviving posts in this thread, where Mr. Roper totally eviscerated Mike H.'s fraudulent arguments:

Bankruptcy vs Quiet title
http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/Bankruptcy-vs-Quiet-title-5333192

Be sure to read the entire thread. When you are finished, you will plainly see not only that Mike H.'s posts have no validity, but also the utter contempt Mr. Roper had for this notorious swindler. It is hardly surprising that Mr. Roper became totally disgusted with the site administrator and left the Forum when he learned that the site administrator had been coddling Mike H. and facilitating his continued frauds!

This is one of the few surviving threads showing that Mr. Roper had been trying to expose the fraud before he was muffled by the criminals and left in disgust.
Quote 0 0
Here is a case won by one of my students based on the bifurcation of the Note from the mortgage: Hillsborough County,
Florida 2007-ca-018260.
In this case, the Note went to entity A, whereas the mortgage
went to entity B.
"A" got a judgment against my student. He then filed Ch 7 Bk,
listing the judgment as unsecured and the property as homesteaded. As a result, he got the judgment discharged and the
property was "abandoned" by the Trustee, ie returned to him.
Next, the plaintiff tried to force a sale of the property,
even though the credit bid was reduced to zero, by claiming to
still have a lien against it. The judge at first granted the
motion to sell it, but upon a rehearing reversed and cancelled
the sale, citing the fact that the Note got separated from the
mortgage, the Note was converted into an unsecured judgment and
was discharged in Ch 7, therefore the plaintiff was SOL!
You can read the order by going to Official Records after
you read the docket.
Quote 0 0
Adam
It appears that others at the Forum have neglected to call attention to the falsity of this other post by Mike H. For anyone new to the Forum, you should be advised that Mike H. is a swindler who prey upon distressed borrowers. If you post your e-mail address, he may try to contact you. BEWARE!

I haven't seen Texas at the Forum in a while. He sometimes posted something about "Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!", when he saw another b.s. post like this from a scam artist like Mike H.
Quote 0 0
Texas
Just watching.

Mike H, a security securing a tangible Note cannot be bifurcated, period. But there is an intangible but...
Quote 0 0
Look Adam & Texas,
The recent Kansas decision was based on the fact that the
mortgage remained with MERS until it was rejoined with the Note
just before Met filed for foreclosure.
In the case I cited, the Note went to "A", MERS assigned the
mortgage to "B", "B" never assigned the mortgage back to "A".
"A" got a judgment against my student. It was an unsecured
Note because "A" never owned the mortgage. "A" never "perfected"
a "judgment lien" before my student filed Ch 7 and got the "unsecured judgment" discharged.
Because the Homestead exemption equaled or exceeded the
"unsecured judgment", the property was "abandoned" by the Trustee, ie returned to the student.
I cited the case, read it! It fits in perfectly with what the
recent Kansas decision had to say. In the Kansas decision, MERS
never assigned the mortgage to "B" but rather held on to it as the "agent" of the original lender and its assigns. It rejoined
the mortgage to Met, the subsequent owner of the Note. As a result, Met had standing to foreclose.
In the Tampa case cited, MERS did not hold onto the mortgage,
but rather assigned it to "B". Therefore it became separated from
the Note which was owned by "A". Therefore when "A" sued, it was
sueing on an unsecured Note. Also it never perfected a judgment
lien, so the judgment was also unsecured, rendering it dischargable in Ch 7 Bk. Which is why my student still has his
home. Read the Case and learn!
By the way, Adam, if BS was electricity, you'd be a power house, but instead, you are a "wet noodle"! Buzz off moron!
Quote 0 0
There are a few good cases that I think explain how the foreclosure can work when MERS is involved. I think the judge in the Box Order does a nice job explaining it and cites other cases for you to look at that explain his order. I don't agree though that the note is a negotiable instrument. Most mortgages in my opinion are not even if the courts are calling them such. There is a lot of bad law out there.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/103657782/box-order

In affirming the circuit court’s decision, the Missouri Court of Appeals discussed the law of mortgages in order to determine Ocwen’s interest in the property. The Court explained:

"Generally, a mortgage loan consists of a promissory note and security instrument, usually a mortgage or a deed of trust, which secures payment on the note by giving the lender the ability to foreclose on the property. Typically, the same person holds both the note and deed of trust. In the event that the note and the deed of trust are split, the note, as a practical matter becomes unsecured. The practical effect of splitting the deed of trust from the promissory note is to make it impossible for the holder of the note to foreclose, unless the holder of the deed of trust is the agent of the holder of the note. Without the agency relationship, the person holding only the note lacks the power to foreclose in the event of default. The person holding only the deed of trust will never experience default because only the holder of the note is entitled to payment of the underlying obligation. The mortgage loan [becomes] ineffectual when the note holder [does] not also hold the deed of trust."


Regarding assignments:


"When the holder of the promissory note assigns or transfers the note, the deed of trust is also transferred. An assignment of the deed of trust separate from the note has no “force.” Effectively, the note and the deed of trust are inseparable, and when the promissory note is transferred, it vests in the transferee “all the interest, rights, powers and security conferred by the deed of trust upon the beneficiary therein and the payee in the notes.”


Thus, if the note is properly assigned, the deed of trust automatically goes with it, and the note is not split from the deed of trust. However, that is not necessarily the case when it is the deed of trust which is assigned – if the note is not also assigned, the assignment of the deed of trust is, for all practical purposes, ineffectual because the note and deed of trust have become split.

In Bellistri, when MERS purported to assign the deed of trust to Ocwen, MERS also apparently attempted to transfer the note because the deed of trust stated that its assignment to Ocwen was “together with any and all notes and obligations therein described.”7 The Court of Appeals did not comment on the issue of whether such a notation on the assignment of the deed of trust effectively also assigned the note. However, the Court of Appeals said, BNC was the holder of the promissory note, and since there was no evidence that MERS ever held the promissory note or that BNC gave MERS the authority to transfer the promissory note, MERS did not have such authority to transfer the promissory note.8 Thus, the language in the assignment of the deed of trust purporting to transfer the promissory note was ineffective.9 In other words, “MERS never held the promissory note, thus its assignment of the deed of trust to Ocwen separate from the note had no force."

Also see Carpenter v. Longan - 83 U.S. 271 (1872)

“The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity.”

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/83/271/case.html

This is not legal advice but these two or three cases helped me to understand the MERS problem. I find it interesting that the judge states in his order that,

"This Order does not go further than necessary, and specifically does not decide whether the structure of MERS is fatally flawed under Missouri law because, e.g., it splits the note and deed of trust between different entities. I am well aware that there would be far-reaching consequences from such a determination on creditors holding what they believed were mortgage loans, and also on debtors, who may or may not be able to obtain new financing in order to purchase their homes from the estate at current value. Therefore, I would hope to decide those issues in a proceeding in which the promissory note is produced, and in which evidence is offered as to the relationship between MERS and lenders for whom it purports to act, as well as the powers granted to it by them. Such evidence might include, for example, an agency agreement if one exists."
Quote 0 0
Tony
And Sharon claims to be another expert on MERS. Good grief! LOSER!!
Quote 0 0
Tony wrote:
And Sharon claims to be another expert on MERS. Good grief! LOSER!!


What part of "this is not legal advice do you not understand? You are the loser Tony, you likely have a little man complex and name calling makes you feel important. You should get some help, everyone that has to be around you will thank you for it.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...