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
....
US Bank walks away from foreclosure on Aurora woman

Just days after lawyers for the bank told a federal judge they've always had the original documents necessary to foreclose on Lisa Kay Brumfiel's tri-level house legally — and U.S. District Judge William J. Martínez said to produce them — the bank rescinded the whole thing.

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_23219936/us-bank-walks-away-from-foreclosure-aurora-woman

Despite the move to make a nearly two-year nightmare to save her house go away, Brumfiel on Friday insisted she's pressing on.



Lawsuit to take Aurora woman's house is guaranteed, bank says

The owners of an Aurora woman's mortgage said they absolutely will file a foreclosure lawsuit to take her house because of claims that Colorado's public trustee process is unconstitutional.

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_23262594/lawsuit-take-aurora-womans-house-is-guaranteed-bank





It would seem another homeowner snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.

To avoid a potentially damaging decision the bank was simply going to sweep the matter under the rug. They had no incentive to push any further....BUT because the homeowner decided to CONTINUE her losing battle she energized the bank. It would seem to have been so much simpler just to live in your home rent free.
Quote 0 0
Ted
This is the kind of absurd result that comes about because of the myths of the swindlers and scam artists. Those who advocate various debt elimination scams are selling the hoax that every borrower is entitled to a "free house" if only the mark buys the swindler's snake oil. These folks, often borrowers in great financial distress, pay the swindlers their hard earned money and actually believe the hoax.

Thus, it is never quite enough to succeed in defending against a wrongful foreclosure. They need to press ahead to "Quiet Title". Instead of living rent free in their house for several years (with the possibility of getting past limitations), they are sure that they can use the snake oil to obtain their "free house", to which they are surely entitled -- the scam artists promised them this.

And so another homeowner who might have had a very satisfactory outcome finds themselves homeless and destitute because of the scams promoted by a chorus of swindlers and their shills.
Quote 0 0
texas
Just love all the comments in regards to swindler and schills, not everyone is stupid as stupid once did.
But each has to choose their own.
Quote 0 0
LOL
I suppose that the other judge's order for the AG to answer within 60 days as to the constitutionality of the 120 hearing is also a scam and swindle.  I'm sure the judge would like to hear that, of course you only say it to victims and never say anything about all the lawsuits the banks are losing because they are swindlers and scam artists. 

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_23234347/second-federal-suit-challenging-colorado-foreclosure-law-emerges

Your obviously biased opinion of Lisa Brumfiel is not even of relevance and won't matter because it was industry wide practice for the banks to keep the notes in their possession which is a violation of the Pooling & Servicing Agreements.  The bank is in between a rock and a hard place with this one.  If discovery moves forward in the case it will not be good for their other cases.  This is getting good and the swindler and scam artist banks have painted themselves in a corner.  I can hardly wait to see how they will dig themselves out of this one. 

http://www.law360.com/articles/442336/judge-won-t-certify-bofa-appeal-in-rmbs-action

Quote 0 0
Ira
Those who want to attack or dismiss the earlier posts are missing a rather critical point. Neither of those making the initial post are arguing that a borrower ought to just roll over for the bank. Instead, they are merely pointing out that sophisticated strategy involves carefully and thoughtfully assessing the facts and the law.

Usually, it is far easier to prevail in a defensive posture rather than in seeking to enforce claims as a plaintiff. A plaintiff bears the burden of proof.

Remarkably, the borrower had maneuvered the bank into the position that it had renounced its right to seek non-judicial foreclosure. The bank said it would seek a judicial foreclosure using regular judicial processes. Still, the borrower wants to expend energy trying to continue to litigate in respect of the original cause of action, a matter clearly rendered moot by the bank's maneuver.

"Mootness" is one aspect of justiciability, which is key to a court's subject matter jurisdiction. When a cause of action becomes moot, the court loses jurisdiction to adjudicate the case and the case must necessarily be dismissed.

The point of the original post is that the borrower had succeeded. But seeking to continue to litigate once the source of the original controversy has become moot is simply an exercise in running up one's own legal expenses. This is really, really stupid. A better strategy is sharing the arguments, pleadings and supporting briefs with other borrowers so that each borrower can succeed in getting abandonment of the Colorado non-judicial foreclosure. This borrower and the attorney turns out to be an idiot.
Quote 0 0
Nasty Mean
Did you read LOL?  They say that there is another case where the judge is challenging the constitutionality of the 120 hearing. 

In addition, you are forgetting something very important because you don't understand Colorado law.  Had she dropped this case they could have reinitiated the same 120 hearing that was being challenged only under some other banks name.  Assignments aren't required in Colorado so anyone can claim they have a right to your property.  All they need is the signature of a corrupt attorney.  You've heard of no doc loans?  In Colorado it's no doc foreclosure at the 120 hearing. 

You posters that call everyone swindlers and scum and swine and scam artists are what you accuse others.  Only I'll add to it.  You are trolls and shills for the banks.
Quote 0 0
Fred
Quote:
Did you read LOL? They say that there is another case where the judge is challenging the constitutionality of the 120 hearing.

In addition, you are forgetting something very important because you don't understand Colorado law. Had she dropped this case they could have reinitiated the same 120 hearing that was being challenged only under some other banks name. Assignments aren't required in Colorado so anyone can claim they have a right to your property. All they need is the signature of a corrupt attorney. You've heard of no doc loans? In Colorado it's no doc foreclosure at the 120 hearing.

You posters that call everyone swindlers and scum and swine and scam artists are what you accuse others. Only I'll add to it. You are trolls and shills for the banks.

Here we get the same tired old garbage, protecting those who are ripping off borrowers.

Subject matter jurisdiction and, for that matter, personal jurisdiction, are Constitutional imperatives to bringing a lawsuit and obtaining a judgment that can withstand collateral attack. When the issue and purported injury becomes moot, the court loses jurisdiction. Moreover, suing one lender only to later learn that another different lender unnamed and unserved in the lawsuit is the owner and the holder of a loan accomplishes nothing. Getting a judgment against one lender effects no res judicata against a suit involving another lender.

Once more, those peddling these debt elimination scams are intent on assuring that no one perceives that their legal mumbo jumbo is completely legally erroneous and that what they are peddling is worse than useless.

No one in this thread is defending the banks or suggesting that borrowers ought not resist foreclosure. Instead, the wise ones are pointing out that the legal strategy employed by the bank in this instance is going to be completely effective and that the very idea that a borrower ought to bring on an attack rather than playing a very strategic defense is simply a defense of the useless in support of the criminal swindles.

Those who are actually experiencing non-judicial foreclosures in Florida and subject to Rule 120 are the ones that ought to be challenging the Constitutionality of this Rule. To beat the drum and have someone who is not subject to the Rule bring the challenge is simply an exercise in futility designed only to line the pockets of corrupt swindlers and the crooked lawyers who partner with these villains!
Quote 0 0
Colorado Pro Se
The victims of the banks scams in Colorado are both Pro Se. You are a troll and worse likely the same troll that constantly disrupts this forum.  Roe v. Wade by the way was decided after she had the baby. 
Quote 0 0
FlaProSe
It is the same Roper groupies accusing everybody in the universe of being scam artists except them of course. We hear the same mantra over and over again ad nauseum.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...