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

If your property was illegally taken from you or sold under false duress, has anyone had any luck regaining the lost property through "Quiet Title"?

Quote 0 0
Stephen:

I think that you will find that a Quiet Title Action - QTA, wouldn't be the proper remedy here.  If you were still "on title" and retained ownership and someone placed a lien against the property, then you would use QTA to "quiet the erroneous or false claim". 

If another party has already acquired title to your property, even if by false pretense, then you would need to seek redress either in the court that handled the action, or an equivilent court for appropriate damages.  This might include monetary damage or restoration of title vested to your name.  Often this is done in a Superior or Common Pleas Court, depending upon the state.
Quote 0 0
Stephen
Appreciate the input, Varoom.  But you see I did sue, went to court with proof of payments in hand, and my lawyer never presented any evidence, sat mum, while the judge pounded on my head, and slapped ME with a judgement.  Turns out, the bank's attorneys bribed my attorney to lay down in court.
Quote 0 0
The Equitable One
Stephen,

That is a strong statement. Do you have the evidence to sustain a suit?

Quote 0 0
Stephen

In abundance.

Quote 0 0

Agreed, that is a strong statement, of which I am not doubting what you say here Stephen.  However, what type of evidence might you have in order to prove such a claim in court, or to the bar assn?

Quote 0 0
Stephen
Welll, the evidence I sent to the FTC was acted upon immediately by the FTC, who promptly investigated the bank and issued a Cease & Desist Order.

That SAME evidence sat on the table in front of my attorneys and I and never left the table.  Judge pounded on me all day long and my attorneys never uttered a word.  Any 10-year old could figure this one out.
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Stephen:

What was the nature of the action in which you already participated and what did the final order say?  Generally, you are not permitted to relitigate claims and when dissatisfied with the outcome, your remedy is usually limited to appeal.

*

varoom:

While title is usually vested in the purchaser of a property in a judicial foreclosure sale through a deed granted by a sheriff, commissioner, or referee, which deed is very often subject to a confirming judicial order of sale, in non-judicial foreclosure states the validity of a trustee's deed wholly depends upon the regularity of the sale in conformance with the contractual provisions appearing within the deed of trust or other mortgage security instruments.

Since in the non-judicial foreclosure states, the borrower hasn't yet had his day in court as to the validity of the competing deed, a suit relating to treaspass to try title, slander of title, or quiet title might be the viable cause of action in some jurisdictions.

Often, borrowers in non-judicial foreclosure states seek to enjoin private sales through a TRO or injunction.  This tends to be an uphill battle.  But usually the disposition of the TRO fight is not dispositive as to the title of the property.

Similarly, in some places, following the private sale the buyer next seeks an ejectment of the borrower from the property to secure possession.  These ejectment actions are more of a nature of an eviction and are sometimes summary proceedings.  The proceeding may not even take place in a court which has the jurisdiction to decide questions of title to property.

This area of the law is subject to very wide variance from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

If the question of title was tried and determined, getting the order set aside by other than appeal is usually very tough due to res judicata.  In some places, where a court hearing an ejectment has the jurisdiction to determine the title question, court rules might provide that the title issue (arising out of the same set of facts as the ejectment) might be a mandatory counterclaim.  If a matter is a mandatory counterclaim, failure to timely assert the claim in teh action being litigated can result in a waiver of the claim.

Defending a property in a non-judicial foreclosure state is particularly treacherous!  Pro se litigants have enough challenges in judicial foreclosure states, but at least get their day in court as defendants.  In non-judicial foreclosure states, a borrower is particularly likely to lose without competent legal representation. 
Quote 0 0
It would answer a lot of questions if we knew the state that the property is located.  Then much speculation can be set aside.

In many states one MUST BE the fee simple owner in order to file a Quiet Title Action.   This is the majority of states, but not all.  

Even if a QTA would be permitted in the state that this property is located, I question that it would be the correct or best approach for resolving such a dispute.  The result of such an action will be to either remove or maintain the suspect lien or interest in the property, but no other remedy.  Unlike a suit where damages could be assessed, in other venues, so I still think that in a situation where a foreclosure action has already occurred, the QTA is not likely the best approach to the problem.  Keep in mind here from the initial description that the property has been taken (foreclosed) and resold, so even if the op could prevail the likely best scenario is monetary damages, as opposed to regaining title to the property.
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
varoom:

I believe that Stephen, who has been a frequent Forum participant for the last year of so, is in California.

Now I would suspect, but I do not know, that he was the fee simple owner of the property, but subject to deed of trust and possibly to a reservation in the deed of a vendors' lien.

Again, as I previously indicated, I have not researched, studied or briefed California law on this topic, nor am I an attorney, but I would think that should some other entity file of record a document or instrument which tended to cloud title and IF he remained in possession, an action to quiet title might be appropriate. 

It is far less clear to me whether this is the lawful path in California in consideration (a) of the filing of the deed(s) executed by the trustee (and possibly others subsequent) and (b) his loss of possession of the property.  For that matter, whether this avenue is available also seems to me to depend on what issues have already been litigated and decided in court.

To the extent that the non-judicial private sale is found to be regular and in conformity to the contractual provisions within the deed of trust, I would think that he will have great difficulty defeating the sale.

By contrast, if there were irregularities in the process, it would seem to me that a deed might be voidable or found to be void, depending upon the nature of the defect.

Generally, an action to quiet title or a treaspass to try title law suit would be a means to ascertain who had the superior rights in the property in consideration of competing instruments.  But this really IS a matter of law of the jurisdiction and I would think that Stephen needs to find an honest and competent lawyer.

Quote 0 0
Stephen
I'm in California.  I sold the property myself at the 11th hour, after the lender had reported a foreclosure to the CRAs, blocking me from refinancing away from them

The REAL crime came, though, when I went to court with all the proof one could have that the loan was current, all payments were made and that the lender had falsely reported payments missed and a foreclosure, but NONE of this evidence was presented by my attorney!!  She just sat there and let the judge assume the loan was delinquent.

Judge ruled "No trial" and slapped ME with a $80k judgement for the bank's legal fees.
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
It would seem from the described facts that your primary remaining cause of action, if it survives limitations would be an action for legal malpractice.  To the extent that you remain interested in seeking redress through the courts, I would hope that you have a good video and/or written transcript of the hearing or trial.  In some jurisdictions, court reporters are only required to keep their notes or records for a limited period of time UNLESS a party requests the transcript.

Separately, it would help if you have correspondence or written records showing the evidence you furnished to the law firm.

*

The idea that a cause of action would arise from a false duress seems pretty questionable to me.  At the point that the matter was being resolved, you no doubt executed instruments that indicated that these were your entire agreement.  The buyer of the property, would seem to be blameless in the circumstances you describe.  If you voluntarily executed a deed and sold the property, then believing that this was your best course of action, how can you claim a superior title to the buyer, who presumably had nothing to do with the misconduct that you allege with respect to the mortgage servicer?

It seems to me that you are describing alleged wrongs by the mortgage servicer and by your attorney, NOT wrongs by the buyer of the property who purchased it from you during yoru distress.
Quote 0 0
Wow Stephen, 80K for legal fees.  Something seems out of order with that number, unless they were also hitting you with deficiency judgment on the mtg payoff. 

If you had refi'd your mtg in CA and didn't still have the original purchase money mtg, then a def judg is possible.

One thing is now clear from your newly elaborated details, (selling the house yourself at the 11th hour), a QTA certainly isn't the proper legal instrument for seeking relief.   As Wm Roper stated, the buyer acquired the fee simple interest in the proper from you and there should be no qualms about their unclouded interest in the property.  If you were damaged by the lender then your approach there would be for monetary damages only, not reacquiring the property.
Quote 0 0
Stephen
Yes, I know about damages.  Others have won multi-million dollar judgements for wrongful foreclosure.  I got a judgement against me.  There's no way to rationalize that except fraud on the court.

My attorney didn't present my evidence.  She was either bribed or intimidated to remain mum at trial.  Plain and simple.
Quote 0 0
"My attorney didn't present my evidence.  She was either bribed or intimidated to remain mum at trial."

You left out INCOMPETENCE as a possible explanation for your Attys inaction and lack of performance on your behalf.  What was your Attys qualification to represent one in a foreclosure defense?  Start there and work backwards.  Most Attys do not possess the skills or knowledge to successfully defend such a case, plain and simple. 

If intimidated then that also falls into the category of incompetence.  Bribery is a pretty strong accusation and I wouldn't recommend the use of that term, even on a forums such as this, unless you had some proof to that charge.  Just my suggestion.
Quote 0 0
Stephen
Attorney was competent.  Little skill needed to present docs proving loan was current, bank reported false credit info, and extorted monies on HUD-2.  Any high school kid could do that.

Banks bribe attornies all the time.  A bribe is a bribe.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...