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
Angelo
This is one of his best, even better then the "twilight zone" one

IndyMac Fed. Bank, FSB v Meisels 2012 NY Slip Op 51902(U)

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_51902.htm
Quote 0 0
It looks like Meisels won the proverbial "death gamble", the
French translation of the word "mort-gage".
Gager=to wager, gageur=gambler, gageure=bet. The borrower put
up the deed, the bank put up the cash. Whoever "dies" first, loses. Most of the time it is the borrower, on a thirty year bet,
but once in a while the lender "dies" first as in this case.
MERS was specificly designed to prevent borrowers from "winning" the "death gamble". Kudos to the NY Courts for
realizing that MERS could not stand in for a "dead lender".
This is exactly what I have been saying for along time, I
call it the "death gamble" defense and my students have used it
successfully many times.
Quote 0 0
Alvin
Quote:
It looks like Meisels won the proverbial "death gamble", the
French translation of the word "mort-gage".
Gager=to wager, gageur=gambler, gageure=bet. The borrower put
up the deed, the bank put up the cash. Whoever "dies" first, loses. Most of the time it is the borrower, on a thirty year bet,
but once in a while the lender "dies" first as in this case.
MERS was specificly designed to prevent borrowers from "winning" the "death gamble". Kudos to the NY Courts for
realizing that MERS could not stand in for a "dead lender".
This is exactly what I have been saying for along time, I
call it the "death gamble" defense and my students have used it
successfully many times.


It looks as though Mike H. is using the occasion of justice Shack's ruling to resurrect completely imagined and specious arguments which serve solely as a pretext for Mike to swindle distressed borrowers.

Mike's "death gamble" nonsense has no foundation in law whatsoever and is simply an invented basis to trumpet vacuous wingnut theories to line his own pockets at borrower's expense.
Quote 0 0
Angelo
Mike H wrote:
It looks like Meisels won the proverbial "death gamble", the
French translation of the word "mort-gage".
Gager=to wager, gageur=gambler, gageure=bet. The borrower put
up the deed, the bank put up the cash. Whoever "dies" first, loses. Most of the time it is the borrower, on a thirty year bet,
but once in a while the lender "dies" first as in this case.
MERS was specificly designed to prevent borrowers from "winning" the "death gamble". Kudos to the NY Courts for
realizing that MERS could not stand in for a "dead lender".
This is exactly what I have been saying for along time, I
call it the "death gamble" defense and my students have used it
successfully many times.


No you dope, there is no death gamble. You are one stupid idiot!!! There is still a debt and a lien. I cant even take this anymore.
Quote 0 0
Angelo,
We've had this dispute before. The remedy for Meisels is a
quiet title action to remove the lien from official records.
Whether anyone has the original Note or not is an issue that
could come up. The question would be, "how did they get it and is
it a negotiable instrument or not?"
What amazes me about you pontificating blowhards with a "law
degree" is how little common sense you have. Most of you, if
you got a flat, you'd call triple A to change it for you. You're
completely clueless.
Quote 0 0
Oliver
Quote:
Angelo,
We've had this dispute before. The remedy for Meisels is a
quiet title action to remove the lien from official records.
Whether anyone has the original Note or not is an issue that
could come up. The question would be, "how did they get it and is
it a negotiable instrument or not?"
What amazes me about you pontificating blowhards with a "law
degree" is how little common sense you have. Most of you, if
you got a flat, you'd call triple A to change it for you. You're
completely clueless.


In New York State, the courts are sufficiently congested that it may take ten years to clear the backlog in foreclosure cases.

There is a reasonably good prospect that a borrower whose case has been dismissed such as Meisel will not see a refiling for a year or more. There might or might not be any res judicata effect of this order by Shack. Because dismissals due to lack of standing must be without prejudice, the bank may successfully appeal this decision, at least getting the order altered to reflect "without prejudice".

If the bank fails to do this, the order may have res judicata effect. Even without an appeal, the res judicata is speculative, particularly if a new suit is brought in the name of the actual owner or holder.

A quiet title suit would almost certainly be unsuccessful and will simply accelerate an outcome unfavorable to the Meisels. The Meisel's best strategy is to lay low and count on court congestion to keep them in the house as long as possible. If the bank fails to refile before limitations has run, limitations, combined with the thin res judicata of this order may give the Meisels some hope.

Even after limitations passes, the Meisels will NOT be entitled to extinguish the mortgage lien. Limitations bars the remedy in New York State, but does not extinguish the debt. A quiet title action is the surest prescription for disaster and would be the most certain means of the Meisels snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Only a swindler would propose such a thing. Mike H. distinguishes himself as an idiot at best and a criminal huckster at worst by continuing to promote this garbage.
Quote 0 0
Adam
Mike H. seems to be resolved to defecate in every thread adding sewage to degrade the value of this site and Forum and to promote his various scams.

Thanks Alvin, Angelo and Oliver for refuting the garbage this scam artist continues to post unabated!

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...