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
John Martin Show full post »
Bill
I was fortune enough to read the court filings of a pro se litigant in the probate setting.  This pro se was very sophisticated and had an in-depth knowledge of the law and foreclosure defense obtained over YEARS of representing himself successfully in court.  While I understood the foreclosure defense, I was quite surprised at the complexity of this situation in the probate court.  I was also surprised at the number of mistakes and misunderstandings by the Plaintiff's attorneys.  

Because of the ADDITIONAL complexity involved when you are in the probate court, I think the likely hood of a successful defense by the average homeowner is VERY LOW.  If you are NOT starting off with a good grasp of the law, procedure, and how to proceed in the probate court you chances pro se are very slim.  Get an attorney, you can't learn this stuff overnight.  

  
Quote 0 0
John Martin

"When a person dies, the beneficiaries (of a will) or heirs (no will) automatically become the owners". Can anyone tell me if this is true, regardless of the animosity leveled at Mike H? I mean, if someone ,usually, the executor has to administer the estate, how can he or she not be considered owners or the persons liable in to receive proper notification. I realize there is some trepidation in revelations needed, but please respond if you have any insight, John Martin

Quote 0 0
George Burns
Definitely not true.

But why not just look it up yourself? Many states and bar associations publish guides. So do some insurance companies and estate planners.

Nothing is automatic whether it is from the probate estate or directly such as from a life insurance policy. Everthing has rules and procedures that must be followed.

Quote 0 0
Karen

Quote:
"When a person dies, the beneficiaries (of a will) or heirs (no will)
automatically become the owners". Can anyone tell me if this is true, regardless of the animosity leveled at Mike H? I mean, if someone ,usually, the executor has to administer the estate, how can he or she not be considered owners or the persons liable in to receive proper notification. I realize there is some trepidation in revelations needed, but please respond if you have any insight, John Martin

 

How about this.  You look it up for New York State and report back to us.  Please include the statute and cases.

 

Others can look up their own state laws and share.  So far, it seems as though only t, ka, George, Bill and John Lewis are actually contributing statutes or cases any more.  Also links to Mr. Roper's older posts.

 

Mike H. just makes sh-- up.

 

I think that t and ka said they are bored with John Martin and this thread.

 

Can you please contribute something to the Forum John other than simply additional taskings to the already overworked Forum regulars?  When are you going to answer the questions presented to you, John?  When are you going to actually read a statute instead of posting requests that others do your legal research for you?

Quote 0 0
Bored

Quote:
I have to tell you that like Steve Anderson's situation, you have failed to even answer some of the most rudimentary questions posed to you by various Forum participants.

1.  Does the value of the subject property exceed the outstanding mortgage balance or is this property under water?


2.  Does the estate have other assets which can be reached by the plaintiff in respect of a deficiency judgment in a successful foreclosure action?

3.  Are you the sole devisee of the subject property or will ownership of the subject property be shared with other devisees.

These are the foremost questions which should be guiding your strategy.

 

If there exists any substantial equity in the subject property, one employs completely different strategies than are employed when equity is negative

 

John Martin still hasn't answered ka's questions, yet.  How Rude!

Quote 0 0
John Martin
1.  Does the value of the subject property exceed the outstanding mortgage balance or is this property under water?


2.  Does the estate have other assets which can be reached by the plaintiff in respect of a deficiency judgment in a successful foreclosure action?

3.  Are you the sole devisee of the subject property or will ownership of the subject property be shared with other devisees.

Answer to summons and complaint:

1. No, small HELOC, under $10,000

2. No other assets except house.

3. No, three other defendants, which were on the will!

You want a contribution. To handle a summons or complaint, just received. If you are not prepared, file a Motion for an Extension of Time before the 20 days are up to act. Next, prepare your answer  for after the Motion for time extension is rendered, or file a MTD if there are preanswer conditions that were not met. Next, get your discovery and interrogatories ready, for the next phase. Just a primer on defending your home in foreclosure for those who have never encountered this arena before, John Martin
Quote 0 0
t

Quote:
1. No, small HELOC, under $10,000 

 

Assuming that the subject property is worth MORE THAN $10,000, which seems very likely in New York State, it would then seem that you are absolutely OUT OF YOUR MIND in trying to defend a foreclosure action instead of selling the subject property.

 

In defending against a foreclosure action rather than FINDING THE CASH AND SETTLING OR selling the subject property, you are going to (a) expose the the estate to legal fees well in excess of $10,000, and (b) cause this property to be sold at a foreclosure sale at a price which will probably be at least 25% below market value and possibly even a far steeper discount.

 

Maybe you are just planning on bidding at the property at the commissioners sale so that you can steal the equity from the other heirs.  The trouble with this strategy is that in failing to sell the property for its actual market value to realize its equity, you are probably breaching your fiduciary duties to the other heirs.

 

If you think that a likely outcome is ownership of this property, stripped of the HELOC lien, you are simply delusional.  If you think that you could succeed in even forestalling the foreclosure long enough to make resisting foreclosure a good strategy, you are simply delusional.

 

Before, I thought that we ought not help you because you have been rude and less than forthcoming. Now, it seems rather clear that you are simply out of your mind!

 

Are any of your nieces and nephews sane?

Quote 0 0
John Martin

My relatives are quite sane, well in relation to most of those who post derogatory remarks in here. I can see that everyone seems to be on my case about my inquiries for some reason, without helping me with my legal issues. MIght as well close this thread like mentioned before as the noteworthy assistance never arrived, John Martin

Quote 0 0
Disgusted

Quote:
My relatives are quite sane, well in relation to most of those who post derogatory remarks in here. I can see that everyone seems to be on my case about my inquiries for some reason, without helping me with my legal issues. MIght as well close this thread like mentioned before as the noteworthy assistance never arrived, John Martin

 

I get it.  John, who is betting the value of the estate on a foreclosure of a $10,000 HELOC lien, blames everyone but himself.  He won't actually help himself.  But he heaps criticism on Forum regulars!  Time to run along John.  You are not going to get help here to rip off your relatives through your irresponsible breaches of fiduciary duty.  Good riddance.

Quote 0 0
Pay the $10,000 and keep the home. Sell it and split the profits with all heirs minus the $10,000 you shelled out. Simple.
Quote 0 0
Bill
delores diciccio wrote:
Pay the $10,000 and keep the home. Sell it and split the profits with all heirs minus the $10,000 you shelled out. Simple.

I seriously doubt that Mr. Martin has $10,000.00 otherwise he would have retained an attorney to handle things he doesn't understand and doesn't want to learn or as you suggested, just pay the 10k and move on.


Quote 0 0
Uggh

Quote:
Pay the $10,000 and keep the home.  Sell it and split the profits with all heirs minus the $10,000 you shelled out.  Simple. 

 

John Martin doesn't care that the other heirs will lose their inheritance.  His only concern is staying in the property longer even that means the complete loss of the house and the loss of the inheritance to others.

 

t and ka seem to have seen this from the outset.  John Martin is simply a low life who should have never been made executor.  It is one thing to fight the bank.  It is really quite another to rip off your nieces and nephews to benefit yourself contrary to your mother's wishes!  What a low life!

 

His heirs will probably have a strong cause of action against him for breach of fiduciary duty, but he will probably be penniless and in bankruptcy.  Maybe he is a crack addict.  He is clearly lazy and dishonest.

Quote 0 0
Floyd
t also posted about Jones v. Flowers in this thread, so I am putting the Mennoite case here, too:

Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams, No. 82-11, 462 U.S. 791 (U.S. 1983)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15514287515094491545

 

These two U.S. Supreme Court cases, Jones v. Flowers and Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams, both prove that Mike H. is an idiot and a shameless swindler who is ripping off distressed borrowers!

Quote 0 0
Floyd,
    Your case proves nothing. What I said is this, when a person dies, the beneficiaries(will) or heirs (no will) automatically become the owner(s) of the
property.
     The problem is that in many cases, the mortgagee has no way of knowing
who those people are. That is why it is important for the personal representative of the deceased to either file the will in probate, or if there is
no will, open a probate case. In this way the mortgagee can inform themselves of the proper parties to be served with the foreclosure papers
so they can defend themselves.
      What often happens (at least in Florida), is that the mortgagee can not
identify the beneficiaries or heirs, so it petitions the Court to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the missing beneficiaries or heirs. Such GAL
puts up a "token resistance", a judgment is entered, and the property gets
sold for a pittance. The beneficiaries and/or heirs wind up with nothing.
       Anyone who thinks it is a good idea to hide the information of who the
beneficiaries/heirs happen to be, thinking this will delay the foreclosure, is a
complete idiot.
       Also, if the will is clear as to who the beneficiary is, the personal rep.
can easily and legally quit claim the deed to that person so he/she/they can
defend the foreclosure.
       Most mortgages are "due on death" that's why the French invented the
word, which means "death gamble" in the French lanquage. The beneficiaries
or heirs must move fast if they want to save the property from foreclosure.
       Many investors are experts at buying discounted properties out of
probate foreclosure sales because the bene/heirs just let it go for dimes on
the dollar. They lose the "death gamble"!
Quote 0 0
Denise
Quote:
Floyd,
Your case proves nothing. What I said is this, when a person dies, the beneficiaries(will) or heirs (no will) automatically become the owner(s) of the property.

 
Wow, Floyd posts a U.S. Supreme Court case and Mike H. turns up lying again
claiming that U.S. Supreme Court cases prove nothing!  This man is worse than useless.
 
There are so many willing to help others here at the Forum and Mike views every thread as a new opportunity to confuse, befuddle and victimize distressed borrowers.  How disgusting!
Quote 0 0
Bill
Quote:
 Most mortgages are "due on death" that's why the French invented the word, which means "death gamble" in the French lanquage. The beneficiaries or heirs must move fast if they want to save the property from foreclosure.
       Many investors are experts at buying discounted properties out of
probate foreclosure sales because the bene/heirs just let it go for dimes on the dollar. They lose the "death gamble"!

These are the kind of LIES swindlers like Mike H. Spread.  There is NO "death gamble", it's a "death pledge" as explained below.  By only giving HALF of the truth and CHANGING the other half, swindlers like Mike H. try to lure in unsuspecting homeowners into his scams.  He will quickly suggest that if a lender is defunct they lose the "death gamble" and the homeowner no longer has a mortgage on their home.  Of course the COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES DISAGREE.  Maybe Mike H. can post a case from ANY jurisdiction that supports this garbage rather than just simply suggesting it is right because you told us so.  




Quote:
Mortgage:  In the word mortgage, the mort- is from the Latin word mori (via old french mort) for death and -gage is from the sense of that word meaning a pledge to forfeit something of value if a debt is not repaid. So mortgage is literally a death pledge.

Quote:

WORD HISTORY   The great jurist Sir Edward Coke, who lived from 1552 to 1634, has explained why the term mortgage comes from the Old French words mort, "dead," and gage, "pledge." It seemed to him that it had to do with the doubtfulness of whether or not the mortgagor will pay the debt. If the mortgagor does not, then the land pledged to the mortgagee as security for the debt "is taken from him for ever, and so dead to him upon condition, etc. And if he doth pay the money, then the pledge is dead as to the [mortgagee]." This etymology, as understood by 17th-century attorneys, of the Old French term morgage, which we adopted, may well be correct. The term has been in English much longer than the 17th century, being first recorded in Middle English with the form morgage and the figurative sense "pledge" in a work written before 1393.


Quote 0 0
Denise,
     I have never "victimized" anyone. I challenge you to find one victim. You
are a liar and a nit wit. That case by floyd is completely useless and off point.
     When I post here, I do it to help pro se litigants. I only speak of things
I have done or of which I have first hand knowledge.
     The word "mort gage" is very old and comes from Normandy, France.
The Normans, after the conquest of England, used them to dispossess the
English land owners of their land. After the Normans accomplished that, they
did the same in Ireland and within a few centuries, they owned almost all the land.
      " Mort" means death and "gage" means "wager" (Black's Law Distionary 1968) "Gager" in French means to gamble or bet on something. In this case
it is betting on the death of the borrower before the loan gets paid off. (but sometimes the lender loses).
        If the borrower paid on a 30 year mortgage for 25 years and then died,
the heirs would have to come up with the balance in a short time or the lender could take the property by foreclosure. In the old days, most wise
borrowers would take out life insurance to cover the debt to prevent this from happening to the heirs. 
Quote 0 0
Bill
Mike H wrote:
Denise,
     I have never "victimized" anyone. I challenge you to find one victim. You
are a liar and a nit wit. That case by floyd is completely useless and off point.
     When I post here, I do it to help pro se litigants. I only speak of things
I have done or of which I have first hand knowledge.
     The word "mort gage" is very old and comes from Normandy, France.
The Normans, after the conquest of England, used them to dispossess the
English land owners of their land. After the Normans accomplished that, they
did the same in Ireland and within a few centuries, they owned almost all the land.
      " Mort" means death and "gage" means "wager" (Black's Law Distionary 1968) "Gager" in French means to gamble or bet on something. In this case
it is betting on the death of the borrower before the loan gets paid off. (but sometimes the lender loses).

        If the borrower paid on a 30 year mortgage for 25 years and then died,
the heirs would have to come up with the balance in a short time or the lender could take the property by foreclosure. In the old days, most wise
borrowers would take out life insurance to cover the debt to prevent this from happening to the heirs. 

More garbage from Mike H.

Quote:

Definition of GAGE

n. In old English law. A pawn or pledge; something deposited as security for the performance of some act orthe payment of money, and to be forfeited on failure or non-performance. Glanv. lib.10, c. 6; Britt. c. 27.A mortgage is a dead^gage or pledge; for, whatsoever profit it yields, it redeemsnot itself, unless the whole amount secured is paid at the appointed time. Cowell.In French law. The contract of pledge or pawn; also the article pawned.

Quote 0 0
Are you the only heir?  Are you supposed to inherit the house?  The reason I ask is that in some instances you can just assume the loan without having to qualify.

At one time I was interested in assuming my mother's loan on the main house.  I did some digging and found out that I could actually do this!

My mom has a Fannie Mae Conforming loan.  Fannie Mae has stipulations on who can assume a loan without qualifying for it.  One stipulation was that the deceased borrower's child could assume the loan.

I am going through something similar here in Ohio.  The foreclosure thing.  Its aweful!!

Quote 0 0
Bob West
I would also like to know what happens when a mother or father dies, in the sense that a son or daughter inherits the house...i.e it is known, that the mortagee would gladly take the money for the loan repayment. However, how are the children of the deceased protected in the legal sense if they did not keep repaying the mortgage.

Actually, even though I understand that the siblings can keep up the loan repayments, to me, it doesn't make sense, because everything I have done that involved a court and attorneys had to be done by the letter of the law. Somehow people involved in these agreements get around these issues. I guess what I am saying is, really, the lender should sit down with the children of the deceased and arbitrate a suitable agreement or contract, right?  Hope someone can shed some light, Robert West
Quote 0 0
ka

See the new appellate decision out of New York discussed within my thread:

 

NY Appellate Court - Suit Against a Dead Person Is a Nullity: Wendover Fin. Servs. v Ridgeway

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/NY-Appellate-Court-Suit-Against-a-Dead-Person-Is-a-Nullity-Wendover-Fin.-Servs.-v-5757298

Quote 0 0
Brad
ka and t show great insight in about New York law in this thread. I haven't seen any recent posts by either.

Does anyone know how to get in touch with either ka or t?
Quote 0 0
Pam

A friend of mine's father died without leaving a will.  There was a mortgage on his house.  My friend's brother found a firm in Arizona online that sold him some legal papers to file a quiet title suit to extinguish the mortgage.  He apparently paid $2,500 for these legal papers, but avoided the cost of a lawyer.  He got all of the heirs to sign on as plaintiffs in the case and sued the bank.

The bank filed an answer, including counterclaims for default on the note and mortgage and asked for judicial foreclosure.  This was in a non-judicial foreclosure state.  The bank waited a few months and then filed a motion for summary judgment.  The judge wouldn't even let her brother testify at the summary judgment hearing about the robo-signing.  The court ordered the sale of the house and the heirs got nothing at all.

After reading the posts in this thread, it seems as though the heirs might have been better off doing nothing.  Before they filed their quiet title suit at least they were getting rent from that house and the bank hadn't done a non-judicial foreclosure.  I wonder if they can at least get their money back for the legal papers they bought?

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...