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

I purchased a property in May 2009 from the Philadelphia District Attorney's office auction of drug forfeited properties. While I did know there was a lien on the property, I did not know there was already a summary judgment against the homeowner from 6/2008 which the bank sought to foreclose on.

 

In November 2007, the D.A. entered a temporary restraining order on the property. In March 2009, the D.A. was awarded the property, removed it's lis pendens and proceeded to sell the property. Also in March 2009, the mortgage company re-filed it's writ for foreclosure.

 

Fast forward- There was a sheriff sale scheduled for 7-7-09 which I attended and showed a copy of the deed in my name. The sheriff postponed the sale 30 days. After that, I filed a petition to postpone the sale from the new date of Aug 4, 2009. The petition stated that I was the true owner and had not received notice or been given a reinstatement amount. I went to court yesterday.

 

I told the judge that I was the new owner and I had not received notice. The attorney stated that they didn't provide me notice because I wasn't the owner at the time of the judgment. Then I told the judge that the plantiff lacked standing to bring the foreclosure action because they did not hold the note, and the plantiff's attorney represents Ocwen Servicing who is unrelated to the trust that the loan is supposedly assigned. I also noted that an assignment was created in Jan 2008 which conveyed the interest in the property from Home American Credit dba Upland Mortgage which is a bankrupt company, to Lasalle Bank, N.A. a trust. This assignment was fradulent in that it was signed by Ocwen as attorney for the bankrupt company, and by a VP named Scott Anderson, who also at the same time of this signing was VP of another company, MERS (as evidenced by an assignment in Mississippi I found from 2/5/ 2008).

 

Anyway the judge said those were serious allegations, and asked the plantiff to respond. Her response was to ask for a continuance because this was the first she was hearing of this, which he granted. He also advised me to request a petition to intervene which I did, and he granted (oral).

 

My real questions: Do I have to file another motion which asks the judge to vacate the default judgment, or will he be able to take that action once the plantiff's attorney is unable to prove they are the note holder? Will I be able to restate all my allegations again at the new hearing date, or do I have to put them in writing and give them to the plantiff's attorney ahead of time? 

Quote 0 0
Search this forum for "Scott Anderson".

Nye Lavalle produced a great report about Scott Anderson. Also see the Schack ruling about Mr. Anderson. Seems judges have a great interest in Mr. Anderson's employment history since he is signing documents for so many entities. I think some of those legal documents are in the Legal Lounge here, accessible from the home page.

It seems that any new rulings made by the current judge in the current case should supersede any prior rulings, but we don't give legal advice here. State laws vary. There are various legal forums that these pointed questions can be put to. http://www.thelaw.com/forums/

And since you are fighting with Ocwen, I would (in your shoes) produce and keep written complaints ready to go at all times. If you never need them, great. If you do, you will have them ready to go.



Quote 0 0
I don't have an August 4 deadline. I went to court yesterday and I now have a new date of 9-24-09 and a sheriff sale is scheduled for the first Tues in Oct.
I refer back to my original question, I'm still looking for procedural advice.
Quote 0 0

Also, I spent $4000 to purchase the property, but in effect I guess I didn't buy anything besides the right to negotiate the lien, which Ocwen is unwilling to negotiate. The lien is $86k and they quoted me a payoff of $98k. I know they can't collect more than their lien amount at a sheriff sale so for them to give me that amount in lieu of the sheriff sale is silly. The property may be worth $100k, but it needs work that they are unaware of.

Quote 0 0
4 Justice Now
Manette,

Unfortunately, I can't provide any procedural advice, but I can tell you without a bit of doubt that Ocwen cannot be trusted at all. Don't make the mistake of under estimating their criminal creativity, propensity (including those who would dare represent them) as they are the true masters of fraud & corruption.

I do wish you the very best of luck. Pls keep us apprised, if you are able.

V/r,

4J
Quote 0 0
4 Justice Now
Manette,

One other item that I forgot to mention. Since, this Scott Anderson fellow has been a regularly named figure in so many of Ocwen's clearly criminal escapades, I'd be rather Leary of any advice offered by anyone who would be quite so quick to exclude him from further scrutiny. 

That said I really don't know if following up on this Scott Anderson person would lead to any real assistance or not in your particular circumstance, other than it might provide further insight into the inner workings of a well connected fraud machine. But, it certainly couldn't hurt provided you are able to address/satisfy those issues, which, might be most critical to your case at this time.

Also, I have yet to see a single post submitted by arkygirl that would justify the sort of comments presented by Honest help.
 
 
Again, I wish you the best of luck!
 
4J
Quote 0 0
4 Justice Now
Honest Help:
 
You continue to post that same tired claim without so much as a shred of evidence to back it up.
Quote:

"Unfortunately this (4 Justice Now) is yet another of Markana Smith's literally hundreds and hundreds of uninformed fabricated non-existent aliases."

 
Well, here's your chance to put your money where your mouth is...
 
How willing are you to lose, say $10,000?  I'm ready and willing to backup my words, are you ready to do the same for your lies?  

I'm really tired of you wasting people's time here. So, let's say we get this done, or do you not have the balls.

4J   
Quote 0 0
hgosh
If this is an honest post, I will help you ... I'm starting to doubt the validity of MSF.  Having said that, unless you are from the Commonwealth, do not post any advice here because our laws are based on the Kings laws, and the Commonwealth holds itself out as "not a state" but a "commonwealth of America".  So, I do know that you are dealing with the old Commonwealth Race To Record Issue. My advice to you is see what the time stamps indicate on the various documents in March.  Post back, and I will advise you further.  If no response, my gut feeling is right.
Quote 0 0
Knows About Recording
Quote:
So, I do know that you are dealing with the old Commonwealth Race To Record Issue. My advice to you is see what the time stamps indicate on the various documents in March.


hgosh:

While I AGREE that it is imperative that Manette research and act with reference to the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, I think that your post is off the mark here.  But I think the confusion arises out of Manette's indication of a prior "lien".
 
IF Manette is referring to a mechanics lien which can arise less formally and which might need to be perfected by recording, then I would AGREE that an unrecorded or unperfected lien might very well be extinguished by failure to perfect BEFORE the forfeiture sale.
 
But I really do NOT think that OCWEN is in the business of trading or litigating mechanics liens.  They are in the servicing business.
 
Though Manette can clear this up with a reply, I think that we can reasonably surmise that the source of the summary judgment is a recorded mortgage and that OCWEN is the mortgage servicer.
 
As long as the mortgage was properly recorded, then Manette would have had at least constructive notice of the mortgage.  Here, Manette also tells us that she had actual notice of the existence of the prior lien, but was unaware of the summary judgment.
 
For that matter, there is probably a judgment index of judgments determined in Philadelphia County and Manette is going to be charged with constructive notice of this index, too.  And OCWEN very likely filed some sort of lis pendens at the outset of the foreclosure litigation, further putting Manette on notice of the pendency of the foreclosure case.
 
Unless there were some very serious defects in the recording of the original mortgage lien and/or in the various subsequent legal proceedings, I fail to see how recording is going to play a central role in the case. 
 
EXCEPT that Manette MIGHT have a better case if KNOWING ABOUT the prior mortgage lien she exercised some due diligence to determine the status of the mortgage.  Manette mentions that the mortgage was assigned via a questionable pre-foreclosure assignment from Upland Mortgage to LaSalle Bank as trustee.
 
IF the record information about the foreclosure was defective AND if Manette made reasonable inquiries about the mortgage AND HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE LIEN WAS EXTINGUISHED, this would be another matter.  For example, suppose that she had contacted the bankruptcy trustee and been TOLD that the mortgage had been PAID.  In such an instance, LaSalle's failure to timely record MIGHT BE FATAL to the foreclosing plaintiff, as Manette woud have reasonably relied on the record.
 
But one CANNOT reasonably believe that an otherwise valid mortgage lien was extinguished in some way by the bankruptcy.  IF the mortgage had still been owned by Upland Mortgage, it would have been an asset of the bankrupt estate.  In all likelihood, it WOULD HAVE BEEN SOLD out of the estate.
 
Frankly, this hypothetical is probably unecessary.  In all likelihood, Upland SOLD the mortgage within sixty days of origination and the mortgage then found its way into a securitized trust.  But, as is common, LaSalle FAILED to ever record the mortgage assignment(s).  OCWEN then resorted to its regular MO and as servicing agent for the assignee of the mortgage forged and executed the assignment which it subsequently recorded.
 
I think that the assignment IS likely to be a bald forgery and that is more than a little reason to have the judgment set aside.  But I think that the Court is going to have a hard time deciding to do that where Manette lacked ANY litigiable interest in the property at the date of the suit and the time of the summary judgment.
 
It is for this reason that I wonder whether a better strategy is to allow the foreclosure to go forward and then litigate title within the context of (a) an ejectment proceeding, or (b) a court action to quiet title (or treaspass to try title in some states).
 
I probably SHOULD add that Manette very well may discover that a MIXED strategy may undermine her case and she may have already spoiled that approach by her intervention in the foreclosure suit.
 
BEFORE her intervention, she might have sat back on her court sanctioned deed and waited for the foreclosure buyer to come forward with its competing deed.  Now, she is already made herself a party to the action and is thereby subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas determining the conclusion of the foreclosure action.  SHe may have made herself bound to the Court's determination in a way that could have been avoided by NOT intervening.
 
THIS IS REALLY A TREACHEROUS AREA AND TO TRY TO NAVIGATE THIS MINEFIELD WITHOUT A REALLY CAPABLE ATTORNEY IS A CHALLENGE!  Manette may have already evidscerated her own case just by showing up.
 
Again, I DO agree with hgosh that the express application of PENNSYLVANIA LAW to the facts in the case is critical.  And this is precisely the sort of case where the ultimate outcome might differ in different states.
 
*
 
One final note about being represented by counsel:  IF Manette represents herself pro se, she is going to be personally present in the courtroom and is going to be subject to being asked questions under oath by either opposing counsel or the judge.  You can be sure that Scott ANDERSON will NOT be there and there will be no one present whom she can correspondingly question.  Manette's actual notice of the prior lien will almost certainly defeat her deed.  And when she is personally in the courtroom, the Court is going to KNOW of her notice.
 
By contrast, represented by counsel, she could probably testify to some issues by affidavit and avoid cross examination.  If the matter goes to a full blown trial, she would still be subject to discovery, including being deposed, so this is a marginal issue.  But pro se litigants with knowledge of the facts of a case are always at risk of being questioned by the court sua sponte and the answers may determine the outcome.  
 
So I would once again caution that my own musings herein are intended as avenues of discussion, inquiry and research and should NOT be viewed as informed recommendations as to Pennsylvania law in this complex matter.
 
God Bless!   
Quote 0 0
Thank you all for giving me all this information. Let me add another element to this:

The district attorney had a lis pendens on the house from 11-1-2007 until 3-16-2009 at which time their forfeiture order was granted. The foreclosure proceedings were initiated in January 2008 and the summary judgment in June 2008. The judgment was or course by default because the defendant/homeowner never showed up or responded to a complaint. Apparantly, she was removed from the house.

Interesting to me that the D.A. could sell a property to me in April 2009 which a court had already approved to be sold through foreclosure in Jun 2008. There was a sale scheduled for Jan 2009 but that was postponed somehow (maybe by the district attorney's office?) Could I possibly seek my money back from them?

Buying a property subject to a lien is not such a bad idea if you can contact the mortgage company and assume the mortgage, or pay it off. I fully intended to pay it off once the property was sold and after the renovations.

Also the assignment was made in Jan 2008 while there was a lis pendens on the house from the D.A. Is there an argument that says that the D.A. has priority over the assignee mortgage?
Quote 0 0
Knows About Notes
Quote:
The district attorney had a lis pendens on the house from 11-1-2007 until 3-16-2009 at which time their forfeiture order was granted.


A lis pendens simply puts everyone on notice as to a claim or pending court proceeding.  In and of itself, it would change the priority of liens or claims.

Quote:
The foreclosure proceedings were initiated in January 2008 and the summary judgment in June 2008.  The judgment was or course by default because the defendant/homeowner never showed up or responded to a complaint.


I take it that you are describing mortgage foreclosure proceedings brought by OCWEN on behalf of LaSalle, as trustee.

These "facts" seem a little distorted.  In most jurisdictions, a plaintiff seeks a default judgment when the defendant is served but fails to answer.  A summary judgment is sought when the defendant answers but there is little or no dispute as to essential facts in the case.  One would typically not seek a summary judgment against a party in default of answering, although a plaintiff might seek a default as to certain parties that fail to answer while seeking a summary judgment against others (e.g. other junior lien holders).

I suggest that you re-check your facts and verify the details.

Quote:
Apparantly, she was removed from the house.


I do not understand what you mean by this.  Was she ejected from the house by the foreclosing plaintiff?  Usually this would take place AFTER a judicial sale. 

Or was she removed when arrested on drug charges giving rise to the forfeiture?

Quote:
Interesting to me that the D.A. could sell a property to me in April 2009 which a court had already approved to be sold through foreclosure in Jun 2008. There was a sale scheduled for Jan 2009 but that was postponed somehow (maybe by the district attorney's office?) Could I possibly seek my money back from them?


It is not altogether uncommon for a property to be sold subject to other existing liens.  IF the mortgage lender had a valid unpaid mortgage lien, then any sale by the D.A. would seem likely to be subject to that mortgage.

One of the questions is whether the D.A.'s Office represented to you that the property was free of liens.  Given that the D.A.'s Office has a lot of sharp lawyers, this seems unlikely.  More likely, they have some protective boilerplate language in various notices WARNING YOU to examine the title yourself.

Quote:
Buying a property subject to a lien is not such a bad idea if you can contact the mortgage company and assume the mortgage, or pay it off.  I fully intended to pay it off once the property was sold and after the renovations.


Buying a property subject to a lien and then sinking more money in for renovations seems to me to be sheer insanity UNLESS (a) the amount of the lien is small relative to the value of the property, and (b) you have the cash resources or access to cash to PAY the lien upon demand.

Bear in mind that amongst the protective covenants of most mortgages are provisions which make it an event of default to misuse or fail to pay other claims against the subject property.  More importantly, almost every residential mortgage has a due on sale clause.  EVEN IF YOU CONTINUED MAKING THE MONTHLY PAYENTS ON THE MORTGAGE, THE MORTGAGE HAS THE RIGHT UPON SALE TO ACCELERATE ON SALE AND THEN THE FULL BALANCE IS DUE. 

Quote:
Also the assignment was made in Jan 2008 while there was a lis pendens on the house from the D.A. Is there an argument that says that the D.A. has priority over the assignee mortgage?


The lis pendens is NOT likely to gain a priority over the properly recorded mortgage lien held by Upland Mortgage.  Nor is the lis pendens likely to have ANY effect on the assignment. 

The assignment IS probably a bald forgery.  And a forgery is usually void and has no legal or binding effect.

But you also need to bear in mind two things. 

First, it is NOT typically necessary for a note holder to receive a mortgage assignment or to record a mortgage assignment in order to be entitled to enforce the mortgage in most jurisdictions (Ohio is an exception).  Under the common law, the mortgage lien automatically follows the note.  (This can present problems as when a single mortgage covers more than one note and the notes go different directions.)

Negotiation of the note is by indorsement and delivery.  IF Upland mortgage indorsed and delivered the promissory note to LaSalle, then LaSalle is probably entitled to enforce both the note and the mortgage WITHOUT a written assignment.

The trouble for mortgage investors is a proof problem.  The original note, usually with a blank indorsement, is sitting in the vaults of the mortgage investor's institutional custodian.  It probably contains a valid indorsement.  The servicer has only a COPY of the promissory note and it may be an unindorsed copy.

Moreover, the indorsement is typically undated.

So corrupt and crooked lawyers working for mortgage servicers liek to fabricate -- to forge -- an assignment that gives the appearance that the mortgage has been sold by the mortgage originator (the Lender shown as the payee of the note and the mortgagee under the mortgage) to the mortgage investor.  This forged assignment is then used as proof in Court.

But you need to bear in mind that ALL the mortgage investor really has to prove is that it is the note holder, that the note was properly indorsed and delivered.  So the fact that the assignment is a forgery may not actually determine the case.  IT SURE MIGHT PI$$ THE JUDGE OFF, THOUGH!

The second thing that you need to bear in mind is that you are seeking to assail a judgment that was enterred more than a year ago and a judgment which was enterred before you had any interest in the property.  I fear that you will find that the Court will take the position that res judicata precludes your challenging the judgment.

But I am far from sure about this.  Where the D.A. had filed a lis pendens and was in the process of the forfeiture, the plaintiff MAY very well have had a duty to make the City and County of Philadelphia a party to the foreclosure.

That is, suppose that SMITH owns Blackacre and gives a mortgage to Collossal Mortgage Company on January 1, 2005.  On July 1, 2007, SMITH defaults on his mortgage and stops making ANY payments at all.  Collossal Mortgage files suit under the note and mortgage seeking foreclosure.  On January 1, 2008, SMITH sells Blackacre to JONES.  SMITH is selling subject to the defaulted mortgage.

Note that Collosal has served SMITH and obtained jurisdiction over SMITH.  But SMITH doesn't OWN the property any more.  While Collossal can continue the suit as to the note against SMITH, it would seem that Collosal may need to ADD JONES as a party to the foreclosure suit.

In some jurisdictions, the foreclosure may be treated as an in rem action against the property.  But it is axiomatic that in order to obtain jurisdiction over JONES, Collosal would need to name and serve JONES.  Absent notice of the suit and service of citation, JONES is NOT usually a party to the action and the outcome would typically be BINDING upon JONES.

It is less clear to me what the rights of the parties are when Collossal obtains an order of foreclosure and sale BEFORE the sale to JONES, but the judicial sale of the property takes place AFTER the sale to JONES.  But common sense suggests that SMITH's deed to JONES cannot possibly defeat the deed given by the commissioner or sheriff in the foreclosure sale.  If a foreclosure deed could be defeated by the defendant simply deeding the property to someone else, this would be a common defensive strategy!

It is somewhat LESS clear how things go if the sale by SMITH to JONES is completed during the pendency of the foreclosure case, but BEFORE judgment.  I would generally expect that in most jurisdictions, that the public policy would be that a buyer has some duty to consult both the land records and the court records to determine whether he or she is obtaining good title to the property.

It is interesting here that if you checked the court records under Upland Mortgage, you might very well NOT have found the suit as it was brought in the name of LaSalle.  And you were apparently buying from the City of Philadelphia rather than from the defendant in the foreclosure action.  So checking under the City and County of Philadelphia, you wouldn't have found the foreclosure action either.

This is where a lis pendens comes in.  The foreclosing plaintiff may have and probably should have filed a lis pendens in the county land records showing that the foreclosure was pending.  You should have been able to look up the property and find the lis pendens.  The lis pendens would have then led you to the foreclosure suit.

*

I think you have a somewhat better argument versus the City of Philadelphia, though I suspect that the various disclaimers are going to get the City off the hook.  You can argue that you were not being sold a property subject to a lien, but rather that the property was subject to an undisclosed order of sale.  IF the City knew about and failed to disclose the orderof sale OR if the City misrepresented to you the facts and circumstances of the lien, suit and judgment, then I think you might very well have a valid action for restitution of what you PAID.

Again, I FEAR that when you read the NOTICES associated with the forfeiture sale you will find that the City gave you conspicuous notices that you need to make your own investigation as to liens, boundaries, easements, and title.
Quote 0 0
Knows About Notes
CORRECTION:

Quote:
I said -
Absent notice of the suit and service of citation, JONES is NOT usually a party to the action and the outcome would typically be BINDING upon JONES.


It SHOULD HAVE READ:

Absent notice of the suit and service of citation, JONES is NOT usually a party to the action and the outcome would typically NOT be BINDING upon JONES.

* * *

Note that by intervening, you have made yourself a party to the foreclosure case and BOUND YOURSELF TO THE COURT's JUDGMENT!

Quote 0 0
h gosh
Once again, you are dealing with Pennsylvania law.  Please read 42 Pa.C.S.A. 6801. Loss of property rights to Commonwealth, and go from there.  Also, you do not want to go into a Philly court pro se.  The Judges are actully hostile to pro se plaintiffs/defendants, holding them to HIGHER standards than they do attorneys.  Post back with any questions you have.
Quote 0 0
Knows About Notes
Quote:
Originally posted by hgosh
Once again, you are dealing with Pennsylvania law.  Please read 42 Pa.C.S.A. 6801. Loss of property rights to Commonwealth, and go from there.  Also, you do not want to go into a Philly court pro se.  The Judges are actully hostile to pro se plaintiffs/defendants, holding them to HIGHER standards than they do attorneys.  Post back with any questions you have.

 
I AGREE with everything hgosh says above, though I am disinclined to believe that it will alter any of my lay analysis.
 
I would encourage you to FIND and READ the cases pertaining to 42 Pa.C.S.A. 6801, which rather clearly must be the forfeiture statute under which the property was seized.  These provisions are likely to be quite UNLIKE provisions found in other jurisdictions.
 
I would call your particular attention to this subparagraph within the Section cited by hgosh:
 
(C) Real property used or intended to be used to facilitate any violation of The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, including structures or other improvements thereon, and including any right, title and interest in the whole or any lot or tract of land and any appurtenances or improvements, which is used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, a violation of The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, and things growing on, affixed to and found in the land.
 
(ii) No property shall be forfeited under this paragraph, to the extent of the interest of an owner, by reason of any act or omission established by the owner to have been committed or omitted without the knowledge or consent of that owner. Such money and negotiable instruments found in close proximity to controlled substances possessed in violation of The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act shall be rebuttably presumed to be proceeds derived from the selling of a controlled substance in violation of The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act.

(iii) No valid lien or encumbrance on real property shall be subject to forfeiture or impairment under this paragraph.  A lien which is fraudulent or intended to avoid forfeiture under this section shall be invalid.  [emphasis added]

See for example:  http://www.fear.org/pa_code.html
 
Without benefit of cases, I would read this to say that a valid, recorded mortgage lien would not ordinarily be subject to seizure and that the ONLY thing seized was the owner's equity (fee interest).
 
*
 
Please also bear in mind that this is primarily a Forum regarding mortgage servicing fraud.  It is NOT a more general Forum on real estate law.  The situation you describe does not seem to pertain to fraudulent servicing, though the aforementioned assignment sounds like the typical servicer forgery
 
While the facts in the case are interesting and instructive, you are mostly a victim of your own failure to conduct due diligence as to title rather than a victim of mortgage servicing fraud.  I think that each of us is interested in your case and your outcome primarily as it pertains to unlawful behavior by the servicer in foreclosure.
 
hgosh seems to have some specific knowledge of your topic.  I would take hgosh up on the offer and consider carefully what she is able to relate.
 
hgosh:  If you KNOW of aspects of PA law or cases which would give a contrary authority or result to what I have suggested, I would encourage you to identify the flaws in my analysis as it pertains to Pennsylvania, citing additional authority as you have just done.  I think that it is very helpful to put Manette on the correct forfeiture law, but do not yet perceive how this changes what I have suggested.
Quote 0 0

hgosh - Can you refer me to a foreclosure lawyer?

Quote 0 0
h gosh
I draw your attention to:

(k) Court-ordered release of property.

If a person claiming the ownership of or right of possession to or claiming to be the holder of a chattel mortgage or contract of conditional sale upon the property, the disposition of which is provided for in this section, prior to the sale presents a petition to the court alleging over the property lawful ownership, right of possession, a lien or reservation of title and if, upon public hearing, due notice of which having been given to the Attorney General or the district attorney, the claimant shall prove by competent evidence to the satisfaction of the court that the property was lawfully acquired, possessed and used by him or, it appearing that the property was unlawfully used by a person other than the claimant, that the unlawful use was without the claimant's knowledge or consent, then the court may order the property returned or delivered to the claimant. Such absence of knowledge or consent must be reasonable under the circumstances presented. Otherwise, it shall be retained for official use or sold in accordance with section 6801(e).


It would appear that the note holder/servicer lost its opportunity for entering a claim, and it is POSSIBLE that the property was sold to a BFP without the lien attached.  That is why the time stamps on the documents in the court are important.  Was the writ entered BEFORE or AFTER the withdrawal of the lis pendens? 

Again, you are dealing with PA law, and an attorney is needed, but you must be very, very careful which attorney you hire.  I'll check out some info I have and see who I would refer you to - however, at this point in time, it would be easier for me to tell you who NOT to hire.

Quote 0 0
h gosh
One other quirky PA question:  Is the foreclosure on the note or the mortgage?
Quote 0 0
The foreclosure is on the mortgage. The note is not attached to the foreclosure papers either. Also, the assignment document is not attached to the foreclosure papers either
Time Stamps:
11/1/2007 lis pendens by district attorney
1/14/2008 assignment to Lasalle by Ocwen acting as attorney in fact for Home American Credit referencing a POA from 5/5/2005 and recorded 4/1/2006.. HAC filed bankruptcy in Jan 2005 (chapter 7)
1/18/2008 foreclosure proceedings begin
6/2008 default judgment entered for plantiff
10/2008 revised amount entered for judgment (additional costs)
1/2009 sheriff sale was postponed
3/16/09 district attorney's forfeiture order was granted; lis pendens was removed from property
3/19/09 writ re-issued by plantiff
4/30/09 district attorney holds auction
7/1/09 property is transferred to my name
7/7/09 sheriff sale was scheduled - I showed up and presented my deed and received a 30 day postponement by the sheriff - They advised the plantiff attorney that they had to give me notice of the sale because I was a bona fide owner, which they didn't have
Brings us to date where I went to court 7/30 and the plantiff attorney asked for a continuance because I told the judge that the plantiff did not have standing to bring this action. The judge did say that my motion was untimely, so that's why I am reluctant to hire an attorney, I can lose on my own, I don't want to sink more money if I'm really barred by time.
But there is definitely a fraud on the court being as though I have proof that Scott Anderson signed an assignment document claiming to be vp of Ocwen and I have another assignment in a different state within a 2 week time period where he claims to be vp of MERS, inc.

Quote 0 0
Knows About Notes
Quote:
Originally posted by hgosh
If a person claiming the ownership of or right of possession to or claiming to be the holder of a chattel mortgage or contract of conditional sale upon the property, the disposition of which is provided for in this section, prior to the sale presents a petition to the court alleging over the property lawful ownership, right of possession, a lien or reservation of title and if, ...


hgosh:

I think you misunderstand the definition of a chattel mortgage and are presuming that this section pertains to mortgages of real property.  While I am NOT familiar with case law pertaining to this section, the common definition of chattel mortgage would NOT include a mortgage on real property.

Chattel is defined by Webster's Online Dictionary as:

"1. an item of tangible movable or immovable property except real estate and things (as buildings) connected with real property."

See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Chattel

John BOUVIER gives us this definition of chattels in his Law Dictionary (1856):

CHATTELS, property. A term which includes all hinds of property, except the freehold or things which are parcel of it. It is a more extensive term than goods or effects. Debtors taken in execution, captives, apprentices, are accounted chattels. Godol. Orph. Leg. part 3, chap. 6, 1. ..." 

See http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_c.htm

Do NOT become confused by the further refinement of chattels to include chattels personal and chattels real.  The latter pertains to real estate only to the extent that it includes things like a box of deed or a lease.

This is further clarified by Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Law of England (1765-1769) in Book 2, Chapter 24.  See http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-224.htm .   

Lest there be any doubt about the distinction between real and personal property, please note that Blackstone spent the first twenty three chapters of Book 2 discussing interests in real property before getting around to chattels in Chapter 24.

In the United States, chattel mortgages historically were primarily used to secure a note with livestock or with slaves.

With the enactment of the Uniform Commercial Code, it is now far more common to simply describe a security interest in property in UCC terms.

Those holding secured interests in personal property -- chattels -- are far less likely to have recorded their interests and the mobility of personal property makes its physical possession often appear to imply ownership.  PA probably still has some legacy law describing provisions to perfect an interest in a chattel mortgage and this subsection no doubt contemplates the possibility that a person with a security interest in any chattels subject to forfeiture needs to come forward and make the claim known. 

The provision you cite almost certainly does not pertain to a mortgage on real property.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by hgosh
Again, you are dealing with PA law, and an attorney is needed, but you must be very, very careful which attorney you hire.


AGREED.
Quote 0 0
h gosh
OK,"knows about everything.".... I have warned you, but to no avail... PA law is different than any law in the U.S.  However, I am upset and angry because we need this forum, and the people who have formed this forum are considered "expert witnesses".  So, my challenges to you are now becoming fact....I want the owner of this forum to contact me or I will go forward to stopping this attack on a viable forum that has forecast the economic meltdown of the international financial world.  Jack, I think you better contact me!!!
Quote 0 0
h gosh
Dear Knows About Everything:  You are missing a key word "or".  Please look that up in your dictionary and provide us a definition.  Please do not try to interpret PA law.  As an example do you know the difference in PA when a "law" "code" "statute" or "annotated statute" uses the word "may", "shall" and "will"?  People tell you that you need a Philadelphia Lawyer not because they are so intelligent, or the masters of their profession, but because PA law is full of "word smithing", and you need a Philadelphia Lawyer to sort out each and every word and bend, interpret and apply the law most favorable to your case.  Please stop trying to confuse people here.  If you want to research something, here is one for you:  Why was Fairbanks considered too big to fail?
Quote 0 0
manette
Just an update to my case, I was successful in obtaining a refund of monies paid for the property from the district attorney. Now I just have to file for a refund of the transfer tax I paid to the city and state.

Thanks all
Quote 0 0
4 Justice Now
Manette,
 
I very glad that you were able to recover the money you spent on the home. It's extremely rare for anyone to deal with Ocwen in anyway and still be able walk away with so much as a dime in their pocket.

V/r,

Jon
Quote 0 0
Congratulations!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And hugs to you for a better future!

Quote 0 0

Knows about, even if you mean well the overt Constitutional violations: lack of due process, complicity, overt fraud etc. are more than serious enough to wake people up to the fact our legal justice system and economy has been high-jacked by the banksters.

I think there is definitely a place for studying legal foundations, theory, history and the intricacies of the law but ms fraud is on the face of it an overt violation of the countries founding principles. We have a right to due process, protection of private property, a trail by jury, enforcement of contractual and criminal law by unbiased and impartial judges which are required to recuse themselves if they have any interest in the case etc.

I have come to the conclusion that the repeal of Glass-Steagal which prevented the commingling of commercial/residential lending with investment banking (Wall street) and insurance concerns, coupled with the massive subsidies by the GSE's Fannie and Freddie fed a giant Ponzi scam whereby mortgage backed securitizations and rampant mortgage fraud and high risk loans created a highly leveraged economy destined to collapse once the foreclosure rate became high enough to trigger a domino effect.

While a bit complicated certainly most everyone agrees it was wrong for the government to allow lenders, investors and insurance companies to co-mingle assets and create so many bad loans it collapsed the economy. At the forum we have been providing evidence that many of these defaults were manufactured though the servicers, all by itself that's a horrific violation of our Constitutional rights and the rule of law due to sheer volume and consequences.

 

We have worked hard for years to simplify a complicated financial shell game, educate the public and get them involved before it was too late. We don’t need to debate obscure legal and economic details even the experts don’t agree with on the forum. We are not looking for a legal needle in a haystack we are pointing out a nuclear meltdown.

 

This is a serious subject with serious ramifications and we need a serious workable, explanation and solution to be acted on in as timely a fashion as possible.


H Gosh has worked for years on the subject of ms fraud in a constructive and beneficial fashion, please show some respect and consideration of their years of experience.
Quote 0 0
Manette,

Glad to hear news. It sounds like someone finally may have their head on straight. I'm even more glad you came back to tell us some good news. We get so much bad it seems.

Its just as nice to see Greg Collins posting for us. He doesn't post as much as he has in the past. As usual he did what most of us do for us reg posters.

Hope everyone is well. It's hard to believe next week is suppose to be THANKSGIVING. Hold your hand out to those that need it guys. Sometimes, it does come back to you!

Be Blessed Always!
Quote 0 0
Sara
Holy Cow!  What an ordeal to go through...

Glad to hear that you got your money back!

S
Quote 0 0
4 Justice Now
Greg:

As usual you have provided an outstanding post which is directly on point.

Thank-You!

BTW: I still believe you should take a stab at a political career. A honest candidate with common sense, intelligence, as well as an interest in doing what is best for America and its citizens. 

V/r,

4J
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...