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
One of the things that the scam artists persistently do to mislead and confuse distressed borrowers is to post only those cases which seem readily succeptible to being confused and distorted in support of their various debt elimination scam myths.  When a decision clearly shows that these scam artists have been lying, the case doesn't get reported at all.

Last week, the New Hampshire Supreme Court handed down a rather unequivical decision which simply clarified what had been the longstanding rule in that non-judicial foreclosure state.  The decision wasn't really groundbreaking in any way.  But it shows that a borrower cannot attack the validity of the Lender's purported title in an ejectment proceeding for possession.  This is hardly an unusual result.  Similar rules prevail in quite a few other non-judicial foreclosure states, including Texas.

But the scam artists do not let the law or the cases stand in the way of victimizing anyone foolish enough to buy their useless scam pleadings, forensic loan audits or mortgage securitization audits.

The case is:

Wells Fargo Bank v. Schultz, No. 2012-051 (NH February 25, 2013)

You wont find any helpful defensive strategies or hopeful new avenues revealed in this case.  But if you live in New Hampshire, you probably ought to read it.  And if someone is telling you that you can resist an ejectment action by attacking the secuiritization or the assignment, you need to report the scam artist to the authorities.  These people are not trying to help you.  They are trying to RIP YOU OFF!
Quote 0 0

You never know what a court is going to do on any given day. That said, in reading the NH Supreme Order, this case was not about assignments or securitization or third party “scammers” as originally critiqued.

According to the NH Supreme Order, Scott Shultz unfortunately never brought an action to enjoin the original foreclosure. Under NH RSA 479:25, this is
currently fatal to a foreclosure defense in the state.

(in part)

479:25 Sale Under the Power.
II. Notice of the sale as served on or mailed to the mortgagor shall include the following language:
    "You are hereby notified that you have a right to petition the superior court for the county in which the mortgaged premises are situated, with service upon the mortgagee, and upon such bond as the court may require, to enjoin the scheduled foreclosure sale.'' Failure to institute such petition and complete service upon the foreclosing party, or his agent, conducting the sale prior to sale shall thereafter bar any action or right of action of the mortgagor based on the validity of the foreclosure. (emphasis added)

The defect in this case is not a failed chain of title argument issue but failures of a.) the borrower to file a Motion for Temporary Enjoinment to halt the May 2011 foreclosure auction and b.) counsel to file a plea of title claim and/or request that the lower District court remand the case to Superior Court as, as discussed in the order, District had no jurisdiction over portions of the case. To wit:

RSA 540:17 (2007). Because the district division lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate issues related to title, we reject the proposition that a defendant in a possessory action before the district division can challenge a plaintiff’s chain of “record title” underlying a foreclosure deed other than by complying with the requirements of RSA 540:17.

For reference, NH RSA 540:17 states:

540:17 Plea of Title, Recognizance.If the defendant shall plead a plea which may bring in question the title to the demanded premises he shall forthwith recognize to the plaintiff, with sufficient sureties, in such sum as the court shall order, to enter his action in the superior court (emphasis added) for the county at the next return day, and to prosecute his action in said court, and to pay all rent then due or which shall become due pending the action, and the damages and costs which may be awarded against him.

Had Mr. Shultz' counsel made the request to remand the case to Superior Court which did have jurisdiction to hear the necessary arguments and could have considered chain of title and securitization issues, if appropriate in the case, this case likely would not have appeared before NH Supreme in the genesis that it did.

Mr. Shultz' counsel should have been intimately familiar with the process and arguments involved as counsel had at least one other client who paid him for the privilege of losing their home for them several years ago. As those clients did file an original Motion for Temporary Enjoinment in Superior Court in their case, they were allowed to argue plea of title at the lower District court level and did so pro se. Their case was remanded to Hillsborough County Superior Court for further review. After several years as pro se litigants although not a perfect or incredibly clear order, the couple did, in fact, have title to the property restored to them.

This case was not about “scams” or a NH borrower being taken advantage of by third party, non-legal professionals. The arguments apparently made in the lower District Court post-foreclosure auction could and should have been made as part of an original foreclosure defense in Superior Court as allowed by NH RSA 479:25 and a plea of title claim, request for remand to Superior Court and other arguments made in the lower District Court. This case was about a.) a borrower failing, for whatever reason, to follow NH RSAs with regard to bringing a proper legal defense against a foreclosure action and b.) a borrower's counsel not being prepared to make the arguments necessary for a proper post-foreclosure eviction defense. In my own purely non-legal quarterbacking, this case had absolutely no business being appealed to the NH Supreme Court especially given the foundation that was laid in the lower court.


Quote 0 0
Mike, welcome back and thanks for the thoughtful and insightful comments about this case!

I think though, that you are being a little hard on $&?! and perhaps reading a little more into his post than I did. What I understood him (or her) to be saying is that there are lessons to be taken from almost any state Supreme Court foreclosure decision, including those that seem not to favor borrowers.

All too often, those purporting to be champions of foreclosure defense are posting only cases with outcomes seemingly favorable to borrowers rather than posting those cases which are instuctional and helpful to framing an effective defense, whether favorable or unfavorable.

You, Mr. Roper, and a small handful of other Forum regulars posted both kinds of cases and thoughtful analysis so that we could learn enough to do well.

Since your departure and later the departure of Mr. Roper, this Forum has often been a cesspool of promotions of scams by a number of shills for scam artists. Some of the first of these were promoting scams being sold by Neil Garfield. One early participant at the Forum, a Mike H., decided to go into business ripping off borrowers using specious scam arguments he developed in part by twisting and distorting the useful information provided by others and learned at this Forum.

You wont find any helpful defensive strategies or hopeful new avenues revealed in this case. But if you live in New Hampshire, you probably ought to read it. And if someone is telling you that you can resist an ejectment action by attacking the secuiritization or the assignment, you need to report the scam artist to the authorities. These people are not trying to help you. They are trying to RIP YOU OFF!

I think that this paragraph by $&?! is probably poorly written. Mr. Roper posted warnings on a number of occasions that attacks on securitizations were likely to fail. But he didn't say not to make such attacks. Rather, he cautioned against putting the PSA into evidence since that could also be used to establish a chain of ownership in favor of a plaintiff's count for a right to enforce as a "transferee". Mr. Roper's prediction that Adam Levitan's securitization arguments were likely to fail, has largely proven to be correct some two to three years after that argument was first advanced. Other than a single Alabama case where the plaintiff showed up unprepared, this avenue has been mostly unproductive.

But the promise of this argument has also been a central foundation of scam artist Neil Garfield's victimization of distressed borrowers throughout the country. The securitization audit scam has been the subject of warnings by the FTC. One honest Florida blogger has taken Garfield apart multiple times. Florida attorney Matt Wiedner has warned that these securitization audits are a total rip off. But Garfield's shills keep appearing at the Forum promoting these scams!

Attacking the assignment is also a bit more nuanced than implied by $&?! in the post above, but $&?! has generally posted some pretty insightful analysis. I rather think that this particular post reflected the general level of frustration and impatience of remaining Forum participants at the continuing assault on the Forum by the scam artists and their shills. Take some time to review some of the other recent posts, including those promoting scams by Maher Soliman, Stephen Bishop and others to fully appreciate what we are dealing with.

Most frustrating to many is that the site administrator continues to remove the thoughtful warnings and cautionary revelations about the scams, while leaving posts promoting these scams in place. It is very disappointing to many people that Jack has abandoned any pretense that he is really trying to help borrowers, by helping promote these scams.

What I took from the original post was that distressed borrowers, especially those in New Hampshire ought to read this case. I doubt you would disagree with that proposition. I also think that they should read your own insightful comments. I dont think anyone remaining here at the Forum pretends to understand New Hampshire foreclosure law.

I think that $&?!'s central premise, that the scam artists only post and talk about the cases that they can use to distort and promote their scams is very much dead on, though a few of the more sophisticated of the scam artists may simply mention such a case to attract search engine hits to improve site visibility.

Rather than generally moving toward greater clarity for distressed borrowers, the web is now a morass of mostly false and legally erroneous information plastered wall to wall by the scammers, who repeatedly attack anyone who tries to tell the truth.

I would encourage you to look carefully at some of the other posts of $&?!. I think you will find these posts to be mostly thoughtful and meritworthy. If you do not agree, please add some clarifying comments in those threads.

Are you still participating in some online discussions? If so, where?
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...