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
Any comments regarding Sharpe vs. Select Portfolio Servicing Inc., and the retained Jurisdiction of the USDC of Massachusetts and the USDC of Arizona?
Quote 0 0
Ted
Am I correct in understanding that you are inquiring about the Court's Order of December 17, 2012, in the case:

[i]Kathi Ann Sharpe v. Select Portfolio Services, Inc., Case No. CV-2011-01436-PHX-GMS, a matter before the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.[/b]

*

I would caution against your posting and discussing the merits of your own case using your own name on a public message board. I am uncertain that much good can come of this. Mr. Roper and others have previously cautioned against posting details about a particular live case without at least withholding basic identifying information or of posting under one's own name when discussing legal strategy.

This having been said, it seems that the Arizona Court is seeking by a show cause order the parties' arguments as to whether and why the case ought not be transferred to the juridiction with authority over the Curry settlement. That would generally seem to be a somewhat favorable development given that the Massachusetts Courts are somewhat more consumer friendly than the courts in Arizona.

The corollary is that the defendant will employ a Massachusetts firm and it will be uneconomic for you to appear in person at hearings there. The defendant will likely use motion practice to bring some issues before the court, scheduling each for an oral hearing and making it very costly for you to continue.

Still, without reading the complaint and other pleadings, it is rather difficult to discern the viability of the case. That it has survived a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment is mildly encouraging. But it really looks as though the defendant may have been simply dragging the matter out to get you well beyond limitations on various other claims you might have made, but failed to make.

Other than that, it is unclear to me what it is that you are soliciting. Hopefully, you haven't been paying some scam artist or swindler to help you with your pleadings. If you have been going out of pocket to bring this litigation, paying others for specious advice, then I think that you are probably going to have a rather solely disappointing outcome. If you have been reading and studying yourself and have kept your expenses to a minimum, perhaps you can still get some settlement out of the servicer. But there are no circumstances under which this kind of suit is going to get your house back.

I would think that the best case settlement is going to be to receive several thousands of dollars, which may be very attractive to the defendant when compared to the amount they might have to expend going to trial. But they seem unlikely to even be willing to reach such a settlement if they believe that they can get the case dismissed without paying a dime.

It seems likely that upon transfer to the new venue, the defendant will probably file some renewed motions to dismiss. Then they will file renewed motions for defensive summary judgment. If these fail, you might be able to negotiate a very modest settlement. If the matter goes to trial, I would expect that you would be unlikely to actually recover your litigation costs of trying to proceed in a distant jurisdiction.

While it is terrific to continue to fight as a matter of principle, neither the prospect of ultimate success or the best case outcome makes this a very rewarding proposition except as to conviction.
Quote 0 0
$&?!
Ted has given a pretty good answer here.  I echo his concern about discussing live cases without obscuring the identity of the case and parties, etc.

Massachusetts is almost certainly a more friendly forum.  But litigating against a well funded adversary in a distant place can be a very costly proposition.  With PACER and electronic filings, some of this disadvantage can be overcome.  It can also be overcome to the extent that the court insists upon hearing and ruling upon matters by submission rather than at oral hearing.

One of the first things you need to do if the case is transferred is to acquaint yourself with any local rules of the Massachusetts District.  You should also ascertain the means of participating in hearings by telephone, if this is allowed.

In a traditional judicial foreclosure, it is in the borrower's interest to draw the matter out.  By contrast, in a suit brought by a dispossessed borrower against the mortgage investor or servicer in a non-judicial foreclosure setting, very often it is the mortgage investor or servicer that seeks to draw the matter out to get unplead claims well past limitations.  The Lender just drags things out and either financially exhausts the represented borrower or waits for the pro se borrower to make a mistake.

That the pro se litigant has to wade through the misleading and fraudulent garbage posted by the likes of scam artists Mike H. or Neil Garfield makes succeeding all the more difficult.  If you are using any of the material suggested by these Charlatans, you are almsot certain to lose.
Quote 0 0
The main reason for this post was to inform others of the downside of a class action lawsuit, when the absent class member is not provided actual notice of the class action.  Currently, there are various class action lawsuits being brought across the United States against some of the  the predatory banks and mortgage servicers, that potential class members are unaware of.  Many borrowers are not provided actual notice of these class actions and are unaware of the litigation surrounding many of the same claims that they have. Many settlement agreements contain certain releases and without the opportunity to opt-out or be provided proper notice, settlement class memebers will be forever bound by these settlement agreements.

The Curry class action was filed in Massachusetts.  The Settlement Agreement is a contract governed under the laws of Massachusetts.  The USDC of Massachusetts retains juridiction over the matter.  The Class Counsel included attorneys from Massachusetts, California and other states.  The class consisted of borrowers from across the country.

What real rights and protections does the class member actually have when the predatory lenders and servicers fail to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreements?  To pursue the enforcement of these agreements are costly.  The jurisdiction of the Settlement Agreement may be challenged.  Yet, once more and again it is the borrower who suffers. 



Quote 0 0
$&?!
Kathi:

You are unquestionably correct that most class action litigation does very little to benefit distressed borrowers.  The primary beneficiaries of these suits are the law firms that bring the litigation and the big banks that obtain the settlements.  Very often, the banks obtain settlements for pennies on the dollar as to actual injuries and even these pennies are reserved for the attorneys' fees of the corrupt lawyers who bring these suits.

In turn, the banks often succeed in obtaining civil immunity against their various wrongs through the preclusive effect of res judiciata.

When a lawyer proposes bringing a class action on behalf of a distressed borrower, you can be sure that the attorney sees a fat profit for himself and has no interest whatsoever in the injury sustained by the borrower.  The class action suit is simply viewed as another meal ticket for these legal pirannas.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...