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
Unregistered
Four years ago, Mr. Roper stated, "It would seem to me that every person who faces a judicial foreclosure by a servicer engaged in MS fraud ought to be pleading as an equitable defense the equitable maxim 'He Who Seeks Equity Must Do Equity'...

"...Here is the Supreme Court case which most clearly enunciates this doctrine:

'It is the fundamental principle of equity that "He who seeks equity must do equity," and out of this grows the maxim that "He who comes into equity must come with clean hands."  In other words, courts of equity will not enjoin one from doing a lawful act upon the application of one who, while claiming said act will cause him great and irreparable injury, is himself contributing to the injurious condition complained of.  In such case the parties are in pari delicto. 11 Paige  [*36]  Ch. 349."  Missouri v. Illinois, No. 4, Original., 200 U.S. 496; 26 S. Ct. 268; 50 L. Ed. 572; 1906 U.S. LEXIS 1494 (U.S. 1906)' [emphasis in original comments]."
 
After seeing this again, I wanted to bring it to the top of the forum. Considering all that has been exposed recently in servicing fraud, this might be even more important as an equitable defense. 

As always, Mr. Roper's comments in this post are excellent and helpful, especially if unclean hands is involved. 

Quote 0 0
Unregistered

In presenting this equitable defense, two notes are in order.

 

First, this is a separate defense to the clean hands doctrine, though closely related.

 

With clean hands, one needs to show some bad conduct on the part of the person seeking to invoke a court's equitable jurisdiction.

 

The threshold for the equitable defense of "he who seeks equity, must do equity", actually requires less.  All that must really be shown is that the plaintiff hasn't acted fairly.  This could be shown in respect of assignment forgery, fabrication of documents, perjured affidavits, but could possibly even be something as basic as misconduct in respect of a HAMP modification (perpetually losing the borrower's paperwork while accepting government funds for entertaining the HAMP application).

 

I have never seen a single foreclosure case nationally where a defendant has prevailed on this doctrine, so showing the precise boundaries is difficult.  Suffice it to say that a court sitting in equity has a great deal of discretion to do justice.

 

It should also be noted that an equitable defense of this sort is only applicable to the count of the typical two count complaint pertaining to the foreclosure of the subject property.  The first count of most judicial foreclosure complaints is a count pertaining to default under the note.

 

The claim under the first count is typically an action at law, while the second count as to foreclosure is an action in equity.  The equitable defenses would usually only apply to the action at equity.

 

Prevailing on any of the equitable defenses in a judicial foreclosure action could result in a mixed judgment against a defendant where the plaintiff obtains a judgment at law on the note, but is denied the requested remedy of foreclosure as to the subject property in the second count.  The owner might then retain possession of the subject property, but be liable for an unsecured judgment.  In places where strong homestead laws prevail, a borrower might very well be able to subsequently discharge the unsecured judgment in bankruptcy, while keeping the subject property.

 

Compared to all of the nonsense being peddled by swindlers and debt elimination scam artists, this defense has a sound foundation in over six centuries of equity jurisprudence.  The key is persuading the court of the inherent inequities perpetrated by the plaintiff.  This isn't going to be easy, but like all arguments, the argument is waived unless expressly plead.

 

You will usually not find this argument within any of the pleadings of the mediocre foreclosure defense lawyers practicing in Florida.

 

Mr. Roper has no less than a leading Justice of the U.S. Supreme Courts and centuries of jurisprudence in support of his argument.  The Florida foreclosure defense lawyers just seem to make up weak arguments as they go and are both too lazy to research the law or even to read and apply Mr. Roper's insightful posts.  

Quote 0 0
Express the trust...Grantor, Trustee, Beneficiary.

Your Honor, I am here for one reason, and one reason only:

when is the trustee going to make the payment?

Quote 0 0
Express the trust
You poor thing, I see you have no equity eyes. This website is dedicated to trust scenarios. Could it be any more obvious??? Have you ever seen a trustee at a foreclosure sale?

Trusts are one of the three heads of equity. Most of you all are scratching your heads because you need the aid of the law to help you distinguish right from wrong. You don't have equity in your heart.

Learn how to merge titles, once you do that you will no longer be forced to resort to childish insults, nor the mental capacity.

Quote 0 0
George Burns
Express the trust

What are "equity eyes"?

What are "the three heads of equity"?

What do you mean by "merge titles"?

I have never seen a trustee at a foreclosure sale, but I always see someone who represents them. Why would the trustee go to a foreclosure sale? How could a trustee go to every foreclosure sale?

I have never seen a mortgage lender at a foreclosure case hearing or trial, but I always see someone who represents them. I have never seen the President of the bank that I do business with, but I always see someone who represents him and the bank. I have never seen my bank cash a check, but I always see someone who works there do it.
Quote 0 0
Unregistered

Trusts can be express or implied.  Express trusts are created by a trust indenture or other similar trust indenture (even a deed of trust).  Implied trusts can be created under the common law or recognized in equity.

 

Mortgage trusts are express trusts.

 

It seems likely that Express the trust wingnut man read a few paragraphs about trusts between in recreational narcotics forays, self-described himself as an expert and now wants to put his idiocy on full display by hijacking this thread. 

Quote 0 0
Unregistered

1st. Express trusts are those which are created in express terms in the deed, writing or will. The terms to create an express trust will be sufficient, if it can be fairly collected upon the face of the instrument that a trust was intended. Express trusts are usually found in preliminary sealed agreements, such as marriage articles, or articles for the purchase of land; in formal conveyances, such as marriage settlements, terms for years, mortgages.

 

Is there mention of a trust in the typical DOT?  I don't think so.

Quote 0 0
Texas
Maybe one day I might trust my goldfish swimming in a trust pool as soon as I figure out what a wingnut trust is!
Quote 0 0
Unregistered
You never expressed them to be trust relationships, so I'm sorry that you have insisted on being a ward your entire life. You must be protected from that which you are incompetent to administer. You all are more powerful than you will ever realize, most likely. Have a nice life.

Modern day case in Equity. Even employer-employee relationships are trust relationships when expressed to be such.

 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14180904361479507772&q=Hutchens&hl=en&as_sdt=2,14&as_ylo=1988&as_yhi=1989

Quote 0 0
Unregistered
Mortgage trusts are express trusts.

The states are either lien or title theory and mortgages are security for the mortgage note and mortgages are nothing but a lien.

If the lien is valid then a default could occur under the mortgage note or the mortgage and then upon default a trustee holding title under the lien can exercise the power granted in the lien. If the lien is invalid, then the trustee would not even exist.

Mortgage as an express trust, doubt it.  
Quote 0 0
Unregistered

Quote:
Mortgage trusts are express trusts.

The states are either lien or title theory and mortgages are security for the mortgage note and mortgages are nothing but a lien.

If the lien is valid then a default could occur under the mortgage note or the mortgage and then upon default a trustee holding title under the lien can exercise the power granted in the lien. If the lien is invalid, then the trustee would not even exist.

Mortgage as an express trust, doubt it. 

 

I think you misunderstood my posts.  I was not suggesting that mortgage instruments are "express trusts".

 

I was indicating that Wall Street mortgage trusts created through written trust indentures are express trusts.

Quote 0 0
Unregistered

Quote:
I have never seen a trustee at a foreclosure sale, but I always see someone who represents them. Why would the trustee go to a foreclosure sale? How could a trustee go to every foreclosure sale?

 

More apples and oranges.

 

In non-judicial foreclosure states, the trustee (or more commonly the substitute trustee) under the deed of trust conducts the sale.  It can correctly be said that a trustee always conducts the sale.

 

This is not the trustee of the mortgage trust that actually owns the deed of trust, but rather the trustee appointed by the note holder/lienholder conduct the non-judicial sale. 

 

Institutional trustees of mortgage trusts are corporate.  Trustees under deeds of trust are sometimes persons and sometimes corporate, but always a different sort of entity than the institutional trustees managing the mortgage trusts.

Quote 0 0
Unregistered
Folks, if the 5 elements of a trust are there and you express them to be such, the courts must take cognizance that a trust relationship exists. You create millions of trusts throughout your life. This is very, very elementary and basic. There is no adequate remedy at law for a trust relationship, which is where equity comes in. A court of equity must be invoked. The trust you want to express in your mortgage situation is private and not to be brought into the public. The note is the specific trust res and the asset title  your trustee aka financing entity should have been ordered to merge with the debt title. Your signature on the note was granted for a specific purpose but you made it a general deposit rather than a special one. Mistakes need to be corrected. There are more than one way to enforce the private trust but it is a highly confidential matter and you waive the information if not properly shielded. There are vast amounts of abandoned funds which were generated from your signature and they are doing a fantastic job of administering your assets. There needs to be a disbursement of funds once you order and enforce the merger.

Equity was once known as the law of nature.
N.Y.—In re Lummis, 101 Misc. 258, 166 N.Y.S. 936 (Sur. Ct. 1917).
[FN7] Va.—Tiller v. Owen, 243 Va. 176, 413 S.E.2d 51 (1992).

Equity is a system of positive jurisprudence founded on established principles which can be adapted to new circumstances where a court of law is powerless to give relief.
Conn.—Harper v. Adametz, 142 Conn. 218, 113 A.2d 136, 55 A.L.R.2d 334 (1955).
Quote 0 0
Unregistered

Quote:
Folks, if the 5 elements of a trust are there and you express them to be such, the courts must take cognizance that a trust relationship exists. You create millions of trusts throughout your life. This is very, very elementary and basic. There is no adequate remedy at law for a trust relationship, which is where equity comes in. A court of equity must be invoked. The trust you want to express in your mortgage situation is private and not to be brought into the public. The note is the specific trust res and the asset title your trustee aka financing entity should have been ordered to merge with the debt title. Your signature on the note was granted for a specific purpose but you made it a general deposit rather than a special one. Mistakes need to be corrected. There are more than one way to enforce the private trust but it is a highly confidential matter and you waive the information if not properly shielded. There are vast amounts of abandoned funds which were generated from your signature and they are doing a fantastic job of administering your assets. There needs to be a disbursement of funds once you order and enforce the merger.

Equity was once known as the law of nature.
N.Y.—In re Lummis, 101 Misc. 258, 166 N.Y.S. 936 (Sur. Ct. 1917).
[FN7] Va.—Tiller v. Owen, 243 Va. 176, 413 S.E.2d 51 (1992).

Equity is a system of positive jurisprudence founded on established principles which can be adapted to new circumstances where a court of law is powerless to give relief.
Conn.—Harper v. Adametz, 142 Conn. 218, 113 A.2d 136, 55 A.L.R.2d 334 (1955).
  

 

So what is your point?

 

Mr. Roper already taught us to invoke equitable defenses in his posts from several years ago.

 

If you want to use equity as a sword rather than a shield, you are going to quickly find that the equitable maxim "He who seeks equity should do equity" can be used against you just as readily as it can be used against a plaintiff.

 

This is why the "Quiet Title" nonsense is a complete scam promoted only by swindlers.

Quote 0 0
Unregistered
If you are defending, you've already traversed and are arguing their facts. You already lost. Youre probably commingling equity and at law, breaching the trust. Foolish. Where are their facts in my counterclaim?? Where is record of the payment?? The indenture, proof of res transfer, parties, all elements of the confidential trust are revealed in camera, this has been boots on ground for years now..you just need to create records and present it artfully to give judge everything he needs to rule in your favor. The assets are floating around waiting to be disbursed, being managed very well. Hundreds of Trillions in credits...
Quote 0 0
Unregistered

Quote:
If you are defending, you've already traversed and are arguing their facts. You already lost. Youre probably commingling equity and at law, breaching the trust. Foolish. Where are their facts in my counterclaim?? Where is record of the payment?? The indenture, proof of res transfer, parties, all elements of the confidential trust are revealed in camera, this has been boots on ground for years now..you just need to create records and present it artfully to give judge everything he needs to rule in your favor. The assets are floating around waiting to be disbursed, being managed very well. Hundreds of Trillions in credits...

 

There is very definitely a wingnut loose in this thread!

 

Is that YOU Maher Soliman??

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...