Funny enough even though they knew they didn't know who owns note yes they tried to file two proof of claims. Stupidest thing I've ever heard of. If I got sale stopped because they didn't know who owned it I would of never thought they would of tried twice. It was quite pathetic. They tried once after one had just gotten the turn down by judge...And when they hired another attorney and heard case quit working case...
Yes we were demanded to put payments into atty escrow to show we had the funds to pay if we were demanded to. Since we did this judge ruled in our favor to not pay 2nd lien. No trustee payments or pymts outside like you would regularly do in a chp 13...
We don't dispute that we created debt or owe the debt. But until we can be shown who actually owns even judge has agreed that they don't deserve to be paid.
But it looks like the chp 13 will be dismissed next Thursday as they were already granted a lift of stay on house for 1st and a vehicle. Which sucks but things have been very difficult. But we've been fighting to get back to be able to pay. And since our attorney I now found out works for a chp 7 trustee I believe its a conflict of interest for him to do the adversarial hence he is now not doing it. Said because we fell behind he's not getting paid so isn't doing adversarial. But even when we were able to pay he didn't file it. And has admitted he's not sure how to do to make it a win in court.
And has advised us to file a chp 7 now.
Which we don't want to do but are at a loss as to how to really go forward even though we've gotten things proven and documented. As even if we had the money I can't find a legitimate attorney to represent us after all this.Thanks and God Bless!
Hey Ed I read in one of your posts that your dad was an attorney. Any advice? Anyone?
April 6, 2007
PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL
Re: Bankruptcy Case :
Pursuant to the hearing on April 5, 2007, I am informing you of what transpired. The Judge stated, in no uncertain terms, that you must turn over $2,378.86 so that I may put that amount in my trust account. I would prefer that the amount be in either a cashier’s check or money order. The Judge also ordered HomEq to come up with the name of the owner of the Note. The Judge then continued the hearing to April 19, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. The Judge stated that if I cannot say that I have the $2,378.86 in my trust account the Judge will rule in HomEq’s favor. The Judge also stated that if HomeEq cannot come up with the name of the owner, he will find in our favor. However, he stated that if HomEq does not come up with the name of the owner and I do not have the funds in my trust account, he will find in HomEq’s favor, the stay will be lifted, and it will be up to HomEq to decide whether to begin foreclosure proceedings.
Please turn over $2,378.86 to my office. If you do turn the funds over in a cashier’s check or money order by April 18, 2007, and the Judge rules in our favor on the 19th, I can deposit it into the account, we do not have to wait for it to clear, and then we can write you a firm check immediately to return those funds to you. If you give us a personal check, we will have to wait ten (10) days to make sure that the check clears.
I have also provided copies of the Assignment of Deed of Trust. The first Assignment of Deed of Trust shows that the loan went from Argent Mortgage to Ameriquest Mortage. The second Assignment of Deed of Trust was supposed to transfer it from Ameriquest Mortgage to someone else. As you can see on the assignment, the name of the purchaser of the Note is blank. It appears this was never finished. Please keep these items for your records.
If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me.
When recorded mail to
Arneriquest Mcrtgage Company
RO. Box 1150T
Santa Ana, CA 92711
ASS IGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST
This Assignment of Deed of Trust, made and entered into on 08/27/2004, by and between Ameriquest Mortgage Company of the CITY OF Orange of Orange County State of California first part, and
__________________________ of the CITY OF __________________ of ____________________ County Stale of ______________ party of the second part.
Witnesseth, that Ihe said uiarty of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of $ 26400.00
twenty-six thousand four hundred and 00/100 Dollars paid by the said party of the second part, the receipt oIwh[ch is hereby acknowledged, do by these presents, Sell, Assign, Transfer and Convey unto the said party of the second part the following descdbed Deed of Trust and all unpaid notes secured thereby to-wit:
Deed of Trust dated the 23 day of August , 2004 , executed by
, Husband and Wife to US TITLE Trustee for Argent Mortgage Company, ILC on which there is now due the principal amount twenty-six thousand four hundred and OO Dollars recorded in book ,page of the records of the COUNTY of St CHARL.ES and State of Missouri, and all notes secured thereby, which are a lien on the following property, situated in the County of ST. CHARIES , and State of Missouri to-wit:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION Afl’ACHEU HERE TO AND MADE A PART HEREOF”
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said party of the first part has executed these presents the day and year first above written,
Ameriquest Morta9e Company
Slate of Illinois
County of Cook
On before me, BRENDA MARIE COPELAND
personally appeared SHANDRIKA ANDERSON
personally kiiown to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactoty evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the whhin instrument and acknowledged to roe that he/sheithey executed the same in his/herltheir authorized capacityies), arid that by his/heritheir signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which [a the person(s) acted, executed ihe instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal
BRNC MARIE COpELo
I NOTARY PUBLIC 5TATOp iiu I
MyCornmj Expirest)cij)7 ?
_____________________ I COPELAND
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
Case Number Chapter 13
Debtors. ) Response Due By May 18, 2007
DEBTORS’ OBJECTION TO CLAIM #7
Filed by HOMEQ SERVICING CORPORATION
COME NOW Debtors, ______, by and through the undersigned counsel, and hereby object to Claim #7 of Homeq Servicing Corporation, in the amount of $29,623.32 secured and $3,357.72 in arrearages, for the following reasons:
1. Homeq cannot provide proof that they are the servicer for the owner of the Note.
2. Homeq cannot provide proof of the owner of the Note.
3. Homeq’s Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay was dismissed by Order without prejudice on April 26, 2007 because Homeq could not provide proof of the owner of the Note.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: ANY RESPONSIVE PLEADING IN OPPOSITION TO THIS OBJECTION TO CLAIM MUST BE FILED IN WRITING NO LATER THAN TWENTY(20) DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS OBJECTION AS SHOWN ON THE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (See L.R. 3007-1B and L.R. 9061-1B) THE RESPONSE MUST BE IMMEDIATELY SERVED UPON THE UNDERSIGNED. IF NO RESPONSE IS FILED, THE COURT MAY GRANT THIS OBJECTION WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE ON
EXPIRATION OF THE RESPONSE PERIOD.IF A RESPONSE IS FILED, THE UNDERSIGNED OBJECTOR SHALL SET THE
MATTER FOR HEARING AND PROVIDE NOTICE PURSUANT TO L.R. 3007-1B.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
Chapter 13 Doc. 48
CERTIFICATION OF NO OBJECTION OR RESPONSE
This matter coming before the Court on the Debtors’ Objection to Claim #7-2 filed
by HomeQ Servicing Corporation; Notice of Debtors’ Objection having been provided to said creditor and no responses having been received; upon a review of the Court’s record in this matter and for good cause shown;
ORDERIT IS HEREBY ORDERED
That the Debtors’ Objection is sustained and Claim #7-2 is disallowed and not entitled to participate in distribution from this Estate.
DATED: May 25, 2007
Missouri Barry S. Schermer
Chief United States Bankruptcy Judge