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
William A. Roper, Jr. Show full post »
Bob

Just WORSHIP Mr. Roper ... while you LOSE your house. 

Quote 0 0
HungarianProse
Bob wrote:

Just WORSHIP Mr. Roper ... while you LOSE your house. 

Dude, what are you doing here? Do you get paid by the banks to provoke the members on this forum? Because you have not contributed anything Bobby boy or what ever your name is! Get lost!

Quote 0 0
Bob

http://www.thomhartmann.com/users/johnnieboy/blog/2011/07/constitutional-republic-or-fascist-oligarchy

Quote 0 0
Bob

http://timothymccandless.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/price-of-signature-of-homeowners-rises-to-avoid-title-crash/

 

EDITOR’S ANALYSIS: The race is on. Homeowners are sitting on an asset — their signature — that has gone up in value 35X thus far from $1,000 to $35,000. The REAL STORY is that the Banks and servicers need to find a way to get the signatures of homeowners through any means possible, including payment. The amount of the payment is rising and will continue to rise like the last holdout of a property owner on a parcel where some big developer wants to build a giant stadium. People are starting to realize that the longer you hold out the higher will be the payment.

The reason is simple. With the current Missouri indictment clarifying that this was no accidental paperwork problem, the realization is dawning on almost everyone that plain old property law is going to be the basis of the solution to the title crisis enveloping this nation. Without solving it, title insurers, banks, servicers, and other parties could be liable or indicted for stealing millions of homes.

The logic is both simple and compelling. The Banks and services employed “outside servicers” to fabricate documents containing false declarations about the chain of title, their authority to execute documents. Those documents “established” that the forecloser “pretender” was the creditor and that the original loan documents were perfectly fine — and now transferred to a stranger to the transaction — something we call a break in the chain of title if it shows up in the title records.

If the documents consisted of false declarations (and forged too), and that point is accepted as a fact proven in court, there remains no discretion for the Judge but to invalidate the title chain from the time that the break occurred forward. This means title reverts back to the way title appeared in the title chain before the fabrication of documents. That means the homeowner is still the record title owner, entitled to both the title and possession of the property.

The fact is that all the foreclosed homeowners who were the victims of wrongful foreclosures are most probably still the legal owner of the property that was “foreclosed” and “sold” to “creditors” at a false “auction” claiming false credentials. There is only one way to be sure that the title chain can be fixed — get the signature of the homeowner(s) who were involved in the title chain. But the banks and Servicers know that if they simply come right out and ask for the signature they will be met with a negative answer and a barrage of lawsuits which now bear substantial likelihood of success.

So they are concocting various excuses for why homeowners should sign documents that contain releases and ratifications of title. THAT is why they are getting more lenient on modifications short-sales, and now bonuses that raise the standard amount of “cash for keys” from what was $1,000 to over $35,000 so far. See an attorney who is knowledgeable in real estate transactions before you agree to sign anything and bargain hard for your rights and compensation.

They made a fortune deceiving you into signing onto loans that were unworkable based upon prices that were just plain false. You might as well get your piece of the pie — or up the ante and file a quiet title lawsuit. Lawyers should be careful when advising their clients or prospective clients. Many lawyers are still saying the old “you owe the money, you have no rights” mantra. This could be the basis for a malpractice suit later when the client realizes that he did have rights and he lost them as a result of the attorney’s bad advice.

Quote 0 0
Kraft
1. ALL STATE AG's will be SELLING OUT shortly and joining in on the settlement.

2. Part of the deal - lawsuits, indictments initiated by NV, MO, NY, etc. will be dropped.

What does that say about this country?

Quote 0 0
Bob

Missouri indictment

http://livinglies.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/microsoft-word-docxindictment-docx_.pdf

Quote 0 0
Ike

 

Once again, we see that Bob is not actually interested in engaging in any sort of informed discussion.  To the contrary, he is merely a troll seeking to (a) discredit Mr. Roper, one of the leading national experts in foreclosure fraud, and (b) directing traffic to other sites run by those pretending to assist borrowers, but who actually are merely swindlers of distressed borrowers.

 

If Bob was actually interested in helping borrowers, he might have linked one of the many mainstream news sites that carried the story about the Missouri indictments.  But since he is only seeking to tear down the Forum and use it as a means to harvest new marks for various swindles, he simply links a scam website, such as the Living Lies site.

 

This is merely off topic posting spam to get visitors farther and farther away from the useful posts of Mr. Roper, while re-directing visitors to sites where they will be swindled.  Site administrators ought to be ashamed of themselves for continuing to allow this sort of corruption of the Forum.

 

What a low life!

Quote 0 0
Bob

Ike ...

 

>>>>>> Site administrators ought to be ashamed of themselves for continuing to allow this sort of corruption of the Forum.

 

Personally, I think the site administrators should tell "cry baby whiners" like you to take a hike.  Personally, I think Nye Lavalle is happy to see fraud exposed; however, if this site is dominated by a non-lawyer like Mr. Roper giving questionable help under the guise of knowledge, then Mr. Roper's motives must be open to question, especially his "blank check" theory that is NOT turning out to be true and hurting people who buy into his legal theory.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote 0 0
Bob

To counter the MERS disinformation, the Missouri case is very important because it is the start of CRIMINAL CHARGES being brought against the banksers.

 

If you think a mortgage "signed in blank" is like a blank check, read the indictment 136 Counts and then read this: Missouri Indictment Gives Notice of Title Defects to All Buyers and understand why the banksters are worried.

 

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/missouri-indictment-gives-notice-to-all-buyers-of-title-defects/

 

“Defendant, acting knowingly in concert with its employees, with the purpose to defraud, used as genuine or transferred with the knowledge or belief that it would be used as genuine, a writing, namely Deed of Release number 2009020598, knowing that it had been made or authenticated so that it purported to have been made by another, or that it had been made so that it purported to have been made by authority of one who did not give such authority.”

“Defendant acting knowingly in concert with its employees, with the purpose to mislead the Boone County Recorder of Deeds, a public servant in the performance of her duty, submitted or invited reliance on a writing, namely Deed of Release number 2009020598, which Defendant knew to be lacking in authenticity, and which stated a fact material to the purposes for which the writing was offered.”

EDITOR’S ANALYSIS: The Missouri Indictment comes as a surprise to many who viewed AG Koster as just someone on the sidelines. It constitutes just one indictment from one County in the State of Missouri. Presumably, since Koster said the investigation was ongoing, there will be similar indictments from other Missouri counties and perhaps other states will be emboldened to do the right thing: set the record straight by establishing a pattern of fraudulent conduct by the Banks and servicers designed to cover up defective documentation arising from the origination of the mortgage loans all the way through eviction of homeowners by strangers (pretenders) to the transaction.

What strikes me as particularly interesting for the future of this ongoing saga, is the effect these indictments will have on title claims in warranty deeds, mortgage deeds, deeds of trust and satisfactions of mortgages. Specifically, anyone who buys or loans money on property needs to be very careful about what they are doing, because now they have actual notice of title defects. They are no longer a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.

The significance of this cannot be over-stated. Most of the recordings in county title registries relate to mortgages in which there was a claim (either on record or off-record through MERS) of some type of transfer, sale or securitization of the loan. It now appears as though most of those filings have at least some fabricated, forged or altered documentation that once upon a time had carried a presumption of validity.

That presumption is eviscerated, in my opinion, by the indictment and the various media reports, so much so that the burden is now on the banks and servicers to plead and prove their case that even if the documentation contains defects, the loan is still documented and the enforcement of the loan is permissible. Judges and lawyers would do well to reconsider the presumptions that are at work in the foreclosure arena and change their strategies accordingly — demanding that the the banks and servicers assume the burden of persuasion in all foreclosures — judicial and non-judicial.

Trustees on deeds of trust and the lawyers who represent pretender foreclosers have lost a key element of protection for their contributions to this mess. They have actual notice of the problem and while the indictments are not convictions, the combined total data that has emerged in media reports and civil and criminal actions by the chief law enforcement officers of each state puts NOTICE on the table, to wit: they know that there is a high probability that the documents upon which they rely in pursuing foreclosures are false declarations lacking in authority.

Trustees on deeds of trust, who have never done the due diligence required under the statutes enabling their existence now have an added duty that they are ignoring — to demand proof of the veracity of the declarations, instructions and documentation they receive.

But the impact of the NOTICE factor is much broader. There are only a few million foreclosures. But there are tens of millions of transactions that were recorded in refinancing, sales, foreclosure sales, credit bids (from creditors who were not creditors), and other fatal flaws in the release, satisfaction or recording of new mortgages. All of those mortgage transaction need to be re-examined, which is why the regulatory agencies that told borrowers to pound salt just a year ago are now monitoring compliance with cease and desist orders against all the major banks and servicers.

The issue of title is one of notice and recordation. Even if the regulatory authorities miss something, or law enforcement misses something, the facts are now in the public domain that lead to a reasonable requirement of due diligence, which means insisting on proof of the truth of the declarations (and the authority to make those declarations) contained in the documents upon which the pretenders, the Courts and lawyers relied. In my opinion, that means there is a cloud on all titles for all residential transactions that were completed from 1996 through the present.

The enormity of that statement does not escape me. because it means that even innocent new buyers and lenders who loaned money on the purchase of a foreclosed home might have the security interest impaired, which is another way of saying they don’t have the collateral they thought they had. And the title companies, bracing for the onslaught of lawsuits for coverage that if, sustained, would bankrupt all of them, are not ready to lay down and die. The title companies have every intention of fighting liability, saying that they too were deceived by the fraud, and that they never intended to insure such a risk.

That pretty much leaves home buyers and lenders out in the cold. The buyers might not ever get clear title and the lender might not have a perfected lien securing the loan they made to the buyer — all through no fault of the buyer or the new lender (unless the lender is one of the securitization players in which case they knew, or had notice, of the actual defects in the chain of title.

The bottom line is that right now, many if not most properties in the country are under a cloud and, based upon the facts we know, are probably subject to breaks and defects in the chain of title that are not repairable without the signature of the homeowner(s) who were in the chain. That signature is getting very expensive to procure as more and more homeowners and prior homeowners realize that they might have a completely enforceable right to title and possession of properties long since foreclosed and from which they were long since evicted. This will leave the new ‘buyers’ without a house and with a debt and it will leave the new lenders with an unsecured debt from someone who must pay to live elsewhere.

The new brand of investors who are buying foreclosed properties together with the lenders who are financing these purchasers are relying upon taking title from someone who doesn’t have it and getting a satisfaction (release and reconveyance) from someone who never owned the loan. The dirty big secret here is that all the documents are tainted and most of them will be proven to be defective, most of which fatally defective.

That doesn’t mean that the obligation that the borrowers’ undertook is off the table. It just means that it is unsecured and not subject to foreclosure and that the asset (the home that was foreclosed or refinanced or re-sold) might still be an asset that belongs to them or in bankruptcy parlance, an asset of the bankruptcy estate.

On the other hand it doesn’t mean that the obligation is on the table either. If the investors, who are the only true lenders or creditors in those transactions, do not seek collection or enforcement against the homeowners because they have already been paid or because of any other reason, then as far as the mortgage obligation is concerned, there may be liability without enforcement.

That is where the fraud and false declarations come in. Knowing that the investors would not even attempt to enforce the loans, the banks began this systematic fraudulent scheme to insert themselves into transactions in which they had no interest. They didn’t loan the money and they didn’t buy the loan, but they managed to persuade most of the American judiciary that being the “holder” of the note was sufficient. As the public records will attest, they were never acting for the investors. They were acting for themselves, because it was these interlopers (pretenders) who took title by submitting a “credit bid” to an auctioneer controlled by the banks.

The Missouri indictment and what follows will be a test of how much these banks and servicers have to pay the piper for their horrendous acts of fraud and chicanery that brought down world economies and our own economy in the name of naked greed.

Quote 0 0
Ike

Quote:
To counter the MERS disinformation, the Missouri case is very important because it is the start of CRIMINAL CHARGES being brought against the banksers.

If you think a mortgage "signed in blank" is like a blank check, read the
indictment 136 Counts and then read this: Missouri Indictment Gives Notice of
Title Defects to All Buyers and understand why the banksters are worried.


http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/missouri-indictment-gives-notice-to-all-buyers-of-title-defects/

“Defendant, acting knowingly in concert with its employees, with the purpose
to defraud, used as genuine or transferred with the knowledge or belief that it
would be used as genuine, a writing, namely Deed of Release number 2009020598, knowing that it had been made or authenticated so that it purported to have been made by another, or that it had been made so that it purported to have been made by authority of one who did not give such authority.”

“Defendant acting knowingly in concert with its employees, with the purpose
to mislead the Boone County Recorder of Deeds, a public servant in the
performance of her duty, submitted or invited reliance on a writing, namely Deed of Release number 2009020598, which Defendant knew to be lacking in
authenticity, and which stated a fact material to the purposes for which the
writing was offered.”

EDITOR’S ANALYSIS: The Missouri Indictment comes as a surprise to many who viewed AG Koster as just someone on the sidelines. It constitutes just one
indictment from one County in the State of Missouri. Presumably, since Koster
said the investigation was ongoing, there will be similar indictments from other
Missouri counties and perhaps other states will be emboldened to do the right
thing: set the record straight by establishing a pattern of fraudulent conduct
by the Banks and servicers designed to cover up defective documentation arising from the origination of the mortgage loans all the way through eviction of homeowners by strangers (pretenders) to the transaction.

What strikes me as particularly interesting for the future of this ongoing
saga, is the effect these indictments will have on title claims in warranty
deeds, mortgage deeds, deeds of trust and satisfactions of mortgages.
Specifically, anyone who buys or loans money on property needs to be very
careful about what they are doing, because now they have actual notice of title
defects. They are no longer a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.

The significance of this cannot be over-stated. Most of the recordings in
county title registries relate to mortgages in which there was a claim (either
on record or off-record through MERS) of some type of transfer, sale or
securitization of the loan. It now appears as though most of those filings have
at least some fabricated, forged or altered documentation that once upon a time had carried a presumption of validity.

That presumption is eviscerated, in my opinion, by the indictment and the
various media reports, so much so that the burden is now on the banks and
servicers to plead and prove their case that even if the documentation contains defects, the loan is still documented and the enforcement of the loan is permissible. Judges and lawyers would do well to reconsider the presumptions that are at work in the foreclosure arena and change their strategies accordingly — demanding that the the banks and servicers assume the burden of persuasion in all foreclosures — judicial and non-judicial.

Trustees on deeds of trust and the lawyers who represent pretender
foreclosers have lost a key element of protection for their contributions to
this mess. They have actual notice of the problem and while the indictments are not convictions, the combined total data that has emerged in media reports and civil and criminal actions by the chief law enforcement officers of each state puts NOTICE on the table, to wit: they know that there is a high probability that the documents upon which they rely in pursuing foreclosures are false declarations lacking in authority.

Trustees on deeds of trust, who have never done the due diligence required
under the statutes enabling their existence now have an added duty that they are ignoring — to demand proof of the veracity of the declarations, instructions and documentation they receive.

But the impact of the NOTICE factor is much broader. There are only a few
million foreclosures. But there are tens of millions of transactions that were
recorded in refinancing, sales, foreclosure sales, credit bids (from creditors
who were not creditors), and other fatal flaws in the release, satisfaction or
recording of new mortgages. All of those mortgage transaction need to be
re-examined, which is why the regulatory agencies that told borrowers to pound salt just a year ago are now monitoring compliance with cease and desist orders against all the major banks and servicers.

The issue of title is one of notice and recordation. Even if the regulatory
authorities miss something, or law enforcement misses something, the facts are now in the public domain that lead to a reasonable requirement of due diligence, which means insisting on proof of the truth of the declarations (and the authority to make those declarations) contained in the documents upon which the pretenders, the Courts and lawyers relied. In my opinion, that means there is a cloud on all titles for all residential transactions that were completed from 1996 through the present.

The enormity of that statement does not escape me. because it means that even innocent new buyers and lenders who loaned money on the purchase of a foreclosed home might have the security interest impaired, which is another way of saying they don’t have the collateral they thought they had. And the title companies, bracing for the onslaught of lawsuits for coverage that if, sustained, would bankrupt all of them, are not ready to lay down and die. The title companies have every intention of fighting liability, saying that they too were deceived by the fraud, and that they never intended to insure such a risk.

That pretty much leaves home buyers and lenders out in the cold. The buyers
might not ever get clear title and the lender might not have a perfected lien
securing the loan they made to the buyer — all through no fault of the buyer or the new lender (unless the lender is one of the securitization players in which case they knew, or had notice, of the actual defects in the chain of title.

The bottom line is that right now, many if not most properties in the country
are under a cloud and, based upon the facts we know, are probably subject to
breaks and defects in the chain of title that are not repairable without the
signature of the homeowner(s) who were in the chain. That signature is getting very expensive to procure as more and more homeowners and prior homeowners realize that they might have a completely enforceable right to title and possession of properties long since foreclosed and from which they were long since evicted. This will leave the new ‘buyers’ without a house and with a debt and it will leave the new lenders with an unsecured debt from someone who must pay to live elsewhere.

The new brand of investors who are buying foreclosed properties together with
the lenders who are financing these purchasers are relying upon taking title
from someone who doesn’t have it and getting a satisfaction (release and
reconveyance) from someone who never owned the loan. The dirty big secret here is that all the documents are tainted and most of them will be proven to be defective, most of which fatally defective.

That doesn’t mean that the obligation that the borrowers’ undertook is off
the table. It just means that it is unsecured and not subject to foreclosure and
that the asset (the home that was foreclosed or refinanced or re-sold) might
still be an asset that belongs to them or in bankruptcy parlance, an asset of
the bankruptcy estate.

On the other hand it doesn’t mean that the obligation is on the table either.
If the investors, who are the only true lenders or creditors in those
transactions, do not seek collection or enforcement against the homeowners
because they have already been paid or because of any other reason, then as far as the mortgage obligation is concerned, there may be liability without
enforcement.

That is where the fraud and false declarations come in. Knowing that the
investors would not even attempt to enforce the loans, the banks began this
systematic fraudulent scheme to insert themselves into transactions in which
they had no interest. They didn’t loan the money and they didn’t buy the loan,
but they managed to persuade most of the American judiciary that being the
“holder” of the note was sufficient. As the public records will attest, they
were never acting for the investors. They were acting for themselves, because it was these interlopers (pretenders) who took title by submitting a “credit bid”
to an auctioneer controlled by the banks.

The Missouri indictment and what follows will be a test of how much these
banks and servicers have to pay the piper for their horrendous acts of fraud and chicanery that brought down world economies and our own economy in the name of naked greed. 


Bob your latest post shows what an idiot you truly are.  You are way out of your depth.

 

Simply quoting mindless drivel posted by a swindler and scam artist at the Living Lies site is a disservice to all.

 

Referring to Mr. Roper's discussions about indorsement in blank as "theories" is disingenuous.  These are not "theories" but rather correct statements of commercial law in the United States dating back several centuries.

 

Mr. Roper's expository post in this thread shows just how long indorsement in blank has prevailed in the U.S.  Mr. Roper quotes cases, including U.S. Supreme Court cases as well as a leading early Supreme Court Justice who also served as a professor at Harvard Law.  Bob and swindlers like Neil Garfield give us no authority whatsoever for their nonsense, which serves only to raise false hopes and expectations as to defenses which cannot ever win and serve solely as a pretext for selling useless quack remedies.

 

Neither does Mr. Roper take the position that indorsement or assignment of a mortgage is valid or lawful.  To the contrary, Mr. Roper has carefully explained the distinction between indorsement in blank of the note, which is legal, and assignment in blank of the mortgage, which is not

 

Mr. Roper backs up his exposition with cases and is supported by the recent decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court in the Ibanez case:

 

Distinguishing Indorsement In Blank and Assignment In Blank

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/Distinguishing-Indorsement-In-Blank-and-Assignment-In-Blank-5042928

 

Finally, it is worth noting that the Missouri DOCX indictments is not a result of "blank assignments" of mortgage.  In fact, the indictments have to do with the forgery not of assignments, but rather of releases.

 

Neil Garfield is a fraud whose views are of no interest whatsoever to any serious legal scholar.  Mr. Roper, though a non-lawyer, is one of the leading luminaries of foreclosure defense, whose work has been plagiarized, corrupted and republished as his own work by Mr. Garfield to swindle distressed borrowers.

Quote 0 0
Bob

Ike ..

 

Why don't you take your INSULTS and pound them where the sun does not shine and be sure to use an icepick. 

Quote 0 0
Brad

Quote:
Ike ..

Why don't you take your INSULTS and pound them where the sun does not shine and be sure to use an icepick.

 

 

You seem to have nothing to useful contribute to the Forum.  Posts of material from scam artist Neil Garfield is not helpful.  Your vile insults are not appreciated by anyone.

 

You seem incapable of actually articulating any useful or valid argument and seem to merely be prowling around to create links to the web sites of swindlers.  Forum participants are perfectly capable of browsing the Internet without your help.

 

Since you have demonstrated inferior intelligence, questionable knowledge and poor judgment, no one really cares what you think.

 

It is probably time to slither back into your hole!

Quote 0 0
Bob

A challenge to all the William A. Roper, Jr. worshippers

 

Please provide a list of all the people who have gone into court and used Mr. William A. Roper, Jr.'s un-legal knowledge to save their home from foreclosure, especially those who represented themselves without a lawyer.

 

http://www.nationalmortgagesettlement.com/help is the site where you all can line up for the $1.5 billion that will be distributed nationwide to some 750,000 victims.  Do the math!  That's $2,000.00 for you, if you're lucky.

 

The way I see it, anyone who does NOT worship Mr. William A. Roper, Jr. and follow his un-legal opinions and supreme knowledge is labeled a scam artist and a poser and then insulted and told to leave the forum. 

 

Duh!  I don't think your "saved list" will be very long.

 

 

 

 

Quote 0 0
cmc
Let me be the first to start the "SAVED LIST"..... Mr. Roper may not be an attorney, but he is very knowledgeable...

You need to take what he is telling us and read,read,read.... Absorb what he is saying and take it from there.... How you use it is up to you.

Some homeowners have an attorney. And from my experience, a lot of them just don't get it. That's why when you understand the "FACTS" that Mr. Roper states, than you are all in...

It's been 5 years now... So I guess I haven't done so bad.. When August 2012 gets here, I will let you know how "Well" I did....

The only thing I can say is "I am for sure on the saved list"....

Thank You Mr. Roper....

cmc
Quote 0 0
Chuck

Quote:
It's been 5 years now... So I guess I haven't done so bad.. When August 2012 gets here, I will let you know how "Well" I did....

 

Mr. Roper seems to have been posting under his own name from at least 2007.  It appears that there are a number of Forum participants who have managed to avoid foreclosure for longer periods of time that most of the swindlers have been operating their scams.

 

It was amusing, but someone posted a link to a thread where swindler Mike H. was seeking Mr. Roper's help years before Mike H. decided to begin exploiting distressed borrowers and swindling them with his various scams.  Later Mike H. seems to claim that he is smarter than Mr. Roper, but it is obvious that he is not.  Even Mike H. knows otherwise.  He simply pretends to knowledge in support of his many scams.

 

One need only scroll through the older posts to realize that Mr. Roper is the real deal and what makes the swindlers nervous is that he and his followers continue to expose the swindler's debt elimination scams.

Quote 0 0
Bob

cmc ... Thank You ...

 

I guess I didn't understand a "delay" is counted as a "win" here.

Quote 0 0
Bill
Bob wrote:

cmc ... Thank You ...

 

I guess I didn't understand a "delay" is counted as a "win" here.


A "win" could mean anything.  What do you think a "win" is Bob?  Post some examples of "wins" so we can compare.  

People in foreclosure signed a note and mortgage, received money for the note, used the money to purchase a home secured by the mortgage and didn't pay the note as required.  That is why they are in foreclosure.  

What kind of "win" should they expect with or without an attorney based on the merits of a foreclosure action???


Quote 0 0
Bill
Bob wrote:

A challenge to all the William A. Roper, Jr. worshippers

 

Please provide a list of all the people who have gone into court and used Mr. William A. Roper, Jr.'s un-legal knowledge to save their home from foreclosure, especially those who represented themselves without a lawyer.

 

http://www.nationalmortgagesettlement.com/help is the site where you all can line up for the $1.5 billion that will be distributed nationwide to some 750,000 victims.  Do the math!  That's $2,000.00 for you, if you're lucky.

 

The way I see it, anyone who does NOT worship Mr. William A. Roper, Jr. and follow his un-legal opinions and supreme knowledge is labeled a scam artist and a poser and then insulted and told to leave the forum. 

 

Duh!  I don't think your "saved list" will be very long.

 

 

 

 


You raise an interesting point Bob.  If someone defaulted and was kick out they could possibly receive something close to $2000.00 from the settlement.  If someone fought foreclosure and stayed in their home for YEARS such as cmc, they would live in their home rent free during this period.  

Did cmc really win????

I guess it depends.  How much does it cost to rent a house.  In my area of the country for a 3-4 bedroom house it cost 1000-1500 a month.  So just a little basic math shows that cmc has saved $60,000.00-$90,000.00 and counting by fighting his foreclosure.  

It's almost as if cmc received his own TARP bailout by the banks......Almost

So please post what result we SHOULD be looking for other than a delay and SOME EXAMPLES so we can all get smarter.



Quote 0 0
Chuck

Quote:
cmc ... Thank You ...

 

I guess I didn't understand a "delay" is counted as a "win" here.

 

 

Bob if you are in doubt that a delay is a win for borrowers, then you really are clueless about foreclosure litigation.

 

Bill's response is helpful, but probably doesn't go nearly far enough.  A borrower who is able to remain in occupancy of a property for more than a couple of years without making payments can be realizing a very useful cash flow to apply to other projects or needs.

 

But there is another dynamic that is never really even thought of at most foreclosure defense sites for two rather compelling reasons. 

 

First, this is really the oldest and original site.  No others (except for a couple that are actually operated by swindlers) have been around nearly as long.  Nor have the participants at other sites been nearly as successful.

 

You might find some sites where borrowers have hung on for a year or two, maybe three years at the outside.  But you aren't going to find very many folks that are litigating pro se who are still in their homes four or five years later, EXCEPT HERE.

 

The other dynamic, which is yet mostly only a fleeting hope, is limitations.

 

Under the UCC, the limitations period for a suit on a note is six years.  This is one feature of the UCC that varies quite a bit from state to state.  It is five years for foreclosures in Florida.  It is four years in Texas.

 

Generally, limitations runs from the maturity or due date of any required payment or the default in a payment.  But when a negotiable instrument is declared to be in default and the balance accelerated, that triggers limitations for the full amount.  Mr. Roper has posted about this in other threads.

 

When cmc tells you that she is at five years, well that also tells you that she is nearing limitations.  She is not the only one at this site who is approaching limitations.  I know of one Forum participant who is already well beyond limitations.  I know of at least three others who are within a year of hitting limitations.  And there are a dozen or more who are past the half way point.

 

Unlike those who are preyed upon by swindlers, who rip them off and take their money, the smarter and more persistent of the Forum participants have applied Mr. Roper's principles successfully and have mostly avoided foreclosure, at least for a little while.

 

Neither Mr. Roper, nor the those who have benefited from his help are declaring these cases to be "wins", heralding or trumpeting these successes.  But we are not selling anything.  Instead, we are keeping a very low profile and letting the months pass on the calendar.

 

But the really terrific thing is that those who have succeeded in delaying a foreclosure for three, four or five years have almost all benefited from the cash flow, though at some impairment of credit.  We have made a choice to fight.  And we have mostly benefited from out efforts.  Some are still in litigation after several years.  Some have had their cases dismissed.  Some are in appeal.  Some have won appeals.  Several who have had their cases dismissed have not yet been subject to a re-filing. 

 

Unlike the snake oil salesmen and those peddling wingnut theories, we need not evangelize about our successes, because we are not selling anything or preying upon the distressed.  Mr. Roper even warns folks off of defending where there is equity to be salvaged by a workout or where the benefit to be garnered from fighting is unlikely to exceed the damage of the credit impairment.

 

There is no magic bullet.  There is no foolproof strategy for winning.  Instead, there is an array of strategies which have shown to be effective given differing fact situations and different jurisdictions.  Most of all, WINNING INVOLVES A LOT OF RESEARCH AND HARD WORK!  There are rarely easy answers.  Those who think that they will find a quick way to overcome financial adversity are the most vulnerable to the swindlers.  Because it is only the swindlers who will claim that they have a sure and foolproof strategy.

Quote 0 0
Bob

Chuck:

 

Thank you for your well thought out answer without the "put-down" so many in here resort to.  You make perfect sense and I guess every foreclosure is a personal decision on how much time and effort it takes vs the money reward.

 

 

Quote 0 0
Unregistered
Under _My State______ law, breach of a written contract (such as a promissory note) has a 4 year statute of limitation. That is, plaintiff can sue within 4 years from the date of breach of contract.

This does not cover a non-judicial state, where they do not sue on the note, but execute the power of sale on a deed of trust based upon a default or breach in the obligations of the note.
Quote 0 0
Chuck

Quote:
Under _My State______ law, breach of a written contract (such as a promissory note) has a 4 year statute of limitation. That is, plaintiff can sue within 4 years from the date of breach of contract.

This does not cover a non-judicial state, where they do not sue on the note, but execute the power of sale on a deed of trust based upon a default or breach in the obligations of the note.
 

 

I have read several, but not many of the limitations statutes.  The wording is varied.  It seems to me that it is difficult to assess or compare your own reading of your state's law on limitations without your identification of the state.

 

I have seen laws in several non-judicial states where limitations is separately applied to promissory notes and deeds of trusts.  More generally, I think that the problem is not so much a lack of limitations on the deed of trust enforcement in a non-judicial state, as it is the unlikelihood of ever getting past limitations in those places.

 

Bear in mind that one of the most successful avenues for foreclosure defense in non-judicial states has been bankruptcy.  But limitations statutes are expressly tolled during any period of automatic stay in bankruptcy.

 

So the greatest challenge in the non-judicial states is most often simply getting to limitations.

 

The instances where a litigant has gotten past limitations in a non-judicial states of which I am aware fall into three broad theoretical categories. 

 

First, in some non-judicial foreclosure states, a court supervised administration of an estate displaces the right to a non-judicial foreclosure.  In those places, the non-judicial foreclosure is simply not available and a creditor must come into probate court with a claim.  The procedure is somewhat akin to that in a bankruptcy setting, but without the automatic tolling.

 

Second, I have seen a few instances where the creditor has gotten very mixed up or confused in the execution of a non-judicial foreclosure, which has resulted in the foreclosure getting stalled in state or federal court procedures.  Sometimes, the sensible strategy would be for the creditor to confess error and to simply redo the non-judicial foreclosure.  But it seems that ignorance, stubbornness, pride, laziness or confusion precludes the foreclosure mill from doing so and they remain in protracted litigation that might have been avoided by simply starting over.

 

Third, are instances where an initial non-judicial foreclosure sale was completed defectively and a state lacks a strong curing statute.  In these places, completed, but possibly ineffective non-judicial foreclosures could be later challenged by the borrower after the limitations period runs.   

 

This latter category is the most theoretical, but is probably the very largest.  Whether borrowers can actually capitalize on this avenue in large numbers is unclear.

 

Obviously the first of these categories is limited to situations where the original borrower is dead.  The second requires the borrower to have both noticed the defects and been sufficiently effective that the matter gets tied up in protracted litigation.  It usually helps when the servicer and/or foreclosure mill law firm has changed more than once.

 

*

 

If you want to discuss the limitations laws of your state, why not post a new thread to raise the issue in discussion?  But please identify the state of interest.  There are fifty possibilities (about half that for non-judicial states) and it is uneconomic for others to guess.

Quote 0 0
Chuck

ka discussed limitations in a couple of posts to this thread last month:

 

Max number of missed paymenets

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=5668775

 

He gave a pretty good synopsis especially in these posts:

 

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/show_single_post?pid=1271852308&postcount=2

 

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/show_single_post?pid=1271852549&postcount=3

 

In the latter he gives some links to Mr. Roper's earlier posts.  I am going to repost what ka said.

 

Quote:

Limitations has also been discussed in some length in several other older Forum message threads. Although not directly answering your question, you might want to review the posts in these threads, especially the informative posts of Mr. Roper:

Statute of Limitations

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/Statute-of-Limitations-4881875

statute of limitations in OH

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/statute-of-limitations-in-OH-5207307

A NY Appellate Case Discusses Limitations

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/A-NY-Appellate-Case-Discusses-Limitations-5068569

MI Court of Appeals Shuts Down MERS in Michigan: Residential Funding LLC v. Saurman

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/MI-Court-of-Appeals-Shuts-Down-MERS-in-Michigan-Residential-Funding-LLC-v.-Saurman-5200292

See also:

Substitute Trustee ???

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/Substitute-Trustee-5133605

Especially Mr. Roper's post of 03/20/11 at 12:03 AM:

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/show_single_post?pid=1267744710&postcount=5

There are also a number of other threads which discuss limitations, of which these are only a few. Use the Forum Search feature to search for these messages and threads using the keywords "limitation OR limitations", together with other keywords which might further narrow results to your area of interest.

 

 

If you want to talk more about limitations, though, I would either start a new thread or post under one of the existing threads.  This thread is not really about limitations. 

Quote 0 0
cmc
First of all I would like to thank Bill and Chuck for telling it the way it is and at the same time if someone is to read that post they may learn something as well....

And to let our "Troll" Bob know a little something: My win is not a delay. One of our knowledgable friends listed above, hit the nail on the head.... I have been fighting since 2007. My win or shall I say victory is that I don't owe these banksters one red cent. And "Yes" I am still in the home. So as I said before. When Aug. 2012 comes around, I will for sure let you know how much I have won... Because as of today, I haven't lost one single thing not even my home....

cmc 
Quote 0 0
Chuck

If Mr. Roper has counseled you otherwise, perhaps there is some good reason to go public.  But my impulse is exactly the contrary.

 

Even if you are past limitations, this does not preclude the purported creditor from filing a new suit.  It only means that you have a rather robust defense.  But it is still an affirmative defense that must be proven.

 

While calling attention to your victory might be very satisfying, it will also call attention to you and make you a target.

 

There was once an old adage in law enforcement that went roughly, "You can beat the rap, but you cannot beat the ride."  The meaning of this is that while a suspect might be able to avoid charges, indictment or conviction, it is far more difficult to avoid arrest.

 

When you are beyond limitations, this does not preclude a plaintiff from filing suit.  Then, you will need to expend time and energy defending, even if you prevail.  Prospects of actually getting your attorneys fees paid are usually slim, even if you win.  If you defend pro se, you can never recover your attorneys' fees or be compensated for your time and inconvenience.

 

There are several additional reasons not to trumpet your success in getting past limitations.

 

First, with time, your defensive case gets somewhat easier in respect of two additional elements (in addition to limitations).  With the passage of time come new industry consolidations, transfers of servicing rights, etc.  This presents the plaintiff with additional evidentiary issues.  The case never becomes easier to prove as the case file gets more and more stale.  Instead, it gets harder.  If you are ever actually facing a renewed suit, the chances that the plaintiff will fold and go away are vastly better if you have more than one theory on which you can win.  The landscape becomes more littered with the carcasses of defunct lenders and servicers.  Lack of personal knowledge and the inability to prove up records from predecessors becomes harder and harder. 

 

Second, separate from the limitations defense as to the promissory note, there exists a separate laches defense at equity as to the mortgage.  Read up on laches.  It can be potent.  There is no particular number of years before laches becomes a viable defense.  The general idea is that equity is not available to those that sit on their hands or who unnecessarily wait.  The laches defense becomes more robust as the case further ripens.  Why call attention to yourself and truncate this ripening prematurely.  Instead, it is better to simply lay low and keep quiet.  If a plaintiff seeks to sue you after six or eight years instead of after five, you will have a far more robust laches defense than if you invite a sooner suit. 

 

Third, the foreclosure mills bring suit on the expectation that they will get paid.  The servicers front the money for the foreclosure, expecting to recover from the proceeds of sale.  At some point, when a case has languished and a loan has been non-performing for an extended period of time, the accountants or auditors for the owner of the asset (loan, pass-through, or tranches) is going to require the owner to write off some or all of the amount as uncollectableWhen the amount is deemed uncollectable from an accounting perspective, the incentive to litigate is vastly reduced.  To put this another way, when the loan is being carried at full value, managers will be asking what is being done to effect a recovery (through foreclosure) and the servicer is expected to be taking responsible steps to complete the foreclosure.  When the loan has been written off as uncollectable, a manager has to be asking himself WHY additional money is being expended on litigation when the loan itself has already been ascribed as worthless.  The old adage "don't throw good money after bad" kicks in.  If enough time passes, the loan will be removed from the servicer's loan management databases and even archival files may be destroyed.  Time is your friend.  Let the matter further ripen! 

 

Fourth, the law firm that first litigated the matter and screwed up the case may be liable to the client for legal malpractice.  If the case was misplaced or forgotten and this got you past limitations or if the original case involved some forgery, perjury, evidence fabrication or fraud perpetrated by the foreclosure mill, the law firm may be separately concerned about limitations, but limitations as to a legal malpractice action.  This can work in your favor.  When you are past limitations, you can waive this around and call attention to yourself.  The foreclosure mill may find it to its own advantage to bring another suit, if only to create the appearance that they are doing something to salvage the case.  They will do this to avoid liability, but it can still be costly and time consuming for you to again defend.  By contrast, when not only YOU, but also the foreclosure mill law firm is past limitations, when the client throws a fit, the foreclosure mill will shrug its shoulders and point out that limitations on legal malpractice has also passed.  Too bad!  Do not underestimate the importance of self-interest and incentives in explaining behavior.  While it might be very satisfying to stick the law firm with the bill for your free house, you can be assured that this will energize them to find ways to beat you that would be well beyond their imagination and energy when litigating against you for a fixed price without being at risk as to the outcome.

 

Despite the mantra of the swindlers that you have beaten the bank because it was a "pretender lender" without any right to foreclose, do not lose sight of the reality:  That you beat the plaintiff through hard work attacking various evidentiary deficiencies, conditions precedent, standing and other robust defenses described by Mr. Roper, while the foreclosure mill made this all possible by their slipshod work as they cut corners.

 

If you give the foreclosure mill a big enough incentive, they might still find some theory to defeat you, even after limitations.  Why make it harder on yourself?   

 

Remain anonymous.  Post only various sparse details about your success.  Throw a nice party and invite friends, but do not tell them why!  Never count your chickens before they hatch.  Even after they hatch, count them in private.

Quote 0 0
cmc
Chuck,

"THANK YOU".......  You are correct... And I appreciate what you are saying.

cmc
Quote 0 0
cmc
P.S.   Just to set the record straight here; Mr. Roper has never counseled me. Because as I said before, people need to read,read,read, and take it from there. Do what you want with it. But a bit of caution; make sure you understand every single word when you research and make sure you use it the right way. Otherwise you "WILL" loose.

cmc
Quote 0 0
Bill
cmc wrote:
P.S.   Just to set the record straight here; Mr. Roper has never counseled me. Because as I said before, people need to read,read,read, and take it from there. Do what you want with it. But a bit of caution; make sure you understand every single word when you research and make sure you use it the right way. Otherwise you "WILL" loose.

cmc

I totally agree.  I found cases early in my research that I thought totally CRUSHED the Plaintiff's arguments.  After doing more research and reading more cases I realized that the cases I first found did NOT support my arguments at all, did not apply, I misunderstood, and were of little use.  

It takes a LOT of time and work to research a effective defense.  There is no shortcut.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...