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

First quiet-title victory in Virginia (by default): first-mortgage deed of trust declared null and void:
http://bryllaw.blogspot.com/2011/12/bryllaw-litigation-first-quiet-title.html

Thursday, December 1, 2011

BRYLLAW LITIGATION: First Quiet-Title Order in Virginia Voiding Deed of Trust (by default)

On November 21, 2011, a Northern Virginia Circuit Court entered an order granting plaintiff homeowner a default judgment in a quiet title action, voiding the deed of trust.

Earlier this year, frustrated by the fact that she could not get to the real party in interest to modify a loan, the homeowner went on the offensive and filed a court action to quiet title to her property and seeking nullification of the deed of trust supposedly encumbering the property with a first mortgage. Subsequently, a bank servicer (posing as an owner) moved to intervene into the case on the grounds that it's ownership rights in the debt and the property would supposedly be at stake. The homeowner successfully opposed the motion and the motion was withdrawn.

Because none of the remaining defendants responded, the homeowner moved for judgment by default, seeking nullification of the deed of trust. The judgment was granted and the court entered an order voiding the deed of trust. This appears to be the first ruling of this kind in Virginia. Similar rulings have been obtained in Missouri, Arkansas, Utah, Texas, and Florida.

A redacted signed order can be accessed here.
Quote 0 0
t

At best, this order is likely to only be binding against those actually named in the suit.

 

If another entity was the holder of the note and the beneficiary of the deed of trust by valid assignment at the date of this suit, then the order is likely to have no binding effect whatsoever on the unnamed entity.

 

As with pretty much ALL "Quiet Title" actions in respect of mortgage default or foreclosure, this is the sort of suit and order upon which debt elimination scams and various swindles are based.

Quote 0 0
floridapathy
t wrote:
At best, this order is likely to only be binding against those actually named in the suit.

If another entity was the holder of the note and the beneficiary of the deed of trust by valid assignment at the date of this suit, then the order is likely to have no binding effect whatsoever on the unnamed entity.

As with pretty much ALL "Quiet Title" actions in respect of mortgage default or foreclosure, this is the sort of suit and order upon which debt elimination scams and various swindles are based.


Quote:
Earlier this year, frustrated by the fact that she could not get to the real party in interest to modify a loan,


If I name the original lender, MERS, servicers, title agency,and trustee, would the anonymous so-called "investors" really challenge this decision? Why would the investors (those that put up the money, if at all) worry about this when they have insurance and are not named on any document proving they are a party of interest? Are they really going to come forward with a check-stub or wire transfer receipt showing they forwarded xxx amount?

It seems the courts look down on homeowners who can afford to pay but try to walk away, however, I have noticed quite a few recent cases of homeowners taking the initiative and suing their lender preemptively while they are still current. What troubles me is that all the law firms I have spoken with advise against this.

Yeah, I understand its better to be a defendant if you lose, plus you escape the burden of proof. But is it really a better position to be in if you lose, when you stand losing your home?

Quote 0 0
ka

Quote:
If I name the original lender, MERS, servicers, title agency,and trustee, would the anonymous so-called "investors" really challenge this decision?

 

You can name anyone you please.  But if you fail to name and serve the holder of the note and the owner of the mortgage, then any judicial decree lacks any legal or binding effect on the mortgagee whatsoever.

 

That is just basic 14th Amendment due process law.

 

This has been discussed in other threads and doesn't need to be explained again.

 

The owner of the mortgage need not challenge the decision, it is simply void as to the real owner of the mortgage.

 

IF the owner of the mortgage decides to challenge the decision, ALL LEGAL FEES in bringing this action can be charged to the borrower and if the borrower fails to IMMEDIATELY PAY these fees when assessed, the owner of the mortgage is entitled under the express terms of the mortgage, deed of trust or other mortgage security instrument to declare default.

 

While Mike H. cannot identify a single instance where someone got a "free house" using his "Quiet Title" strategy, he also conceals from your the scores of borrowers who have LOST THEIR HOMES as a consequence of his swindles!

 

Quote:
Why would the investors (those that put up the money, if at all) worry about this when they have insurance and are not named on any document proving they are a party of interest?

 

1.  Most mortgage loans are not insured.

 

2.  There are two basic types of mortgage insurance policies:  primary mortgage insurance and pool insurance.

 

3.  Primary mortgage insurance policies do not insure the full value of the mortgage, but rather insure only a portion of the top exposure, usually something on the order of 22%.  If a loan was ever totally extinguished by the Quiet Title strategy (and this NEVER HAPPENS), the mortgage investor would suffer very deep losses even if the loan was insured.

 

4.  Pool insurance policies do not insure individual loans but rather insure against losses to a pool of mortgages.  This insurance also has policy limits that limit exposure to a fraction of the value of a pool.  Almost all of the insured pool hit their policy maximums during 2008 and 2009.  Additional losses beyond these maximums are not insured.  Investor losses are total.

 

5.  Almost all of the mortgage insurers, including the FHA are already insolvent.  Many MI claims are being rejected due to origination fraud with the insurer rescinding the insurance coverage.  Losses on loans for which MI policy coverage is rescinded is total.

 

*

 

The second half of your statement asserting that the mortgage investors are not the real party at interest shows that you haven't really read or understood Mr. Roper's posts on this subject.

 

He has explained this so many times that it is not worth any further effort to explain it to you.  Search the Forum and simply read his posts.

Quote 0 0
ka

Quote:
I have noticed quite a few recent cases of homeowners taking the initiative and suing their lender preemptively while they are still current. What troubles me is that all the law firms I have spoken with advise against this.

 

You have noticed that the swindlers have MANY VICTIMS!

NO ONE has ended up with a "free house" employing this strategy.

 

Reputable law firms recommend against this strategy (a) because it NEVER works and (b) it almost always results in the loss of the borrower's property, even when the borrower was not in default when the strategy was employed.

 

Again, this has been repeatedly explained and discussed within other threads.  Your raising these issues anew in this thread suggests either that you have a serious reading comprehension problem OR that you are actually a confederate of swindlers, like Mike H. 

Quote 0 0
ka

Quote:
Yeah, I understand its better to be a defendant if you lose, plus you escape the burden of proof. But is it really a better position to be in if you lose, when you stand losing your home? 

 

Those who employ the strategies recommended by the debt elimination scam swindlers, such as Mike H., almost ALWAYS LOSE THEIR HOMES, even when not already in default.

 

Those who have employed Mr. Roper's well thought out and well articulated strategies here at the Forum are still in their homes years later.  Some are nearing limitations on bringing new claims and MAY end up with free houses! 

 

It appears that your enthusiasm for FAILED STRATEGIES sets you apart as either the ignorant mark of swindlers who hasn't yet appreciated that you are about to get crushed (while only the swindlers profit) OR you are a confederate of these swindlers.

 

Which is it?

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...